Before the last debate had time to sink in Davin and I were confronted with our next motion. Unmistakably dry, 'This House believes that funding the 2012 Olympics at the expense of culture, arts, and heritage represents poor value for money.' Adding to this, we for the first time were told to propose the motion, a venture neither of us had ever done before. This gave us more scope of manipulation over the motion, but as it turned out, the motion itself was in and of itself narrow enough to ensure that our power was limited. The debate took place on 2nd March 2010 and here is roughly what I said:

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicators, members of the opposition, and of the audience. Davin and I believe with conviction that the inept and muddled funding of the 2012 Olympics will give birth to a situation which will be hugely detrimental, both economically and socially, to our culture, arts and heritage. We, the proposition, define the key terms of the motion as such; we first understand the term 'arts, culture and heritage' to be focusing on the 56 million people in the UK outside of the English capital, and the cultural, artistic and heritages based initiatives which will be directly affected, outside of London. The term 'value for money' is understood to be relating to the social, as well as the economic implications of the Olympic investments. I will begin by shedding light on the economic atrocities that have both preceded and will succeed the games, and explain why outside of London, culture, arts and heritage will suffer financial famine. Davin will then build on this by explaining why the only legacy the games are likely to leave us, is from the burnished glow of politicians' and organisers' collective ego.

Recently, Will Self spoke on the possibility of abstaining from arts, culture and heritage. He suggested removing all aspects of pictures, drawings, music, books, television, film, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet, museums and listed buildings from our lives. I say this ladies and gentlemen because this is the scope of culture, arts and heritage, and to stagnate funding for a number of these and focus on the Olympics we feel, cannot be justified. Of course, in economically frail times such as these financial leadership must be robust. But have we seen such leadership under Tessa Jowell, the Labour MP who is in charge of directing Olympic funding? In 2005 the first Olympic budget was announced, it amounted to £2.3bn to cover all costs, two years later this was revised, the new figure somehow came out at £9.3bn. When questioned on this discrepancy, Jowell had this to say, "How was I supposed to know we had to take into account VAT, security, and a contingency?" This contemptuous response was added to when recently she was reported to have said that she, "wished" London had never gone for the Olympics at all.

One of the main sources of funding for arts, culture and heritage comes from the Lottery, wherein 28p from each pound is spent on 'good causes'. The Olympic Lottery Distributor is now one of the bodies that receives this money. Aside from this though, the Olympics are already hoovering money from almost every economic orifice; council tax in London, central government taxation, their own specially created lottery, but here we see that it is actually siphoning off the vital source of funding for arts, culture and heritage UK wide at the grass roots. Ladies and gentlemen in 2007 alone this resulted in a 35% budget cut for arts, culture and heritage.

Surely though, there is an Olympic answer? Well, it is the Cultural Olympiad. This pathetic body, set up to celebrate British culture, have hijacked it, and are squeezing it into south-east England. The Scottish National Party's Culture, Media and Sports spokesperson, Peter Wishart, had this to say after Tessa Jowell revealed that out of about 1200 Olympiad projects, 7 were in Scotland, "There has been a blatant attempt to leave Scotland out in the cold when it comes to cultural legacy. It's high time those behind the London Olympics started to live up to their promise that this event would benefit the whole of the UK and not just the south-east of England."

We, the proposition, also want to bring light on the social implications of hosting the Olympics for the homeless. In Vancouver between 2003 and 2009 homeless rates went up by 370% due to the displacement of social housing on Olympic venue sites, not accounting for the street clean up that took place in the latter half of last year. This is not isolated, the 2007 Fair Play for Housing report listing large figures in previous Olympics. Seoul in 1988 displaced 750,000 homeless, whilst Beijing tallied 1.5mn. I say this because ladies and gentlemen, this is part of what you the taxpayer pay for as part of the Olympic package.

Key to this motion though ladies and gentlemen, do the Olympics in and of themselves represent good value for money? Or is £6bn of central government taxation just too steep an investment for a four week display of men and women running in circles and playing in sandpits? To return again to Tessa Jowell, who said the Olympics will, "address some of the key issues our nation faces, health, social inclusion, educational motivation, and fighting crime!" Whilst it is telling that arts, culture and heritage were not mentioned here, is there any truth to these claims? The only real research done on this topic was in Australia, between 1985 and 2002. Indeed in the year after the Sydney Olympics seven Olympic sports did indeed receive a small increase in participation, whilst nine declined. Indeed the report concluded that, "the most substantial sport participation related event...was an increase in live and television spectating." The net result was therefore, less sport, and more TV. The report went on to echo a 2007 report by the Culture, Media and Sport committee which concluded that, "the Olympics are by no means a guaranteed economic investment." To use one example, did Greece's Olympic choice bolster their economy into being able to bear the oncoming harsh economic climate, or did the olympic sized hangover they are still experiencing mean that the Olympics are one of the reasons for it?

In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, value for money, a key term to this motion, is measurable, with the so called three E's of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. On the branch of economy, under Tessa Jowell it appears obvious that the economic situation is in disarray, victim to false promises and corporate nepotism. On efficiency, the Aquatic centre, to take just one example, has spiralled into a pipedream project. The emblem of soaring costs that it is, shows glaring inefficiencies. On effectiveness, the government have openly admitted that the Olympics alone can have no lasting effect, stating that legacy can only be aspired to with the Olympics as a bit part player in a wider governmental scheme, how can it really deemed effective alone? It cannot. Ladies and gentlemen, vote for this motion, this house is fervent in its belief that funding the Olympics at the expense of culture, arts and heritage represents atrocious value for money.

Without doubt the toughest debate yet, Davin and I won the debate and have now advanced to the semi finals.