Bleedin' 'ell, David, on that link, you can't send feedback without signing up for their Olympic newsletter! Oh, god, daily news 'n' views from the Olympic Committee - I think NOT!

I was more than willing to send in my thoughts about the loveliness of Paris, the wide boulevards for Lycra-clad runners, cyclists, gymnasts and whatever, the efficacy of the Parisian traffic police, the cleanness and efficacy of the Metro - but it's not a Contact Us. It's a "sign up for our newsletter or you're a dead man". So no. I hope London loses, but I am not receiving IOC newsletters to help make it happen.

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 01:51 AM

We should be sporting about this,the French very kindly said cobblers to the Constitution,so in the spirit of Anglo-french solidarity let them have the Olympics.
The plus will be it will get ZanuLabor out of England for a bit.

Posted by Peter at June 7, 2005 01:56 AM

Here are some links to petitions against the London bid and other such efforts. It is a blog about the our hero Ken and his London Ass embly.
http://tinyurl.com/d5gr7

Posted by Bernie at June 7, 2005 03:20 AM

If one is going to contact the IOC, better to say you are a Londoner who objects. One of their criteria is support for the bid locally. Creating an impression of an undercurrent of opposition may be easier to manage than making and significant difference to the institutionally pumped-up support total for another city.

Posted by guy herbert at June 7, 2005 06:13 AM

2012! My city of Vancouver and its satellite, Whistler have to deal with the winter games in 2010! And we've already had the joy of winning

Posted by Stephan at June 7, 2005 08:13 AM

What exactly is wrong with you?

Compared to France we would run a much better Olympics. Better facilities, better crowd support and better infrastructure (say what you like about London's transport system, but it transports a far greater number of people every day than does Paris's)

I was at Dorney for the Rowing World Cup recently - the best supported World Cup event ever - at the world's best Olympic standard rowing course. There was an 'arch' through which you could walk to register your support for London 2012 on the electronic counter. It was run by EDF (Electricite De France).

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 09:03 AM

It is very simple, HJHJ... we do not want to PAY for it with your taxes. You want the Olympics in London? Fine... round up a bunch of private sector sponsors like they did in for the Los Angeles Olympics and pay for it without helping yourself to the money of people who do.not.give.a.shit about the Olympics.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 7, 2005 09:37 AM

Perry,

I do not need to be patronised by the likes of you (as if you somehow have more insight or intelligence than me) telling me that it's very simple (in bold letters), thank you.

If you had checked your facts, you would know that most of the money is coming from the private sector. For example, the Dorney Lake rowing centre has been entirely privately financed, to name just one small example.

Whilst I prefer private sector finance in most cases, I think that the Olympics would be a much better use of public money than much of what the government spends taxpayers money on. At least there will be a substantial infrastructure legacy and it will bring a huge amount of spending into the country. Far better than the millions it is wasting on inefficient services and paper pushers in the public sector.

I would far rather the money spent on the Olympics than on the NHS, which does so little for the nation's health.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 10:18 AM

I do not need to be patronised by the likes of you (as if you somehow have more insight or intelligence than me) telling me that it's very simple (in bold letters), thank you.

Then do not write things like:

What exactly is wrong with you? Compared to France we would run a much better Olympics. Better facilities, better crowd support and better infrastructure (say what you like about London's transport system, but it transports a far greater number of people every day than does Paris's)

There is nothing wrong with us, so as for your dislike of being 'patronised', kindly get stuffed, your opening line was quite rude enough for me not to care.

Moreover the state of relative infrastructure is utterly irrelevant to why we oppose the Olympics in London, so clearly you have no idea regarding the point we are making and the very simple reason underpinning it. We do not want any of our money spent on it. End of story.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 7, 2005 10:37 AM

Perry,

At least your comments make it crystal clear to everyone that your manners are lacking, to say the least. My original comment wasn't even addressed to you as you hadn't written the article or posted any response.

The original article, and none of the original comments, did NOT emphasize the cost argument. In fact, it mentioned it only in passing at the end of the article. It was just a whole lot of negativity about the London bid without any real explanation of why. This is why I asked "What is wrong with you?" in the form of an exortation - in response to a whole pile of negativity with very little reasoned argument.

The point (which is very simple) is that most of the infrastructure spending either has to be made anyway, or will be made anyway (many of the sports venues will be built with or without the Olympics) and the clever trick of the London bid is that the amount of Olympics-specific spending is very modest. In fact, a good case can be made that it will involve less public money than if the Olympics do not come to London as we all know that a large amount of public money will be spent on regenerating this area of London and providing transport, etc. anyway. The Olympics bring sponsorship, team spending, TV income and tourist revenues to help with these costs.

As I remember, Lord Coe is a pretty right wing Conservative - certainly not the sort of person who is prepared to waste billions of public money.

So try to look beyond the headline 'cost'. Demonstrate to me, if you can, whether and how much extra it will cost the public purse if the Olympics come to London than if they don't. This requires analysis and logical thought, of course and I realise that it's easier just to be negative and throw insults.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 11:46 AM

Your initial comment was quite rude enough for me and in any case you must be very precious to have taken such umbrage at my first reply.

I look forward to you showing us your logical thought and analysis as to how how I will be better off if any of my money is diverted by force from my uses to those aimed at some idiotic sporting events. I also wonder if you are going to argue that Livingston is not going to use the occasion for all manner of civil 'improvements' directly or indirectly hung on the justification of The Olympic for which the taxpayer will also foot the bill.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 7, 2005 11:59 AM

The Sydney Olympics in 2000 had widespread popular support, a local population that is fanatical about sport, and were held in a city that generally had a recent history of bringing major works projects like roads and stadiums in on time and budget. (This was and is not true of railways, however). The games were a huge success in the sense that everyone enjoyed them, almost all the tickets were sold, and the people and politicians of Sydney and Australia got a warm inner glow out of them.

As for cost, the general belief for a couple of years after the games was that there had been a loss of about £500 million which had been covered by taxpayers. However, the effort that the state government of New South Wales has put into preventing anybody from looking at any of the actual accounts for the games suggests that the actual cost may have been far higher than that. How much higher is anyone's guess. We may find out when there is a change of government in NSW - which nobody expects soon - or we may not. However the Sydney games clearly cost a lot. There is also the substantial ongoing cost of maintaining and keeping open the Olympic venues after the games - many of which are used very little. And that, as I said, is in a country that is fanatical about sport.

In London, I see lukewarn support for the games, a population that is not greatly interested in sport, and a city where major public works projects take forever to plan and/or construct and go way overbudget. The Australian company Multiplex (which built many of the Olympic facilities in Sydney) is late and is losing substantial amounts of money on the new Wembley stadium, having found the engineering, labour, and political environment in London more hostile than it expected when it took the project.

And while on that, if London gets the Olympics then a second giant stadium will go up in Stratford in addition to the new one at Wembley. London *really* does not need two of these things. Despite being a city of sports fanatics (although Melbourne is admittedly much worse) Sydney did not have a really large stadium prior to the games. It now has one, but even so there are problems finding enough big events to use it regularly and to justity its existence. And this is despite Australia not having the tradition of sports and teams using their own private stadiums the way England does. There is no way that the Rugby Union would transfer its big games to the new Olympic stadium from Twickenham, or Arsenal or Chelsea to start playing home games there, or similar after the games. The equivalent things happen at the Olympics stadium in Sydney, but still its existence isn't really justified.

The games in London would cost a horrendous amount of taxpayers' money, the population would be much more indifferent to them than were the population of Sydney, and London would be left covered with white elephant sports facilities. However, the games would provide tremendous opportunities for public officials to go on junkets and to feel self-important at our expense. Which would be wonderful, obviously.

Posted by Michael Jennings at June 7, 2005 12:35 PM

HJHJ,

I would far rather the money spent on the Olympics than on the NHS...

If that was genuinely the choice on offer then I would be inclined to agree with you. But that is not what is on offer and never will be.

I am a London Council Tax payer and my already high bills are going to skyrocket if we get landed with this boondoggle. This is really very personal and enough is enough.

Posted by David Carr at June 7, 2005 12:35 PM

"Repeat this mantra over and over again until your positive energy has been imprinted on the ether."

"Any other ideas and suggestions for bolstering the Paris bid are warmly welcomed"

There must be a more practical way. People with money can contact IOC members and offer them to add to the bribes they are already receiving from Paris.

Posted by Jacob at June 7, 2005 12:40 PM

Perry,

When I say to my team "What exactly is wrong with you?" as an exortation to be more positive when they're being negative about achieving something, nobody takes it as rude - quite the opposite.

When someone patronises someone saying "It's very simple" (in bold) because they don't agree, that's rude and I would admonish my staff if they spoke to their colleagues like that.

Now do you understand?

In fact, I did summarise why I think the Olympics won't cost all the public money you assert that it will. In fact, the "idiotic sports events" (this perhaps suggests that your negativity has as much to do with a dislike of sports than just the cost issue - so perhaps not so "very simple") you refer to will raise far more money than they cost to run. It is the infrastructure that will cost the money and you have not explained how building this for the Olympics makes this more expensive. Let's have your explanation of this - if you have one.

Livingstone is a red herring (a poor substitute for the argument you failed to provide) - he needs no excuse to waste public money as he has amply demonstrated over the last few years. If Livingstone's profligacy is your only argument, the logical thing to do is to expose that and not to blame the Olympics.

Perhaps you should try participating in sport, incidentally. It teaches mental discipline and does more for health than all the doctors put together.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 12:46 PM

In fact, the "idiotic sports events" (this perhaps suggests that your negativity has as much to do with a dislike of sports than just the cost issue

There is not necessarily anything wrong with the Olympic Games (thought they are bloated, I mean, synchronised swimming??), but it the four yearly caravanserai which is so debilitating. Was not the point of the original Olympics that they were held at Olympia for about a thousand years?

Now that modern facilities have been built in Atlanta, Sydney and Athens, it would make sense to rotate the games between these three cities for the next few decades, which would help to get some proper use out of the huge fixed costs of their infrastructure. Why will this not happen? Because the IOC love the power they get from having the representatives of great cities spend millions in grovelling to them for the right to host their bloody games. It's become a boondoggle, pure and simple. I can see what's in it for the IOC, and I can see what's in it for city officials who get power and budgets. But the taxpayer gets the shaft. The taxpayer always gets the shaft. I'd prefer the French taxpayer to get the shaft this time thanks.

Posted by John K at June 7, 2005 01:04 PM

Michael Jennings,

I agree with most of your post about the unnecessary white elephant projects and a great waste of taxpayer's money, but I disagree with your statement that the population would not embrace the Olymics if it is held in London.
In the 2002 Commonwealth Games of Manchester, even the minor (and dull) sports had huge spectatorships, and just look at the crowds attending sports such as British snooker, darts and flyfishing events. London has the added bonus of large resident expat populations that would be keen to support their fellow countrymen.

Posted by Shaun at June 7, 2005 01:05 PM

At last a well made argument from Michael Jennings, although I don't agree as he has made a number of errors.

For example, the proposed Olympic stadium in Stratford will not be a "second giant stadium". Much of it is specifically designed to be dismantled and it will be just a 25,000 seater stadium after the Olympics. This is why the cost is comparatively modest.

Most of the other venues are already existing or are being built (and financed) anyway. The Olympics will just bring them a huge lump of extra income

I don't accept that Australians are any keener on sport than we are - not from my experience of Australia. They're very professional about about aligning resources to win things (however minority the sport), which perhaps gives a false impression. As I said previously, I recently went to the first round of he rowing world cup at Dorney - 10,000 spectators and grandstands sold out. This was more than four times the attendance at any previous world cup rowing event (more than any world championships, I've heard). Income from the Olympics will be much higher than any previous Olympics.

I agee with many of his points about Sydney costs, but this is where the London bid is so much more intelligent. Much of the Sydney building was specifically for the Olympics - very little of London's is.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 01:05 PM

At last a well made argument from Michael Jennings, although I don't agree as he has made a number of errors.

For example, the proposed Olympic stadium in Stratford will not be a "second giant stadium". Much of it is specifically designed to be dismantled and it will be just a 25,000 seater stadium after the Olympics. This is why the cost is comparatively modest.

Most of the other venues are already existing or are being built (and financed) anyway. The Olympics will just bring them a huge lump of extra income

I don't accept that Australians are any keener on sport than we are - not from my experience of Australia. They're very professional about about aligning resources to win things (however minority the sport), which perhaps gives a false impression. As I said previously, I recently went to the first round of he rowing world cup at Dorney - 10,000 spectators and grandstands sold out. This was more than four times the attendance at any previous world cup rowing event (more than any world championships, I've heard). Income from the Olympics will be much higher than any previous Olympics.

I agee with many of his points about Sydney costs, but this is where the London bid is so much more intelligent. Much of the Sydney building was specifically for the Olympics - very little of London's is.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 01:11 PM

HJHJ writes:

"As I remember, Lord Coe is a pretty right wing Conservative - certainly not the sort of person who is prepared to waste billions of public money."

He is also a former athlete - which is rather more to the point.

What the hell is it with sportsmen that they believe other people should pay for their hobbies?

What next? Model aeroplane makers, amateur woodworkers or gardeners expecting state subsidies in the billions?

The history of this great scam is littered with rotting concrete buildings used by no one and paid for by everyone (except those on the Olympic gravy train).

If the French want it, let them have it. Like David Car, I'm having to pay for this and I'm damned if I can think of a single convincing reason why.

Posted by GCooper at June 7, 2005 01:13 PM

Except, of course, a recent parliamentary select committee report criticised the government because the amount of taxes extracted from sports clubs was disproportionately greater than the amount of funding that the government provides to sports.

So if you're obese and lazy the government will tax everyone else to pay for your medical treatment caused by your lifestyle. But if you're a sports club (which is helpful to health and helps reduce costs on the NHS) taxes will be extorted from you to pay for the poor health of those that prefer to sit around (and in some cases criticise spending on "The Olympics" which would be spent on infrastructure anyway).

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 01:49 PM

HJHJ

Why us? Why London? What is the strange thrill that comes with hosting an Olympics?

Here's an idea - let Paris have it. If you need to satiate a desire to see athletes perform then get the train to Paris. It doesn't cost anyone here a penny and you still have your thrill.

Posted by Pete_London at June 7, 2005 02:00 PM

HRJH largely sounds like an Olympic bid press release. And I am sceptical. The reason why I am sceptical is simply that - well - I have heard it all before. All the stuff about how the games will use existing or planned facilities for which private funding is in place, blah blah blah blah blah. ("This will be the Green games" was said a lot in both cases, too). I am an Australian and I was in Sydney at the time, so I heard it a lot. The words of the Sydney olympic bid sounded exactly the same prior to that bid and to those games, but the purpose of the funding being "in place" was a mixture of foolish optimism and an attempt to sound good prior to the bid taking place. Once it came down to actually getting the money from these private sources, a lot of it vanished and the state was forced to step in. (Most notably, look at the unending saga of the consortium that funded the main stadium). As I personally believe there is great danger that it will here. If you read the fine print of the documents that are being offered to the IOC, the state backs up and guarantees everything. The IOC these days demands it as a matter of course.

And as for Australian and British interest in sport: in my mind there is really no comparison. I actually like sport, but I don't miss the unending nationalistic handwringing that goes on over it there and which is largely absent here. English people like football, but there is really very little interest in anything else. Whereas in Australia it goes very deep and through many many sports, not always to the country's credit. (As for Australians being "very professional about aligning resources to win things", this is a symptom of Australia's sports mania with quite precise historical causes, that I could discuss, but it's a bit too long for this comment, other than to say that Australia's taxpayer funded Olympic training program disgusts me absolutely beyond worlds). Shaun may be right that London will get behind the games and show huge interest if they arrive - as he says that did happen for the Manchester Commonwealth games - but I see it as far less of a sure thing that it was for Sydney.

Posted by Michael Jennings at June 7, 2005 02:09 PM

Michael's point is a fair one although you're wrong about my opinions being like an Olympic bid press release. As someone who is very involved in sports (I both compete - despite my advanced years - and I coach juniors) I was similarly sceptical when the bid was first discussed as it seemed that New Labour could find money for a high profile, high publicity bid, whilst destroying school sports and making life more difficult for amateur sports clubs. But then I realised that the two things are unrelated and that the Olympic bid really doesn't involve very much new money and that there is likely to be a good return on the new money. Australia may have "had the funding in place" but this doesn't mean it was money which was likely to be spent anyway.

I think he's referring to the national handwringing in Australia after the Montreal Olympics (where, if I remember correctly, they failed to win anything) that led to the concentration on funding Olympic sports.

I've lived in both the UK and Oz and my experience is that the UK is far more interested in a wider variety of sports - a view, incidentally, shared by Clive Woodward. As I have mentioned here previously and someone else has said, the support here for so-called minority sports like rowing and others at the commonwealth games was huge.

As to Pete's question "Why here?" I say "Why not?" As I have said, I think the financial benefits will be larger than the Olympics-specific expenditure and it will be a huge boost for all kinds of sports both in terms of participation (with all the accompanying health benefits) and cash. Many foreign countries will set up pre-Olympic camps here and pay for facilities all over the country to be uprated to accommodate their training requirements (this is what happened in many locations in Australia).

I strongly suspect that many people on this site are just sport-hating curmudgeons. They don't want the Olympics, so they make the assumption that it will be a commercial failure without having looked at it in any detail. The Olympics do not have to lose money. The key fact here is that the vast majority of the expenditure will happen anyway and the major revenue from visitors and TV is as close to guaranteed as you will get. Yes, there is risk, but its not nearly as large (both in terms of likelihood and potential size) as some would have you believe.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 02:38 PM

Two points. First, if - as seems likely - corruption plays a big role in securing IOC votes, then I don't think we need worry too much about London winning against the massed political elite of Paris.
Second: it'd be great in Paris. With the Eurostar (yup, dread name), it's hardly more difficult to get to Gare du Nord than Stratford if you really want to see this. Plus, of course, London could carry on with its daily life of being Europe's capital of creativity and diversity. Some cities need the Olympics to feel good about themselves. Think Beijing. London doesn't.

Posted by Michael Taylor at June 7, 2005 03:14 PM

The key fact here is that the vast majority of the expenditure will happen anyway

Sorry, but I just don't believe that, and even if it's true, why not hold the Olympics in places where the infrastructure already exists, eg Athens, Sydney etc? This perpatetic farce exists solely for the grandeur of the IOC. It has nothing to do with the actual Olympic Games. I enjoy watching the Olympics, I just don't understand why every four years another city has to fork out x billion pounds to stage the things. That's why the ancient Greeks held theirs at Olympia, they didn't bankrupt every Greek city in turn so as to hold them. Why did this idea make sense 2500 years ago but not now?

Posted by John K at June 7, 2005 03:15 PM

I hope that my fellow countrymen for all future forget the notion of hosting the Olympic Games in Sweden. One reason: swedes aren't really comfy with the bribe-culture. And that's a good thing!

All hail Axel Oxenstierna, father of the swedish bureaucracy!

Posted by Fredrik Lindholm at June 7, 2005 03:29 PM

HJHJ is a keen sportsman. He's into rowing and team spirit and all that. That is his choice, but as G Cooper said, why do sportsmen think the world should pay for their hobby?

The British are football daft and, by and large, like cricket and follow it. Even if they're not big fans, they know the name of the England captain and some members of the eleven. But, I put this question to you (stabbing finger in the direction of HJHJ's no doubt well-developed, manly chest), do they know the name of the UK's synchronised swimming team? Do they know the names of our tap-dancing team? (I am assuming there is a tap-dancing category.) Do they even know the names entering that jaw-crunching yawn-o-rama, our gymnasts?

Does anyone on planet earth other than the participants and their families care who wins all those metres events? The 5 metre dash. The 7,000 metre sprint. The 90 metre long jump (I mean, the participants are people who go out every day and practise jumping, which isn't a fitting occupation for an adult); the 40 metre high jump. How about a zero metre standing still category? Will Paula Radcliffe stop for her traditional public poo? So many questions, so much time.

Do most Londoners want more sports stadiums? I doubt it. They'd rather have lower rates. Do they want the surging crowds and mind-boggling inconvenience so a bunch of people can watch sports? The only people who will make any money are those engaged in the tourist industry, which is already stretched to capacity in the summer anyway, and Mr Fayed's shop.

If GDF (Gaz de France) is cunningly supporting the London bid, we know it must be a very, very bad idea.

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 03:34 PM

John,

I wouldn't blame you for being sceptical. But unless you've looked into it in any detail, I don't think it's appropriate to believe or not believe anything about the bid. I've looked at it and I'm pretty clear that most of the spending will happen anyway. Whether some of the rail links are good value for money (for example, the channel tunnel rail link and is costing billions just to shave about 20 minutes off the travel time to Paris) is highly questionable, but the fact is that the money will be spent whether the Olympics goes ahead or not.

I'm pretty confident that the Olympics-specific costs will be much less than the income which results from hosting the Olympics. This is not to say (as someone pointed out previously) that there won't be horrendous cost overruns - but I re-iterate my point that it is not appropriate to assign cost overruns on projects which will happen anyway, to the Olympics.

It really is a very intelligent bid in this respect. Sebastian Coe has thought this through very well.

Yes, perhaps the Olympics shouldn't be a travelling circus. But the fact is that currently it is and this isn't going to change for 2012. So the question remains "what should the decision be for 2012?" I happen to think that the nature of the opportunity and the bid on this occasion would make it a very good deal for London and the UK.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 03:40 PM

Why don't we offer to pull out if the French will leave our rebate alone or in exchange for CAP reform?

That would kill two birds with one stone.

Posted by EU-Serf at June 7, 2005 04:03 PM

EU-Serf - No, no - according to HJHJ, Gaz de France has a petition up for awarding the games to London. They don't want them in Paris! Therefore, by your logic, we should agree that London take on the infuriating inconvenience and cost of the games in exchange for CAP reform. Actually, as I don't live in London, that wouldn't be a bad deal.

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 04:10 PM

Just reading through all those comments makes pretty well everyone look curmudgeonly except HJHJ.
C'mon the people have to have their circuses as well as bread. Might instil more of a sense of unity in a very disparate population too.

Posted by John Rippengal at June 7, 2005 04:15 PM

Verity,

You do have a bad habit of being nastily personal.

You repeat the assertion that sports people want others to pay for their 'hobby'. From where did you get this idea? As I've mentioned, I row, so I'll talk about that sport. Where is the public subsidy in rowing? All the clubs that I know and the wonderful new Dorney Lake are privately funded and pay taxes. If the Olympics comes to London, the rowing will make a profit for taxpayers.
As I've said, this applies across the board - the income will exceed the Olympics-specific costs.

I dislike some of the mickey mouse sports and would be glad to see them dropped, but the fact remains that the Olympics generate huge audiences and worldwide TV revenues even for the minor sports.

As for your questions about whether Londoners want various things that you associate with the Olympics, the real question is whether, taking the pros and cons into account, do Londoners want the Olympics. Every opinion poll shows that, overwhelmingly, they do. So you have your answer.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 04:33 PM

HJHJ,

Lord Coe a right-wing Conservative? Since when? Just because he was mates with William Hague does not mean he is right-wing. Please give some examples of his right-wingness. (As if running such a thing as an Olympic bid isn't proof enough he isn't one.)

There is nothing wrong with those of us that have something against the state supporting sport (ie making taxpayers pay for it) not wanting to see the Olympics comes to London. Why should non-sports fans have to pay for sports-fans to enjoy their hobby? If Olympics fans are so keen then let them go raise the private money to host it somewhere outside of London where they won't completely bollox up our daily lives for several weeks.

Have you ever considered that just because someone does not want the Olympics come to London it means they hate sports might a broad generilisation?

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at June 7, 2005 04:42 PM

I wouldn't blame you for being sceptical. But unless you've looked into it in any detail, I don't think it's appropriate to believe or not believe anything about the bid. I've looked at it and I'm pretty clear that most of the spending will happen anyway. Whether some of the rail links are good value for money (for example, the channel tunnel rail link and is costing billions just to shave about 20 minutes off the travel time to Paris) is highly questionable, but the fact is that the money will be spent whether the Olympics goes ahead or not.

Yes, but will it really? That's the point isn't it? They may now be saying that "we would have spent x billion on various pieces of infrastructure anyway, so they are not really part of the costs of the Olympics". But if we don't get the games, let's see how much of this money that was going to be spent anyway really is spent. That's before we even talk about the cost overruns which are inevitable in a project of this size.

Finally, any project which might in any way serve to increase the power and influence of Red Ken Livingstone must be opposed as a matter of principle. I can just see that bastard waiting for the games to start and then slapping a congestion charge over east London. Don't give him the temptation!

Posted by John K at June 7, 2005 04:45 PM

There are numerous arguments elaborated eloquently on this thread so I won't repeat them. Many of these arguments favour Paris and some favour London. However, if I were forced to choose between these two cities (and I'm not too bothered which one eventually wins), the clincher would have to be the fact that Paris averages more dry days per year than London. The top olympic sport for me is ladies beach volleyball. Can you imagine holding this tournement in the rain?
So, there you have it, Paris 2012.

Posted by John East at June 7, 2005 04:47 PM

HJHJ - Personal Attack Alert!!! Personal Attack Alert!!! Sensitive Posters Take Cover!

The Olympics will be in 2012 and Red Ken sees it as the crowning glory of his disgraceful mayoralty over London. (I am assuming he will be re-elected next time, since neither the Tories nor Labour can seem to find anyone with more personality than a mushroom to run against him.) No expense will be spared to make this the perfect backdrop for Ken's farewell performance.

HJHJ - Rowing may be unique in funding itself, but the other sports require public "investment" and many people do not care to make this investment for what is, after all, a minority interest. Yes, people do tune in all over the world, but it's on in the background, in case the roar of the crowd alerts them to something interesting happening.

For God's sake, let the French have it! Apart from anything else, they'll do a better job. They'll do it with more flair and imagination (and less political correctness than would be the depressing case under Livingstone's drab stewardship) and y'all can watch it on TV and the streets of London will not be clogged with even more traffic than normal and hordes of tourists.

And if you are so confident that it would be self-supporting if held in London, why is the Cheeky Chappie putting up the rates of every single householder in London to pay for it?

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 04:58 PM

As London Housing is so highly valued and Londoners are all mad keep up 4it wicked for the Olympics, it should not be hard for Ken to offer Londoners the opportunity (snigger) to buy a London Olympics 2000 and whenever Bond, with only their house equity as security against the non-existant chances of losses and cost overuns!

Problem solved.

Posted by Rob Read at June 7, 2005 05:23 PM

HJHJ

You seem to be under the impression that everyone here is a sport-hating curmudgeon. Not so. For my part, I've just renewed my Arsenal season-ticket, when the Lions take the Kiwis apart in the next few weeks my phone will be off the hook and nothing gets me off my backside like snow falling on the Alps. The difference is that not everyone is a sporting bore, spending their lives in tracksuit bottoms and sweaty t shirts.

Posted by Pete_London at June 7, 2005 05:31 PM

Verity,

So London shouldn't host the Olympics because Ken Livingstone is Mayor but it should go to France because they have fine upstanding characters like Jacques Chirac and his fine prime minister De Villepin whom we should support?

How do you square your claim that other sports require public "investment" with the parliamentary select committee report which criticised the government for the high taxes it takes from sports organisations and clubs compared to the very little funding it provides. Come on, base your argument on facts please!

The French will do it with more flair and imagination? Eh? Nobody does dull and conservative better than the French. What did they ever invent? Contrast that to the UK's track record for creativity.

Are you so naive as to think that Livingstone wouldn't be putting up council tax (he has no control over the only form of rates that still exist - business rates) regardless? The Olympics is just a convenient 'reason'. I'm surprised that you blindly accept the word of Ken.

And its Electricite de France (nothing to do with Gaz) - they happen to own London Electricity.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 05:39 PM

HJHJ writes:

"So if you're obese and lazy the government will tax everyone else to pay for your medical treatment caused by your lifestyle."

Probably. And in exactly the same way as it spends millions of other peoples' money treating sports injuries.

It's always revealing how easily the puritanical note creeps into arguments from sports fans.. words like 'lazy'.

It really gives the game away: just neo-puritanism in a diferent guise.

Posted by GCooper at June 7, 2005 06:07 PM

HJHJ - Yes, it's EDF. I misremembered what you'd written, despite having paused to wonder why GDF was making such a strange plea rather than its parent company, the price-gouging EDF.

Paris did the World Cup or something with tremendous flair. They have a sense of style that is unequalled by anyone but the Americans - although the manner of presentation is very different, both countries grab you with sheer, unalloyed pizzaz. Britain's "style" is ugly, inyerface, chippy and destructive. Britain's style is Jo Brand and a giant plastic statue of an armless, naked pregnant dwarf with truncated legs in Trafalgar Square. The London Olympics would be a hym to political correctness.

I have no idea what Red Ken is going to do with London rates and don't care, since they won't affect me.

Let me present this tiny pensée, which keeps getting swept under the carpet: Athletes are just about at the optimum performance possible. Even with drugs, they are almost at the point where it will be impossible to shave one more nanosecond off their time.

What then? We have already seen the desperation on the part of the IOC with the inclusion of sychronised swimming. What's next? Baton twirling? Tap dancing? They'll have to come up with something, as people won't watch dashes and high jumps and long jumps just for the aesthetic pleasure. They want to see records being broken. When this is no longer possible, if the IOC wants to lumber on, they'll have to find other things to classify as "sport". I think they rejected ice skating at one point. What's the betting that that is still - quietly - on the agenda?

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 06:23 PM

HJHJ makes a fairly convincing case, however precedence runs against him. I agree with Michael Jennings - in Australia there was all the same talk of private funding and the like. Often the private sources ended up being government-funded QUANGOs. Now seriously, with a Labour government in power and an ex-communist mayor in City Hall, isn't it a little unlikely that things will end up much differently?

And this

Are you so naive as to think that Livingstone wouldn't be putting up council tax (he has no control over the only form of rates that still exist - business rates) regardless? The Olympics is just a convenient 'reason'.

is just pure speculation.

Posted by I'm suffering for my art at June 7, 2005 06:26 PM

Just two words THE DOME!

Posted by Peter at June 7, 2005 06:59 PM

Verity,

Like Perry and several others (Michael Jennings and one or two others are notable exceptions) when I point out that something you've said just doesn't stack up with the facts, or I invite you to counter an argument I've put, you just move on to your next spurious argument

Let's ask again why London shouldn't have the Games because of Livingstone, but Paris should despite Chirac and his like?

ISFMA, has a good point about precedent, but as I've pointed out, several things are very different from the Sydney Olympics, and LA did show that it is possible to run an Olympics at a profit. Scepticism is a reasonable position, but I think the risks have been very well assessed and the alance of probabilities is clearly that London will do well out of the Olympics.

As for Verity and her French Pizazz and flair argument. The World Cup in 1998 suffered through small and poor stadia, a lack of local interest in any matches not including France, the overrated Stade de France (cramped seating, terrible press and catering facilities, poor transport links and a roof that lets all the sound out). Contrast that to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester which were run with real style.

You are just plain wrong about the audience wanting to see records broken. They go to see top class competition and I don't think most give a hoot about world records they want sporting drama, not a time trial.
The IOC do not keep introducing sports through desperation. On the contrary, they have consistently been trying to reduce the number of competitors in recent Olympics.

GCooper: Very little is spent by the NHS on sports injuries compared to illness caused by physical inaction (I have been active in sports for 30 years and have never cost the NHS a penny). Just tell me again why self-induced illness should be subsidised but healthy sporting activities should be taxed (as is presently the case). I have no objection to you or anyone else killling themselves with poor lifestyle - I just have an objection to paying for it. Nothing to do with being puritannical.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 07:28 PM

At first I was shocked at the idea of hoping Paris gets the Olympics. Why the hell would I want anything nice to go to Paris instead of London???

But now I understand better. If the Olympics is such a money sink and a hassle to the natives, well, let Paris have it, and with my (uncharitable) blessing.

Posted by Tim at June 7, 2005 07:40 PM

HJHJ - I am not trying to avoid an argument. But you are writing as someone who cares desperately about this and knows lots of facts that are of no interest to people who simply do not want to see this event dumped on a city which is already overcrowded and quite unpleasant in many respects.

I don't care about council tax. I do care that Livingstone can hammer on an extra percentage to pay for an event that few people have expressed a hunger for. The Olympics is for the final international glory of Livingstone before he steps down as mayor of London and devotes the rest of his life to newts.

You compare Livingstone with Jacques Chirac, who I hadn't realised was still the mayor of Paris. I thought he was the President of France. Frankly, I would rather my nationality be represented by a fraud with charm and style than a fraud (Toneboy) who looks and acts like a barker in a travelling carnival. But that is beside the point.

The French, as I am sure you are well aware, are not interested in the fortunes of anywhere but France. Local interest in other matches would have been infinitesimal. But the show they put on in Paris was spectacular. It's silly to try to take their infinite capacity for style away from them. (Though oddly enough, it doesn't extend to making TV commercials, which are dire.)

The London Olympics would be a hymn to political correctness - like the above-mentioned drab failure, the Millennium Dome.

I can probably agree with you that the people who actually make the effort to attend the Olympics are sports fans who want to see a good competition. The people who watch it at home and who are the greater number by hundreds of millions and on whom advertisers spent several billion dollars on ads, want drama. They want to see records broken.

I do not like the whole ethos of the Olympics. I find it fascist. How can an international committee of nonentities decide a city that has been going for 2,000 years should be made unlivable while they stage their show there - and the population of the city has no say. The word demos is Greek and that's where the games should return to.

From some of the comments I've seen, the Parisians don't want it either. So how does it happen that leaders are empowered to disempower their electorates and impose events which will showcase themselves at great inconvenience to the citizenries? Did anyone take a poll in London, for example?

I am sure your rowing club is lovely and state of the art and all that and it is truly admirable that you paid for it yourselves. No one here is disputing this. Maybe they should split up the Olympics and hold equestrian events in one country, swimming/diving events in another and so on.

The showbiz aspects - the synchronised swimming, tap dancing (why not?), baton twirling could be left to Hollywood which would do it wonderfully. (Always with the caveat that the citizens agreed to hold it there.)

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 08:05 PM

HJHJ writes;

"I have no objection to you or anyone else killling themselves with poor lifestyle - I just have an objection to paying for it. Nothing to do with being puritannical."

And I have, similarly, no interest whatsoever in subsidising athletes to play games- which is precisely what I am being forced to do by the increases in London council tax, imposed to finance this over-hyped school sports day..

As you say, you've spent 30 years pursuing your hobby. Fine. My grandfather spent over 80 years gardening until age and his eyesight got the better of him. The difference is, he didn't expect London's council tax payers to finance the Chelsea Flower Show.

Moreover, he doesn't adopt a similarly patronising attitude to those who don't happen to share his predelictions.

Posted by GCooper at June 7, 2005 08:47 PM

HJHJ,
Besides which old chap, paddling over to France every day will keep you fit and in practice and it won't cost the taxpayer a penny

Posted by Peter at June 7, 2005 09:14 PM

What G Cooper said with bells on.

It is indeed an overhyped school sports day. Loads of people out there doing their personal best. Well good, but challenge yourself on your own money. And don't clog up the streets doing your personal best, either.

People engaged in sports often mantle themselves in an air of sanctity, as though they were doing something that was somehow benefitting mankind. It's like these jogging morons who run along the road rather than the pavement because the road has a smoother surface, and cars are supposed to brake and swerve for them because they are on the holy mission of exercise.

People in sports have an air of entitlement and I have never been able to figure out why. They're engaged in their hobby. I hope they enjoy it. But I'm not going to bring my life to a grinding halt to accommodate them, and I am not going to pay for facilities for them.

G Cooper's grandfather didn't expect the world to pay for the Chelsea Flower Show. That was terribly funny.

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 09:16 PM

Verity,

You're always good for an argument, but you haven't been so good here at making a case or justifying what you think. So you don't like sports, fair enough, but your argument amounts to wanting to prevent other people from enjoying them - hardly libertarian.

Let me repeat this: You may be opposed to London or even Paris getting the Olympics, but you're in a clear minority - opinion polls in both countries have shown overwhelming majorities if favour, so it is disingenuous to imply that you accurately represent public antipathy to the Olympics

Incidentally, Verity, your comment about London being overcrowded and therefore Paris being a better choice shows your lack of knowledge of the two cities. Paris has twice the population density of London.

GCooper - as I have pointed out (but it doesn't seem to sink in) the argument that you're being paid to subsidise the Olympics is highly questionable. It may well even subsidise you as it it expected to raise more than the Olympics-specific costs. It's funny getting a lecture on being patronising from you. There are some reasonable postings here questioning the value of games, but your postings just show your bad temper.

Fortunately, there are plenty of go-ahead people in this country and they outnumber the armchair critics.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 09:57 PM

HJHJ writes;

"as I have pointed out (but it doesn't seem to sink in) the argument that you're being paid to subsidise the Olympics is highly questionable."

Then perhaps you would care to explain to we poor, deluded Londoners, who only imagine we are paying increased council tax, what drugs they are putting in the water supply to create that illusion?

You can "point out" all you like, but until you can explain that, what is questionable is your specious claim that these games will be cost free.

And yes, you're damn right about my bad temper. Having someone else's hand in my pocket often affects me that way. Can't think why.

Posted by GCooper at June 7, 2005 10:33 PM

HJHJ - "... opinion polls in both countries have shown overwhelming majorities if favour ...". You are not so disengenuous as to believe opinion polls demonstrate anything other than what he devisors of the questions want them to demonstrate. If I could be bothered, and had the money to waste, I could assuredly come up with the results of an opinion poll that showed precisely 73% of the population of London being against the city hosting the Olympics. Or a seasoned polling company could come up with 67% for, or any other result and percentage you paid for, as you know.

I don't know the populations of either London or Paris, but perhaps it's the broad streets and boulevards that make Paris feel more spacious. It feels smaller and more livable, too.

I notice you didn't apologise for your mistake in thinking that Jacques Chirac was still mayor of Paris, although I thought everyone was aware that he is the president of France. (Dominique de Villepin is the prime minister, just to save you any future embarrassment.)

I still maintain that it is fascist to force the decision of a bunch of unelected people - the deeply honest Olympic Committee - on the population of a city, thus disrupting their lives for no personal benefit to them.

I can assure you of one thing, crime will soar through the roof when the Olympics come to town, given that London's police are already very thin on the ground and are, to severely understate the case, unmotivated.

Posted by Verity at June 7, 2005 10:36 PM

I'd be prepared to bet that I pay more council tax than you - well over £2000 per year and I'm not in the top band - and I don't live in London (I'm in one of the 5 highest council tax areas in the country). My council tax has increased faster than almost anywhere else. I pay for schools we don't use (we pay for our daughter's education as the local state school - no choice, all the schools are full - is so awful) and get B all for our money. Should I blame the Olympics because I can't see what extra I'm getting for my money?

I didn't say that the games would be cost-free, only that the evidence suggest that the Olympics revenue will exceed the Olympics-specific costs. London has wasted and is wasting huge sums of money on badly managed costs like the tube. Why pick on the Olympics which at least has a credible plan to be revenue-beneficial. Nobody pretends that most of the other money wasting schemes ever had a chance of being viable without huge subsidy.

For example, have a go at rocketing local government and police pension costs - these really are costing you more and more for precisely nothing in return.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 10:52 PM

Verity,

Paris is in France, in case you hadn't noticed, and I had already mentioned de Villepin.

The population of London is larger than Paris, but the population density is half. London feels more spacious because of the lower population density and the parks, which Paris lacks.

As for your views on Londoners and Parisians and opinion polls - laughably ridiculous. The IOC conducts its own polls to gauge support (because they're wary of those provided by the bidders) and they came to the same conclusions. Come off it.

Yes, won't the disruption be terrible? It's not as if the Olympics only last two weeks and you could go on holiday to avoid it. It will cause horrendous disruption for years! No that you live in London anyway - but your concern for the welfare of the vast majority of Londoners that want the Olympics is laudable.

The IOC can't make a city take the Olympics - it has to show it wants the Olympics first by going through a process known as bidding. Cities that share your view that the IOC are fascists can avoid their evil intentions by a clever device known as not bidding. Cunning, eh?

Thanks for the assurance on crime. It's all backed up by extensive research, I presume?

Come on Verity - surely you can do better. If you have reasonable argument (and there are perfectly respectable ones against the Olympic bid) let's hear it instead of the flim flam.

Posted by HJHJ at June 7, 2005 11:19 PM

HJHJ
Not wanting the games is " wanting to prevent others from enjoying them-hardly libertarian" What is libertarian in demanding that others,not you because you don't live in London,paying for someone elses entertainment.Please don't say that watching someone else run is anymore healthy than watching "Celebrity Enemas"

Posted by Peter at June 7, 2005 11:23 PM

So London shouldn't host the Olympics because Ken Livingstone is Mayor but it should go to France because they have fine upstanding characters like Jacques Chirac and his fine prime minister De Villepin whom we should support?

No, it's so the bloody French can pay for them. Feel free to send them a cheque if you really want to help.

Posted by John K at June 7, 2005 11:59 PM

HJHJ -- "Whilst I prefer private sector finance in most cases, I think that the Olympics would be a much better use of public money than much of what the government spends taxpayers money on."

So what?

"I think that" a new airplane engine for me and big bags for all the crack addicts on the corner "would be a much better use of public money" than the Olympics.

So what?

What the hell is it about your values that makes them more worth forcing me to pay for them than forcing you to pay for mine?

Posted by Billy Beck at June 8, 2005 12:07 AM

HJHJ writes:

"I'd be prepared to bet that I pay more council tax than you - well over £2000 per year and I'm not in the top band - and I don't live in London (I'm in one of the 5 highest council tax areas in the country). My council tax has increased faster than almost anywhere else."

You'd lose your bet, but it's irrelevant. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about your council tax. I do, however, give a damn about mine. And you have been unable to dispute that mine has been raised by hypothecated levy to pay for your school sports day. We're not talking about "the theft that is council tax" (something on which most commentators here would probably agree) but a specific element of Londoners' council tax being charged to benefit a noisy special interest group.

Meanwhile, just to hammer a nail into this religious awe with which sports is held, I offer the following quote from the sainted Theodore Dalrymple:

"I remember once reading a small item in the British Medical Journal not long ago to the effect that there were seventeen million sports injuries per year in Britain. There it was, this gigantic figure: no fuss at all. This, of course, was because sport was, a prioria, a Good Thing, in the Sellars and Yeatman sense of the words. One has only to imagine the outcry there would have been had it been revealed that seventeen million people were injured while -- or rather, because of -- eating chocolate. Every confectioner in the country would have been arrested, lawsuits would have followed, and allegations of suppression of information made against the chocolate companies."

Endorphin addiction my not be quite as unattractive as enslavement to the poppy, but it, too, imposes its burden on society.

Only one of which is that we are expected to pay for your fix.

Posted by GCooper at June 8, 2005 12:31 AM

HJHJ - As I said, I think Paris feels more spacious than London, but frankly, I don't give a damn either way.

What's interesting is you want to force Londoners to have the Olympic Games in London so the world can admire the beautiful facilities of your rowing club. You don't even live in London, so can escape, whereas the people who live there are going to be stuck with the traffic, the one squillion tourists, and, let's face it, the crime - all for what? Exactly what advantage is the average Londoner whose life has been so discomoded going to derive from all this? Absolutely nothing, except disruption and possibly more crime. Such a fiesty advocate of the Olympics in London and you don't even live there, so won't be inconvenienced and won't be paying the freight.

Why should the residents of an entire city, a city which has been one of the world's great capitals for around a thousand years, a huge centre of commerce and supplier of hundreds of thousands of jobs and residence of millions of people, be put into ransome by people with a special interest. If the special interest were anything but the holy "sport", it wouldn't even have got a look-in, given the massive disruption to life there. But it's "sport", so it's OK that a foreign committee is going to decide whether to subject this home of millions of people to torture for two weeks in order to showcase a crass mayor and a crass government.

And now you've let it slip that you don't even live there!! To you, it's a destination for entertainment. Screw the péons!

Posted by Verity at June 8, 2005 12:41 AM

G Cooper - Seventeen million sports injuries a year! Well, it sounds like a lot, but I'm sure all the injured go private, rather than burden the NHS with the costs of self-imposed harm that occured in the holy name of SPORT.

Posted by Verity at June 8, 2005 12:57 AM

It's Michael Jennings's throwaway final line thet needs emphasis in this debate. Why is "London" -- that is, official London -- competing for this event? Nothing to do with sport or civic regeneration (as if for the moment the latter were more than a fantasy of tax and spend economics). It is so that a cadre of politicians and corporate worthies will get to posture importantly, to do highly visible things associated with grandiose projects before a vast international audience. A spectacle in the tradition of bread and circuses.

Posted by guy herbert at June 8, 2005 08:06 AM

Whenever I hear advocates of hosting the Games in a particular location, they frequently talk about the "investment" that such Games represent. This is misleading. The investment is usually underwritten by the taxpayer and ultimately therefore, risk-free. The Games usually involve considerable taxpayer spending on public transport, various infrastructure, security (likely to be a serious issue if London gets the Games) and so forth.

If advocates of the Games in London really believe in the economic rationale, they should advocate issuing things like Olympic bonds, perhaps carrying a 20-year maturity, using expected proceeds from the facilities to securitise the debt, as is common practice in the financial markets.

Posted by Johnathan at June 8, 2005 08:58 AM

Dalrymple's memory of 17m sports injuries being reported in the BMJ almost certainly says more about his poor memory than it does about the (very modest) cost of sports injuries. It is just not a credible figure if you do a bit of simple arithmetic. Dalrymple is a psychiatrist anyway, so hardly an authoritative source.

As for Verity's increasingly ludicrous points - in what way exactly is the entire population of London being held to ransom? A HUGE MAJORITY OF THE LONDON POPULATION WANT THE OLYMPICS.

Verity doesn't even live in the UK - a fine position from where to tell us what we want.

Let me put this another way. Why should the minority who don't want the Olympics stop the majority that do?
What gives you the right to claim you're entitled save the majority from what they want?

GCooper's claim that the council tax has already been raised to pay for the Olympics is ludicrous. London has not been awarded the Olympics yet and (I have checked) there is no part of your council tax associated with the Olympics. There is plenty, however, associated with all the current wastes of money. The Olympics clearly would affect the scheduling of much spending and hence council tax, but it is not clear at all that averaged over a number of years it will cost any extra to London residents.

As for "paying for my fix", GCooper just makes this cheap assertion based on nothing. He has never subsidised me in any way whatever and most likely never will. The converse is more likely to be true as I am the sort of person that gets on with things rather than just griping from the sidelines. Only two areas in the whole country get a lesser proportion of their local government expenditure supplied centrally than does mine - so I am almost certainly paying rather more than my fair share than he. Most of London gets a relatively good deal from central government funding (paid for by my taxes) so I am almost certainly subsidising him (or her).

I couldn't resist quoting this: "What's interesting is you want to force Londoners to have the Olympic Games in London so the world can admire the beautiful facilities of your rowing club." Er, no, actually as the world won't be able to see or admire the facilities at my rowing club as a result of the Olympics - not even a teensy bit. On which planet did you say you lived, Verity?

Posted by HJHJ at June 8, 2005 09:22 AM

HJHJ says:

I didn't say that the games would be cost-free, only that the evidence suggest that the Olympics revenue will exceed the Olympics-specific costs.

On that basis, we could spend £50 million on a stadium and £10 on a banner saying "Olympic Stadium", then claim that only the £10 is 'Olympics-specific'. The fact remains, however, that the entire cost still has to be met, even if the stadium is never used again. (Incidentally, is there a noticeable lack of sporting facilities in London already, or in the country as a whole? I would have thought that running and jumping require remarkably little in the way of infrastructure, and rowing needs nothing but a stretch of water which is not exactly in short supply.)

The further fact remains that the pursuits of a few (participating in sport of various kinds) and the interests of a few more (watching other people participating in sport of various kinds) are being catered for at the expense, both financially and by imposed inconvenience, of everyone.

Much of it is specifically designed to be dismantled and it will be just a 25,000 seater stadium after the Olympics. This is why the cost is comparatively modest.

So if it costs £50 million to build a large stadium and £10 million to convert it into a small stadium, how is this cheaper than building a small stadium in the first place?

the amount of taxes extracted from sports clubs was disproportionately greater than the amount of funding that the government provides to sports.

Why should the government provide any funding to 'sports' (by which is meant 'people engaging in those sports')?
Posted by The Weasel Bearder at June 8, 2005 10:23 AM

I am rather amazed that no one has challenged us on the arts. Usually when I speak to the public funding of sports points someone counters with art funding (as I am a creative type). I don't think the state should have anything to do with the funding of sport or art.

Politicians are and will use the Olympics as a way of justifying a large increase in council tax and other taxes. Its wrong and I would rather the French people get stuck with the bill rather than me here in London.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at June 8, 2005 11:46 AM

I'm with HJH
This is why the games should be held in London;
i) it will promote the re-introduction of competitive sports in London's increasingly anti-sport, anti-competition education authorities.
ii) It will end football's monopoly on sports media coverage
iii) it will bring enormous pride to Londoners. My wife is a Sydneysider. The 2000 Sydney Olympics are still talked about in revered tones by most Australians

Yes, it will cost (but London is the one of the world's richest towns and is far wealthier than Sydney) and yes, Livingstone will be unbearable, but these are small prices to pay.
Sport promotes everything readers of this website should care passionately about; competition, incentivisation, free mobility of workers, free trade, rewards for hard work, not to mention a healthy lifestyle.

Posted by pommygranate at June 8, 2005 11:48 AM

As for Verity's increasingly ludicrous points - in what way exactly is the entire population of London being held to ransom? A HUGE MAJORITY OF THE LONDON POPULATION WANT THE OLYMPICS.

Ah yes, that will be based on the overwhelming "yes" vote in the "shall London bid for the Olympic games" referendum. Remind me when that was held, I seem to have missed it.

Posted by John K at June 8, 2005 11:52 AM

Sport promotes everything readers of this website should care passionately about; competition, incentivisation, free mobility of workers, free trade, rewards for hard work, not to mention a healthy lifestyle

And being forced to pay for it through your taxes on pain of imprisonment promotes what exactly?

Posted by John K at June 8, 2005 11:56 AM

HGHG is making a lot of sense. He repeatedly claims that the majority of Londoners want the games. Local support is a critical part of any Olypmics bid, it seems, and if Londoners didn't want the Olympics, London would not even be in the running. So can we please lay to rest all of this twaddle about 'special interests' and 'minorities', when it is trivially clear that the majority of Londoners want the Olympics in London.

I think the question of whether Verity, GCooper and friends want London to hold the Olympics can be pretty easily distilled to 'will it bring in money to the UK or not?', since there is so much talk about raising council taxes and so on. It seems that there is currently no clear answer to this question. Which is dumb - there should be an answer. On a project of this magnitude, the government should have done its sums and be able to officially say "Winning the Olympics will cost £x and generate £y revenue.".

Finally, on the 17m sporting injuries per year: for a start, that establishes sport as far more than a 'special interest'. Secondly, if nobody did any sport, I bet that the NHS would end up paying out considerably more in programmes to help the obese.

Posted by lth at June 8, 2005 12:48 PM

Weasel bearder makes a fair point, but when I said "Olympics-specific costs" I was taking into account the factors he mentions. I agree that it costs more to build a big stadium and then reduce it to a small stadium than to build a small stadium in the first place. But this is one of the Olympics specific costs that will be more than matched by the Olympics revenue, if you believe the figures (and it's fair enough not to, but the figures are realistic in my opinion).

Actually rowing requires a lake of suitable length and width, which has been very rare in this country until recently. But we now have one (Dorney) and it will make a profit on the Olympics for the taxpayer as the facilities have already been privately built and financed.

I never said that the government should fund sports. My point is that it is hardly reasonable to make the claim that sports are subsidised when the government taxes sports clubs much more than it ever gives back despite the fact that most are purely voluntary non-commerical organisations. Cutting the taxes and removing funding would be fine by me as sports clubs would be better off.

I didn't demand that others, not me, fund the Olympics, I have simply suggested strongly that London and the country would benefit - I demanded precisely nothing - and most Londoners and the country at large happen to agree with me. The vast majority of the funding comes from national and commercial sources and not your council tax. In fact a strong case can be made that the rest of the country will be subsidising infrastructure improvements from which Londoners will benefit. Just like the tube which benefits only Londoners but which is subsidised by central government funds (unfortunately).

John K, when was the referendum held which said "no" to the Olympics? Would you care to pay for one with taxpayers money when public opinion is already overwhelmingly clear? Your problem is just that most people disagree with you and you seem to have a problem accepting this.

Posted by HJHJ at June 8, 2005 12:51 PM

John K, when was the referendum held which said "no" to the Olympics? Would you care to pay for one with taxpayers money when public opinion is already overwhelmingly clear? Your problem is just that most people disagree with you and you seem to have a problem accepting this.

This is a completely ludicrous comment. You have nothing but opinion polls to back up your claims, and as you well know, the people have never been given the chance to decide on this matter via a referendum. Do most people disagree with me? I don't know, and neither do you. They weren't asked. Don't talk rot, you just make yourself look silly.

Posted by John K at June 8, 2005 01:21 PM

HJHJ writes:

" Dalrymple is a psychiatrist anyway, so hardly an authoritative source."

Dalrymple's quote was taken from his general work about health, a subject on which he is perceptive, iconoclastic commentator: An Intelligent Person's Guide to Medicine. I appreciate dissenting opinions (especially from professionals) undermining the health myths cultivated by endorphin junkies down the years may be uncomfortable, but there you go.

As for the cost to council tax payers, the figures are at least the following (I say at least because they are from Red Ken himself): "The Mayor and the Government have agreed a public funding package of up to £2.375 billion to help meet the costs of staging an Olympics in London in 2012. The first £2.050 billion of the funding package will be met from up to £1.5 billion from the lottery and up to £550 million from London Council Tax,"

No doubt the final tally will be very considerably higher - not least because Livingstone's estimate doesn't include the costs of disruption. And, of course, because he is a serial twister.

As for the claimed financial benefits, as the recent Capital Economics report said, the chances are that it will make virtually no impact at all.

You have still to make a case for a single penny of council tax payers' money being spent to subsidise this beanfeast for the blazer brigade.

Posted by GCooper at June 8, 2005 01:32 PM

John K,

As someone said earlier, it is trivially obvious given the evidence that most people in London want the Olympics - all sorts of surveys and polls have confirmed this beyond any shadow of a doubt. Opinion polls are generally accurate to within about a 3% error margin.
Why aren't you advocating a referendum of the whole country to see whether they want to continue to subsidise the tube for Londoners to a rather greater amount than the cost of the Olympics? If we are going to have referenda on public spending, a few hundred items would be higher up the referenda list than the Olympics.

As you said, don't talk rot, you just make yourself look sillier with every post.

GCooper confirms what I said - he has not yet paid a penny in Council tax towards the Olympics. Council tax payers will be asked to pay £550m in extra council tax ostensibly for the Olympics. It sounds like a big figure but it is spread over a number of years, is tiny compared to the totality of local government spending in London and will pay for facilities/infrastructure much of which would be funded through other taxation routes anyway because the proposed Olympic park was earmarked for development (although the Olympics will affect the scheduling and the exact nature of the spend).

I did a bit of research about the supposed cost of sports injuries to the NHS. the figure of £440m has popped up several times. This is a fraction of one per cent of total NHS spending and about half of what is spent on heart drugs alone (not heart treatment, just the drugs). Let's not even talk about diabetes, obesity and other afflictions caused by physical inactivity. Insiders are very poor at exploding health myths - they have an interest in sustaining their own income. Doctors would have you believe they have a big positive impact on health, but the facts are that they don't. Civil engineers implementing sanitation schemes have done more for health (at less cost) than all the doctors put together.

In any case, I didn't advocate having the Olympics in London on the basis of encouraging more people doing sport - you just assumed this was my motive. I just said it's a better deal than NHS spending (and will have some side effects of upgrading sports facilities around the country at other countries expense - as happened in Australia)

Posted by HJHJ at June 8, 2005 02:24 PM

John K,

As someone said earlier, it is trivially obvious given the evidence that most people in London want the Olympics - all sorts of surveys and polls have confirmed this beyond any shadow of a doubt. Opinion polls are generally accurate to within about a 3% error margin.
Why aren't you advocating a referendum of the whole country to see whether they want to continue to subsidise the tube for Londoners to a rather greater amount than the cost of the Olympics? If we are going to have referenda on public spending, a few hundred items would be higher up the referenda list than the Olympics.

As you said, don't talk rot, you just make yourself look sillier with every post.

GCooper confirms what I said - he has not yet paid a penny in Council tax towards the Olympics. Council tax payers will be asked to pay £550m in extra council tax ostensibly for the Olympics. It sounds like a big figure but it is spread over a number of years, is tiny compared to the totality of local government spending in London and will pay for facilities/infrastructure much of which would be funded through other taxation routes anyway because the proposed Olympic park was earmarked for development (although the Olympics will affect the scheduling and the exact nature of the spend).

I did a bit of research about the supposed cost of sports injuries to the NHS. the figure of £440m has popped up several times. This is a fraction of one per cent of total NHS spending and about half of what is spent on heart drugs alone (not heart treatment, just the drugs). Let's not even talk about diabetes, obesity and other afflictions caused by physical inactivity. Insiders are very poor at exploding health myths - they have an interest in sustaining their own income. Doctors would have you believe they have a big positive impact on health, but the facts are that they don't. Civil engineers implementing sanitation schemes have done more for health (at less cost) than all the doctors put together.

In any case, I didn't advocate having the Olympics in London on the basis of encouraging more people doing sport - you just assumed this was my motive. I just said it's a better deal than NHS spending (and will have some side effects of upgrading sports facilities around the country at other countries expense - as happened in Australia)

Posted by HJHJ at June 8, 2005 02:36 PM

John K,

As someone said earlier, it is trivially obvious given the evidence that most people in London want the Olympics - all sorts of surveys and polls have confirmed this beyond any shadow of a doubt. Opinion polls are generally accurate to within about a 3% error margin.
Why aren't you advocating a referendum of the whole country to see whether they want to continue to subsidise the tube for Londoners to a rather greater amount than the cost of the Olympics? If we are going to have referenda on public spending, a few hundred items would be higher up the referenda list than the Olympics.

As you said, don't talk rot, you just make yourself look sillier with every post.

GCooper confirms what I said - he has not yet paid a penny in Council tax towards the Olympics. Council tax payers will be asked to pay £550m in extra council tax ostensibly for the Olympics. It sounds like a big figure but it is spread over a number of years, is tiny compared to the totality of local government spending in London and will pay for facilities/infrastructure much of which would be funded through other taxation routes anyway because the proposed Olympic park was earmarked for development (although the Olympics will affect the scheduling and the exact nature of the spend).

I did a bit of research about the supposed cost of sports injuries to the NHS. the figure of £440m has popped up several times. This is a fraction of one per cent of total NHS spending and about half of what is spent on heart drugs alone (not heart treatment, just the drugs). Let's not even talk about diabetes, obesity and other afflictions caused by physical inactivity. Insiders are very poor at exploding health myths - they have an interest in sustaining their own income. Doctors would have you believe they have a big positive impact on health, but the facts are that they don't. Civil engineers implementing sanitation schemes have done more for health (at less cost) than all the doctors put together.

In any case, I didn't advocate having the Olympics in London on the basis of encouraging more people doing sport - you just assumed this was my motive. I just said it's a better deal than NHS spending (and will have some side effects of upgrading sports facilities around the country at other countries expense - as happened in Australia)

Posted by HJHJ at June 8, 2005 02:38 PM

I just did a bit of quick research. PPP makes it difficult to arrive at an exact figure, but it seems that central government will be subsidising investment in London Underground by around £500m per year for the next 20+ years.

Why isn't GCooper complaining about this imposition on taxpayers across the whole country and instead arguing for higher fares or council tax in London to pay for it instead?

It's just so easy to knock down what passes for argument from some of you guys. Now if someone were to put together a coherent alternative whereby the proposed Olympics site could be regenerated entirely privately and suggest a way to get the private sector to pay for all the transport and other essential infrastucture thereby relieving the taxpayer of the expenditure (which currently will largely happen anyway with or without the Olympics, albeit probably more slowly) then there would be a good counter-argument to the Olympics. If there is a good argument, I could change my mind. But at the moment, the Olympics is a better choice than the alternatives.

Ae there any purveyors of good