Olympic news

Readers of this blog may be aware of the fact that I am not a great supporter of highly expensive, seriously corrupt international sporting events. In fact, the woes of FIFA made me laugh before muttering that I was shocked, shocked. When will similar woes reach the other appalling organization, the IOC?

While we wait for that we can watch the whole Olympic farce descending into ever more preposterous depths. It is now accepted by almost everyone that the only countries that can hold those terrible Games in future without any trouble are highly oppressive regimes who do not mind using any method to achieve their aims.

Oh, I hear you cry, what of the London Games of 2012? Well, yes, they did not involve much more than putting young soldiers on the streets of London who immediately showed up our slovenly, overweight, rarely polite police force but did no harm to anyone. (And some good to young ladies, I imagine.)

My own memory of those weeks is an almost completely empty city with endless groups of people in preposterous pink and purple outfits who were so bored that they pounced on every passer by, hoping that they were in need of direction. On the whole, I knew London far better than they did.

Stores were also empty, which was very pleasant for the few customers who did go there but I hate to think how much money the likes of John Lewis lost while they kept their flagship on Oxford Street open well beyond usual hours with no visible custom.

We shall go on paying for those Games for years to come not least for the upkeep of the Olympic Village and the stadium, because, among other things we, the taxpayers will be paying for the West Ham move.

Other cities are far more sensible. Boston has just pulled out of the 2024 Olympic bid:

The city was forced to cancel the effort in response to opposition to what The Nation called the “debt, displacement, and militarization of public space” that the Olympics brings to every host city. Basically, the taxpayers and citizens of Boston weren’t in the mood to foot the bill for an enormous party for the richest and most powerful plutocrats of Boston and the United States.

Nor is this the first time. We all recall Oslo pulling out of the 2022 Winter Olympic bid and the news is that the IOC chose Beijing over Almaty for that event. Apparently, there is a minor technical problem still to be solved and that is a certain lack of snow but, hey, if Russia could do it in Sochi, why not China in Beijing?

Not a week goes by without an article or ten to remind Londoners about the glorious Olympics and chivy us to revive the spirit and remember the inheritance. Curiously, those articles do not mention the huge bill Londoners and, indeed, other taxpayers in that country are still facing.

Here is a reminder in the article on Mises Daily about some of the costs other Olympic cities have had to endure:

Meanwhile, the taxpayers in much of the developed world have gotten wise to the high costs and few benefits of hosting the Olympics. Many have seen these photos from the UK’s Guardian which show the state of the Athens 2004 Olympic venues in 2014. The billions of taxpayer dollars spent on facilities have all evaporated, and all that’s left is rusting stadiums and mud-filled Olympic-sized swimming pools.

The Greeks were told back then that hosting the Olympics would be their ticket to a new era of first-world prestige and economic success. Needless to say, such a rosy future failed to materialize. Even less time has passed since the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, but as these photos show, Beijing’s abandoned venues will have plenty in common with those of Athens in a few years.

And while Brazil looks forward to its own 2016 bid, the Brazilians already are getting a preview of what will become of all those Olympic venues. The World Cup stadiums, built just last year, are already massive white elephants, as Business Insider recently showed. One massive stadium functions as a parking lot for buses. Several more simply decay in the humid Brazilian air.

Who benefits in the long run? Step forward, among others, Lord Coe, who is still competing for positions on international sporting bodies. Nor must we forget Dame Tessa Jowell who has not done badly out of her role and is, at present, the favourite to become Labour's Mayoral candidate.

An odd take on Ukrainian events

The Ukrainian situation at present is both complex and somewhat opaque, the latter meaning that it is not clear where any of it is going. The general opinion seems to be that Putin has won against the EU and the West in general though that requires some qualification.

In the first place, it is not entirely clear what an EU would have consisted of. Presumably, the initialling of the trade and closer co-operation agreement, which would have given very little to either side. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, membership of the EU was not and is not on offer.

Secondly, winning "hearts and minds" by a combination of a huge bribe that the EU could not possibly top and blackmail over energy supplies works in the short term but trouble is not simply brewing, it is there already. Those demonstrators in Kiyiv may not know exactly what they want or how they are going to achieve what they might think they want but they do know what they don't want and that is closer relations with Russia. The fact that there is a very large minority in Ukraine that makes up almost half the population who do want closer relations with Russia and are suspicious of the EU makes that country an unreliable ally for all, including Russia.

Thirdly, Ukraine is largely dysfunctional and the EU already has dysfunctional members. No more are needed. The problems need to be sorted out by the Ukrainians themselves with possible help from the West but that help would be limited. Of course, moving more definitely into Russia's orbit means that the country will remain dysfunctional but signing that agreement with the EU would not have made any difference from that point of view.

In other words, the whole situation is a mess and Putin's victory is Pyrrhic at best. Indeed, some people might say that it is time he started paying attention to what is going on in his own country, especially after the horrific double explosions of Volgograd that follow on a number of other explosions and terrorist acts throughout the year. (Whoever is responsible for what happened yesterday and today, they were still terrorist acts.)

Having said all that, I do find it slightly odd that a school of thought is developing that calls all this something of a diplomatic success for the EU. Andrew Rettman outlines the sequence of events, which ended in Yanukovich and the EU mutually discarding and reviling each other but, curiously, he also says:

The EU this year lost a battle for Ukraine, but nobody is laughing at its soft power any more.

More like sneering, I'd say. The one thing we can say for certain: neither in Ukraine nor anywhere else has EU soft power achieved anything in the last year (or any other year). That Ukrainians do not want to be in the orbit of President Putin's dysfunctional, lawless and bullying country is not much of an achievement for the EU as nothing very much seems to come out of that.

Meanwhile, Leonid Bershidsky speculates on the Bloomberg site as to why President Putin has been so laggardly in his response to the terrorist outrages in Volgograd when other heads of state and government managed to make statements of condolence and condemnation almost immediately. One imagines that when his statement is made it will be tough and full of nasty language. Also, if past experience is to go by, any suspects will be killed by the security services before they can get anywhere near a trial.

Belatedly ...

...One London's consistent criticisms of the Olympics and predictions, all of which, including the loss to businesses, lack of tourists and even empty seats, have come true are being supported and voiced by at least one former Conservative member of the London Assembly. At the time One London was attacked for its negative attitudes.

Oh and while we are on the subject of money, would it not be a good idea to explain who exactly paid for the free Oyster cards across 9 zones issued to all Olympic event ticket holders?

Lasting Legacy - part 3,765

To listen to some people, especially politicians and their acolytes but some others as well, you'd think this was an event that happens about once a century and the world has changed beyond recognition after the two weeks that have just passed.

Errm, no. Olympic Games happen every four years and each time they are claimed to be the best ever, assuming that not too many people get disqualified (the process has just begun), not too many people get killed (only one unfortunate cyclist this time) and they finish on time. The world has not changed despite so many unexpected British medals and despite the weather more or less obliging. Britain is no different from the country she was two weeks ago and the world has not suddenly noticed that this strange little group of islands exists.

Der Spiegel thinks that the Olympic Games gave Britain a much-needed boost, presumably because uniquely of all countries in the Western hemisphere Britain was in the doldrums. For some reason particular praise is extended to what sounds like a spectacularly naff and ridiculous closing ceremony which affirmed beyond any question that British culture consists of pop music and one or two TV programmes with Eric Idle of Monty Python fame representing cultural history.

The Evening Standard has been hysterical about the Games for the last two weeks, occasionally interrupting itself to bring the odd piece of bad news. What I should like to know is how its own readership has done. My impression is that far fewer people have been reading the Standard in the last two weeks and far more copies are left in piles on stations at the end of the day. But getting accurate figures from newspapers these days, especially the freebie ones, is past hoping for.

Today we were told that the rush for the Paralympic tickets is on. If true (a big if) we might find ourselves in the odd situation of having seen empty seats at Olympic events and none at the usually far less popular Paralympic ones.

Then, of course, there is the obligatory story of the Olympic afterglow that will give the West End shops a boost. They will need it in the light of the losses they must have made in the last two weeks when they were half empty. So far the rush was not very visible whereas the pre-Olympic one, which, I see, was slipped into the article in a rather sly fashion, was. We all noted how many people were in London in the weeks before the Olympics and how few during them. Will the promised £250 million "afterglow" be sufficient for that and for the undoubted emptiness during the Paralympics? We shall see when the Q3 results come out.

What else? Well, Amol Rajan tells us that the spirit of 2012 will revive the Big Society, an idea whose time did not come last time round and is not likely to do so now. I understand that the various embassies in London studied the PM's confused burblings on the subject and produced reports for their governments. We shall definitely need to have a look at them if the idea is to be revived.

Patience Wheatcroft thinks that the Olympic success has bolstered Britain's self-confidence enough for the country to get out and seek out new markets beyond the eurozone. This woman is supposed to be our leading economic commentator and has, for that reason, been given a peerage by the admiring Prime Minister. Yet, she appears not to have noticed that Britain has always, throughout her history, had markets beyond what might be called the countries of the eurozone.

In fact, even according to official statistics that are usually skewed by the reluctance to separate out the Rotterdam effect or to analyze lost opportunities, Britain's main export market is now outside the EU. Not just the eurozone but the EU as a whole and it was all done before the Olympics.

Incidentally, I have been told quite seriously on another site that Britain coming third in the gold medal count will mean that the world will now take us seriously. Are we not all pleased that this historically, politically and economically insignificant country has finally been placed on the map?

Never mind all that. What are the real aspects of the Lasting Legacy?

To start with, Lord Coe is getting a new and exciting job complete with his own quango, I've no doubt. Figures of how much it will all cost have not, so far as I can make out, been announced but perhaps the TPA will get on to that subject. He might even become the President of the one of the world's most corrupt organizations the IOC, which has temporarily been proclaimed by our media as the greatest of all great organizations whose aim it is to save the world from ... well, just about everything.

Meanwhile, David Cameron, obviously frustrated by the feel-good factor that has accrued to Hizonner the Mayor, called together another World Hunger Summit, which will get rid of world hunger as part of the Olympic Legacy. Well, to be absolutely precise it will squander huge amounts of taxpayers' money on more summits and meetings, transnational organizations, good will visits and aid handed over to the bloodthirsty kleptocrats who prevent the Third World from having any kind of economic development, which is the only way hunger can be overcome.

Well, that's two legacies. What are you complaining about?

Lasting Legacy - part 2,368

One of the stupidest parts of the pro-Olympics propaganda was that it would create a "lasting legacy" of greater sporting activity in the country. I should have thought one look at many (though not all) of the spectators would suggest that maybe people who watch sport are not always the ones who do sport. As for the ones who care only about a medal count ... just don't get me onto that subject.

I am completely in favour of children and teenagers doing sport, preferably in some sort of organized fashion. Of course, many of the sports clubs for them had to close because they had been funded by the government and the money was diverted towards the Olympics. Still, there are schools or there used to be schools. Sadly they no longer do much organized sport in the state sector because teachers do not like to stay beyond their allotted "teaching hours", because teachers are afraid of being sued over possible injuries or hurt feelings when somebody's little darling fails to win something or other and because the bureaucracy around sporting activity is nightmarish.

The Cleggeron Coalition, specifically the Minister in charge, one Jeremy Hunt, last seen laughing his head off at the woes expressed by London's business community, have decided to deal with the problem. No, they are not going to ease the burden on the heads with regards to bureaucracy. Goodness me, no. That would mean shutting whole departments of civil servants down and maybe even the odd quango. Can't have that. What they have done is to say that heads, teachers and parents can now decide not to do any organized sport at school if they cannot be bothered with the bureaucracy and whatever else. That should sort it.

A rant about the forthcoming Olympics

Readers of this blog and of EUReferendum in the past (not to mention the One London blog back when there was a One London group in the Great Glass Egg) know that I am not and have never been a fan of the London Olympics. All our dire predictions are coming true but that does not mean anyone will listen next time either.

Here is my rant on Taki's Magazine.

I always knew it would be a disaster

No, not those riots by spoilt teenagers but the London Olympics. Everything one hears confirms the view I have held from the moment the possibility of London getting them appeared on the horizon: the whole affair will be a disaster. An expensive disaster that we shall be paying for in the decades to come.

Today the Evening Standard informed us that not only the roads will be unusable because of the "Chaika lanes" for half-witted sports personalities, their attendants and Very Important People like politicians who will be rushing there to watch whatever the performance will be but we shall not be able to use the tube either because the system will not be able to cope with the pressure. Well, of course, it will not be able to cope - it cannot cope with the average rush hour even now. How many times have I said this only to be assured that it will be all right on the night or the two weeks in question? Apparently, I was right and so were all others who said that this would be a disaster for London. Go figure.

They've kept this one very quiet

I have no bone in this fight. Nothing on earth would induce me to go anywhere near the 2012 Olympics or to watch any of those events on TV or to listen to any accounts of it on the radio or on the computer. I am aware, however, that there is a certain amount of discontent about there being no preferential treatment, as far as the extremely expensive tickets are concerned, for the local population either in the immediate geographic vicinity or the country as a whole.

This came up during Starred Questions in the House of Lords on Thursday. Lord Addington asked a question about the Olympic Games and during the subsequent debate Lord Howard of Rising asked:

My Lords, could the Minister say what action has been taken to ensure that genuine sports fans can obtain tickets for the 2012 Olympics as they have been able to in Vancouver?

To which Lord Davies of Oldham replied:

That is a very important point. We are concerned about the affordability of tickets in order that all can participate in the Games and not just thowe who can afford the sometimes very high prices at certain major events. We will not be able to do exactly what the South Africans did because the World Cup allows the country to dictate its own terms for the sale fo tickets. We are governmed by Olympic rules - the International Olympic Committee - and we cannot give favours to British people over Europeans because of our membership of the European Community.

Well might noble Lords say "Oh!", the strongest expression of shock allowed to them in the Chamber. Lord Davies then tried to shift his ground:

And therefore we are concerned to have a large number of tickets at a low prices, as it was quite clear from the planning for the Games that that will encourage the fullest participation of our people.

The damage was done; he had admitted the truth. Whether HMG can or cannot encourage the availability of tickets at a low price there is no reason to suppose that it will encourage "the fullest participation of our people" since there can be no discrimination in favour of "our people".

Well now you know.

Out there

In Ireland they are counting with results expected around 5.30. At the moment the word that the voting was heavy on the yes side. This may be true but if so, I am a little surprised. Just what did the Irish hope to achieve? Maybe they just thought that if they vote yes, they will be left alone and not have to go through another referendum. I can sympathize with that. If, on the other hand, they believed those legally non-binding promises then they will be disappointed. If, in their disappointment they start complaining, I shall laugh.

In the meantime, let us look at the other big story: Chicago being kicked out of the first round of deliberations for the 2016 Olympics and Rio de Janeiro getting it. Getting the Olympics is a disaster for any city, as we in London know all too well. This is not hindsight - I was against it from the beginning and wrote a great deal at the time about that.

Brazil will not be able to organize or even finance it and somebody, maybe the UN, will have to weigh in to help, as the EU had to prop up the Games in Athens. That means American money and ours. So, one way or another the Americans will be funding it but, at least, there will be no trouble about it in Chicago and those empty structures will make Rio look like a large slum.

The really unnerving part of the whole procedure was the appearance of President Obama and the First Lady to plead Chicago's cause, only to be rejected almost immediately. This is seriously humiliating and one cannot understand what the POTUS and his advisers were thinking of when they put the prestige of the presidency on line without making sure that there was the slightest chance of Chicago winning.

One can only surmise that Obama still believes he has the magic touch and his appearance alone will guarantee success, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

While I rejoice for the people of Chicago (except those who were going to cream off the contracts and make large amounts of money) I cannot help agreeing with various American friends that this is not a good sign. We have reached the stage when even the IOC a pathetic, corrupt tranzi snaps its fingers in the face of the President of the United States.

One can be fairly certain that President Bush, whatever one may think of some of his policies, would not have risked presidency's and America's prestige in this stupid fashion.

There is an interesting discussion on Chicagoboyz.

PS There was one positive aspect to the Obamas go to Copenhagen movie: General McChrystal went over from London and actually had a chance to discuss Afghanistan with the Commander in Chief. Perhaps there will now be some kind of a decision on what will be done next.