Blog latest

Statement from Darren Johnson after David Ross resigns his Olympics position:

"David Ross continued presence on the Olympics would have turned 2012 into a laughing stock. There was no way there could ever be public confidence in the Olympics Budget as long as this man had his hand on the tiller. He had to go, but yet again it raises serious questions about Boris Johnson's judgement and his ability to put a competent administration together."

More from Dave Hill's blog here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2008/dec/09/blogpost

From the Guardian, John Biggs comments:
"Having now lost almost as many advisers as he's appointed, the serious questions about Boris's judgment show no signs of going away. There's no doubt this was a serious mistake by Mr Ross. But the greater error was from the mayor, appointing him to such an important position within his administration.

"The mayor and the Conservative party have put great faith in various City millionaire friends. Cases like this show that this faith is misplaced and their judgment lacking."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/09/boris-carphone-warehouse

The Liberal Democrats have now commented (from ToryTroll):
"David Ross has done the right thing in standing down but Boris Johnson should have seen earlier that the case for him going was overwhelming. Now the Mayor must urgently replace Mr Ross with someone more appropriate on the LOCOG board so that Londoners can be re-assured that the costs of the Olympics are being closely monitored."
http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2008/12/boris-johnson-to-stand-by-david-ross.html#comments

The Standard has now updated its report following Ross's resignation:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23598947-details/ Boris's%202012%20aide%20resigns%20in%20wake%20of%20s
hares%20scandal%20probe/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

I think it is sad that the 2012 Olympics, despite what ministers have told the public, will have little or no economic or social benefit, and instead will be just "a morale-boosting national party":

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Olympics_warning_of_little_benefit_to_Britain&in_article_id=428251&in_page_id=34

In December 2002, 'Game Plan, A strategy for delivering government's support for sport and physical activity objectives' was published by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit. It examined five types of benefits widely used to make the case for investing in large-scale sports events: urban regeneration; sporting legacy; tourism; celebration and culture; and wider economic uplift.

The report said; “There are several categories of benefit attributed to mega events by their promoters. .... We conclude that the quantifiable evidence to support each of the perceived benefits for mega events is weak. The explicit costs of hosting a mega event should be weighed very carefully against the perceived benefits when a bid is being considered, especially given the high risks attached. The message is not: ‘don’t invest in mega events’; it is rather: ‘be clear that they appear to be more about celebration than economic returns”.

"This was a robust report that showed why we should not bid for the Olympics but it was an inconvenient truth. Almost the moment the ink was dry, there was a volte-face," Stefan Szymanski, a professor at Cass Business School specialising in the economics of sport, told The Times. "The justification for bidding should have been based on evidence placed in the public domain. Instead key evidence was suppressed or ignored."

A significant body of academic research emphasising the negative impacts upon previous Olympic cities was ignored, even by the researchers of the 'Game Plan' report. The bid document was tainted by selective evidence, over-emphasising existing dereliction and promoting 'fantastic' benefits, which critically understated the overall costs.

Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Culture Media and Sport, (who will be attending the conference) was the leading promoter within government for bidding for the Olympic Games. She worked hard to build a consensus for the bid. The deal to proceed with the bid was clinched when the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, gave it his support. He said in 2008; “I didn't bid for the Olympics because I wanted three weeks of sport. I bid for the Olympics because its the only way to get the billions of pounds out of the Government to develop the East End. It's exactly how I played it to ensnare the Government to put money into an area it has neglected for 30 years.”

With the bid won the coercive apparatus of the London Development Agency and the newly constituted Olympic Development Authority gathered momentum. The preferred method, because it is the most profitable process, of development is a form of clear felling which demolishes most of the existing buildings and landscape. The list of our local amenities destroyed which will not be adequately replaced includes; hundreds of local businesses which depended significantly upon their inner city location for their added value advantage; over a thousand homes, including the largest cooperative housing estate in Europe; the cheap car parts businesses crucial to the transport economy of the local poor; significant areas of public open space and recreational facilities; one of the finest allotment sites in London, which was of historic importance; a unique annual spawning ground in the tidal River Lea for hundreds of Bream; hundreds of mature trees and the best cycle training track in London.

As the escalating real costs of the Olympic project have been reluctantly revealed the removal of hundreds of million pounds from the Lottery funding of grass roots social, sport and arts projects has been admitted.

For more informed criticism of the tragic folly of the 2012 Olympics see GamesMonitordotorgdotuk

Martin Slavin

My own remarks on the Dully Tele:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_singleton/blog/2008/12/09/the_morning_post