Friday, February 09, 2007

The Olympic con trick


This is an article I just wrote for Socialist Resistance:

At the recent meeting of the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne, Gilbert Felli, the Games’ executive director spoke of their concern that the bill for the London games in 2012 could be as much as £8 billion — compared with the original estimate of £2.375 billion. This overspend was totally predictable. According to the Auditor-General of New South Wales, the Sydney 2000 Games ended up costing over twice the pre-bid figures. In Athens, total costs was at least four times as high as the bid committee's initial budget.

The biggest financial impact is likely to fall on the voluntary sector which will lose an estmated £315 million as the Big Lottery Fund (BLF) will be "raided" to bail out the Olympics. This means, in practical terms, that the BLF won’t be able to fund any new programmes until 2013 and it would also have to make reductions of around £350 million in existing programmes. Sir Clive Booth, chair of the Big Lottery Fund argues this, "would have a chronic and damaging effect" on the fund’s mission to help charities and voluntary organisations. He added: "I don’t really see why all the wonderful good cause projects should have to subsidise the Olympics beyond what we have already done".

The alleged economic benefits of the Olymplics are also debatable, as the games further over heats the economy of London, to the detriment to the rest of Britain. For example, the Shetland Islands have just failed to find contractors interested in building a proposed £48 million High School project, depite funding being in place, because the major building companies are already fully committed to Olympic developments.

Ken Livingstone is saying this will be a Green Olympics, but these claims are rubbish. The Olympics will have a large and negative environmental impact. Most obviously, 50 mature trees will be felled in the Olympic zone located between Homerton Road and Stratford High Road, which incorporates the Bow Back Rivers. The river system of the Lower Lea which, according to the Environment Agency is very important in terms of its flood relief function will be destroyed with a network of concrete bridges and a large part of the waterways will be culverted, making the area much less sympathetic to wildlife. The Olympic stadium will rise to 50 metres and its shading effect on the surrounding land and waterways will be significant. A new 'park' is promised for after the Olympics, providing a greater amount of open space than now exists. This park will not be created until 2020 (8 years after the games), and meanwhile public amenity of the area will be lost. There are, as yet, no financial arrangements for the management of a new park, and no organisation has claimed they want to run it. By 2020, will anyone remember a park was promised?

But it is vitally important to also recognise that the ideology behind the Olympics is completely bankrupt, and of no benefit to working people. At its most blatant, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has admitted that £340 million will be channelled from the existing sports lottery distributors. So the Olympics will actually take money away from participative sport provision for ordinary people, and channel it towards elite professional athletes.
Already for the Beijing Olympics planned for 2008 UK Sport, the body that distributes funding under the World Class performance Programme is spending £57.5 million supporting just 320 elite competitors, plus a further £16 million to their sporting bodies. This Includes £600000 to support one professional weightlifter; £5.3 million for the equestrian team, £2 million for high diving, and over £1 million for the archery team.

The aim of UK Sport is to increase Britain’s Olympic medal tally. But note that the funding does not go towards sports where there is mass participation or even spectator interest. It is focussed onto activities where individuals can be groomed to produce maximum results. We will have the appalling spectacle of a flag waving extravaganza of national chauvinism, where the Queen and Prime Minister wrap themselves in the Union Jack; and we are encouraged to have a vicarious identification with elite athletes participating in sports that outside of the Olympic time none of us take any interest in, just because through accident they carry the same passport as us.

What is more, the training infrastructure and the development of sports science is much more advanced in the developed economies of the imperialist powers. So every four years the Olympics gives an opportunity for the great powers to ideologically demonstrate that their world dominance is underpinned by an implicit biological and racial superiority. This is one of the impetuses behind the prestige of holding the games – an orgy of conspicuous consumption that validates the host nation as a major power.

16 comments:

Louisefeminista said...

But also if you look at for example how much money the London Councils (formerly known as Associated London Councils) is pumping into the Olympics. Money that could be better spent on well, anything really...

This will have a dire impact on charities and the voluntary sector overall who rely on the BLF. MPs have stated that they think it is a VERY BAD idea the lottery is raided but whether Madam Jowell will take any notice as she is politically up sh*t creek re: spiralling costs. And something has to bail them out....

The London Councils is emphasising disablity and the Olympics and that cash will be set aside to make it more inclusive. Bit of a joke really when you consider projects will be cut left, right and centre including orgs. that campaigns and supports people with disabilities.

Louisefeminista said...

Oh and the London Councils blurb re: the Olympics goes like this..

"Helping deliver a lasting legacy from the 2012 Olympic games"

Lasting legacy..? Debt and that's for starters.

Why is there an obsession with "legacy"?
Reminds me of Blair and his desperate need to be remembered in history.

AN said...

But surely nit is right that the full financial burden should fall upon Londoners, as it was London that bid for the Olympics, and not the rest of the country?

Louisefeminista said...

I agree that the rest of the country shouldn't be hit but why should Londoners have to suffer either? I and along with countless others, I am sure, are against this thankless 2-week event.

It is a strange question you ask AN as majority of Londoners never had a say yet we are expected to pay for this bearing in mind some of the poorest people in society live in the capital city. Why should we pay?

AN said...

Well it was London's government that bid for it, which was elected by Londoners. Didn't Londoners have a vote for Ken, and for the GLA?

I don't think that Londoners shuld pay, instead the event should be cancelled, but given that the London government pitched for it, then they should pay for it.

Perhaps if that was the case ten cancelling the Olympics would be a serious issue on the next GLA elections.

AN said...

I am being a bit flippant by the way, but when Athens overspent, no one expected people in bristol, Cardiff, newcastel and Birmingham to pay for it.

So if London overspends then whay should people in bristol, Cardiff, newcastel and Birmingham to pay for it?

Louisefeminista said...

Yes AN, there was a vote for Mayor and GLA BUT so what. I didn't vote for any Olympics. It wasn't a big political issue but the Olympics have been endorsed by the national government as well. And maybe with the GLA/Mayoral elections coming up we should put it at the top of the agenda and make it a campaigning issue.

And what argument is that re: Athens? I am not even answering that flippant comment.

I agree it should be cancelled but it won't be. But hey, here's a thought...instead of ordinary Londoners paying for it (which you seem to endorse btw) what about big business paying for it instead 'cos they are the only winners in this sorry game!

They are making massive profits and it is only 2007.

Louisefeminista said...

AN: these arguments you use are class divisive 'cos you are in a sense blaming working class londoners that voted for Ken so they should pay for the screw ups, the vanity and the greed of the bourgeoise.

AN said...

Well I am being semi-facetious.

But a point rarely noticed is that the whole economy is run to keep London a financial centre, so the pound is overvalued for the benefit of stockbrokers and bankers, but at the cost of thousands of jobs in manufacturing. (From what I can see there is very little manufacturing industry left in London)

Yesterday in the indepenent there was an article about the london property boom, where for example a flat is for sale at £84 million!

So obviouly I don't think that working class Londoners should pay, but the relationshio btween London and the rest of England is an issue that needs more discussion.
Not only does the London economy need deflating, in the intersts of the economy of the rest of England, but the wealth differentials in London are obscene. You are absolutley correct that it is the rich and business who should pay for the Olymoics, but specifically it is the Capital based financial centres who should pay, not (for example) manufacturing companies in the provinces.

So I am raising the issue on a cheeky way, but there is an issue.

AN said...

And with regard to Athens, for those of us who come from areas with a string regional identity like the West Country (or Yorkshire perhaps) we have in some ways no more identification with London than we do with Athens.

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AN said...

BTW - yes i agre with you that it will hopefully be raisoed as an issue for the GLA elections.

IO think this may get dflected however by the Tories just balaming it on so called Labour inefficiency

Louisefeminista said...

AN: Well yes, then why didn't you explain your position in the first as it looked like you were honing in on WC people who happen to live in London punishing them for the sodding Olympics and please remember some of us live here out of economic necessity (I frankly don't wanna be in London in 2012!)

The buy-to-let scandal in London is ongoing and millions and millions are made off the backs of the poor. This has inflated and distorted the housing market and pushed up the housing prices so people on miniscule wages can't buy instead have to pay very high rents for broom cupboards! It is a case of being between a rock and a hard place.

Btw: do you think someone on a public sector pay scale can afford £84m for a flat...? First time buyer...

AN said...

with overtime perhaps?

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Louisefeminista said...

AN: "with overtime perhaps"?

Mmmmm. I haven't done the old mathematics but methinks pushing up the daisies will happen sooner than buying your brand spanking new pad...