Who wants the Olympics?

We have seen the spectacle of the progress of the Olympic torch. The symbol of unity became the object of protest and demonstration. In the USA, after London and Paris, the torch disappeared from view for a long period when the route was changed suddenly to avoid confrontation. The procession to show it to the people became a private progress that nobody saw.

A January opinion poll for "Inside Out", and summarised by the BBC in early March, had some startling findings. Three quarters of us have no intention of attending, 73% of us can foresee no benefit to our own area and 80% said that the games will not inspire them to greater fitness or participation in sport.

Even within London 60% indicated that the games held nothing for them.

The projected cost of the games rises remorselessly. Original estimates of about £3 billion, or about £400 per household, have already been adjusted to £9 billion, and some observers such as the Taxpayers Alliance are thinking in terms of £20 billion or about £800 per household.

The TPA offers an alternative calculation. If the cost were spread over the 25% of us who will or might attend, they would pay about £1,600 each. They will be heavily subsidised in the event!

So are the respondents wrong? Will there actually be more benefit for them than they expect, - perhaps a swelling of national pride? Otherwise we shall be holding the games for reasons of (governmental) prestige and for a relatively small group who have hi-jacked the process.

"Government for the people, by the people, of the people." Certainly the last is true, the other two are more open to question.