From the Economist today:
'SMILE please. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is in town this week to assess London’s fitness to hold he games in 2012. The proposed budget S £2.4 billion, underwritten by the treasury but paid for chiefly by the poor through a lottery) and the disaffected Londoners, who are already highly taxed). The games might end up costing more, though: the latest estimates from the Greek government are that the Athens games cost €8.8 billion (€6 billion)— almost double the original budget.
London has some fine plans. But the three main arguments for the bid have holes. First, the Olympics would prove hat the city can hold a big sporting event. But, as Athens shows, a city has to want to boost its reputation very badly for the games to be worth it. Second, it would promote sport. Fine, but why not subsidise people who play sport, rather than those who watch it? Third, the games would force the city to fix its transport system and regenerate a drab bit of east London. But if this is worth while, why not do it anyway? Similar claims were made in Athens, where extensively constructed showpiece sites re already decaying.'