- 13 Nov 08, 09:06 PM
The day after London was awarded the 2012 Olympics in Singapore in July 2005, I was asked to research and write a book about the dramatic story of Britain's bid.
With my friend and colleague David Bond, the sports editor of the Daily Telegraph, I spoke to a series of key people involved in the campaign before we put the book together with London 2012's former communications chief Mike Lee.
I was, therefore, not surprised when Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell suggested this week that London might not have bid for the Games, had people known that a recession was on the way, though she now says her comments were misconstrued.
Judging by what I was told back then, it's pretty much true.
Despite the enthusiasm of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Cabinet was hugely sceptical about bidding in 2003. Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor, was worried about how the project would be funded, expressing his doubts to Jowell in a meeting that, we were told, was pretty stormy.
It was only after former London Mayor Ken Livingstone agreed a financial package with the Olympics Minister as they sat on the white sofas of her office in Trafalgar Square that Brown gave the green light for a bid.
John Prescott played a key role in persuading the rest of the Cabinet that a bid would be a positive thing for Labour. Many of the Cabinet were worried that the Olympics could be another repeat of the Dome. They didn't want that embarrassment.
Some of the influential people I talked to admitted that it really was "touch and go" whether the Cabinet would agree to a bid.
When I quizzed the Olympics Minister on Thursday about her comments, she was keen to talk about the positive side of the Games. She claims her comments were taken out of context and was clearly annoyed when I suggested she had made a gaffe.
There is no doubt her comments are unlikely to go down well in the Olympic world, especially at a time when the bidding campaign for the 2016 Games is gathering pace.
I know what she meant with them, but sometimes it is better to leave the past in the past, especially when the issue is purely theoretical now.
About this blog
Links to the blogs of all the contributors can be found below.
Subscribe to BBC Sport: Olympics blog
You can stay up to date with BBC Sport: Olympics blog via these feeds.
BBC Sport: Olympics blog Feed(RSS)
BBC Sport: Olympics blog Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Olympics headlines
Visit the BBC Sport website
Visit the Olympics index
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is a nonsense!
To paraphrase what I understand Ms Jowell has said: 'If we had known then what we know now we would have done things different - but I think that would have been a mistake because we can now see what the advantages really are.
How is this a gaff?
Personally I have little time Ms Jowell but one might think that you and your colleague from the [notoriously impartial] Daily Telegraph might have better things to do than whip this stuff up. There are plenty of difficult questions to be asked of Ms Jowell and the government on 2012; plenty of issues to be probed. Instead you've managed to get yourself tangled in a row about semantics whilst ignoring the clear intention of her remarks.
Stupid!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
1. The media is starting a drip-feed of these sorts of articles. Why? What good does it do anyone? If UK pulls out of this one we will NEVER host anything again. NEVER. Because we cannot be trusted. Picketts' Lock was a cock up on a small scale. This would be Nagasaki and then some....
2. The politicians said 'the Dome was a disaster'. It wasn't actually. The launch FOR THE PRESS was a disaster. Then the Press hate campaign went into overdrive so the politicians almost gave it away to Anschutz. He's making millions from it now. That tells you what you need to know about the Press. Stooges for private business interests, often foreign.
3. The same can be said about Terminal 5. They cocked up the opening. But it was a successful construction project and I've heard on good authority that service there is now superb.
4. Do we think that the press, en masse, need to be sent to see psychiatrists to answer one simple question: 'Why do you hate Britain so much and why are you working in this country if you can never stop attacking it?'
5. Do the Press believe that the health of the nation is promoted by never ending heart-throb, emotional-stringing sensationalism?
6. If not, when will they START PROMOTING HEALTHY LIVING RATHER THAN ENDLESS WHINING ABOUT THINGS WHICH PEOPLE CAN DO VERY LITTLE?
Complain about this comment
Can we please get rid of the London 2012 swastika.
Complain about this comment
It's a gaff in the sense that she is now admitting she was wrong and politicians never do that.
Lots of her colleagues were against the idea of a bid, with Brown worrying about funding even when times were good.
It's like not being sure whether to buy an expensive house, the loan for which will stretch your income to the maximum. Your 'other half' is against the idea but you go ahead anyway. Next day you're made redundant.
Complain about this comment
They are certainly celebrating in Paris at the minute.
Complain about this comment
"Some of the influential people I talked to admitted that it really was "touch and go" whether the Cabinet would agree to a bid."
Er, names please and dates when they said this.
Sloppy journalism doesn't belong at the BBC, I hope.
Complain about this comment
Paris can celebrate all they like, it's not going to magically give them the Games.
And if they want to a chance to have them again, they'd be better off focusing on what they did wrong rather than peering over the garden fence and sniffing disdainfully.
Complain about this comment
The Olympics have become an overgrown machine that bankrupts cities, leaving underused monuments to the megalomaniac ambitions of the IOC. It is time to rethink the whole show. It has become something that only rich countries can afford and even then they are struggling! The minister should have added that to her comments.
Complain about this comment
Dear Me!........When! When! When are people going to listen?
Olypmic cost are unrealistic? Is this the conclusion now?
We made this clear at the very beginning when Coe was ramming it down our throats since day one.
When Coe and his cronies did everything, but everything to stop the people from getting to the Olypmic commitee and telling them the truth.
We had the precedents already in place The Dome for one, for two our predecessors have never made any profits or benefit having held these games. I understand that even today a few countries are still trying to pay off the debts incurred by this nonsencial event.
Why is it only after the preparations and building have gone to far to stop does the truth come out.
Sounds to me like the WRONG people employed in the wrong jobs.
Has Hesletine apologised to the people for his Dome? I think not.
Has he even given back his peerage? No.
But we, the people have had to continue to pay for his decisions and subsequently his lifestyle.
Look....It's perfectly simple....If me Coca cola want to see people star jumping, bunny hopping and getting their bodies wet then let them pay for it in total and stop stiffing the people.
Complain about this comment
Re 7, you have to be careful before you accuse somebody of "sloppy journalism", my friend.
You are probably not aware of this but ministers, aides and other officials have to keep Cabinet confidentiality. That means that they are not supposed to discuss any debates which may have taken place in Cabinet with anybody else outside the Cabinet.
So it is far from "sloppy journalism" when a BBC reporter finds out what has happened around the Cabinet table. You have to dig hard to get that information.
And the last thing a good journalist then does is say from whom he got his information and when.
Many award-winning journalists I have worked with in newspapers and broadcasting in Britain and abroad can't say exactly where they have got their information from. The key point is that the reporters must be confident the information is accurate by talking to several independent sources.
They can't always identify those sources. That is life.
You may not like that but the one thing it isn't is "sloppy journalism".
Complain about this comment
"people star jumping, bunny hopping and getting their bodies wet"
Whilst you have a right to think the Olympics are a waste of space and money (fair point I suppose in terms of costs to the taxpayer) I tnink a bit of respect needs to be given to these athletes that earn very little and often don't actually achieved the highest success but work hard to train just to have a chance at their dream ambition.
Its a bit more than school sports day.
Complain about this comment
"They are certainly celebrating in Paris at the minute."
Yes we are.
[smirks]
"Paris can celebrate all they like, it's not going to magically give them the Games."
What on earth make you think that we ever want them now?
The whole point of our bid was that most of the facilities, including the main stadium, were already up and running which would have lead to reduced costs for everyone.
The IOC have priced themselves out of the market and we are certainly not going to bankrupt ourselves, à la Montreal, Athens, London & Co, for their sole enjoyment....
Complain about this comment
No the sloppy journalism isn't in the use of anonymous 'sources'. You're right - no journalist can reveal all his sources.
The sloppy journalism is in leaping to spurious conclusions and then publishing them as fact to sensationalise a story and mislead your readership.
The problem with blogs is taht your readership can feedback - if you don't like that - blogging isn't for you!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS