The to-and-fro of the 2012 Olympic Games’s accounting transparency (or otherwise) continues to be what old sportswriters used to call ‘a ding-dong contest’.
The to-and-fro of the 2012 Olympic Games’s accounting transparency (or otherwise) continues to be what old sportswriters used to call ‘a ding-dong contest’. The shrill voice of the government’s Olympic minister Tessa Jowell insists on allegiance to the ancient competitive adage that attack is the best means of defence, while the opposition retaliates with the charge that the Olympic Delivery Authority has lost control of the £9.3 billion budget — £9.3 billion! — and, as well, has no clue how much of the additional £2.7 billion contingency fund will be gobbled up over the next few years.
Last week the glitzy architects’ plans for the new stadium were unveiled (it looks drearily samey to me) and as the hard-hats begin to dig and scrape (and more developer fat-cats begin to lick their lips), I wonder if anyone has asked what elementary maths lessons can be learnt from the last time London staged the games.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in