London 2012 < that phrase breaks the law (or what's wrong with the Olympics Part Two)

As I wrote previously, the Olympics can be a great cause for celebration of personal achievement my people striving to achieve the very best in their chosen sport or athletic event. As an advocate of capitalism, I’m not a supporter of the anti-capitalist protestors objecting to specific sponsors at the games. 

The patronising and precious attitude of protestors that having sponsors like Coca Cola and McDonalds means people will associate those brands with health living is insulting the intelligence of spectators and those at home watching the games. There wont be ads of Gold Medal winning athletes saying they did it drinking coke or eating McDonalds, but even if there were, then so be it. The do-gooding health bullies who want to restrict free speech because they think they can regulate, tax and berate everyone into eating and drinking as they want should just shut up. The simple response to sponsors whose products you don’t like is to not buy them or organise a boycott. Funnily enough had the Olympics actually come within budget as originally proposed by the government when it bid for the games, then it may be that sponsorship and ticket sales would have meant it broke even. The original budget being £2.4 billion excluding the external costs to related agencies, such as the Police. Now it is £9.3 billion plus those costs at around £2 billion, it’s easy to be cynical about the games from an economic perspective, but also desperate to maximise sponsorship to cover the costs.

You’d think that from my point of view, whatever it takes to get sponsorship is good. Well no. There is nothing wrong with granting the rights to be official sponsors, to use the logos and slogans trademarked for the Olympics. This, of course, is like any other event and any other corporate sponsorship role. Sponsors pay for certain exclusivity related to that which those organising the event have the right to sell. However, it goes a lot further than that here. 

For a start, Lord (Sebastian) Coe, Chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) has said that ticket holders to events wearing items of clothing carrying the brands of competitors to the sponsors could be prohibited from entering the events. He said it was “probably not” ok to wear a Pepsi T-shirt (Coca Cola is the competing sponsor), but “ok” to wear Nike trainers (Adidas is the competing sponsor). There has been some backtracking on that somewhat (only wanting to prohibit large groups engaging in “ambush marketing”), and frankly if all of that had been made clear when tickets were sold, then it would be fine. Yet it’s more insidious than this. 

You shouldn’t need to pass laws to host an event, but the Blair Government passed legislation, which explicitly prohibits unauthorised use of certain words. Typically, protection of sponsorship is about protecting trademarks and logos that you have registered or fraudulently passing yourself off as officially endorsed by an event. Existing laws are quite capable of doing that, but the Blair/Brown and Cameron Governments had been lobbied by the International Olympic Committee and sponsors to do more. So there are now officially banned words and phrases in relation to trade: 

“Using the words Games, Twenty-Twelve, 2012, or Two Thousand and Twelve, in conjunction with one of these words - London, medals, sponsors, summer, gold, silver or bronze - is also banned.” 

You can have a brief laugh at how this demonstrates that the quasi-authoritarian nanny-state approach to British politics, embraced by the Labour Party is now mainstream and uncontroversial among major parties. It is also illegal to take photos of the Olympics rings in public places to be used in publicity. This includes the taxpayer funded quarter million pound rings on Tower Bridge. 

To those who think the British constitutional monarchy system is a great guarantor of freedom, surely this shows it up for the emptiness that it is. The government has restricted free speech around the Olympics. Why? Well to protect the official sponsors, because they can’t possibly have a small local café selling muffins under a sign not using the logo saying “Olympic Muffins”.   Conversely, no airline other than British Airways can advertise "fly to London for the Olympics", which is patently absurd.

This overbearing, corporatist nastiness is exactly the sort of bullying that anti-capitalist protestors rightfully condemn. It’s not free market capitalism to pass laws so that sponsors don’t just register trademarks, but prohibit the use of general phrases and descriptions. So on that I’m with the protestors. 

 

How can any politician in the House of Commons hold his or her head up high and say it’s ok to pass laws restricting public usage of words that are NOT brands. I can’t say “Summer 2012” without it being seen as some insidious attempt to undermine the sponsorship of the Olympics.  To his credit, Mayor Boris Johnson has called overzealous policing of sponsorship as “insanity”, which should hopefully take the sting off the tail of cops who see new laws as a chance to grab some new criminals. Hopefully it means that some local businesses who have contributed in taxes for this grand event wont face prosecution for using words from common usage. He has pointed out the suburb of west London called Olympia and how absurd it should be if businesses around there with that name might be forced to change. Sponsors who use such laws to beat up on smaller businesses who are not using their logos and who are not claiming to be official sponsors should themselves face the opprobrium of the public. It’s not your language, taxpayers are the biggest sponsors of these Olympics. Just because you have convinced a bunch of lilly-livered politicians and gutless bureaucrats to pass laws to restrict free speech, doesn’t mean it is right. For if the Olympics has a spell of petty bullying from bureaucrats, Police and lawyers from sponsors forcing people to not use verboten words, then it deserves to be accompanied by moaning. Britain should no more be beholden to rampant corporatism, than it should be to rampant statism. 

Ironically, there has been one freedom granted - Sunday opening hours, which are currently heavily restricted for shops over a certain size, have been abolished for the period of the Games.   However, Britain doesn't have a Government sufficiently committed to economic growth to allow this to continue, as City AM's Allister Heath bemoans.

What's wrong with the Olympics? Part one - the economics

You’re going to see more and more hype in the next few weeks, as the world’s most political sporting event is held in London, and a vast wave of positive support will infiltrate the media, politicians and the event itself.

There is one good thing about the Olympics. It provides a showcase for the best in world athletics to compete and demonstrate the results of their hard work and training and be achievers. That is a good thing. The recurrence of this again and again, is a reason to smile. Opportunities to do this are special and remarkable.

Yet there is a lot wrong with it, so much I’m going to dedicate three articles about it.

• The first is on the economic cost
• The second is in the cost to individual freedom (and surrender to an authoritarian corporatist approach to sponsorship to fund the Games by "any means possible")
• And thirdly is a lesser important point, it is how the transport infrastructure in London has not been upgraded to cope, despite seven years of warning.

No business case

From an economic point of view, there was no “business case” for the British government to support the Olympics being held in London. It comes with a direct financial cost to British taxpayers including future taxpayers, a direct economic cost imposed on much of London, a subsidised platform for sponsorship and the self-aggrandisement and glory claimed by politicians.

The Olympics are political, they are a statement to the world by a country seeking to show off. I need not go through the list of recent hosts to demonstrate that. The previous Labour government bid for this event to try to show off, it didn’t do it for the economy.

£11 billion is the total cost of the infrastructure, hosting and the “regeneration” work undertaken related to the London Olympics. £2 billion is expected to be recovered from sponsorship, ticket sales and broadcasting rights, the rest is a transfer from taxpayers to contractors. Nearly £2 billion of the expenditure is in “regeneration”, code for government subsidised property development. The goal being to make Stratford (the main games site) into a desirable place to live and for businesses to locate (it now has three railway, two underground and two light railway lines serving it).  With the exception of Canary Wharf/Docklands, the evidence of government sponsored regeneration actually providing a catalyst to economic growth and jobs in the UK, is scant.

So financially, it will lose money.

What about the economy? Some economists would claim that this money will be returned in bucketloads because of the increased tourism and investment it will bring, except that this doesn’t bear close scrutiny.

I heard a story of someone in UK Treasury who told then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, that the Olympics would not create a net economic contribution to the UK economy. Gordon allegedly said “don’t worry, we wont win”.

London is already one of the most popular cities in the world for tourism. Indeed it bulges at the seams with tourists. There is evidence that the Olympics deter visitors who may otherwise have come. It brings athletes, who by and large, are not particularly high yielding tourists. It brings coaches, trainers, broadcasters and the like. It brings some spectators. However, it also scares off many others.

Moody’s produced a report saying it was unlikely that the Olympics will boost the UK’s economy. It claims the main sector to benefit will be hoteliers, with 90% occupancy estimated, although at this time of year London typically achieves 80% anyway. Given it was Diamond Jubilee year anyway it seems difficult to imagine that the extra numbers, if they turn up, will actually compensate for the for the taxpayer subsidy. In fact there is some anecdotal evidence that the numbers expected are NOT turning up. A quick look at Wotif.com for London in the next two weeks shows ample availability for hotel rooms with considerable discounts.


This is despite rather weak analysis from Lloyd's regarding the multiplier effect of spending, ignoring what people would have invested or spent the money on had they had it in their own pockets - (it isn't relevant that Lloyd's is a bank that was bailed out by the state and is now majority state owned).   Goldman Sachs says:

Goldman expects the Olympics will boost UK economic output in the third quarter of 2013 by around 0.3 - 0.4 ppt quarter-over-quarter (QoQ) (+1.2-1.6%qoq annualized), but this will be largely reversed in the fourth quarter.

Noting that the economic impacts of the Sydney Olympics were negative compared to the forecasts.

Economic impacts of the Sydney Olympics

The effect is more serious than that when you consider that London hardly has any spare capacity in its transport infrastructure to cope with the deluge of people for major events. The result is that thousands of businesses are telling staff to take leave or to work from home during the Olympics. The reason being that significant parts of the public transport and road networks will be close to gridlock. Business trips are being deferred because of anticipated queues at immigration entering Heathrow. With business likely to be deferred over this period, and those undertaking business facing real increases in cost due to overcrowding on roads and public transport, it’s notable none of this was taken into account in the glowing self-justifying “business case” for the Olympics from the previous government.

The so-called “legacy” is also grossly exaggerated. The Olympic stadium is likely to be offered to a football team (yet to be selected) to be used at a price less than the cost it took to build it, effectively destroying some taxpayers’ wealth. The regeneration of the Stratford area will be seen in property values, but this remains a fraction of the total cost to taxpayers.

Unfortunately, what’s insidious is that it is completely politically incorrect for the media to talk about this now – in the run up to the Olympics. Any major newspaper publishing articles about it would be seen as churlish and spoiling something great. No major politician dare say that which millions of people are saying – how can a country with public debt expected to reach 92% of GDP, which is overspending to the tune of 8.3% of GDP, with a PM who talks about a decade of austerity, justify pouring billions of pounds into a two week celebratory event.

Yes most people will watch some of it, and enjoy that. However, they would’ve done so anyway. Yes, there will be a sense of national pride (except from some Scots and Ulster nationalists) about the event, and some London pride as well, but didn’t the Diamond Jubilee provide that too? Wouldn’t there have been pride if the British Olympic team competed and won elsewhere?

So I’m not celebrating. My money has gone into this event (more than the average, given my income). I am betting the net GDP effect, in the long term, will be negative, as it has taken money out of taxpayers’ hands. People who would otherwise have invested or spent it better, and will have deterred almost as many visitors as it will have attracted. It will have imposed significant costs on London businesses unrelated to the games, by almost gridlocking the transport network.

In short, a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money.  It is a massive vanity project, and who really believes it will result in more than a short term boost to participation in athletics? Wishful thinking.

The Olympics should be left to profligate semi-authoritarian developing countries, willing to squander their national wealth on showing off, or by seriously commercially minded bids from cities that can demonstrate they can make money out of it, financially, without taking from taxpayers.

Let’s stop pretending the Olympics is an investment, it’s a legacy from a profligate, image obsessed former Labour Government, that is a commitment now. All that can be hoped for is that it goes off without a hitch, shows London in a positive light and that the property developed can be sold for the best possible price – and a lesson learnt to never ever do this again.

Olympic glory for NZ and British athletes

Well it seemed bleak earlier on in the week, when Togo had a medal and New Zealand didn't, but now a more respectable 21st on the medal tally as of the time of this post shows there is some excellent talent in the NZ Olympic team. Having said that, it would be nice for them to beat North Korea which is at 20th! (Though North Korea might notice its compatriots in the south in 6th place).

The British is also doing well, now in third place! Ahead of team from Australia, Russia, Japan, Germany - all Olympic powerhouses. Quite something indeed, although the teams from USA and China remain far out ahead, and undoubtedly things could change in the week.

However one side of the Olympics I haven't missed is the inane sense of nationalism that TVNZ puts upon Olympic medals - the notion that "we won". What nonsense.

I agree with Oswald Bastable on this:

"there is the collectivist bullshit about NEW ZEALAND winning- like every fat prick in a Lazyboy had anything to do with it...It SHOULD be about individual excellence. The teams sports can generally sod off, although events like team rowing and relays should remain."

The victories are for individual athletes achieving outstanding results against the best in the world. They are not victories for nations, races, ethnic groups, states and least of all governments. New Zealanders can cheer the medalists for their success, be pleased for them and support them - but "we" did not win.

However, don't expect any politicians to understand that - expect almost all of them to want to bask in the glory that should be that of the individuals concerned. Notice the few who wont.

Bush tells China before he goes there

Yes President Bush laid it into China, appropriately and respectfully, before his visit for the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics. However, the media has been largely quiet about it - no doubt because they almost all hate him and couldn't possibly cheer him for saying something that, if the UN Secretary General or Helen Clark had said it, they'd all cheer.

Bush said "we press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs"

Indeed. and...

"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings"

Who could disagree at all? Helen Clark wont say it though, she doesn't want to upset China.

CNN reports China's dictatorship predictably saying "We firmly oppose any statements or deeds which use human rights, religion and other issues to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries"

Yes, it is of course like saying that you can't complain to your neighbour if he is beating up his wife and kids, as it is an "internal affair". It is not an internal affair when people are being murdered for their opinions.

So Bush has done well, he has noted China's progress and welcomes close relations with China - that's more than the loud protestors on the left who were amazingly quiet when China went through its most murderous and brutal period of recent history, under Mao in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

The Olympics hopefully will be a glorious event, for the athletes. Some may bravely make a statement of protest against the authoritarian nationalist spectacle the Chinese Communist Party is trying to portray to the world, but regardless it will be a noteworthy event. China has come a long way, but it doesn't mean we should ignore what more it needs to do to become a civilised member of the world community.

Why the media is playing into the Chinese government's hands

It is difficult to determine how language develops when stories are covered by the media, but perhaps too many underestimate its importance. It is particularly important with the coverage of the Olympic torch relay, because whilst protestors are typically concerned about human rights, and the Chinese government's oppression of political opposition and free speech, the news media has characterised the protests as being "pro-Tibet". In smaller numbers have been those waving the flag of the People's Republic of China, and have been called "pro-China". The implications of these two phrases should not be underestimated.

.

The Beijing government is milking this coverage for all it can, playing the nationalist card. This card is particularly strong for Chinese, because, unlike Marxism (which has little genuine currency left in China or amongst Chinese worldwide), focusing on Chinese identity and implying that those who protest the games are "anti-Chinese" can foment a great deal of animosity. Yet I doubt if any of those protesting the games are anti-Chinese at all.

.

The protestors against the Beijing Olympics are variably in favour of greater political freedom in Tibet, some believe in Tibetan independence, but the overwhelming message is that the Beijing government should provide some outlet for Tibetan grievances to be heard or at least expressed. The phrase "pro-Tibet" implies the Chinese government is "anti-Tibet", which is slightly silly. The Chinese government happily hangs onto Tibet for a whole host of reasons.

.

The truth is more that the Chinese government is "pro Han Chinese" and, like most cultures around the world, does apply an element of cultural arrogance and patronising attitude towards ethnic minorities. In short, Tibetans should be damned pleased the Chinese Communist Party "liberated" China and has given them electricity, roads, hospitals etc. That is what Beijing is trying to sell, and with some justification argues against Tibetan Buddhist feudalism. Beijing's line on Tibet needs to be understood clearly for what it is:

.

- Tibet is part of China, always has been. If you argue for Tibetan independence the fear is that China will splinter as CNN reports Hu Jintao saying. Don't forget China was far from unified before 1949, and a China that is broken up is weaker than a unified one, well for those in power in Beijing anyway.

- Beijing believes, quite strongly, that other powers (Japan, USA and other neighbours) would support the disintegration of China, purely for geopolitical reasons. This is due to an inherent xenophobic view of the world burnished into Chinese political thought based upon experience with colonialism in Shanghai and Hong Kong and Japan's invasion and occupation. Beijing and the Communist Party in particular strongly believes the rest of the world fears and opposes a strong China, and that supporting Tibetan independence is one way of achieving this (the aggressive attitude towards Taiwanese independence has a similar motive).

- Beijing believes, with a grossly patronising attitude, that Tibetans should be grateful for rule from Beijing and what has been materially delivered to that rather cauterised province (historic Tibet has had a good chunk of its land incorporated into Qinghai province). As Tibetans are arguably materially better off than they were in the 1950s (which frankly wouldn't be very hard), they should be grateful and stop ruining a sporting event that China as a whole should be proud of. They want Tibetans to be conscious they are part of the Chinese nation, and isn't that a great thing.

.

So Beijing treats protests about Tibet as being a foreign inspired plot to weaken China, and its media is full of this line. Calling the protests "anti-Chinese" plays into its hands. This is why those who protest should acknowledge what the real problem is and the real solution - the problem is not China governing Tibet, it is its governance. That problem isn't just Tibet, it is all of China barring Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

.

The Chinese state media, which today has global TV and radio broadcasts, and multiple websites, is constantly portraying the protests as being "anti-China", and the lackeys who wave the blood stained flag of the People's Republic as "pro-China". Western media should abandon such terminology - nobody is protesting against the "Chinese nation" or "Chinese people", they are protesting the one-party state authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China. Unfortunately the protestors have rarely made that clear and coverage of them has not helped.

.

This coverage is why some protests have started emerging in the West that are "pro-Chinese".

.

So I call about protestors to abandon the calls for Tibetan independence. The call should be for all of China to have fundamental political freedoms. This means freedom of speech including freedom of the press, and for prisoners of conscience to be released. It is about allowing criticism of the Communist Party. It should also be about China stopping its support for Myanmar and Sudan's fellow dictatorships, and its sending of North Korean refugees back to almost certain death in gulags. However, one thing at a time.

.

The message needs to be loud and clear. There would not be protests against the Beijing Olympics if China's government opened dialogue with the Dalai Lama, opened up Tibet to the sort of freedom of speech that exists in Hong Kong, and stop arresting political prisoners. China is the third largest economy in the world if you don't count the EU as one entity, there is much to be proud of in raising its peasant economy to an industrial power - but in the 21st century many fear the Olympics will shine a light on all of this, while ignoring the executions, torture and oppression by those who rule China against those who oppose what is done to them. This message is blurred by those who paint this as being "pro-Tibet" and "pro-China". Nobody is anti Tibet or anti China, and those who are "pro-China" are actually pro Chinese Communist Party rule. If this was 1936 and Germans were flying Nazi flags would they be pro-German or pro-Nazi? China's government and many Chinese may not think there are parallels with the 1936 Olympics - but while China is ruled by a single party that executes those who challenge its rule, it is difficult to avoid the link. Not since Moscow in 1980 have the Olympics been held in a dictatorship.

.

In an age of soundbite news reporting is it too much to ask for simple slogans like "pro-Tibet" and "Pro-China" to be done away with and instead call them "Tibetan independence" or "human rights campaigners", and "pro Chinese government". Being anti Chinese Communist Party is not anti Chinese.