57% Lib Dem members say ‘Yes’ to London 2012

by Stephen Tall on June 16, 2012

Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 560 party members responded, and we’re publishing the full results.

It’s just 41 days until the London 2012 Olympics starts, so we tested the view of our sample of party members…

LDV asked: All things considered and with the benefit of hindsight, do you think London should or should not have bid to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games?

    57% – It should
    34% – It should not
    10% – Don’t know / No opinion

A clear (though not overwhelming) majority of Lib Dem members are, it appears, relishing the prospect of the fun and games to come. Here’s a selection of your really quite eclectic comments on this topic:

I’m a huge supporter of having the ambition to bid for and deliver big Prestige projects. Of course economic circumstances not ideal, but they may have helped with the delivery of the infrastructure well on time (and who predicted that) and within the (revised) budget!

The Games have become a commercial farce in which countries are blackmailed into huge expenditures for the sake of 2 weeks of sport. Now the Paralympics have joined this general corruption …

I think the jury’s still out on that, but if an opportunity opens like that, I could not blame Blair, Coe and others for taking it!

Can London cope? even the Tube is telling people to walk! It will be the Millennium Dome all over again – a shabby, tax-consuming show. Olympic “facilities” rarely bring social benefits afterwards.

Silly question really, as what is the point of bringing ‘benefit of hindsight’ into it? At the time it was right to bid, and who could have forseen with any real clarity the turbulance of the world economy – If everything was done with the benefit of hindsight, the whole world would just stagnate and whither!

I have absolutely no interest in the games at all, but they are a prestige event and potentially bring great kudos to the UK. The also improve sporting provision once in a lifetime. (or actually twice in my case)

Like too many other international sporting organisations, the IOC is a morally-corrupt self perpetuating elite

We knew at the time that costs would be 5x what Seb Coe was quoting. An honest bid would have been better.

It was very briefly satisfying to stick one on the French, but the experience of the last several Olympics shows the damage that hosting them will cause.

The chilling effect on protest and general security theatre is disastrous and what positive effects there might be on the economy are only being brought about by very distasteful practices (banning non-sponsor products, compulsory building on green spaces etc)

Good for London and to lesser extent rest of UK but London already benefits with much greater public transport investment per head compared to rest of UK

Would we really prefer to be looking at Paris now?

We’re too good in this country at saying we can’t do things.

It has encouraged investment and will encourage spending. It is the only Good News story around.

  • Over 1,200 Lib Dem paid-up party members are registered with LibDemVoice.org. Some 560 responded to the latest survey, which was conducted between 28th May and 1st June.
  • Please note: we make no claims that the survey is fully representative of the Lib Dem membership as a whole. However, LibDemVoice.org’s surveys are the largest independent samples of the views of Lib Dem members across the country, and have in the past accurately predicted the winners of the contest for Party President, and the result of the conference decision to approve the Coalition agreement.
  • The full archive of our members’ surveys can be viewed at www.libdemvoice.org/category/ldv-members-poll
  • * Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.