Let's go for gold

IT IS the greatest show on Earth - and it will enrich the life of the nation beyond measure.

It is a chance to dazzle the world with our organisational expertise; create a legacy of unrivalled sporting facilities; unite an entire nation behind our heroes; enthuse the lazy to take up sport and provide the springboard for regenerating areas of deep deprivation.

Given this, bidding to bring the Olympics to Britain for the first time in more than 50 years should be a dead cert. No other event provides such an opportunity to both make a worldwide impact and to bring widespread and long-lasting benefits. You only have to look at the way Sydney grasped its chance with both hands in 2000 to see how a city can make the most of hosting the Games. On a smaller scale, Manchester was a real winner at the Commonwealth Games last year.

But the Government is dithering over lending its support to bring the Games to London in 2012. And without Government backing, the bid is almost doomed to end in failure.

A committee of backbench MPs will give their verdict on the bid later this month, and by the end of the month the Government will announce its decision.

But the omens do not look good.

The committee's chairman, Gerald Kaufman, has already said it would be "madness" to bid for the Games, and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said it was important the Games did not become "a dead anchor".

At the forefront of the Government's mind are concerns that a campaign to secure the Games would prove expensive and lead to endless negative publicity.

And with the fiasco over the Millennium Dome still lingering, not to mention the chaos over the new Wembley stadium, putting Britain's ability to host major events to the test may not seem like a good idea.

There is also the very real prospect that a bid would prove unsuccessful in any case.

With Paris, New York and Moscow likely to be in the race - and Paris emerging as the front-runner - losing out would hardly cement Tony Blair's image as an admired statesman.

But, despite the drawbacks, a successful campaign could bring huge rewards, according to sport expert Dr Peter Warburton.

And you only have to look to last year's Commonwealth Games in Manchester for a taste of the riches on offer. Dr Warburton, director of sport at Durham University, says: "The Commonwealth Games was a huge success and it has left Manchester with a massive legacy of sports facilities, although whether we are using them effectively is another question.

One of the few 50-metre pools in the country is not being used for high performance swimming, but is now in 25-metre blocks for community use," he says.

The bid's supporters, who include London mayor Ken Livingstone, see the Games as a chance to regenerate a deprived community.

Against this, critics say the same number of jobs and business could be created for £500 million, small beer compared with the estimated £5 billion plus to bid for and stage the Games.

But for the competitors themselves, the key issues are not the costs and material benefits of the Games, but the pride of competing in your own country.

This is something Karen Dixon, a three-day eventer, has witnessed at first hand in four Olympic Games.

"It would be the ultimate, because you would have tremendous support and it would be a really prestigious event for all the Brits," she says.

While the Government may see lending its support to a bid as a high risk manoeuvre, derailing London 2012 leaves the Prime Minister open to the charge that he lacks ambition and chooses to play it safe rather than take a gamble.

Downing Street is said to have drawn up a contingency plan to counter accusations that it is letting down British sport, in the shape of £250 million to help elite athletes.

The Cabinet debates the issue on January 30. Soon after we will find out whether this Government is prepared to take a gamble, or prefers to play it safe?