On 25 May, 16:26, "Robin" wrote:

I think you'll find a fair few self-aggrandising Ministers (now former
Ministers) who wanted the games. *But if you, quite reasonably, don't
count them as people I do of course withdraw my comment.

You don't often find such people to talk to; few 'ordinary' people
seemed to want them. Personally, I have no interest whatsover in
sport, I have no objection to the games as such, nor to I object to
contributing a reasonable about to the cost via taxation; what I do
object to is the cost of the games. They just seem to have grown too
big. Six years of planning ang construction, at a huge cost, I can't
remember how much it was now, just seems out of all proportion for two
sets of games of a couple of weeks each. Why couldn't existing
facilities, with suitable ugrading where necessary, have been used?
Many countries cannot afford to host the games; should the full cost
fall on the host nation? Could there be a case for all countries
participating in the games contributing to the cost, enabling more
countries to consirer bidding to host them? London has already hosted
the games twice, one of very few cities to have done so; why should we
have them a third time?

For that matter, not many backbenchers or opposition MPs opposed the
bid. *But then no one was going to repeat the lessons of the Dome, were
they?

But that's about 650 odd people, a very small part of the population.