Oslo 2022

[StefanMUC]

To be clear, it so happens that the bid committee chose a very popular gay choir for entertainment at their presentation tomorrow and a local newspaper wanted to make a spin on that. It'd be overly cynic to view it as machinistic propaganda.

Anything to cast a shadow on the Oslo bid...If there was a discipline "clutching at the thinnest straw and twisting it at the same time", I knew a hot candidate for the gold, at least in the women's competition.

[politician]

Indeed. First of all, the number of countries that can viably stage Winter Games is limited, new horizons or not. These are concentrated in only few regions of the world. Scandinavia is one of them and it will have been 28 years since that region (and country) hosted. In those 28 years, two other viable regions, although with different countries, will have hosted twice: East Asia and North America. It is only logical to consider goung back to that region after such a time span. Even more so when another region able to host, the Alps, is blanked out for a while.

I actually think most who consider Oslo as the fave here are much more favourable towards Kraków than some of those (sorry, injurious wording) militant Kraków supporters are towards Oslo. A bit of sense for reality and less presumptousness wouldn't go amiss for a certain few.

The Winter Games definitely suffer from a lack of viable host cities/states relative to the Summer Games, even if the Summer Games are typically more expensive and difficult affairs. However, there are still states that have appropriate climates that have never hosted the Games, summer or winter, and a some of these are capable of hosting games. Right now two of the three viable contenders (viablility, of course, being a matter of opinion here) are among these select few who haven't hosted but have reached the potential of hosting: Krakow and Almaty.

Oslo represents a particularly 'safe' choice - it's hard to see anything going wrong. It, however, is the capital of a previous host country and is not going to help further the games in terms of trying to broaden appeal to an increasingly global audience nor does it fit in with the general trend in activities and voting patterns within major international institutions (of which the IOC is not independent, at least in terms of underlying causes for contemporary trends) that are favoring developing countries and - particularly - the so-called emerging economies.

Krakow and Almaty represent more interesting, but viable, choices. No serious, obvious security threats exist with either, nor is either threatened with immediate criticism for the cost to the host city and country. Both face clear pros and cons. Krakow suffers from concerns about a dual-country games which makes the already difficult bureaucratic politics surrounding the preparations for any Games far more complex. It also remains a European country which is seen by many outside of Western cultures as being essentially no different from Europe (relevant insofar that international institutions have recently been showing the growing influence of developing countries - China has helped buoy the developing world to the point that it now provides more than half the global GDP and most of global economic growth now comes from developing countries; as the emerging economies continue to extend their influence, they are regularly doing so in favor of one another). Almaty is in an isolated region with an authoritarian government. It has a relatively small population despite its enormous geographic size and it has not yet become a serious 'Olympic Power' in terms of being a major competitor for medals.

Now, I do believe Oslo has the best chance at this point. However, if I were to assign percentage points to these three bids (I do not see Beijing or Lviv as viable) I would only give Oslo a plurality. I think that Krakow is a long-shot: if the IOC decides to go to Europe, then the games will be Oslo rather than Krakow. I believe there will be a push among those seeking a less Western-oriented Winter Games for Almaty (and I do believe there is a lot of demand for this as Asian countries with winter climates become increasingly wealthy and, therefore, increasingly likely to send serious athletic contenders to the Games). Central Asia is a region that has gone understudied and generally been ignored since the collapse of the USSR. While most of these countries have suffered from chronic political instability, economic stagnation and widespread oppression Kazakhstan has witnessed unparalleled growth. Kazakhstan is very close to being a true 'energy superpower' already, and within a decade its influence insofar as global energy politics is concerned will be on par with that of countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia. There are political motivations for many in the developing world - and for both Russia and China - to support a Kazakhstani bid and Almaty is actually a rathery beautiful city in a location that is ideal for hosting the Winter Games.

Honestly, I see this particular group of bids as being of special interest due to the dynamics of international politics at the moment as well as how the Olympic Games play into those dynamics. I won't write any of these three cities off as contenders, I can scenarios where each wins. Which argument, in fact, convinces the IOC and brings the games to one city rather than the others is what interests me - as do the implications.

[politician]

Everyone just needs to accept the reality that purely because of the age of the Modern Olympics, we are entering an era where there will be more repeat hosts. There are only so many countries and cities that make sense. Of course as a new horizon becomes capable it's wonderful to take the Games to new shores, but the search for new ground should not overshadow every other consideration. The Games are much more familiar now than they were last century. Each future edition is likely to differ less dramatically from its predecessors. At a certain point the focus must move away from the novelty factor and back to to putting on an enjoyable, world-class, international, multi-sport event.

I agree with your argument only to an extent, and I would qualify it by saying that it is much more applicable to the Winter Games than to the Summer Games. I can at least agree that the argument regarding an era of needing repeat hosts more often is probably true insofar as the Winter Games are concerned (though not the Summer Games). However, I question whether this is actually true at this point in time for the Winter Games. As globalization continues, and developing countries modernize in larger numbers and at increasing rates, the number of viable hosts will rise. The climate required for the Winter Olympics limits this, but not to a degree that there aren't capable countries that have an interest but which have never hosted. There are also several states that may not yet be able to host, but will at some point in the future. Right now two of the viable bids are from countries that haven't hosted and which do have the capacity to host the games - Kazakhstan and Poland.

And writing off new locales as mere desire for 'novelty' is rather simplistic and offensive. The Winter Olympics are dominated by the developed countries far more than the summer and have far fewer countries participate. The reason for this is obvious: most developed countries are north of the tropics while most developing countries are within the tropics AND winter sports, generally, are more expensive to get involved in than are summer sports. Thus, we are limited to Europe, Asia and North America for hosts and virtually all the hosts are already part of the developed world and are largely Western. This won't change significantly, but that doesn't mean the status quo is acceptable or desirable. Norway is an established winter sport power and will remain so; they can provide star power but I'm not convinced that is something that all IOC members see as a good thing. There is something to be said for giving the games to countries that have high potential for winter sports, that demonstrate an interest and which have the capacity to host the games. This is a means of getting more countries invested more seriously in the games.

All of this is to say that there are arguments to be made for and against the three viable bids. It is far to soon to say with certainty which will win and far too many factors can be construed as postives and negatives simultaneously. Oslo may be the most likely to receive the games, but Krakow's chance is very real and Almaty is a stronger contender than many seem to recognize.

[StefanMUC]

I do not disagree that both Kraków and Almaty are among the viable hosts. I think both will probably get to host within the next 20 years, but for 2022, Oslo really is the fave as long as they stay in the race.

[politician]

I do not disagree that both Kraków and Almaty are among the viable hosts. I think both will probably get to host within the next 20 years, but for 2022, Oslo really is the fave as long as they stay in the race.

I don't see 'really is the fave as long as they stay in' as much of an argument. The IOC members have many, varied and competing interests. There are many, many factors that will play into the ultimate decision and without real polls of the IOC members thoughts we have little to go on in terms of what is the favorite choice of the majority of voters. It's interesting to see the pros and cons of each, examine the interests of various factions within the IOC, look at the international politics involved in the decision, formulate different scenarios that get us to different winners but merely asserting that one city is the favorite so therefore they'll win isn't an argument worth having. i do agree that Oslo is most likely given the types of variables most typically viewed as important determinants, but that is very different from recognizing as a clear favorite that has no chance of losing. There are very real reasons why Krakow or Almaty could win and keep in mind, that if it is three bids we'll have two rounds of voting - if Krakow goes down first, how many votes does Oslo gain vs. Almaty? If Almaty goes down first, does that benefit Krakow more than Oslo?

[Pixie_Victoria]

And what's the matter, Vicky. The "moderate pragmatism" Honeymoon over already?! Lmfao! :-D :-P

Lol. Divergences on specific topics are always allowed. And the question of pragmatism isn't what's at stake here...

[StefanMUC]

I'm not a native speaker but "is the fave" does not mean "no chance of losing" AFAIK.

I appreciate your deep analysis and fully see your points, but also in other threads today, other members have challenged them and I'm not going to repeat their concerns here. I just want to say that it might well come down to IOC members thinking..."uff, that Sochi nightmare, the Rio uncertainties, the PC new territory in the nuke boy's backyard, the semi-senile Tokyo organisers sitting on a nuclear ruin...who will give us the least headache for 2022? A bid involving two countries, if even for just a few events? A bid from a country with an autocratic regime in the middle between the last two hosts? Or a country that provided us with the most spectacular and memorable Winter Games in living memory, if not ever (and btw, has bailed us out for these silly YOG 2016)? Ah right. Oslo then."

[politician]

I'm not a native speaker but "is the fave" does not mean "no chance of losing" AFAIK.

I appreciate your deep analysis and fully see your points, but also in other threads today, other members have challenged them and I'm not going to repeat their concerns here. I just want to say that it might well come down to IOC members thinking..."uff, that Sochi nightmare, the Rio uncertainties, the PC new territory in the nuke boy's backyard, the semi-senile Tokyo organisers sitting on a nuclear ruin...who will give us the least headache for 2022? A bid involving two countries, if even for just a few events? A bid from a country with an autocratic regime in the middle between the last two hosts? Or a country that provided us with the most spectacular and memorable Winter Games in living memory, if not ever (and btw, has bailed us out for these silly YOG 2016)? Ah right. Oslo then."

My interpretation of what you meant by 'fav' wasn't fair and I apologize for that. However, my underlying point remains - that I personally believe that Almaty will have more support than people appear to currently think. I also believe that Krakow is a very interesting competitor that doesn't seem as likely as either Oslo or Almaty (in my eyes) but could come out on top should Almaty loose out first and see most of its votes go to Poland over Norway.

I just do not see Oslo as a foregone conclusion and I think the race is much more competitive than many consider it to be.

The role of Beijing will be interesting, as well. Lviv is already a non-entity in terms of the politics of the situation (its loss could be seen as possibly helping Krakow, but Lviv's bid didn't live long enough to impact the political considerations at play to any significant degree), but there is no reason to think Beijing won't go all the way with its bid. However, Beijing simply doesn't stand a chance. And the Chinese have to know this; it's a means of justifying expenditures to further upgrade Beijing, to continue showcasing China's presence within the international community, the country's upcoming serious bids for future Olympic Games and - possibly - to wield influence as to the actual winner.

China's influence is massive, but Beijing isn't competitive right now for many reasons that others have enumerated on. But its presence can lead us to three rounds of voting before ultimately settling on a host. Since we're playing a zero-sum game China's loss, and it will be the loss of several votes as Beijing isn't going down without meaningful support. China has vital interests in Kazakhstan - Kazakhstan itself is a major battleground over which energy politics between the EU, Russia, India and China are playing out and China has not only invested enormous time and finances into the country, it's been doing everything it can to bring the Kazakhstani state under its influence. Yet, Russia has strong interests in the country too and recently got Kazakhstan to join the very trade union that has already helped end Lviv's chances of hosting the games. If it comes down to Almaty, Krakow and Oslo I believe the first round will see Beijing lose, but with a meaningful total of votes. Oslo will be on top, Almaty will be second and Krakow - I'm not sure how it will fit into the equation. But Beijing will drop out and, given that Beijing's votes will be from those whose interests lie in that direction and when Beijing isn't going to be king, it can at least try and make kingmaker. It, along with most IOC members not directly embedded in the developed world, will have a strong interest in seeing Almaty succeed and this could easily ensure a further round of voting where Krakow (?) ends up losing. But the choices remain hard - Norway is unique as it actually is not a member of the EU while Krakow is. IOC votes coming from those whose interests lay in Asia, Africa, the developing world generally, energy, etc. have no political incentive stemming from their own beliefs, let alone those they represent, to support Norway. Norway's independence relative to an EU member may be liberating in some ways, but it leaves Norway itself as a far less influential power at the international level. At the same time, there are many IOC members who will not want to see the EU - blamed by many for perpetuating the economic crisis and being inadequate to responding to the concerns of former colonies - once again receive the Olympics when a developing country could.

Thus, insofar as political-economic concerns motivate the initial and subsequent voters of IOC members, Beijing's remaining in the race won't lead to China hosting and the Chinese are well aware of this. The Chinese government is not going to bid for the games without reason, and they are savvy enough to know they won't win, so you have to ask what they gain. Most gains are domestic, but by accruing some votes in the first round China reinforces the view of it as a superpower, legitimates immediate growth in Beijing and helps establish its intention to host the games again by 2030. The votes in favor of it are going elsewhere when it loses round one and Almaty is the likely choice of the vast majority of Beijing-supporters. Assuming Oslo leads, this will almost certainly push Krakow out in the second round leaving Almaty and Oslo. The question then would be how many people on the IOC are going to have Krakow as their main choice and Almaty as their second, how many with Oslo as their second? Oslo's non-membership in the EU doesn't help it here - I'm not an expert on European politics regarding identity and public opinion. I'd assume Oslo would receive a majority of those initially supporting Krakow but the size of that majority (or whether it even is a majority) is very hard to assess.

[Athensfan]

I agree with your argument only to an extent, and I would qualify it by saying that it is much more applicable to the Winter Games than to the Summer Games. I can at least agree that the argument regarding an era of needing repeat hosts more often is probably true insofar as the Winter Games are concerned (though not the Summer Games). However, I question whether this is actually true at this point in time for the Winter Games. As globalization continues, and developing countries modernize in larger numbers and at increasing rates, the number of viable hosts will rise. The climate required for the Winter Olympics limits this, but not to a degree that there aren't capable countries that have an interest but which have never hosted. There are also several states that may not yet be able to host, but will at some point in the future. Right now two of the viable bids are from countries that haven't hosted and which do have the capacity to host the games - Kazakhstan and Poland.

And writing off new locales as mere desire for 'novelty' is rather simplistic and offensive. The Winter Olympics are dominated by the developed countries far more than the summer and have far fewer countries participate. The reason for this is obvious: most developed countries are north of the tropics while most developing countries are within the tropics AND winter sports, generally, are more expensive to get involved in than are summer sports. Thus, we are limited to Europe, Asia and North America for hosts and virtually all the hosts are already part of the developed world and are largely Western. This won't change significantly, but that doesn't mean the status quo is acceptable or desirable. Norway is an established winter sport power and will remain so; they can provide star power but I'm not convinced that is something that all IOC members see as a good thing. There is something to be said for giving the games to countries that have high potential for winter sports, that demonstrate an interest and which have the capacity to host the games. This is a means of getting more countries invested more seriously in the games.

All of this is to say that there are arguments to be made for and against the three viable bids. It is far to soon to say with certainty which will win and far too many factors can be construed as postives and negatives simultaneously. Oslo may be the most likely to receive the games, but Krakow's chance is very real and Almaty is a stronger contender than many seem to recognize.

You're misrepresenting me. I didn't describe all new frontiers as mere "novelty."

Of course there should be Summer Games in Africa as soon as Africa is ready to host them. Of course it's a good thing that finally there's going to be an Asian country other than Japan hosting Winter Games. I'm not dismissing any of those notions as mere "novelties." You exaggerated and polarized my position to create a launching pad for your own.

I think you're failing to acknowledge that there are TWO driving forces behind the desire to seek out new frontiers. The first is trumpeted loudly. It's an egalitarian desire for genuinely global Games. The second motivation may be subconscious, but I believe it is still at work. The IOC is worried about keeping the Games fresh and exciting in a world that seems to be changing faster than the Olympics are. THAT is where the notion of "novelty" comes in. And if you don't think it was part of the appeal of Beijing, Rio and Sochi then I think you're missing something.

As for 2022, the race is about the best host for 2022. The selection of this one candidate is not going to communicate the IOC's position on new frontiers or diversified hosts for all time. Every decision does not have to be made in context of what will appear most globally minded. There is a very subjectively determined rhythm to the progression of hosts. There's a certain sequence of juxtapositions that feels right. Sochi, Rio, PC, Tokyo, Almaty does not feel right. Sochi, Rio, PC, Tokyo, Oslo does. These are intangibles we're talking about here.

Frankly, I think the abundant verbiage is a bit of a smokescreen. This is not really much of a race no matter how much people want to spin it into one. That isn't to say that Krakow or Almaty are chopped liver. It's just that 2022 is not their time.

[petrpetr]

There are very real reasons why Krakow or Almaty could win and keep in mind, that if it is three bids we'll have two rounds of voting - if Krakow goes down first, how many votes does Oslo gain vs. Almaty? If Almaty goes down first, does that benefit Krakow more than Oslo?

Considering past votings we can predict ... nothing ;-)

[Pixie_Victoria]

Anything to cast a shadow on the Oslo bid...If there was a discipline "clutching at the thinnest straw and twisting it at the same time", I knew a hot candidate for the gold, at least in the women's competition.

You should focus on the topic and the ideas, not on the posters.

But about the subject itself now, this is of course just an operation of communication. No country is a heaven of tolerance, and it's a form of manipulation to want to appear this way.

I'm completely opposed to the russian laws that are untimely, backward, and wrong. I found the recent parallel drawn by V.P between homosexuality and pedophilia absolutely vile, and sickening. (but maybe forgivable as I'm not even sure he knows what he's talking about?).

But then again, it is completely useless to make a list of what the legislation says about it in each country; Norway may have a legislation that's a bit more advanced than some countries in that matter but it has absolutely nothing to do with how the population -wherever it is- views the topic. Again, I've met the most severely homophobic people I've seen in Denmark, another nordic country that tends to convey the same image of tolerance. A good friend of mine in exchange there like me, although very discreet and introverted kind of guy, was almost beaten to death by guys who just knew he was gay. Clean and proper blond guys , not even skinheads or thugs. On the other hand, there are countries that will have no problem with gay people even with a legislation that's not as advanced. One needs to use relativity and not fall in simplicity. The plague of homophobia is everywhere so yes, this attempt is delusive. It is more complex and maybe less handy than to see things in black and white, but it is reality.

I would add that this is related to another major issue for Norway; the surge and power of the far-right movement in this country. This issue has quite been left aside about the Oslo bid so far (including by myself) but this is something that will and must be taken into consideration for the 2022 decision. Norway now has the most powerful far-right party of Europe (in France, the FN only scores high at presidential elections, and has 2 / 577 MEP, 0 mayor, is not and has never been part of a government), and this is a problem that is persistent in this country. I don't quite think that is in keeping with the image of "heaven of tolerance" that it wants to give itself.

Only 2 and a half years ago, this form of extremism and movement of racial superiority took a tragic shape with the slaughter of A.B Breivik, killing 77 people in less than a couple of hours, and wounding 151 in Oslo. Raising the issue of extreme far-right movements in Norway, an issue that still hasnt been dealt with. On that dramatic occasion, it's also been recognized that the amateurism of the Oslo police cost the lives of extra victims, when it's been unable to arrest Breivik because of its slowness, before he made more casualties. A parallel issue was therefore raised here and it has a direct link with the hosting of the 22' games: the preparation and skills of the Norwegian police have shown their flaws on that occasion and that's a concern when it turns to the safety of the games.

Even not later than last summer, another far-right activist from Norway living in France, Varg Vikernes, was arrested by the French police for his neo-nazi activities; among other things, he was calling for the destruction of the Jews and their lobby, as well as that of homosexuals. This arrest was later proved to have prevented attacks he was about to commit on our soil (France has the biggest Jewish community of Europe if you exclude of course, Israël).

I wonder what these 2 people, the current trend they represent in their country, and their friends of the political far-right scene of Norway, think of the gays.

Again, I'm not against anyone and I m not even supporting anybody. I would just like to avoid excessive simplicity, in front of such marketing operations.

And also talking about issues because it is impossible to leave those on the side, and because we know this kind of matters are being taken heed of; for those reasons too, we should be free to talk about them.

[politician]

You're misrepresenting me. I didn't describe all new frontiers as mere "novelty."

Of course there should be Summer Games in Africa as soon as Africa is ready to host them. Of course it's a good thing that finally there's going to be an Asian country other than Japan hosting Winter Games. I'm not dismissing any of those notions as mere "novelties." You exaggerated and polarized my position to create a launching pad for your own.

I think you're failing to acknowledge that there are TWO driving forces behind the desire to seek out new frontiers. The first is trumpeted loudly. It's an egalitarian desire for genuinely global Games. The second motivation may be subconscious, but I believe it is still at work. The IOC is worried about keeping the Games fresh and exciting in a world that seems to be changing faster than the Olympics are. THAT is where the notion of "novelty" comes in. And if you don't think it was part of the appeal of Beijing, Rio and Sochi then I think you're missing something.

As for 2022, the race is about the best host for 2022. The selection of this one candidate is not going to communicate the IOC's position on new frontiers or diversified hosts for all time. Every decision does not have to be made in context of what will appear most globally minded. There is a very subjectively determined rhythm to the progression of hosts. There's a certain sequence of juxtapositions that feels right. Sochi, Rio, PC, Tokyo, Almaty does not feel right. Sochi, Rio, PC, Tokyo, Oslo does. These are intangibles we're talking about here.

Frankly, I think the abundant verbiage is a bit of a smokescreen. This is not really much of a race no matter how much people want to spin it into one. That isn't to say that Krakow or Almaty are chopped liver. It's just that 2022 is not their time.

I admit that I can be hyperbolic and distort other's views at times and to the degree I have done that I apologize.

I do not agree with the dichotomy you present in terms of factors driving the decision of a host city. You say that one factor is an 'egalitarian drive' - I generally agree with you on this, if a bit more cynically. The other you describe as the IOC's concern with keeping the games fresh and engaging. I agree that this, to, is a factor in the decision. However, these aren't the only two factors and the degree to which they, and others, influence the ultimate decisions of IOC members varies across time and individuals.

The determination of host city is made through a series of votes by a very unique group of individuals with an array of interests. Some of them will be strongly principled, using their interpretation of true 'mission' of the Games as the main determinant of how they cast votes. However, even among the most principled IOC voters there will be differences of opinion as to what the Games are really for as well as which candidate best meets current needs. The remaining voters will consider these factors, but they represent many interests and have many - these are individuals who have reasons to prefer City X over City Y and City Y to City Z and though particular motivators may be unique to the individual IOC voter there are patterns when it comes to voting for cities and their countries. Thus, several rounds of voting that involve one major city dropping out means that the votes of the looser are likely to go to the remaining contenders in a manner that is not random and favors one (or more) significantly compared to another.

I need to look more into the exact make-up of the IOC at present, but my understanding is that it - like many international institutions - is increasingly seeing members admitted that come from the developing world, which have interests and assets in regions not tied to Europe and the US in ways that wouldn't have existed a decade ago. Almaty is a powerhouse for one of the major up-and-comers and many interests in China, and those of Beijing, often line up with those of Kazakhstan. Norway is more disconnected from the international economy due to refusal to join the EU fully and due to structural changes while Poland is embedded within the EU which is seen increasingly by non-Europeans as an institution that has undermined global economic growth and ignored the needs of former colonies.

Tokyo, Beijing, Rio, Pyeongchang, Sochi... you asked if I noticed a pattern, but do you? Cities that are not distinctly Western, 3 from countries not considered developed and the others from states that developed through economic models that defied US neoliberalism. For 2020, Madrid was favored to take out Tokyo nut after the US went the votes skewed to Asia. Brazil took South America's long-standing desire to receive the games, which will only push cities like Santiago and Buenos Aires to push serious bids and lobby for more inclusive choices in host cities. South Africa is widely seen as 'will be as soon as feasible' and more cities from parts of the world ignored two decades ago are serious and well-designed. Doha has made compelling bids. Almaty's current bid is clearly realistic. And there are many other cities that can host the summer games, if not winter, in the developing world. Rio will create hesitation if not successful, but China was impressive. Singapore, Kualu Lumpur, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sao Paulo, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Istanbul, Durban, Montevideo... all could conceivably be serious contenders now. Within a decade or two we'll see Bangkok, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh, Mumbai, Manaus, Mexico City, Marrakech, Nairobi as real contenders. Those who see future prospects for cities from regions that wouldn't have been considered a decade are going to have an interest in seeing this precedent for 'new cities, new countries, new olympic potentials' continue.

[FYI]

You're not telling us anything new here. Many of us who been here to actually witness these bidding races over the years know already the fastidious ways of the IOC & the shear complexity of 100+ individuals come voting time. This is why most here can hold firm where we think the IOC is most likely to go for 2022. Many cited before the 2020 vote that "boring" Tokyo wasn't going to get the 2020 Olympics. But sure enough, that's what the IOC chose. Even before Munich pulled the plug on their 2022 bid, many were already crowning them as winners. Even Thomas Bach & a couple of other senior IOC officials were disappointed with their departure, not to mention the Swiss' exit, too. And now with senior IOC member Gerhard Heiberg saying that the WInter Olympics should "go back to basics", & this PR fiasco & cost overrun blowout that is Sochi 2014, the IOC would be inclined to continue one more "reliable" choice before talking the road to new adventures again.

[Gangwon]

Zero-sum game, colonialism, neo-liberalism... you really ARE a politician!

[ScholaOsloensis]

Oslo's non-membership in the EU doesn't help it here - I'm not an expert on European politics regarding identity and public opinion. I'd assume Oslo would receive a majority of those initially supporting Krakow but the size of that majority (or whether it even is a majority) is very hard to assess.

Firstly, your posts are appreciated:-)

I've seen you mentioned Oslo's, or rather, Norway's non-membership of the EU as a possible big factor several times.

I really, really doubt that it's a factor at all. Norway's a member of Schengen, and the european economic area through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and adopts all kinds of EU legislation. Whether norway's stronger or weaker within or outside the EU is a perpetual debate, but nonetheless, not very relevant for this bid race.

Those supporting Krakow would might want to see the olympics in a different region (from europe) if Krakow has made it clear they will try again.

[politician]

Firstly, your posts are appreciated:-)

I've seen you mentioned Oslo's, or rather, Norway's non-membership of the EU as a possible big factor several times.

I really, really doubt that it's a factor at all. Norway's a member of Schengen, and the european economic area through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and adopts all kinds of EU legislation. Whether norway's stronger or weaker within or outside the EU is a perpetual debate, but nonetheless, not very relevant for this bid race.

Those supporting Krakow would might want to see the olympics in a different region (from europe) if Krakow has made it clear they will try again.

Well, and this is where my ignorance gets in the way, I'm simply not clear as to who all is a voting member of the IOC and what the interests of those individuals are. Likely, EU membership doesn't matter much in terms of who Krakow's votes go to if it is voted out before Almaty. Neither Norway nor Kazakhstan are members, at most it simply means it is a non-factor. If Almaty goes out first, then their is the potential for things to get interesting. Oslo may appear the best choice, but I don't think there is much doubt that any of the current bidders (excluding Lviv) has the capacity to put on a decent Winter Games. Thus, I don't think Oslo automatically beats Krakow because Oslo has experience. Interests tied to Europe could very well lead some IOC members to vote in favor of Krakow over Norway - it may seem unimportant and unrelated on the surface, but Norwegian refusal to formally join the EU is not popular among the pro-EU parts of Europe's population and anyone with ties to pan-European nationalism (i.e. ties to most ruling political parties, those who have major business interests benefitting from an integrated Europe) may lean towards Poland as a 'first timer' rather than non-EU, traditional Norway.

Point is, I can see it going any number of ways and while I see Oslo as most-likely, I don't consider it to be 'much more likely.'

And - as a general comment - the IOC isn't a monolithic, unitary actor. It's individuals that comprise the IOC which will decide the outcome of the bidding process and while they will all likely follow basic IOC guidelines, the very fact that a country reaches the short-list suggests it meets the requirements to be a good choice of host. Thus, when it comes down to those votes it is the interests of those in the IOC - not the IOC as an abstract actor with its own interests - that are deciding.

[FYI]

That's just it. Considering all the variables, Sochi 2014, credible bid cities literally running away, etc, etc, Almaty (& Lviv) for that matter, aren't going to make the short-list, & these 'debates' will hopefully be over with by July. Doha scored higher than the ultimate 2016 winner, Rio, but the Qatari was excluded from the Short-list. Ditto for 2020. The Executive Board will see to it that only candidates that will protect their Olympic Brand the most continue on into the 2022 campaign. That's what they did with 2020, & I believe that's what they'll do this time around, too.

[ScholaOsloensis]

..

The progress party is not a "far right movement party". They are populists. Their main policy will always be fewer taxes, cheaper booze, more libertarianism (when it see their popular points fit) and less immigration. They're the party for people on benefits, pensioners, uneducated people that live in smaller, homogenous cities or suburbs. That's their social basis, supported by not only their rhetorics, observation of their members, but also more scientifically sound research.

The bid committee hired a gay choir. You apply the simplistic interpretation.

I don't really want to discuss Breivik with you, seeing as you're using a very tragic event (also on a personal level) to support a very strong viewpoint that in general has less to do with the arguments you bring forward and more to do with an extreme anti-scandinavian antipathy. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, it would be refreshing if you just said what you meant. The two sets of principles that one can infer from your arguments against Stockholm and Oslo are not consistent and points to an underlying guidance.

Though I want to say this, Breivik and Vikernes were lone wolves and both have experienced rejection from the milieus they tried to fit in to. There are few skinheads, neo-nazis etc here. Racists both here and elsewhere disgust me, as does also the progress party for a variety of reasons, xenophobia being one of them, but I would be careful about using the Breivik case to explain vastly more than circumstances around Breivik himself, even when there are important implications for society as a whole.

I hope my view points do not come across as creating a picture of Norway as heaven on earth.

[StefanMUC]

Well, and this is where my ignorance gets in the way, I'm simply not clear as to who all is a voting member of the IOC and what the interests of those individuals are. Likely, EU membership doesn't matter much in terms of who Krakow's votes go to if it is voted out before Almaty. Neither Norway nor Kazakhstan are members, at most it simply means it is a non-factor. If Almaty goes out first, then their is the potential for things to get interesting. Oslo may appear the best choice, but I don't think there is much doubt that any of the current bidders (excluding Lviv) has the capacity to put on a decent Winter Games. Thus, I don't think Oslo automatically beats Krakow because Oslo has experience. Interests tied to Europe could very well lead some IOC members to vote in favor of Krakow over Norway - it may seem unimportant and unrelated on the surface, but Norwegian refusal to formally join the EU is not popular among the pro-EU parts of Europe's population and anyone with ties to pan-European nationalism (i.e. ties to most ruling political parties, those who have major business interests benefitting from an integrated Europe) may lean towards Poland as a 'first timer' rather than non-EU, traditional Norway.

Point is, I can see it going any number of ways and while I see Oslo as most-likely, I don't consider it to be 'much more likely.'

And - as a general comment - the IOC isn't a monolithic, unitary actor. It's individuals that comprise the IOC which will decide the outcome of the bidding process and while they will all likely follow basic IOC guidelines, the very fact that a country reaches the short-list suggests it meets the requirements to be a good choice of host. Thus, when it comes down to those votes it is the interests of those in the IOC - not the IOC as an abstract actor with its own interests - that are deciding.

The question of EU membership is completely irrelevant IMHO. As you say, the IOC is not a monolithic block, nor are the IOC members from the EU. They will not vote pro-Kraków because Norway isn't a EU member. That's almost like saying the IOC will punish Rome because of withdrawing for 2020, an argument that has been brought forward here too.

[Pixie_Victoria]

The progress party is not a "far right movement party". They are populists. Their main policy will always be fewer taxes, cheaper booze, more libertarianism (when it see their popular points fit) and less immigration. They're the party for people on benefits, pensioners, uneducated people that live in smaller, homogenous cities or suburbs. That's their social basis, supported by not only their rhetorics, observation of their members, but also more scientifically sound research.

The bid committee hired a gay choir. You apply the simplistic interpretation.

I don't really want to discuss Breivik with you, seeing as you're using a very tragic event (also on a personal level) to support a very strong viewpoint that in general has less to do with the arguments you bring forward and more to do with an extreme anti-scandinavian antipathy. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, it would be refreshing if you just said what you meant. The two sets of principles that one can infer from your arguments against Stockholm and Oslo are not consistent and points to an underlying guidance.

Though I want to say this, Breivik and Vikernes were lone wolves and both have experienced rejection from the milieus they tried to fit in to. There are few skinheads, neo-nazis etc here. Racists both here and elsewhere disgust me, as does also the progress party for a variety of reasons, xenophobia being one of them, but I would be careful about using the Breivik case to explain vastly more than circumstances around Breivik himself, even when there are important implications for society as a whole.

I hope my view points do not come across as creating a picture of Norway as heaven on earth.

The progress party is not a "far right movement party". They are populists. Their main policy will always be fewer taxes, cheaper booze, more libertarianism (when it see their popular points fit) and less immigration. They're the party for people on benefits, pensioners, uneducated people that live in smaller, homogenous cities or suburbs. That's their social basis, supported by not only their rhetorics, observation of their members, but also more scientifically sound research.

and more to do with an extreme anti-scandinavian antipathy.

Though I want to say this, Breivik and Vikernes were lone wolves and both have experienced rejection from the milieus they tried to fit in to. There are few skinheads, neo-nazis etc here. Racists both here and elsewhere disgust me, as does also the progress party for a variety of reasons, xenophobia being one of them, but I would be careful about using the Breivik case to explain vastly more than circumstances around Breivik himself, even when there are important implications for society as a whole.

I hope my view points do not come across as creating a picture of Norway as heaven on earth.

You against me, eh...I have a feeling of deja vu (and not just here)

Yes...they're not far right , yet they "disgust' you and they're "xenophobic" ? That's a bit strange if I may say. They have the sympathy of A.B Breivik (as his manifesto shows), who has many friends within this party; when you read Breivik's views on homosexuals, I really don't know how you could deny the anti-gay stance of this extremist party. Btw, they also recently had the visit of their friends of the FN Youth, and his director - Julien Rochedy - as shown on his own twitter account, where he said he spend a nice time with his friends of the fremskritt. For everyone to know, Rochedy recently compared gay people to "spiders" . Nice acquaintances.

I don't have any anti feeling about anything or anyone...And it's not just about gay people, it's about extremism in general.

They weren't lone wolves, sadly. With a far-right movement that high in the country, it's highly revealing of a social problem. If killing 77 people (not 3 or 4, 77!) isn't a signal of emergency, then what is ? That wasn't an "incident". Acknowledging your society has a problem is a first step to curing it, you know....Blindfolding yourself isn't gonna help. Norway has a problem with it along with the secutiry one and those are factors we're in presence of in perspective of the 2022 process.

[Sir Rols]

Yeah, there are homophobes in Scandinavia. Just as there are in Paris or Berlin or Sydney or San Francisco. Good thing is ours aren't state sanctioned.

[ScholaOsloensis]

You against me, eh...I have a feeling of deja vu (and not just here)

Yes...they're not far right , yet they "disgust' you and they're "xenophobic" ? That's a bit strange if I may say. They have the sympathy of A.B Breivik (as his manifesto shows), who has many friends within this party; when you read Breivik's views on homosexuals, I really don't know how you could deny the anti-gay stance of this extremist party. Btw, they also recently had the visit of their friends of the FN Youth, and his director - Julien Rochedy - as shown on his own twitter account, where he said he spend a nice time with his friends of the fremskritt. For everyone to know, Rochedy recently compared gay people to "spiders" . Nice acquaintances.

I don't have any anti feeling about anything or anyone...And it's not just about gay people, it's about extremism in general.

They weren't lone wolves, sadly. With a far-right movement that high in the country, it's highly revealing of a social problem. If killing 77 people (not 3 or 4, 77!) isn't a signal of emergency, then what is ? That wasn't an "incident". Acknowledging your society has a problem is a first step to curing it, you know....Blindfolding yourself isn't gonna help. Norway has a problem with it along with the secutiry one and those are factors we're in presence of in perspective of the 2022 process.

Hm, all societies have problems.

No, the progress party is not a "far right movement" party.They are a right wing populist party that is all over the place, including more government spending, a very pro-Israel stance, christian values etc, yet at the same time cheaper booze, better roads and less immigration and many other things depending on which brilliant ideas enter their heads. I say they are not a "far right movement" to distinguish them from other european parties such as SD, which has its roots in neonazism. FRP (the prog. party) has its roots in neoliberalism and populism. That being said, it's very difficult to place FRP in the political landscape, due to the traditionally conflicting nature of many of their viewpoints, so that it's often labelled far right abroad is understandable. They are a populist, (centre-)right party with roots in neoliberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics , Here you can see how it's distinguished from "far right".

I can't keep track of what bad things and associations individual members of this party are responsible for, in france or other places, though I have to say, knowing you and what you've said about FN, I think you wouldn't only dislike them (frp).

Breivik tried to radicalize a local youth group of FRP, but he was rejected and spoke negatively of the party, saying it was too moderate and didn't "have the balls".

Uhm, my disgust of political or moral view points are not limited to far right parties. FRP is not SD. Yes, there's absolutely xenophobia among their ranks, especially among elder folks, which alone does not make it a far right party, which is an issue of political orientation, not degree of "evilness".

The progress party has had several openly gay politicians (and several scandals relating to these having sex with minors in the youth org, but I digress...) and they are now fighting for gay rights. Why? because it's become unpopular to do the opposite.

See article: http://www.nettavisen.no/politikk/article3628809.ece

What do you mean Breivik wasn't a lone wolf? If you have evidence of the contrary, I suggest you present them to the police which would be highly interested. The knights templar order he claims to lead is by all accounts imaginary.

Yes, Breivik killed 77 people. The scale of the crime does not change whether he was a lone wolf or not. Are you saying everything would be different if Breivik had only killed 4? I don't get your logic. Let's stick to the evidence. Needless to say, far right violence should be taken extremely seriously and be combated. Neonazi and far right movements in norway have been relatively small and disorganized. If you don't believe me you can ask various watch groups.

You and I both know very, very well, that it's not true that you don't have anti-feelings, a fact that I can easily support with evidence, though I will not. You shouldn't perpetuate that lie anymore, when it becomes so relevant for the discussion.

[StefanMUC]

I think it's downright disgusting to bring Breivik into the debate as an argument against Oslo. Especially when that comes from a poster who praised China's dynamism when Beijing was pulled out of the hat in November - the very China with state-sanctioned annual mass murder in form of death penalty. Or who advocates future US bids, a country - sorry, US members, that unfortunately also had its fair share of racial violence etc.

[FYI]

Well, what else can you expect from "pragmatic" Vicky. She's gotten so desperate & is now grasping at straws to try & further her "pragmatism" for "global Games".

-

[Pixie_Victoria]

Well, what else can you expect from "pragmatic" Vicky. She's gotten so desperate & is now grasping at straws to try & further her "pragmatism" for "global Games".

-

If security - or rather events that demonstrate flaws in security -, and surge of far-right extremism in a society aren't factors you'd take into account to determine whether to host games in a city, I think those are very serious issues and it should enter the debate and be raised.

No one needs to be desperate to see elements shadowing the oslo bid, they're just here for us to grasp. And I'm not the only one, so, no despair, dont worry.