The Paris 2024 Olympics looks to be overcoming its shaky start

There are some basic things a host city has to get right – under the close (maybe even oppressive) supervision of the International Olympic Committee. First it has to have its stadia ready on time to welcome athletes and crowds. 

Second, it has to move huge numbers of people around – in a taxpayer funded games, it is important that the games are well-attended and that spectators, organisers and competitors are all in the right place at the right time. 

Third, it has to do that safely – and the profile of the Olympics makes it particularly vulnerable to potential attacks.

And finally, it has to hope that home team advantage will boost national morale and create some sporting heroes (and that that perhaps will have some political pay-off)

Paris has built on some of the best features of London 2012

One of the features of Olympic Games is the transfer of knowledge between successive organisers – with the International Olympic Committee on hand to impose discipline. Our 2013 report on the London Olympics was designed to capture some lessons for future policy makers. 

Countries bidding for the Games have to show evidence of cross-party support – to ensure that politics does not derail commitment. In France’s case the Games were won under President Macron in September 2017 and are being staged with him still in office, albeit weakened by the recent elections and with the announcement of a new government delayed until mid-August. But in London that formal consensus was supplemented by the hard work of ministers to keep both opposition and parliament well informed and onside. 

One of the features of the Paris Games is the decision to use “iconic” sites. That follows from London, which used Horse Guards Parade for beach volleyball. The French are using the Games to great effect to show off Paris at its best. But they have taken the lesson to “limit innovation”, even further than London, and minimised new build – this means no big new athletics stadium which risk being a white elephant. Instead, the Stade de France is the centrepiece. That seems to have enabled Paris to deliver a much cheaper Games than London did. 

The then mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, used the London bid as a way of persuading government to invest in the regeneration of east London around Stratford. Similarly Paris has focussed new investment on the deprived communities of Seine Saint-Denis – the area around the Stade de France and the new aquatics centre. 

Traffic management is a nightmare when the Games are in a big city. Paris has managed this by shutting off much of the centre of the city to cars and – in contrast to London, which offered free travelcards with Games tickets and tried to persuade London workers off the Tube – has hiked Metro prices to price non-Games travellers. The city is swarming with what seems to be a much heavier police presence than in 2012. Volunteers in their turquoise outfits are ubiquitous.

And the French crowds are revelling in their Olympic success. The action at the athletics had to be put on hold when the whole crowd stopped to watch the swimming on their phones as local hero Leon Marchand won his fourth gold. 

There are lessons for the UK government too from London 2012

But it is not just those staging major international sporting events who can learn from London 2012. Twelve years on there are lessons for a “mission-led” government. It was a prime example of a project with a clear (and unmovable) deliverable which forced not only national government to work across its internal silos, with all departments doing their bit, but also involved coordination between national and local government and a range of external delivery bodies.

What was critical about those delivery bodies was that the excitement of being involved in London 2012 meant they could attract top talent who stayed with the project. Handovers were well planned and well managed. After the initial unrealistic budget was reset, the new budget and critical project milestones were managed and monitored in an open and transparent way to provide assurance that things were on track. The new government seems to be doing well in attracting talent to support its missions – it now needs to be clear what it expects them to do (and trust them to get on with it) and to understand where politicians can add value – and where they do better to stand back.

The final lesson we drew out from London 2012 was that being bold and ambitious can pay off. Civil service advice was not to bid for the Games – the bid risked being another flop like those for Manchester and Birmingham before, while the experience of London handing back the Athletics World Championship was scarring, as was the Millennium Dome. But the politicians – Tessa Jowell, Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone – saw the potential upside as well and decided to go for it, even if none were in power when the curtain raised on the Opening Ceremony.

Keir Starmer will be hoping that his government is still around to reap the benefits of success in his missions.