Mike Rowbottom: London's Olympic lobbyists dependent on Blair's political will

I can't be the only person to feel a little nervous about the Government's delay in announcing whether London should bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. What with all the other business filling Tony Blair's in-tray, I worry that the matter may get snarled up in the general confusion. "The Olympics – it's war.''

For the members of the British Olympic Association this unexpected hiatus is frustrating in the extreme. They've put the work in, the calculation, the lobbying. They've done their compulsories, and their triple salchows, and now they're smiling nervously at the edge of the ice looking up for the judges' marks and seeing only a blank space. They hope they've done enough but who can really tell?

After two extensive studies into the financial ramifications of a London bid, the second an independent effort by Arup Consultants, the BOA has felt able to claim that no bid has ever been more thoroughly researched in advance.

Pessimistic noises coming out of the Treasury appear to have been effectively muffled by the initiative of Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, who has committed the people of the capital to underwriting £1.1bn towards the costs. The mood of the Cabinet sub-committee that met on the day before the decision was due to be taken was positive.

And yet, as everyone concerned accepts, the final say-so will rest with Mr Blair. The Emperor's thumb will go up or it will go down.

Among the interested bystanders observing this tortuous process is Sir Bob Scott, who led Britain's last two Olympic bids on behalf of Manchester with credit but not success, although his efforts helped lay the foundation – in certain cases, literally – for the Commonwealth Games which was hosted by the city last July.

Scott is still in the business of bidding – he is currently heading Liverpool's quest to become Britain's candidate for the 2008 European City of Culture (think Beatles, Alan Bleasdale, Willy Russell, Simon Rattle, Wayne Rooney; they have to be in with a good shot). And Scott offers those steering London's potential bid one piece of advice: "You have to go into this not believing a word you are told.''

For years, as he travelled the world making his case for International Olympic Committee members to favour a British city that was not London ahead of the likes of Sydney, Beijing and Athens, Scott grew used to seeing smiling faces with a word bubble coming out of them which said: "Manchester has a great chance. Manchester can win the Games.''

I recall flying up to Manchester Airport in 1993, a few months before the destination of the 2000 Games was decided, in order to hear the then IOC president, Juan Antonio Samaranch, mouth words very similar to these before disappearing in a limousine to be photographed with classrooms full of hopeful children brandishing cheerful, painted banners, "Manchester 2000!'', "Manchester welcomes the world!''

The analogy of an unseemly beauty parade has been applied more than once to the Olympic bidding process, a parade in which even the most ugly entrants are allowed to covet the winner's sash and crown – that is, as long as they remember to espouse world peace.

As the old Olympic ringmaster stood in front of the cameras at the airport with his guarded body language and beady eyes, it was hard to resist the urge to shout out: "I bet you say that to all the girls, Juan Antonio!''

More recently, of course, Samaranch's successor, Jacques Rogge, has been equally encouraging to Britain – but at least his subtext, stressing that Britain must decide what it wants and go for it wholeheartedly – contains something useful as far as those championing the London bid are concerned.

So it is no use the Government finally setting aside its financial calculations and giving the bid a grudging assent. The IOC does not do peevish.

Scott sees the twin poles of the domestic case as being represented by Livingstone and Gerald Kaufman, the chairman of the House of Commons select committee which recently considered London's case. Even before his sub-committee met, Kaufman described the campaign as "madness'' – a phrase which some might feel indicated a less than open mind on the matter.

'"Kaufman says we are going to have a huge debt around our neck from the Games,'' Scott mused. "Livingstone just looks at the revenue of the Games against costs, and believes it will make a profit. But you are going to have debts around your neck after a Games because that's how you pay for infrastructure. And the moment you take infrastructure out of the Olympic equation, you make a profit.''

So in the end, Scott believes, winning the right to stage an Olympics and making a success of it rest on a simple but profoundly important factor – political will. Britain's Olympic destiny lies in its own hands. That is, of course, if you take Scott at his word.