As a senior researcher at the London-based Foreign Policy Centre from 2005 to 2007 I was involved in early exploratory discussions at the Foreign Office on the promotional or "public diplomacy" opportunities offered by the London 2012 Olympics. Received wisdom at the time was that the Games would provide a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity to showcase Britain to the world, and thus boost tourism, inward investment, and political and cultural capital.
Len McCluskey's suggestion of possible industrial action (Anti-cuts strikes could target Olympics, says union boss, 29 February) has sent a ripple of panic across the Westminster village, not least because such action is seen as a threat to this "PR" legacy of the Games. A London summer rife with demonstrating union members – or indeed anti-capitalist and anti-war protesters – is evidently perceived by some, including David Cameron, Tessa Jowell and Nick Clegg, as a major threat to this country's global image, and therefore national interest. How wrong they are.
Recent research has demonstrated that it is in fact very difficult to shape the way your country is perceived around the world, particularly in the case of a highly visible country like Britain. Simon Anholt, former vice-chair of the FCO's own public diplomacy advisory board, told the foreign affairs select committee in 2010 that "national images are very robust; they really don't change very much".
In trying so hard to manage the way Britain is perceived this summer, officials and politicians risk wasting their time on an ineffective attempt to make this country look like an Anglo-Saxon Singapore. The once encouraging noises from politicians about showing the world our diversity and creativity have been replaced with a desire to show that our pavements are clean and that we are all in bed on time. Even recognising the limits of public diplomacy, what better message could we send to the world this summer, at this time of anti-authoritarian revolution across the world, than that in the motherland of democracy constructive social protest and political dissent are thriving? Politicians misguidedly fear a commercial opportunity will be spoiled this summer. I fear that a different, much more powerful opportunity will be wasted.
Philip Fiske de Gouveia
Senior research associate, The Foreign Policy Centre
Len McCluskey, Unite's general secretary, points out our way of life is threatened with the Tory attacks on public sector pensions, attempts to privatise the NHS and cuts to public services. The fact that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have now joined in with the government's demands for pay restraint and austerity is, as Len says, sending the wrong message to trade unionists and lacks economic credibility. Instead of attacking Unite for seeking to outline how trade unionists can best defend jobs, wages, pensions and public services, they should be standing by our side.
The millions who struck on 30 November to defend public services, the thousands of Unite members who last week beat back construction employers' attempts to tear up long-standing agreements with up to 35% wage cuts, or the young campaigners who this week forced the government to rewrite their workfare plans – these people are an inspiration.
This government is weak. We need more strikes to stop employers and the government. Len is correct to start to raise a debate about the type of action we can take inside and, if need be, outside the most restrictive labour legislation in the advanced world. We look forward to Unite members across the public sector joining hundreds of thousands of trade unionists in co-ordinated strike action on and beyond 28 March to defend public services.
Ian Allinson Unite executive
Sara Bennett Unite executive
Phil Entwistle Unite executive
Martin Mayer Unite executive
Steve Miller Unite executive
Frank Wood Unite executive
Brett Davies Ministry of Defence and government departments, National industrial sector committee
Gill George Unite Health national industrial sector committee
Ruth Robinson Unite Health national industrial sector committee
Esther O'Hara Unite chair, Speech and language therapy advisory committee
Ged Dempsey Unite GPM national sector committee
Pete Gillard Unite London and eastern regional committee
Raymond Morell Unite London and eastern regional committee
Len McCluskey's comments throw a revealing light on the politically motivated and destructive leadership of the Unite union. However, I suspect his idea that the Olympics could be targeted for strike action is not shared by the vast majority of his members. He says it would be wrong to pretend "everything in the garden is rosy". Who's suggesting it is? But why destroy the hard work of hundreds of thousands of people in preparing for the Games; the effort athletes have made to compete; or the reputation of the UK? McCluskey harks back to when the country was the sick man of Europe and governments asked "who governs Britain?" I do not believe his members want to drag us back to the past.
Andrew Boff
Olympic spokesman, London assembly Conservative group
On Wednesday's front page we learn that Unite's leader thinks his members should take advantage of London's hosting of the 2012 Olympics, and take the opportunity to blackmail – sorry, "leverage" – the government. Turning to page 3 we have a half-page photo of some of the people risking their lives, working in heavy protective suits, to dismantle the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following last year's catastrophic earthquake and tsunami in Japan. It makes me ashamed to be British.
Jayne Wilkinson
East Bilney, Norfolk
Perhaps David Cameron might lead by example (Labour should return Unite cash, says Cameron, 1 March) and return the donations made to his party over the years by Barclays, RBS, Arcadia, Goldman Sachs et al.
Cathy Wood
Chiselborough, Somerset
Nick Clegg may claim to be appalled at the suggestion of strike action during the Olympics, but I suspect he is overplaying the nationalistic outrage in an attempt to deflect attention away from his government's attack on the NHS.
The Olympics themselves are likely to be a great deal more disruptive to people living and working in London than a few strikes. In fact strikers will probably be doing commuters a favour by giving them the excuse not to go into work on those days. Also, it might be a mistake to overestimate the amount of uncritical support that the Olympic event has from the public. The UK is hosting an extremely commercialised and corporate-friendly event, where everything is being done to satisfy the rapacious needs of business sponsors and corporate hospitality ticket-sellers, while ordinary folk and even some cash-strapped participants are left scrabbling around for a few crumbs dropped from the top table.
Basically, the Olympics is a gigantic marketing opportunity where the watchwords are not only the "spirit" and "spectacle" of competitive sport, but also the "greed" and "profits" of companies cashing in. Take the 100m final; in a stadium of 80,000 capacity, only 21,000 tickets were available to the public. The rest have gone to sponsors or corporate hospitality ticket-sellers who will sell the tickets on at a massive mark-up (one company JetSet claimed to have made £20m from the Beijing Olympics). With over 200,000 tickets (many focusing on the most popular events) distributed this way, claims by politicians that this is a great event for the "whole nation" could ring extremely hollow.
Joe Hartney
London