I've assumed that the message we were supposed to glean from the ceremony was that the NHS is the crowning achievement of our history, and that it must remain under public control, largely from reactions on websites which conclude that Cameron cannot touch the NHS now.
But the Olympics are a manifestation of liberal, or neo-liberal if you like, international capitalism. Competition is a good thing, is the message, and a level playing field is vital. So the Olympics is a sort of physical GATT agreement. There's an inherent tension between dirigisme and liberalism at the heart of the event, the free market is present in the form of millionaire athletes, but the state is forced to intervene in the face of private companies' failures.
Each successive Olympics is more commercial than the last, and less communitarian, so collectivism is on the losing side, and has to fight back.
At the same time our national pride is under attack as developing nations' middle classes take up middle class sports. I've seen it at PBP, where it's not a problem because it is in a participative context. When we invest national pride in beating others, rather than taking part, we risk disappointment.
From the outside the opening ceremony looks like a justification for an economy based on popular culture, and health care provision along a certain pattern. There's a lot of uncertainty inherent in both those things. Can we afford the NHS? And can we make the internet pay?
