Olympics 2012

I don't agree with people who think the recent report by Boris Johnson's new Olympics supremo has somehow significantly changed preparations for London 2012.

Johnson's spin doctors did well to get plenty of newspaper headlines about rising costs from the report, by Carphone Warehouse tycoon David Ross.

I don't doubt the business credentials of Mr Ross and he did well to produce a report on such a complex subject in just three weeks.

My problem is that it didn't really tell us a lot new. They won't say it publically, but I know my opinion is also shared in LOCOG, the 2012 organising committee, and in the Olympic Delivery Authority, the body responsible for building the venues.

The key subjects in the report - the costs of venues, security and legacy - are all issues which BBC London has been highlighting for a year now. In fact the legacy issue is discussed on one of my other blogs on this site. The influence of the credit crunch on the Olympic village has also been reported in the last few months.

The only significantly new element which emerged was the prediction that there may be an increase of £16m in the final cost of the venues. That works out at a possible 0.2% increase, the equivalent of about 20p for every £100 - hardly a dramatic rise if it happens.

Then the next day we had Boris Johnson casting doubt over the "memoranda of understanding", the deals done between the government and former mayor Ken Livingstone about who pays for the Games.

Boris even suggested on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that these deals didn't exist at all. They do, of course, and you can read them on the government's website. They also provide details about how any profits from the sale of Olympic land will be paid back to the government and London.

Of course the question of who picks up the bill if there are over-runs beyond the £9.3bn budget has been a key issue for some time. That's why in January 2008, I pressed Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell hard on the memoranda in an interview at the Cabinet Office. She gave a guarantee that Londoners would not pay any extra tax if the cost of the Games goes over £9.3bn. We've got it on camera.

Of course, that's not legally binding and another government minister of any party could go back on that promise. But it's about as strong as any government guarantee gets.

So when the mayor's office put out a statement the other day saying Londoners would not pay a penny more for the Games, it was hardly dramatic news. So why did they do it?

What is becoming clear is that Boris Johnson seems keen to break the political consensus which was so important to London 2012 during the bid.

That's fine and the Tory mayor has every right to question the Labour government. We in the media do it all the time. But his critics will say he needs to be more across the details of the project before he opens fire.

The positive thing about the report was that it did point to legacy as a crucial issue. This week Lord Mawson, the social entrepreneur who knows more about east London than most, will hold a seminar on the subject at the House of Lords. He wants a businessman to be given responsibility for the project and drive through change. I would hope to see Boris Johnson or David Ross there.

What's also positive about Boris is that he's not afraid of criticism. When I suggested he was using the Games for political means, he didn't run away from the camera. He stood his ground and argued his case.