One principle Boris Johnson has consistently applied since his election as mayor last May has been to keep interviews with the media to a minimum. Anyone who witnessed his inept performance on the Politics Show on Sunday (YouTube video here), as he tried to bluff his way through pointed questions about his role in removing Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Ian Blair, could only conclude that interviews with the mayor are likely to become an even rarer commodity in future.

Johnson repeated his ludicrous claim that Sir Ian had voluntarily decided to stand down rather than being forced out – an assertion reportedly dismissed by Blair himself in the succinct phrase “absolute s***”. The reality, to further quote Sir Ian’s reported remarks, is that Johnson “made it absolutely clear that he was determined to bring about a change of leadership, and in the circumstances I had no choice but to comply”.

At least in the Politics Show interview Boris spared us the equally bogus claim that he consulted widely before his final meeting with the commissioner that resulted in the latter’s resignation. In fact, there is no evidence that the mayor’s “consultation” extended very much beyond Tory Assembly member Kit Malthouse, his deputy mayor for policing – and now earning an additional salary as “full-time” vice-chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Indeed, if the Daily Mail is to be believed (see “Cameron kept in the dark on Boris’s one-man coup to oust Met chief Blair”, 4 October), Johnson didn’t even see fit to discuss this highly controversial and potentially politically damaging decision with the leader of his own party.

Moreover, the timing of Sir Ian’s dismissal – a matter of days before Johnson was due to chair his first meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority – was clearly intended to present the MPA with a fait accompli and pre-empt any debate by its members over Sir Ian’s future. As Len Duvall, Johnson’s predecessor as MPA chair, observed, it seems that Boris “simply appointed himself judge, jury and executioner”.

Despite being repeatedly asked for an explanation by Politics Show interviewer Jon Sopel, Johnson refused to offer any justification for ousting Sir Ian. In his speech to the Tory party conference, however, he gave us an insight into his reasoning. Echoing the language of Melanie Phillips and other hard-right commentators who have long campaigned for the removal of a man who represents the “political correctness” (i.e. support for anti-racist initiatives and multiculturalism) they so despise, Boris condemned the development of a so-called “grievance culture” among members of minority communities in the Met on Sir Ian’s watch.

One particularly revealing moment in the Sopel interview was when Johnson was confronted with the central charge that by forcing Sir Ian from his post he is guilty of politicising the job of Metropolitan police commissioner. Hasn’t a precedent been set, he was asked, whereby future commissioners will be hired and fired dependent on their political acceptability to whichever party occupies the office of mayor?

“Balderdash, codswallop, tripe, codswallop, absolute codswallop”, was Boris’s blustering response to a charge he described as “on the wilder shores of fantasy”. Presented with a statement by the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Sir Norman Bettison, that he has decided not to apply for the post of Met commissioner because he will not accept “political interference” from the mayor, Johnson was left shifting uncomfortably in his seat and clearly fuming that anyone should have the nerve to question his judgement.

The accuracy of the charge of political interference has only been underlined by Johnson’s proposal that the appointment of a permanent replacement for Sir Ian should be delayed until after the next general election – in the optimistic expectation of a victory for his own party – so as to ensure that the new Metropolitan police commissioner will be someone who meets with the political approval of an incoming Tory home secretary.

Along with other members of the Labour Group on the London Assembly I hold the view that the Met cannot be allowed to drift without clear leadership until May 2010, or whenever the general election takes place, and that the appointment of Sir Ian’s successor must, as with previous appointments to the post, be made exclusively on merit, not on the basis of party politics. I am confident that Jacqui Smith – and it is the home secretary, not the mayor of London, who has the constitutional authority to appoint the Metropolitan police commissioner – will reject Boris’s irresponsible and politically-motivated delaying tactics.

During the mayoral election campaign Johnson’s right-wing cheerleaders at the Evening Standard portrayed Ken Livingstone as an arrogant individual, corrupted by power, out of control, and unaccountable to anyone but a small group of overpaid political cronies. This malicious caricature of his predecessor’s administration increasingly appears to be an uncannily accurate description of the regime over which Boris himself now presides at City Hall. The role of Labour’s London Assembly members in reining in the mayor and his advisors, and making them accountable to the people of London, will clearly be vital over the next few years.

In his column this week in the Telegraph, the Mayor raises the thorny question that most political campaigners face when delivering election literature and one that clearly plays on his mind – how to avoid the dog on the other side of the letterbox.

My experience, for what it’s worth, is that the bark bears no relationship to size. Indeed, it’s the smaller dogs that cause more noise than their larger counterparts. Furthermore, they seem to be able to detect someone walking up to the door much better than bigger, lazier dogs. Personally, I’ve always been concerned by the number of dogs kept confined in flats and houses – for, while we consider ourselves an animal-loving country, the cruellest thing we do with them is keep them locked up all day. Thus it’s not surprising that many dogs get over-excited when someone approaches the property or knocks on the door.

The interesting thing is that Boris Johnson raises the issue at all in his august column, showing I suggest a wimpish response to a dilemma most postal workers have to deal with on a daily basis in their occupation. So I suggest that the postal workers of the UK send in their pearls of wisdom on this issue to the trembling Mayor here at City Hall before he goes off on another election campaign, reduced to a nervous wreck at the prospect of meeting another dog on his travels.

Amidst all the debris of the collapse of Anglo-Saxon finance capitalism, we only have one prominent politician on either side of the pond defending the spivs and speculators, and accusing their critics of indulging in “neo-socialist claptrap” – the mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Why should this be?

Well, firstly Boris is has a record of defending the indefensible, like a defence lawyer who knows his client is guilty as hell. Lord knows he has done this often enough in the past, both as a Telegraph columnist and in his former role as editor of the Spectator. His stance as an apologist for the Iraq war and as a climate change sceptic are two notorious examples of this. For Boris the defence of unpopular causes against the Left is probably an intellectual game as much as anything else.

He’s also a keen supporter of the City of London Corporation, an aberration in the governance of London, which is very much a relic from the medieval age. He forgets that much of the City’s recently improved performance is down to government legislation like the Big Bang at the end of the 1980s, and to competition in the form of Canary Wharf during the 1990s, both of which challenged the City’s monopoly over finance in the heart of London.

Finally, private equity and hedge funds were major contributors to his mayoral campaign earlier this year, so Boris has some favours to return. These extend beyond the field of journalism. For example, the co-founder of the private equity firm Englefield has been appointed by Johnson to the board of the London Development Agency, a position for which he will be paid £14,000 for a minimum of three days’ work a month. Lazarus gave two donations to Johnson’s mayoral campaign, one of £10,000 last October and another of £12,500 in February. Londoners need to be completely confident that the Mayor’s appointments are being made solely on merit. If donors to the mayor’s campaign are now being rewarded with paid positions in his administration it shows his promise to end cronyism was nothing more than empty words.

Capitalism is not going to go away – globally we are probably seeing the Anglo-Saxon form being replaced by Chinese state capitalism – but should we really be so reliant on financial services, as we have been for a number of decades in London, thus putting our eggs in one basket? Indeed an opportunity has now arisen, while the taxpayer “bails out” the banks, for us to demand more investment in the real economy, like green technology and alternative energy sources; a move back to mutuality and co-operative ideals in the mortgage markets; and more accountability on the part of financial institutions to the rest of us like getting rid of tax lopeholes, if we are expected to assist when the sector is on its knees.

Boris would be much better off arguing for these things during the present crisis than defending the indefensible.

Having been in Beijing for the whole of the very successful 29th Olympiad in August, and then attended the Urban Transportation Management Forum organized by the Shenzhen Municipal Government to talk to their Planning Bureau about the experience of congestion charging in London, during my visit of East Coast cities in China l was struck by the possibility of introducing congestion charging to Beijing itself. Such measures need increasingly to be considered in response to the necessity both to reduce congestion and also to improve air quality in Beijing, particularly after the successful short-term measures undertaken during the Olympics come to an end.

Certainly the clear blue skies at the end of the Beijing Olympics were impressive, particularly after the concerns expressed by some about the possible adverse effects of air pollution on the performance of top athletes. The latter of course did not materialize, as we saw 43 world records and 120 Olympic records shattered in the course of the Games. Credit here should go to the initiatives taken by the city authorities to improve the air quality in Beijing over the period of the Olympics, which has essentially been achieved by providing better and cheaper public transport and by implementing the car licensing scheme. The success of the latter has interestingly led to local people calling for the extension of the two-month odd-even license plate restriction that allows the city’s 3.3 million private car owners to drive only on alternate days. In the case of public transport Zhou Zhengyu, Deputy Director of the Beijing municipal committee during the Olympics, announced that the reduced ticket prices brought in for the duration of the Games would be extended for some considerable time afterwards. Remember that in Beijing there was a cut in the standard price of a bus ticket by 60 per cent for regular passengers and 80 per cent for students. And last October, the price of a single journey subway ticket was slashed by 30 per cent to 2 yuans. So, not surprisingly, as a result of the cheaper fares and traffic control measures introduced for the Olympics, the proportion of Beijing residents now using public transport on a daily basis is up to 45 per cent from 35 per cent.

The national government initiative since the beginning of September to raise taxes on big cars and reduce them on smaller ones, in order to save energy and cut pollution, will also contribute to improving the quality of life in Beijing. Owners of cars with engines above 4 litres capacity will have to pay 40 per cent tax, double the existing rate. The tax for cars between 3 and 4 litres will rise from 15 to 25 per cent, while those below 1 litre capacity will be reduced from 3 to 1 per cent. Furthermore, the tax move is a good first step for the country towards an energy-efficient and environmentally friendly economy, while helping to save fuel and thus increase energy security.

Yet Beijing will still be home to about 3.3 million cars, and the figure is growing by 300,000 a year. The only solution to this challenge is the continuous development of the city’s public transport system along the lines already implemented by the authorities, but with one addition – congestion charging that will ration road space by price, so that the marginal cost of an additional trip by a car owner will be paramount in their minds.

The geography of Beijing, with its various ring roads, would lend itself very easily to congestion charging. A congestion charge zone could be introduced within either Ring Road 2 or 3 at the beginning and then be extended outwards depending on the success of the scheme and public demand for it. As in London, in order to win public support, the funds raised from the congestion charge would have to be seen to be reinvested into public transport, and some exemptions or at least a discount rate might have to be granted to residents within the charge zone. Nevertheless, the scheme could be put into operation very quickly using simple technology like CCTV at the entry points off the ring roads and camera enforcement using a database of car licenses. (Though l understand there is not as yet a national database of car licenses in China, and l am unsure as to numbers of cars that move between the various cities of China, this should not be an insurmountable hurdle for the authorities to overcome.)

So l look forward to one day visiting Beijing again and seeing road congestion charging, or least another variant of road pricing, being implemented to improve the quality of life for Beijingers. This should be the icing on the cake, on top of the outstanding investment already undertaken by the authorities, and would be consistent with the Chinese national authorities’ focus on people-centered and scientific methods of development.

The spectacular Beijing Games of the 29th Olympiad, which l attended as a private spectator, were an enthralling sporting festival. Over 16 days we saw such dramas unfold in the Bird’s Nest stadium as the performance of the fastest man in the world, Usain Bolt of Jamaica. In the Water Cube pool we had similar outstanding performances by the US swimmer Michael Phelps with his personal haul of 8 golds, meriting a separate entry in the medals table on his own! This while the Chinese lost their “pin-up” boy Lin Xiang who pulled out of the 110 metres hurdles – the only real shock the hosts suffered as they emerged as a sporting superpower at these games. Let’s also not forget the huge success of Team GB coming fourth in the medals table.

So, in short, the Beijing Games will be remembered in years to come for the amazing sporting event that it was, as 43 world records and 120 Olympic records were shattered, rather than for the fireworks and theatricals. This is the first lesson amongst others to be drawn from the Beijing Games for when we host the next Games in 2012. Other lessons we need to learn from Beijing for London 2012 include managing the “IOC lanes” on the roads (reserved for International Olympic Committee officials and key sponsors of the games); air pollution measures; ticketing and touting; and the need to be hospitable to visitors.

As l moved between the various Olympic venues, Beijing seemed awash with Olympic lanes for the IOC officials and sponsors. Beijing has far more four-lane roads to meet such requirements than London, even though for most of the time the IOC lanes appeared empty. Here in London we will struggle to accommodate such lanes on our roads, particularly where we already have bus lanes. Thus it may be worth considering our bus lanes doubling up as IOC lanes, particularly in light of how little those in Beijing were actually used by officials and sponsors.

We should not forget that the major environmental issue of the Games was air quality, as it was in Athens in 2004, and in both cases it was suggested that the pollution would affect the performance of top athletes. The Beijing city authorities improved air quality by providing better and cheaper public transport, and by implementing the odd-even license plate restrictions that allowed the city’s private car owners to drive only on alternate days, as well as quite literally closing down the factories outside the city boundaries before and during the Games. Clearly the air pollution did not affect the athletes, as World and Olympic records were shattered, from the sprints to the marathon. And interestingly Beijing’s residents are demanding the continuation of such initiatives as the license plate system, so this truly becomes part of the environmental legacy of the Games. While London does not face the problem of air pollution to the same degree, it will nevertheless be a challenge to meet the EU requirements for air quality by 2010 and we should be mindful of how any slippage in achieving these targets may impact on our public image in relation to the 2012 Games, as air quality has clearly been established as the critical green issue over the past few Olympics.

Ticketing in Beijing clearly favoured foreigners, as the prices were pitched for local audiences yet were more readily available for those of us from abroad. Moreover, in the early stages of most events we did see many empty seats. This is not surprising as the level of interest in events clearly increases dramatically as we get beyond the qualification stage to the quarter-finals onwards. Some blame should be apportioned to sponsors not taking up their allotments of tickets; indeed it would have better if they had been given away instead. But we should be aware that selling tickets for 2012 at London prices will result in a great deal of demand amongst Londoners while making them unduly expensive for many foreign tourists, quite the converse to Beijing. In this respect some of our clubs have extensive experience of ticketing issues like pricing and distribution and we should get their advice and assistance. For example, it is no accident that Old Trafford, as one of the cheaper grounds in the Premier and with an extensive marketing operation, can sell 75,000-odd tickets every other week during the season.

As for the problem of ticket touts, interestingly the worst touts in Beijing were all foreigners who seemed to have an abundance of tickets, so not surprisingly when the authorities arrested and deported them this went down well with both locals and tourists.

And finally, now that we have taken the baton, we should acknowledge how well Beijing hosted the games. Londoners, like Parisians and New Yorkers, have a reputation for being short-tempered with visitors, particularly those of us like myself who live in Central London. Beijing, however, excelled in welcoming foreigners. It was as if the whole city treated us all like house guests, with most foreigners having tales of Beijingers reaching out to them with kind gestures. Furthermore, we probably won’t be able to provide anything like the huge army of helpful, smiling volunteers. But what London can offer instead is a mixing pot of variety. From the noblest arts to modern street culture, London has it in bags, along with a sense of humour and a great sense of occasion. Despite the difficult job London faces, nothing will stop me being in London for the 2012 Games.

The spectacular Beijing Games of the 29th Olympiad have been an enthralling sporting festival. Over 16 days we saw such dramas unfold in the Bird’s Nest stadium as the performances of the fastest man in the world, Usain Bolt of Jamaica. In the Water Cube pool we had similar outstanding performances by the US swimmer Michael Phelps with his personal haul of eight golds, meriting a separate entry in the medals table on his own! This while the Chinese lost their “pin-up” boy Lin Xiang who pulled out of the 110 metres hurdles – the only real shock the hosts suffered as they emerged as a sporting superpower at these games.

As for Team GB’s performance, it surprised everyone – none more so than the British themselves who are in a collective state of national shock. Finishing fourth in the medals table with 19 golds, behind only the Games superpowers, China, USA and Russia, is the country’s best performance for a hundred years.

Neither, mercifully, were the games affected by many doping scandals.

Yet the background against which Beijing staged the Olympics was dominated by fears of pollution, worries about security and protests about China’s human rights record.

Beijing bashers said that the air pollution would affect the performance of top athletes. This has quite clearly not been the case, as 43 world records and 120 Olympic records were shattered in the course of the Beijing Games. For residents there may indeed be long-term effects which are not apparent yet, but with initiatives such as the major investment in eco-friendly technology to process 90% of the city’s wastewater, Beijingers’ quality of life is improving on other fronts not noticed by the world.

As for security, we were thankfully spared any major incidents and as a spectator I certainly felt comfortable in all the venues and transport facilities that I used. Moreover, the security presence was not heavy-handed or actually visible to the naked eye. If anything, we were more anxious about what wars politicians were starting during the opening ceremony, when the eyes of the world were on China and not them.

With regard to human rights, even the Mayor of London stated that it would be deeply counterproductive to showboat and grab UK headlines at a time when China was opening up, and there was general agreement that the Games should be used to encourage understanding between China and the rest of the world. As the China Daily stated, the Games were a historic climax of three decades of China engaging with the world after a long period of defensive isolation. It should not be forgotten that it was China’s experience during the Opium Wars of the 19th century, waged by the West in the name of free trade, that helped close the doors in the first place.

At the same time, while China has had to open up as a result of hosting the games, it was unrealistic to expect the Games to achieve what world leaders have failed to do, and persuade the Chinese government to adopt the degree of liberalisation favoured by the West. A 16-day sports festival was never going to effect such a complete transformation of Chinese society.

It was also notable that those who wanted to impose a blockade on China in the name of human rights showed little interest in workers’ rights. The outdated registration law that deprives migrant workers in the capital of rights and benefits enjoyed by permanent residents, which is the subject of popular discussion on the streets of Beijing itself, has been ignored by China’s Western critics.

Comparisons with Berlin 1936, which some made at the outset of these games, are wrong. In many ways these Games were more akin to Tokyo 1964 and Seoul 1988, as we see not only a new sporting superpower arising but an economic one as well. So do not be surprised to see high quality manufactured Chinese brands like Haier, the household goods supplier, undercutting others in these markets; Li-Ning, the sportswear supplier challenging the global monopoly control of Nike and Adidas; and Chinese beers like Tsingtao and Yanjing on our shop shelves soon.

A similar development occurred after the Tokyo and Seoul Games when we began seeing high quality goods and services from Japan and South Korea, in contrast to their earlier reputation as manufacturers of cheap, low quality goods. But this time, I suspect, it will be done on a much larger scale.Among native Beijingers the grounds around the Bird’s Nest have already become more popular than Tiananmen Square. There is no doubt that with this stadium the Chinese have created an iconic building to represent their country in the 21st century, which will in time become comparable to the image of the Taj Mahal as a symbol of India. It will prove priceless in the years to come, as it embodies the emerging new China.

After having spent time yesterday in practically every Olympic venue watching the sporting dramas, and the success of team GB unfold, I made it back to the Bird’s Nest for some evening entertainment last night. It was certainly worth the effort!

The reddish glow in the sky above the stadium attracted spectators from miles around. There’s no doubt that with the Bird’s Nest, China has created itself an iconic building for this century that I would say could become in the future comparable with the likes of the Taj Mahal! It will prove priceless to the Chinese in years to come and is definitely money well spent.

There has been much very exciting drama within its walls during the Games so far. This has ranged from the disappointment of the host nation as their pin-up boy Liu Xiang pulled out of the 110m hurdles in the qualifying rounds, to the spectacular performance of the fastest man in the world Mr Usain Bolt from Jamaica in both the 100 and 200metre finals. When l first saw his 100 metre win it brought up thoughts of Seoul 1988 when Ben Johnson won and was almost immediately disqualified when tested for drugs. But in this case there is no taking away from the great success of the lightning Bolt of Jamaica. He has made a huge impact at the Games including breaking two world records and it was a joy to watch.

We should also not forget what Beijing bashers were saying about the air pollution in Beijing. That it would affect the performance of top athletes – quite clearly not the case!

Its dramas like and the stories yet to be told in the remaining few days which draw me to the conclusion that these games will go down in history, as we see China’s “coming out” party – an excellent sporting event that we will remember for a very long time. As well as seeing a sporting superpower emerging, I reckon we will also see them gaining economic success with Chinese brands like Haier – the electronics company – and Li-Ning – sportswear – on shop shelves sooner than we realise.

Well, the rain l was praying for certainly came down on Sunday night in a big way. I had not seen such a torrential downpour of rain for some time. Alas it has still not cleared the sky of the haze l saw as soon as I got off the plane at Beijing International airport, though it has made the place much cooler, which is of some relief to both athletes competing and spectators moving between the various venues. As a result many of Beijing’s iconic new buildings like the Bird Nest and the Cube, are set in a backdrop of grey skies and not brilliant sunlight which does not make the most of their eyecatching features. You can see that for yourself in the photo above of the Birds Nest where its greys almost merge with the skyline.

On the sporting front, the clear battle for top of the medals table is between the USA and China. The first major battle on that front came in the basketball on Sunday night. While the Chinese started well with their top star Yao Ming in fine form, the USA, with their president in attendance, clearly showed their superiority in the game they invented by winning at the end by 101 – 70.

China’s sporting success really began the day before when Chen Xiexia won the women’s 48 kg weightlifting gold, and it will undoubtedly be the first of many, many gold medals for them. The home crowds have been hugely supportive of their athletes and if anything the problem will be dealing with such high expectations all the time, which was the fate of some of their shooters on Saturday. That said and done, its clear to many that China will emerge as a sporting superpower at this Olympics and will in all probability be topping the medals table.

So in future we can look forward to the Chinese getting fed on a diet of sporting success at the Olympics and they will be the one of the countries to watch in London 2012.

In the meantime, it was a pleasure to be at the pool to see British success when Becky Adlington won her gold medal in 400m freestyle. This is clearly a boost to the team as all of team GB’s swimmers has got through to the finals and semis. Becky becomes our first gold medalist women swimming success for 48 years. All this in a session where the USA won the mens 100 X 4 relay by the closest of margins, quite literally just a finger tip from the French. Let the sporting dramas continue!

Finally surprisingly much of Beijing has the feel of other East Asian cities like Seoul and Singapore as much of the new infrastructure in the city appears not to be more then a decade old. Sure, it has plenty of history with the Forbidden City, Tiananmen Square and its hutongs, but huge investment has given it roads and subways much like it’s neighbours and the atmosphere is similarly relaxed – the only difference is the language spoken.

I arrived to a very hazy and humid Beijing on the day that China’s “coming-out ” party begins, wishing for some rain to break, as l meet up with some friends in an ex-pat bubble in the suburbs. This wish for some rain in the summer is not a dissimilar one for me to make on trips to South Asia during the summer particularly with this level of humidity.

Clearly we do not want any rain during the opening ceremony but certainly for all the athletics sake, abit of rain would not go amiss, helping to move the haze away. Indeed l understand this was attempted by putting silver iodide rockets into the clouds to force them to rain just before the games.  Sadly the haze has returned and something similiar will be needed to break the humidity as much as anything else like pollution levels.

In Athens in 2004, the Greeks were in celebratory mood right from the beginning of their Olympics as their boys had become European National Football Champions completely out of the blue, a few months earlier.  With the Chinese the focus has been more on the security of the games and getting their big night right with the opening ceremony rather then enjoying it but l’m sure that will come later on in the two weeks of sporting festivity that is the Olympics.

After seeing the ceremony last night, London clearly has a big act to follow but l have got to confess l find most openings rather naff.  So bring  on the sports as soon as possible starting with the basketball match between China and US on sunday night. Do not forget that Sydney 2000 had a similiarly impression opening but do most of us remember that in comparison to the very emotional Cathy Freeman winning the 400 m women race for herself and Australia. Now thats why l came on this holiday to see moments like that again here in Beijing and l am sure l’ll see them.

This week we learned that Boris Johnson has failed to intervene in a bid by Hammersmith and Fulham council to scrap all the proposed rented social housing units from a key development in Shepherd’s Bush.

I am stunned at this volte-face on the part of the Mayor in failing to insist that Hammersmith and Fulham ensure that a reasonable proportion of affordable homes are available in the development at Bloemfontein Road. By not intervening in the process the Mayor has effectively removed all the social housing units originally planned for this development – around 40%. It is directly contrary to Boris’ own words at the July Mayor’s Question Time meeting where he said that he would ‘certainly’ use his Mayoral powers to direct refusal of a development if he felt the application was ‘not achieving targets that would be for the benefit of London.’

This looks like a political decision on the part of Hammersmith and Fulham council – led by Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh, who sat on Boris’ Forensic Audit Panel. If this is going to be the Mayor’s future approach to such matters then I am extremely concerned about the precedent this could set for other key housing developments. Questions certainly need to be asked about the Mayor’s views on the value of social rented housing and whether he understands that for the poorest Londoners, shared ownership is still not an affordable option – we need to know what he is going to do to help this group.

It’s another example of the Mayor saying one thing and doing another. Despite his waxing lyrical at Mayor’s Queston Time on the need to protect London’s playing fields and open spaces, he didn’t stop his chums at Kensington and Chelsea selling off part of Holland Park School’s playing fields for development. If this is a sign of things to come I’m very worried.