London 2012 Olymipics: politicians attempting to muscle in on Games already

Direction: David Cameron and Boris Johnson are likely to become more involved in the Olympics as the Games gets closer (Photo: REUTERS)

Tonight it is Prime Minister David Cameron's turn. Tomorrow Mayor of London Boris Johnson and the Minister of State for Transport Theresa Villiers will weigh in.

Yesterday the former sports minister Richard Caborn had a shot. Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander has been vocal too. Suddenly, and seemingly without any warning, the politicians have realised the country is hosting the Olympics next year.

Having outlayed £9.3 billion, exposed taxpayers to a further £2 billion in counter-intelligence and security for the Games, and sneakily allowed the London organisers to assail us with Olympic memorabilia that even includes corgis on Olympic pin badges so Locog can raise its £2.15 billion operating budget, government officials and politicians are muscling in on the act.

History has shown increasingly this will be the case.

As we approach the business end of the Games run-in – when the world's focus is suddenly upon the country in an alarmingly frank and microscopic way, the Government is quite rightly determined to capitalise on any Olympic opportunities and leverage them to the max.

But the political will won't stop at business boosts and how many visitors arrive to stare at Buckingham Palace.

Increasingly our elected leaders will want to be more hands on, have more direct lines of communication, more forensic control of what is underpinning the extravaganza that will see 120 heads of state, royalty and scores of global business leaders arrive to enjoy the sporting party.

Johnson has convinced Villiers  to help London's small businesses get ready for the Games, Caborn is concerned about the failure of a sporting legacy, Alexander wants the "Olympic spirit" to infuse other parts of the flailing economy. Cameron is in New York and will make a Games-related speech.

At previous Games, the Government's role has been more intrusive and inflicted earlier, than the London experience.

Before the Athens 2004 Olympics, Gianna Angelopoulos-Daskalaki, a Greek ambassador at large, was recalled by the Greek government to take control of the organising committee when preparations were faltering.

And during the scandal-riddled Salt Lake City 2002 lead up, the current US presidential hopeful Mitt Romney took over from disgraced leaders at the behest of George W Bush in 1999.

At the Sydney 2000 Olympics fears about getting things right prompted a state government coup of the organising committee six months before the Games.

The Olympics Minister Michael Knight put his man, David Richmond in as the deputy – but that second in charge reference was in name only. After the Games, Richmond, who had earlier been in charge of the Sydney equivalent of the Olympic Delivery Authority as well as Knight got the "gold" Olympic order.

The head of the Sydney organising committee Sandy Hollway had to settle for the silver order. Such was the vicious political scene at that time in New South Wales.

The London organising committee, led by the highly respected chief executive Paul Deighton and widely lauded chairman Seb Coe have advantages over other organising committees, in that the major Government agencies are currently politically aligned.

At the moment there is a Coalition government with a liberal Mayor of London.

During the planning stages there has been cross party support and a generous budget.

But now that all of those plans are starting to be put into operation, the numbers of political figures standing alongside the gloss of the Olympic Games is escalating.

How do we know? Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has already had his first two Olympic related briefings in the past fortnight.