One of the best things about our Olympic success over the past few weeks has been that it has put sport right back at the top of the Olympic agenda. The Team GB tally of 19 gold medals, and 47 in all, far exceeded expectations and reminded everybody exactly what The Olympic Games is all about. It also gave The London Organising Committee the perfect launch pad as host city for 2012.

I was lucky enough to visit Beijing as The Conservative Party’s Sports and Olympics Spokesman. It was my first ever visit to a summer Olympics and, given that we may be in government by the time The Games reach London, I wanted to see exactly what was involved. I should also add that the trip was entirely privately financed – at no cost to the public purse.

Given the sheer size of Beijing’s Olympics, it would be easy to be overawed by the challenges awaiting London. Quite apart from building the stadia, any host city has to cope with a huge influx of athletes, spectators and visiting dignitaries as well as hosting 28, or 26 by London, simultaneous world championships. However, I returned from Beijing excited by the possibilities and optimistic about the challenge ahead. That optimism stems from three main issues - the type of Games we are trying to lay on, the legacy and the sport.

In terms of the first, London cannot match the scale of Beijing – and would be wrong to try. The Chinese wanted to host The Olympic Games to make a statement to the world. They succeeded spectacularly but that is not the point of London 2012. Our games will be different. They will be smaller, more intimate and, I hope, with a much greater feeling of festival and fun.

Crucial to this is our ability to bring The Games in on time and to budget. This will restore some much needed credibility to both British public sector project management and Olympic budgets more generally. If we succeed, we will encourage cities in parts of the world who have never dared bid for an Olympic Games to bid in subsequent Olympiads. This will do The Olympic Movement globally a huge amount of good.

Secondly, there is the issue of legacy. The regeneration of the area around Stratford is welcome and long overdue. However, it is often forgotten that we won the right to host London 2012 not on a promise to rebuild The East End of London but on the basis of a commitment to use The Olympic Games to revitalise sport in this country particularly for young people. Given that the majority of IOC members are either former athletes or sports administrators, this was probably the key pledge that won the bid.

The tragedy of what has followed is that The National Lottery has had to be raided twice over to pay for the costs of building the venues. Combined with the government’s decision to divert money away from sport to pay for other pet causes, this has left community sport with less money that at any time in recent years. However, four years out, there is still time to draw up a coherent strategy involving Sport England (the government’s non departmental public body responsible for mass participation sport), sport governing bodies and local authorities to give community sport a boost. Our own Kent School Games, overseen by Kent County Council, are an excellent example of what can be achieved.

Finally, there is the sport which, as I said at the start of the article, defines each Olympics. Given that our target for London 2012 was to come fourth in the medal table, our success in Beijing has come one Games early. I, also, have no doubt that those countries that we have beaten, such as Australia and Germany, will be looking at ways to improve.

However, even here, there are grounds for optimism. Our success in Beijing was disproportionately based on three sports – cycling, rowing and sailing. If these sports continue to deliver and other sports improve in their wake, the British sporting public will have a Games to remember in London 2012.