As I walk into Nick Raynsford's Westminster office, he begins to tell me about a meeting that he has just had at Greenwich Park.
He talks at length about the benefits he believes the equestrian events will bring from a "new feature" in the children's playground to a "restructuring" of the Blackheath gate. He also talks about the wider economic development that he believes the games will bring to the town.
But while he is obviously enthusiastic about holding the Equestrian events here in Greenwich, it is striking how dismissive he is of those who oppose them:
"The problem with the NOGOE campaign is that they have not been prepared to listen to any evidence at all. They have their own preset view that this is going to be a disaster. They don't want it, they don't like it and they won't listen to any evidence. That I'm afraid discredits them in the eyes of most rational people and observers"
Raynsford believes that opponents of the events have deliberately been spreading false information about it:
"I have to say that those people who have been campaigning against it have used in my view some extremely bogus claims and made some very dishonest statements that have actually caused alarm and concern to people who genuinely love the park
"And these claims are completely groundless. The claims that trees were going to be cut down in large numbers, that the ground would be destroyed and all churned up and giving the impression that this is some sort of Grand National type event when it is literally seventy horses, on one day, doing one circuit, and that's it."
Raynsford also believes that Olympic organisers failed to communicate their plans to the public until recently. He says that LOCOG "let their eye off the ball" in the early stages and "were not as responsive as they should have been" to objectors.
But despite this, he still believes that there is strong enthusiasm for the Olympics in the town:
"The overwhelming majority of young people in the area are wholly supportive, and the interesting thing about this is that there is quite a split between those who have been most vocal against the Olympics who tend to be older, and those under 55, who are in my experience overwhelmingly supportive."
Yet while he believes that the "overwhelming majority" of young people are "wholly supportive" he is dismissive of a recent survey carried out by Conservative Assembly member Gareth Bacon showing significant opposition to the equestrian events:
"That was completely unscientific and politically motivated and frankly I do not regard it as serious and it is trying to use this for political purposes and I think that is very unprincipled. I think the right approach here has to be to engage seriously with LOCOG and the Royal Parks Agency, which are the two agencies best able to judge how this can be managed and then to listen to their views."
Throughout our conversation I am struck by the relative weight he places on the views of officers, experts and agencies against those of politicians and campaigners.
I wonder whether this is a result of his extensive work outside parliament in the private sector. Does this work interfere with his main role as a constituency MP?
"I think that parliament would be a very much weaker place if MPs didn't have outside interests. My interests are all in the area I have worked throughout my professional life, so it's housing, it's construction, regeneration, that sort of area where I have quite a lot of expertise. I ran a consultancy before I was elected so this is not doing something new and it's certainly not cashing in on ministerial experience which is one of the other allegations that is made. It's simply pursuing expertise that I have had as a result of my professional career which I think makes me a better MP to comment on what is happening here at Westminster. So in debates on regeneration housing and construction I can usually give a pretty informed view and without sounding too immodest it does usually command a certain amount of respect rather than just partisan responses."
I ask him how many days a week he spends in Greenwich. He says that he spends "at least one" to which he adds
"I tend to work around a 70-80 hour week and I'm quite confident if anyone looked at the hours I spend they would see that I spend at least 55 hours a week on parliamentary or constituency business, so the outside work is not interfering with that."
There is little doubt that Raynsford is closely involved in local politics and on the morning of our interview I spot him on page three of the council's newspaper Greenwich Time.
In the picture, he is standing alongside Labour Councillor Peter Brooks, celebrating the acceptance of Oyster Cards on Thames Clippers.
I ask him how he can justify appearing in a publication that many people believe is just "electioneering on the rates"
"I think it is important that the council does have a mechanism to communicate but I think it does have to be very careful how it uses that. I took with a pinch of salt some of the criticisms that were voiced about this being party propaganda because it came to a head when the Evening Standard was running an absolutely vitriolic campaign against Ken Livingstone and I think that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander"
Yet in my copy of Greenwich Time I also find reams of advertising for local businesses, a feature on Leona Lewis and even a TV guide. Isn't this deliberately designed to weaken independent newspapers in the area?
"I think there is a general problem for local newspapers across the country irrespective of whether there are aggressive local council newspapers as well, so I don't think it is entirely fair to say that the problems facing the News Shopper and the Mercury are simply the fault of Greenwich Time. I think it is a wider problem. I do think we have to have diversity and I'm a strong believer in keeping viable local newspapers and I would certainly not want to see Greenwich Time replacing them as the only voice locally."
But what about all the non-council related content in Greenwich Time? How can the council justify that?
"I don't know enough about, I haven't spoken to Peter Cordwell the editor about his reasons for doing that. My prime concern is that this should be a means of communication between the council and local people."
But if it is just about communicating with constituents, why have there been so many front page pictures of Council leader Chris Roberts in recent months?
"I am not myself a great believer in the cult of personality and you will not see many photos of me in Greenwich Time" he replies rather uneasily. "I don't seek publicity in that form."
Read part three of the interview tomorrow and find out why Nick Raynsford thinks Ken Livingstone should not stand for London Mayor in 2012.
Missed part one of the interview? Read it here