Quite surprised by this idea that artists should have to pad out their set with covers of other people's work. I would have thought that if you went to a concert that you'd want to hear music by that artist not him/her doing covers of other people's songs...I remember going to the Feeling's concert and admittedly they did a cover of Radio Ga Ga - which was perhaps the best song that night...but mika's songs are going to be better than any covers...so what's the point?
Also the comment about the setlist being the same as the 'free' concerts is a bit misleading...they may have been 'free' but there wasn't guaranteed entry...in other words people paid tonight for the privilege of getting in to see what, from the looks of photos already on the web...was pretty spectacular!
I'm sure Mika must have tons more songs that didn't make it onto the album, for a start we know of 'satellite' which was on the Grace Kelly 7". But at the same time...I can just imagine the complaints people would make if he performed songs which weren't available on the album or in single format...it seems perfectly sensible that on what is ultimately his first proper UK tour he should do no more than just the songs on the album.
I went to the show he did in Brighton ages ago and we were ecstatic at the end of that...and it only had 6/7 songs! 10 songs is a luxury I'm yet to experience!