I just wanted to comment about the 'straw poll' where no-one thought Boris will win. I was genuinely torn but felt that if he has a good campaign then he probably will. My slight indecision meant that as we were asked to show our hands, I hesitated and, horrofied that nobody else was putting their hands up, I chickened out - not wanting to picked on and questioned as the only 'believer'.
Feeling thoroughly ashamed of myself, I confessed my sin to somebody over a drink afterwards and they said that they too had been about to put their hand up. It appears that the audience may not have been quite so disbelieving after all!
So all is not lost. It makes me wonder if Boris may benefit/suffer from the 'shy Tory' syndrome we have heard so much about.
Tony Travers sat on the fence a little on the main question, but felt that the Boris campaign should run on the theme "enough is enough" and push the line "Vote Ken, Get Gordon". He said he had no clue what Ken's ideas were for a third term. Boris's great advantage was his celebrity and his ability to get the Conservative vote out. He came out with a great line "He is Hogarth's candidate, in Hogarth's city". And he then apologised to the LibDems that he hadn't covered them much, by saying "Sorry LibDems, you;re getting left out because you will be".
Andrew Hawkins was much more cautious about Boris's chances. He predicted that Brian Paddick would prove to be quite popular but it was unclear who he would take votes from - Boris or Ken. He reckoned Boris had better start love bombing the LibDems to attract second preferences. His main reason for not giving Boris a chance was turnout, which he thought would be higher than 2004 (37%) but not much. I think he's wrong. Election turnouts all over the world are on the up. This is a contest between two big characters. I would expect turnout to be at least 50%. And remember, last time, Steve Norris was only 100,000 votes behinf Ken on first preferences.
I then watched the TV debate between Boris, Ken and Brian Paddick. It was a mistake to have party supporters make up a very small audience. The moderator, Connie Huq, was completely out of her depth. It could have made very good television, but it felt like it was being made by a university TV station. I felt all three candidates performed well. Boris was funny but had a better grip of policy than many would predict. He scored several victories over Ken in particular and had some very good putdowns. Ken looked old. He didn't really spark but gave a polished performance but he didn't really tell us anything about what he would do in a third term.
Brian Paddick was clearly nervous in his debut TV outing. He used notes for the one minute opener, which was a mistake. If you can't tell Londoners why you're running in one minute without using notes, you shouldn't be asking for their votes. However, he got better and better. he was smooth, believable and had clearly done his homework on subjects other than policing.
If I were him, I would try to concentrate on subjects he's good at. Let me tell you an anecdote. A couple of days ago I got emailed to a YouGov survey about the mayoral election. One of the questions was this: Which candidate would be best at handling a terror crisis? Rather to my horror I found my mouse hovering over the Paddick box. But terror was a subject which didn't come up in the TV debate and only came up at the LCC because I raised it. If I were Paddick I'd go on about this until I was blue in the face, and if I were Boris I'd make it a priority to have some ready answers.
36 comments:
The debate last night reminded me of a Scottish TV youth political debate show "Trial by Night" where politicians put their views forward for judgment by a tanked-up audience of young people who enjoyed the free, cheap booze and £10 travel expenses.
Without the humour, tongue in cheek nature or capable moderator of course.
I think turnout will be high because Ken and Boris are both love/hate figures and inspire fervour in their supporters and detractors in equal measure. Norris was a good candidate but he didn't inspire in the way that Boris does.
Oh Dear Iain, it seems you are clutching at straws here....
I was very irritated several months ago when it became clear that the Tories and Lib Dems were not going to field a joint "anyone but Ken" candidate - that person could have been the Grim Reaper and he still would have won by miles.
As is it, Livingstone will win because the anti-Ken vote will split along party lines, as it always does (any Lib Dem floaters who are entranced by Boris will be countered by die-hard Tories like me who think BoJo would be a disaster).
The London electorate is very different to that of Henley - it consists of people who don't want a Tory toff anymore than they want a reptile like Livingstone. But as long as Ken continues to tie up whole sections of the vote with his anti-Semitism and cosying up to Islamist terrorists, he will always have sufficient votes in the bag to make any challenge an uphill struggle.
Of course Livingstone can be beaten, because he is now seen as the establishment, and worn out establishment at that. London needs a new face at the top.
I can't remember the televised debates of last time - at the national level they tend to be demanded by the party that's behind in the polls (though Hague has already called for one, presumably because he thinks Cameron can't lose a debate against Brown or Clegg).
I wonder who is most looking forward to the next one in London? My guess is that Old Newt Fancier enjoyed last night more than the other two, but if BJ is behind a little, he'll no doubt raise his game (and put a comb through his hair for once)
Iain,
What in God's name gave you the opinion that Paddick would deal with terrorism better than Boris?
He has never been tested in anything of note on the frontline of policing.
Ask him, next time you speak, how many times he gave evidence at the Old Bailey? Ask him how many Commissioner's Commendations he received in his service? Ask him how many direct arrests for major crime he made whilst in the police?
The man got where he did by using his sexuality and that certainly did not make him a good copper.
Believe me ask anyone who served with him...they never rated him as a copper.
A thief taker? Never!
Good in a crisis? Never Tested!
Quite simply put, Iain, he is an absolute w....r!
EXCLUSIVE:
Boris will NOT win the election for London Major. Ken will win comfortably , I know it, even you know it. We like Boris, but we laugh at him NOT with him.
Ken has made some very unpopular decisions in the past 8 years, and had to put up with that twat Clarkson banging on about him all the time, but still he leads in the polls, and receives favourable coverage from most media sectors. He is highly respected, and in most quarters is seen as a safe bet.
Cameron is going to rue the day he choose Bozzer; the day after Ken’s victory, the recriminations will start. Cameron’s judgment will need to be called into question. Picking a clown as a candidate for our capital city.
Even Dale is starting to pour cold water on Bozzer in anticipation for his deaf. On announcing Bozzer as a candidate, this forum was awash with Bozzer supporters, even they have faded away.
Have we reached the point with Labour intimidation that no one dare put their hand up for Boris.
I think its speaks volumns about the fear labour has put into people
Anyone spotted this story? The BBC certainly haven't!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23431919-details/Yard+probes+taxi+project+linked+to+Mayor%27s+adviser/article.do
Please note that the Police felt they had to break the door down. They obviosuly feel that Livingstone's chums are highly trustworthy. The issue should more be whether Livingstone, like the late Mayor Logan of Boston, should serve his second term from inside the slammer.
How many people in London will have understood the allusion to Hogarth?
Hands up!!I am a Boris supporter and he can win.
Last night's "debate" was a joke. Paddick was the only one who came out of it better than he went in.
Boris (as was rightly pointed out by Livingstone) thought he was in the House of Commons, and as such his behaviour was reprehensible. He looked stupid and unkempt, totally unnecessary to appear like that.
Konnie Huq was absolutely gorgeous (and I agree with Iain) totally out of her depth. The yah boo sucks audience was pathetic. The whole episode was a massive turn off due to the lack of moderation. I don't think I have ever seen a more amateur production than that which ITV dished out last night.
Boris would have been far better off to stop his hectoring and interrupting and attempt to appear as more of a statesman.
I only hope that he has learned his lesson. I know Boris is better than that, I have seen him many times at very close quarters and he is an extremely impressive individual.
Boris is a likeable bufoon who will have to come up with more than a few witty one liners and clever put downs if he wants to become Mayor.
He is not so much Hogarth's candidate as Hogwart's
Actually, Iain, it might be even worse than you think. Paddick looks *good* between those two gargoyles. Hard to think of Boris on the International stage- most foreigners would have much less tolerance for that kind of eccentricity. Livingston just looks increasingly shifty (as you know I loath the guy). If Paddick plays it right, he can even win this.
Boris will win at a canter. The only question is how big his landslide will be. The public are so sick to the back teeth with Labour the Tories could put up a toilet brush with a smiley face painted on it and it would win.
Sorry, Labour trolls, but that's the truth and you know it.
Well, it's bloody stupid to make people declare themselves before a debate. How very amateur.
Livingstone is a shoo-in already and he hasn't even mentioned Tory sleaze yet, but he will.
The thing will be settled on probity, which means Boris might as well go back to writing straight away.
Have you noticed how all the Tories seem to be able to do these days is puff up trivial stories to grab a few news headlines, and then they fizzle out? David Cameron is certainly making his mark! - but not on Harriet Harman, Wendy Alexander, or Peter Hain, unfortunately (for you).
"Hogarth's candidate for Hogarth's city"?
I can see the series of etchings now. Would you prefer A Rake's Progress or Industry and Idleness?
Or perhaps you envisage a cameo with Boris either throwing up in Beer Street or glassy-eyed and moaning in Gin Lane?
As Verity alludes, it's something of a back-handed compliment from Prof Travers, who was no doubt very pleased with himself to have come up with this one.
I think a Boris victory is a foregone conclusion. He's the only one who's effortlessly likeable. He's the only one who can represent ALL Londoners whereas Paddick is seen as representing the narrow interests of the gay community and Ken doesn't try to hide the fact that he hates half the London electorate - especially if they've got jobs and mortgages and grandparents buried in British graveyards. Boris is good natured and has a ready wit. Paddick can't be trusted not to flounce out in response to some imagined slight. Ken is bad-tempered, nasty and now that he's taken to globetrotting at Londoners' expense he's become an internationhal em barrassment. Boris' friends and associates are perfectly normal. Paddick's are a secret. Ken's are crooks.
can we call this the "reverse Boris effect"? A London version of the "Bradley effect"?
on ITVs (hopefully) ironic and self referential comedy+soap "Moving Wallpaper"/"Echo Beach" one of the characters in "Moving Wallpaper" (the sub "Drop The Dead Donkey" comedy about the makers of the faux egregious "Echo Beach" which is shown directly after") gives a rundown of ITVs demographic which they seek to attract to their soap. I think she said they were of "above average intelligence". Was this the biggest (possibly only) decent joke on the show?
ITV seemed to be aiming for the stars with this debate. But still smells of the Hogarthian gutter.
Lw Grade comedy.
Jimbo
Very thoughtful post - and of course you are quite right. I perhaps differ from most of Iain's bloggers in that I want Ken to win and think that he deserves to. I live in London so I am not uninformed about what Ken has achieved. I also agree with Ed about Love/Hate. I support Ken - but maybe I would just favour Boris as a party guest!
William Hogarth 1697–1764.
Yes, an apposite allusion.
Verity wrote:
"How many people in London will have understood the allusion to Hogarth?"
You didn't undestand my reference to Cromwell (FYI - there was more than one).
Spare us your superiority.
Ken did indeed look rather tired and old and he wasn't exactly inspiring but then I cant ever recall him giving an inspiring speech. His USP since the Red Ken days has been his independence, to some extent his rather nerdy character and his clear interest in running London.
Brian Paddick was clearly inexperienced at the politics stuff even if he kept refering to his police experience.
I thought Boris was dreadful, the just got out of bed look is not appropiate if he wants to be taken seriously, he behaved badly aided by his cheering supporters, he didn't answer the questions that were put to him and he came close to loosing it towards the end of the questions. I doubt very many undecided voters were actually watching which is good for Boris because I cant believe they would have been impressed.
I do worry about Boris' campaign organisation. I've given my email address, signed up to the website, joined the group on Facebook, but yet knew nothing about this debate, or where campaigning is happening, or how to get involved. I'm hoping it'll kick off soon, but if they can't organise their campaigners into a fighting force they don't stand a chance...
I'll report this from another thread.
Fancy allowing Ken another four years? Well. if you do, he is poised to toll every A-road from the edge of Greater London to the centre. The silver cameras have been erected (yes, they also cover the Low Emission Zone, but this is two-for-one infrastructure).
Try this extract from a letter to TFL from the London Association of Councils.
‘London Councils Response to the consultation on the Proposed Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill’.
‘London Councils is concerned that traffic may be diverted from GLA roads onto borough roads should tolls be imposed on the GLA roads. Therefore, the London Councils would like to see proper consultation with all boroughs as to which roads TfL wish to toll so that both TfL’s and boroughs’ network management duties under the Traffic Management Act 2004 can be properly discharged before any toll order is formally published.’
What's alarmingly called GLA roads are arterial routes which have been handed over to GLA/TFL control, regardless of local councils may want. This tolls bill has now been passed by parliament, by the way.
The tolling - using a windscreen mounted charge card - will apply in both directions, both in and out of the capital.
Don't say you weren't warned......
I'll be voting in my first London mayoral in May. I haven't got a clue what any of the candidates will actually do when they get in.
Will Boris really get rid of bendy buses? At vast expense? As a cyclist, I'd applaud him. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure if it's worth the money.
That's literally all I know about the campaign. And I'm fairly switched on to politics (!)
"Moving Wallpaper"/"Echo Beach" will be the most talked about show on tv since "GBH". what will happen is that there is going to be an increasing connection between the writers show and the soap opera. Someone will die in "real life" and on the show. It's going to be genius.
and we will all laugh when Jason Donovan's charater dies in such a post-ironic way. After they kill Jason of course in the actual series. Blah blah blah. All so predictable. Oh we'll all have a laugh. Probably him and one of the producers will have a bit of a struggle and try and kill each other. Martine will way in etc. Will all be so ironic. And pay about £100m for this rubbish. At least it's ITV wasting their own money.
I find it very depressing that so many people seem to have been suckered in by Boris's whole loveable buffoon act. The twerp on the Bullingdon posh club picture is in my experience much closer to the truth. Having witnessed him behave exactly as you would imagine the young man on that picture to behave, i.e. like a spoilt, arrogant, ill-mannered snob it depresses me that anyone could think him capable of understanding what the average Londoner needs from their Mayor. Like or loathe Ken, the introduction of congestion charge took huge cojones and not one of the pretenders to his crown, past or present, would've had the necessary equipment to do anything as bold.
Congestion charge...?
Mmm, let me see.
He promised that it would
1. raise £200m per year
2. the traffic would run like it used to in the holidays
3. would reduce pollution
4. would never go up above £5
5. would be copied around the country/world
what actually happened was
1. It took over three years to break even and it survives on fine income
2. traffic is now as slow as it was in the year before it was introduced - when all the roads were dug up.
3. pollution - NOx and soot - are well up because of the stop-start traffic management.
6. It's so inefficient (admin costs now £151 per year or £5 per day, per vehicle) that it has not been copied anywhere and whole system is going have to be changed under the new IBM contract.
Still - it makes you feel like you've done something 'progressive'. A bit like defending the comprehensive system....
That IS an outstanding line. And yes, people are afraid to come out of the Boris closet for fear of being thought uncritical, class-ridden starfuckers. Boris wouldn't have a chance if the vote wasn't by secret ballot.
But I welcome the skepticism, because I want nice juicy odds when I lay my bet.
Roger Evans wrote: 'Of course Livingstone can be beaten, because he is now seen as the establishment, and worn out establishment at that. London needs a new face at the top.'
But this is totally devoid of politics. Looked at from the point of view of the issues, Ken deserves another term.
London has improved under Ken Livingstone, and Ken has played his full role in those improvements. Improving the bus service, increasing police numbers and providing neighbourhood policing, falling crime, achieving a shift from private car use to public transport, increasing cycling, introducing a Low Emission Zone, etc etc etc.
New York and other cities around the world are following Ken's lead on the congestion charge.
Boris Johnson wants to abolish the policy that 50 per cent of new homes should be affordable for ordinary Londoners. He's praised the bus contracting system that exists outside London - which has been a disaster. He says he wants to make big cuts in the police and transport budgets. He spent a part of the debate on ITV this week trying to deny that Crossrail had even got the go ahead. He has endorsed a plan to replace London's buses with a new bus design without saying how much it would cost.
His record in giving Conrad Black a character reference and in his conversation with Darius Guppy in which he discussed how much a journalist would be beaten up and promised to provide the address of the journalist seriously dents his law and order credentials.
So: London's success, Ken's record of improving London, and Boris Johnson's terrible policy agenda mean Ken should definitely be re-elected.
Connie Huq should not have been the moderator given her support for Ken:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2260631.ece
It's a pity the Tories put up a joke candidate, assuming that Ken was invulnerable, just before Ken's cumulative meltdown took him into the danger zone.
Post a Comment