How can Boris close the deal?

The latest opinion poll gives Boris Johnson a 12% lead over Ken Livingstone.  Fraser Nelson is even speculating that the bicycling Boris might win on the first round.  Things aren't exactly getting any better for Mr Livingstone.  His campaign launch has been overshadowed by the news that he might have been in breach of Electoral Commission rules for seven years.  Credit to the tireless Greg Hands MP for doing the digging on that.

Many people deserve credit for Boris' success.  Stand outs are George Osborne for leading the party's attempts to correct last autumn's drift and Lynton Crosby for bringing strategic clarity to the campaign.  But most of all, of course, the hero is Boris himself.

He always had celebrity.  At the Gateshead Spring Forum, staff behind the bar were overheard saying that they regretted not meeting him.  But he's got some discipline too, now.

Across London Conservatives who once moaned about a lack of reliability are noting punctuality and a crispness and directness of message.

The Johnson campaign has also produced interesting policies on a range of issues of concern to London: housing, London's share of the public expenditure pie, transparency of London governance, transport and crime.  A Boris Mayoralty probably wouldn't transform London but it would undoubtedly make tangible improvements - most notably in crime if he succeeds in introducing New York-style crime mapping.

What can Boris do to close the deal with Londoners?  In a commentary for Monday's Evening Standard Tony Travers identified the Tory hopeful's main remaining weaknesses.  Labour's detailed polling suggests, not surprisingly, that Boris is vulnerable to charges of "incompetence" and "inexperience".

In the final phase of the campaign - there are about forty days left - Boris Johnson won't be able to transform all perceptions of himself but he can offer reassurance to voters that he plans to put a team in place that Londoners can have confidence in.  Boris needs to take up some of the ideas proposed last week by the London Policy Institute's James Morris.  Central to James Morris' five point plan was a Mayoral Cabinet that could include GLA members, council leaders and people with relevant experience of the business world.  Such a proposal would not convince every sceptic but it would reassure many people that Boris Johnson had a plan to ensure a competent and effective administration.

There is also some speculation as to who Boris could appoint as a race adviser - he has faced unfair charges from Livingstone and Livingstone-funded surrogates that he is insensitive on race issues.  Rather than a race adviser his Mayoral Cabinet could usefully include people from minority communities who are also authorities in key areas of policy importance.  Ray Lewis, for example, of the Eastside Young Leaders' Academy would be an excellent pick.  A former prison governor, Ray would be an first class adviser to the Mayor on social enterprise and youth crime.

Comments

[Rosario]

Theres a long way to go yet so he would be unwise to be compacant.

I still feel the campaign leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly Andrew Gilligan's media strategy seems to have much more effect than Boris's. Indeed does Boris even have one?

It does feel like the public and media are finally turning on Ken. But I am not sure Boris (or Lynton) can claim the credit you appear to indicate.

If he wins of course the victors can write the history but the evidence isn't there yet.

[passing leftie]

He definitely needs a race advisor. He is either appalling ignorant, or a racist. Here is Boris Johnson on race:

"What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness.

They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."

What's laughable about this is that the Telegraph and other right wing rags were trying to pretend that when he said picanninies, he was talking about any children. It's obvious in context what he meant, and when he talks about "watermelon smiles" and tribes in the Congo, I'm sure we all know where he is coming from.

"He was also quoted by the Observer to have said, whilst in Uganda: ‘Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies.’ He has written of Africa that ‘the problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more’; has described South Africa under Nelson Mandela as the ‘majority tyranny of black rule’; and he has written in relation to African people that ‘left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain’"

Also, from the Guardian:
"Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, yesterday launched a fierce personal attack on Boris Johnson, saying he would destroy multicultural London if elected mayor, and that no informed black person would vote for him." - Guardian

I can't think of many worse people to be in charge of multicultural London than Boris Johnson.

[Mr Angry]

1) Race is Livengsoon's issue, Boris should not let it become his, it is unneccesary. BME voters do not need to be patronised by more leftie special treatment, they just need to be assured that a Boris mayoralty will be clour blind and that they will get a fair deal from London Government, the same as everyone else.

2) The electorate are weary of Leavingsoon and his various hard left positions. That does not yet mean that they will turn out to vote for Boris unless he cements their reasons to do so and we all campaign incredibly hard to convince them.

3) Boris still needs a couple of really strong headline grabbing and populist policies that can be sold on the doorstep and that unaligned and Leavingsoon sick voters can latch onto.

[Mark Clarke]

We have not won yet. I think it is very premature to talk about 'success'. We need every vote on the day. I wouldn't want anyone to think that this is in the back.

It is a turnout based election and every Conservative who reads this needs to understand:

a) that their vote on the day is vital

b) that unless Conservative activists come out and campaign a lot between now and the the close of polls we will lose.

[Sean Fear]

I fail to see how one person can "destroy multicultural London", Passing Leftie.

Doesn't his 12% lead suggest to you that the kind of hyperbole about race that you, Livingstone, and Labour supporters generally have been spouting just isn't convincing to anyone other than core Labour voters?

[Concanvasser]

Re; "noting punctuality and a crispness" of the Boris campaign I can only agree.

I e-mailed the Boris campaign on Sunday afternoon giving them details of my mother and sister who live in London and who support Boris. By Monday lunchtime I had an e-mail back from the party agent for Barnet confirming he was going going to ask my mother to deliver some leaflets and my sister has received campaign info in the post! Very impressive campaigning.

[london conservative]

The problem at the heart of the question here is that everyone who actually knowns him (as opposed to those who "know" him as a celebrity i.e. think they know him but of course actually don't), knows that Boris Johnson doesn't know how to do this job.

A Conservative Mayor would not ask Boris Johnson to run anything because, knowing him, they would know he couldn't do it.

Labour would be wise to hammer this home, not pretending that he has some sinister master plan to transform London, when in reality he couldn't plan or transform his way out of a paper bag. But that he will make huge, expensive mistakes because he does not know what he is doing. He has a clear, well-documented history of making mistakes when it didn't matter, and when only he personally, occassionally also the party, suffered from the consequences.

[Malcolm Dunn]

'London Conservative' why won't you reveal yourself? You come on to many of the London Mayor threads and make personal attacks on Boris Johnson.Who are you and how do you know him?
You might indeed have valuable information to reveal to voters ,equally you might be a cowardly little troll who merely wishes Johnson and the Conservative party ill.

[Mr Angry]

"london conservative" is plainly a Leavingsoon stooge, no doubt planting his falsehoods whilst being riotously overpaid with public money. He is not at all subtly trying to plant a media story that Conservatives don't think that their candidate is up to the job. Nothing could be further from the truth and we should not fall for it.

[Sean Fear]

Malcolm,

I do not believe for one moment that someone who really was a member of the Conservative party in London would post endless attacks on the Conservative candidate for Mayor, and in particular, attacks which just echo Labour's criticisms of him.

[Malcolm Dunn]

You may well be right Sean, who knows?

[london conservative]

Guys:

I'm less interested in candidates and more interested in who can run this city effectively. Livingstone has not delivered on crime or congestion, two of the biggest areas where I believe big improvements could have been made, and would have been made had he been defeated in 2000 or 2004.

Livingstone is, I think foolishly from his own point of view, making a different point: that Johnson is not a buffoon but a serious, right-wing, dangerous politician.

Conservatives who have worked with him over the years could tell him different.

If Steve Norris or John Stevens or Digby Jones had been London Mayor, do you think they would be calling up Boris Johnson asking him to run Transport for London or the London Development Agency or the Metropolitan Police Authority? You only have to ask the question to know the answer.

And look at what Conservatives in a position to ask him to do something have actually asked of him over the years.

In 2001, during a general election, William Hague, who even in public calls Boris Johnson "an eccentric," asked him to go into hiding after he punted the Spectator to Fleet Street boasting of an interview with Edward Heath in which Heath called William Hague a "laughing stock."

Then in 2004 Michael Howard asked him to take up a junior spokesman role on the arts. And then soon after asked him to step down from it after it had emerged that he had lied to him, not before ordering him to go to Liverpool to apologise for insulting the city in a region where the party still to this day struggles electorally.

Since then, David Cameron asked him to take up a junior spokesman role on higher education, which he occupied for a similarly short period of time. Note that he didn't say Boris Johnson would be his Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary or his Health Secretary or Education Secretary. Or even ask him to join the Shadow Cabinet.

Michael Portillo, when asking for his vote in 2001, famously asked him to decide if he wanted to be a politician or a comedian.

The lack of confidence in his abilities to do any serious job is strongest among Conservatives who know him. Even the off-the-record comments of Shadow Cabinet members and other party supporters are in the newspapers. You've noticed those, right?

In the face of a failed Mayor like Livingstone, it is the job of the Conservative Party to step up to the plate and provide a candidate who could do the job of Mayor. In this it has failed the electorate, and revealed its contempt for every voter in the most important city in the country.

[Malcolm Dunn]

So you're a troll then? Thought so.

[london conservative]

I also think Boris Johnson brings out the worst in some of our party members.

It is not an attack to say that someone doesn't know how to do the job of being Mayor. The same could be said of plenty of other people, including many MPs, AMs and councillors. Personally, I think Boris Johnson is an amusing and amiable person.

Some of our activists don't seem to get the difference. Others seem to enjoy some of his unwise remarks, perhaps because it encourages them to think that the ways they have been told to talk about London's various minorities, and to show them more respect, by the current party leadership and the previous Mayoral candidate aren't necessary and that their bad habits can continue without electoral consequence.

I don't know if it is worse to be in the party leadership cynically supporting Boris Johnson in the knowledge that he can't do the job but hoping for some spin benefit to him running Livingstone close or winning, or to be one of those members who doesn't understand what is involved with the job, and possibly thinks the whole idea of having a Mayor is a big waste of money.

But cynical though they are, the party leadership that are supporting him are at least, unlike some of our more politically naive members, not blind to reality.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Presumably you'd prefer a corrupt socialist or an ineffectual copper to be our Mayor eh London 'Conservative'?
I'm pretty sure I was right with my previous post.

[Sean Fear]

If he wins, and it appears he will, how has the party displayed contempt for the voters?

[Jill, London]

What a pity “Passing Leftie” keeps passing this way and hasn’t passed on!

“Passing Leftie” you are trotting out second-hand information from a Lefty pressure group called Compass. Andrew Gilligan [who has now come out of the political closet as a Lefty] set the record straight on Compass misinformation back in August 2007!

And look at what two journalists had to say about Comrade Livingstone’s campaign launch particularly his definition of “tolerance”:

Andrew Gimson: “But since the culture of openness, tolerance and mutual respect already excludes Mr Johnson, one could say it is already endangered by the methods adopted by Mr Livingstone, and especially by the tactic of getting a bereaved mother to run down his rival.”

Ann Treneman: “He praised the police for how they had changed since Stephen’s murder but they did not get all the credit. “Racist incidents and antiSemitic incidents in the city have been cut by 50 per cent in eight years because we made the case for tolerance and multiculturalism,” said the man who may have forgotten that he once called a Jewish journalist a concentration camp guard.

Not only has Comrade Livingstone got ‘form’ for anti-semitic comments, but he won an appeal against being suspended from office due to this.

Using Lefty logic that makes Comrade Livingstone a “racist”!

[Yet Another Anon]

He needs to follow developments in different ethnic groups in London, I don't think a race advisor will be more than simple doffing the cap to political correctness, as a matter of fact - there is no distinction of race in biology, there are species and subspecies. The Trots and the BNP are stuck in arguments over races, the very arguments that caused a lot of the problems in recent centuries.

Different ethnic groups may have problems with others and there are issues of different tendencies within them, peoples own beliefs of the existence of race will cause problems; Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam are not races, nor even is there a Jewish race. If he does have such an advisor it should perhaps be more general on issues of Fair Treatment of different ethnic groups and problems caused by peoples own pre-conceived notions of race.

[bexie]

Boris has gotten some good advisors around him now. I was impressed at his show in Ealing Town Hall, well managed and timed.

A mayorlty like London is a General's position, one needs to lead a group of advisors who know their subject areas.

I.E. Variously above are right that he needs a strong and competant race advisor that will be inclusive of serving that so abandoned group, the white working class, who are being driven to the BNP by the main parties exclusion of them

But since the London job is primarally about transport and policing, he should also announce some strong advisors in those areas, who have a clear, preferably front line, understanding of the organisations involved (e.g. if you want to change a river crossing you involve about 30 different "stakeholders") and some headline grabbing policies.

BackBoris knows I have suggested a couple.

Having said all that I think his campaign is going OK, lets hope he does not stumble.

[bexie]

re:Yet Another Anon | March 20, 2008 at 01:06

There are good leaders in the religious communities that could offer advice in those areas, I think that it would be padding the team too much to have advisors on every area.

[anon]

Private Eye 21/3/08

AT CHRISTMAS, political commentators
assumed Ken Livingstone was a shoo-in for
mayor of London. As Easter comes, he is
fighting to save his career. To understand why,
you have to grasp tin- outrage on the left at his
decision to turn his back, on liberal British
Muslims and ally himself with ultrareactionary
Islamists.

Livingstone and his coterie bullied insiders
who protested - but not into silence. Revulsion at
his strange alliances lies behind the devastating
leaks about public money going astray and sixfigure
salaries going to members of Socialist
Action, the tiny Trotskyist sect Livingstone
employs at public expense.

The most senior whistleblower is Atma Singh,
a member of Socialist Action and Livingstone's
adviser in Asian affairs. In 2003, his comrades
urged Livingstone lo ally with the Arab Muslim
Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islam! (feminists, gays,
lews and apostates need not apply).
Singh was stunned. He tried to stop
Livingstone embracing Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the
Muslim Brotherhood's chief theologian, who
along with the usual attacks on women, apostates
and the rest had said of the civilian victims of
suicide bombings in Israel: "We cannot say that
the casualties are innocent civilians. They are not
civilians or innocent." Livingstone's staff
arranged for the sheikh to visit London with the
help of the Muslim Association of Britain, a small
group whose leader declared: "As a Muslim,
martyrdom is an integral part of Islamic
theology." Singh confronted Redmond O'Neill,
Livingstone's chief of staff, "I objected to Livingstone saying we must work with al-Qaradawi and others who were soft on suicide attacks on Israelis." Singh told the Eye.
"I said that we had a good relationship with
London's Jews and the Board of Deputies of
British Jews worked with us in the National
Assembly Against Racism. But O'Neill went on
and on about the Board of Deputies of British
Jews. He said they represented the 'Zionist lobby'
and 'we must smash the Zionists'.

"Livingstone was more interested in the
Muslim vote and thought that by pandering to al-
Qaradawi he could get it. He began to say things
he would never have said before, calling a Jewish
reporter a concentration camp guard and telling
Jewish businessmen to leave the country."

As soon as Singh spoke out, Livingstone and
his aides blackballed him. 'They took control of
faith matters away from me. I was completely
isolated."

In the end, Singh had a nervous breakdown
and resigned. But his departure did Livingstone
no good. For the past two months, Singh has
been, er, singing like a canary and telling the
papers how Socialist Action appointees
fundraised and campaigned for Livingstone
when they were meant to be neutral civil servants

[london conservative]

"how has the party displayed contempt for the voters?"

I find this question surprising coming from someone with Sean's psephological prowess.

There have been a great many times when parties have displayed their contempt for the voters with quite different and varied electoral outcomes. Examples include:

The Labour Party insisting at three general elections that John Prescott would be the Deputy Prime Minister, despite his manifest inability to do that job or any other ministerial job.

Our party offering Iain Duncan-Smith to the electorate as an alternative Prime Minister, despite the fact that he couldn't even do the job of Leader of the Opposition.

William Hague, although in fairness he has now apologised for this and described it as his biggest mistake, telling voters that Jeffrey Archer was "a candidate of probity and integrity."

There's John Major who ran an election whose centrepiece was opposition to tax increases and then promptly increased them after the election.

The current party leadership, which continues to lie about Mrs. Thatcher's approach to tax cuts in the hope of misleading party members into thinking that their approach is the same as hers.

And we all know, or have met, MPs who are not up to the job, an occupation considerably less taxing than being Mayor. To save their blushes, I won't name names. But if you want someone who can no longer blush think of Dr. Sir. Alan Glynn M.P. who was the member for Windsor and Maidenhead until 1992. Matthew Parris has the details in his brilliant book, Chance Witness.

And here's a big one from the other side in this election. Livingstone keeping a drunk on the public payroll and paying for his high-priced housing, who freely admitted in a newspaper interview (drunk) that he did "not much" for his 3,200k a day.

The reasons parties behave in this way, and end up revealing their contempt for voters by so doing, is usually caused either by a decision taken out of desperation, a desire to manipulate by covering something up, and a failure to turn to better alternatives.

I prefer it, and so ultimately does the electorate, when politicians disclose all of the important information of which they are aware rather than concealing part of it. After all, one could hardly say that important national security interests would have been threatened by people who knew better fully disclosing what they knew in these cases and the one we're discussing.

[Serf]

In this it has failed the electorate, and revealed its contempt for every voter in the most important city in the country.

That would be except the ones that chose him in an open primary to be the Conservative candidate.

[Sean Fear]

Yes, but if Johnson wins a competitive election (as opposed to just being stuck in a safe seat), the electorate can hardly be said to have been treated with contempt. The electorate will have got what it wanted.

[london conservative]

At the risk of boring everyone by posting again, I think perhaps Sean finds this point less hard to grasp than he claims.

The party leadership is treating voters with contempt because, as in these other examples, it is being deceptive. It is fine to say we would like you to vote for Boris Johnson as Conservative candidate for Mayor. It is not fine to deliberately conceal the fact that they do not think he is up to the job, and indeed are worried that if he won, it might make them look bad and hurt their chances. Nor is it fine to secretly not care about whether the Mayor of London is any good for the city, but only about getting momentum from a result that looks good, lose or win, and helps David Cameron move into Downing Street.

As for the sham open primary disaster, I assume that comment is a joke, Serf. Fewer people voted in it than when the vote was confined to members only four years earlier. The only outside participants, if any, were likely a few Labour activists keen to cast a ballot for Victoria in the hope of totally embarrassing the party.

[C List and Proud]

London Conservative is suggesting the Party centrally has concerns that BJ isn't up to the job.

I find that incredible and completely at odds with the evidence of a well run, disciplined and - for the first time - co-ordinated campaign between the Party and the Mayoral candidate.

If the Party had such concerns it would:

a) never have let BJ go forward
b) never have run an open primary which guaranteed he would win because of his higher profile
c) even if they did allow a & b above, it would now be using all the skill in its possesison - and it has plenty - to run a poor campaign and ensure the candidate they do not want doesn't win.

London Conservative is probably from London, but I doubt he/she is a Conservative.

[West London Tory]

"C list and proud" shows why he or she will remain that way. I know "london conservative" personally. He is certainly from London, a Conservative and a former adviser to VERY senior Conservative politicians. He does not post under his own name out of respect for his former employers. "London conservative" now works in the private sector and has no aspirations to political office. If he had, his CV and connections are so strong, he would be probably be an A lister.

[Jill, London]

Why are certain Conservatives [or are they?] squabbling amongst themselves about the suitability - and/or ability - of Boris as Mayor of London?

Why give our opponents ammo against us?

I cannot understand people questioning Boris' abilities -it's obvious he's highly intelligent. And these nay-sayers are just aiding Comrade Livingstone.

Can any Conservative really think Comrade Livingstone has been a good Mayor of London? I think he's been atrocious - and damaging - and divisive - and way too expensive [typical Leftie with drunken sailor spending habits - and now being exposed for Cronyism]. Moreover, Comrade Livingstone has also been a total embarrassment when he insults minority groups he dislikes [like Jews] - and genuflects to Commie dictators like Castro - and wannabe dictator Chavez.

[West London Tory]

The choice in this election is very poor - in effect Leon Trotsky or Bertie Wooster. So who is going to be Boris's Jeeves?

[Jill, London]

"West London Tory" - So who's going to be Leon Trotsky's Lenin?

Frankly we should be stopping Comrade Livingstone....

[london conservative]

Personally, I don't think that any Conservative--scratch that, it's not at all important--any Londoner, can look back and say 2000 to 2008 is a period of which we can be proud of our government in this city.

Mayor Livingstone is not ill-intentioned, I believe, in terms of what he wants to achieve in this city. The problem is that he doesn't know how to get better results. And that there has been corruption.

The idea that distant despots like Castro and Cuba have any relevance to London is laughable and only really comes up because the Mayor feels it necessary to be a part of that part of the Left, which is such a massively insignificant part of our city that it can hardly be said to matter at all.

I think that every Conservative agrees about the last eight years. The bigger question in my mind is: What to do next?

We have a candidate who is very likeable and personable but who doesn't have the least bit idea how to do this job. He has decided to run on a platform that has almost no substance. And he has required much help from others to acquire the small substance that he has managed to assemble.

Boris Johnson's intelligence is not in doubt. His abilities, commitment, focus and delivery are in doubt--and this is hardly a small job that we are talking about, is it?

The party leadership is, correctly, obsessed with winning the general election. Again, not to become the pub bore but, when the Tories won the GLC in the late 1970s, it partly was important to Mrs. Thatcher because it showed that a formerly discredited party could win in London but also that it was a showcase displaying that Conservative policies, like selling council houses to their tenants, could succeed.

Sorry to say, this is an entirely more cynical exercise, the main interest being a few newspaper stories and columns to the effect that Tories are on their way to No. 10 followed by not policies, or anything important, so much as anxiety: What might the clown do to screw it all up, either as an unsuccessful candiate or as one who wins?

[london conservative]

Ahem, I said Cuba but meant Chavez... Sorry!

[Jill, London]

"London Conservative" - what makes you so certain that Boris isn't up to being Mayor of London? You cannot have any proof of this, and it's just your opinion.

[Jonathan]

I think the two 'Conservatives' above who are criticising Boris are Livingstone Press Officers under a 'false flag'.

[Jill, London]

Jonathan - "West London Tory" and "London Conservative" certainly have a similar way of expressing themselves - and despite many comments to the contrary - one has defended the other by insisting they are Conservatives!

Strange Conservatives who post against the Party on a public website thus giving ammo to the Comrades.

It would be no surprise to learn they [or is it just the one person?] are really Comrade Livingstone sockpuppets.

[West London Tory]

Jonathan, I have been a party member, activist, officer and candidate for over 30 years. Accusing posters of being Livingstone press officers is a cop out. I do not agree with everything that my friend "london conservative" says but his points should be debated.

The big issue is why David Cameron is fielding a Mayoral candidate whom he thinks is not good enough to serve in his shadow cabinet. Since they have known each other for nearly 20 years, Cameron must know Boris very well. It is equally significant that Cameron was ready to cancel the open primary and impose Greg Dyke a joint candidate with the Lib Dems, our main opponents in West London.

Boris has made a media career out of playing the bumbling fool. Suddenly we are expected to believe that our party's jester is suitable for the biggest directly-elected office in Europe. New York has had Guiliani and Bloomberg, a successful prosecutor and a billionaire businessman. Our choice is between a bumbling buffoon and a mad Trot. We Londoners deserve better.

[West London Tory]

Jill and Jonathan just throw insults rather than debate issues. Are they CCHQ trolls or do they work for Boris?

[Jill, London]

I heard John Bercow [on Radio 4's The Westminster Hour] explain that Greg Dyke approached the Conservatives. I do find that odd as Dyke left the Comrades in a huff and went to aid the Yellow Peril.

And I do find it strange that "Conservatives" have paid so little attention to Boris [who has been a successful journalist - and editor of "The Spectator"] that they haven't noticed that Boris has been good at playing the buffoon - but that it was just an act. Although the Left keep trotting out that Boris is a "buffoon", "clown", etc - I am surprised that any alert Conservatives would repeat this, and that they haven't noticed that this is just an act.

I also think it's very sad that if these people really are Conservatives that they have some uncontrollable urge to air their grievances on a public website. That's one thing the Left are good at - keeping their gripes private - and not handing their opponents 'an own goal'!

[Jill, London]

West London Tory - you are the one throwing around insults which appears to be your idea of "debate" - along with your personal opinion of Boris.

[Jonathan]

West London Tory

Boris may play the Bertie Wooster character, but we should not be fooled. He's intelligent and quick-witted. He will have ample advisers in City Hall. And look at the Mayor's portfolio: transport,refuse, infrastructure, a bit of housing - there really isn't much to mess up. Ken's unpopularity stems from his own weirdness and machine politics.

[West London Tory]

Jonathan and Jill, I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion of any Conservative on this site. You accused me of not being a Conservative, a lie or supposition rather than an opinion. The Mayor must lead from experience rather than rely on unelected advisers in City hall.

Since you appear to work for Boris, perhaps you could tell me his bus and tube fares policy. My family spends over £5000 a year on fares so it is a big issue for us. There was no mention of one in his transport manifesto. What is his policy on the replacing the Metronet consortium?

[Jill, London]

West London Tory - What is your problem - apart from personally disliking Boris and doing all you can to run him down?

[come off it]

What a load of rubbish.

"Although the Left keep trotting out that Boris is a "buffoon", "clown", etc -"

Andrew Sullivan. Michael Portillo. William Hague. Michael Howard. Stephen Pollard. Tim Hames. A ComRes survey of London Business Leaders. Stefan Shakespeare--on this blog!!!--and others. The "Left"? I hardly think so.

"Boris may play the Bertie Wooster character, but we should not be fooled. He's intelligent and quick-witted. He will have ample advisers in City Hall"

What an idiot. Why would he need "ample advisers" if he is merely "playing" "the Bertie Wooster character"? Why would he even "play" the "Bertie Wooster character"? What exactly would be the point of that? Whoever heard of a candidate who needed "ample advisers" if they won?

These are among the most ridiculous defences of a candidate that anyone has ever heard.

"the Comrades" "Bertie Wooster" "ammo"?!?! This is as outdated as the language of the Mayor, when he rambles and whines about saving the flag from the fascists or the Daily Mail in the 1930s. It's 2008, not 1928. This election is not a Spectator article. Whoever had a candidate in an election this side of television, let alone an election that is the size and scope of this one, whom people of all political views choose to describe as a "clown" and a "buffoon," not forgetting "preposterous," "an embarassment," "unserious," "chaotic," "shambolic," "bumbling," "an eccentric," and of course, a liar... and that's just what fellow Conservatives say.

[Jill, London]

Why don't "West London Tory", "London Conservative" and "come off it" have a chat amongst themselves. All will be harmonious as they are in such agreement.

[come off it]

Why don't you answer these points, you fool?

[Jill, London]

I rest my case about insults being hurled as a form of "debate".

[Editor]

What a depressing set of comments.

I'm closing the thread.

:(