The ITV Debate

I played football yesterday evening: distracted and short of sleep, I was rubbish. After getting the kids to bed I then dozed off in the bath and woke only just in time to watch the latest televised debate. Perhaps my fatigue and mild disorientation help explain why I found it rather depressing. Though Alastair Stewart hosted, the questions came from the studio audience amid a bit of a bear pit atmosphere. That's often a recipe for more heat than light, and so it proved.

Yesterday afternoon I wrote that Livingstone had been having slightly the better of the TV encounters, thanks mostly to Johnson's continuing inability to get his story straight on bendy buses. But no candidate emerged as a clear victor last night. It didn't help the event that some of the questioners had their facts wrong. One accused Johnson of writing that black people have lower IQs. He didn't: it was the rancid Spectator columnist Taki. Livingstone corrected the questioner, but went on to hammer the point that Johnson had been editor of the Spectator at the time. Johnson had been pre-armed with a riposte, claiming that anti-semitic material had appeared in a long-forgotten far left newspaper which he claimed, incorrectly*, that Livingstone had edited.

I'd say Livingstone - "the Labour mayor" as Johnson often calls him, hoping a bit of Brown stuff will stick - had the better of that exchange, but was more on the defensive over crime. The most dispiriting aspect of the debate was the three of them competing to sound the most "tough" on the subject amid the surrounding emotion. I think Paddick has the best policing policy, but the truth is that, like all politicians, they've all been making claims about crime that they can't justify and promises they're in no position to keep. As for the question on buses, the man asking it seemed even more confused about Johnson's policy than Johnson. The Blond's reply was to insist that he has said "repeatedly" that £100 million should take care of it. The truth is he's only been repeating the figure since letting it slip by accident in front of someone's camera phone in Edgware.

Perhaps I'm suffering from campaign fatigue. Perhaps they are too. How about holding the election a week early?

* My mistake. Livingstone was joint editor of Labour Herald for a time in the early Eighties. Thanks to those who've pointed this out.

Comments

[The Tory Troll]

Campaign fatigue is right. All the spark of a week or so ago seems to have vanished and the candidates just seem to be going through the motions.

It's similar to what has happened with the presidential race. There are only so many times that the public can hear that Obama is 'change' and Hilary is 'ready on day one.' Similarly there is only so much about bendy buses, sheiks, and watermelon smiles that London voters can put up with.

However, unlike the presidential race, I suspect that by the time the vote comes around in London those people willing to turnout to vote will have seriously slumped.

We need the candidates to get the public more excited about this race. It would help if we could see a bit more passion and even anger from Livingstone. Perhaps tonight's Question Time will liven things up a bit.

[Labour supporter]

Have already voted with my postal vote (for Ken!) so am going to switch off the whole thing until May 2nd!

[angela]

Dave you are suffering from campaign fatigue, because Boris knocked the other two into the middle of next week. Ken admittedly was going through the motions - he is old and maybe they got his doppelganger to take his place, because that sure wasn't the cheeky Ken of yesteryear. He made no sharp ripostes and even smiled placatingly as Boris called him a hypocrite.
When called to account on his handling of the alleged City Hall misdealings, he looked positively jittery.

Boris was on top of his game, enthusiastic, convincing and he knocked spots off the other two.

[Elisabeth]

I was at the University of London Hustings on Tuesday night. A guy asked Ken a question about this cartoon in the Labour Herald. He said he wasn’t asking as a supporter of Israel but as a London Jew, and said he found the idea of a Jew dressed as a Nazi offensive. I don’t think he asked Ken to retract his views about Israel, but just to apologise to the London Jewish community for any offence indirectly caused. I was a bit struck that Ken flatly refused to do that; so much for showing concern for all Londoners.

More interesting perhaps was that he said that the cartoon depicted the role of Israel in the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla. I checked this out afterwards and discovered that the cartoon was published in June 1982, but Sabra and Shatilla didn’t happen until September of that year. For me, as someone who isn’t Jewish, that’s the concerning thing. The answer Ken gave to justify himself in front of 200 students was completely misleading and factually wrong. It makes you worried about how often he uses this tactic on other, more key issues.