It rained today in London. It didn’t really matter, beyond making canvassing distinctly unpleasant. I’m still a little wet.

If it happens tomorrow, it may matter.

No-one likes trudging out in the pouring rain to vote. However, rainy elections are traditionally bad for Labour. I can’t immediately recall the statistics - but they tend to have a lower turnout in poor weather. While the particularly tight race this year might coax more than usual out to vote, the rain and cold does tend to affect the Labour vote more than it does the Tory. There’s a reason Labour has pitched its elections in May for so long…

The record of Tory voters is more mixed. I’m sure rain will usually affect their voting numbers to, if not to the same extent as it does Labour. This election, tight as it is, might prove different, though. Many of Boris’ supporters are on his side more to kick out Ken than to elect Boris - and the actual Tories want both. They’ll be detirmined to turn out to the polls, regardless of the weather.

It;s not much. But, given how tight the race between Ken and BoJo is, even that may be enough to throw it…

I heard Brown on the Today Programme this morning and he certainly did not sound like a man who is about to get dislodged from power. He had a fine grasp of the statistics of the matter and was convincing in his responses throughout. It strikes me that his voice is one that I have heard barely at all over the past year, although perhaps this is a consequence of my television viewing dropping to virtually nil and being replaced by broadband over-indulgence.

Regardless, I doubt that this affair shall see him removed from power.

On a rather nastier note I find myself not minding all that much if it did, just so long as he was replaced by someone who was firstly not a Blairite that would be equally bad and second someone who could win. Whether there is actually a candidate within the Labour Party who fulfills both criteria, or for that matter any who fulfill the latter, remains to be seen.

Much the same is true of his intention to re-grade cannabis a Class B despite the findings of the report that was performed upon the matter {witness also the pomposity of Brian Paddick who stated that he himself had been against the idea due to the confusion and said that at the time, as if that were the last word on the matter} which rather begs the question of why they bothered conducting it in the first place. Or for his plans to increase the time of detention to 42 days while not seeming concerned with our continued presence in Iraq, the action which the bombers on 7/7 said motivated them.

I am aware that for him to lose the votes on these issues would almost certainly be seen as him not being in control of his party {although I fail to see why this would be a truly bad thing} and that it would endanger the Labour Party severely before the next election {here I can} but I don’t really care. I can’t muster much support up for the man since, although I always held a fondness for him, for as long as he persists in doing stupid things that have no real cause and even the Conservative Party have abandoned as idiocy {identity cards, which he at least had the decency to de facto shelve} he doesn’t really seem to be worth the effort. I only feel pity for him in the same way that I would someone who stuck their hand in the fire. It didn’t belong their anyway, they should not have tried to do something so foolish.

Presumably these are sacrifices to the Daily Mail but I can’t quite grasp how these policies are anywhere near worth the damage they will cause him.

Perhaps I should have heeded the comments of my far-left comrades. Although he was “Only” in charge of the economy to a Marxist the economy is everything and the fact that he displeased them there was enough to show him to be utterly displeasing overall. Unlike with the liberals letting gay people civilly partner each other is insufficient. He funded the Iraq War, he oversaw the creation of the bastard mule hybrid PFIs and he traded the social democracy that was Labour’s legacy for the liberalism Thatcher bequeathed him.

Certainly I have no great love for such a reductionist view of the world, but although I can not agree with quite how virulent their view of the man is I must admit that they were closer to being right than I.

Did anyone watch Sky’s Mayoral debate? It was fundamentally pointless. This was one of the last chances for Londoners as a mass audience to see the candidates, and learn more on policy - but not so. Instead, it was a return to the same stilted punch and judy routines: Boris is a racist, Ken hates everyone, yadda yadda.

Boris trotted out tired old lines he’s used in every speech and debate so far, but got uproarious laughter this time. I couldn’t work out why until I noticed on Tory Troll that the debate was in Sloane Square - Boris country. A sneaky little attempt to weigh it in Boris’ favour on Murdoch’s (minon’s) part, perhaps? The audience simply hated Ken.

And this came with the last minute sucking up to Paddick as Ken and BoJo tried desperately to harvest Lib Dem votes. Paddick, meanwhile, was as rude as possible to them, presumably in an attempt to keep hold of his voters, and mark him out as an assertive, strong candidate.

As it is, he just looked like a shrill prat.

I’d go on, but there’s a far more interesting account over at Tory Troll, who was actually there. I quote perhaps the most interesting backstage detail:

The rest of the debate descended into a flattery-fest as both Boris and Ken fought to see who could be nicest to Brian whilst Brian tried to be as nasty as possible in return. But once the cameras turned off, the crowds left and Andrew Gilligan was out of view, Boris and Ken were left on the stage and suddenly they looked and sounded like old friends.

And like Ken’s embrace of Boris as the two walked off the Question Time stage last week, I saw a moment of truth behind the stage-managed indignation of recent weeks. Because behind all of the personal attacks that the candidates, journalists and bloggers have made over this campaign, it is easy to forget that this is a contest between two well-meaning and likeable characters. And although Boris’ has not quite been able to bring himself to look Ken in the eye when they were standing at the podiums, I suspect that they would quite happily share two stools at a bar.

“I have spent my adult life trying to bridge the gap in-between different types of people. That’s in my DNA…To insist that we follow mutual hopes and mutual dreams, as Americans and human beings.”

Is he speaking my language? Yes, and so well I’m practically salivating here.

As it happens the speech is actually an exercise in damage control but somehow it doesn’t seem that way: Obama manages to turn this around into a contrast between the old methods of ramping up contrast and sprouting idiocy that black nationalism depended upon and his own, superior, offering. It is a feat that I can imagine few others achieving, with one of the select presently being reduced to comparing Barack to Jesse Jackson.

That comparison has never looked more foolish.

There are, perhaps, a few downsides to PR:

Italy’s new parliament met for the first time today with applause for Rome’s mayor-elect, Gianni Alemanno, a day after followers celebrated his triumph with straight-arm salutes and fascist-era chants.

Alemanno, a former neo-fascist youth leader, took 54% of the vote in a run-off on Sunday and Monday, crushing his rival, Francesco Rutelli, a deputy prime minister in the last, centre-left government.

Silvio Berlusconi, who won a general election earlier this month, welcomed the latest evidence of Italy’s leap to the right by declaring: “We are the new Falange”. Although he took care to wrap his remark in a classical context, his choice of words appeared to be a nod and a wink to his most extreme supporters.

This is the sort of thing which inclines me towards some form of hybrid system.  The mess of full PR and Italian politics - whereby neo-fascists get in government on the basis of a dodgy rightist coalition - leaves me cold. Far better, I suspect, to increase the representative power of a body through an element of PR, while providing strong enough majorities that government’s aren’t forced to rely on the far-right for power.

Apologies for the lack of detailed posting; I have a long essay to write, by about 9.00 tomorrow.  Although I should have a brief piece up on why Kate Hoey’s support of Boris matters very little later on.

It’s pretty strong stuff. Shock tactics like these are often criticised as being too shocking - but surely that’s the point? Torture is horrific. The best way to get that across is by demonstrating clearly just how horrific it is. If people are put off, it won’t be from Amnesty - who exist to oppose torture - but from torture itself.

(Hat tip for the video: Iain Dale)

And now, an announcement from the Green Party Centre for Popular Enlightenment, Propaganda and Agitation: the Observer has endorsed Sian Berry. Observe (hah…) their leader:

The traditional beneficiaries of protest voting - the Liberal Democrats - have failed to make an impact in the campaign. Their candidate, Brian Paddick, is undoubtedly a decent man, but he has been out of his depth as a politician. There is a stronger case to be made for casting ‘first preference’ votes for Siân Berry, the Green candidate. The party has already used its toehold on the London Assembly to wring green concessions worth millions of pounds out of the mayoral budget. A respectable score for Ms Berry, an intelligent and articulate advocate of her cause, would send a clear signal to whoever wins the mayoralty that London cares about environmental policy. It would also deprive the British National Party of fourth place, a small but notable step towards the mainstream.

But it is the ’second preferences’, used to top up the score of the leading two candidates, that will most likely decide who becomes mayor. Realistically, there are only two ways to use that vote: Ken or Boris. The unavoidable choice is between an incumbent whose record and character are familiar from many years in office and a challenger whose image and beliefs have been cynically manufactured for the campaign.

In short, in the cautious tones of a Sunday newspaper leader, advocating Sian first, and Ken second. This is a complete first for the Greens. That a national newspaper has endorsed a party candidate; that the party has more or less acheived blanket fourth party coverage; that they’re running at 4th in the polls all indicates just how much progress the party has made recently. A sign the new message appears to be getting through, perhaps…

I only hope it works out on polling day.

MAY 1st EDIT: From today’s Indy:

Sian Berry, for the Greens, on the other hand, has been an articulate, imaginative and effective advocate for her cause. With her programme for a greener London, with more cycle-lanes, cheaper public transport, more small shops and eco-friendly housing, she has come across as a forward-looking politician, committed to a better quality of London life. We hope she can continue to find a voice in the national debate.

So consonant are her priorities with those of this paper that, if we could vote for mayor today, we would place our first-preference cross against her name. This would underscore the importance of the environment to both London and to the rest of the nation. Then, and with rather heavy heart, it would be illogical to do anything other than make Ken Livingstone our second choice.

Gosh…

From: Gerry Fenby
To: Ali Gledhill, Douglas Johnson, R.E Vamp
C.C: The London Electorate

Subject: The Consequences of a Boris Mayoralty

Gentlemen:

I found myself in an uncomfortable position today. Loitering at a bus stop*, I was ambushed by an enthusiastic, bouncing woman of indetirminate middle age, clad in a Back Boris shirt. Her mouth moved, but no sound came out.

I removed my ear-phones, grudgingly. Tories, especially happy Tories, don’t qualify as important enough to interrupt Portishead under normal circumstances.

However, she seemed insistent.

“What?”
The Boris-bot beams. She remained bizarrely cheerful throughout the episode, given how surly I was.
“Would you like to meet Boris Johnson?”
“Um…”

You appreciate the dilemmna facing me, I’m sure. I loathe Boris. I find his current vacuity worrying; the old politics it covers offensive; and his attempts at humour dully unfunny, reliant more on the reader’s (simple) mindset than his skill. Perhaps he is a charming and sensitive man in private - but his public persona could be charged for inciting me to violence against it.

On the other hand, I could hardly pass up a chance to heckle the Twa Tory - could I? Your blogger fell behind on those stakes a fortnight ago, when Douglas thrust a Green Party leaflet on a bewildered BoJo after a hustings. Another incident - this time, with the possibility of a watchful journalist catching it - would hardly go amiss.

So…

“Yes, why not?”

The woman beamed, again, sickeningly, before skittering off.  I followed - into a calvacade of idiocy.

The clown and jester epithets usually applied to Boris strike me as loosely accurate. It was hard to miss the merry circus, ambling its way down the high street. First came the mindless groupies: vacuous placard wavers screaming in adulation at the approach of their bumbling hero. They thrust leaflets, they wave banners, they cheer. One of them even had a song about stopping Ken, the lyrics of which weren’t worth remembering.

Then the real spectators: the press. Bustling along, walking backwards, cameras going over and over. I half expected one to fall over and damage themselves - which, cruel as it sounds, would have ruined the walkabout spectacularly.

Then came the ringmasters: slick, stressed-looking men in suits. They kept a discrete distance from the main attraction, trailing a few yards behind the shambling main attraction. I do wonder what purpose they actually served here. Walkabouts are one of the few places that managing BoJo must verge on impossible - as demonstrated by the ambush where Boris gave away the real cost of his plans for buses. He’s there to talk to people, and there’s virtually nothing they can do to stop that. Unless they control the crowd, of course…

Strangely, the only figure that actively detracts from the circus metaphor here is BoJo himself. Ambling along, slightly hunched, eyes hazy, arms out in front - he was doing his very best to appear serious. He shook peoples’ hands firmly, earnestly looked them in the eye, nodded his head very seriously. That he looked like a badly stuffed toy with difficulties comprehending the world only served to move him further from his previous, clown like image. A figure of fun, perhaps - but only because he looked so bloody ridiculuous.

My heckle didn’t go to plan. I let loose my first shout - an off-the-cuff jab about the cost of buses - entirely too early. It wasn’t in his face; it was through the back of a few. His minders, loosely grouped around him, performed their only overt role of the walkabout and steered him quietly away to a collection of screaming groupies elsewhere. He found himself assailed with handshakes, not heckles.

I, meanwhile, found myself attacked from all sides.

“You shouted at Boris?  How could you?”
“Look! A Commie!”
“How could you? He’s such a Legernd!”
“Boris!”
“He’s such a Legernd! How could you?”
“Boris!”
“What are you, the only Labour supporter in the borough?”
“BorisBorisBorisBorisBorisBorisBugh…”

Fool that I am, I decided on an argument. Rounding on one of my detractors; a young woman (depressingly) of about my own age in a Back Boris shirt.

“Yes, I heckled Boris. So?”
“He’s Boris, how could you…”
“Why shouldn’t I heckle him?”
“Because…”
“Why should I vote for Boris?”
“Because…”
“Because?”

An awkward, angry pause. I suspect most Boris Backers - especially in an area as upsettingly blue as this - aren’t used to being reminded their candidate has few policies worth speaking of. Forcing them to say:

“…because he’s not Ken!”
“So?”

This one genuinely puzzled her, I think. The frustration in her face morphed into a confused mix of bemusement, fear and loathing. Rather fun to watch…

“Because…because he’s Ken!  Hes a crook!  He’s corrupt!  He hates cars!  He…he…”
“Neither corruption nor theft have been proven. What he’s definitely been accused of - employing a small clique of ex-extremists he knew in his youth - is no different to Cameron’s front bench.”

Note that I didn’t deny Ken hates cars.  There’s certainly no proof to show he likes them - a sentiment I’m inclined to share, if I’m honest…

“He…oppresses poor Venezualans and does deals with dodgy dictators!”

And at that point, the Boris Backer lost the argument. Attacks on Ken and Chavez infuriate me; something I imagine my opponent realised fairly soon…

“Really?  I’m not sure who you’re talking about.”
Splutter.
“Chavez!”
“That’s a strange figure to pick as a dictator and oppressor of the poor. Very few dictators run in elections, or accept the results of referenda that don’t go their way - as he did. Very few prole-haters engage is heavy nationalisation and redistribution of wealth - as he has done. You moan about the cheap oil deal - if it’s so damaging, why is the quality of life in Venezuala for the average individual so much higher than it was before Chavez? Wealth and power have been transferred from a very small rich elite into the hands of the majority. All very funny for a dictator, I’d say…”
“But…”
“And now, contrasted with your dear Boris, who opposed the minimum wage…”

At this point, she gave up, outraged that anyone could think Boris was a bastard. It worries me slightly that she even tried…

What worries me most, though, was how well BoJo went down with the crowd. He simply wasn’t an impressive sight - and yet they loved him. Admittedly, they were a partially picked crowd from a very Tory borough…

But it raised the spectre of Boris winning nonetheless. He might just do it - even if the most recent polls predict otherwise. The possible consequences would, I fear, be disastrous:

1. Anarchy in City Hall: Boris may well be serially incompetent. He’s never run anything but the Spectator (”Actually I think you’ll find it was 50 people, 50, not 20…”) - and there’s no evidence to suggest he did that well. I refer you to Matthew Parris on BoJo’s tenure as editor:

I must challenge Ken Livingstone’s complaint that as former editor of a small right-wing magazine, the only administrative decision Mr Johnson ever took was choosing a restaurant for lunch.

This paints an exaggeratedly hands-on picture of the Boris management style. His secretary did that kind of thing. You were just lucky if Boris came to the lunch.

Given the sheer amount of work involved in being Mayor, I suggest Boris may cock up. Spectacularly. I further suggest this will not be good for London.

And it may well lead to our next, more frightening option:

2. Boris becomes a puppet for the Tories: Boris has allowed himself to be managed all campaign. Except on a few, notable occasions - the public disagreement with Cameron over immigration being the most prominent - he’s done everything his minders have said. Those stressed looking men in suits from CHQ have him on a leash, and they probably aren’t keen to let go - in case Possibility 1 occurs. The GLA becomes a front for national Tory policy, and the electorate gets an early taste of why it shouldn’t vote Cameron.

3. Boris is largely incompetent, but tries anyway - while trying to avoid management by central party: The most likely, I suspect. Boris is a bumbling fool - but that’s not stopped any of them in the past, has it? The likelihood is that he’ll try to implement his policies, come up against unexpected difficulties or opposition, and collapse - as he has done whenever he’s been seriously questioned in public. At the same time, Cameron and the Conservative Party will have realised this, and will be trying to manage Boris as best they can.

Boris, however, is said to resent this management - and claims he’ll stand up to Cameron. If this is the case, a running battle looks to ensue between Boris and his old chums from the Bullingdon. Which may prove something of a distraction…

4. Boris defies all expectations and is competent: By far the most worrying possibility is that Boris is competent, and will go on and implement policies in the vein of his past writings. For the uninitiated, these generally express hardline Thatcherite views wrapped up in bad jokes. The 80s would return, just in time for the Depression…

None of these prospects entice me particularly. As such, in the event of a Boris victory, I suggest international revolution - or at least, fleeing the capital for four years.

Yours in deepest disgust,

Fenby

*I should say waiting here. But, being male and under 20, I’m inherently suspicious and quasi-criminal in the eyes of the population - thus, loitering. Probably with intent.

Political polling is notoriously unreliable.  The ever brilliant politicalbetting.com keeps us novice commentators in check, and a healthy degree of scepticism prevents and rash judgements being made - but polls are nonetheless an invaluable tool to judge what the country is thinking.  This evening sees news about two polls for tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph and News of the World, both bringing bad news for Labour.

The News of the World poll is very similar to that conducted just before the Autumn election was cancelled.  It looks at 145 key Tory/Labour marginal seats, calculating how many of them would change hands.  Six months ago, Labour would have come away with a reduced majority.  Today, the Tories would win a majority of 64.  The poll is flawed in several respects - not least its narrow-minded focus on key marginals.  But the fact remains that 131 of the 145 closest seats would be lost to the Conservatives.  Idiot-proof analysis follows on the News of the World website:

In October, Gordon Brown called off an early General Election after a similar News of the World poll revealed he would lose over 49 seats.

In just six months those losses have more than DOUBLED, and David Cameron is now establishing clear blue water between the Tories and the embattled Labour Party.

It is a devastating blow to Gordon Brown just days before the local and London elections, when Labour are expected to suffer heavy losses.

In words particularly humiliating for Brown, it is argued that he is losing the debate to the party that is not debating:

Despite the fact that the Tories have not unveiled detailed policies in most areas, they are crucially winning the debate about who has the best ideas to run the country.

After taking over as Prime Minister Gordon Brown won widespread praise and respect for his handling of attempted car bombs in Glasgow on London.

But David Cameron now has a six point lead over Brown on the War on Terror.

The poll is particularly useful in telling seat-by-seat results, only otherwise possible upon extrapolation through systems like Electoral Calculus:

Today’s poll shows Chancellor Alistair Darling (majority 7,242), Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (2,716), Business Secretary John Hutton (6,037) and Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly (2,064) would all lose their seats.

And Labour now face a desperate battle to hold the formerly safe seat of Crewe and Nantwich in next month’s by-election caused by the death of MP Gwyneth Dunwoody .

Her 7,078 majority would disappear, giving the Tories a huge morale boost.

One final note for those sceptical about the role of next Thursday’s local elections in determining the national party standings:

In the wake of Thursday’s elections Labour Cabinet Ministers will say the local elections do not reflect the national picture.

But today’s poll shows just 19% say they will vote according to local issues.

A similar poll caused Brown to cancel an election.  Now things are so much worse for him, I wonder whether he regrets not going to the people for a mandate.  A 9-point swing to the Tories matches that gained by Labour in 1997: a humiliating end to the New Labour project.  Brown must really be regretting not calling an election in the Autumn.  That fortnight six months ago really changed the course of events for the next few years: the Tory party conference was a spectacular demonstration of how unity can be kept in times of crisis, and Brown’s indecision over the election demonstrated why the least worst option is often the only option.

The second poll out tomorrow is the latest from ICM in the Sunday Telegraph.  The poll shows a 10 point lead for the Tories.  But compared to ICM’s Guardian poll of a few days ago, the gap has widened by 5% because Labour has lost 5%.  In other words, the Tories have not won voters over with the wranglings over the 10p tax rate; Labour have lost them.  The obvious qualification is that the Tory share of the vote is much higher than it was a few months and years ago.

In all of this the LibDems are holding steady on 18% - a result that would more or less halve the number of MPs returned to Westminster.  As I highlighted the other day, it looks as if Clegg might struggle to hold his seat.  The inevitable crisis of leadership in the Labour party may well be matched in the LibDems.

Having explored the irrelevant tangent, one must consider just how permanent these poll leads are.  This has been a very bad few weeks for Labour, but voters have short memories and the polls might yet turn again.  At the very least, the Tories will have to work to convince voters to support them in order to consolidate any lead.  It is clear, however, that too many bad weeks leaves voters simply unprepared to consider giving a party the benefit of the doubt.  We are not there yet, but I think Labour will struggle very hard to stave off what now looks almost inevitable.

The last week has seen three national papers endorsing Boris Johnson for Mayor: the Sun, Telegraph and Times.  The Tories can now count on Murdoch support in 2010 - he doesn’t tend to back losers.  If Johnson wins on Thurday and the Tories sweep the board in the local elections, the press will look to the Tories as the deliverer of good things.  The public eye will be on the only governing Conservative in Boris Johnson - any major mistakes could be lethal, but if he delivers it will be to Tory benefit.  Like the SNP in Scotland, Labour have played the expectations game: if, like the SNP, Johnson performs well, Labour’s ratings will fall through the floor, like in Scotland.

So, the tide is turning, but has not turned just yet.  As I have said, though, the change is almost inevitable.

The Evening Standard apparently knows Boris will be a poor choice as mayor. Floating through yesterday’s posts on Stop Boris, I noticed this. Observe their attacks, right from the start on BoJo’s manifesto. On his Tube policies:

Nothing infuriates the unions more than a suggestion of a no-strike deal. There is no way Aslef and the RMT would agree - it will immediately lead to a strike. On air conditioning, he is restating what is already being done. Work on subsurface lines starts next year while aircon on deep-level lines is beset with technical problems. Has he grasped the detail of the Metronet contracts?

Pretty damning stuff, that. How about the C-Charge?

Utility fines is good vote catcher but difficult in practice. Not enough detail on “reform” of C-charge, although a consultation on the Western extension and rephasing lights would be welcome. Annoyed the green lobby by refusing to bring in £25 charge for gas-guzzlers.

Slightly less cutting, but still negative. Even crime, Boris’ headline (lack-of-decent) policy, comes in for criticism:

Advocating the use of hand-held weapon scanners could hark back to the days of stop and search. His idea for New York-style crime maps could ghettoise areas blighted by crime.

All in all, it doesn’t look good for Boris here. He comes in for some 17 jabs throughout the piece. Compare this with their assessment of Livingstone’s manifesto. Even with their standard (hah…) hostility,  they find it hard to pick major holes in him. The most common description is, “realistic” and “practical” if “limited.”

The ES knows BoJo is a distinctly inferior candidate.

And yet they continue to support him. If one were looking for evidence of how much the ES hates Ken, here would be a good place to look: so desperate are they for him to die (painfully, I suspect) that they’ll support a man they know to be a confirmed idiot.

I’ll leave you with Stop Boris’ conclusion on the matter, which puts it rather well:

Of course, given how little is left in his manifesto that the Standard haven’t exposed as fundamentally or seriously flawed in this article, one has to wonder why on earth they’re so keen to get him elected as Mayor. Nothing to do with a petty squabble with a certain incumbent, is it? As it happens, Ken’s manifesto comes off comparatively well under their scrutiny. (They even admit his crime reduction target is “realistic” and that “latest figures show crime fell by six per cent last year”!) No wonder they’re trying to distract voters from the actual issues in their more high-profile day-to-day election coverage!