I’ll try and make this quick.

Winning the alphabetical test are the BNP, who begin the leaflet in their traditional fashion: identity politics played hard and firm. “People Like You Voting BNP” says some white letters backed in red. “Policies For You” states another column that promises to offer a “Better education for our people”. The wolf-whistle is a tactic with an esteemed history of success, stretching from segregationists in the South of the USA to Ronald Reagan talking about “State’s Rights” to just the right audience. It is a simple enough approach, that works by saying that seems respectable on the surface but, to the correct listener, reveals a more malign meaning that they find pleasing.

In this application it’s not even subtle: “Remember London the ay it used to be? Clean, friendly and safe.” Or rather, “Clean, friendly, safe and white”. The bold emphasises the point, saying that they are “the only party that wants to put real Londoners first”, which again is easily re-written by the mind. The only things I was not entirely expecting was the bald lunge at the working class {the aforementioned “People like you” are a builder, housewife and student} and the use of a Conservative line: “Because it’s not racist to oppose mass immigration and political correctness – it’s common sense!” to protect their policies. Exactly how Nick Griffin feels about his candidate stealing a phrase from “Mindbender” Michael Howard is uncertain. Perhaps the Jews have even more power than we knew.

Next it’s on to the Left List, a shift that makes me quite giddy. Here the text is tiny and dense, for they only stood the candidate and put up their cash to buy themselves a platform and they’re jolly well going to make the most of it. “Wealth is gushing up to the wealthiest in London”, they argue {not without reason} but rather curiously their policy is just a tad less absurd than the BNP. “Bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan” they promise. “Spend the money used for war on welfare” they ungrammatically follow. How exactly they intend to overwhelm parliamentary sovereignty and take command of foreign affairs is unclear, as is their means implementing “No tuition feeds for students”. To be fair this is “10 STEPS TO A BETTER LONDON:” instead of “What we’d do if we got into power” but it’s rather curious that they allow such a big box to dominate while talking mostly about things that the Mayor can’t even do. There is a mention of Lindsay standing as Respect’s candidate but they’re most likely not going to match her achievement of “Coming within 0.43% of the a seat on the London Assembly” thanks to the split. Rather infuriating it must be for them, given that if they’d kept it together the votes lost that were protests against the Iraq War would have been made up for, perhaps even exceeded, thanks to the prevailing mood against the mega-rich.

Ah well, that’s just the left.

Now it’s Boris’ turn and we are treated to Big Boris, a massive photo of him looking scruffy and surprisingly stupid. If they were going for the disorganised fop look they could have done much better, he just ends up looking like an imbecile. Perhaps his whole appearance was harmed by the hair-cut, but at least it grew back a little before they snapped this one. I’m only talking about it for so long because of how large the picture is, honest.

Above it is a grey text {unwise} passage outlining “The Challenge” before the call finds its response with “The Solution” which {thankfully} is set out using a black font. My objection to Boris’ policy {such as it is} is its foundations in the “Zero Tolerance” policies implemented by New York, based around Broken Window Theory. The problem with this idea is that for the most part the people that commit graffiti {a major focus} do not consider their creations crimes, nor do they even see it as a degradation of their surroundings. It is true that a culture of crime can develop but contemporary graffiti culture is in no way connected with rape. There was a considerable drop in crime in New York but an even greater one was witnessed in other cities with less harsh policies, meaning that there are more effect solutions that are far less severe. Anyway, back to frivolity: the manifesto bears his signature, as did the BNP one, with only Left List lacking one so far. Perhaps they didn’t really mean it.

Then comes the Greens, rendered unmistakable by…Well, the Green. A large picture of Sian smiling is tucked into the bottom right and we are told about her experience above that. They were bright enough to include their e-presence and outline why we should vote for her as the 1^st preference {since 2^nd is worthless for all but the top two contenders} which was wise, although make no mention of the much-publicised Red-Green pact. Their policies are all sensible and make leftists such as myself nod approvingly and “Mm” and they truly are the least offensive party represented. The only thing that annoyed me was them calling London the “Second most expensive city in the world” yet not informing us of the first. Still, they try and snaffle some socialist votes by wolf-whistling “While fortunes are made in the City ordinary Londoners are often struggling to pay for the basics”. In fact they make the grumpy Trotskyite Marxists of the “Left List” {SWP} seem rather obsolete altogether.

Then it’s on to Brian Paddick who for some reason chooses a ghastly purple and yellow lay-out. “If I can’t cut crime and make our streets safer – I’ll quit” he proclaims, sounding unfortunately like Steve Norris, who lost last time. His policies seem largely non-existence and largely consist of Brian having once been a policeman, something he seems to bring up a number of times disproportionate to anybody’s interest. The only way that I imagine he could “get things done” is him strolling the streets like a mixture between Robocop, Judge Dredd and the Terminator, although frankly that’s such a fun image that I reckon he could pull it off. “Brian will make our transport network safer for all”, it claims. Single-handedly.

Then it’s onto UKIP who for their colour-scheme select…Purple and yellow. It really is quite a surreal experience to see the Europhiles and phobes united. Once the oddness of this is overcome they become brutally dull. Their Law and Order policy suggests “Punish the guilty and protect the innocent”. Unlike the Left List they suffer from not really having enough to say about anything besides the EU, which the Mayor can do nothing about. At least the SWP could provide something other than the Iraq War to talk about, while poor UKIP are left sounding like standard Tories tipped to the right slightly.

Then it’s onto the Christian Choice, with wolf-whistles blasting loud and clear. They promise to “Champion London’s most vulnerable – the unborn” which can only ever translate into slashing abortion availability and funding inn practice. Apparently this party was a merger of the “Christian Peoples Alliance” and “The Christian Party” to form some bastard union that apparently expects itself to be the “Choice” for all Christians. All of them that accept attempts to introduce right-wing theocracy, at least. They redeem themselves slightly by promising to protect “the refugee” along with zygotes and joining in with the anti-City talk but with their promise to “Promote marriage” {I think it’s got quite enough publicity as it is, thank you} and wince-inducing quote of “End the (alleged) corruption at City Hall” that implies Mr. Craig might be making something that never existed cease, it is utterly impossible to take this lot seriously. And theocrats usually irritate and terrify me.

Then it’s on to some more light entertainment: the English Democrats. In this instance the whole affair is made additionally unfortunate by the presence of a candidate who is no longer part of the party or standing as their candidate anywhere save the ballot paper, which it was too late to eradicate his name from. Matt O’Connor was the founder of Fathers4Justice, a group I consider in a more positive light than most but sadly he seemed to have expected some form of organisation from this lot. Their policy consists mainly of an Angry red box proclaiming “LONDON’S MONEY MAKES SCOTLAND’S WORLD GO ROUND!” and listing all of the cash that English people give the Scots. That and “celebrating” Lord Nelson and the occasion of remembrance for that notoriously pure-blooded Englishman, St. George’s Day. Still, they are by far the least loathsome of all the nationalist parties represented, being “Proud to stand for integration, not segregation”. They suffer even worse that UKIP from the single-issue condition: one of their two pages is filled with a large St. George’s Cross and what seems to be a scam to obtain cash from premium rate phonelines from those interested {I’ll save you 50p per minute: they’re about hating Scotland and making an English Parliament}.

Then it’s Ken Livingstone, who rather annoyingly also includes a large picture of himself and barely any text on that page. Still, it makes it look pretty. I agree with everything he says and it’s a serious affair, despite his smile. Nothing much to mock here, apart from the tiny logo that Labour gets, which is not even filled in with red as usual.

And then we’re done. “Winston McKenzie is also standing for Mayor of London as an independent” we were told at the start, but failed to get his act together enough to submit us something funny. We’ll close with him anyway: “It is my desire, to take it to the wire, and make Ken retire.”