The election of the Mayor of London is developing nicely into a contrast of political visions, alongside a comparison between the characters of the major candidates.

What has struck me, from the debates on TV, for I’ve not been to any of the election meetings in London, is that Ken Livingstone looks careworn.  He appears miffed that he’s having to face the indignity of an election. Meanwhile Boris Johnson is, surprisingly, proving to be a very effective political campaigner. 

This is a high profile, high risk election. The Conservatives need Boris to win to confirm their political momemtum, and Labour need a win to settle their nerves. While important, the local elections won’t deliver the boost that either main party needs, but the race for London Mayor can.  

Here are some smart pieces of analysis, with which I agree.

Firstly a delightful encapsulation of what Boris is about by Matthew Parris in The Times, HERE:

“Boris Johnson’s new, sobersided persona is working well; but happily there does remain the frisson of watching a man apparently dipping into a mental bran tub as he speaks, as mystified as the rest of us to know what bauble of opinion or information he may come up with next.”

And Anatole Kaletsky, HERE, also in The Times, on how electing Boris changes the political dynamics of local government :

“The Tories now have a perfect opportunity to cure this paralysing disconnection between local and national government in Britain by taking the London election seriously and getting their candidate elected by committing themselves in advance to national decisions such as abandonment of Heathrow expansion or changes in the policing of London’s streets. In doing this, the Tories would put themselves on the path to national power and create a suitable platform for Boris Johnson, one of their most able and charismatic politicians, to show what his party could achieve.”

And finally a neat piece of comparative analysis, HERE, from the London Policy Institute.