A mere toenail in the body politic

This is a fascinating interview, Boris may be perceived as a bumbling fool but there is a very quick brain behind the shaggy mop. Maybe it is the training received on Have I Got News For You that stands him in good stead, but he is able to really undermine Jeremy Paxman who was not going for the jugular but was perhaps hoping Boris would go off message. The turning of the tables and being allowed to basically give a party political broadcast is wonderful - something between bluster and fillybuster, perhaps it demonstrates a better and more skillful side to media management than the stonewalling that most politicians offer.

(Shame the BBC wont allow the embedding of videos!!!)

Caption Competition

Sorry if you were expecting a picture to add comments to (well you can if you like!) or a prize (which you wont get) but looking at Boris Johnson's Twitter feed and amid his comments on where he is going or what he is doing (there is also public information in his own inimical style: i.e. "World Hepatitis Day today. 1 in 12 people are infected with Hep B or C. Shocking stuff. Get tested chums) but also he forwards links to Twitpics (you can make your own jokes about that) such as the one left. Looking at it I wondered exactly why he was sharing this. OK, there is is at the Tower of London with two beefeaters; but surely this is more like a holiday snap than a picture that indicates a hard working Mayor. On the whole the pictures feature Boris with the great and the good; but it is not just about image and presentation. Boris's pseudo celebrity status means he has quite a following and so gets a lot of comments; few are negative and most are in a very informal style as if one friend is talking to another. The above elicited the below comments.

Several tell him to get his hands out of his pockets, Rosina Carley calls him a 'scran bag' (whatever that is), 'empatt' a gorgeous scamp; it is very jokey and showing affection rather than opprobrium. And my point? Well the informality of him and his followers gives an impression of accessibility and openness. His very deliberate style of informality allows him to get away with a lot and this may be a good model to adopt for political leaders. Rather than the overtly third party approach of No. 10 Downing Street which has now morphed into the USEGOV newsfeed, this seems to be Boris. So could this be a good way of managing your public image?

Insights into the political mindset!

There has been a lot made of the 'tirade' or 'F-word rant' launched against Keith Vaz by Boris Johnson after he was criticised in a BBC interview and thought he would be recalled to give more evidence. The issue at hand was whether Boris Johnson had divulged information to David Cameron about Damian Green's arrest that Cameron would not have been party to but the Mayor of London would (following all that, if not its all in the media). The conversation demonstrates a series of fears held by Boris Johnson, that anything he does could become a huge party political issue and, as a corrollary of that, will damage the standing of the Conservatives. Thus there are these wonderful comments about Johnson's decision to turn up to committee and what might be suggested if did not. While a private conversation now it is public it is very revealing about how Johnson and perhaps the Conservative party as a whole worry about any negative press as they stick the boot into Brown: such is the nature of a competitive democracy!

In terms of perceptions Boris does not come across well, the transcript shows signs of petulance while Vaz remains very calm and indeed fair given the circumstnaces; whether it will cause any real ripples for hte party or Johnson is unlikely but it is a fascinating exchange.

Full text of the conversation is below:

BJ: Have seen the broadcast regarding the letter I sent to you following Tuesday's evidence session. I'm unbelievably disappointed in the way my evidence is being treated.
I said to you that I could not remember the exact details at the time. Clarified the facts as soon as I was made aware/reminded of what happened. So fucking angry that you have gone on TV saying that I will be recalled to HASC (the Committee) to give further.
KV: I don't know what broadcast you have seen.
BJ: On the BBC. You are using the HASC for party political purposes. I used to think that you were a straight guy. A man that you could do business with. This is fucking ridiculous.
KV: I never said that I would recall you in the Committee.
BJ: You have gone on television and connived to try and give the impression that I fucking tipped off David Cameron. You are trying to make me look like a fucking fool. I cannot believe that you have allowed the HASC to become a part of this. This is such fucking bullshit.
KV: You turned up to the evidence session on Tuesday with no diary or notes.
BJ: I fucking warned you beforehand that I would not be very good on details.
KV: I have circulated your letter to every member of the Committee.
The only thing missing from the letter is the exact time of the call. Why didn't you just include the time of the call?
BJ: You have abused the Committee and I will not let this rest.
KV: This is a matter for all members of the Committee, I didn't want to call you to give evidence, other members did, including Conservative members, I want to conclude the inquiry next Tuesday. I do not want to recall you, I want this inquiry to be concluded next Tuesday.
BJ: I have been asked endlessly about phone conversation with Paul Stephenson but calls with Cameron were completely fucking irrelevant. Why did you have to go to the BBC? I was under the impression that you would come back to me first.
KV: You went to the Evening Standard on Tuesday immediately after the evidence session and said that you spoke to David Cameron at 1.10pm. I said when we walked out of the room that we should go and deal with the press, but you said no because they were only sketch writers.

BJ: You have behaved in an unbelievably naked partisan way. Labour Party? Fucking smear tactics from the Labour Party.
KV: How can you even say that when in PMQs today David Cameron used something that I said against the Labour Government. No one will believe you that I am being partisan. You have written to me using the word "lunchtime" as an explanation. Give us a time and that is the end of it. I have no intention of re-calling you. You came in unprepared and treated the Committee as a joke, you were extremely discourteous and the Committee members were not impressed. You are not the subject of the inquiry, this has to go before the Committee, all they will ask for is the time. We just need the time. This is not in my hands, this is in the hands of the whole Committee. BJ: It was about 1.15pm
KV: Well, why didn't you just say that in the letter? Where were you anyway? What was it about Ladbroke Grove station?
BJ: I was at a congestion charge event at about lunchtime, travelling back.
KV: You came into the evidence session very unprepared and treated the Committee very rudely. Showed no respect to the Committee.
BJ: Did not treat the Committee rudely.
KV: You stormed out before the end!
BJ: I stayed for at least 30 minutes when I was told I would only be needed for 20 minutes. I waited for 15 minutes. I answered all of the questions and just because I cannot remember one thing. This is shit.
KV: I gave you the option of not coming due to being busy sorting out London. You took this to mean a party political strategy when it wasn't.
BJ: Well, I didn't want it to be a fucking smear on Transport for London.
KV: The letter sent is defective. We only need the time of the call and this should have been said in the letter.
BJ: Will an approximate time do? Between 1pm and 1.30pm or 1.15pm and 1.30pm.
KV: Yes, that will be fine. It is Members of the Committee who want you to be recalled, including Conservative members. They also want to call David Cameron to give evidence. I do not want to do that. I want the matter to be closed. The matter will be closed if we have the time.
I want to find out about Damian Green. I'm one of few who wanted this investigation and you weren't taking it seriously. You have only become a subject because he gave such bad evidence.
I do not want to recall you, I want to finish on Tuesday. But you should have treated the session with more respect.
BJ: You have made a mountain out of a molehill.
KV: I gave you the way out. You didn't even have to turn up on Tuesday; it could have been delayed until next week.
BJ: I didn't want to do that as I thought a big thing would be made about the London transport system not working.
KV: Did you tell Cameron?
BJ: The key point that is not getting across - I didn't give any fucking information to Cameron.
KV: So you didn't tell him.
BJ: Nothing he didn't already know

Boris the Petrolhead - or not!

The last time Boris Johnson appeared on Top Gear he proved himself marginally better than the late Richard Whiteley - see video.

He has had another go and his performance will go out on Sunday, though he avoids being criticised in an article in today's Telegraph (which I can't find online) by stating in advance that rather than being won over by the petrolheads it is an electric car that caught Boris' imagination. On performance, cost etc he promotes them as the future, thus he can continue his celebrity role but sidestep the criticism and also keep the environmentalist credentials that are now essential in his role as Mayor of London.

Unique style

The media seemed to side with RMT Union Leader Bob Crow and have fun blaming Boris Johnson for the weekend's over the top celebration on the Circle line in response to the drinking ban. It is rather odd to blame the man who is outlawing public drinking for riotous behaviour caused by public drinking, perhaps the real error was to decide to bring it in on 1st June a Sunday rather than middle of a week when partying is restricted by work. But you have to like his analysis of the event, he is quoted as saying the party was: "anthropologically misunderstood... I think what we had there was the kind of exuberant, Celtic-style wake for the passing, the long overdue passing, of a custom". Given the last time he spoke about wakes one hopes few Liverpudlians were involved.

Ending the relationship

It saves £3 million a year, and that money will go into planting 10,000 trees in residential areas by 2012 (fitting nicely with the Conservative's new green ethos), but will the axing of the Mayor's personal Newspaper 'The Londoner' have a negative impact? Direct mail and direct communication is argued to be able to build a relationship of trust between sender and receiver. Receivers feel informed, and that someone cares about informing them, and also get a sense of transparency in what is happening. Livingstone's version of The Londoner was often criticised as being is propaganda tool (Pravda), but if this was true it did not have to have that function. While Boris Johnson's team pursue cost cutting, could the death of The Londoner be a saving he regrets later when the Evening Standard begins to criticise him and he is unable to directly communicate to the majority of Londoners? It is a question, and it is being debated on an Urban75 forum; interesting comments on both sides, and interesting example of the online public sphere in action.

Experts get it wrong

Yes I would have probably agreed, and also been wrong, but it is good when you have company. The PRCA Leader's Panel declared Boris Johnson won the campaign but "more than 50 per cent" believed he would lose the election. It seems they felt that nothing could carry Boris over the finishing line due to his credibility gap and Ken's rebranding of himself as "cuddly".

Perhaps we all missed a very important point. Ken Livingstone could not rebrand himself, the London electorate had a set of attitudes towards him and his administration based on eight years of experience. Johnson had one advantage, he was not Ken and could offer something different. All he had to do was overcome the clown image, appear as the 'new' managerial, business-like Boris and sell that perception to the voters. Clearly he did that! Boris also was able to set the agenda with the support of the Evening Standard, had to be a bonus for him.

Boris Is Mayor - it seems!

If its in the Evening Standard it must be true (or if not the editor will look daft in the morning)and I have to say I am genuinely shocked. I did not believe Boris Johnson could convince London's electorate that he was a viable potential mayor. It seems he has done that, perhaps partly a result of the unpopularity of both Brown and Livingstone, but even so it is one hell of an achievement to transcend the image of the bumbling eccentric to even come close never mind win - as it seems that he has. I'm speechless, the question is not if he is intellectually capable but if he has all the other skills required for the job.

Cheap shot or reinforcing a perception?

When I saw the link to this Youtube video being sent around, packaged as a Boris gaffe, I expected it to be one of the Have I Got News For You moments that Boris Johnson specialises in; and by that i do not mean moments from the programme but the times when he looks like he is being tripped up by a comedian of Paul Merton's quick wit even when he is not. But then I watched it (well listened).

It is a radio debate between Johnson and Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, Johnson suggests Paddick was soft on drugs, as opposed to having a softly softly approach, Johnson perhaps is caught out by the semantic difference here. Paddick did suggest not arresting and charging cannabis users, not decriminalising them, and so seems out of his depth. But the clip seems really to offer a negative perception of both participants. Paddick interrupts Johnson, Johnson garbles the answer, could this make an audience feel more sorry for Johnson? Moreover, while it highlights Boris's inefficiency in interviews, is this news and so could it be read as just a cheap shot? Or, alternatively, does it reinforce a public predisposition towards Boris? Furthermore who is the main benefactor, as Paddick seems unable to change his standing, so far anyway, do these attacks, and the negative tone, benefit Ken Livingstone. All questions of strategy: and the wonderful unpredictability of political communication

Is this too negative? Is it negative at all?

Ken Livingstone argues that Boris Johnson's election broadcast is wholly negative and backward looking; in contrast his campaign focuses on successes and looks to the future. That is his claim. Below is Boris' video, is this highlighting problems Londoners face, the issues they care about, that they will recognise, and putting solutions forward; or is it offering a skewed and negative view of London under Livingstone. As I am not a Londoner it is hard to comment, so can any Londoners help me out on this and tell me who is right and who is biased?

Mr Johnson, who's that?

If you call someone by their first name it shows liking, or at least familiarity, and so perhaps that is why most of those with an ounce of political knowledge feel comfortable referring to Boris Johnson as simply Boris. He is unique in many way, perhaps the only famous person since Mr Yeltsin to be called Boris, and so he has a particular standing and recognition is part of that. I remain surprised that the recognition seems to be making him a viable candidate for London mayor after his history of gaffes and the bumbling image he presents on television, but he is now positioning himself as a serious candidate. Hence it is surprising that Labour Minister Tessa Jowell, after ordering Labour MPs to refer to him as the formal Mr Johnson, rather than Boris, has defended this move by saying she wanted to avoid the election being seen as a joke. Surely Mr Johnson offers gravitas, whereas Boris with the epithets of 'bumbling' etc he has had is less serious. But perhaps it is actually not about the seriousness of the election but the credibility and familiarity Boris enjoys as 'Boris' that Mrs Jowell is most concerned about as his lead is extended.

A dangerous card to play

And that card is, the race card. Despite the notoriety earned for his insensitive comment that a Jewish journalist was acting like a concentration camp commandant, Ken Livingstone has pursued a One London approach to multiculturalism in London. In response to the 7/7 attacks this became symbolic of a fighting spirit that Livingstone wanted to inspire across all Londoners against 'the other' the terrorists who sought to undermine British society. Using that as a backdrop for his campaign is one thing, but branding his Conservative opponent as a person who undermines that notion is another. While he did not call Boris Johnson as racist, in launching his campaign Livingstone delivered a speech in which he also launched an attack on Johnson as a divisive figure. Juxtaposing his successes and the potential for Johnson to fail, Livingstone argued: "Racist attacks in London are down by over half, when elsewhere they are up. In contrast, Boris Johnson's campaign uses the right wing dog-whistle politics that attack political correctness."

In terms of styles there may be some accuracy to Livingstone's comments; it largely depends on where you stand on political correctness. However in terms of strategy it could be highly problematic. The problem for Livingstone is that familiarity seems to have bred contempt and after eight years he is as associated with the problems faced by Londoners as with his successes and his potential to be a good mayor for another term; thus he needs to stress his own positives. Secondly, Boris Johnson is well-liked and not seen as divisive, his comments may sometimes be ill-conceived but many may view him as acting without malice at the very least. Thirdly Livingstone talks of left and right, with Johnson being on the right; but do such things mean much to everyday Londoners? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, attacks may not be the right approach anyway. If the contest gets personal it could heavily reduce turnout and support in both the main candidates or if one goes all out for an attack their support could disappear.

Mirroring support for the parties nationally, a poll yesterday showed that Johnson had the lead with 49%, Livingstone trailing at 37% and Brian Paddick the Liberal Democrat candidate enjoying only 12% of support. Allegations surrounding the Livingstone team have done him a lot of damage thus it would seem to be a better approach to lead on the positives of his period of office, examine those things he has done that are popular and distance himself from anything unpopular (including Labour and Gordon Brown). Attacks may undermine him as much as Johnson, if not more so, especially when the audience do not see them as fair. There maybe a number of open goals on Boris's side of the pitch but Ken has not seemed to score in them yet.

Of course negativity is not solely the province of Ken Livingstone. There are a number of scathing attacks on Livingstone across Conservative sites, but Johnson's own comments have been surprisingly circumspect and more about policy (to an extent) than personality. He doesn't like 'bendy buses': "Ken Livingstone's odious, inhuman, socialistic 18-metre Frankfurter buses blindly pasting the cyclist against the kerb". But Boris may get away with that, especially if such comments resonate with Londoners.

Credibility: the Boris challenge

Boris Johnson, magazine editor, Conservative MP and former member of the Shadow Cabinet, iterant television personality etc, is to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. Not only that but the selection was unequivocal 15,661 votes out of 20,019 cast. He was the best known and offered a sense of his strategic direction (well scrapping bendy buses and not focusing on Zone 1 exclusively), but can he win the office?

The BBC quotes Tony McNulty, the Home Office minister, who said "for all his strengths as an individual, Boris is essentially a very clever man, but ultimately a clown, and he won't put up with the sort of scrutiny that mayoral candidates do". So credibility is clearly the issue here. Can he position himself as a person that could manage the infrastructure of one of the busiest cities in the world? Can he prove himself as an ambassador for the city? Has the ability to overcome the image of him as the bumbling part-time presenter of Have I Got New For You?

He talks a good talk on his website:

"The job of the Mayor is simple - to get people to work on time, to ensure people feel safe on the streets, to help people find a place to call home, to celebrate our diversity and to champion our success. My determination to lead this city is stronger than ever. After seeing both the good and bad that London has to offer, I am committed to making London greater and standing up for every Londoner that invests so heavily in our city. I want to be a Mayor for all Londoners, from Zone 6 to Zone 1. A Mayor that will listen, will learn and will lead."

But his videos are undeniably bumbling Boris and he has a history of making gaffes so, despite the affection for him, much of which is expressed in comments on Youtube. This history means there may be a long way to go to prove he is the man able to do the things he promises to do despite the anti-Ken (King Newt) sentiment that seems to exist. It will be the ultimate in challenges for his marketing and strategy team.