The bezzer kindly pointed out this article this morning, and I do love me a bit of Charlie Brooker, it has to be said. Funny though he is, like so many Guardian-and-other-lefty journalists, he’s missing the point. Boris has thus far run an exemplary campaign, and yes, probably because the Tory political machine has him carefully controlled. Doesn’t that just prove that it can be done though? That his affability can be combined with some political clout? Does the mayor, or any elected head of a body really decide everything alone? Of course not, there are teams of advisers, and the man at the top is simply the one who chooses between the options presented. ‘Twas ever thus.
Another thing that galls me, and Brooker puts it in a slightly dormouse-unfriendly way, is this anyone-but-Tories reaction. Oh, I know, it exists everywhere – die-hards on both sides, in every electoral system who wouldn’t vote for their own spouse/child if they were running under the opposing party’s banner; even if their own party was running a stick of celery as some form of protest. Blithely dismissing proven accusations of corruption, nepotism and whatever else, because all that matters is that Labour retains a seat. Doesn’t matter that Ken may have failed in certain areas, because we absolutely know for sure that a Tory would fail more. It’s lazy, is what it is. They’ve all set out their policies in bullet points, why not look at that and compare? Oh, because if you did that you might have to concede that the Boris campaign has some ideas, that they might save some money, or perhaps even make the Mayor’s office accountable to the people paying for it? Terrible behaviour, really.