Wrt number nine, you can have relevant experience without having done the job. Ken has been doing it for eight years, while Boris managed twenty or thirty people.

As to number ten, it was mayor Johnson, not any other mayor. He does not have a track record in government, municipal or national.

There are also, from time to time, incumbent-free elections.

http://publicansdecoy.livejournal.com/573467.html?mode=reply

I’d rather have modest schemes for limited returns than costly gestures for limited returns!

Two and Seven: you want to keep Livingstone as Mayor of an important city as London (GDP larger than countries) because he made a better joke than Johnson once and that it will annoy a newspaper with a circulation of less than 300,000?

Four: well, you don’t know, do you?

Five: “London Needs To Be Bossed From The Centre” - that’s what a good lefty would say, isn’t it? More centralisation! It is a shame that people can’t see room for a plurality of systems.

Six: Wow, so Livingstone made a good speech after an atrocity. Great. So did Bush. Livingstone also proudly admits to the Olympics bid being a con trick. Great. Vote Kon. I mean, Ken.

Seven: “Johnson has criticised Livingstone’s free paper The Londoner as Pyongyang style propaganda. But at times, the Standard has resembled Pravda.”

The Londoner is run with the aid of millions of pounds from the taxpayers of London, while the Evening Standard is run with private money (and has a much lower circulation). It is a shame you can’t see the difference.

Eight, Nine and Ten: Favouring the incumbent. Great. Did you favour the Conservatives in 1997? Why bother with the election at all? Mayor for life!