91热爆

I'm disappointed but not surprised that you're chosing to devote more programme-time to knockabout tosh with this set of buffoons and self-publicists, when the dynamic in London and national politics is the surge in support for the BNP, which incidently makes nonsense of the polls you trot out in all seriousness.
Clearly Newsnight is determined to play its full part in the news blackout that the establishment is desperately enforcing to try to stem the tide. But I challenge you to run an item after May looking at the blackout as prejudicial to democracy.

Dear Newsnight

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to ask questions through your programme, between us we might come up with some useful questions not otherwise thought of, -most of us will rarely get into the position to be able to ask a question in person,

and the other very very useful part of this is that the skill of your presenters in putting our questions might be that they are more likely to make the questions stick...

anyway here's mine

Q- Do you think it ss easier than in the past for rich people to pay for the advice needed to avoid the tax that is levied on them? and does this perhaps mean that the tax levels for richer people are in effect lower than is claimed, and might this mean that the Government has to levy more tax than is preferable on those less able to pay? (ie not in a position to pay for such advice)

Q-and should the liability to pay tax be linked so closely to people's ability or access to advice to avoid paying such tax?

Q-and if so what would they personally do to change this situation?

I hope this is helpful
many thanks again for this opportunity

best wishes
Bob

lol

Dear Newsnight

just one more sorry

Q-sometimes there isn't a good enough choice of candidates on ballot papers (not the case with this election). Do they think electors should have the chance of ticking a 'none of the above' box on the ballot paper to force a re-run with fresh candidates or is it better to vote for someone even if you do not believe in them ie the least worst, or not vote at all?

****

such a box I think would improve choice in our elections, provide a voice for the disillusioned and according to the Electoral Commission's own Mori survey in 2001 'would have made a third of non-voters more likely to vote'

Page 40 Election 2001 the official results -Electoral Commission publication
ISBN 1 84275 020 8

and I think once at a polling station some non voters might decide at the last moment to endorse a candidate,

the rest would provide quantifiable data on levels of voter satisfaction or disastisfaction in different areas (some might be positive) for the Government to be aware of and act on.

New parties and candidates might be encouraged to come forward to meet the need shown by the level of positive abstention, and the public would still be participating in the process I think in a positive way

because once the extent of the problem can be shown in a statistical way in an area and not explained away by spindoctors then it allows the chance and actually encourages a response for something to be done to tackle the problem rather than just pretend it isnt there?

such data might be very useful indeed for the Government to have and such a 'none of the above' box would take away any excuse for not voting

-all plusses surely, do your guests think there might be negatives with such a positive abstention box and what do they think they might be, and would these exceed the advantages of adding a 'none of the above' box to ballot papers?

best wishes
Bob

To all three, but Ken L in particular:

What is your position on term limits? Do you believe there is any truth to the claim that a lack of term limits encourages corruption, disconnection from everyday-reality and a sense of ownership of public office on the part of the successful politicians?

Hi,

if it gets tooo serious what about this

Q-why do looks count for so much in this World?
ie its proven statistically that better looking people get the better jobs, but why so?

ie why does the store detective always follow the guy whos not shaven (mmmmmmm when perhaps someone in a slick suit somewhere is perhaps..)

we need some action!!! against this trend

Q-what blow against lookism would each of the three bring in if elected?

best wishes
Bob

To all candidates:

What safeguards would you put in place to protect women and children from being trafficked into the UK and sexually exploited in the run up to and during the Olympics in London in 2012?

Map of Gaps, published in November by the End Violence Against Women coalition, found that, despite being the most highly populated area in the country, London is particularly underserved when it comes to services for women who have experienced violence, with only one Rape Crisis Centre (in Croydon) serving the whole of Greater London. What would you do to ensure that tackling violence against women is prioritised, and specialist services no longer sidelined?

Many thanks,

Sarah

My question to all 3 candidates is: Everyone has to tighten their belts at the moment, and the national government is either unable or unwilling to reduce the tax burden (unlike most other western governments). Whilst accepting that the Mayor's impact on the overall burden of taxation in Greater London is relatively limited, nevertheless his budget is not insignificant. What spending reductions would each of the candidates introduce at City Hall to do their bit to help?

Post 9

mmm clever

This is a domestic issue for Londoners. London is not Britain. The mayoral debate should not be foisted on the whole population. Those of us who have no say in the matter do not wish to sit and listen to the rantings of the three candidates with their obvious shortcomings. There are more important national and international matters for the program to consider.
What are we to have next? The crowning of the pearly king and queen; after all there are some similarity's.

Please ask Ken Livingstone why he thinks the notion of us all being treated equally by City Hall, regardless of our skin colour, is apparently so aborrhent to him. Does he accept the inherent irony of following a relentless programme of positive racial discrimination in his attempts to amortize racial discrimination?

Also, what happened to the review which found we would be all safer if motorcyclists were allowed in bus lanes.

Questions
Would any of the three be looking to sign more cheap oil deals with foreign countires, or eventually renew the existing agreement with Venezuela?

Why is there not a British National Party representative on the panel? Is it because it would allow Londoners to show how much they support the BNP!

Go on Newsnight, be fair and allow a BNP candidate on the program.

It would be a breath of fresh air and show that maybe democracy is alive and well here in the UK...

Mayoral quizz!

The weakest link a la Paxman.

Infantile!

(Petraeus is on C Span)

Ray Stone is corrrect, the knockabout I'm now watching may well be entertaining, but is wholly irrelevant to us here in Wales. If Welsh issues were given a regular airing on your programme, I wouldn't mind, but of course they aren't ...

What a complete shambles these three are; about as inspiring and convincing as the Olympic torch relay through London. You were missing the 4th podium with a real tailor's dummy at it for "None of the above", it would have made more sense.

This was one of the highest quality political debates I've seen in a huge while, because Jeremy really pressed them on the detail. Well done 91热爆.

Why are you broadcasting this item? I thought this was the British Broadcasting Cooperation, not the London etc. 3/4 of the population do not care about bendy buses or London Congestion Charge. In the interests of balance, I look forward to the High Sheriff of Edinburgh discussing Forth Road Charges, the Mayor of Cardiff discussing harbour regeneration and the leader of the Manx Parliament debating Ferry Prices. Stop patronising the London self-centred egotists and get back to national/international issues.

Thank you

Shock horror! here's a long time Boris supporter completely blown over by Ken, and mr serious Brian. (sorry I can't bear to give their second names, it just isnt as fun)

Was Boris smoking some of the stuff he used to like 20 years ago?

His performance was that of bamboozlement, the usually camera friendly Boris just wasn't up to scratch tonight, he looked confused, repeated himself, spoke out of turn, but not to say anything important. He tried to get shock value out of an election debate, and failed...Boris, your running for London Mayor, not the US primaries.

I can't believe Boris cannot figure out how much the budget for the buses. Obviously he is not prepared for his policy, or simply copied from Ken Livingstone, who clearly demonstrated his competency and understanding to run London well.

Just watched the debate. Appears that Boris Johnson appears to be making up policy on the hoof. Why didn't his advises anticipate that he'd be asked to provide budget figures for his new Routemaster. Lucky for him Paxman appeared to be in kind mood!

After watching the program,Boris is a bafoon,Ken not be trusting like the labour party the clear winner is brain who spoke sense and has the experance.
faiz

I think we should allow Ken Livingstone to continue his good job for London. As for Boris Johnson, he behave like one that has mental problem and it will be suicide to give him London.

And the LibDem candidate will bring lawlessness and immorality to us again. For how do you explain a police officer that allow people to smoke drug, but later accepted that it is bad for health. He acted before thinking.

None of them usually think or talk of welfare of London like Ken Livingstone. Only when election comes that they rememeber London.

We need a lover of London and not just another opportunity for anyone to collect salary.

Long live Ken for the 3rd Term.

Having just watched the debate I hope Londoners can see that Ken had by far the best grip on policies. Johnson really did reconfirm his image as a buffoon with little grasp on policy detail and no head for figures. We are often told he is an intelligent man despite his image - and I don't doubt that. Yet he is dangerous for two reasons. 1. He would be way out of his depth and a disaster for London's image. 2. His buffoonary mask real right wing reactionary politics.

Good luck Ken.

The surge in support for the BNP is of no interest now. It is a minor issue and will disappear when America's crisis come to an end.

Oh dear Boris you blew it. I will now vote for Paddick. You had me in the palm of you hand. It is now clear that you can't manage a big organisation' The important bit was Ken out - you will not fill the gap.

I tuned in to Newsnight this evening but instead of a debate, was treated to a display of egotism, ignorance and bombast from Paxman. The job of moderator is to facilitate a free flow of debate; it is the job of the candidates to challenge the arguments of their peers. It pains me to say it, but the Americans conduct their debates with significantly more gravitas.

As a Conservative sympathiser, I was surprised by Boris' lacklustre performance. I was disappointed and not just because of the ribbing I have to endure from my more left-leaning friends.

Boris came across as merely reacting to statements from Livingstone and Paddick- but he said very little that was original.

Boris also repeatedly evaded giving direct answers on figures. It was painfully embarassing to behold his prevarication when Paxo kept asking him for the new Routemaster costs.

Come On Boris! The ideas must be there , so please sharpen up your debate skills. Or else you will give strength to the lie that you are a sleepy toff who lacks credibility. London is the greatest city in the world and deserves a better mayor- better than Red Ken, but certainly better than you came across tonight!

Well that debate made interesting watching.
Ken Livingstone appears the most credible and honest candidate (in contrast to what i heard).
Boris appeared to sum up what was wrong with the old Conservative party a) A bumbling bafoon b)never giving a straight (or understandable answer)
The Lib Dem guy appeared to be nice but no leadership qualities, .

My tip for Boris would be 'Do not get involved with live debates - let someone feed you the answers and acceptable responses'

Why is the 91热爆 using licence fee money,(paid by people who live nationwide) to make a programme that is specifically related to an election in London?

Surely this type of programme and debate would be better suited as a regional item because bendy buses and congestion charges are of little interest to people outside London.

Newsnight is a programme that should be used to debate issues that affect the nation as whole.

Is it the 91热爆 or LBC?

I have just watched the debate on TV with the three main candidates for the position of London Major. From an impartial observer from the countryside who will not be directly affected by the vote I was more interested in how the three candidates came across. My impressions were that contrary to what I have heard through general media, Ken Livingstone came across as a credible and honest candidate .he seemed to be open and frank with his responses to some interesting questions. I felt that the way that he actually added he would consider voting for the Lib Dem candidate if he had a 2nd choice was refreshing (however cynically I felt this may have a lot to do with him not being his main competition)
I so wanted quirky Boris to do well as he always seems jovial and fun however sadly he reminded me of what used to be bad about the old conservative party with his evasion of even the simplest direct responses and his bumbling and direct attacks on others flaws. He reminded me of a character out of a comedy show who gets given a job by daddy to keep him out of the way of serious business.
Now I like the Lib dems as a party (our MP is Norman Lamb and we are fortunate to have him) They seem to be the only party who actively seem to do be active even when there is not an election in the immediate future. I am afraid though that their candidate is not a real contender to the London Crown, Good luck london!!!!

Having viewed to-night's debate a plague on all their houses! Brian Paddick was clearly ill at ease in the public gaze, Boris Johnson lacked gravitas, lacked facts and didn't know when to shut up while Ken Livingstone was too glib by half, simply repeating facts that did not tally with the public perception and with no sign of any concern over the failings which have come to light.

Thank you for the debate.
It made it abundantly clear that the only worthy candidate for the position is Ken Livingstone.

Would someone teach Paxman some basic statistics? It is meaningless to compare the ratio of bendy-bus to normal bus deaths with the ratio of bendy-bus to normal bus numbers. (Since the nature of the routes served is different)
It's as stupid as saying that since 0% of cycling deaths are on motorways, then motorways are the safest place for cycling.

And also what was that nonsense about Livingstone breaking his congestion charge promise! A promise lasts only as long as the mandate. He ran for re election in 2004 with a manifesto promise to raise the congestion charge, and he did. It is not an issue at all.

Peter

Why is the 91热爆 using licence fee money,(paid by people who live nationwide) to make a programme that is specifically related to an election in London?

Surely this type of programme and debate would be better suited as a regional item because bendy buses and congestion charges are of little interest to people outside London.

Newsnight is a programme that should be used to debate issues that affect the nation as whole.

Is it the 91热爆 or LBC?

Would any selection board short list these 3 canditates for one the most Senior posts in London at a salary of 拢138K....Jeremy Paxman - normally cutting and incisive - realising their inability to understand a question, let alone answer one, saved his breath and time on the kindergarten.
WHEN WILL WE HAVE PUBLIC FIGURES (OUR EMPLOYEES) WITH TOP BUSINESS TRACK RECORDS - GIVING CLEAR CUT ANSWERS ON HOW ISSUES WILL BE SOLVED. IT'S TIME TO MOVE AWAY FROM 'WHAT WE MUST DO' AND PLUCKING BUDGETS OUT OF THE AIR TO SCRIBBLE ON CIGARETTE PACKS...THE JOB IS EQUAL TO THAT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO AN FT100 COMPANY...WE MUST BE INSANE TO ALLOW ANY OF THESE THREE TO SQUANDER OUR MONEY ON PET AND ILL CONSIDERED IDEAS......GIVE THEM EACH A TRAIN SET FOR CHRISTMAS AND MAYBE - JUST MAYBE - THEY COULD OPERATE THEM.

Paxman trivialised the debate and made it of no value to thinking Londoners,His editors established a very limited scope of discussion to populist issues where the bbc itself is attackable eg salariess

Boris Johnson could not answer any question requiring a factual response. The idea of London being run by someone who bumbles and stumbles his way through the most of elementary issues is terrifying. His understanding of fiancial issues is not even at primary school level.

Brian Paddick is a nice bloke who has absolutely no political experience as his performance confirmed.

Ken Livingstone - what you see is what you get. He had a total grasp of every issue and every fact including economics.

If uou were deciding purely on the basis of tonight's performance with no other knowledge of the candidates Ken would win every time.

What struck me most about the Mayoral debate was that Boris is a master of avoiding the question - not really a useful quality for a Mayor. He didn't come across well at all - and fortunately Jeremy didn't let him get away with his constant deflections.

In my view Ken is the only man for the job - experienced,honest and committed to improving the quality of life for us Londoners! Go Ken!

Thank heavens there was no BNP candidate present, but the lack of other parties is merely an editorial decision based on time constraints. The only anti-BNP bias in the media stems from the intellectual level of most journalists and political analysts being a modicum higher than the average BNP candidate. Why bother having someone on only to talk baseless and offensive rot?

In a city like London, you would think that the Quality of choice for Mayor would be so much stronger. If New York was watching this debate and the quality of it, they would be laughing in their beer. Pathetic.
Lib Dem candidate closer to anything near normal and switched on. Mr Paxman appeared as ordinary as the debate.

I tuned in to Newsnight this evening but instead of a debate, was treated to a display of egotism, ignorance and bombast from Paxman. The job of moderator is to facilitate a free flow of debate; it is the job of the candidates to challenge the arguments of their peers. It pains me to say it, but the Americans conduct their debates with significantly more gravitas.

Paddick seems to be more sensible candidate and he gets my second option. Ken is too long on doing this job and behaves like a dictator that knows what is best for his cronies.
Boris gets my first option in the election as he seems the only viable alternative to end Ken's reign

Ken Livingstone should go due to the following reasons :
1. Londoners cannot afford his and his numerous cronies' astronomical wages, perks, bonuses and expenses.
2.Congestion Charge , which in fact , is TAX on Londoners , has devided London into segragated zones :
-the rich , who live in central London are only paying 10%, while the poor,who live in London suburbs and drive old family cars will be forced to pay 拢25.00 per day!
(what about NewYork,Paris,Mexico,Berlin,Deli,Bejing,Moscow ,Tokio,Shanhai ....?
No one believe that Londoners are producing more CO2 than the cities mentioned above...).
So why Londoners are the only citizens on Planet to pay Congestion Charge ????
3.He never listens Londoners.
Thus, 2/3 were against extension of CC, but he has forced it on Londoners.
He has never consulted Londoners in the first place...
4.He has done nothing effective to
tackle crime.
( Each Police oficer and/or regiment has to be attached to each of London area and has to be made personally responsible).
Ask any Londoner do they know personally their Police Officer in their area ????
5. He has incompetently wasted and spent irresponsibly vast amount of public money.

I think the time is UP !
The Selfish,incompetent, arrogant and cunning Politicians without ANY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE,SKILLS,WORK EXPERIENCE,QUALIFICATIONS MUST GO !!!!
Most of them are serving their own interests only.
They are completely detached from the people the claim to represent.
I think that in London, at least 30% of public money have been wasted and spent irresponsibly ,ineffectively and inccompetently.
Does London need 200 managers on six figure salaries workling for TFL only.
How many of so called UNELECTED "leaches -managers" are engaged with public money?
NHS- is `another example.

It is astonishing and amasing !
The Great City, such as London historically is has only three incompetent, selfish career politicians as the main candidates!!!!!!!!!!
No wonder, Londoners are paying through the roof to cover WASTE due to incompetence , selfishness and cronyism !
One waster has 8 years proven track record of WASTE and incompetence and still learning, mirrowing the Labour party after 10 years in power , but what business qualification have another two learners ??
At least Boris used to run small business and he is more honest and reliable than ther two....

Why did Newsnight host the London Mayoral debate? No-one beyond commuting distance of London has any interest in who the London mayor is. Surely, it should have been hosted by a regional programme for the south-east. Newsnight should have concerned itself with more important national issues.

I have nothing to say on this matter.. other than to say Ken is too red, Brian is too liberial and Boris is too Tory.. but if i was a londoner (thank god i ain't as its a hole) i think Boris would get my vote only because he at least has and does run a business; even if it is just a specialist Hack shop.

If my only choice was Red Ken and a boiled egg.....the egg gets the vote.

P:S don't ever bring this nonsense up to Manchester.

I think NEWSNIGHT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO HOST the LONDON MAYORAL DEBATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
1.London is the CAPITAL OF UNITED KINGDOM !
2.LONDON is THE BLOOD, HEART AND BRAIN OF UK ECONOMY AND STANDING !
3.If London becomes unattractive for worldwide investments , it will affect UK economy, production and growth , and it will affect the lives of ALL UK CITIZENS !
The only proposal I have is to allow all candidates, representing ALL VIEWS to participate in these debates.
*Detailed CVs/Resumes of all candidates (by the way, detaled CVs of all current and future MPs Politicians, and high ranking bureaucrats , including Local -in London Boroughs ), before election or appopintment to be made widely public.
91热爆 has to wotk on it !
And let citizens of London to ask questions without any moderation and editting (please do not repeat mistakes of "Question Time", during which silly questions, prepared by editor in advance are being asked ... and dishonest PC answers (most of the time) are being heard .
I salute Newsnight !
Well done Jeremy !

Newsnight is right to host this debate.
Because :
- London is Heart and Brain of United Kingdom.
(If heart stopps or brain is not able to function and react competently,professionally and wisely , then Blood, which is streaming through all cities, towns and villages of united Kingdom will be frozen) and this will affect standards of living of all citizens of the United Kingdom.
The only suggestion is` that detailed CVs (skills, work and professional experience, qualification etc of each politician, MP, top ranking bureaucrat to be made widely public before the election or the appointment.

The yob culture in action?! Noone being allowed to finish a sentence without being shouted over. Boris was the worst of the three candidates, but Paxman is worst of all. It would be bearable if it actually got him an answer, but it doesn't.
On the other hand, if he lets them speak we get the teeth-grinding tedium that was some Labour woman a day or few ago.

The yob culture in action?! Noone being allowed to finish a sentence without being shouted over. Boris was the worst of the three candidates, but Paxman is worst of all. It would be bearable if it actually got him an answer, but it doesn't.
On the other hand, if he lets them speak we get the teeth-grinding tedium that was some Labour woman a day or few ago.

Who would have thought that Red Ken would become the most articulate, competent and sensible speaker on a Newsnight debate?

Maybe if the Tories had selected a decent candidate they would appear more credible in the campaign.

Ken Livingston talked straight, he actually answered the questions unlike Boris Johnson, he was comfortable defending his record and he has some good ideas for the future.

In fairness to Boris Johnson, I liked the Mayor's Trust idea on the understanding that it compliments a boost in funding for the voluntary sector and dealing with the hardest to reach young people as opposed to replacing it.

Whereas Paddick seemed out of his league and Johnson couldn't back up his answers with figures, Ken Livingston was solid and surprisingly refrshing for a Mayor who has been there since 2000.

Jeremy - CALM DOWN! OK so Boris didn't know the answer to the question about the buses. We are not stupid Jeremy, WE WERE WATCHING! But to pester him again and again and look all shocked when he didn't give a number made you look like some condescending bully. It was clear to me that you don't like Boris. But please let Boris hang himself, he's very good at that. You ended up making me feel sorry for Boris.

What a laugh! I must admit that I laughed out loud at least 5 times during the debate. I realise that the London Mayoral Election is very important to the whole of the UK, so as a Yorkshireman how do I go about voting?

Having been a waverer, this Newsnight debate filled me with dismay at the prospect of bumbling Boris being elected and I'm inclined to vote for Ken. Despite his well-known failings, Ken was smart, dynamic, decisive, articulate, on the ball, witty, even likeable. He had the courtesy, unlike Boris, to listen to what the other two were saying rather than constantly interrupting with fifth-form type interjections. Boris is unconvincing, feebly flailing. In fact despite some stumbles while getting through his introduction, Brian Paddick had more credibility than Boris.

I was so frustrated when watching last night as Paxman constantly spoke over the mayoral candidates and asked them the same questions over and over. I do not think that this gave a good debate and frankly, made Paxman look incompetant. Please, in future, let the candidates answer a question!

When asked abut his campaign donations, Ken Livingstone looked really shifty. His answer "I don't want to know where they come from" didn't actually help his cause. It sounded like there might be something wrong and he did not wish to be involved in it.

A very reassuring performance from Boris Johnson. I can see why he is winning the battle with Londoners to earn their trust.

Does Jeremy Paxman always have to verbally harrass people? If he had continually yelled at me like he did at Boris Johnson, I should have shouted back, but polite Mr. Johnson just looked bemused.

Johnson and Paddick both convinced me they were prepared to do what it takes on crime.

It is such appalling bad manners.

Jeremy Paxman for next London Mayor! ;)

I think I'm still in a state of shock at last night's supposed debate. Pax seemed to be in that state before he even began.

Frankly it was a right Carry On if ever there was one starring Sid James as wily Ken Livingstone, Charles Hawtrey as the ever dithering Brian Paddick and Bernard Bresslaw poshing up for Boris Johnson, the bodget-it-all buffoon who thinks he can clown his way into the job.

Yerrrrssss!!

Very interesting debate last night, just a shame it was seemingly cut short. It highlighted that Ken really is the only serious candidate. His answers were clear and concise, and he was able to put a coherent defence when attacked on his record as Mayor.

Paddick was disappointing while the longer Boris spoke, the larger hole he dug for himself. Last night confirmed my opinion that Boris as Mayor would be a disaster.

This was supposed to be a serious political debate - wasn't it? Paxman set the tone for the farce that followed by making his introductions to all 3 candidates based on how many times they had appeared on a comedy programme. He then proceeded to bully the candidates, and clearly showed his own political preferences by a) trying to intimidate Boris, b)ignoring Paddick and c)giving Ken the floor. Having read many of the 100's of questions posted on this website very few of them were posed by Paxman, who instead seemed to latch onto the issue of bendy buses for a disproportionate length of time.
If this city has anything to be ashamed about it is that Paxman was allowed to conduct a debate about the future management one of the greatest cities in the world with absolutely no respect for the viewers. What arrogance.

I hope Boris gets the job. Purely for the entertainment value. LOL!

Can't believe I was seriousley thinking about voting for Boris! What an absolute shambles he turned out to be. Paddick seems like a nice guy but he's not got what it takes to be Mayor of London; he could get away with being a local councillor... perhaps. So, Ken, you've won me over for a third time; not a difficult choice in the end.

Post 30.OP.
Usual unstantiated assertions permitted only by lack of debate. Far from being a 'minor issue', immigration has been the No 1 political issue in Britain for more than a year. You don't make clear which of America's various crises you see as being central to the rising levels of bnp support, or what makes you so certain of the link between the two.
In the meantime, and subject of course to your approval, I continue to suggest that media and political institutions in a system that has pretensions to call itself a democracy, might consider the feelings of a significant and fast-rising section of its people. Do by all means stick with your referred Mugabe model.

All three of these blokes were just appalling. Except for that Liberal one who's name still eludes me. Their pompous verbosity was only matched by Paxo's haranguing.
Please: no more "American-style" head-to-head political punch-ups. Much better to get the candidates to participate in a Jerome K Jerome style 鈥淭hree Men in a Boat鈥� trip up the Thames. Hopefully they鈥檇 get lost somewhere beyond Windsor and we wouldn鈥檛 have to put up with them any more.

Oh Dear!!

Reading the comments above, it looks as if the rent-a-comment crowd is out in force to knock Boris down. They must really worried that Ken is going to lose!

No one watching the debate could have anything nice to say about Livingstone. He came across as totally untrustworthy....Would you buy a second hand car from him? Certainly not and anyway he has made it his mission to clobber all motorists. As far as his "green policies" go they just do not stack up. And he has not answered questions about his campaign financing.

Boris was enthusiastic and forceful but most importantly he was genuine. All criticisms of him smell of divisiveness and class war. He needs to dominate his details more but he will have a top team of managers to run the various policies which will be better than Ken's old socialist cronies.

Paddick was not a bad chap but a bit of a side show I fear.

Boris won on points and gets my vote on 1st May.

Last night's debate on Newsnight between the candidates was one of the poorest, low quality discussions I have ever witnessed in an election campaign. It confirmed the 'dumb-down' nature of our politics which has now reached the pits. Compare this with some of the interviews/studio discussions of past years (broadcast, for example, on the Parliamentary Channel) and one sees what we are missing - and this includes the interviewers; Paxman cannot hold a candle to Robin Day. George Walden in today's 'Times' advocates abstention, and having seen the discussion last night I think he is right. I am a Tory, and therefore feel most embarrassed and shocked by Boris Johnson - but all three were pitiful.

How could anyone possibly vote for Boris?!

Why are people complaining about not being consulted about the extension of the Congestion Charge. I live in central London and was stopped to answer questions about the extension. CONSULTATION did take place and the majority of people across London thin that the rich Kensington and Chealsea bods should pay too.

Great show Go for it Ken.

Oh Dear!!

Reading the comments above, it looks as if the rent-a-comment crowd is out in force to knock Boris down. They must really worried that Ken is going to lose!

No one watching the debate could have anything nice to say about Livingstone. He came across as totally untrustworthy....Would you buy a second hand car from him? Certainly not and anyway he has made it his mission to clobber all motorists. As far as his "green policies" go they just do not stack up. And he has not answered questions about his campaign financing.

Boris was enthusiastic and forceful but most importantly he was genuine. All criticisms of him smell of divisiveness and class war. He needs to dominate his details more but he will have a top team of managers to run the various policies which will be better than Ken's old socialist cronies.

Paddick was not a bad chap but a bit of a side show I fear.

Boris won on points and gets my vote on 1st May.

Boris seemed to have an imperfect grasp of reality - including the need to cost his ideas. Now if it was a court jester we were voting for on 1st May ....

I would love to see the back of Ken Livingstone but Boris Johnson behaves like such an incompetent buffoon it is difficult to see him in charge of anything, let alone a city like London. Do the Conservatives seek to ridicule this Mayoral experiment, by fielding only their most incongruous of men, so that they can abolish it for good once they get into power?

I also note with grim pleasure that Paxman's sarcasm does not, alas, belong to the realm of extinct species and has been allowed to resurface. As it is no longer targeted at web-based shenanigans, for which he positively oozes enthusiasm these days, I presume that the editorial 'no-more-sniping-,-Jeremy-!' line has been relaxed? Peter Barron must be one heck of an arm-twister...

Post 30.OP.
Usual unstantiated assertions permitted only by lack of debate. Far from being a 'minor issue', immigration has been the No 1 political issue in Britain for more than a year. You don't make clear which of America's various crises you see as being central to the rising levels of bnp support, or what makes you so certain of the link between the two.
In the meantime, and subject of course to your approval, I continue to suggest that media and political institutions in a system that has pretensions to call itself a democracy, might consider the feelings of a significant and fast-rising section of its people. Do by all means stick with your referred Mugabe model.

Was I the only one who heard Boris say the new Routemaster would cost the same as the freeby death-trap bendy bus,ie 200,000 each?,and 8 million to develop.Paxo's attacks on Boris alone were blatant bias by the 91热爆 who,of course,are much more in tune with Livingstones' views.Paxo was practically face to face with Boris!And he cut him off at the end!I wonder how many pro-Livingstone comments here are campaign workers?They all sound the same,straight from KenHQ.We all know how deceitful and manipulative him and his cronies are.

To Londoner.
It is not people who live in Kensington or Westminister who will suffer from 拢25 of Congestion TAX , proposed by cunning Ken(they will pay 10% of this tax), poor Londoners who live in London saburbs will pay for the privelege to visit Central London.
Therefore, Ken's congestion tax has contrubured into segregation of London.
I want to draw attention of those who want to vote Ken to the following Ken's record :
1. Ken has become autocratic ruler of London.
2.Under Ken, Great London Authority members have become members of "chatting box" club, without any influence and powers to control and restrain KEN effectively.
3.Under Ken Council tax has raised siignificantly.
4.Under Ken, serious crimes has increased.
5.Under Ken , there is 27% unemployment in London between 19-25.
6.Under Ken, WASTE has increased significantly.
7.Under Ken, Londoners have been forced to pay mayoral expenses, which has been insresing year by year during 8 years .
* Olipmic Games expenses now stand for 20 Billions pounds, instead of 9 billions promised to Londoners just 2 years ago.
*His Appointments of useless ,ineffective ,overpaiid, often corrupt cronies to public posts are endemic.
*He has ignored residents of RBKC and forced on us extension of his Congestion Tax.
The most important; He thinks that This is his Third , but the last chance, after which he will retire anyway therefore he will continue to ignore common sence and Londoners' opinion, because he will retire anyway.
So, why Londoners should trust him now ?

As am outsider - I live in Wales - I watched with interest the London Mayoral debate and wondered why it didn't continue for the whole programme.

You could then have given time to other policy issues and continued to show how Boris didn't have a clue and wasn't even able to express his ignorance in a comprehensible way. For a supposedly intelligent man he seems to find it difficult to string together a coherent sentence. I wonder what his minders made of his ineptitude.

Many people dislike Ken but he does seem to know his facts and appears on top of the job. Even some of the people who dislike Ken do admit that he has done a lot to improve the transport situation in London. He showed a command of the problems facing London and had the information to show where improvements have been made.

It should be blindingly obvious to all candidates that voters affected by the extensions of the congestion charge zones and the increases on high polluting vehicles are going to be unhappy but the decisions have to be made for the benefit of the whole of London and not just the vocal minority.

It seem,s that everyone has forgotten that under Ken 220000 bureaucratic -NON PRODUCTIVE JOBS artificially has been "created" in London; all of them have been paid from INCREASED COUNCIL TAX, CONGESTION TAX,MAYOR OF London an GLA TAX .....
This explaines whe Ken has received 200000 more vots than other candidates during last elections.

I live in the North-East but still found watching the debate pretty interesting. Unfortunately they all seem equally poor candidates.

Boris cannot be viewed as a serious candidate given his reactionary policies, casual public racism and eternally buffoonish character.

I liked how Ken wasn't as reactionary as Boris, even supporting Paddick's tram ideas etc. However his 8 year reign has been littered with cock ups and his reptilian association appeared more profound than the likes of David Icke would suggest - which is a turn off.

Finally Paddick, who tried hard but looked like a fish out of water. He is clearly inexperienced in political circles, and while I liked the sound of some of his policies and would appreciate his knowledge and contacts within the Police force I don't reckon he'd make a suitable mayor.

All in all, the candidates look a bit rubbish really. Good luck to you Londoners!

Post 30.OP.
Usual unstantiated assertions permitted only by lack of debate. Far from being a 'minor issue', immigration has been the No 1 political issue in Britain for more than a year. You don't make clear which of America's various crises you see as being central to the rising levels of bnp support, or what makes you so certain of the link between the two.
In the meantime, and subject of course to your approval, I continue to suggest that media and political institutions in a system that has pretensions to call itself a democracy, might consider the feelings of a significant and fast-rising section of its people. Do by all means stick with your referred Mugabe model.

Paxman had the chance to set the tone and content of this debate ... he chose to trivialise it, it was shameful that the 91热爆 editors prefer to turn this into an abusive and puerile session...this gothic theatre must have been planned...shame on you people.

I have lived seven decades on this wicked planet and have no illusions left. As a one time resident and now frequent visitor to London I think Ken livingstone has been the only one to make any difference to the traffic and I applaud the congestion charge.I cannot understand the dislike of the new buses which are much more frequent and comfortable than the old ones. So he's not a perfect human being but he is the ONLY candidate who knew what he was talking about.Johnson came across as a puerile buffoon - how could anyone entertain the idea of letting him run anything - and Paddick as a narrow minded but honest plodder who would be completely out of his depth in any field other than police matters.
Everyone should be praying that KL gets elected because the alternatives are just unimaginably disastrous.

Re-Post 47.Joe Blurton. Clearly:-

1) You fear debate.
2) You haven't bothered to find out about the blackout which characterises 'our' media and political institutions on this issue, as was the case over Prince Harry's tour in Afghanistan.
3)You see political decisions in this country being made, not by parties offering comparable policies for the voter to decide on, but by you deciding where the intellectual kudos lies.
4)You know nothing of bnp support in recent local by-elections ranging between 17 and 35%, and why would you, since your betters have decided to keep these facts from you.
5)You care nothing for the many substantive issues raised by immigration, such as the many 12-14 year old white girls forced into prostitution by asian gangs, which 91热爆 Radio 5 covered at length last weekend without once mentioning that those responsible were asians.

In response to the one or two BNP supporters on this page who carp about there never being a BNP candidate on TV, I would remind them that in nearly all polls taken so far the BNP do not even bag 1% (in most of the YouGov ones at least, they share a 3% polling with all the other minor parties: Left List, UKIP, Christian People's etc.) If the Green's Sian Berry can't get on telly (more popular than your lot by far) what chance do you stand?

Good to see that many people - now having seen what Boris Johnson looks like in action - are awakening as to what a disaster the Tory candidate could be (and no, I'm not being paid by Ken Livingstone to say that).

They each reflected their Party - so pretty depressing choices really.

As an example see if any of these descriptions resonate at all.

1 - Ideologically driven with very plausible presentation of facts, which are strangely at odds with Londoners' real-life experiences. Ostensibly democratic so long as the popular opinion goes the 'correct' way, otherwise just changes whose opinions are counted. Portrays those with the 'wrong' opinion as just very, very bad and selfish people.

2 - Apparently incapable of bringing any coherent focus onto significant problems, or holding those responsible to account.
(But although aware of the problems doesn't really suffer the effects that most voters do anyway, so what the hey.)

3 - Nice sounding but no substantial content, can see both sides of an argument and so appear reasonable but this really just means unwilling to fight for voters who largely feel oppressed and unrepresented.

London obviously needs an outstanding Mayor to face the new challenges within taxably affordable means. One did not get the impression that one of the 3 candidates was "it". Ken, perhaps by virtue of his 2 terms and previous experince, gave a better overall picture of the Mayoral mission than the other two candidates who seem stuck on their own priorities. But Ken seems to be quite arbitrary. Boris seemed too petulant while Paddick was good on "crime" but did not expand on the overall challenge. It will be good to listen to the other 7 candidates too in a wider debate to see who'll be the MOST outstanding.

All three of these blokes were just appalling. Except for that Liberal one who's name still eludes me. Their pompous verbosity was only matched by Paxo's haranguing. They looked so uncomfortable in their suits that you might have thought that somebody had run up to their house with an Olympic torch.
Please: no more "American-style" head-to-head political punch-ups. Much better to get the candidates to participate in a Jerome K Jerome style 鈥淭hree Men in a Boat鈥� trip up the Thames. Hopefully they鈥檇 get lost somewhere beyond Windsor and we wouldn鈥檛 have to put up with them any more.

It looked as if Boris Johnson thought he was on 'Have I Got News for You' and not taking part in a serious debate about London on Newsnight.

No wonder the Tories are keeping him out of the public debate & eye as much as possible. There is no way he can or should be Mayor of London - we would end up a laughing stock. He should think of joining a circus - better qualified for it and he has the hair.

Ken is the only credible candidate.

Brian Paddick was rather mute over the whole debate. I know he's using it as a deliberate tactic not to be associated with the squabbling of the other 2 candidates, but at the same time it gave him far less opporunity to stress his own opinions, leaving viewers far less aware of what he stands for.

ken seems to be the best candidate for the job, GOOD LUCK KEN.

what a laugh. Great entertainment. A comedy classic.

Sorry if that comment hurts 'you Londoners' but yes it was a complete farce.

This is the first time in years I have been able to sit through a Paxman 'interview'. Usually Paxman won't shut up with his 'pretty polly' repetitions. However it was meant to be a debate so the 3 stooges got their turn.

Boris will go back to his Ostrich impersonation methinks.

Why did Newsnight want to host such a debate ? London has a regional programming, so why can't it be broadcasted under that ?
What interested is it to me or anyone else outside of london ?

All three of these blokes were just appalling. Except for that Liberal one who's name still eludes me. Their pompous verbosity was only matched by Paxo's haranguing. They looked so uncomfortable in their suits that you might have thought that somebody had run up to their house with an Olympic torch.
Please: no more "American-style" head-to-head political punch-ups. Much better to get the candidates to participate in a Jerome K Jerome style 鈥淭hree Men in a Boat鈥� trip up the Thames. Hopefully they鈥檇 get lost somewhere beyond Windsor and we wouldn鈥檛 have to put up with them any more.

Post 94. Jason Plessas.
You're in no position to 'remind' anyone about polls since you know nothing about them, but have simply yakked down what the establishment have pushed at you. That's the same mob that brought you WMD's and led us to an illegal war, while pushing out poll results telling us that most people supported their policy. And your beloved YouGov -could that be the one where the president is married to a cabinet minister? Impeccable source buddy. Try squaring your 1% bnp support with the say 22% bnp support at a recent local by-election.That's real votes, real people bothering to turn out to vote, despite the blackout, the abuse and the dirty tricks, not limited choices offered to selected candidates in a non-confidential setting. Sorry if this demand for a level playing field, freedom of speech and democracy strikes you as 'carping'

Oh Dear!!

Reading the comments above, it looks as if the rent-a-comment crowd is out in force to knock Boris down. They must really worried that Ken is going to lose!

No one watching the debate could have anything nice to say about Livingstone. He came across as totally untrustworthy....Would you buy a second hand car from him? Certainly not and anyway he has made it his mission to clobber all motorists. As far as his "green policies" go they just do not stack up. And he has not answered questions about his campaign financing.

Boris was enthusiastic and forceful but most importantly he was genuine. All criticisms of him smell of divisiveness and class war. He needs to dominate his details more but he will have a top team of managers to run the various policies which will be better than Ken's old socialist cronies.

Paddick was not a bad chap but a bit of a side show I fear.

Boris won on points and gets my vote on 1st May.

PS: I see that the Newsnight 91热爆 page is carrying an unashamed pro-Livinstone quote. There you have it: more evidence that the pinkos are worried that their champion, the duplicitous Ken (or Kenneth I suppose), is going to lose.

PS2: if you live outside London tough! Change channel or widen your narrow scope....after all London is the Capital....from caput" which the less ignorant will know is Latin for "head"...and I have a pretty good idea which which bodypart the whingers come from.

I wanted to vote for Boris but now I hear he is against pedestrian improvement schemes. London is made a hell hole by traffic - especialy all that the Red route chucks at us in danger, noise and pollution. Take Mornington Crescent and all along that vile High Street where everything seems filthy dirty and shops all 'To Let'. It is where the highest pollution in Europe is (I have been told) There are some miserable seats stranded on the Island there opposite the Tube - presumably to encourage us to cross the hellish road and sit there and breathe in deeply. Even the plants there look dreadful which must mean something. For goodness sake Boris, Oxford Street urgently needs to be made an attractive 'destination' and a place for Londoners to go out to shop and to dine alfresco in proper euro style pavement cafes. We want to 'promenade' with our kids in the evening - and shop. We would do this if it was not for the vile buses and taxis there. BORIS,please forget the bendy bus nonsense (they are more comfortable to use than the double decker because of low point of gravity not throwing us around so much). Instead,widen the pavements and link the bus routes at each end of Oxford street with long electic 'hoppers' designed with a driver's cabin each end for manouvres.

I am not from London and I found the debate interesting. It showed me what a shambles London is already in and what could potentially happen to it.

Boris made a complete buffoon of himself and avoided questions which he could have actually made a real contribution too. He was incredibly rude and loud. If I lived in London, I would only vote for him as a joke and move away from London until his reign is over. I am very suprised how the Conservatives ever even considered let alone allow him to be a candidate. He's most likely a publicity stunt or an in joke in the Conservatives to let him have a chance.

I didn't like Ken Livingston too much, he seemed somewhat genuine. He seems to 'change his mind' a lot which may mean some of the promises he made would be changed, even the one where he said he'd quit if he broke one of his promises, who's to say he'd change his mind about it?

The candidate that stood out to me was the Lib Dem candidate, Brian Paddick. He seemed genuine and willing to tackle crime in London from some of the figures I heard needed a lot of help. He would listen a lot more to the police forces as he used to work for them and I would feel that he would know where there are a few mends needed to be repaired. He did want to show that he didn't want to be associated with the rabble between Boris and Livingston. He seems like he'd focus on making better communities and eliminating weapons and danger off the streets which may help tourism and generally be better for London. Paddic looks like a real threat to the other candidates and a candidate who actually looks like he can make a major difference in London.

Jeremy Paxman humiliated Boris Johnson!

12 (Count them) times Jeremy asked Boris and still he would not answer the question about bendy buses!

BORIS JOHNSON-IT IS NOW A YOU TUBE CLASSIC!!!

True. You can't get a straight answer out of him...
Still, the debate was hilarious; Boris Johnson is clearly a complete moron. He failed completely to answer several questions, he got slightly angry at the end, and he looks more like Little Britain's Matt Lucas pretending to be him, rather than actually looking like him. As usual, Paxmann was superb, if a bit bored/tired. I also get the feeling he was going to say something different to ''we're out of time'' in reply to Boris Johnson's stupid 'why not?' question right at the end of the debate.
If I lived in London and was old enough to vote (i'm 16), I think i'd go for the Liberal candidate. I'm not so keen on the Liberals, but their had some good suggestions. I'd prefer a police state to more poncey 'community schemes' any day. This country, or even the planet (politically speaking) seems to full of indecision. If we keep being so leanient, extremism is bound to make a comeback...
It was also interesting to note each candidate was clearly representing their party, despite the fact the role of mayor is based on the individual candidates...
Even Conservative voters should give Boris Johnson a miss.
And Ken Livingstone barely merits a mention....

Brian Paddick came across as earnest with some good ideas and made a direct hit when he pointed out that Boris had only ever managed 50 people at the spectator, implying that the step up to mayor of london was simply too big.
someone said politicians are either vicars or horsetraders and BP came across as a vicar-rather joyless and not too fond of his fellow humans.
Ken was clued up on the issues, was clearly passionate about promoting London and knew how and why to do this. He came across as decisive and amiable and was able to zoom in from big picture to detail.
Boris had a weird splattergun approach to questions, woffling and going all round the houses, frantically trying to locate a soundbite button that would resonate with viewers(whom he referred to as readers). He came across as a bluffer with no grasp of detail who was completely out of his depth.
i was reminded of George Bush!
If he did get the job, who would be the Dick Cheney??

As a Londoner who has seen public transport improve, the skyline improve, less rubbish on the streets, more police visible, it is hard to see how Brian and Boris, based on the ideas proposed tonight, could begin to effect the kind of change that Ken has managed.