The cat fight for London

The upcoming Mayoral election has whipped up quite a flurry in media circles, with journalists specifically assigned to the campaign trails, and election inspired burgers (courtesy of Gormet Burger Kitchen) being sent to the newsroom.

I have to say that if burgers alone were to make the decision for me, Ken would have my vote in the bag. But I'm not sure how reliable a burger can be in deciding the next Mayor of London.

Wanting to see each candidate pitched against one another, in order to better understand the difference between their policies, and what each could offer me as a Londoner, I watched the debate between three men hosted on BBC1 last night.

But rather than make anything clearer in my mind I simply became disillusioned. After 15 minutes of finger waggling, raised voices, and snide comments I had no idea what any of the three men stood for - I was just sure that none of them had in any way stolen my vote.

I have watched Prime Minister's Question Time on a number of occasions, and have been always been astounded by the depths to which politicians will stoop in order to ridicule their opponent and gain the upper hand. But it is precisely this behaviour that concerns me about politics in Britain, and last night was a prime example. The three men spent so long attacking one another, both personally and professionally, that none of them succeeded in winning the audience and ultimately securing any waivering votes.

The Mayoral election race has turned into a dirty cat fight in which each candidate appears to be pushing similar policies (greenifying London, cutting crime, and improving transport) and seems more interested in what the other candidates are doing rather than what the voters are thinking.
Maybe burgers might have to help in the decision making process afterall.