DEMOS

On Saturday I attended an excellent mayoral hustings, hosted by the LGBT organisation Stonewall.  The three main candidates, along with Sian Berry of the Green Party and Left List candidate Lindsay German gave short presentations and fielded questions ranging from corruption, buses, the Pride festival, the rights of older LGBT people, extremism, Section 28, and providing better transport for disabled people in London.

The candidates’ responses were pretty mixed. In particular, Ken Livingstone was able to give knowledgeable and at times very persuasive arguments where other candidates seemed flummoxed – I wondered if this had more to do with considered and comprehensive briefing, or personal ability and experience. After all, look at any interview advice and you will be told to ‘do your homework’ – anticipate questions, research and prepare, but try not to make the whole thing look hopelessly over rehearsed. Was this the key, or were the audience won over by something else? It got me thinking about the much wider argument on the extent to which personal charisma and personality count in politics, compared to quality policies, and indeed a quality team of advisers. I can’t help but think that a great deal of the media coverage has focused on personalities not policies in this instance. Indeed, most of the conversations I’ve heard about Ken v. Boris haven’t been about transport, culture or crime, they’ve been about Johnsons’ bumbling Etonian style, or Livingstones’ public image as an outspoken leftist. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see how this debate unfolds not only in the race for Mayor, but in the U.S. presidential elections and in the face of increasing speculation about Gordon Browns’ ability to lead Labour to victory in the next election. Does a strong personality always make a strong leader, and do we have to like someone to admire their leadership skills? How do we draw the line between comprehensive assessment of a candidates ability and gossip-column bitching about their personal traits? 

There’s also a presentational issue here. There are a whole number of factors that influence how we vote, from economic climate to a good bit of advertising. But can thorough research and clever speechwriting win votes, or even turn around opinions? In my view, yes they can. Ken Livingstone received by far the longest and heartiest applause for his overture on Saturday, and whilst his recognisability and popularity amongst the audience was undoubtedly a big factor, credit has to be given for a well crafted and well delivered speech. Firstly, he understood the audience and focused on issues relevant to them, not forgetting to drop in some of his wider key manifesto aims. Secondly, he drew attention to his own past successes and practical measures for the future. Thirdly, he got the audience on his side by quoting some pretty shameful gaffes of his main opponent – call it political nous or call it political pantomime, a tactful bit of opportunism can go a long way. And finally he remembered to end with on a high, with messages of pride, aspiration and togetherness. Add in confident delivery, a few hard facts for the policy buffs and a few laughs and you have the makings of a convincing presentation. If the elections of the future are to be fought on televised debates, aspiring MPs should take note.

You can learn more about all the candidates for the London Assembly and the Mayor of London here.

nicola.hughes@demos.co.uk