London underground

George Osborne indicating that he is open to him and other ministers having to publish their tax returns is testament to two things. First, the Tory leadership, who know how crucial a Boris victory in London is to the Cameron project regaining momentum, is keen to keep the pressure on Ken Livingstone over his tax affairs. They have no desire to let a row over whether they’ll publish theirs distract attention from the problems of Labour’s mayoral candidate. As Osborne himself stresses in the Telegraph interview, “The reason we are talking about this now is that this is a smokescreen for Ken Livingstone’s tax affairs. Let’s not take the focus off him.

I suspect that three important consequences will flow from the release today of the London mayoral candidates tax returns. First, voters will see that Boris Johnson’s rage at Ken Livingstone on Tuesday as being thoroughly justified. Second, they’ll see that Ken Livingstone, despite all his left-wing rhetoric, is the only one of the four main candidates to have tried to make his affairs tax efficient. The third consequence is that a precedent has now been set that politicians running for office should publish their tax returns. I’ll be shocked if one of the three party leaders doesn’t try and steal a march at the next election by volunteering to publish their information and challenging the others to do the same.

The most striking thing about tonight’s mayoral hustings on Newsnight was how often Brian Paddick attacked Ken Livingstone. Paddick, who turned in the most assured performance of all the candidates, accused Livingstone of being like a ‘bad 1970s comedian who plays to whatever audience he’s talking to.’ He also, interestingly, sided with Boris Johnson when the discussion turned to the 50p tax rate and then the candidate’s own tax affairs. It is tempting to see Paddick’s performance tonight as testament to how keen the Liberal Democrat top brass are to see Livingstone defeated in London.

The tensions that have been bubbling away in the London mayoral contest spilt out into the open today with Boris Johnson accusing Ken Livingstone of lying about both of their tax affairs. On the facts of the matter, it looks pretty clear that Boris is right: he doesn’t use a company to reduce his tax liability. There are, though, those claiming that accusing Livingstone of being an ‘f***ing liar’ will hurt Boris. But I doubt this; it is hard to imagine Boris as an angry or mean-spirited person. What this exchange does do, though, is raise the stakes for their televised hustings tomorrow night. I expect that Livingstone will try and rile Boris.

Jonathan Freedland’s column in The Guardian today, explaining why he can’t vote for Ken Livingstone, is a remarkably direct piece of journalism. Freedland states that he ‘can no longer do what I and others did in 2008, putting to one side the statements, insults and gestures that had offended me, my fellow Jews and — one hopes — every Londoner who abhors prejudice’. Now, as Paul Goodman argues, we shouldn’t overstate the importance of a traditionally Labour supporting Guardian columnist coming out against Ken Livingstone. But Freedland’s reasons for doing so are ones that, I suspect, will resonate with a significant section of opinion. The issue with Livingstone is that his politics are sectional.

A dark, damp and freezing cellar beneath Waterloo station isn't an obvious choice for launching a political campaign — but that's where Team Ken officially kicked off their Mayoral bid last night. Various prominent lefties were brought into the Old Vic Tunnels to warm up for the man himself. Eddie Izzard was also present to fill in the gaps and keep everyone engaged until the bar opened. Most of the policies discussed have already been made public, but there were a few new, colourful additions. Ken pointed out that Transport for London purchases energy at half the normal price, so why don't they buy more and sell it back to ordinary Londoners? An inexperienced, local government-run energy firm is just what Londoners need, after all.

What does No.10 make of Boris's campaign so far? Not much, judging by Alice Thomson's column (£) in the Times today: ‘Downing Street is worried. When the mayor came in with his Australian election strategist Lynton Crosby last week, they thought their plans were “underwhelming” and lacked a simple ‘retail offer’ for voters.’ This certainly fits in with what I've noted before: that Team Boris is being significantly quieter than Team Ken. Indeed, further research suggests that the current Mayor is trailing far behind his challenger in the all-vital Evening Standard campaign coverage.

The declaration by Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite, that public sector unions should consider disrupting the Olympics is going to re-ignite the whole debate about union power. McCluskey tells Andrew Sparrow that ‘The attacks that are being launched on public sector workers at the moment are so deep and ideological that the idea the world should arrive in London and have these wonderful Olympic Games as though everything is nice and rosy in the garden is unthinkable.’ McCluskey’s ill-considered threat is a headache for Labour. Unite is Labour’s largest donor and the Tories are already calling on Miliband to denounce him. I suspect that the Boris campaign will be making the same demand of Ken Livingstone soon.

When is a homophobic comment not a homophobic comment?  When it is spoken by somebody on the ‘left’ of course. Ken Livingstone has just reminded us of a prevailing rule in British politics. His comment that the Conservative party is ‘riddled’ with homosexuals ‘like everywhere else’ would have earned him a sacking if the parties had been reversed and a Conservative politician had talked of the Labour party in this fashion. In the same way, if a Conservative had made the kind of smearing racial generalisation that Diane Abbott recently twittered, they would have found themselves sent beneath the bottom rung of the political ladder.

It looks like the May's election for Mayor of London will be a close run thing. A new poll today from YouGov has Ken Livingstone two points ahead of Boris Johnson – a big turnaround from the eight point lead Boris had in June: Ken shouldn't be popping any champagne corks yet, of course. His lead is well within the poll's margin of error, and there's three and a half months to go before election day. But he's certainly looking more likely to topple Boris than he did seven months ago. So why the change? YouGov's Peter Kellner has a good article on the poll's details here, but two key points jump out from the numbers: 1. Labour voters are getting behind Ken.

A few months ago I hosted a debate at my think tank with one of the key Tahrir Square leaders. After his talk about Egypt, he warned the audience: the protests that toppled Hosni Mubarak were not just an Egyptian or Middle Eastern phenomena; it could – and, he said, would – spread to the West. For the youth of today, he argued, feel disempowered, empoverished and betrayed. As protests spread from New York to London and other European capitals, it seems that Egyptian protester may have been right. Today's efforts to occupy the London stock exchange failed but protesters remain on the grounds of St Paul's Cathedral. Whatever happens in the next days, protests like these are likely to appear, disappear and appear again.

If anyone had any doubts about just how personal the 2012 London mayoral campaign is going to be, they should have been dispelled by Ken Livingstone’s speech to Labour conference today. Ken claimed that the Mayor had ‘got what he wished for’ in above average unemployment and accused him of standing for a ‘privileged minority’. He then went on to draw an equivalence between Boris’s student antics and those of the rioters: “What is the difference between the rioters, and a gang of over-privileged arrogant students vandalising restaurants and throwing chairs through windows in Oxford? Come on Boris – what’s the moral difference between your Bullingdon vandalism as a student and the criminality of the rioters?

Back in 2008, one Mayoral candidate explained that it would require imagination to solve London's housing problems. The candidate developed a manifesto that suggested a new form of “democratic” home ownership, which which would "help build stronger communities", and which would allow houses to "remain affordable for future generations". He said he would "create a network of Community Land Trusts, managed by cooperatives to give homes to people who are indispensable to this city." His name was Boris Johnson and since he was elected not a single Community Land Trust has materialised in the capital. This is a quiet tragedy. Just like Ken Livingstone, Boris has spent huge amounts of time and resources promoting New Labourish 'affordable housing'.

By rights, Labour ought to walk next year’s mayoral election. But all is not going to plan. The latest polls put Boris ahead; one conducted at the end of last month even had him 7 points clear. Labour's problem is Ken Livingstone. As Jonathan found recently, a full fifth of Labour voters in London say they would prefer Boris to be mayor rather than Ken, an extraordinary statistic. Livingstone is also seen as dishonest in comparison to Boris. His opportunism often contributes to that perception — for instance, his attempt to tar Boris with the filthy Murdoch brush earlier this week was the most transparent piece of hypocrisy. Andrew Gilligan has more news on that front; news that illustrates why Boris also leads Ken in the charisma stakes.