The implication no doubt being that Paxman was unfair on boris while he somehow let ken off lightly?

Poor Boris!

Why hasn't he costed his plans?

That's what Paxman asked him - I want to know too - how much would his plans cost?

can he afford them?

Is he opting for the more affodable alternative or is his alternative more costly in the long run?

I want to make an informed choice!

oh what - he hasn't actually thought them through that far?

well then I don't want him within a million miles of the public purse!

And that was only one example of a refusal to deal with the quesio directly - "yes but what do YOU think?"

And by the way, this may come as a shock, but Gordon Browns salary is in fact all payed for by the taxpayer.

That is who the government is paid by.

So all this "his TV licence is paid for by the taxpayer" is a load of farcical nonsense. It would be paid for by the taxpayer anyway, whatever his salary or expense allowance.

These aren't salient or useful points, they are "hype" and "spin". Labour, tory, whetever, I know spin when I see it.

That's why I like ken - he tells you what he's going to do as mayor and gives you the choice whether or not you want him for the job.

According to todays free rags, he is currently polling higher than Johnson. Younger voters, (more worried about the state of the world we are to inherit than our babyboomer predecessors) support him.