Here’s a question for you. Is the more responsible, more reliable Boris a better Boris?
It’s something that has been causing a fair bit of debate over here at Boriswatch HQ. Before he became Mayor, Bozza was prone to the odd faux pas. We loved him because he wasn’t like other politicians and we were never quite sure what was going to happen next.
Of course there was the odd clanger (*cough Liverpool* cough) but his TV appearances and freedom to be the bonkers Boris that we know and adore made him into one of the nation’s best loved politicians.
And, of course, it was precisely this notoriety and unorthodox behaviour that carried Boris to victory in the 2008 Mayoral election. We liked him because he was a character; a break from the dull, career poiticians in Westminster.
Since he has been Mayor, however, Bozza has been forced to rein in his behaviour. There’s been the odd ‘falling in a river’ moment, and the odd controversial language (the ‘Kosovo style social cleansing’ is the most recent example) but on the whole he has behaved and conducted himself in a manner appropriate to the office of Mayor off London.
However, is the lack of unexpected outbursts or newsworthy behaviour actually hurting Boris’ chances of being re-elected in 2012? Is the reining in of his personality actually damaging his prospects of beating Ken next year? Has the necessity to be responsible squeezed the best bits out of Boris?
I preferred him as he was, but since the public is generally boring and unimaginative I expect it gives him a better chance of success if he is staid and plays it safe. This will hamper his spontaneity, alas.