It’s the Independent’s turn to print a leader column about the Mayoral election today, but it frustratingly lacks a conclusion. Perhaps that’s the Independent way, is it? Do they always stay on the fence, to fit with their name, or is it just on this occasion? I must confess to not being that familiar with their output.

Anyway, I think the implication, reading between the lines, is the same as the Observer’s explicit recommendation from yesterday, Siân 1, Ken 2, but it’s not certain. This is what they have to say about Boris though:

it is not enough for one candidate to look past his sell-by-date. Another must inspire. The Conservative mayoral campaign has been tightly-run and professional; its tactics have been largely based on reining in its candidate’s more flamboyant instincts. But for all that, it is hard to see even the new, more serious, Mr Johnson as Mayor of a world city such as London. The Conservative candidate has never shown any real interest in the capital in the past. Nor does he have any experience of public administration. And the innate cautiousness of his campaign means that, in policy terms, he has outlined nothing much to excite Londoners.

Absolutely. I noticed in Saturday’s Guardian they spoke to a keen Boris voter in Bexley (one of the outer London boroughs targeted so closely by Lynton Crosby’s campaign), but when they asked him, in response to him saying that Boris "has some good policies", which particular policies he liked, he "tailed off", only coming alive again, with criticism, when Ken was mentioned. Certainly sounds like Crosby and co have done some successful brainwashing around there: that’s all their key messages installed in a real-life voter.

Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to matter that their key messages are utterly meaningless ones – Ken’s rubbish (the Evening Standard says so, so it must be true); it’s time for a change/fresh ideas; we have some good policies but don’t ask what they are because they don’t really exist in any useable level of detail; and did we mention that Ken is rubbish?

Even after all this time, Boris’s "scary" (his word) campaign managers are still keeping him away from any media outlet they don’t think will give him glowing praise or provide a strategic boost to their campaign.

Cole Moreton writes in today’s Independent on Sunday (thanks to Dave Hill for pointing it out) about how Boris’s minders have made it completely impossible for him to get even a minute of time with Boris to ask him a question or two. Their lies and excuses to avoid this reporter are exposed towards the end of the article, when they have no time to speak to him but suddenly find just enough time to suck up to Muslim voters on Al-Jazeera:

I am next, and the only one left … but just as Boris opens his mouth to speak, the handler places his body between us. They have to go, he says nervously but insistently. Right now.

"Cole was with me on the stump in my first campaign in Henley," Boris protests. The old pro has either been forewarned, or this is an example of that prodigious memory that allows him to quote the Greeks at length.

"Cole is my first priority!" he insists, not entirely plausibly, but the handler has other ideas. Al-Jazeera has appeared. Suddenly, it seems, they are not in such a hurry to go. Boris tells the reporter he is proud of his Muslim ancestors, rattles off a few answers then turns back to me. The room is almost empty. Every single reporter or broadcast journalist who wants it has been given time. But not me.

"We really do have to go," insists the handler, who has obviously had firm instructions not to let us speak. Boris shrugs, and flashes one of those smiles that have helped him get away with so much. He’s sorry, he’s so busy, he’ll ring me. In the morning. Absolutely.

I know he won’t. Even if he wants to. (And so, in time, it proves.)

The article is well worth a read, and provides yet more evidence of Lynton Crosby’s cynical, manipulative and downright dishonest campaign of avoiding media outlets that will scrutinise his candidate properly. No wonder no-one has been able to provide any positive reasons to vote for Boris: there aren’t any, but no-one has been able to get close enough to expose that!

There comes a point at which additional commentary on this blog is pretty unnecessary, and trying to think of a title for yet another post showing how hopeless Mayor Boris would be is just more effort than it’s worth. Johann Hari’s encounter with Boris, described in today’s Independent, speaks for itself.

when we get onto the issues, I get worried. I ask him why he supported Section 28, the notorious legislation that banned teachers from “promoting” homosexuality – and it quickly becomes clear he doesn’t actually know what it was. “As I recall the issue was to do with compulsion. Wasn’t the question [about] whether or not schools should be compelled to have [these lessons]? I thought the issue was: are you compelling teachers in schools to take a particular line? I’m not in favour of that… There’s far too much proscription already of what teachers have to say and do. I’m against bossiness”

But Boris, I explain – Section 28 was the act of bossiness and proscription. It was a flat-out ban, telling teachers not to talk about gays. He goes into his ‘oh cripes’ routine, as if it is charming that he supported a piece of legislation he had totally misunderstood.

On all the questions, he seems to go into a sort of panicked free association, where he desperately to find a link to something he does know about. When I ask him what he would do to reduce the sky-high rate of suicide among gay teenagers, he starts talking about the need to get kids out of gangs – as if the Brick Lane Massiv is stocked with gay-boys and lesbians. He admits he isn’t sure what you call the unions between gay people – they’re civil partnerships, Boris.

If that’s the best he can do when trying to court the gay vote - Hari’s interview was primarily intended for consumption by Attitude readers - I don’t think he’ll be getting very far.