The Standard has a vested interest in this election

In August 2007, London mayor Ken Livingstone - facing re-election this May - warned that Conservative candidate Boris Johnson would be ‘the most formidable opponent I will face in my political career’. He was not mistaken. Despite Tory MP Johnson’s reputation as a lovable yet gaffe-prone buffoon, more comfortable on the TV gameshow circuit than in the corridors of power, the latest Evening Standard/YouGov poll (March 17th) shows him on 49 per cent, 12 points ahead of the Labour incumbent.

Johnson has certainly smartened up his act, ditching his trademark stuttering quips and unkempt blond mop for a slick new website and advice from Lynton Crosby, the mastermind behind former Australian prime minister John Howard’s four consecutive election victories. And the going has been good. Accusations of racism (he once referred to black people as ‘picaninnies’) have been so far successfully dodged, and his proclamations on crime and the reintroduction of the traditional ‘Routemaster’ bus have been generously reported.

Livingstone, meanwhile, has suffered a torrid few weeks. Fresh allegations about close advisor Lee Jasper’s financial conduct emerged on a near daily basis, culminating in an embarrassing resignation on March 4th. A recent prime time TV programme labelled Livingstone a ‘bully’ and a ‘coward’, while journalist Andrew Gilligan – he of the Iraq dossier ‘sexed up’ controversy - has been ruthless in his desire to expose what he sees as Livingstone’s despotic tendencies. At the forefront of the attacks has been Gilligan’s employer, the Standard, London’s only evening newspaper.

The paper has made no secret of its antipathy towards Livingstone, particularly after the Standard accused Livingstone of making anti-Semitic remarks to one of its reporters in February 2005. News and comment criticising Livingstone are an everyday occurrence, and the mayor is known to be concerned about what he views as the ‘easy ride’ Johnson receives in comparison. It is no surprise, therefore, to see the Standard’s name attached to a poll predicting a substantial victory for the Conservative.

Johnson was cautious in his reaction to the poll, saying only that the results were ‘encouraging’. He has good reason. In a city of 7.4m people and 5.5m registered voters, the Standard sells fewer than 300,000 copies a day, a substantial number of which go to commuters not eligible to vote in the mayoral elections. While the paper’s outlook reflects that of its readership – white professionals, classic ABC1s – its influence on the majority of those who actually live within Greater London is less pronounced, particularly amongst the black and ethnic minority communities from which Livingstone draws much of his support.

The Standard’s vocal campaigns, such as those waged against the congestion charge or the introduction of the long, articulated ‘bendy buses’, may resonate with those who own cars or use taxis, but they do not with the vast swathes of Londoners who do neither. And while the Standard has so far chosen to ignore the alleged financial holes in Johnson’s transport plans – his estimation that it would cost £8m a year to reintroduce conductors on all buses is said to be £100m out – the national press, with less of an axe to grind against Livingstone, will not.

In a sense, then, this election is not simply a matter of Livingstone v Johnson; May 1st will act as the culmination of the Standard’s eight-year war against Livingstone. A defeat for Johnson will not just demonstrate that the capital remains unconvinced by his sudden transformation into a politician of gravitas. It will also signal that the Standard’s agenda is not an accurate reflection of the mood of the city it purports to represent. Small wonder, then, that the paper’s ire will be ever more intently focused on the mayor as the election date draws near. For in truth, the result means as much to the standing of the Standard as it does to either candidate.