Paul Corfield wrote:

These are all entirely admirable policy objectives
provided you don't get upset about vehicle types either being
introduced or abolished. It's not dissimilar to the sorts of nimby
arguments you get about tram systems particularly during the
construction phase. Everyone is happy once the things are built and
running because they've got a swish new transport system on their
doorstep.

Trams are rather more permanent though whereas buses can be replaced. And a
lot of people were not happy with the bendies once introduced and ongoing -
whether passengers or other road users who had to navigate the obstacles.
When campaigning for Boris & the local Assembly candidate in 2007/8 along a
good chunk of the 25's route we found the policy going down very well on the
doorstep or for that matter at bus stops.

I don't think the Conservatives would have needed to have
a view on bendy buses - they were simply the result of the elected
Mayor's policies and enacted via the tendering regime which is not
subject to Assembly votes or sanction.

I agree it's not necessary but if there's the risk that a future elected
Mayor is going to reverse the current policy then it's not terribly stable
for long term planning. Conversely it's not good for democracy if unpopular
& bad decisions can be locked into place for years after the decision maker
has been thrown out. Consensus seeking is usually the best way to marry the
two demands and avoid expensive turnovers, but it requires people to seek
those consensuses.

I think there are far more important issues
for any Mayoral candidate to be pronouncing on

True but this issue especially resonated because it's an issue people can
actually see and have a very clear idea what difference a vote for the
candidate will mean in a way that even pledges on more money for public
services doesn't.

but I think the issue
put Ken on the back foot. He also (IMO) fought a poor and tired
campaign in 2008 and had to deal with unprecedented vitriol from the
Evening Standard.

Livingstone had never really had hard competition before and I got the
impression that both his camp and a lot of the London Labour Party had come
to regard London as theirs to govern by divine right, with elections a
formality to rubber stamp. (The reaction of many Labour activists when
Livingstone lost said it all.) And with such arrogance often comes over
things, which the Standard picked up on and ran with. I don't think they
took the prospect of defeat seriously until it was too late.