Boris was quite right to lose his temper. A supposedly serious discussion about how to run London was chaired by a man who was more interested in the clothes the audience were wearing than on either being even-handed or in holding the current Mayor's record to account. (I was in the audience). BoJo lost his temper because of the consistent lying about his views on Section 28. I'm sure you'll repeat something from one of his columns, but the fact is that Boris Johnson did not support S28 before he was elected to parliament and he voted against it once he was elected to parliament.

The debate was a lost opportunity IMO. Livingstone made the fatuous assertion that he had had no idea of Qaradawi's views prior to meeting him. On top of that we were told that everything at the LDA was a bunch of roses. No attempt was made by the chair to push on either of these points, perhaps because they play to serious matters about London governance, and don't fetishise some unimportant diversity issue or other - which, I'm afraid, was the defining tone of the day: which candidate could pander to the Identity Politics Box marked "gay" the most. This type of politics is reductive and ultimately collapses under the weight of its own contradictions: you end up with the moral obscenity of a man who claims to be a huge supporter of gay equality, physically embracing a man who would have us put to death.