I cringed throughout the whole thing.  Saying that, the person I was watching it with (who doesn't live in London and is not political in the slightest) thought Ken was reassured, knew his facts and figures and was the most "Mayor like".  His other impressions were that Paddick is a total lightweight and Johnson should have tired to shut up instead of just blabbering on all the time.  I am hoping the London electorate will reach the same conclusions as my significant other and vote accordingly!

It was one of the most cringing, boring debates i have ever witnessed.  Reminded me of some really bad school/university debates.  i think the format was awful, should be more interactive, maybe with an audience?  Having said that, Ken did come across as though he knows his facts and figures, and as someone who has a vision for london.  Boris was Boris.  Paddick was the most disappointing.  Obvious he is in the race to massage his own ego.  I lost alot of respect for him when he refused to give a second preference.  Whatever issues people have about Ken, he is a more progressive choice than Boris, and Paddick should have had the guts to admit that.

I was amused that ConservativeHome live-blogged Petraeus' statement to Congress yesterday, but not the Mayor debate. And no mention of the outcome of the debate today, just some criticism of Boris Johnson's support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. They are moving-on!

It's a shame the debate was on a night when a large percentage of tv viewers would have been occupied with Liverpool-Arsenal. 

Paddick had a bit of a nightmare in my opinion. It was obvious he was new to this game; my estimation of him has lowered significantly. His choice to coin Ken and Boris as "a rock and a hard place" was, politically, a major error. It came over as dishonesty, denial and - to be perfectly honest - ignorant and petty. His knowledge on the major issues was sketchy and he really failed to put forward convincing cases for any of his views.

Ken made a few mistakes but generally articulated himself quite well. He was concise, direct and made it clear he knew what he stood for. He had the statistics available to him when needed and tried to stick to the topics offered. He did make a bit of a mess of the funding issue however.

Boris was his usual bumbling self.  Pompous, arrogant and dropped the ball time after time when pressed on details. The constant flirting between his political persona and his jester persona was evident. Repeated "I'll spend no more and no less" was hide-behind-the-sofa quantities of cringe and blunder, not to mention his commitment to making his children eat ground-up identity cards on their corn flakes.

Was I the only one who groaned when Johnson slipped in the "Kenneth or Ken?": clearly an attempt to coin him as old fashioned which back-fired with Ken's confident reply. Name games from a man called Boris is a clear tactical gaff, not to mention a irrelavant and slimy.

A good performance all-round for Livingstone last night, I just hope people were watching. 

I was wondering how biased I'd be but to be honest I thought Ken was head and shoulders above the other two.

Although I freely admit to being biased against 'Boris', I still thought pretty much everything he said was waffling nonsense, there was one point where he was asked a question and just ignored it and said 'I want to focus on this...' and ranted on about something else.

Ken was far more confident with the facts and successfully fought off several attacks by both Paddick and Johnson.

The only time he messed up was saying 'I don't want to know who funds my campaign', which was technically fine once he explained himself saying that he gets his funds from the central labout party, he doesn't want to know who it is because of potential conflicts of interest, but his initial comment may be what sticks, or is used against him.

I find it hard to believe any neutral will have watched that and felt that Ken didn't win it. He even made himself look good just by being the only one to admit who his second pref. would be if he had to vote out of the two of them.

Plus Johnson got a good hammering off Paxman, I have to admit I get frustrated when it happens to a Labour minister but I was quite happy to see Johnson treated with such disdain.

Hopefully the momentum is beginning to go with Ken now, the more public debates he gets into with Johnson the better, I'm feeling/hoping that the more people see of him the more they realise how pathetic he is.

I've seen Ken and Johnson speak before (the former in person a few times) but never Paddick. What a shifty looking chancer; he and the LibDumbs deserve each other.

Is it me, or do I detect a change in the mood in London?  The Evening Standard story, (today, 10 Apr)coming hard on the heels of yesterday's poll showing Ken back in the lead, 'Boris booed at hustings' is surprising given the paper's general hostility to Ken.

And the mood among the Party members seems to be quite positive too, with a lot of 'on-the-ground' activity going on.

Ken seems to have worked out how to deal with Boris at these hustings events, by being articulate, sticking to the facts and figures, and not appearing to be complacent.  The more Boris blusters and rants, the better it is for Ken.  Perhaps the Tories should reconsider letting Boris loose in public!

I've wondered myself if the tide is beginning to turn a bit in ken's favour - as people have actually looked at Boris, his policies, and questioned why he is running for mayor, I think more and more people will realise they'd be better off sticking with Ken.

Whether it will be enough I don't know but I feel that, nationally (media-wise) at least, Ken is making the running and is certainly more impressive at the hustings.

It's sad though isn't it, that the man who leads in the ratings and is so heavily backed by the Evening Standard, is a man who, when voters actually see him speak in a debate with Ken, loses voters, not gains them. Yet he's still favourite to win.

I think anyone claiming victory from Newsnight is living in a dream world.  It was an incredibly boring debate that told us nothing about the three candidates.

My local paper has given Ken a great write up.  In the Muswell Hill Journal, the article starts as follows:

<h1>Muswell Hill welcomes Ken</h1> <h5 class="linenew"> nlnews@archant.co.uk
10 April 2008 </h5> <h5>MAYOR of London Ken Livingstone received a rapturous welcome while out on the re-election trail in Muswell Hill on Thursday.

Virtually every passer-by and shopkeeper approached by the Labour candidate had not a single bad word to say about him or his policies.

Even Mr Livingstone could barely believe it as he strode along the Broadway in the sunshine with Joanne McCartney - also seeking re-election to City Hall as Labour member for Enfield & Haringey - as he was overheard telling her: "This is the most positive response from people. It's amazing."</h5><h5> The staff in Sanrizz hair salon all agreed with his claim to have improved bus services in the area in eight years in office, and another woman told Mr Livingstone: "I can't believe people are even thinking of voting for Boris Johnson because you are doing such a great job."

The Mayor scored points with another woman whose son cycles to work by telling her all of the proposed £25 Congestion Charge income would go to improve cycle routes, and he was also quick with the quips.

He told one pair of pensioners they could "stay out clubbing all night and come back in at seven in the morning" with his proposed extension of their bus Freedom Pass to 24 hours, which raised a laugh.</h5><h5> </h5>