He referred to wisteria in the midst of a riff on MPs expenses. Now just as clearly as porno video equals Mr. Jacqui Smith, so wisteria brings to mind the leader of the opposition. May be, I’m just being paranoid on Dave’s behalf, but, quite possibly, Boris is doing his bit to try to keep alive this unfavourable image of Dave.

Should Boris fulfil what we are to take as his long term ambition, to succeed Dave as Tory leader, the bedrock of his support is likely to come from those Tory MPs who were annoyed by Cameron’s alleged double standards and poor handling of the MPs’ expenses scandal. So, Boris’ wisteria reference is a shout-out to those MPs; a not so subtle “I am your man.” Yes, somewhat less mega-phone and more subtle than the same such shout-out that Boris gave at Tory Party Conference with his remarks on the Lisbon Treaty. But a shout-out, nonetheless. And a rubber ring for himself; a rubber ring to carry his not inconsiderable girth from where he is now (City Hall) to where he wants to be (Number 10 or at least the Tory leadership). 

At the award ceremony, the Newcomer of the Year, Ken Clarke, described where Boris is now as “the world of buses and bus lanes.” When his current station is put like that, despite affording him the third largest personal mandate in Europe after the French and Portuguese presidents, it is easy to understand why Boris grasps for that rubber ring. After all, any man using a bus over the age of 25 is a failure.

The stage of Brixton Academy has been the pinnacle of many careers but on that stage last Monday night, for People’s Question Time, Boris didn’t cut the figure of someone who has achieved any kind of pinnacle. Indeed, it often seemed so much of a chore for the Mayor. Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone, unlike Boris and Dave, share little in terms of background and inclinations, but when Ken was Mayor they formed a great working relationship. This might be because Blair was confident throughout that Livingstone wasn’t after his job and had achieved his pinnacle. The same can’t be said of Boris and Dave.  Probably the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton, but a war that began on those same fields has many more bus lanes and rubber rings to travel before it reaches its (inevitably bloody) conclusion.

“It would be impossible for Nick Griffin now to make Enoch Powell’s speech warning that like the Roman he saw the river Tiber foaming with blood — and Powell was, at the time, in Ted Heath’s shadow cabinet”.

This is just one illustration, amongst many, of the victories secured for decency and civility – perhaps, the politically incorrect terms for political correctness - over the past decade or so. And, as such, it is to be celebrated. But in my relatively short life – not yet into its 30th year – I have seen graffiti that reads: “Enoch was right”. That he obviously wasn’t doesn’t stop me strongly suspecting that there remain those who don’t accept this and wondering what vent these people have for this view.

 Similarly, just as I am confident that the vast majority of Britons find Griffin creepier than homosexuals, I am also sure that there will be some who, appallingly, agree with Griffin that homosexuality is creepy. Recent homophobic attacks in Liverpool and Trafalgar Square make me very worried about the expression of such views.

Essentially, what lengths will the political incorrect go to in increasingly politically correct times? If all they do is become Directors of Policy for Boris Johnson, then we may not have so much to worry about. But the underbelly of unreconstructed Powellites and homophobes amongst us may turn far uglier than this.

“The challenge for David Cameron is huge. If, as seems likely, he becomes Prime Minister next year, it will be his task to ensure that future generations do not look back on the years 1979-2009 as a blip — an aberrant resurgence — in the otherwise steady decay of a once great nation”.

Johnson seems more eager to embrace Thatcher than Cameron. Perhaps, the differing attitudes of these two rivals for the leadership of the Tory Party, reflect a deeper fault line in the Tories – or, maybe, Cameron is simply more sensitive to the national mood than Johnson. Cameron may remain loath to reveal himself as a Thatcherite while public opinion continues to be as starkly divided over Thatcher as Tim Adams recently observed in The Guardian:

“It’s exactly 30 years since she came to power, nearly 20 since she was unseated and still none of us can rationalise, quite, what we feel about her – either our loathing or our adoration. Even as her era and her “-ism” abruptly ends – in the bail-out and humbling of her market economy, the smashing up of the banks – no one can get to us as a nation quite like she can”.

There is no Thatcher myth. There never was. There is a massively polarising figure and fierce debate about her policies. In contrast, a book has recently been published with the title Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future. Amazon tells us of Will Bunch’s book:

“Nearly two decades after leaving office and four years after his death, the legend of Ronald Reagan looms larger than ever over America’s political life. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Republicans – especially presumptive nominee John McCain – appearing to run more aggressively for the Reagan mantle than for the White House itself, and with even Democrats debating how to add some Reagan lustre to their progressive platform”.

I know that Gordon Brown had Thatcher round for tea but no Labour person seriously wants to add some Thatcher “lustre to their progressive platform”. That would be absurd. Philip Collins has done a good job of explaining why this is so.

So, why does the UK attitude towards Thatcher seem so different from the US attitude to Reagan? Was Reagan less divisive? Only fighting Communists without, rather than “enemies within”? “Enemies” which never existed on the same scale in the US as they did in the UK, suggesting the less ambiguous US attitude towards Reagan may find its historical origin in the weaker socialist traditions in the US. This is the right nation, after all.