For the first time in a few months, the London Mayoral contest suddenly caught light today. But why does it take an expletive-fuelled rant in a lift to get people talking about the London elections?
The answer is because election campaigns are usually very dull. Immensely dull, in fact (and I speak from experience here). They are the political equivalent of the daily commute. We know we have to put up with it, but it's neither fun nor interesting and it's always better when it's over.
The only thing that brightens up elections are moments of scandal or controversy: like Prescott's punch in 2001, or Brown's 'bigot' comments in 2010. That's why mayoral contests are marginally more interesting, as the figures involved are often mavericks and more 'colourful' characters.
But the model for improving campaigns going forward cannot be to have more rows in radio studios, more voter insults or punch-ups in the street. I would argue election campaigns are too obsessed with providing media moments already.
Instead the parties need to rethink their formula for running campaigns and the audiences that campaigns target.
Most campaigns are dominated by the media grid, the spine of the campaign that determines which story is supposed to dominate the day. The simple goal of each day is to get your story on the news without your candidate being ambushed. However there is usually more at risk than there is to be gained from hosting election events. If it goes well, it's seldom great. If it goes wrong, it can be a total disaster.
Hence elections tend to be run very defensively to try and minimise the risks to the candidate or party from any unplanned 'mishaps'. This leads to formulaic press conferences, staged walkabouts and set-piece speeches delivered in front of an invited audience - all very dull.
Added to this, modern campaigns only really care about two audiences and neither are the general public.
The first is the media commentariat. Politicians are interested in the media not because they influence the public - although that's a side benefit - but more for their positive endorsement. Media editors and commentators are the judges of the success of the election, the Simon Cowells of the political world, providing caustic commentary on the performance of politicians and scoring the election effort overall.
Whatever they may say, politicians really care about what is written about them, particularly politicians on the rise. Hence campaigns often lose sight of the genuine issues of concern and become distracted by vanity projects for up-and-coming political figures, of less interest to the public.
The other key audience is the Party itself. Providing the election is not a general election, most Westminster politicians will care more about what the Party thinks of the campaign than what the public thinks of it. There's some sense in this. Party members need to be enthused and engaged if they are going to knock on doors, so it's logical to ensure the campaign chimes with them.
But many campaigns have more simplistic motives at heart. They are about protecting reputations in the event of disastrous results in the polls. Fear of failure often leads campaigns to turn inwards, to satisfy internal stakeholders rather than focusing on the people who matter most, the public.
The alternative to dull, overly managed election campaigns is not, as the actions of Ken and Boris might imply, simply to have a fight. There's another option. It is to worry less about the media and get out on the road to meet the public. Ironically, in a world of modern media communications, personal contact has become even more important in building trust. Getting in front of real voters, engaging directly on their issues, can be much more impactful than yet another centrally-organised press conference.
In 2005, when Blair was most-pressed over Iraq, we took the decision to get him out of Westminster and in front of real voters. It wasn't always easy and there were often difficult moments with angry voters taking him to task over the war. But actually the process of engaging with voters changed the way he and the party saw the campaign, and helped Labour to move on from Iraq and back on to the issues voters cared most about like the economy.
Ken and Boris will undoubtedly have another ding-dong or two before the end of the campaign - and if they can get a camera in the lift next time it will surely make great viewing. But to win the hearts and minds of voters, another row won't help. They'd both be well advised to stop arguing, get out of the media studios and go and meet with some voters.