Tuesday 03 May 2016 7:05 am

Zac Goldsmith seems to have found his mojo: But is it too late to defeat Sadiq Khan?

City Social, on the 24th floor of Tower 42, is used to hosting London’s power brokers, and it would take an interesting guest to tempt the diners to look up from their menus or their phones.

Nobody reaches for their cameras when I take a window seat with Zac Goldsmith, but they definitely notice him. The campaign for City Hall has just two days left to run and though critics suggest that Goldsmith’s campaign lacked energy in its early stages, the Richmond Park MP is now in his stride.

“This is an exhilarating campaign,” he tells me. “We’re putting everything we’ve got into it and I’ve enjoyed almost all of it enormously.” The slight caveat here may be a reference to the amount of time he’s had to spend defending the tone of his campaign.

Allies of Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate, have accused the Tories of running Islamophobic messages. Goldsmith is angered by the charge and believes Khan has legitimate questions to answer about his past associations. “I think he has sought to close down those questions by recklessly shouting Islamophobia at anyone who raises it, and I think that’s wrong and irresponsible. You can’t stand for mayor of London and expect people not to ask you about links to people who wish to do this city harm.”

Corbyn links

Despite insisting that he is “not just the anti-Khan candidate”, the Tory campaign is desperate to link Khan with Labour’s hard-left leader, Jeremy Corbyn. “I don’t think people want to see Corbyn as a proxy Prime Minister of London,” says Goldsmith. “That wouldn’t reflect well on London. If it looked like London was embracing an agenda that was so anti-business, so hostile and so riven with division that would reflect very badly on all of us.”

If Goldsmith is keen to highlight Khan’s links with alleged extremists and the hard-left of the Labour party, he’s also determined to shine a light on what he sees as his opponent’s policy weaknesses, and no area of policy has divided the two candidates like the question of transport fares.

Goldsmith is derisory of Khan’s flagship policy of a four-year freeze on fares, saying his ideas are “not mathematically possible”.

According to the Tory candidate, Khan “might be numerically incompetent or he might just be promising whatever people want to hear and hoping he’ll be believed. Whatever his motives, I know that his promises don’t add up. If he wins, he’s going to have to break a lot of promises.”

Goldsmith lacks the kind of shiny, retail offer like Kahn’s fare freeze pledge, but he doesn’t see this as a disadvantage. “I think people are intelligent. I’d love to be able to promise big things about fares but I think most people in London understand that the transport system is creaking and they know it needs money.

“I don’t think politicians benefit from making promises that are disingenuous. If Khan wins, a lot or people – a lot of interest groups – will feel very disappointed very quickly after the election.”

Listening to Goldsmith’s analysis of the campaign, there’s a sense that he’s frustrated by how brazen Khan is being with promises and pledges. It’s as if the Labour candidate refuses to play by the same rules. Goldsmith’s main pitch is that he’s honest and he won’t promise something he doesn’t think he can deliver. “I don’t want to get elected and then four years down the line have people waving a list of broken promises at me. That is not why I got involved in politics.”

Old-school

But his opponent is a bruiser, an old-school politician running a tough, old-school campaign. In contrast, Goldsmith represents a new approach to politics based on a belief in local referendums, an empowered electorate and safe, deliverable pledges.

“I believe that if everyone read my manifesto I would win with a landslide. It’s very good.” He says this as if he can’t believe that people aren’t reading it. Meanwhile, his opponent is criss-crossing the capital repeating a very simple pledge: I’ll freeze your fares. In just 48 hours, the polls will open and we’ll see which candidate is rewarded. One offers a bag full of sweets, the other points out that sugar rots your teeth.

Goldsmith has been criticised for running a lacklustre campaign. Perhaps, after the Boris show, the charge would be levied regardless of who the Tories chose. If there was a lack of energy in the early days, it’s since been replaced by a committed and considered campaign.

London would be well served by Goldsmith. He’s thoughtful, intelligent and yes – he’s honest. As is often said of politicians whose campaigns fail to inspire, if he could only meet every voter and have a conversation with them, he’d probably win. Unfortunately, that’s not how modern elections are won.

The final few days will be about “having as many conversations as possible”. This would certainly play to his strengths, but time is not on his side.