Thanks for this. I'm one of the ordinary white Londoners who has repeatedly voted for Mr Khan, even when I abstained from voting in a General Election. I disagree with plenty of his politics (I'm a woman who wants our single-sex spaces back) but I think he's done a fair job for London, he likes London (the Conservatives seem to despise the city) and he wants London to thrive.
I find it amusing that the Conservatives think Londoners didn't notice Boris Johnson hamstringing TFL financially, for his then mate Osborne, before he stood down, or that we've forgotten the endless cuts to the Met Police budget. And this is a city that totally rejected leaving the EU, and we can all see the harm that Brexit has done to the hospitality and creative industries here.
The pathetic attempts to suggest Mr Khan is a "radical" politician because he's Muslim, and that we are living in some caliphate where he's voted in by Muslim ballot-stuffing, just shows that the Tories spend too much time online reading the views of MAGA Americans, and don't know Londoners at all.
Thank you. Like you, I think SK has done pretty well in difficult circumstances - no previous Mayor has served eight years in parallel with a national government of an opposing political party. And as I've sought to argue, there is a set of reasonable debates to be had about his policies and their effectiveness.
However, the Conservative party and the right in general have convinced themselves that it's all been a disaster, even though London voters have three times begged to differ. And at the extremes there are some very dark and nasty mindsets. The Tories nationally and in London need to face reality and get a grip but I see little sign of that happening.
I agree with one general point, which is the idea that Khan is unusually or uniquely undeserving of an honour is silly, blinkered and ignorant of the history of the honours system. Certainly there are people on the Right who regard him as an avatar for a number of things they hate, some with reasonable cause, some not, but which does not add up to a coherent argument. If the PM wants to knight him, fine, let him get on with that: prime ministers of both parties have given senior honours to colleagues of very little note or merit and that's part of the warp and weft of politics.
It is, however, perfectly possible at the same time to argue (not irrefutably, but plausibly) he has been a bad mayor, that he has a tendency towards self-aggrandisement and that, while some of his powers may be inadequate (I think the mayoralty should have more responsibility), you play the hand you're dealt. Either his honour is defensible on policy and delivery grounds, in which case they must be taken as a totality, or else (as I would argue) it's a separate category and doesn't engage those areas.
And if you want to condemn, again not without coherent justification, some of Khan's more wild-eyed and spittle-flecked critics, I don't think it can really then be said without qualification or nuance that Susan Hall was or is "unacceptable". Good or bad, competent or incompetent, able or cack-handed, those are all a different matter. "Unacceptable" says something quite different.
I settled on "unacceptable" for Hall because I thought it more accurate and fair than "fascist", "racist" or "small-minded suburban bigot". To me, she represents the unacceptable face of today's Conservative Party. How on earth did London Tories end up with such a candidate?
Well, there were a lot of stumbles and mishaps in the process. But “unacceptable” says more than “someone I disagree with”. It says that it is not licit to agree with her views or endorse her, that it is objectively wrong or immoral. I may have opposed pretty much everything Jeremy Corbyn stood for (in real time, not after the fact, like the prime minister seems to have done), but I wouldn’t say Corbyn was “unacceptable”.
I was ready to disagree about Susan Hill, but I think you are right about 'unacceptable'. It's too extreme. Her campaign and what appeared to be her understanding displayed a lack of understanding and naivety.
On the other hand, I find the apparent expectation of Khan critics that he should be self-deprecating somewhat absurd. He's a politician, and not in Johnson's league for self-promotion. It's a requirement of career progression to maintain one's profile. (Let's not forget Boris bikes were actually Ken Livingstone innovation. Livingstone being another example of a politician knowing the importance of being a self-publicist)
Showing-off is a big part of any Mayor's job, I think. The office has limited powers but a large public platform and incumbents are supposed to use it to speak up for London and Londoners' interests (as they see them), including in policy areas they have little control over.
You don’t mention a single policy he’s gotten right and point to the predicted rubbish of his over-regulating housing policy. His only success is having won three times. But post-Brexit a donkey wrapped in a red flag would win in London… he’s very far from the least deserving knighthood but he is another sign of how these political honours are devoid of meaning or value
I think from his point of view his clean air policies have been a clear success - they have achieved what they were designed to do, which is to improve air quality across the capital by means of a road user pricing scheme. The free school meals programme appears to have been very popular and worked well.
Initially, his use of his planning powers - the 35% affordable threshold system - seemed to have the desired effect and his affordable homes programme work met the government-set targets.
Unhappily, the entire housing construction sector is now stuck in a rut, and nobody is having much luck transcending that (ask the housing associations and private developers). The reasonable debate concerns whether his planning policies have become unhelpful in that context, doing more harm than good in terms of h is own objectives. Behind the scenes, many conversations are taking place with national government and developers about getting things moving. We shall have to hope for the best.
Clearly, London is a Labour-leaning city and SK has skilfully benefited from it. The question for the Tories concerns how they set about changing that. I see little sign of them getting getting to grips with it.
Thanks for this. I'm one of the ordinary white Londoners who has repeatedly voted for Mr Khan, even when I abstained from voting in a General Election. I disagree with plenty of his politics (I'm a woman who wants our single-sex spaces back) but I think he's done a fair job for London, he likes London (the Conservatives seem to despise the city) and he wants London to thrive.
I find it amusing that the Conservatives think Londoners didn't notice Boris Johnson hamstringing TFL financially, for his then mate Osborne, before he stood down, or that we've forgotten the endless cuts to the Met Police budget. And this is a city that totally rejected leaving the EU, and we can all see the harm that Brexit has done to the hospitality and creative industries here.
The pathetic attempts to suggest Mr Khan is a "radical" politician because he's Muslim, and that we are living in some caliphate where he's voted in by Muslim ballot-stuffing, just shows that the Tories spend too much time online reading the views of MAGA Americans, and don't know Londoners at all.
Thank you. Like you, I think SK has done pretty well in difficult circumstances - no previous Mayor has served eight years in parallel with a national government of an opposing political party. And as I've sought to argue, there is a set of reasonable debates to be had about his policies and their effectiveness.
However, the Conservative party and the right in general have convinced themselves that it's all been a disaster, even though London voters have three times begged to differ. And at the extremes there are some very dark and nasty mindsets. The Tories nationally and in London need to face reality and get a grip but I see little sign of that happening.
I agree with one general point, which is the idea that Khan is unusually or uniquely undeserving of an honour is silly, blinkered and ignorant of the history of the honours system. Certainly there are people on the Right who regard him as an avatar for a number of things they hate, some with reasonable cause, some not, but which does not add up to a coherent argument. If the PM wants to knight him, fine, let him get on with that: prime ministers of both parties have given senior honours to colleagues of very little note or merit and that's part of the warp and weft of politics.
It is, however, perfectly possible at the same time to argue (not irrefutably, but plausibly) he has been a bad mayor, that he has a tendency towards self-aggrandisement and that, while some of his powers may be inadequate (I think the mayoralty should have more responsibility), you play the hand you're dealt. Either his honour is defensible on policy and delivery grounds, in which case they must be taken as a totality, or else (as I would argue) it's a separate category and doesn't engage those areas.
And if you want to condemn, again not without coherent justification, some of Khan's more wild-eyed and spittle-flecked critics, I don't think it can really then be said without qualification or nuance that Susan Hall was or is "unacceptable". Good or bad, competent or incompetent, able or cack-handed, those are all a different matter. "Unacceptable" says something quite different.
I settled on "unacceptable" for Hall because I thought it more accurate and fair than "fascist", "racist" or "small-minded suburban bigot". To me, she represents the unacceptable face of today's Conservative Party. How on earth did London Tories end up with such a candidate?
Well, there were a lot of stumbles and mishaps in the process. But “unacceptable” says more than “someone I disagree with”. It says that it is not licit to agree with her views or endorse her, that it is objectively wrong or immoral. I may have opposed pretty much everything Jeremy Corbyn stood for (in real time, not after the fact, like the prime minister seems to have done), but I wouldn’t say Corbyn was “unacceptable”.
I was ready to disagree about Susan Hill, but I think you are right about 'unacceptable'. It's too extreme. Her campaign and what appeared to be her understanding displayed a lack of understanding and naivety.
On the other hand, I find the apparent expectation of Khan critics that he should be self-deprecating somewhat absurd. He's a politician, and not in Johnson's league for self-promotion. It's a requirement of career progression to maintain one's profile. (Let's not forget Boris bikes were actually Ken Livingstone innovation. Livingstone being another example of a politician knowing the importance of being a self-publicist)
Showing-off is a big part of any Mayor's job, I think. The office has limited powers but a large public platform and incumbents are supposed to use it to speak up for London and Londoners' interests (as they see them), including in policy areas they have little control over.
Largely I agree.
You don’t mention a single policy he’s gotten right and point to the predicted rubbish of his over-regulating housing policy. His only success is having won three times. But post-Brexit a donkey wrapped in a red flag would win in London… he’s very far from the least deserving knighthood but he is another sign of how these political honours are devoid of meaning or value
I think from his point of view his clean air policies have been a clear success - they have achieved what they were designed to do, which is to improve air quality across the capital by means of a road user pricing scheme. The free school meals programme appears to have been very popular and worked well.
Initially, his use of his planning powers - the 35% affordable threshold system - seemed to have the desired effect and his affordable homes programme work met the government-set targets.
Unhappily, the entire housing construction sector is now stuck in a rut, and nobody is having much luck transcending that (ask the housing associations and private developers). The reasonable debate concerns whether his planning policies have become unhelpful in that context, doing more harm than good in terms of h is own objectives. Behind the scenes, many conversations are taking place with national government and developers about getting things moving. We shall have to hope for the best.
Clearly, London is a Labour-leaning city and SK has skilfully benefited from it. The question for the Tories concerns how they set about changing that. I see little sign of them getting getting to grips with it.
Free breakfast clubs in all primary schools.
I'm far from far right, but I can't stand the man. Professionally and politically only. Private I have no idea.