I first met Sadiq Khan more than twenty years ago when we were both governors of the same primary school in Tooting. We have met quite a number of times since then.
I admit to some pride in two things. First in knowing the new Mayor of London. Second in knowing that the UK has elected the first Muslim mayor of any major city in the western world. I think we should thank Sadiq and Labour for that whatever our political preferences.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
A great victory to be celebrated. Hopefully this will help London become an international city where diversity is respected and celebrated, and where the lives of the poorest matter as much as those of the Global elite.
Actually he is the second after Ahmed Aboutaleb in Rotterdam
OK, I sdhould have said a capital
Point noted
Seems like a decent chap, has sensible views on housing policy, shows deft political judgement.
I spent my last two years in school among friends who share his background and his principles, and have pursued very similar careers: much of what I know about him is reassuringly familiar.
His leading opponent proved politically-inept, supports policies on housing that are actively damaging for London, and conducted a campaign so repellent that I have set aside the admiration that I held for the principles of his youth.
No difficulty, then, in choosing where to place my vote.
I see little evidence of charisma and leadership in Mr Khan; but I temper my doubts with the knowledge that we live and breathe our politics in very ‘filtered’ media – I have not been *shown* examples of that talent and the balance of probability is that others get the credit and the praise in our selectively-reported news.
That is to say: I like to think that I recognise a ‘dog whistle’ for what it is. But if any of us are to be considered political animals, a better analogy would be the horse who is unaware that he wears blinkers.
Well said Richard. Kahn’s election is groundbreaking in so many ways. Good luck to him, and his administration. I think this election, and the triumph of his approach is something we can be proud of.
It’s a disaster. He is going to go out of his way to prove a point for his own political ambitions rather than for the benefit of London. Terrible news.
What is a disaster?
If you’re saying that he’s a Muslim is a disaster you have no place here
I bet you never condemned David Cameron for his claims to be Christian
I think the second sentence explains why. I’m not sure why you brought up religion, Richard.
Let’s try the obvious answer: because it is
I’ll just paste in that sentence. I’m not actually sure you’ve read it. Unless you think any criticism of Khan is a proxy attack on his religion?
“He is going to go out of his way to prove a point for his own political ambitions rather than for the benefit of London.”
I don’t agree with Mark on this – I think Khan will be good as Mayor – but you’re being absolutely absurd, Richard.
And respectfully, I disagree
Even funnier is your claim to be able to assess absurdity
There was a v amusing i/v with a political theorist on R4 today. He was obviously v right wing & dismissed Khan’s win as unimportant because London is increasingly left-wing. The presenter asked him why London was moving to the left when the rest of England was moving to the right, ? He then said he couldn’t comprehend why when London is the richest area in the UK.
This shows the problem of politics lecturers who know nothing of economics & believe such obvious fallacies as the trickle-down theory &, more fundamentally, that money is an asset in its own right rather than simply a means of exchange.
If you think that money is an asset in its own right rather than simply a means of exchange, then what matters is only how much of it you have. Understood as a means of exchange & its clear that what matters is what you have compared to what others have. What this means, in reality, is that the consequence of enormously inflated wealth being held in the financial services area (the City of London) mean that its inhabitants can always outbid anyone else for goods & services, particularly houses. This in turn means that the people doing the jobs that are really needed, in London just as anywhere else, teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, etc have a fairly bleak choice between;
1 A lifetime of renting, constantly being terrified of the landlord changing terms of the lease or just throwing you out to sell, while always being aware that once you retire there will be nowhere to go, or
2 Living somewhere soulless, dreary & godforsaken & adding a 3/4 hour commute to your working day.
Thats why people in the richest part of Britain are voting Labour. The massive salaries in the CoL are precisely what is making them worse off.
I had some students look at this issue recently
Rationally they concluded it made no sense for most people to live in London, if they could get a job
Yes I found this also very strange. I’m not sure if I have got more left wing as I have got older and richer. I think like Alan Bennett I have stayed in the same place when England has moved much further to the right.
Where did I say it was because of his religious preference? Oh wait, the left wing socialists accusing anyone who does not share their political views of being racist, sexist, bigots et al.
His religion is not why I said he would be a disaster for London. You presupposed this which says more about your stance towards Muslims Richard.
I asked you a question
You have created the strawman
Please don’t bother to reply
“His religious preference”?
Are you serious?
So, Mr Singh, I understand Sikhism is your particular preference….
Mark Greaves, I’m sorry but you really are the moron’s moron.
Don’t see your point. We can choose religion can we not? Switch from one faith to another? Why does “preference” cause you to rudely call him a moron?
The point is he made a point about Khan’s political approach and then others started bringing up religion.
I was wondering what people felt about Khan’s reported comments concerning Labour – reported in the Observer today?
Apparently Labour were too slow to respond to the recent anti-Semitism and needed to appeal to a wider range of people according to Khan.
I can see the need to appeal to a wider constituency in London, but this may not be so important in places that have been almost destroyed by Tory policies and never recovered.
I’d be interested in seeing how Khan would express these policies that is for sure.
There is no doubt that the Corbyn-deniers in the Observer/Guardian will make a big thing out of these comments but I want to know a bit more about what Khan is getting at to be honest. I’m a bit worried.
I have little idea what he is really saying
If it is Blair triangulation, this is not good news
I quite agree – when politics and the behaviour of the current government is generally pretty depressing, the election of Sadiq Khan is a wonderful bit of reassurance that the people of London are quite able to resist the racist politics and campaigns that have become so widespread, from the Conservatives as well as UKIP. Reminds us why London is still such a great, multi-cultural capital city, despite Johnson, the City of London and the dodgy money and residents sloshing through Kensington and Chelsea and elsewhere
A good day…
Looking at the i today, they too have started to bang on about how Khan is apparently sending a message to Corbyn to (wait for it) ‘appeal to Tory voters’.
Having spent 6 years in London, I can see the sense that Kahn is making – but for the Labour party to treat everywhere else like London is really not a sensible idea at all.
As I said, I’m going to be watching Khan very closely indeed. As far as I am concerned he has 4 years. Let’s see if his ‘reaching out’ gets any results.