Forum Topic

London Mayor

James Cleverly has resigned from the shadow cabinet and will run against Khan to become London's Mayor. #anyonebutkhan

Lucille Grant ● 62d24 Comments

Yes, I saw that in the news.I am rather puzzled as the elections for Mayor and not until 2028!

Ivonne Holliday ● 62d

Khan hasn't even said he is going to stand.Personally I hope he doesn't, I think he's been an excellent mayor but it's time for some new blood.

Michael Brigo ● 62d

Absolutely #anyonebutkhan👍Not sure he will stand again, hopefully not, but if he does Cleverly will not beat him because the Moos lim brotherhood in London is so strong and family voting is rife in that community.  Laila Cunningham the Reform candidate is also Moos lim but won’t get their vote simply because she’s a woman …

Sue Hammond ● 62d

She also might not win because not enough people want to vote for a Reform candidate!

Philippa Bond ● 59d

Perhaps Kemi Badenoch's reschuffle was the clue?

Ivonne Holliday ● 59d

Ms Grant'James Cleverly has resigned from the shadow cabinet and will run against Khan to become London's Mayor. #anyonebutkhan'At least he is a well known and experienced politician so hopefully will give Khan a run for his money and even beat him.Thus freeing Khan to take on President Trump and put him in his place !However according to the 2021 Census, about 20.7% of London’s population is Asian and about 15.0% is Muslim.Thus considering societal norms amongst the Muslim community such as religious thence political conformity and patriarchy, Cleverly will not be likely to see many of them braking ranks and voting for him and not Khan.That being said I am sure that at the next election observers will be on the lookout for examples of 'family voting' as was claimed happened at the Gorton and Denton by-election.The claims 'largely relied on observations from Democracy Volunteers, who recorded 32 instances of what they described as “family voting.” These included situations where more than one person entered a booth or stood close to a voter.But crucially, these observations did not demonstrate coercion or criminal intent, which is required under UK law.'

John Hawkes ● 58d

There was "no evidence" of "family voting" or voter coercion at the Gorton and Denton by-election, police have concluded after an investigation.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxeqpzz2no

Michael Brigo ● 58d

Mr Brigo'There was "no evidence" of "family voting" or voter coercion at the Gorton and Denton by-election, police have concluded after an investigation'.'Keep up !Just as I pointed out earlier.'That being said I am sure that at the next election observers will be on the lookout for examples of 'family voting' as was ***claimed*** at the Gorton and Denton by-election.This involves situations where more than one person enters booth or stands close to a voter.'The claims 'largely relied on observations from Democracy Volunteers, who recorded 32 instances of what they described as “family voting.” These included situations where more than one person entered a booth or stood close to a voter'. But what was decided was not that the 32 claims of family voting did not occur 'But crucially, these observations did not demonstrate coercion or criminal intent, which is required under UK law.'Probably a practice common in Sicily !

John Hawkes ● 58d

@MBOf course family voting occurs when two or more adults enter a voting booth together!  Physical violence doesn’t come into it because the instruction to vote a certain way has already been made.  However *some of them may not even be able to read English so need ‘help’🙄in understanding the voting card, which I believe is the usual excuse given if challenged.  This must stop.  All future elections the rule of one adult only in each booth must be invoked without exception.  This will not completely eradicate the problem but it will help.*Mooslim and Asian predominately

Sue Hammond ● 58d

"All future elections the rule of one adult only in each booth must be invoked without exception."I agree.Not often I say that!

Michael Brigo ● 58d

😮🥳👍

Sue Hammond ● 57d

Actually I would say there are prob some circumstances where it should be allowed. I assume a blind person might need help for example!But if you are fit and able then it should be a solitary process

Michael Brigo ● 57d

Mr Brigo'Actually I would say there are prob some circumstances where it should be allowed. I assume a blind person might need help for example!'I am not sure it is legal for someone to place their mark on a ballot paper on behalf of someone who cannot do so themselves or be satisfied their voting intention was correctly recorded.

John Hawkes ● 56d

well no me neither. I've never checked but ballot papers may have braile?

Michael Brigo ● 56d

"...the Moos lim brotherhood..."That is unnecessarily offensive.

Herb Goldschmidt ● 56d

There seem to be accessibility issues for blind voters, to the extent they may need assistance meaning their vote isn't secret.Accessible Voting | RNIB https://www.rnib.org.uk/campaign-with-us/support-a-campaign/accessible-voting/

Michael Ixer ● 56d

The Reform candidate is Laila Cunningham and she spoke about her objectives at Conference today.  She will be a formidable opponent and is well worth listening to:👇https://youtu.be/rTs7OKhg8zY?is=1ZILFhUrw4wE1I2v

Sue Hammond ● 55d

A formidable opponent??? You must be having a laugh! Try listening to her interview on Newsnight last night, she was utterly hopeless. She had not a clue when asked about Reform's latest money difficulties and it was truly embarrassing.
Listen for yourselves: it starts13:48 minutes into the programme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0031019/newsnight-reform-donations-row

Richard Carter ● 55d

Richard what does that have to do with her being a candidate for London Mayor, which is what this thread is supposed to be about?    Do you agree with any of her plans or didn’t you bother to watch and listen to her?

Sue Hammond ● 55d

Car crash Cunningham?Good luck lol

Michael Brigo ● 55d

It's entirely relevant because, if Cunningham can't even put a coherent argument together when asked, she'll not get very far as Mayor.However, if you want something closer to London, there's her statement in an interview with ITV earlier this year that “I’d scrap Ulez, because I don’t think a war on motorists helps anyone.” So she'd be in favour of going back to 2016 levels of pollution?

Richard Carter ● 54d

Mr Carter'It's entirely relevant because, if Cunningham can't even put a coherent argument together when asked, she'll not get very far as Mayor.'Possibly so.After all lets face it our current Mayor Khan has not only run our capital City, but he has also found time to take to the world stage and attack the President of our biggest ally the USA.In his in depth analysis of President Trump based upon his experience of geo-politics he has called him “racist,” “sexist,” “misogynistic” and “Islamophobic.”Meanwhile on his watch crime figures in London record -Rising categories (Jul 2025–May 2026):Drugs (+48.8%)Possession of weapons (+40%)Shoplifting (+35.9%)Anti-social behaviour (+1.84%) Whilst -Other theft (-22.6%)Criminal damage/arson (-21.7%)Vehicle crime (-19.9%)Bicycle theft (-14.3%)Burglary (-13%)Robbery (-8.45%) Most of the later falls probably accounted for by individuals giving up on the Met lead by Mayor Khan and taking fuller responsibility for the protection of their own property.Highest crime rates per borough -Hackney         140.6  3,155 -1.0% Islington 137.9 3,469 +0.4% Southwark 136.7 4,048 +3.3% Lambeth         136.1 3,925 -1.1% Newham          133.2 4,191 +4.9%I wonder if there are any sociological or other factors that might explain this ?

John Hawkes ● 54d

@RC 09.56The objective to make vehicles ‘cleaner’ was to be applauded and it has been largely successful.Now over 97% of vehicles seen driving in the capital now meet compliance standards, meaning the daily £12.50 fee affects a small minority of motorists.  These drivers should be fined heavily, which I would agree with. However the £12.50 charge affects ALL vehicles which is unnecessary, unfair and unacceptable and I fully support Cunningham, as would most drivers, in my opinion.  This is especially pertinent for the scores of tradesmen/women who have stopped coming into London because of the daily charge.  Those tradespeople who will come into the ULEZ zone just add the charge onto their bill; I have experienced this myself so I know it is true.  ULEZ is now basically just a very lucrative revenue generator for TFL

Sue Hammond ● 54d

Haven't you confused two quite separate issues here? The ULEZ charge, which is £12.50/day, is only payable on vehicles that are *not* compliant. The congestion charge, on the other hand, which is £18/day, is indeed payable by all vehicles. As far as I know, Cunningham hasn't said anything about that.

Richard Carter ● 54d