The Sylvan London election debate considered the following motion:
This house believes London needs new leadership.
The debate took place on Monday 8th April. Rav Basra proposed the motion and Matt Lobo opposed it.
The proposition arguing that London needs new leadership
The proposer began with the context of London as a world-admired capital, having (or having had) a cool factor. However, London now heads in the direction of a sterile, boring city where young people can’t live. The mayor has not done enough. He has narrowed the roads with dangerous cycle lanes, yet with no bikes. We have menial jobs with low pay. We do have loads of art and a financial centre. Though the mayor does not have enough power. Rich people living in Victorian housing used to rub shoulders with the council blocks round the corner. Young people are leaving as they can’t afford to live, and crime is on the up.
We need secular schools, yet it cost £30 million for TFL to stop the Tube strike. Notting Hill used to house the Windrush Generation, yet now has Russian and Chinese – bricks equal gold. London will become a ghost town (the Specials). We rarely hear Sadiq Khan talk, or see him on TV. None of the candidates is any good. I didn’t like Boris, but he was charismatic and sold London to the world. What is Khan investing in? We need new leadership. American mayors have much more power.
The opposition against the London election debate motion
The opposer felt defensive as a Londoner, the city is actually doing just fine. It remains a major financial centre, with the biggest economic output, the most unis and the best transport with the Elizabeth line. The leadership has delivered so far, including the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which has reduced NO2 levels, with the revenues funding transport. We have cheaper fares, the Superloop bus, cleaner busses and the Night Tube. At the same time events like the Pride festival keep things lively. Mayor Khan does attend big events, as a charismatic figurehead leading the diverse population.
Moreover, new leadership will not drive change, as the other candidates have the same plans. What can the mayor do? The Green candidate focuses on the pricing of young people out of London. But can the mayor change it? The problem derives from the best jobs being in London – we need new houses outside London. Even the Daily Mail has said that the Tory cuts have led to more crime, which needs sorting by the national leadership. London has limited control over its funding, compared to New York, which controls property and sales taxes. We struggle with big event bids due to lack of funding. If we want a change in London, we need a change in Whitehall.
Floor speeches from the audience of the London election debate
Floor speakers shared a range of perspectives. One called Mayor Khan incompetent and dismal. The London Assembly supports smaller parties based on its voting system, they get to put questions to the mayor and investigate matters important to Londoners. The election is a puppet show – who’s pulling the strings (the establishment). We have a housing crisis and empty properties, which should face tax. London has 40% green space and 8.5 million trees, as well as 140 museums and galleries. The mayor has very little power, we need more local power like the US. London’s economy drives the rest of the country. Yet transport services have declined, and we have more surveillance cameras than any city outside China. One speaker argued that the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) targets the vulnerable, while on the other hand, another pointed out that some children die from air pollution.
The election means choosing the least worst option, and now the option for second preference votes has gone. Boris took credit for others’ ideas, such as ‘Boris bikes’, a buffoon. Mayor Khan’s advisers are all white. We need more social housing. Cities should promote knowledge and capability, help residents unleash their potential and protect them. A good leader represents the incarnation of a good city, rare to find. We need new leadership and we won’t get it – would prefer Andy Burnham. Khan froze Tube fares and traffic has reduced. We do need more affordable housing by pushing it through. Check the visit London website for 101 free things to do!
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer pointed out that London has problems and benefits, yet we all love it. The mayor doesn’t have the power to solve the problems, and needs to be creative. We need to get everyone involved and force leaders to listen.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer agreed that everyone loves London. However, elitism clouds the picture – working class kids can’t go to the opera or theatre like the rich do. We’ve never had a female mayor, and what purpose does the Lord Mayor serve? London education is not for Londoners but for foreigners. The ULEZ system doesn’t work, and forces poor people to travel in a way they don’t want or like. London is for the rich, and the banks pay their cleaners the lowest. We deserve better leadership.
Result: the London election debate motion did not carry
In a razor-thin final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that London does not need new leadership.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.