The Sylvan Mayor Khan debate considered the following motion:
This house has no trust in Mayor Khan.
The debate took place on Monday 7th April. Undisclosed proposed the motion and Stan Billington opposed it.
The proposition arguing we do not trust Sadiq Khan
The proposer introduced himself, pointing out that he attended the London Assembly to scrutinise the mayor. He has three big failures: crime, the economy and the environment. We had 21,000 robberies in 2015/16 and 34,000 last year, knife crime doubled and gun crime has risen 30%. Sir Sadiq Khan promised to keep council tax as low as possible, yet it has risen 78% in around a decade. He claims to fund the police, yet missed a key recruitment target. While spending on vanity projects such as renaming the Overground lines, he should focus on keeping women and girls safe. City Hall now has its own coat of arms, but nightlife suffers relative to other big UK cities. Mayor Khan has never run a business, doesn’t understand SMEs and doesn’t support business.
If only he had been honest, people wouldn’t be upset. On the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), in 2022 he had ruled out expanding it beyond inner London, yet he did it anyway. ULEZ is about raising revenue not the environment, and air pollution is in inner London and around Heathrow, and is improving. TFL face significant financial challenges, due to covid. We simply cannot trust him on the environment. He has failed to hit house building targets, we’ve had transport strikes and he didn’t hit tree planting or EV charge point targets. We need to judge him not on his performance, but the motion. He puts his political ambitions in front of Londoners’ lives.
The opposition against the Mayor Khan motion
The opposer began by pointing out that we should not strictly define trust, and need to guard against political biases entering. Sadiq Khan had Pakistani immigrant parents, his father serving as a bus driver. He faced racism, which led to his progressive, inclusive politics, and we’ve elected him three times. He did manage to build 116,000 affordable houses. Air quality has improved, with PM2.5 and NO2 declining – not a dramatic failure. ULEZ affects only a small number of drivers, yet many people died due to pollution. People believe the mayor has a lot of cash, but can spend only 7% of council tax and business rates. The New York mayor gets 50% of tax from a wider base including income, property, share transactions etc. We have the most centralised government of any Western democracy, the mayor has a budget of £16-20 billion.
Khan has served as mayor mostly under Conservative governments, which slammed him. Hopefully, we will see greater efficacy under a Labour government. He has put 1,300 extra police on the street, and a 2019 violence reduction unit has seen some evidence of progress. Many things affect crime rates. ULEZ was bold and principled, and he pushed for free school meals. The Elizabeth line delays – large projects always face them. Is he a flawed man? – politicians always face a tricky landscape. I don’t see a demon, he’s a progressive guy who loves London. He doesn’t deserve us questioning him.
Floor speeches from the audience of the debate
He was elected with Theresa May, and both said they would push for women and ethnic minorities to be equal in workplaces. As a black person, Mayor Khan isn’t helping me. Most knife crime actually comes from white people, not well known. Khan tramples over local councils of the 32 boroughs, such as pedestrianising Oxford Street and the ULEZ expansion. Outer London has poor transport, people need cars. Khan bangs the drum for Labour, a highly political mayor, yet we want a mayor for everybody. Please vote for non-Labour candidates for the London Assembly, which holds the mayor to account.
Going back to the motion, to be clear we don’t trust politicians to deliver everything they say. It is tough to realise promises, reality hits. President Obama said ‘yes we can’ – he didn’t deliver, yet I still trust him. If we want to single out Mayor Khan, we would need to show he is particularly bad. Voters put their trust in him in three elections. ULEZ overall beneficial, tens of thousands of lorries have stayed away, benefiting all of London. It only affects old diesels and very old petrols. The campaign against ULEZ has been from the right wing. Many reasons for crime going up.
Floor speeches continued
We could trust as defined through beliefs and adherence to promises, or in his capacity to handle things. Black swan events do happen – do we trust him to handle those, such as covid? The mayoralty is a Blairite farce, and only a political stepping stone. We can’t know what’s in Sadiq Khan’s head. He’s the least worst option I voted for, and rare for politicians to tell the truth 100% of the time given the realities of office. Politicians can compromise, situations change. Do the decisions after the changes align with the politician’s stated values? I haven’t seen Khan do something against his values.
Sadiq Khan contracted adult-onset asthma, likely due to high pollution levels in London, and brought in ULEZ as a conviction politician. It has significantly reduced pollution, which has declined by half over ten years, and at a faster pace than other UK cities. You can see and smell the difference, with fewer dreadful older diesels on the roads. The outer boroughs complain, yet the ULEZ extension benefits everyone both there, across inner London and even further out into the home counties.
The opposer’s rebuttal
Sadiq Khan has held consistent values through life, as a barrister, MP and thrice-elected mayor. He has faced various limits on his behaviour, including taking only a small share of tax. The strength of the motion does not deserve your vote. Boris smothered a 2010 report on pollution in London schools, with 433 schools having illegal air quality, four fifths in deprived areas. The courts face drastic under funding, and cases don’t get through properly. Khan pushes for more funding. The voting has changed to first past the post for the mayor, which drives up big party votes. The proposer hasn’t made the case, Khan is a good guy doing his best.
The proposer’s closing speech
We need to have belief in the reliability of someone. Recruiting police officers, housing starts. High-rise flats for students. The nighttime economy. We have what he says and what he does. I don’t want to give money to someone who doesn’t do a good job. We will see whether Khan under a Labour government can do more, he’s only met the PM twice, and Labour are seeking a replacement. He took free tickets to Taylor Swift and didn’t declare – does that engender trust? In London a red rosette on a donkey could get elected three times. If Labour hold onto power, they will put in a better mayor. I want a more trustworthy and less political mayor.
Result: the Mayor Khan debate motion carried
In a close final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that we do not trust Mayor Khan.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.
For more information about how our meetings run, see meeting info.