Lee Anderson does Sadiq Khan a massive favour

 For me, the issue of Mayor Sadiq Khan is a very difficult subject. At the previous two Mayoral elections, he got my second preference vote. In 2016, this was a very easy decision. His Tory opponent, Zak Goldsmith ran a horrible campaign, which many felt had racist overtones. I've never voted Conservative in my life and Goldsmith reminded me why. By 2021, I'd got rather fed up with Khan. My main issues were that he seemed to have no vision for London, clearly had issues with outer London Boroughs ([passing some awful planning schemes in Barnet) and generally seemed to me to be a humourlous and overly spiky character. He was faced by Shaun Bailey,  who initially seemed to me to be an interesting challenger. Sadly Bailey's campaign soon started to fall apart at the seams, the low point when a tweet was posted with a picture of Khan labelled as the "mad mullah of Londonistan". Whatever I may think of Khan, it was a horribly racist trope and even Bailey has since admitted it was beyond the pale.

Since 2021, Khan has done everything possible to convince me that he is simply unfit to be Mayor. I believe that the ULEZ extension was unfair, ill thought out and discriminatory towards the less well off workin people of London. Sadly for London, they have chosen Susan Hall as their candidate who is even worse than Khan and struggles to put two sentences together without putting her foot in it. 

I attended a Lib Dem planning call and I suggested that the Lib Dems candidate should simply leaflet and poster the whole of London with "These two are useless, vote for me!" and they'd be onto a winner. Sadly, they don't listen to me. I genuinely believe that if there was a sensible alternative to either, they'd have a very good chance. I ama amazed that the Tories didn't find a proper A list candidate, as many people feel like I do about Khan. I suspect that the turnout will be lower than previously as people are disengaged from the process by the poor choice. 

The rules have been changed, so that there is no second preference vote.  This means that people like me are effectively disenfranchised. I would not vote for Khan or Hall as a first choice ever. At least the old system allowed me to express a point of view.

So that's how I feel about Khan and Hall. Yesterday, I got into work to hear an emerging Tory car crash, which I suspect may have put paid to any lingering hopes Susan Hall may have had of pulling off an upset. First of all, "30p" Lee Anderson, the former deputy chairman of the Tory party, had the whip removed for suggesting that Islamists had taken over London via Sadiq Khan. Much as I think Khan is useless, it was a ridiculous suggestion and clearly showed a not very overt racism. To make matters worse, the usually sensible former Minister for London Paul Scully piled in, claiming Tower Hamelts is a no go area when asked about Lee Andersons comments. For the record, I went a beer and a curry in Tower Hamlets recently. We had a pint at The Blind Beggar and a beer and a curry in Brick Lane. It may come as a surprise to 30p Lee and Mr Scully that no one declared Jihad against us. In fact we were made very welcome and fed royally ( as we always are). I used to work in Aldgate and know many of the Indian restaurants. Most of the staff are Bengali Muslims and all are hard working and pleasant. I simply do not recognise the words of Scully as having any basis in reality. As for Lee Anderson's claim. It is reprehensible. All sane and decent Tories have sought to distance themselves from it. Rishi Sunak admitted that Anderson was wrong, although in a mealy mouthed explanation, he said it wasn't 'Islamaphobia'. 

Susan Hall has been forced to stop campaigning and clarify her position. 

Let's come together. Sadiq Khan and I have lots of disagreements - but on this vital issue, we agree. Antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred has no place in our city or in our politics. We must do everything we can to stamp it out.https://t.co/VdP4scwAI8

— Susan Hall AM (@Councillorsuzie) February 26, 2024

Whilst it is a good thing that the two of them can act like grown ups when needed, Lee Anderson has not done her campaign any favours. Having to say that your mortal opponent is actually a good egg is not really that helpful when you are trying to outs him.

The sad truth is that Lee Anderson has let the cat out of the bag about racism at the heart of the Tory party. With GLA and Mayoral elections coming up in London, a City which is as diverse as any on the planet, this will not play well with voters. It seems likely to me that Anderson will defect to the Reform Party. Whilst this will be a coup for Reform and help Labour immensely, my view is that ultimately it will damage both Reform and The Tories. It sends out the message that if you are too extreme for the Tories, then join Reform. Whilst Reform's agenda has the sympathy of a sizeable minority in the Tories, they are miles away from even winning a seat at a by election, let alone a general election. They will simply leach off votes that will add to the Tories woes. to my mind, the Tories are starting to resemble Labour in the early 1980's, when they elected unelectable ideologues as leaders for partisan reasons. 

The bottom line for me, though, is that this unholy mess does nothing for London. 

Sadiq Khan or Susan Hall? God help us all!

 Did you watch the news last night? I did. The big story was HS2 and the Tory conference. First up we had Conservative Mayor of Birmingham Andy Street, making the case for HS2, in open opposition to what everyone knows his party leader Rishi Sunak is planning. I have to say I was impressed. This was a grown up politician, doing his job eloquently. Here is a tweet he put out

I wasn’t expecting this in Manchester, but I won’t let HS2 go without a fight.

The offer to the PM is there - work with me and the private sector, grip the costs, and build Britain’s future. pic.twitter.com/JYBdkbGxHS

— Andy Street (@andy4wm) October 2, 2023

It was refreshing to see a politician doing his job properly. Next up was Manchesters Labour Mayor, Andy Burnham. Again, he was making grown up points, rather well. He urged Rishi Sunal to at least have a conversation with the Tory Mayor of Birmingham, even if he won't speak to him. I was left thinking that both Birmingham and Manchester have competent Mayors, who are capable of making coherent arguments. 

The next slot featured the Tory Mayoral hopeful for London Susan Hall. Watching and listening to Susan is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Whilst the two Andy's gave a masterclass in how to be a credible regional politician, Susan struggled to even say which party she was a member of

Your next Labour, sorry erm Conservative Mayor of London. Lord help ushttps://t.co/BaK48G3Rfz

— Roger Tichborne/Rog T (@Barneteye) October 3, 2023

Later on, speaking at the Conservative Friends of Israel, she made some highly inflammatory comments about Sadiq Khan's relationship with the London Jewish community. This prompted the British Board of Deputies to issue the following statement.

Throughout his tenure as Mayor,@SadiqKhan has treated our community with friendship & respect.

We hope to co-host the key Mayoral candidates at a 2024 Jewish hustings, where it will be clear that while London Jews may have varying political views, there is no fear present at all https://t.co/m7kWH0D4vb

— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) October 2, 2023

I find it appalling that a candidate has put the Board in this position. I've listened to several interviews with Susan Hall and it is hard to sum up how undrwhelmed I am with her. It strikes me as truly bizarre that the Conservatives have chosen such a lightweight and incompetent candidate. The more we see, the worse it gets. It is clear to me that Sadiq Khan has alienated many Londoners with policies such as ULEZ. A credible Tory candidate would have a very real chance of winning, which may well give the Tories a huge pre general election boost. Only the most passionate Labour supporters I know still have faith in Khan. That the Tories have chosen someone who seems to have no policies and no personality is odd to say the least. Susan Hall's policy on ULEZ is to abolish the extension. Given that by the time of the next election, most Londoners will have got rid of their non compliant cars, it is far too late. The horse bolted, the stable has been redeveloped, but she still wants to shut the door. It is mad. I have been a vocal critic of the ULEZ, but her policy is idiotic.

Then we have Sadiq Khan. When I compare him with the likes of Burnham and Street, it becomes clear that he is simply not up to the job. Whilst we can all imagine Burnham and Street having sensible conversations over HS2, working to the mutual advantage of their regions, you feel Khan would rather gargle with battery acid than be civil to Conservatives, even when it would be beneficial to London. When we elect a Mayor of London, I want a good administrator, who keeps the buses and tubes running, who is a great frontman for London and who works across party lines for the benefit of our city. Ken Livingstone was happy to work with Tory sports spokesman Seb Coe to secure the Olympics. Sensible cost saving measures such as Oyster cards were brought in. Boris Johnson worked with the then Labour government, to ensure the Olympic infrastructure was built. He also championed Crossrail, which has transformed travel in London. Sadiq Khan seems to be permanently at war with central government. I get that we've not had great government over the last few years, but the likes of Burnham have shown what you can achieve if you are reasonable. 

My advice to the Tories would be to get Hall to stand down as a matter of urgency and get a big hitter in to do the job. If they had someone who at least appeared competent and didn't play dog whistle politics, they'd have a chance. If they don't, they deserve to lose. As for Labour, Khan is the incumbent. If the Tories stick with Hall, we've got another four years of him. No dount, he'll put this down to his brilliance, rather than the fact that the Tories have lost the plot. God help us all. 

 

.

.

Why ULEZ is not the solution to London's air quality problems - Environment Monday

 On Thursday, the Labour Party was taught a well deserved lesson in what happens when you ignore your core voters. The voters of Uxbridge astounded just about everyone and elected a Conservative MP. The reason? Everyone agrees that it is Sadiq Khan's ULEZ policy. This has hit Labour on two fronts. The first was the soft Tory vote, who in the other two by elections stayed at home, to show their disgust at the chaos in the Tory Party. ULEZ gave them a reason to vote. The second was Labour voters, who own old cars affected by ULEZ. I doubt too many well off Tories in Uxbridge actually drive old bangers that are affected. People who drive pre 2006 petrol cars are by and large people who can only afford to run something that is cheap and cheerful. When you upset a significant lump of your core vote, then don't be surprised if you lose a seeming slam dunk. 

There are three things that I simply cannot understand about Mayor Khan's policy. The first is his lack of understanding of who drives old bangers. People don't own rustbukets because they like cars. They own them because they need one to survive and they simply can't afford anything better. Hitting them with huge charges is not something a party claiming to be standing up for working people should do. One of the most perverse things about Mayor Khan's policy is that if it succeeds, it will mean that owners of vintage, classic cars, who can afford to drive them in London, will have a better experience on the road, whilst key workers will be taxed off them.

 The second thing is that he's done little to provide alternatives to using the car. In our Borough, Barnet, almost nothing has been done to provide safe cycling provision. There have been no new rail, light rail or tube lines. The bus network has not improved and stations such as Mill Hill Broadway still do not have step free access. How can Sadiq Khan reasonably expect modal shift when it is genuinely not an option for many. 

The third thing that he does not seem to understand is the plight of business owners over the last three years. I have a non complaint diesel MPV that I use almost exclusively for work and deliveries. In the summer, we support many music festivals with low cost solutions for sound systems. I am faced with a huge investment in a new vehicle when our business has not recovered to pre covid levels. I've had a few lectures from non business owners, suggesting all manner of alternatives, but when you have incurred huge debts to keep your business afloat (and you are dealing with cancer), the last thing you want is to add more debts and costs. 

Those are three reasons that I believe the scheme is not practical, in terms of serving London's needs. However, even if you completely ignore these issues, the question should be whether ULEZ is the answer to London's poor air quality issues. I don't believe that Mayor Khan has gone anywhere near making this case. There are many sources of air pollution that he's done nothing about. If you look at building developments around London, many kick up all manner or dust and pollutants. Khan himself passed the NIMR scheme in Mill Hill, which has kicked up huge amounts of dust. He has done nothing about the Edmonton incinerator, that spews all manner of pollutants into the atmosphere. Trains in London still use Diesel haulage. Stations such as Marylebone and St Pancras have large diesel engines spewing out fumes, whilst virtually all cross London freight is hauled by diesel powered locomotives. When you also add in wood burning stoves, barbecues, etc, there are all manner of sources of particulates that cause asthma etc in London. 

We are told that electric cars are the answer, but in the UK, over 40% of all electricty generation uses fossil fuels. A petrol or diesel engined car is actually using about the same amounts of fossil fuels to get from A to be B as an electric car. Of course the fumes are not produced locally, but they are still part of the problem. The main cause of roadside pollution is the sheer volume of cars, lorries and vans and congestion. Addressing this would go a long way to addressing the problem. If a new car is 70% cleaner than a pre 2006 model, it still produces emmisions and if it is stuck in traffic, would produce more than an old vehicle moving through at 20 mph on the same street. We need to target hotspots, not places where there is no problem.

Poor air quality in London is nothing new. Air quality is far superior to when we had the great smogs in the 1940's and 1950's. The improvement was down to the clean air act. A sensible and well thought out piece of legislation. What the UK desperately needs is a huge commitment to a proper, countrywide clean air policy. One that looks at, and addresses, all of the causes and all of the solutions. It seems to me that this should include; Better public transport, which is properly accessible; Full electrification of the UK main  line rail network; A massive increase in light rail provision, based around key hubs in large population centres; Road pricing in pollution hotspots during peak times (to move non essential journeys to times when they are less likely to cause pollution); More effective dust suppression legislation for all building projects; Green taxes on air traffic, targetted at older, more polluting planes.

My main issue is that in 95% of the area it targets, there isn't a problem. I'd rather see far bigger costs in the 5% that has a problem, than what we'll have which is a very blunt instrument for very specific problems.

The whole idea of ULEZ was thought up by Boris Johnson as London Mayor, as he recognised that there was a problem. I have a degree of sympathy with Khan who is getting the flack for implementing the scheme Boris thought up, but he has been totally uninterested in the real problems that it will cause people least able to afford it. As the reality of election mathematics bites, his previous refusal to listen means that there is a real chance the scheme will be abandonded rather than made work. If I was Khan. I'd just put it on key hotspots at times of the day when pollution was at its peak. 

The bottom line for Labour is that ULEZ may lose them 20-30 winnable seats in London and The South East and if this means the Tories scrape back in, then I suspect that many sensible environmental policies will be ditched for a generation. The UK will squander a chance to be at the front of green technologies and future generations will look back on us a generation that simply didn't care and didn't have the wit to do anything about it. 

Why I will not be voting for Sadiq Khan or Shaun Bailey next Thursday

By Roger Tichborne,

Firstly, let me quickly brief those of you unfamiliar with my back story on where I stand politically. I was a Labour Party member from 1981 until 2009. Under Blair then Brown, I completely lost faith in the organisation that is the Labour Party. I have total respect for the ordinary members, but the people in control of the party have no regard for them. The Labour govt of 1997-2010 had a huge majority and could have done many things that myself and all of the members would have fully supported. Electoral reform, abolishing the House of Lords, renationalising British Rail, giving the UK a proper constitution are just a few of the open goals they missed. The sleaze of Mandelson, the illiberal home office regime of Alan Johnson, the lies of the Iraq war all contributed. I was persuaded to join the Lib Dems, to try and maintain a presence in Mill Hill, where the Lib Dems had councillors from 1994-2010. I stood as a councillor, didn't win and when the coalition was announced was very pleased. I didn't sign up to prop up a Tory government lead by David Cameron. I left the party after a year, with no fuss. I just couldn't support Nick Cleggs party as they imposed austerity on the nation.

I felt homeless. In the May 2016 Mayoral election, I was not a member of any party, but I supported Sadiq Khan, as I was appalled by the racism of Zak Goldsmith and felt that it was important to take a stand. I delivered leaflets for Khan, although not being a member. In June 2016, the UK voted for #Brexit. I felt that this was a terrible mistake. To my horror, Labour took no stand. Only the Lib Dems took a positive anti #Brexit stand. Some people have claimed that opposing #Brexit after a referendum is anti democratic, but I believe that in a democracy, we have the right to change our mind, especially if it is clear the public have been mislead. The #Brexit campaign was based on a whole stack of lies. I rejoined the Lib Dems as they were organised to oppose Brexit.

Over the five years of Sadiq Khan's Mayoralty, it is clear to me that he is not the man I had hoped. He is a divisive figure. He has a deep loathing of all things Conservative. As the London Borough of Barnet has a Conservative council, Khan has wasted no opportunity to give the Tories a kicking. Sadly this has been at the expense of the ordinary residents. Controversial and unpopular developments such as Pentavia and the NIMR were passed in the teeth of local opposition. It was clear that this was payback for the idiotic local Tories passing a motion calling Sadiq Khan an 'enemy of the people'. As someone who cares passionately about my manor, I could not possibly support a Mayor who has no regard for the ordinary people of Barnet. Khan's antagonistic approach to politics has resulted in him being at loggerheads with the Tories. He claims it is standing up for London, but in truth he's simpy grandstanding for the Labour party faithful. I know that Boris would never give a Labour Mayor an easy time, but Khan has made it inevitable that London will get as raw a deal as possible. 

Perhaps the worst indictment on Sadiq Khan is that under his tenure, London saw one of the worst disasters in living memory. When Grenfell Tower burnt down, London was shocked. Four years later, thousands of Londoners are still living in death trap towers. Many leaseholders are stuck in flats that have massive repair bills, are unsellable and are unsafe. Khan hasn't done a thing for them. He comes out with the odd platitude, but clearly doesn't care. For us in the Borough of Barnet, this is a massive problem. Buildings such as Premier House in Edgware are still clad in deathtrap panels. What will it take for something to be done in London. I shudder to think. 

As for Shaun Bailey, I've listened to a couple of debates, most recently last night on BBC Radio London. The harsh truth is that he's a lightweight, who has no real ideas. He seems to have discovered a magic money tree. He's promising 10,000 extra police, reopening of countless police stations and a shared ownership property scheme. Having stated that Khan had bankrupted TFL's finances, my jaw hit the floor when he said he'd pay for this with a raid on TFL's finances. Apparently there's half a billion quid he's going to nick from TFL in unused Oyster card balances. Bailey has failed to give a single credible reason to vote for him. As for the Tories attitude to the Cladding scandal, Boris whpped his MP's to deny leaseholders justice. I cannot believe any fair minded Londoner would vote for them. 

So who will I vote for. As a Lib Dem, it won't surprise you to hear that I will be supporting Luisa Porritt for Mayor. I'd urge you to have a proper look at her policies at her website - https://www.luisa4london.co.uk/ - Luisa's four main policies are Jobs, Homes, Clean Air and Policing. She has performed well in the few debates she's been allowed to participate in. 

My second preference will go to the Green candidate Sian Berry. Like Luisa, she has done well in the few debates she's been allowed to participate in. I was actually quite outraged by the patronising tone of Sadiq Khan towards her in one debate. He thanked her for her support on several initiatives, then said "I'd urge all green voters to give me their first vote and Sian their second preference".  To me this was disprespectful to both Sian and Green voters. There is no electoral reason for not giving Berry their first vote. I think that the Greens are a force for good in London and the UK and they have a huge role to play in keeping environmental issues on the agenda.

This will be the sixth Mayoral Election. Ken Livingstone won the first as an Independent, so there is no reason why the Mayor has to be a Tory or a Labour candidate. We have never had a female Mayor. To their shame, neither big Party has bothered to pick a female candidate. It seems to me to be a total no brainer that a Lib Dem or Green Mayor would do better than either Khan or Bailey. They would have to build a consensus and would have to work with all sides. People keep saying to me that they would vote for Porritt or Berry but it would be a wasted vote. This is not true. Give them your first preference if you think they are the best candidate. You have a second preference vote that you can give to another candidate if they are not in the top two. Use this wisely. I genuinely believe that if Londoners voted for who they really wanted, we'd get what we wanted, rather than someone who clearly isn't up to the job. 

I will be giving Luisa Porritt my first vote and Sian Berry my second. I want to send a message to the BBC and everyone else that they should be getting proper airtime and inclusion in debates. Whoever you vote for, please use your vote and use it wisely. I have sat down, done a lot of soul searching and write this with a heavy heart. Please do the same. Please don't simply vote for the bloke that isn't the other bloke. The Mayor has real power to change things and make them better. Has the current incumbent done that? Will the person you want to vote for do that? Make sure you are happy that you can say yes to these questions before putting your X next to them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger Tichborne is the Liberal Democrat Candidate for Edgware Ward in the May 6th By Election. Roger has run Mill Hill Music Complex sudios since 1979. He attended Orange Hill School and as a teenager lived in Warwick Avenue, in Broadfields.

This article was published and promoted by Roger Tichborne on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, 29 Millway, London, NW7 3QR

Sadiq Khan approves Pentavia Development

The new face of Pentavia

Yesterday the Mayor of London approved the mega development at Pentavia retail park. I am sorry to say that this was not a surprise to me at all. There are many reasons why.  Let me list a few of them.

1. A 'punishment beating'. Back in late 2017, the Barnet Conservatives, in an extremely stupid moment of political hubris, passed a motion calling Sadiq Khan an "enemy of the people of Barnet". Sane rational people reach out across party lines. This sort of grandstanding has ensured that Mayor Khan takes great pleasure in rubbing the nose of the Barnet Tories in the fact that he has the power and they don't. Why on earth would Khan do the Barnet Tories any favours if they are going to use the council chamber to call him names. Sensible politicians, such as former Tory Seb Coe, reached out to the then Labour Mayor, Ken Livingstone, to ensure that London won the Olympics. When Boris became Mayor, Labour's Tessa Jowell retained a key role in the planning of the Olympics, as it was recognised that she was a sensible, grown up politican. Boris actually made her a Deputy Mayor with responsibility for the Olympic Village. Sadly Barnet and the Mayor are stuck in a cycle of tit for tat actions and name calling.

2. Mayoral Elections next year. The Mayor's term is up in May next year. The Barnet Tories are nothing of not crafty. They know that the Mayor's approval of the scheme will go down like a lead balloon with many voters in Mill Hill. Our GLA rep Andrew Dismore, who spoke against the development has shown himself to be ineffective. Dismore is standing down and the Tories see this as an excellent way to capitalise on the Labour GLA reps inability to influence the Mayor. My sources at City Hall inform me that Barnet's team was not well prepared and were unable to provide key figures when quizzed by the Mayor and his team. in the murky world of Barnet politics, I suspect that there are many reasons this decision will suit Barnet. Good politically, will aid their target to increase house building and no political flack, because the Mayor passed it. Win, win, win for the Barnet Tories (not that I am cynical of course!).

3. Chaos at The Mill Hill Neighbourhood forum. The Mill Hill Neighbourhood forum was co-ordinating opposition to the scheme. Sadly this rather fell apart over the last six months. The chair of the forum did not get on with the Barnet Cycling Campaign, who had identified many valid objections to the scheme. The two organisations did not work together. The Mill Hill Preservation Society engaged a barrister to present their objections. As the Mill Hill Neighbourhood Forum had failed to draw up a Neighbourhood plan for Mill Hill during the five years of its remit, there was little input they could make. The fact that Barnet Council had withdrawn their franchise the night before simply added to the sense of despair.

4. Failure to Learn the lessons of the NIMR. After the Mayor of London approved Barratts application for the NIMR, I suggested that the Mill Hill Neighbourhood Forum work with other groups such as the Barnet Cycling Campaign, Residents Association and Preservation Society to perform a 'Route Cause analysis' on the failure to make the case properly for the NIMR, so that when the next development came along, we could ensure that a robust case, built on planning law was made. The Chair dismissed my suggestion stating 'That is already in hand'. It clearly wasn't and none of the lessons were learned.

In the Mayor's summing up, the only local organisation that seemed to have influenced his decision making was the Barnet Cycling Campaign. The Mayor took on board their well articulated and well reasoned case, based on planning law. The Mayor has ordered Barnet Council to work with the Campaign to address the issues raised. This is perhaps the only positive thing to come out of the whole sorry saga.

So what does the Mill Hill Community have to take away from all of this? Well the lessons are quite simple

1. Form a new organisation to work as an umbrella body representing all of the stakeholders in Mill Hill, with an urgent remit to finish the Neighbourhood plan.

2. Do a proper post mortem on both the NIMR and Pentavia decisons, so that local campaigns can be better informed in how to fight these sort of battles.

3. Start an active campaign to improve the public transportation around Pentavia. The West London Orbital railway, which has a proposal for a station at the RAF museum. The scheme should have included walkways and cycle paths to this. If I was Mayor, I would have made the developers pay for a Boris bike scheme at Colindale/Burnt Oak/Mill Hill Broadway/Mill Hill East/Saracens/RAF museum, with docks at Pentavia and free usage for residents. That is the sort of progressive policy which would make a real difference.

Do I think that Pentavia really will be a disaster for Mill Hill? The site has become an eyesore. The fact that it will become an even bigger eyesore, dominating the skyline and setting all sorts of unfortunate precedents in beyond doubt. I would have supported a six storey development on the site, that improved amenity for Mill Hill, with facilities such as a cinema, bowling alley or other such activities that could be enjoyed by all. My biggest problem with Khan's decision is that people have to live in this block. A soulless tower, overlooking the  A1,  the M1, and the Thameslink railway where you can't open the windows in summer because of the noise and pollution is hardly a great environment to live in. I shudder to think what it would have been like living in such a place yesterday if the aircon failed.

It will be interesting to see what mitigations the Barnet Cycling Campaign and Barnet Council can come up with to improve the transport links.  I rather hope that the predictions of traffic chaos on Bunns Lane and the A1/A41 to Mill Hill Circus do not materialise, but I have little confidence in this. As someone who operates a business on Bunns Lane, I know all about the problems. We advise customers arriving by car not to start  or end sessions between 5-6pm and we don't open until after the morning rush hour due to the problems. This works well for us and we organise our shift patterns around this, but not everyone has that luxury.

People often say  "what can be done". I'veoutlined some steps above, which might help. The key is getting our act together as a community. The bottom line though is that we have to elect sensible grown up politicians who can work together, across party lines, to deliver the right thing for Mill Hill. There are such people in all parties, no one organisation has a monopoly on common sense. Sadly we've not really seen any community leadership on this from our current elected representatives.

Mayoral Election commentary - Hobsons choice - Khan or Goldsmith?

The fight of the Century - Not!

On Thursday residents of Barnet vote in the Mayoral and GLA elections. It is fair to say that this is the dullest and most uninspiring Mayoral election since Tony Blair created the role.

Lets start by a little recap on the story of the London Mayor so far.

The history of the Mayoralty is quite interesting. For the 2000 election, Ken Livingstone stood as an independent and swept the board.

The Labour party had  performed a good old fashioned stitch up to exclude him from winning. He responded by standing as an independent. He was kicked out of the Labour party, but Londoners saw through the stitch up and reacted with fury. Labours Frank Dobson was thrashed. Livinstones first term was stunningly successful as an independent. He stuck out to be inclusive and appointed both Lib Dems and Greens as deputies. He brought in some innovative and very successful ideas, such as the congenstion charge and the Oyster card. He also managed to avoid upsetting people. Being an independent with no party base, clearly he had to manage his affairs in a sensible manner. Before the 2004 election, Tony Blair, keen not to be embarrassed by another loss, bent the rules and had Livingstone readmitted. Livingstone swept the board again, with the power of the abour machine behind him. It is fair to say that his second term wasn't the success of the first term. With the party in line and behind him, he seemed to feel he was invincible. A series of truly awful blunders followed, but the perceived wisdom was that Livingstone was untouchable. Despite some notable success, such as securing the Olympics, against all the odds and a truly dignified response in the light of 2005 7/7 atrocity, by the end of his second term Livingstone had lost some of his lustre.

In 2008, Boris Johnson threw his hat into the ring. At first this was perceived as almost a comedy challenge. Boris had been a dismal failure as an MP and the only thing he seemed to be good at was playingthe self depreciating Tory fool on Have I Got News For You. What Boris had spotted, that no one else had noticed, least of all most of his Tory colleagues, was that Livingstone was percieved as unpleasant and autocratic and that he was there for the taking with the right sort of campaign. Boris seized on the fact that Livingstone had several highly unpopular schemes in various stages of planning. Many of these had been rejected in consulations by the residents they were meant to serve. The western congestion charge zone was one. The West London Tram scheme was another. Livingstone also had been caught on microphone making remarks which were percieved as highly offensive by the Jewish community.

Boris also recognised that Londoners were unhappy with some of Kens innovations. He railed against bendy buses, promising a new routemaster. He made hay with the fact he was a cyclist and promised a revolution in cycling in London. Londoners liked the fact Boris had a sense of humour. In contrast, Ken seemed austere and past his sell by date. Boris won. Many on the Labour benches buried their heads in the sand and simply decided that Londons electorate had got it wrong. In 2012, they ran exactly the same campaign as in 2008 and got the same result. Many Labour activists sat scratching their heads afterwards, complaining that the electorate had got it wrong. What was incredible about the 2012 election was that Team Boris made gaffe after gaffe, but the Labour simply couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and shout about them. One such example was when Team Boris PR chief Lynton Crosby said he was going to "blitz Barnet". Can you imagine the field day Zac Goldsmiths team would have if Sadiq Khan said that?

 Zac Goldsmith

So here we are in 2016. We have no Boris and no Ken. Instead we are left to choose between Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith. I was having a chat with a friend in the Mill Hill Tandoori last night and he joked that it was a choice between anti semitism or islamaphobia. It is quite hilarious that both campaigns have played these cards. Is  Zac Goldsmith Islamaphobic? I for one strongly doubt it given that his sisters former husband and still great friend is Imran Khan, who is now a Pakistani politician with radical islamic connections. Imran is always welcome in Zacs gaffe. I for one think that this is a very good thing, should Zac end up Mayor. As for Khan, everyone in the Tory party knows he's about as far from a radical islamist as you can get. The Daily Mirror reported

"Life-long Tory and Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne told the BBC's Sunday Politics programme: " Sadiq Khan is as mainstream as they come. He fights anti-Semitism. He backs same-sex marriage. He's against extremism, and he's being portrayed as some radical in the literature of Zac Goldsmith He added: "It's very important that Londoners vote out Zac Goldsmith and his disgusting campaign."."

Wheras both Ken and Boris had a vision for London and a set of easily identifable plans, (Oyster cards, congestion charges, Boris bikes, Boris buses, etc), Goldsmith and Khan seem to be policy free zones.  I had a look at both candidates plans. Lets discuss Zac's first

Start fixing London’s housing crisis by:

Doubling home building to 50,000 a year by 2020 and ensuring development is in keeping with the local area.
Giving Londoners the first chance to buy new homes built in London
Ensuring a significant proportion of all new homes are only for rent and not for sale

Improve the capacity and reliability of London’s transport system by:

Ensuring the Night Tube goes ahead, starting Crossrail 2, and growing the rail network
Bringing suburban rail services under the Mayor’s control to increase and improve the service
Protecting the Freedom Pass

Improve London’s living environment by:

Protecting the green belt from developmentTackling air pollution with tougher rules on HGVs, and encouraging greener vehicles and safer cycling
Creating more green spaces and cleaning up local parks so they are safe to visit and enjoy

Make London’s streets safer by:

Protecting neighbourhood police teams and keeping them on the street
Tackling the root causes of crime in local communities
Putting more police on public transport at night

All paid for without increasing Mayoral council tax.

This is perhaps the most stale, lacklustre and dull plan imaginable. It is quite clear that it is all waffle and guff. Lets have a look at the plan in detail

Start fixing London’s housing crisis by:
It is quite clear that Zac Goldsmith isn't going to build council houses. The 50,000 "homes" wll doubtless be luxury flats for rich foregners, like most of the developments in Mill Hill and the rest of Barnet. This is obvious as Goldsmith makes no commitment to affordability. He states that Londoners will get the first chance to buy property, but if they can't afford them this is meaningless. He claims that "a significant proportion will be for rent not sale". It is telling that he doesn't assign a number. As these won't be built by Councils, what he means is he's going to line the pockets of landlords, developers and buy to let speculators.


Improve the capacity and reliability of London’s transport system by:

 Goldsmith here simply reiterates plans already in progress, such as Crossrail2 and the plans for TFL to take over suburban services. He talks about growing the rail network. What new lines? This is simply waffle unless he states what he's going to do. As for protecting the Freedom Pass, this is arch hypocricy, given that his man in Barnet, Dan Thomas, has presided over a regime which has removed it without notice from many local disabled people.



Improve London’s living environment by:

Again this is all guff. Ken was putting strict levels for pollution in place. Boris suspended and abolished them. As for creating new green spaces, does anyone seriously believe that you Zac will knoc down flats and houses to create new spaces? Especially with his commitment to build 50,000 homes a year. These can only be built if greenspaces in London are destroyed. It is highly dishonest to claim other wise.


Make London’s streets safer by:

Every mayoral candidate always claims they'll cut crime and tackle the causes. They always claim they'll put more bobbies on the beat. Then they get elected and nothing happens. Under Boris, we've seen a massive scaling back of community engagement. If Zac thinks Boris is wrong to do this, say so and explain how to reverse his policies.

All paid for without increasing Mayoral council tax.

This is the one commitment I 100% expect Goldsmith to keep. London can burn so long as the rich pay no more tax. That is why he wants to become Mayor. But I do expect all sorts of other, indirect taxes to go up. Tube fairs, congestion charge, parking costs. Zac like every other politician has to balance the books. Like every other politician, he is dishonest in how he'll do it.

And so we move on to Sadiq Khan. He has put a fair bit more detail into what he plans. Like Goldsmith, much of it is deeply unexciting. I suspect that both think "London is tired of big characters". I suspect both are wrong in this view. London is the Capital of the world and needs a larger than life Mayor. So what does Sadiq say?

Here are his themes.

Too many people in our city don’t have a job, or get paid less than they need to survive. With my programme for business and the economy I will change that.

• Create a Business Advisory Board – made up of experts, not of political allies – to provide me with guidance and insight to find the solutions to London’s growth challenges and to feedback on my policy.
• Involve business in decision making on key issues of policy and planning, from skills and housing costs, to transport infrastructure and business space.
• Establish Skills for Londoners, working with business to ensure Londoners have the skills they need to grow.

Too many Londoners can’t afford to buy their own home or are trapped paying extortionate rents to sub-standard landlords. My plan for housing will change that.

• Homes for first-time buyers to ‘part-buy part-rent’, where on mayoral and other public land my aim is to cut their cost and give first dibs to Londoners who have been stuck renting for over five years – especially in outer London where the biggest falls in homeownership have been seen.
• Homes to buy where we can give Londoners first dibs – building on brownfield public land and using the Mayor’s planning powers to their fullest extent.

Too many people are the victims of crime and don’t feel safe in their communities. My policies for crime and policing, and my six point plan to tackle knife crime will change that.

• Ensure that the restoration of real neighbourhood policing is the top priority for the Met, maintaining the role of officers as a visible local presence, helping to prevent and detect crime, and as the local eyes and ears our security services need to identify the spread of extremism at its roots.
• Commit to tackling violence against women and girls, including prioritising a greater police presence on public transport at key times to clamp down on sexual assault,  zero tolerance of domestic and sexual violence and work closely with public sector and voluntary organisations on developing better support for victims of sexual and domestic violence.
• Develop a cyber security strategy, led by the Chief Digital Officer I will appoint, working with the police and security services to ensure Londoners and businesses have the information and resources they need to stay safe online.
• Undertake a full review of the resources required by the London Fire Brigade, with the aim of ensuring the service is fully equipped for the challenges ahead, not only for dealing with and preventing fires but also coping with major civil contingencies such as a terrorist attack or a flood. We need to look at both frontline and control room functions, and consider the impact and effectiveness of outsourcing.
• Support the police to do their job efficiently and effectively, and make best use of officers’ time so that they can spend more time on the front line. I will invest in new technology that enables officers to access the information and data they need at their fingertips, and to record reports and witness statements speedily without officers having to return to a police station.

Too many workers in London have to go to work on overcrowded, delayed, dirty transport. My plans for transport will change that.

• Get Crossrail 2 off the ground, using my experience as a Minister responsible for the original Crossrail to secure the funding package, and ensure the route enables the building of thousands of new homes.
• Plan the next major infrastructure projects for the long term – such as a potential Crossrail 3, new orbital links for outer London, DLR and tram extensions, and new river crossings for East London - while exploring additional sources of funding for major projects.
• Work to secure the proposed Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and beyond.

• Freeze all TfL fares and charges for the Mayor’s cycle hire scheme for four years.
• Introduce 'The Hopper’ – a new one hour bus ticket allowing unlimited changes within an hour, so that a £1.50 single ticket pays for a full journey.
• Continue to support both Oyster and contactless payment card methods and ensure fare structures remain equal so that nobody is disadvantaged by choosing either payment method.
• Guarantee the Freedom Pass and the over-60s Oyster card, along with all other existing concessionary fares schemes.

For too long Londoners have had a Tory Mayor who has been little more than a figurehead, or chief ribbon-cutter. Some of it has been fun – but it is not good enough for our city.

Our analysis.


Jobs & Business

 I'm not really sure that a "business advisory board" is the way to go. It seems that politicians who have never run a business always believe that the way to resolve the problems of business is to set up a quango. I've run a small business for 37 years and like to think I'm fairy good at it. We employ people and generate prosperity. There are plenty of simple measures that qould stimulate business. Making councils have a business friendly parking policies, compelling councils to give business a say on how business rates are spent. I'd like to see businesses given tax breaks for employing young people in sustainable jobs. The "Skills for London" idea sounds interesting, but it is vital that this includes input from small business. I'd like to see support for young entrepreneurs. TV shows such as dragons den have spurred interest in launching your own ideas, but it is noticable just how little most of the people with great ideas know about business. I hope this is an element of Sadiqs plans.

Housing

Again I am not overly impressed by the schemes. Part buy/ part rent schemes are all very well, but they simply ignore the problem that we don't have enough housing stock for ordinary people. We are obsessed with letting people buy houses. We should be obsessed with making sure people have decent places to live that are affordable. This means council housing at cheap rents for people on low income. It should also mean decent homes. I am truly astonished that Sadiq has failed to mention this. At least the Goldsmith plan recognises that renting is a big part of the solution. A Labour Mayor should be unafraid to speak up for council housing. This is Khan's biggest fail.

Policing and public safety

Unlike Goldsmiths schemes, there are well thought out and targettted. I'd give Khan 10/10 for this section. The section on sexual crime is long overdue and Khan is 100% right to make this a manifesto pledge. Two years ago I was speaking with Tory Battersea MP Jane Ellison and she told me that this was one area that has been sadly neglected and needed serious work. I expected to see Zac Goldsmith say something about it. I am surprised he's missed it. I hope Jane will support Sadiq in this if he wins.

Transport

Khan seems to have a more coherent long term view than Goldsmith. I do agree with Goldsmith that it is stupid to commit to a fares freeze. I reconise that fares have got hellishly expensive under Boris, but this could tie his hands and scupper his plans.

Conclusion

In summary I will be supporting Sadiq Khan. I am not a Labour activist and I am not a party member. I just happen to think that his plans are more coherent. I also think that Goldsmith has done himself no credit at all with his highly personal attacks on Khan. This is a trademark of the Lynton Crosby style of electioneering. Sadiq Khan is not a Muslim extremist and does not support Islamic extremists. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and unfair. There are many things which I would wish to see as qualities as the new Mayor, but ultimately I really don't want a man who tells lies and promotes outrageous smears about his opponent. London is a city with all manner of creeds and colours. Sadiq Khan strikes me as a man who can worl with all of them. Zac Goldsmith strikes me as a man who simply follows what his campaign manager tells him. He is a lightweight  with a lightweight plan. His campaign seems to be banking on scaring people into thinking Khan is in some way dodgy. For that reason alone, I hope London soundly rejects him.