Turn on thread page Beta

Zac vs. Sadiq? There's more to it than that. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the mayoral race has to be about more than just Zac and Sadiq.

    Whether it's feminism, drug law reform, immigration, housing, ecology or whatever issues that effect you, there are plenty of candidates deserving of your vote. Zac's campaign has been disgusting, so I can't be voting for him, and I simply don't agree with Sadiq enough to vote for him either. When it comes to the time I'll be voting for Lee Harris of CISTA and Sophie Walker of WE. I'd encourage many more of you to consider voting outside of the box just as I have.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm for George Galloway
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I'm for George Galloway
    Ewww.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I will try to vote tactically
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    I will try to vote tactically
    To what end?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The fact is though that on Friday, Zac or Sadiq will be mayor. Vote for one of them if you like them. Or if you aren't as keen on either as some other candidate, you can give your second preference to whichever you like more. But otherwise, you're giving up your influence on Mayor and effectively saying you don't care which of them: fine if you believe that, but most have some preference and should express it at the ballot box.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    To what end?
    Against Sadiq
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    Against Sadiq
    Sadiq will win anyway. Why waste your vote voting tactically against him when you could vote for what you actually believe in?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Ewww.
    George's policies are to the left, his policies will benefit londoners far more than either Sadiq's or Goldsmiths. He is a corbyn ally, a livingstone ally, and was close to Tony ben.

    In my eyes , he is the real labour candidate.

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    The fact is though that on Friday, Zac or Sadiq will be mayor. Vote for one of them if you like them. Or if you aren't as keen on either as some other candidate, you can give your second preference to whichever you like more. But otherwise, you're giving up your influence on Mayor and effectively saying you don't care which of them: fine if you believe that, but most have some preference and should express it at the ballot box.
    What are your thoughts on Sadiq constantly undermining Corbyn, and also taking $$ from property developers - infact, some dodgy ones too , mind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    The fact is though that on Friday, Zac or Sadiq will be mayor. Vote for one of them if you like them. Or if you aren't as keen on either as some other candidate, you can give your second preference to whichever you like more. But otherwise, you're giving up your influence on Mayor and effectively saying you don't care which of them: fine if you believe that, but most have some preference and should express it at the ballot box.
    I don't either of them to be Mayor, I'd like to see drug law reform and feminism being championed in london, and even if Sadiq becomes mayor (the only probable outcome) then if CISTA and WE have enough votes then it would put pressure on him to act.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Sadiq will win anyway. Why waste your vote voting tactically against him when you could vote for what you actually believe in?
    George may pull a lot of votes from him + independents imho. I've been part of his campaign, and i think this may happen. Though how much i don't know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I don't either of them to be Mayor, I'd like to see drug law reform and feminism being championed in london, and even if Sadiq becomes mayor (the only probable outcome) then if CISTA and WE have enough votes then it would put pressure on him to act.
    Imho, i think for London the priorities are housing reform, crime, and the billions actually going into helping the 99% not just the top 1%.

    Equality for women is up there too.

    Drug reform maybe also.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    George may pull a lot of votes from him + independents imho. I've been part of his campaign, and i think this may happen. Though how much i don't know.
    George is in 3rd place, which isn't good enough.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I really don't see why my fellow Londoners are still letting themselves be driven by this politics of Tories or Labour, Labour or Tories.

    Neither Zac Goldsmith nor Sadiq Khan have any true experience of City Hall, nor are either of them providing the kind of vision for London which Londoners actually deserve from a prospective mayor seeking their votes. Both of them look only faintly interested in the role: I'd be surprised if "opportunistic career move" wasn't top-of-the-agenda for both politicians.

    Now, Goldsmith has fought a bitter, divisive and utterly shameful divisive campaign against Khan which shows an utter ignorance and lack of understanding for the cosmopolitan values of diversity and mutual cooperation which are the backbone of the city of which he's seeking to become the mayor. Through non-dom status, he avoided paying millions of tax whilst an MP when his own constituents were working hard for his salary. Most tragically of all, he claims to be an "environmentalist" whilst supporting the national party that has cut investment into non-carbon energy drastically since 2015 and whilst supporting to leave the European Union, the very institution that has singlehandedly safeguarded our environment against the government for decades.

    On the other side of the table, Khan's campaign has an equal deficit of vision. His plan to freeze fares will cost Londoners billions (the exact amount of which is being disputed, but which the opposition campaign claims will be £1.9bn) whilst central government squeezes devolved funding further. His commitment to building homes is mediocre, and his campaign has largely consisted of self-promotion as the 'son of a Muslim bus driver' - which really only feeds into Goldsmith's campaign and is every bit as divisive, skewering the agenda not to the big problems facing London - housing, transport, crime, etc. - but to the issue of whether Londoners are satisfied with having a Muslim mayor - something which no true Londoner would even take into account when casting their vote.

    How have we really let the election for the mayor of one of the world's most prestigious cities become a referendum on whether it is happy with having a Muslim mayor? It's a shambles.

    Caroline Pidgeon, the Liberal Democrat candidate, seems to be the only candidate with a chance at taking significant portions away from the Tory and Labour vote who has actually got progressive and radical policies for London. She's worked as a councillor in Southwark and has been leading the Liberal Democrats in City Hall for quite some time, so unlike Goldsmith or Khan, this isn't an opportunistic career move for her (else she wouldn't be a Lib Dem!), but she's a candidate with actual knowledge of how London works and what London needs. She'll build us 150,000 homes, cut fares by half before 7.30am and also improve community policing numbers - all through a costed plan including continuing to pay the Olympic precept and a new tourist tax.

    With her plans and with her experience, who would want Goldsmith or Khan as London Mayor over Pidgeon?

    Like many on this thread, I am so concerned that the choice has been portrayed as blankly between Khan or Goldsmith. Many of the other candidates - especially those mentioned above, such as Lee Harris and Sophie Walker - are standing on election platforms that are sending a message a thousand times stronger than that of either establishment candidate, and their election as mayor would reverberate around the Thames and the country with this very strong message. Pidgeon would bring an equally-strong one - that London is liberally-minded and that the politics of liberalism have not died in Britain. The only difference between why I support Pidgeon and not the other candidates is because Pidgeon has not just a message for the country, like Harris and Walker, but a plan that will keep London thriving and make London better for every Londoner.

    The years of Boris Johnson have shown the dangers of having a mayor whose primary interest is in jumping on an opportunistic ladder up to Number 10. He has been the mayor that never was, ignoring the suburbs and failing to promote real, radical change in London. The great allure of a New Amsterdam for cycling has been boiled down to a half-baked cycle hire scheme and painting busy roads blue, supposedly to make them safer for cyclists. His vanity politics have cost Londoners millions, from the great farcical of the Emirates Skyline to the scandal that was the 'most eco-friendly buses' that continue to run predominantly on battery fuel. This isn't to mention water cannons and his new proposal of a costly, unnecessary, cyclist-inaccessible 'garden bridge'. We need a mayor who actually wants to do something with London. I agree with you here: neither Goldsmith nor Khan provide this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Galloway would be the worst choice, followed by ukip and goldsmith. The first two aren't go win though. Galloway is a corrupt. opportunist, demagogic, proto Islamist scumbag. Goldsmith is running a disgraceful, nasty campaign and deserves to lose for that alone. Also I think it would be an experience for him in encountering something his daddy's money couldn't buy for him.

    The other three 'main parties' I have no problem with winning.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Sadiq? The same guy who supported the Digital Economy Act?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    I really don't see why my fellow Londoners are still letting themselves be driven by this politics of Tories or Labour, Labour or Tories.

    Neither Zac Goldsmith nor Sadiq Khan have any true experience of City Hall, nor are either of them providing the kind of vision for London which Londoners actually deserve from a prospective mayor seeking their votes. Both of them look only faintly interested in the role: I'd be surprised if "opportunistic career move" wasn't top-of-the-agenda for both politicians.

    Now, Goldsmith has fought a bitter, divisive and utterly shameful divisive campaign against Khan which shows an utter ignorance and lack of understanding for the cosmopolitan values of diversity and mutual cooperation which are the backbone of the city of which he's seeking to become the mayor. Through non-dom status, he avoided paying millions of tax whilst an MP when his own constituents were working hard for his salary. Most tragically of all, he claims to be an "environmentalist" whilst supporting the national party that has cut investment into non-carbon energy drastically since 2015 and whilst supporting to leave the European Union, the very institution that has singlehandedly safeguarded our environment against the government for decades.

    On the other side of the table, Khan's campaign has an equal deficit of vision. His plan to freeze fares will cost Londoners billions (the exact amount of which is being disputed, but which the opposition campaign claims will be £1.9bn) whilst central government squeezes devolved funding further. His commitment to building homes is mediocre, and his campaign has largely consisted of self-promotion as the 'son of a Muslim bus driver' - which really only feeds into Goldsmith's campaign and is every bit as divisive, skewering the agenda not to the big problems facing London - housing, transport, crime, etc. - but to the issue of whether Londoners are satisfied with having a Muslim mayor - something which no true Londoner would even take into account when casting their vote.

    How have we really let the election for the mayor of one of the world's most prestigious cities become a referendum on whether it is happy with having a Muslim mayor? It's a shambles.

    Caroline Pidgeon, the Liberal Democrat candidate, seems to be the only candidate with a chance at taking significant portions away from the Tory and Labour vote who has actually got progressive and radical policies for London. She's worked as a councillor in Southwark and has been leading the Liberal Democrats in City Hall for quite some time, so unlike Goldsmith or Khan, this isn't an opportunistic career move for her (else she wouldn't be a Lib Dem!), but she's a candidate with actual knowledge of how London works and what London needs. She'll build us 150,000 homes, cut fares by half before 7.30am and also improve community policing numbers - all through a costed plan including continuing to pay the Olympic precept and a new tourist tax.

    With her plans and with her experience, who would want Goldsmith or Khan as London Mayor over Pidgeon?

    Like many on this thread, I am so concerned that the choice has been portrayed as blankly between Khan or Goldsmith. Many of the other candidates - especially those mentioned above, such as Lee Harris and Sophie Walker - are standing on election platforms that are sending a message a thousand times stronger than that of either establishment candidate, and their election as mayor would reverberate around the Thames and the country with this very strong message. Pidgeon would bring an equally-strong one - that London is liberally-minded and that the politics of liberalism have not died in Britain. The only difference between why I support Pidgeon and not the other candidates is because Pidgeon has not just a message for the country, like Harris and Walker, but a plan that will keep London thriving and make London better for every Londoner.

    The years of Boris Johnson have shown the dangers of having a mayor whose primary interest is in jumping on an opportunistic ladder up to Number 10. He has been the mayor that never was, ignoring the suburbs and failing to promote real, radical change in London. The great allure of a New Amsterdam for cycling has been boiled down to a half-baked cycle hire scheme and painting busy roads blue, supposedly to make them safer for cyclists. His vanity politics have cost Londoners millions, from the great farcical of the Emirates Skyline to the scandal that was the 'most eco-friendly buses' that continue to run predominantly on battery fuel. This isn't to mention water cannons and his new proposal of a costly, unnecessary, cyclist-inaccessible 'garden bridge'. We need a mayor who actually wants to do something with London. I agree with you here: neither Goldsmith nor Khan provide this.
    Very insightful.

    Unfortunately this is TSR and most people won't bother to read more than 50 words.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.