London Mayoral election – voting as gender-critical

[PotteringPondering]

I’m voting in the London mayoral election on 2 May, and interested to know how others plan to vote.

I’m gender-critical and the only candidate I think I can vote for is Amy Gallagher, the former Tavistock whistleblower.

She’s SDP (ie relatively small minority party), so I guess won’t stand much chance of being elected. But a strong vote for her would signal a resurgence of the only party consistently against gender ideology (other than KJK’s new Party of Women, who are not standing in the mayoral election).

Livingstone ran as an independent the first time. Frank Dobson was the Labour candidate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/frank-dobson-death-labour-mp-tony-blair-health-secretary-london-mayor-a9200156.html

Apologies, yes, I’d forgotten that, it was so long ago!

My point that Khan has been swimming against the tide still stands though.

I don't think the Tories have ever really been interested in winning the mayoralty in London (I think they were even a bit hands-off with Boris).

Generally Khan has been extremely poor for London, and living just outside of it he really is creating a city that is not welcoming to visitors (one of his political stunts was going to see my fares rise by 40% overnight!). I just don't feel safe in London any more and have really noticed a decline in the city (particularly after Covid).

Generally bad candidates all around. Binface seemed the most credible.

but Khan’s policies have improved the lives of my family.

Can you say which policies. Genuinely interested as no one I know knows of any policy he has implemented that has helped them in anyway.

Obviously not asking anything personal, but more was it transport or ulez or ...

Thanks

Yes, transport, and ULEZ. We’re a car-free family living in an inner borough (where about 70% of households don’t own a car) with an asthmatic child.

Not sure where you live in London but many of our bus routes have been cut and those that still exist made longer by being diverted down inappropriate roads so that cyclists can have the shortist routes.

Added to which the decision to allow have "island" bus stops is just one of the many hazards that mean disabled people are less and less free to go out on their own.

And whilst I appreciate that clean air is better for everyone, it was bought in at the expense of poorer people, and could have been introduced in a more democratic way. And on one level wasn't really necessary as over a period of time the advanced in car engines would have improved the quality of air anyway.

Just like the LTNs have been at the expense of those less well off, as all the traffic turned away from the richer streets ends up of the main roads where people with less financial choice are then burdened with excess fumes.

Its funny how someone who in theory is a socialist has politics that are far more in line with right wing elitist policies.

Evidence from studies that I have looked at suggests that there is small if any increase in traffic on streets neighbouring LTNs. Do you have links to evidence that suggests otherwise?

We can’t afford to run a car. I cycle to work, so I appreciate that Khan has quadrupled the amount of cycleway. DH walks to work and the children walk to school, so cleaner air is a huge deal for them.

Evidence from studies that I have looked at suggests that there is small if any increase in traffic on streets neighbouring LTNs. Do you have links to evidence that suggests otherwise?

Not to hand.

But 2 boroughs one Labour, one Conservative (maybe more) got rid of their LTNs mainly because of traffic problems on main roads, which not only increased fumes for those who live and work there, but because of negative impact on bus services.

I would have more respect for any London Borough that had first and foremost consultated with bus drivers before implementing any scheme, whether cycle route, LTN or whatever.

The absolute scandal that any bus route has a cycle lane in it. It is bad enough that bus drivers have to put up with difficult passengers, stray pedestrians and cars blocking bus lanes, but to then add to their stress to have to endlessly negotiate with the self important cyclists is an absolute scandal. I have no idea why, whichever union is meant to represent bus drivers hasn't or didn't kick up more of a fuss.

Another consequence of LTN's is that it makes it harder and harder to get moderatly priced services such as plumbing etc., because for many of those who do this work, already pushed out of London because of housing costs, it doesn't pay for them to come into London, with the cost of the congestion charge, parking fees (now astronomical, and likely as not a find because of (deliberately) badly signed LTN, school gates etc.. This isn't just about home owners but as a HA tenant (even though I have no sympathy for the landlord association) it is clear that this is one of the reasons maintenance of social housing is so bad. Many of the properly trained electricians etc., would cost to much, so they use unskilled people who for instance google how they should do repair work.

This constant pandering to the loud voices of the middle class, who have the middle class media to amplify them, is a complete scandal.

Not unlike local councils allowing gated communities, constantly cutting back on % of social housing in planning applications.

All our political systems are now dominated by sectarian practices that inevitably mean that they are acting in the interest of the minority they belong to, not for the general good.

Here's the interesting thing.
Despite all the noise about how bad LTNs and ULEZ are, Londoners voted in large numbers for Khan to have an historic third term as mayor, so he must be doing something right.
Doubly puzzling that there is no evidence for the problems that all the noise about LTNs is about.

so he must be doing something right.

This must be a joke - so ha ha ha ha

Like most parts of the country that did have a vote on Thursday it was an anti Tory vote.

Just as Labour will get into power at the next GE.

Not because they are any good, but because the Tories are so bad.

Not much glory in "winning" because you are the least bad of a bad bunch.

I fail to see how it is Khan's fault that the government are some considerable distance beyond useless.

However, there were significantly more than two options on the ballot, so if voters were so upset with both Khan and the Tories they could have voted for a different candidate entirely. That they chose not to, suggests to me that Khan is quite popular.

That they chose not to, suggests to me that Khan is quite popular.

Have you never heard of why FPP is not a democratic way of voting, let alone assessing popularity.

It isn't for nothing that one of the most often quote "isms" about politics is that "no opposition party ever wins an election, it is the Government that loses an election".

And frozen TFL fares means we continue to use public transport.

too many people have got used to the convenience of having a car when it’s not necessary - any incentive to get more folks off the road, the better.

Aye,it doesn't sound like they were spoilt for choice.

I think it hilarious that people think Khan is popular. And that because there were numerous choices that made it clear. It is rather simplistic thinking.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Tony Blair got a third term after a second term that saw the massively unpopular Iraq war. The trouble is the opposition was incredibly poor.

And when you look at the voting of the areas in the London Mayoralty the areas outside of London were massively against Khan, but inner-city were massively in favour.

I'm not surprised because living outside of London (in the typical commuter belt) all the messaging I get from Khan and his office is not you're not welcome.

Are you saying that someone who won an election and increased his share of the vote is not popular?

I have to say I am struggling with the logical thread in your post.

I am saying that there are several aspects to the win and that popularity being the reason for the win seems to indicate a lack of seeing the full story.

I rely on buses, but they are significantly worse than they used to be.

And those who do use cars aren't the stereotype that lefties conjure up.

They are often those struggling with child care, getting kids to school, doing shopping, getting to work at anti social hours.

Before the borough I lived cheated democracy having twice been between in a local consultation about LTN, but using the Covid emergncy powers (as though everyone in lock down were cruising rounds the streets) to impose them.

One of which is now the biggest earner in London for fines.

And yet their housing stock is the second worst in London.

Seriously these niche issues are exactly why London voted labour because the pretentious incomers who can afford these sort of dilettante policies aren't impinged on by the lack of basic bread and butter issues. And Labour is now the party of middle class aspirations.

I just dont understand how those who harp on about issues like this dont realise how much people who really are at the bottom are struggling, when services are being cut, they cant rely on public transport, and more more cant afford to work in London.

The borough I'm in like other inner city boroughs have in fact been so negligent in providing basic issues that many families have been forced out with the result that a number of schools are having to close.

Communities are and have been destroyed.

I dont know why London has a Mayor, but if it was a post that actually addressed these core issues instead of being a vanity project for individualist it would make more sense.

I understand some of the Mayors in other cities have helped create a turn around. I dont know if that is true. In London a turn around is are we getting more tourists, is the night time industry thriving. Not forgetting that all those perks that people who dont drive but want the take aways delivered or want to order an uber are in fact benefiting from a whole strate of people working "off the books" or as likely as not an illegal migrant.

Let alone the fact that having a Mayor in charge of the Met has been a complete failure.

Yes. My area of London has reduced public transport in both buses and trains under Khan. But apparently all is wonderful!

But apparently all is wonderful!

Dont be so ungrateful ... you were invited to help give the London Overground Routes names

Suspect Khan thinks we are all silly children and he can humour us along with little trivialities whilst he does .... what?

I entirely agree, but then why is Khan pressing ahead with this awful Silvertown Tunnel which will mainly benefit car owners not public transport users and in my corner of South East London according to TFL's own feasibility studies actually increase air pollution in our local area.

Oh, and we also don't benefit from the fare freeze (unless we take the bus) as it only applies to TFL fares not to oyster/PAYG fares on national rail services which are most of the public transport in this area.

Its odd how London has voted for Khan more times to be mayor than anyone else. It must be because he is so useless.