Gamston Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 (edited) Should Sadiq khan resign as London Mayor ? And then challenge Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party ? Edited May 8, 2016 by Gamston spelt his name wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Why would he want to do that? He's only just become mayor and has plenty to occupy him. If he doesnt do a ood job it will just have him down as a careerist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Why would he want to do that? He's only just become mayor and has plenty to occupy him. If he doesnt do a ood job it will just have him down as a careerist. Perish the thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Why on earth would he? Does he have any more chance of winning an election that Comrade Corbyn. To win an election you need the support of the whole country not just London. Khan could not even manage that on first choice votes with 1.4 million voting against him rather than the 1.1 voted with him. Whilst second vote preferences got him over the line, he still only broke through with a 56% share of the entire electorate count. Hardly a massive landslide was it. With the rise of UKIP votes, lack of trust in Labour generally and huge pockets of the country with an anti-Muslim, anti foreign sounding name, anti coloured person attitudes, the thought of a Muslim prime minster would make some people's heads explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Should Sadiq khan resign as London Mayor ? And then challenge Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party ? What a silly idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Why on earth would he? Does he have any more chance of winning an election that Comrade Corbyn. To win an election you need the support of the whole country not just London. Khan could not even manage that on first choice votes with 1.4 million voting against him rather than the 1.1 voted with him. Whilst second vote preferences got him over the line, he still only broke through with a 56% share of the entire electorate count. Hardly a massive landslide was it. With the rise of UKIP votes, lack of trust in Labour generally and huge pockets of the country with an anti-Muslim, anti foreign sounding name, anti coloured person attitudes, the thought of a Muslim prime minster would make some people's heads explode. There is a flaw in your argument there, if you are happy to argue that the government has a clear mandate to govern when 64% of the electorate voted for other parties. You cant have it both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 (edited) I am delighted you picked up on that. Because that is exactly the same "flawed argument" that crybaby sore loser lefties raise every time the Tories (who won the 2015 election) do something they don't like. All we hear is "the majority of people didn't vote for them" "the election was not fair" "the majority voted against tories" blah blah blah. Irrelevant of the total number of overall votes for or against to other parties - Khan got the majority share on the result. He therefore won and is therefore in charge. Just like the Tories did in the 2015 election. Majority share. Won. Now in charge. You certainly cant have it both ways. Edited May 8, 2016 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 I am delighted you picked up on that. Because that is exactly the same "flawed argument" that crybaby sore loser lefties raise every time the Tories (who won the 2015 election) do something they don't like. All we hear is "the majority of people didn't vote for them" "the election was not fair" "the majority voted against tories" blah blah blah. Irrelevant of the total number of overall votes for or against to other parties - Khan got the majority share on the result. He therefore won and is therefore in charge. Just like the Tories did in the 2015 election. Majority share. Won. Now in charge. You certainly cant have it both ways. No you certainly can't. Well done for destroying the previous argument you made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therascal Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Should Sadiq khan resign as London Mayor ? And then challenge Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party ? Why should he, you can bet your life on it that the annual wage will be better being the Mayor of London than what Corbyn gets as leader of the Labour Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 No one has any hope of getting Labour elected, pretty much ever again, unless or until the SNP fall out of favour in Scotland. It's the most poisoned of poison chalices. Without their Scottish MPs Labour would need to win more seats in England and Wales than even Tony Blair managed. The very best they can hope for in 2020 is a coalition with the SNP, a prospect which saw them thoroughly rejected in England last time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now