Posted on 07/31/2022 4:58:57 AM PDT by RandFan
The Labour Mayor has infuriated Londoners after proposing to expand the Capital's Ultra Low Emission Zone. Mr Khan is planning to extend the ULEZ charging area on August 29, 2023, prompting Transport for London to launch a public consultation.
Originally launched in May this year, the consultation looked to hear from residents of London and the surrounding areas about how it would affect drivers.
The plan sparked the fury of Time Party leader Robert Kimbell who branded Mr Khan a "buffoon".
He blasted: "When a buffoon is elected by some 23.3 percent of eligible voters to represent (and run key aspects of) your capital city, it's time to abolish the post and move on!
"London needs a County Council.
"Not an obsessively self-promoting anti-British careerist.
"Oust Khan. And get on with it."
The extension will extend the ULEZ from the North and South Circular roads to cover almost all of Greater London.
If the plans are successful, non-compliant petrol and diesel vehicles will have to pay £12.50 ($15) every day to drive in London.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
BUT MUH diversity.
I really only clicked on this post to see this meme - Freepers never fail!!!
Well to be fair, public transport in London is exceptional.
With a car you get stuck in traffic and can actually reach faster for longer distances in the city by the tube and for shorter distances by cycling or even walking at times.
I’m sure you would have been among those in the 1800s who were upset when Benjamin Disraeli, a person of Sephardi Jewish origin, was elected Prime minister of Great Britain and Ireland.
Disraeli was not elected because he was Jewish, but in spite of it, because he had political smarts and talents that made him valuable, which made his party place him at its head. He lost his exalted position, not because he was Jewish, but because of the military disaster at Mount Kitzelawaya in present-day South Africa. Khan is Mayor of London because he’s a Pakistani and has some minimal qualifications, but he’s incensed the people of London, so he should be ousted.
The people who live in London did not elect him at all.
London has perhaps the weirdest way of electing the mayor and common (city) council that I have ever seen.
Went to London for a couple of weeks back in 1989. Had a great time walking throughout the city and enjoying the theater in the evening. Missed the first night of the Prom by one day. Would have loved to have seen that.
Red Ted might have been worse but not by much.
Wow! You sound like his campaign manager.
If you reread the post I was commenting on, the person writing that post insinuated that Khan wore a towel on his head. I was merely commenting on that. And, I thank you for correcting me about where Khan was born. I should have checked that.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the man is mayor of a town that in February 2018 reported more murders than New York (45 to 28). Plus he’s a socialist which just means he’s a closet marxist (in my humble opinion).
In case you haven’t noticed, FR, “generally speaking”, doesn’t care too much for socialist’s or marxist’s.
I think you may be confusing the Mayor of London (Khan's job) with the Lord Mayor of London. The latter is a very ancient, and now purely ceremonial office. The Lord Mayor presides over the Corporation of the City of London, which is the equivalent of a borough council, and covers only the small area around the Tower of London, the site of the medieval city, which is now the financial district (which is now therefore often referred to as 'the City').
The metropolis of Greater London includes 33 boroughs. The Greater London Authority (which Khan heads) includes all of these.
The Mayor of London (Khan's job) is elected by universal suffrage of all residents in the Greater London area. It's the Lord Mayor of London who is chosen by an arcane and anachronistic process historic process - but since the Lord Mayor has no powers, nobody's bothered by that.
On the contrary, I’m unimpressed by his record in office. But not because of the spurious or factually incorrect reasons repeated in this thread.
Freepers do seem to have a fascination with Khan quite out of proportion to his significance. Possibly because it’s assumed that the Mayor of London has powers similar to those of the Mayor of a large American city. In fact they are very much less. Khan is not a significant figure in national politics.
Khan was elected because firstly he was the official Labour candidate, and Labour has usually had a small overall majority in London politics. Secondly, because his Conservative opponents, both times he was elected, were of poor quality and conducted weak campaigns. Thirdly because his manifesto and campaigns focussed on specific local issues, not generalised national issues. Fourthly because he legitimately present himself as a Londoner, having been born and lived and worked in the city all his life - unlike some of his opponents.
Besides these, the fact that he's of Pakistani origin was pretty much irrelevant.
Well argued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.