Sir Sadiq is one of 26 public figures who have been put into the Lords, but his record in charge of London has been abysmal
STEPHEN POLLARD
See Related Article Below
Khanage in the House of Lords
FRANK HAVILAND
I was on a Zoom call with an old friend the other day, when he asked where I stood on Sadiq Khan – to which I promptly replied, “preferably on his gullet”. He proceeded to inform me, with a satisfied smirk, that the Mayor of London was in line for elevation to the peerage. “That’s a blow to closet Islamophobes like you, isn’t it?!” my pal continued, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. For the record, there’s nothing ‘closet’ about my Islamophobia. Although I must confess, this is decidedly a blow. In some sense, it’s unfortunate that Khan happens to be a Muslim. No one baulks at objective criticism of Starmer, and I daresay if Khan were just another Labour tub of lard, his political failures would enjoy far more scrutiny than they currently do.
Alas, my friend’s story checks out. Sir Sadiq is one of 26 new peers awaiting Royal assent to enter the House of Lords. It’s not clear whether the mayoral midget will become ‘Baron Khan of Tooting’ or merely ‘Lord Khan’, but one thing’s for sure – this will go down with the public even worse than the Knighthood did last year. That was already a slap in the face for the hard-pressed British taxpayer, who see precious little return for the £20 billion they grant Khan to run around the capital taking selfies. As I commented at the time:
“Awarded a gong by His Majesty King Charles III at Buckingham Palace for ‘political and public service’ (which is just about vague enough to incorporate ‘destroying the nation’s capital’), “Sir” Sadiq Khan is Britain’s most treacherous Knight since Lancelot got caught giving Guinevere one in the King’s bedchamber, and tried to convince King Arthur he was attempting the Heimlich manoeuvre.”
From a Prime Minister who has performed more U-turns than the average driving school, it is fitting that Starmer’s last act as Labour leader is to nominate peerages he once called “very hard to justify”, thereby ennobling a life peer who had previously called for the abolition of the upper chamber.
The appointment itself reeks of cronyism. The justification given by an (unsurprisingly) anonymous “government source”, is that Khan is “A brilliant mayor who has transformed London for the better… He has cut violent crime to record lows, cleaned up the capital’s air, delivered the Elizabeth Line, and got London building council homes again.”
Not only is this the greatest spin since Torvill and Dean’s Bolero, it’s far from the sole controversial appointment on the Starmer list. Back-scratching her way to the upper chamber is the former General Secretary of UNISON (coincidentally, Labour’s second largest donor), Christina McAnea. And let’s not forget June “white people are never judged on their race” Sarpong, whose claim to public service appears to be surviving on £267,000 for a three-day week as the BBC’s diversity tsar, and having once knocked about with David Lammy.
To those who accuse me of having it in for Khan, let’s consider a couple of things. First of all, the mayoral brief. Khan is responsible for policing and crime, transport, housing, economic development, the environment, and cultural funding. The Mayor’s own website puts it much more succinctly: “The Mayor of London sets the budget and is responsible for making London a better place for everyone who visits, lives or works in the city.”
So, how has our boy done? On policing, Khan likes to claim London is getting safer. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Shoplifting is up 38% on last year. Knife crime is up 72% since Khan took over from Boris Johnson. Sexual offences are up 63.2% during the same period. Theft has almost tripled under Khan, and dangerous driving is at a record high. The families of victims regularly claim Khan has “completely lost control” of London’s streets. They may have a point.
On transport, Khan loves to take credit for the Elizabeth Line (a project largely delivered under previous mayors and national government). Meanwhile, his signature policy (relentless ULEZ expansion) appears to have genuinely improved air quality in London, for which he deserves credit. It’s also brought in hundreds of millions in revenue, and has been widely criticised as anti-car and anti-business.
On housing, despite being allocated £4 billion for affordable homes between 2021 and 2026, Khan has repeatedly fallen short; missing his targets by thousands of houses. In fact, affordable housing in London is now at a historic low.
What I find more objectionable in Khan, is the openly divisive and opportunist bent of his policies. This is the man that flirted with cannabis decriminalisation, on the basis that “drug laws are damaging police relations with ethnic communities.” In other words, “vote for me, and I’ll get your gear for you”. In addition, the London Mayor spends half his time telling anyone who’ll listen that London is the not only the best, but also the safest major city in the world. This would be swell, if he didn’t spend the other half bemoaning London’s “systemic racism”. And the patsy he congenitally offers up to take the blame for this? Whitey.
If Khan gets a peerage for the shambles that is London, then I’ve a few suggestions His Majesty might like to consider:
- Baroness Shamima Begum, for services to adventurous gap-year projects in Syria.
- Lord Corbyn of Islington, for keeping the sacred flame of antisemitism flickering within the Labour Party.
- Baron Gerry Adams, for services to a united Ireland and creative accounting with Semtex.
- Lord Axel Rudakubana, the greatest ‘Welsh choirboy’ since Aled Jones – just with a more explosive repertoire.
- Baron Anjem Choudary, for services to free speech (his own, obviously).
If we’re handing out life peerages for failure, let’s at least be consistent.
Starmer’s nomination of Khan is the final piss-take of a remarkably unremarkable premiership; the last two-tier, two-finger salute to the nation. And while the country has spent July cheering the bromance between Haaland and Bellingham, the Keir-Khan love-in should shame the pair of them. United in contempt for the British people, and unafraid to show it.
What kind of message does this send to those who believe Westminster is a closed shop, run by a Uniparty that refuses to relinquish the reins? Starmer talked of new politics. Burnham talks of new politics. But in the end, it’s always the same old politics: rules for thee, rewards for me.
There are those on the Right who will openly fight this appointment, and indeed may already have filed a petition against it. While I applaud the sentiment, the likely outcome is the square root of sod all. Remember the million-signature petition against Tony Blair’s Knighthood? It achieved precisely nothing. The Establishment simply shrugged and carried on.
For the time being at least, like London, it looks like we’re stuck with this Khant.
Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.
If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee – it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!
As a thrice-elected Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq is a familiar national presence – indeed an all-too-familiar presence for those of us who live in the capital and are not his biggest fans.
The fact he has been re-elected twice might imply that he has been a successful mayor. He has not. All it shows is that London is a strongly Labour-leaning city. Although the Tories can win, they have to have an exceptional candidate to do so. That has not been the case since Boris Johnson in 2008 and 2012.
Sir Sadiq’s record is the very opposite of successful. Take housing, an issue of immediate and pressing need. Khan began with a target of between 23,900-27,200 affordable home starts. When it became clear he was miles away from this, he simply cut the target by 22 per cent to 17,800-19,000 starts.
Just last week, City Hall figures showed he had missed that too, with only 14,335 starts. But even that figure flatters him.
In 2024-25 just 8,184 homes were actually completed in London, against an assessed need of 45,500 a year. More than 43,000 homes counted as “started” are unfinished.
Then turn to crime. Knife crime in London rose by nearly 72 per cent between 2015-16 and June 2025. Khan boasts that it is now falling – down 7 per cent in the year to August 2025. Well, yes. But when you have presided over a 72 per cent rise, it takes a large degree of political chutzpah to boast that the latest figure is down by seven per cent.
Shoplifting has more than doubled in over a third of London’s 32 boroughs since 2016. Over the whole of London, it has risen by more than 50 per cent in the last five years. And “theft from the person”, such as pickpocketing, has almost tripled since 2016.
And we Londoners pay through the nose for this. The mayor’s share of the council tax bill was £276 for a Band D household when Khan took office in 2016. It is now £510.51: a rise of 85 per cent.
Not once has Khan condemned the hate marches that now regularly bring much of central London to a halt and leave many Jews feeling that they are no-go areas.
He has suggested that those who chant “from the river to the sea” are not anti-Semitic and has attacked the use of the label “hate marches”.
And after the Chief Rabbi criticised the mayor’s call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza while Hamas was still in control, Khan went after him, suggesting the Chief Rabbi was motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice. Khan did later apologise, but only after a huge backlash.
This kind of language is something of a theme for Khan. When some Londoners protested against his plan to expand the ultra-low-emission zone, he suggested they were “joining hands” with “the far-Right”.
The Telegraph: continue reading