London just witnessed the most controversial campaign since Michael Howard’s defeat in 2005. It’s a done deal, as the Lanor Party’s flag bearer, Sadiq Khan won the London Mayoral election. This is the first time a Muslim will occupy such a position in the history of United Kingdom and European Union at large.
The Conservatives sent ministers on television to defend Zac Goldsmith, Khan’s major contender, who lost against his Labor rival Sadiq Khan. Given that the only part of Mr Goldsmith’s campaign to make an impression was his constant attempt to draw links between “extremists” and London’s first Muslim mayoral candidate, the Tories should have distanced themselves from Zac.
There are few politics watchers who didn’t expect some questions about Mr Khan’s political past to come up in this campaign. He spent years as a human rights lawyer defending some unsavory characters.
He has supported causes alongside some pretty conservative Muslim figures, which, since he comes from and represents a constituency with a large Muslim population, is not hugely surprising. But there is little to suggest that the motives of Mr Khan himself are suspect.
What his political history does suggest is that he is a greasy pole-climbing opportunist who will make the allies that suit him in each time and place. Which is another way of saying that he’s a politician.
So the idea of trying to make mud stick to Mr Khan was always a bad one. That strategy might work when there’s truth in an accusation, as with Labor’s tolerance of the rampant anti-Semitism in its Leftist wing. It’s fair to ask Mr Khan about his past associations. But bringing up the topic again and again in a cosmopolitan city like London was crazy. No one, including Mr Goldsmith, believes that Mr Khan is an extremist or that his election as mayor would compromise London’s security.
Source: UK Telegraph