Read more: Is the London housing crisis Boris Johnson's fault?
Sadiq Khan will probably be London's next mayor. A YouGov poll yesterday shows that the Labour candidate is currently 11 points ahead of Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith. At a mayoral debate last night at the Royal Geographical Society the two debated the issues facing the capital. It confirmed that Khan's lead in the polls exists for a reason—he came out on top. But perhaps his victory—though likely—is not quite as certain as many suppose.
Zac Goldsmith’s tactics during this race have been controversial—and arguably racially divisive. Yvette Cooper has said of his campaign that “What started as a subtle dog-whistle is becoming a full blown racist scream.” His campaign targeted British Indians with leaflets saying their family jewellery may be taxed if Khan becomes mayor. Khan has also been attacked for having previously shared a platform with Suliman Gani, a preacher from his Tooting constituency who David Cameron has said "Supports IS."
These matters came up last night. At one point Khan announced, with an ironic air, “let me reassure you, your jewellery will be safe with me," before asking Goldsmith "What power would I have [as Mayor] that would put the jewellery of Hindus at risk?"
Goldsmith insisted that he had never questioned whether Khan’s views were extreme—no one sensible would think that (for one thing, he voted for gay marriage—and received a fatwa as a result). But he claimed it was still perfectly legitimate to question Khan’s judgement—the fact he thought it OK to give oxygen to alleged extremists by sharing a platform with them. Khan’s rebuttal—that he has angered many in his community by so standing up to extremism—was an effective counter. (Of course, it is absurd to criticise someone for sharing a platform with an extremist, but that’s another argument).
Refreshingly, a substantial chunk of time was dedicated to the discussion of policy—and particularly Goldsmith’s pledge to freeze mayoral council tax (part of the council tax levied by London's councils is set by the Mayor). Khan shied away from the issue repeatedly, which gave Goldsmith a chance to drill him on it. Several audience members began shouting that they wanted a “yes or no” answer. Khan eventually conceded that no, he wouldn’t freeze it. He then gave a perfectly acceptable reason for not doing so—he has to protect City Hall income in case George Osborne takes further money from the police budget. Scotland Yard has already suffered a cut of £600m.
It would have been much better if Khan had been upfront about the fact he will not freeze the tax. His response drew focus to the fact that he dodges questions—rather than the fact he's responsible enough to manage the city's finances. Khan also looked clumsy when he accused his opponent of running a “a Donald Trump Campaign”. The outlandish comparison received a small surprised laugh from the audience. For one thing, Goldsmith is far less high-energy that the populist Republican candidate for President.
But on the whole, Khan’s performance was solid—his familiarity with the city shone through, which placed him in stark contrast with Goldsmith. The Conservative candidate was recently shown up in a Transport for London interview—he was unable to answer basic questions about the city he wishes to lead.
But Khan shouldn’t count his chickens just yet. The polls could be wrong. There may be a "Bradley effect," where voters tell opinion pollsters they are comfortable voting for an ethnic minority candidate when in fact they are not.
It is unlikely that an 11-point lead will come to nothing, but even if the polls aren't wrong, they could be meaningless. They could be showing information that is correct, but irrelevant. As I’ve written before, the general election polls weren’t wrong as a result of some “shy Tories” phenomenon; it wasn’t that Tories—or any group—lied about who they would vote for. Rather, many Labourites lied when they said they would vote at all. The polls misunderstood who would go out to vote on the day—not the electorates’ preferences.
Mightn’t the same thing happen here? If the polls have overestimated turnout—possible, given what happened last year—Goldsmith could win despite being the less popular candidate. When voter turnout is low, it tends to be the young who have chosen to stay at home. Khan's support is younger than Goldsmith’s: in London, the break-down of party support among 18-24 year olds shows that 17 per cent of young Londoners support the Conservatives vs 61 per cent for Labour. Given this, it’s not a done deal for the man from Tooting.
