Sadiq Khan is Britain's most cynical politician

Telegraph

5 hours ago

Sadiq Khan is posing a unique problem for Keir Starmer at the most inconvenient time. At least part of the solution lies in the Prime Minister's grasp. It is striking how the era of devolution brought forth a cohort of politicians with absolutely no respect whatever for the basic principles of devolution.
John Swinney, the First Minister of Scotland, whose responsibilities include keeping the health service and the ferries running, loves nothing more than to wax lyrical about the conflict in the Middle East, despite his having no more locus in Gaza and Israel than any other member of the Scottish public.
Similarly, the Mayor of London just cannot resist any opportunity to stick his oar in where, from a strictly legislative perspective, he has absolutely nothing to contribute. Khan has announced (and I have no doubt that at least in his mind, his words were accompanied by a not-remotely-modest fanfare) that Labour must 'think again' about its welfare reforms, offering implied support to the more than 100 Labour MPs actively thinking of scuppering the Government's legislation.
And why shouldn't Khan pontificate on issues over which he has absolutely no responsibility? It's not as if there are any problems in the capital that might need his attention.
If the welfare reforms are rejected by the Commons, it would be genuinely catastrophic for the Government and the Labour Party. It's difficult to see how Starmer himself could remain much longer in office, especially if his Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, has already returned to the back benches.
Labour's programme for office, its very raison d'être, will have been upended. The Prime Minister would be a political laughing stock, staring at the very real prospect of losing his entire majority at the next election. Quite a turnaround from that optimistic day almost exactly a year ago when Starmer first arrived in Downing Street.
Would Khan welcome the scenario that, by his own words, he is encouraging to happen? What could be in it for him? That is the key question.
He has form, of course, in encouraging terrible things to happen to his party – and potentially, the country – provided it would advance his own career. In 2015 he was a million miles away from Jeremy Corbyn politically; Khan has always been on the centre-Left of his party and had organised Ed Miliband's successful leadership campaign in 2010 (another feat for which the party and the country can thank him).
Nevertheless, he, along with the current Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, courted the support of Left-wing Labour members in the contest to win the London mayoral nomination for the following year by nominating Corbyn for the party leadership. This was an entirely cynical act given that neither of them wanted Corbyn to win the contest.
The tactic worked – for Khan, not Lammy. And also for Corbyn. But not for the country. Does Khan have another career change in mind today? Having won three consecutive elections for City Hall it would be natural if he was thinking ahead, perhaps even to a return to the green benches of the Commons. Why shouldn't he try to 'do a Boris' and use London as a springboard to reach Downing Street itself?
Which is where Starmer has an opportunity to restore at least a portion of his lost authority. Government whips are at the moment ringing round their charges and threatening them with the loss of the party whip if they vote against the welfare reforms.
If such suspension lasted long enough, the rebels would not be able to stand as Labour candidates at the next general election. It's a serious threat that Starmer has carried out before and undoubtedly will again.
But why should backbench MPs be the only ones to face such censure? Khan is an elected official of the Labour Party and is subject to the national party's disciplinary code just as much as anyone else.
By encouraging rebellion against the Government from a safe distance he is, in effect, seeking to wield power without responsibility which, as Stanley Baldwin said in reference to the press, is the prerogative of the harlot.
Perhaps a senior member of the whips' office might want to include Mayor Khan on his list of phone calls in advance of the Commons vote, in order to remind him that even London Mayors need the approval of the central party – and therefore of the leader – in order to stand for a parliamentary seat. In fact, if Khan is considering standing in London again for a fourth term, he would still need the official endorsement of the party, unless he felt he could win as an independent.
In a situation where the stakes are as high as they are, Starmer cannot afford to withhold any weapon available to him. Elected Labour mayors should be as accountable as any anonymous back bencher, and should face exactly the same disciplinary measures if they decide to foment rebellion in the ranks.
Sadiq Khan should be reminded that it's in his own best interests, not to mention the interests of the people of London, that he turns his mind to the responsibilities of his own office, and away from the responsibilities he might want to have at some point in the future.