Forum Topic

Chiswick gripped by election fever

Is it just me or is this coming local election exceptionally low key? I don't get the impression that even the people taking part are particularly bothered by the result and there seem to be very few leaflets being posted and there seems to be very little politicking on this forum which is unusual in the run up to a vote.Could it be that people with familiarity with local government know that there are tricky times ahead and that being in charge will mostly involve delivering bad news.Tony Travers has now confirmed the other polls suggesting that Labour, which has been hit by a succession of embarrasing scandals relating to its councillors will win in Hounslow. That they look like surviving even at this current low point for their party must be demoralising for the opposition. Turnout will be interesting and could be very low.Despite all this the election is interesting as it marks a time of major change in the party make up. One thing that has struck me recently is the high number of people of my aquaintance who have taken me aback in expressing support for Reform. These are not the normal profile of the party's voters being generally professional people and who were nearly all very adamant Remainers. As with people who voted for Trump in 2024 they may be a bit shy admitting this to pollsters so  Reform may do a bit better than it expects in places like Chiswick although not to the extent that they could win.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 18d107 Comments

There you go Francis. Lowering yourself to the same level of insults as Felicity Caborn. You seem to be confusing me with someone you think you know and that ultimately ends up with more lies. I have never read the Daily Mail and I am out and about almost every day of the year. I walk and I am a cyclist and a motorcyclist. And obviously a motorist too! In fact I witnessed a white male approx 40ish blatantly shoplift 3 bottles of wine from Twickenham Waitrose last week. A few weeks before I saw M&S security chasing a shoplifter. I have never claimed that all shoplifters are illegal immigrants. It is you who are confused about getting out. You claim to be in London 200 days a year but then you say you try to get out once a week. Whatever, it’s irrelevant because London’s published crime statistics  speak for themselves so nobody cares what you ‘haven’t’ witnessed! So go ahead and continue with your pathetically childlike abuse about me not getting out and reading the Daily Mail and all the nonsense about me stating that shoplifters are illegal immigrants. Your last paragraph is just hogwash. You’ve missed the point entirely! The point being that in Khan’s London, shoplifters aren’t pursued or caught so it would be impossible to deport them even if they are illegal immigrant / asylum seekers. Never mind - when Laila Cunningham becomes Mayor she will sort out the crime and all the other problems Khan has failed to address. She’ll make London a city to be proud of where women feel safe to be out at night and tourists and the public aren’t terrified of having their mobile phones snatched by criminals.

Steve Taylor ● 6d

Steve, I think you are being a bit over-sensitive here. Felicity's observation that you don't seem to get out much looks more like an expression of concern than a slur. Your prolific posting on bright sunny days when anyone not confined to a desk due to work is unlikely to answer you is not really a behaviour that should be encouraged.I'm past the first flush of youth myself but I do try to get into town at least once a week and out of the house in the evening three or four times. This doesn't make me some sort of party animal but combined with trips to work that means I'm out an about in London for at least 200 days a year. This means I know for sure that it isn't descending into anarchy - in the last month the closest thing I has observed to a crime is someone playing music on their phone on a bus without earphones. Just to repeat, this isn't a claim that there is no crime, clearly there is and some crimes are increasing which is bad but to say it is out of control is at best a paranoid delusion or at worst a willing assistance to the enemies of our nation.I can understand how an isolated individual largely staying at home could get a false impression from social media and certain newspapers but stepping outside the front door will calm those fears even if it is nipping out to the corner shop to buy the Daily Mail.Perhaps you could also spend your time indoors to find out more about how our criminal justice system works. Sadiq Khan isn't paid to arrest and charge shoplifters. That is the job of the police and the CPS who operate under Home Office guidelines. The Mayor shouldn't and doesn't interfere in this process.You are right to suggest that some shoplifters aren't charged even if caught red handed. Obviously the current situation in which jail time is unlikely would make that a pointless exercise. They will already have criminal records - the nature of this type of crime is that nearly all the offenders are persistent.The strategy of the police at the moment seems sound. They are getting Criminal Banning Orders against the most prolific shoplifters. This allows them to detain someone if they even visit Chiswick High Road - yes they probably go somewhere else to steal but the fact that they already have a ban means the courts will extend it if they are caught elsewhere. Not as effective as locking them up but it seems to be working locally.You remain unshakeable in your conviction that illegal immigrants are responsible for shoplifting. People have tried to explain to you why this isn't the case so I won't repeat these arguments other than to suggest having a chat with a police officer or a shop owner. I'm not saying illegal immigrants don't commit crime in fact some are responsible for far worse than nicking razors from Boots.Theoretically if an illegal immigrant was caught shoplifting they would be deported straight away. They may then choose to claim asylum and the offence wouldn't be deemed serious enough to disqualify their claim but it would make it much more likely they would be turned down. They'd probably game the system for a few years before being required to leave the country. This isn't an ideal situation but you can't blame the Mayor for the way it works.

Francis Rowe ● 7d

The article refers to issue of foreign disinformation networks amplifying crime in London which Francis referred to earlier. Here is the Spectator article he referenced.https://spectator.com/article/london-hasnt-fallen/The Mayor has never claimed that London is a crime free utopia but he is pointing us to statistics that show is ranks very highly for safety both in a UK context and against comparable cities across the world.I fully accept that someone who has recently been the victim of a serious crime or has friends and family who have been might, will find it difficult to accept what the statistics are saying but crime in London is not high on an historical basis. The record low murder rate and the relatively low rate of serious sexual offences has already been cited but it should be pointed out that knife crime has been consistently down for 12 months according to the most recent data and is well below pre-pandemic peaks.This absolutely does not mean anyone is saying there is no crime in London. Someone was nearly hacked to death a ten minute walk from where I live earlier this month and, as I pointed out in another post - broken glass from a car window is still not an uncommon sight as I walk to work.I believe the figures which show crime isn't out of control because my own personal experience confirms this to be the case. In my broader circle of family, friends, workmates and acquaintances, I don't know anyone who has been the victim of a serious crime in London over the last 15 years (unless you count their teenage kids having mobile phones taken off them.)If this has not been your experience I can understand that you might want to question the data but if your conviction that Sir Sadiq has let criminals run riot in London is based on what you read in newspapers that are hostile to him and on social media then you might want to consider that you are in a confirmation loop.The Mayor, in my view, is quite right to fight back against this misinformation. Most Londoners know their city is relatively safe and don't fall for it but visitors to our city are being discouraged. We are losing restaurants here in Chiswick every week and I know there are myriad other reasons why business is tough for them at the moment but people spreading the idea that London is a hellhole is not going to have helped.

Mark Evans ● 9d

Let’s be honest here, Sir Sadiq Khan isn’t really that impressive a politician. He appears to have no very strong convictions, is no great intellect is not a particularly good public speaker and had made little achievement of note before becoming the titular head of the world’s greatest city.However, he is a courtly, softly spoken family man whose political opponents acknowledge his graciousness and decency. His centrist, non-confrontational style of politics is no longer the norm but many of us regret its passing. He is deeply engaged with the management of London and seems to take as much joy from new bus routes and fare arrangement as he does from the more glamourous aspects of his job. If you were to choose a word to describe him it would probably be ‘inoffensive’ unless of course you are the kind of person who finds it offensive that someone of Pakistani Muslim origin is in a position of responsibility.The frothing at the mouth hostility he seems to inspire from certain quarters is deeply suspicious. It is part of a broader narrative of ‘London is Falling’ in which our city is collapsing into lawless chaos, with widespread no go zones and radical Muslims are introducing Sharia law. We hear this consistently from MAGA politicians and far right accounts across social media.The main accusation against Sir Sadiq is that, like the Pope, he is soft on crime. London has too much crime and certain offences are rising significantly however, the Mayor of London’s record is probably worth a B plus score – could be better but not a bad effort. Our murder rate is at an all time historic low and rape and sexual offending is well below national averages (who would have thunk it with the majority of illegal immigrant residing in the capital!).While the priority always should be these more serious crimes, the picture on non-violent offences is mixed. Shoplifting is a national problem but particularly bad in London. It is debatable whether the Mayor should involve himself too deeply in the operations of the Met but the root cause of this increase surely must be the overcrowding in prisons which means that fewer repeat offenders are being locked up to come back and nick stuff to fuel their addiction.Car crime is also an issue, and once again it seems daft to expect the Mayor to be patrolling the streets of Chiswick at night to protect our cars – but some people apparently do. We live in a society with increased income disparity where people with very expensive cars neglect to secure them properly and leave valuable stuff inside them. Not much the Mayor can do about this but sign up to MetEngage and you will get regular alerts about offending of this kind.The Mayor’s better than average performance on crime over his three terms has been achieved despite a squeeze on funding for the police far greater than anywhere in the country. The Met previously was largely funded direct from central government but this has been reduced in real terms and has not been adjusted to account for population growth so we currently get a much lower per capita funding for the police than other parts of theUK. Add to this the recruitment difficulties brought about by high living costs – it would be entirely understandable if London was seeing a much larger rise in crime than elsewhere – in fact the rise has been below the average.The main reason for this relative success is that Sir Sadiq has covered the funding shortfall from his own resources. At the start of his first term, very little of the police budget was funded by the Mayor’s precept but in the most recent year it has risen to 27% We might begrudge the extra rise in our Council Tax that has resulted but we wouldn’t like the alternative to this funding not being provided to the police.Despite this qualified but very evident progress on crime, the narrative against Sir Sadiq continues to be pushed very hard. As has been pointed out, reporting in the woke, Libtard Spectator has identified that much of the ‘London is Falling’ narrative comes from bot farms in countries like Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Somebody is funding this with the aim of undermining our confidence in our institutions and democratic processes. The people who are pushing these distortions hardest range from the Steve Bannon wing of the MAGA movement, previously Orban funded far right groups across Europe, the Chinese and the Russians – exactly who it is doesn’t really matter, we just need to be aware of what is happening. Sadly, it seems to be having some effect – the same narratives cross into angry Facebook groups and the Daily Mail and are parroted by useful idiots in this country. I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to people who don’t live in London but people who do, and can walk out of their front door to see that it is not true are not just useful idiots but quislings and traitors who are putting their own prejudices ahead of the national interest.When I say that all right thinking Chiswick residents support Sir Sadiq, I don’t mean that we all vote for him (although most of Chiswick has in his three election victories). What I mean is that, whether you are Labour, Tory,  Green, Reform, Lib Dem, or uninterested in politics, you recognise that intemperate attacks on the Mayor of London originate from hostile foreign entities whose ultimate aim is to undermine our democratic freedom.  If you aren’t pushing back on their lies you are appeasing the enemy.

Francis Rowe ● 10d

Denis, you might want to walk away from justifying your earlier claims but that isn't going to stop people pulling them apart.As you believe immigration is an unmitigated harm and is costing us money let’s just ponder for a moment what would happen if you and Nigel got your wish and it was reduced to zero.Firstly, there would be severe labour shortages in the parts of our economy which rely on migrant workers - health and social care, hospitality, construction, agriculture,  logistics,  STEM and high‑skill industries. Costs would go up, projects would be cancelled and the nation’s productive capacity is reduced.GDP would fall along with the working population and our long-term economic potential would be reduced.This in turn would put even greater pressure on public finances. You are right that ‘Rachel from Accounts’ as you so originally put it, is spending much of the extra money she raises on interest expense. You should have pointed out this is a situation she inherited. With a reduced tax take from a contracting economy if there was no immigration there would need to be much higher taxes and reduced spending including on the elderly (who would already be suffering due to chronic understaffing in social care).  Zero immigration would remove a major source of labour supply, causing vacancies to rise sharply and reducing productive capacity.Food production would decline even more sharply having been hard hit already by Brexit and we would become even more dangerously dependent on imported produce.Longer term impacts would be a collapse in investment from companies who need skilled workers from overseas. This would hit some of our higher growth industries such as AI, biotech, finances and engineering really hard.Rising costs and a lack of labour in construction would result in even fewer homes being built and rising rents.Assuming you are going to restrict places given to overseas students in our universities as well this would lead to a crisis in university financing and a slowing of innovation.The combination of all these factors is likely to increase the risk premium on gilts as the confidence among international investors that we can service our debts ebbs away. Whoever succeeds ‘Rachel from Accounts’ is going to be spending a lot more on servicing debt as interest rates rise.I know you won’t be interested in any of the above because similar warnings were given to you over Brexit and you disregarded them. This self-inflicted harm has made the current globally challenging environment even more difficult than it should have been. If we hamstring ourselves again then the decline is likely to become terminal.If you think having fewer foreigners in the country would make you happier, that’s your prerogative but don’t pretend that it would make the rest of us better off. It won’t it will make us considerably poorer.

Francis Rowe ● 12d

Denis, I'd be interested to know where you source your information and views on historic immigration patterns and its impact on the economy.Blair/Brown did not have an open door policy, in fact the regime was much more restrictive on non-EU immigration than it is now. What they changed was a quick acceptance of newly admitted Eastern European countries into Freedom of Movement. This coincided with sustained economic growth and I don't think there is much dispute that the largely Polish workforce was a significant contributor to national prosperity at the time. The net migration at this time was around a third of what it  was at the beginning of this decade. Covid and the ending of Freedom of Movement coincided and there was a big contraction of the workforce both due to Europeans going back to their native countries and a big rise in the domestic population opting out of the workforce.Inept as both Johnson and Truss were, it may be that they had little choice but to open the floodgates to allow immigration from non-EU countries. Our economy was flatlining, our debt had spriralled to record non-wartime levels and our social care system was on the point of collapse. Bringing in more working age people immediately boosts economic growth and reduces debt per capita. There is an argument that, far from putting us in the mess we are currently in, this wave of immigration saved us from catastrophe.I don't think you will find any economist who will not concede the point that if you have an aging population, low birth rate and you want to maintain a free at the point of delivery health service and triple locked pensions, you have to accept a degree of immigration to ensure that the ratio of the working population to dependents is sustainable.Obviously there is a major flaw in the current system in which we take a large number of often low skilled workers from developing countries, with which there is a large income disparity with the UK. These workers are much more likely to seek to stay permanently and bring over family members. Perhaps we should be considering a reciprocal arrangement with our European neighbours in which workers are free to take jobs in our respective countries. This would deliver a more skilled workforce who are less likely to ultimately settle in this country.

Francis Rowe ● 13d