The turnout figures for the London Mayoral election, that say the Islamism supporter Sadiq ‘Saracen’ Khan winning the mayoralty have been released. They should make sobering and hopefully shaming reading for any London-dwelling opponent of Khan, especially for those who didn’t vote.

The BBC is saying that the turnout for the election was 45% of the available electorate and was 7% higher than at the previous elections in 2012. I suspect that this extra 7% on the turnout may be partially explained by the ‘whipped mosque vote’ phenomenon, but that’s another story for another day.

A 45% turnout means that 55% of London’s voting-eligible population didn’t vote. It is this 55% of people who couldn’t be arsed to tear themselves away from whatever it is they saw as more important, who have landed London with this excuser for Islamism. If more opponents of Saracen Khan whipped mosque voters had got off their backsides then maybe, London would be spared the horror of an Islam supporting mayor.

Zac Goldsmith was not the perfect candidate for mayor, some have criticised him for his allegedly low energy style of campaigning, his abandonment of grass roots Conservatives and ignoring the opinions of them. However he was better than the Islamist alternative. Sometimes in politics the choice is between a poor option or an even worse one. Zac Goldsmith may well have been a poor quality candidate who didn’t light a fire of enthusiasm in the electorate, but voting for him would have been a better option than staying at home and letting the Islamism supporter win.

If a few more people had turned out and voted for anti-Khan candidates with one preference and given Goldsmith the other, then we may not be seeing the spectre of London having a Mayor who has a long-term record of aligning with extremists. If more people had taken note of Saracen Khan and his dodgy associations and been galvanised to defeat him, even at the cost of holding their noses and voting for Goldsmith, then the 315k voter gap between Khan and Goldsmith could have been either narrowed or eliminated. Those who stayed at home on polling day have landed London with the sort of mayor that is being lauded in some quite grotesque Islamist circles. Those who couldn’t be bothered to go down the polling station and put a cross in a box, should be ashamed of their apathy and laziness. The only consolation in this for me is these apathetic fools will as other Londoners will, soon see their city and their families suffer under a mayor who has made it quite clear where his loyalties and sympathies lie.

A greater turnout of anti-Khan voters would also have gone a great way to dilute the whipped mosque vote and the fraudulent postal vote, both of which are factors in almost any election which Muslims of Khan’s sort win. There were known and well publicised problems in London with voting procedure, as in Barnet and there were other cases where some people were mistakenly issued with two polling cards instead of one. These problems have also possibly distorted the vote and a greater turnout of anti-Khan voters would have gone some way to offset these effects.

Those who stayed at home and didn’t vote have helped to put the governance of one of the world’s major cities in the hands of someone who supports causes that explicitly say that they want the rest of us dead or oppressed. I find it difficult to find words for those who refused to get off their arses and stop Khan at the ballot box. What on earth could be more important for the future of London, its residents and their children than that? Maybe the only just way to treat these non-voters who couldn’t be bothered to stand up against this representative of a monstrous and murderous ideology is how those who refused to fight in World War One were treated and hand them white feathers? Maybe they should be treated as cowards who couldn’t bring themselves even to turn off the TV and go and vote,and be referred to as ‘white feather non-voters’? These lazy cowards, these fools mired in apathy, have put Londoners, especially those Londoners who belong to groups that Islam considers as enemies, in a very dangerous place.

I have no doubt that Khan will create the sort of political environment in London that will make one of Ken Livingstone’s GLC administrations in the 1980’s look like an example of sanity and reasonableness. London has fallen to Saracen Khan and I predict that no real long term good will come of it. I’m glad I don’t live in London, but I do feel very sorry for London’s non-Muslims, gays, women and free thinkers who will be the first to find that Khan and those who he associates with and who are aligned with him, are not on their side.

Links

Gushing pro-Labour, pro-Khan article on London elections from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36206505

Metro newspaper on electoral administration problems in London

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/05/voters-sent-multiple-polling-cards-could-vote-twice-5862530/