°®Âþµº

London goes to the polls on May 5 to elect a new Mayor, and the front runner – Labour's Sadiq Khan – has had to endure a hostile Conservative and media campaign linking him to extremist Muslims.

Khan and his main rival, the Conservative Zac Goldsmith both agree that London is the "greatest city in the world" but the two campaigns have taken starkly contrasting approaches, and the bid for votes has at times been tense, with the Conservatives employing extremely negative tactics to attack Khan.

Economic struggle

With the incumbent Boris Johnson standing down in order to pursue his ambitions to become Conservative party leader and prime minister, Londoners are gearing up for change.

Johnson has done little to alleviate the social engineering that has seen Londoners pushed out of central areas of the city by extraordinary house prices.

The housing crisis and the low standard of living have disproportionately hit the city's large ethnic minority population. Of the 8.6 million people in London, . A member of that 44 percent, Sadiq Khan, is Labour's candidate, and the Conservative party have chosen to play on this fact in their attempts to hold on to City Hall.

In a time of serious economic anxiety for millions of people in London, the Conservative's tactics appear to have missed the mark

By consistently linking Khan with extremist Muslims, the Conservatives have sought to discredit the former Transport Minister. The Tory angle, part of the campaign crafted by the Australian strategist Lynton Crosby, has been to put out the simple message that Khan is a man whose judgement cannot be trusted, much like his party leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

A tactical error

In a time of serious economic anxiety for millions of people in London, the Conservative's tactics appear to have missed the mark and Khan is the overwhelming favourite to win next week. Goldsmith had seemed the ideal candidate; young and talented with an appeal reaching beyond the base of traditional Conservative voters, but his hopes will now rest on how much of the right-wing outer London electorate can be mobilised.

The main reason for the apparent failure of the Conservatives' campaign of fear is that very few people see Khan as "radical" or "divisive" in one Goldsmith campaign pamphlet.

Khan rose in prominence under Gordon Brown, and shortly after his restrained, diplomatic handling of revelations about with one of his constituents, Khan was given Cabinet roles, becoming an established Labour front bencher.

Although elected after the invasion of Iraq, Khan states that he opposed the war. He subsequently voted against an investigation in to the war and worked as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary who played such a significant role in the decision to invade.

By deliberately, repeatedly using the word 'radical' in association with Khan, the Goldsmith campaign has been an attempt to divide and rule

More recently he voted against UK airstrikes in Syria, but he is not known for taking strong foreign policy stances.

Despite being a practising Muslim, and a prominent Member of Parliament, he has not used his platform to speak out strongly against Israel's policies in Palestine.

Domestically, Khan has never voted against a Labour leader in parliament. But he has been keen to distance himself from Jeremy Corbyn on his "pro-business" credentials, and on the Labour leader's choice to abstain from singing the national anthem.

Fear and loathing

Khan nominated Corbyn for the Labour leadership election, although he made it clear that this was to ensure a broad debate. In turn Khan was helped by Corbyn supporters who voted for Khan to keep the pro-war Tessa Jowell out of the Mayoral race.

So, with an eleven-year career in parliament it is clear that Khan is in no way radical. He has all the attributes of a member of the political establishment. This fact left only one last line of attack for the Conservatives: Khan's religion. And the Tories have been keen to try to exploit any potential ethnic divides in London in 2016.

By deliberately, repeatedly using the word "radical" in association with Khan, the Goldsmith campaign has been an attempt to divide and rule. The Tories have drawn stinging criticism for racially profiling voters based on their surnames, with letters to Hindus and Sikhs falsely claiming that Khan would tax their family jewellery.

Should Khan win, Labour will celebrate the victory of hope over fear

Many of these Tory smears are based on Khan sharing platforms with Muslim "extremists", but on closer inspection these have turned out to be the Imam at Khan's local mosque and people Khan represented as a human rights lawyer and as Chairman of the Civil Liberties pressure group, .

Prime Minister David Cameron met with "racist" from opposition MPs when he sought to tarnish Khan by association with a local Imam by falsely claiming the Imam is a supporter of Islamic State.

Hope

Throughout the increasingly desperate Conservative campaign, Khan has remained positive, and looks set to be rewarded with the Mayoralty.

He there is "a clear choice… between the politics of division and fear that has defined the Tory campaign, or the politics of unity, hope and opportunity that has defined mine. The Tory view of politics is all about division and fear."

The Conservatives' negative campaign has attempted to drag British politics backwards and looks set to fail in the multicultural, multi-faceted modern Babylon that is London.

If Goldsmith does succeed, young people from London's hugely diverse community will see that no matter what they achieve or how hard they work, they will never be accepted by a dominant majority. On the other hand, should Khan win, Labour will celebrate the victory of hope over fear.


Tom Charles is a London-based writer, editor and literary agent. He previously worked in the UK parliament, including as a lobbyist for Palestinian rights. He has contributed to Jadaliyya and the Journal of Palestinian Refugee Studies. Follow him on Twitter:

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of °®Âþµº, its editorial board or staff.