Muslim Meme Man

I've heard a lot of his policies are batshit insane. Can you guys give some examples with sources?
Pic related.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KXcva7eJCUk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect
youtube.com/watch?v=p9UWzJ0UEoA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He has shared platforms with terrorists and extremists

Don't worry though, his boss supports hezbollah and Hamas and refers to them as his friends.

just put his name and terrorist into google, the entire Labour party is full of jew haters.

Dude ther major is red pilled

But the Labour Party wants the same shit as the Jews, so it doesn't matter

Friendly reminder that Putin is the last hope for Europe.

youtube.com/watch?v=KXcva7eJCUk

>i dont know who's jewing who anymore

with arabs and jews u lose

What were Sadiq Khan’s main pledges?

>Housing
Build at least 80,000 new homes a year
Establish a London Living Rent, as well as new-build affordable housing with rent based on a third of the average local income
Set up landlord licensing schemes, with plans for London-wide landlord licensing
Establish a London-wide not-for-profit lettings agency to promote longer-term, stable tenancies

>Transport
Freeze London transport fares for four years
Introduce a one-hour bus ‘Hopper’ ticket, so you don’t have to pay extra when you change buses on one journey
Build more segregated cycle routes

>Work and equality
Work with employers to make the capital a Living Wage City
Aim to close the gender pay gap and provide extra support to women
Set up ‘Skills for Londoners’ to help Londoners train in certain skills that would be useful to the capital’s economy

>Crime and safety
Restore neighbourhood policing
Tackle gangs and knife crime in London
Tackle the spread of extremism

>None of these sound 'batshit insane'...?

STFU with the Tory talking points 'sharing platforms' is immaterial language.
Those extremists also happen to be Conservative voters btw.

Still better than the Rothschild shill anyway.

>Build at least 80,000 new homes a year
? why is the government planning to build homes?

> new-build affordable housing with rent based on a third of the average local income
hasn't it been objectively proven that rent control doesn't work?

but muh Taqiyah!

Cause there isn't enough homes. Why else?

confused american doesn't understand this socialist bullshit

No it isn't.

>Aim to close the gender pay gap and provide extra support to women

With everything considered, the fact this is still a thing is the definition of batshit insane.

>Tackle the spread of extremism
RIGHTIST extremism you mean.

All the muslims are just legal and calm protestors culturally enriching their neighborhoods with sharia law.

Wait, so the two Rothschild sisters married the two Goldsmith brothers? They're really trying to keep the money in the jew dynasties.

More free shit for the mudwave

Does the government not even build homes in your backwards shitehole of a country?

Let the private sector profit on it!why use a big fat bureaucracy on a job that doesn't need it, disregarding your housing bubble, which was mostly about shit loan restrictions and fucked up etf's and rating agency bs

Why use an inefficient private sector for an essential service that the government can provide?

>inefficient private sector
got it all wrong there mate,
the private sector will always try to get the most for their buck,
the government requires a big bureaucracy, and will always put worker conditions and payment too high for it to be as cheap as the private sector.

ffs, you guys created capitalism. adam smith? wealth of nations? no? free market?

>X needs a living wage!

If someone is alive and collecting a wage, they have a living wage.

The constant lust for profit is exactly what makes the private sector inefficient.
The government just does stuff cause it needs to be done. No messing around.

Yeah and Karl Marx is also buried here. He liked living in the UK.

Why use an inefficient public program for an essential service that private industry can provide?

No government anywhere has ever done anything efficiently, ever.

The living wage means a wage which a person can live on. Don't pretend to be ignorant.

>The government just does stuff cause it needs to be done.

This is (a part of) why the government is inefficient. It doesn't need to manage costs because it can always just take more of your money.

Nah m8. You're thinking of the private sector.
All the greatest technological advancements have been from the public sector. The private sector has always lacked any drive to try anything new for fear of risking profits.
Why do you think everything from broadcast radio to the internet were developed by the military?

Hence making it supremely efficient at getting stuff done.

>The living wage means a wage which a person can live on.

Yes. And if someone is alive and collecting a wage, that means that the wage they're collecting is enough for them to live on. Being that dead people have no labour to offer and thus can't receive wages, ever wage is a living wage.

Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists need to come up with new terminology. Try "comfortable wage" or something.

>No messing around.
are you not feeling well? have you taken any blue pill lately?

>The constant lust for profit is exactly what makes the private sector inefficient.
in the us, private sector will take the mission even if they can make a little bit on it because the competition is big,

The only reason the can stay alive is because of welfare.
If you wanna get people off welfare then they need a living wage. It's that simple.

>He liked living in the UK.
yes, because what capitalism had brought the society, he didn't like how the workers was treated and used that to make his manifesto

A Rothchild is also married to the younger sister of Paris Hilton, apparently. Interesting.

No, thus making it extremely wasteful. If you have less of a resource, such as capital, you need to use that resource more efficiently. Governments, at least at the federal level, have a theoretically unlimited quantity of capital. Even at the municipal level, though,

>All the greatest technological advancements have been from the public sector.

Factually wrong. Every single one of the great civilian technological advancements have come from the private sector. The steam engine and telephone are two random examples. The only particular area where the public sector dominates research and development is in military equipment, for obvious reasons, but even then new developments are mostly contracted out to private companies.

because war brings up desperation in us, just like the need for profit

My point is that the UK has always had long tradition of socialist thinkers as well as capitalist ones.

...

*Even at the municipal level, though, they can always just raise taxes

The best way to get people off welfare is to stop giving them welfare. 100% success rate.

Yeah, because it is unlimited it is by definition, not wasteful.

Housing shortages and price increases are caused by government interference in the housing market, not cured by them. London will be burned to the ground by this idiot.

>Bangladesh

>Karl Marx is also buried here
i wouldn't take to much pride in this

Yeah but then you effectively commit genocide.

Solid b8.

>be this stupid
no wonder the new face of london is Islam

Why not? He was the greatest political philosopher of all time.

>Yeah, because it is unlimited it is by definition, not wasteful.

That isn't what efficiency means. Efficiency is about allocating resources and effort to produce the greatest outcome at the lowest cost. Governments aren't just inefficient themselves, they live off of inefficiency. The more ineffectually a government is at solving a problem, the more capital they accumulate to solve that problem. There is no impetus for the state to ever actually accomplish anything. The more they fail the more resources they are rewarded with.

confirmed bate

*bait

How does he compare to previous london mayor's?

The only way to increase wages without decreasing the amount of employment opportunities is for economic growth to occur and productivity to increase. That is how you get people off welfare and meaningfully improve quality of life.

First of all, what evidence do you have to support any of that?
Second of all, how is that even bad?
>inb4 herpderp waste of money
Money doesn't actually exist so you can't waste it.

Kek, pretty good b8, 8/10

There have only been three Mayors of London, including Sadiq Khan, as the London metropolitan area was only recently conglomerated. First one was an unpopular Labour bloke, second one was a popular Conservative bloke, third's this new fellow. We can't really compare him to previous mayors because he hasn't even been in office for a day, but his policies are definitely more in line with London's first mayor than its second.

then give away all your money retard

First we had Ken Livingstone, he was hard left Labour and was often saying and doing dodgy things. He's been kicked out of his own party at least 3 times. He was voted out after 8 years.

After that we had Boris Johnson. It was quite remarkable for a Conservative to be elected in London but he had a certain charisma and came across as a man of the people. Overall not too bad for a Conservative. He resigned after 8 years.

Sadiq Khan is the third one. He's another Labour mayor but is much more to the soft left of the party than Livingstone was.

What evidence do I have to support what? The definition of the word 'efficiency'? Which dictionaries do you prefer?

>increasing city wages

MY RENT IS TOO FUCKING HIGH ALREADY

I'M EARNING MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THAT MUCH

THIS WOULD ANALLY FUCKING RAPE ME AND EVERYONE ELSE NOT CURRENTLY ON MINIMUM WAGE

FUCK OFF

REEEEE

Unlike the government, I don't have a limitless supply.

I mean the stuff about governments thriving off inefficiency.

Why does anyone besides bankers who work there willingly live in London? It has the highest crime rates and highest cost of living in the United Kingdom. Is there a fence around the city limits keeping intelligent people from going somewhere else?

Westminster's unlimited supply of pounds comes with the caveat that the more it creates the less each one is worth. I encourage you to read up on inflation—very old concept.

Read Springmeier, it's a rule for them. It's miniature eugenics.

Its taqqiya you fucking retards

The government is already printing money to give as handouts to the banks. They wouldn't need to print more. They could just give it to the people instead.

I already explained this to you.

The more ineffectual a government is at solving a problem, the more capital they accumulate to solve that problem. Therefore, there is no impetus for the state to ever actually accomplish anything; the more they fail the more resources they are rewarded with to try again.

The city is literally the only worthwhile place in the UK to live if you're into city life.

Every other city in the UK is fucking shit.

Other towns and the country are nice but dead as fuck.

London is where the jobs and opportunities are.

He doesn't deliver , he gets booted out the next election....simple as that...you are the one being dense...

Bailouts are contrary to free-market principles. If a company is operating inefficiently it should change how it operates, and if it refuses, it should die. The state should never step in to save a failing business, regardless of the short-term consequences. And instead of taking the tax revenue they were going to use to prop up a bank and giving it to poor people, they should instead never collect that tax revenue in the first place and let it stay with the people who earned it. Bailouts are impetuous and short-sighted.

Glasgow is a lovely city. Hoping to go to uni there next year. It's the friendliest city in the country, it's a reasonable size to enjoy city life and it's not too enormously massive like Lond which has more people than some medium sized countries.

"Glasgow is a lovely city"

No. No it isn't. There's a reason there's a medical phenomenom for Glasgow residents to die early.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect

>implying that they 'earned' it
kek

>MY RENT IS TOO FUCKING HIGH ALREADY

that's what he's trying to say , rent cant be more then 1/3 rd of income....!

Either they earned it through voluntary transactions or they stole it through involuntary transactions. If the latter, they should be imprisoned for theft.

Have you ever even been to the place?

Or they extorted it through wage slavery. That too. The least they can do is pay a bit of tax in return.

Voluntary transactions are voluntary. "Wage slavery" doesn't exist: even in incredibly poor countries like China where workers earn just barely enough to survive, they are still not working involuntarily and are thus not being coerced.

If work has to be done for the purposes of survival then it is not voluntary.

He's fucking retarded and it will never fucking happen. He can't just fucking limit how much you can rent your own fucking property for. He can't control land value. He's going to completely fucking fail.

Been to Glasgow. The centre isn't complete shit, I guess, but it's still dead compared to London and the outskirts are just as rough and shit as the worst areas of London.

The crux of the wage slavery idea is that, because a worker needs to earn income to live, he is effectively being coerced to work. This is ridiculous because the coercing power in that scenario is nature itself, or perhaps physics. Human beings need food to survive, and that, nature and physics, is what is "forcing" them to work, not any individual and least of all their employer.

Let me frame this in a different context. If my house is burned down in a forest fire, I'm not a victim of arson. When a woman's skirt is blown up by the wind, she isn't a victim of sexual assault. If I go for a walk one down and get struck by a meteor and die, it isn't homicide. If the force that is exerting pressure on you is a force of nature, you're not being coerced. Coercion is between individuals. It would have been arson if a kid with a match-book set my house on fire. It would be sexual assault if a dirty old pervert hiked up a woman's skirt. I'd be a homicide victim if a man with a crowbar beat the back of my head and killed me, not a rock from outer space. When the force that is compelling you to work is a natural one, you're not being coerced.

that's where 80000 new homes per year comes in.....supply and demand...flood the market , price will auto fall...

So if I point a gun to your head and tell you to work or I shoot then that's voluntary?
It's just physics, I pull the trigger and the bullet flies through the air. It's not my fault if it's deadly to your body when it hits. That's just nature.

Work will always be wage slavery unless people have a guaranteed basic income to make it a genuinely voluntary choice.

I doubt Sadiq Khan plans on building 80,000 detached dwellings with backyards and garages. He's talking about public housing, what the United Kingdom calls council estates. Building 80,000 new apartment blocks increases the supply of apartment blocks and therefore decreases the price. It doesn't affect the price of nicer housing, which is seeing the largest increases in cost. Most of the council estates in the United Kingdom are derelict already. Sadiq's no doubt incredibly expensive construction project is only going to give London more abandoned, rat-infested holes that the poorest of the poor refuse to live in. Housing costs for most residents of London will be mostly unaffected, and the program's positive effects will be nowhere near the cost of its undertaking.

>the government not even build homes in your backwards shitehole of a country
The government doesn't even build homes in our super awesome progressive blazing country. Private companies build and the gov zones them as 'public housing' (aka shitholes forever) then pays a portion of the rent for the tenants that is pretty muched some number based on your skin colour * number of kids (as far as I can tell anyway).

and your expert solution would be.....?

Using a tool to cause my death is also homicide. Continuing to use our metaphors, if, say, someone grabbed a snowblower and used that to hike up the poor woman's skirts, she's still being harassed. Unless your employer is responsible for setting out the fundamental laws of the universe (in the case of "I need food in my belly" the first law of thermodynamics), you're not being forced into working for him. If anyone is forcing you to work it's your parents for having conceived you. Go cry about wage slavery to your mother, she's the most culpable.

Nobody believes that bullshit.

>All those white brits

Good job destroying your country, fucking cuckolded liberal faggots.

Violence through inaction is violence no less.

>implying they aren't eastern Europeans

Nobody believes what, in particular? That the reason you have to eat is because of nature, and not because of anything your boss ever did? I'd hazard to guess that most people understand that, even most social democrats. We've had compulsory schooling for a long time after all, and I'd hope the first law of thermodynamics is a part of that.

Unrelated, but that captcha was fucking bullshit. Had to click eighty different rivers, they just kept coming.

He has the way with the Ladies...

>Local women join MP Sadiq Khan for International Women's Day

Ya, sure, what a stud.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw his wife doesn't wear a hijab. At least that family's a little integrated I suppose.

...

Fuck this slide thread

Post great examples of Western culture instead:

youtube.com/watch?v=p9UWzJ0UEoA

They sound like meme policies.

He is a mayor not a magician. To me it looks he is just going to go into the pockets of more taxpayers.

America has some of these cheapest modern housing in the world. "We" are looking at some of your cities policies on housing to drop the price of housing over here.

The guy's clearly an apostate who just wants to have a calming impact on Islam, like Maajid Nawaz.

Won't work, though. You can't tame a rabid dog.