Sadiq Khan’s knighthood, bestowed in the 2025 New Year Honours list, sparked a predictable yet disproportionate backlash, highlighting the deeply polarized political climate and revealing underlying biases that transcend objective assessment of his mayoral record. While honors systems inherently invite debate due to their subjective nature, the intensity of the opposition directed at Khan suggests something more profound than mere disagreement over his performance. The petition against his knighthood, signed by over 200,000 people, serves as a testament to this sentiment, accusing him of devastating London and failing in his duties. However, a closer examination of Khan’s tenure reveals a complex picture that defies simplistic narratives of failure. His three consecutive mayoral victories, the most recent in 2024 with a substantial margin, signify broad public support and contradict the petition’s claims of widespread dissatisfaction.
Khan’s mayoralty has unfolded against a backdrop of significant challenges, both inherited and unforeseen. He assumed office in 2016 inheriting pre-existing issues of housing shortages, air pollution, and strained transport infrastructure. These challenges were further exacerbated by the complexities of Brexit, the unprecedented disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ensuing economic uncertainties. Despite these hurdles, Khan has implemented policies that have yielded tangible positive outcomes. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), a flagship policy aimed at improving air quality, has demonstrably reduced pollution, exceeding expectations and contributing to a healthier environment for Londoners. This initiative, initially met with resistance, stands as a testament to Khan’s commitment to addressing critical environmental concerns and his ability to implement impactful change. Simultaneously, he has overseen the expansion of the underground network, increased cycling lanes, and frozen public transport fares, all contributing to a more sustainable and accessible transportation system.
However, critics often point to the persistent issue of knife crime as a mark of Khan’s alleged failure. This criticism selectively ignores the broader context of national cuts to public services, which have undoubtedly hampered efforts to address the root causes of crime. While Khan has invested millions in community projects aimed at tackling this complex issue, blaming him solely for its persistence overlooks the shared responsibility of national government and societal factors. Furthermore, Khan has reintroduced free school meals for state school children, a vital social safety net previously rescinded by the national government, demonstrating his commitment to supporting vulnerable families and ensuring access to basic necessities.
The attacks on Khan often extend beyond policy critiques, venturing into the realm of personal and often racially charged attacks. During his mayoral campaigns, opponents like Zac Goldsmith and Susan Hall employed divisive rhetoric, labeling him as “radical,” “divisive,” and a “dangerous experiment.” Such language, often interpreted as dog-whistle politics targeting his Muslim faith, contributed to a hostile environment and undoubtedly influenced public perception. The use of disparaging and Islamophobic language by figures associated with his opponents further fueled this negativity, creating an atmosphere where reasoned debate about his policies became increasingly difficult. This politically charged context is crucial to understanding the backlash against his knighthood, as it reveals how deeply ingrained biases and political motivations can overshadow objective assessment.
Comparing Khan’s mayoralty to his predecessors, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson, highlights a stark contrast in leadership styles. While Livingstone and Johnson often courted controversy and embraced a more theatrical approach, Khan has adopted a more measured and pragmatic style, prioritizing substance over spectacle. Johnson’s tenure, in particular, was characterized by grand pronouncements and flamboyant gestures that often masked a lack of tangible achievements. Khan’s focus on delivering concrete results, such as the ULEZ and improvements to public transport, stands in stark contrast to the performative nature of his predecessors. The petition against his knighthood, therefore, appears less about his actual record and more about a deep-seated opposition to his political persona and the values he represents.
The outrage over Khan’s knighthood pales in comparison to other controversial honors, such as the CBE awarded to Paula Vennells in 2019, despite her involvement in the Post Office Horizon scandal. This scandal, which resulted in wrongful prosecutions and immense suffering for hundreds of sub-postmasters, represents a far greater miscarriage of justice than any of the criticisms leveled against Khan. The disproportionate reaction to his knighthood, therefore, suggests an underlying prejudice that transcends any objective assessment of his merits. The comments from petition signatories, often laden with Islamophobic and xenophobic sentiments, further expose the true nature of the opposition. Phrases like “Khan is not for Britain” and “London is now a gang/crime-ridden, cesspit, multicultural melting pot” reveal a clear bias against Khan’s background and the diverse city he represents.
Ultimately, the backlash against Sadiq Khan’s knighthood serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by minority leaders in the public sphere. The intensity of the opposition, often fueled by prejudice and political motivations, highlights the need for a more nuanced and objective assessment of public figures. Khan’s achievements as mayor, despite facing numerous obstacles, deserve recognition. His knighthood is a testament to his resilience, his dedication to public service, and his commitment to creating a better London for all its citizens. The criticisms leveled against him, often rooted in bias and misinformation, should not detract from the positive impact he has made on the city and its diverse communities. The honor system itself, with its roots in the British Empire and its history of colonialism and racism, deserves scrutiny. However, the opposition to Khan’s knighthood seems less about the system and more about the individual being honored, revealing a deeper discomfort with the recognition of a Muslim leader in a position of prominence.
