This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/mar/23/london-mayor-race-goldsmith-campaign-embarrassment-by-its-leaflets-aimed-at-indians
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| London mayor race: Goldsmith campaign 'embarrassment' over its leaflets aimed at Indians | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The backlash against Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith’s attempts to arouse suspicion among London’s Asian communities towards his main rival, Labour’s Sadiq Khan, has intensified with a British Indian Tory councillor describing his approach as “clumsy” and “reckless” and reporting that Goldsmith’s own campaign chair had admitted to her that the tactic has caused embarrassment. | |
| Writing in the Telegraph, Binita Mehta, who leads the Conservative group on Watford Council, describes bumping into Nick de Bois, the former MP for Enfield North, on the Tube and sharing with him her anxiety about his team’s attempts to woo Indian Londoners with leaflets proclaiming Goldsmith’s support for Indian prime minister Narendra Modi. “He admitted that we should have seen this coming and acted sooner to avoid embarrassment,” she says. Widening her observations to black and ethnic minority voters more generally, she added: | |
| I hope we are ensuring that people “like me” feel that supporting Goldsmith is something they want to do. Indeed, elections are all about savvy strategising to maximise limited resources. But, in pursuing the suburban Indian vote, for example, it must be recognised that a blanket approach can seem stereotypical and patronising, and will certainly turn people off. I hate to have to say this but obviously we “BMEs” are much more sophisticated than these targeted letters suggest. | I hope we are ensuring that people “like me” feel that supporting Goldsmith is something they want to do. Indeed, elections are all about savvy strategising to maximise limited resources. But, in pursuing the suburban Indian vote, for example, it must be recognised that a blanket approach can seem stereotypical and patronising, and will certainly turn people off. I hate to have to say this but obviously we “BMEs” are much more sophisticated than these targeted letters suggest. |
| Mehta’s piece follows criticism on Twitter from the Telegraph’s arts and entertainment editor Anita Singh, who described a Goldsmith leaflet claiming that “Sadiq Khan won’t stand up for London’s Sikh and Punjabi community” as “despicable negative campaigning” and a letter from David Cameron mentioning his visit to the sacred Golden Temple in Amritsar as “patronising crap.” Goldsmith literature aimed at Sikh, Tamil and Indian Londoners alike contends that Labour “supports a wealth tax on family jewellery,” a claim the Tory’s team has justified by referring to shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s saying he would like a fairer taxation system. Singh tweeted that “Zac Goldsmith weirdly seems to think everyone called Singh is sitting on a stash of gold.” | |
| Writing for the Independent, Jasvir Singh, who lives in Khan’s constituency of Tooting, said a letter he’d received from Goldsmith was “patronising,” “disingenuous” and “promotes divisions between communities,” demonstrating that “divide and rule seems to be the name of the game.” | Writing for the Independent, Jasvir Singh, who lives in Khan’s constituency of Tooting, said a letter he’d received from Goldsmith was “patronising,” “disingenuous” and “promotes divisions between communities,” demonstrating that “divide and rule seems to be the name of the game.” |
| Is that judgement harsh? Given that colleagues of controversial election strategist Sir Lynton Crosby are at the heart of Goldsmith’s operation and its typically negative Crosbyite approach, it doesn’t seem wide of the mark. Goldsmith himself, though, begs to differ, as he’s told Simon Hattenstone in a Guardian interview. Here’s an excerpt: | |
| Aren’t you just pandering to prejudices and stereotypes? “No,” he [Goldsmith] says. “It’s not a race element at all. I talk to different communities about their concerns. When I have a public meeting with British Indians, they worry about what’s happened to the Labour party – historically, these are people more likely to vote Labour than Conservative – and they’re worried about things like wealth tax and the fact that jewellery burglary is going up and they are being targeted because they tend to have more jewellery in their homes than most other people.”But you’re saying the jewellery is unsafe with Khan? “Yes, absolutely right. | Aren’t you just pandering to prejudices and stereotypes? “No,” he [Goldsmith] says. “It’s not a race element at all. I talk to different communities about their concerns. When I have a public meeting with British Indians, they worry about what’s happened to the Labour party – historically, these are people more likely to vote Labour than Conservative – and they’re worried about things like wealth tax and the fact that jewellery burglary is going up and they are being targeted because they tend to have more jewellery in their homes than most other people.”But you’re saying the jewellery is unsafe with Khan? “Yes, absolutely right. |
| Khan’s view? As he quipped to Adam Bienkov the other day: “Whether you’re a Tamil or a Hindu, your gold is safe with me.” A Goldsmith own goal? Hard to be sure. But could be. |