Sadiq Khan was nominated for a life peerage by outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer in July 2026 as part of a list of 26 new peers. He was created Baron Khan of Tooting and sworn into the House of Lords on 15 September 2026 while continuing as Mayor of London. Supporters cite his record on crime reduction, air quality, housing and infrastructure as justification.
A peerage for a sitting mayor became a proxy for two judgments: whether Sadiq Khan deserved recognition, and whether the honours system deserved defending at all. No won decisively, while the room’s arguments were strikingly more animated than its Yes case.
The winning side’s most-respected argument was a broad indictment of Khan’s record, declaring that “He has made life hell for motorists with an ever expanding LEZ and ULEZ.” Other No voices widened the charge to policing, housing and alleged failures over grooming gangs, with one simply opening: “No! It’s disgraceful!”
Yes voters made a narrower, more procedural case. The floor’s strongest Yes argument said, “It was Starmer’s right to offer him one as an outgoing PM,” while another accepted the Lords’ defects but argued that Khan was “a successful mayor” and therefore a plausible appointee.
That was where the two sides talked past each other: Yes treated the existing system as the relevant test, while No treated the system itself as disqualifying. “Nobody should be given a peerage,” one No voter wrote; another said the appointment undermined the need for “genuine constitutional reform in the Lords.”
The vote was therefore not simply a rejection of Khan’s record. It was a rebuke to the idea that political service, in this case, could confer legitimacy on an appointed chamber already regarded by many voters here as beyond repair.
“I think it is reasonable he was given one. This is currently how it works. It doesn't change the fact however that we need reform in the HoL.”
YES case · BelsieBoo · 3 respects
“Khan has a bad record as mayor. He has pretended the rape gang issue doesn’t exist and stopped resources going to policing and investigating it. A disgraceful decision, motivated by a nakedly partisan and sectarian desire to protect his ethnic minority voting base. He has wasted taxpayer money on pointless DEI scams. He has made life hell for motorists with an ever expanding LEZ and ULEZ.”
NO case · Seneca · 7 respects
% voting yes, by leaning
This referendum settled before 29 September 2026, when refnation's current method began, so its result is a plain count of Yes and No. It is kept here as an archive: refnation's record starts on 29 September 2026.
Is Andy Burnham doing a good job as Prime Minister?
Personnel · 1,484 votes · No 54%
Should Ed Miliband be removed as Foreign Secretary for meeting the Iranian commissioner?
Personnel · 1,337 votes · No 65%
Should the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, resign over handing an award to Muslim cleric who praised Bin Laden?
Personnel · 965 votes · 64% voted Yes
Should Nigel Farage resign after "plotting to break law on foreign donations"?
Personnel · 552 votes · 57% voted Yes
Is Kemi Badenoch right to remove Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
Personnel · 395 votes · 75% voted Yes
Should Harry and Meghan receive taxpayer-funded security upon returning to the UK?
Personnel · 301 votes · 74% voted No
Should Zack Polanski resign as Green Party leader?
Personnel · 284 votes · 56% voted Yes
Is Andy Burnham evidence that democracy in the UK is a mere illusion?
Personnel · 254 votes · 55% voted Yes
36 Opinions
Khan has a bad record as mayor. He has pretended the rape gang issue doesn’t exist and stopped resources going to policing and investigating it. A disgraceful decision, motivated by a nakedly partisan and sectarian desire to protect his ethnic minority voting base. He has wasted taxpayer money on pointless DEI scams. He has made life hell for motorists with an ever expanding LEZ and ULEZ.
He should be deported.
No! It's disgraceful! I'm only allowed 480 characters so can't list every reason, but any of these should be reason enough: ULEZ, Attitude to r#pe gangs, support of nut Zero, support of antisemitic organisations, policing, anti free speech.
Khan is a huge threat to the UK
The guy has destroyed London covered up grooming gangs like his mates Burnham n Starmer
I don’t believe failure should be rewarded. His contempt for the rest of his councillors shows on his face every time he comes before them.
They say you're never more than a metre away from a rat in the Houses of Parliament. He's just proven that theory.
Nothing to do with Khan - the HoL is an anachronistic nonsense and shouldn’t exist.
The whole honours system is a bit of a joke. Honours given to friends and sycophants. Khan is a massive hypocrite, having previously called for the abolition of the HoL. Which I do agree with, we should have an elected upper chamber. People get professional courtesy. Respect has to be earned. I wouldn't call any of them Lord and I wouldn't call many "Sir". (unless they can defeat me in armed or unarmed combat in an old style tournament lol. )
Should be given a hail sentence for saying no rape gangs in londonstan . Wonder why!