After our recent general election delivered a hung parliament, Britain is now being governed collaboratively, with positions of power occupied by politicians from different parties. However, this collaborative form of governing has been going on in London for the past decade, receiving support from both the general public and politicians.
At the centre of London’s political structure is the Mayor – currently Boris Johnson – who serves four year terms and is elected by Londoners. This independent vote means the Mayor of London is not necessarily aligned with the political party running the country, a result that London has seen on no less than two separate occasions in the short history of its Mayoral system.
However, Johnson has little involvement in the day-to-day running of this metropolis, with this being done by the 32 boroughs that make up Greater London. Whilst the Mayor works with each borough to ensure the delivery of his strategic vision for the capital, public services like social housing, refuse collection and schooling are managed locally.
The Mayor is responsible for transport, planning and development, policing, fire services, environmental issues and the general economic well-being of the city, and has a total budget of less than £2 billion. So whilst Johnson is not involved in the implementation of public services on a local level, he is actively involved in the services that affect London as a whole, but his budgetary choices are closely scrutinised.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) calls itself a “strategic authority with a Londonwide role to design a better future for the capital” and it exists to provide administrative support to the Mayor in his efforts to improve London.
The GLA also exists to support the work of the London Assembly – a panel of 25 elected members who scrutinise the actions of the Mayor and investigate matters of importance to London. The Assembly directly question the Mayor on his policies and spending plans, and have some limited powers to change the way he governs the city – but cannot remove him from office.
This relative independence is typical of the London mayoral system. The GLA and London Assembly ensure the Mayor’s role is undertaken successfully, but neither have the power to directly remove him from office. Similarly, the Mayor does not have the right to restructure either of these authorities without national government support.
Of course, this wouldn’t be the United Kingdom without at least one ancient, historically-led exception to the rule, which in this case is the City of London. Located directly in the centre of London, the City of London is the historic core of the city which today acts as its main business and financial district.
Classed as its own city, the City of London has a separate Mayor known as the Lord Mayor of London, leading an administrative body traditionally known as the Corporation of London. The Lord Mayor’s role is unpaid, and exists to promote the financial and business services on offer in the City. Despite comprising an ancient system of wards, committees and community assemblies, the responsibilities of the Corporation are similar to the 32 borough councils, and may be thought of as London’s 33rd borough.
Ensuring taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and scrutinising the decision-making of senior members of government should be a priority throughout politics, and London has done a commendable job in creating regulatory bodies that ensure this happens. However, now that its mayoral system is fully established its operational style is moving beyond collaboration and into complication. Thankfully, Britain’s newly elected coalition government agrees with this and the political structure of its capital city is undergoing serious reform.
The first change – considered by many to be long overdue – was abolishing the Government Office for London (GOL). Established before the Greater London Authority, it served an almost identical purpose, instead reporting to the national government. As the Tory Troll reported, Liberal Democrat Caroline Pidgeon had this to say on scrapping the GOL:
The Government Office for London has been on borrowed time ever since the creation of the Mayor and London Assembly in 2000. It is a superfluous bureaucracy which we can all do without.
This change in London’s political structure hints at a more independent political future for London, something Johnson strongly supports:
Despite providing this world city with clear leadership, the mayoralty has few formal powers, despite substantial informal powers. This will no longer do … It is time to act and, with a new coalition government strongly supportive of devolving powers, we must seize the day for London.
Whilst every political change brings an element of risk, the Paris and New York mayoralties suggest that transferring more powers to the Mayor of London is a realistic goal. In comparison to the limited powers Johnson currently holds, Paris’ Mayor Bertrand Delanoë has a budget of around £6 billion and is also responsible for primary schooling and social housing.
The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, governs a constituency with a similar population and wealth to that of London, and has a budget of £30 billion covering all city services, property, policing, fire services and schooling.
If the coalition government’s plans go ahead as currently stated, London’s Mayor will soon see increased powers more equivalent to his international peers, including increased control over the budget for housing and regeneration.
Of course, if the Mayor’s political powers are to increase, it is vital that his accountability increases similarly. What has perhaps been most successful about London’s mayoral system to date is the structure of the organisations monitoring his political decision making. Therefore the responsibilities of the Greater London Authority and the London Assembly need to evolve alongside the Mayor’s in order to ensure that the new powers granted to him really do exist to create a better future for the capital.
Photo: Robert Gigliotti
