What’s the point of the Mayor of London?
Researcher
Yesterday, Zohran Mamdani won New York City’s mayoralty. The campaign drew extensive local, national and international coverage (and attempted coverage). There have been genuine policy debates regarding NYC’s future. And more than two million people voted – the highest turnout since 1969.
Contrast this with the evolving ‘debate’ about London’s governance and the next mayoral election in 2028. Major policy debates typically focus on specific issues – for example ULEZ or the Oxford Street MDC – rather than broader, citywide conversations, and Sadiq Khan’s apparent confirmation that he intends to run for a fourth term was largely met with apathy.
The differences between NYC and London cannot explain these differing levels of civic engagement and scrutiny. They are both global cities with similarly sized and diverse populations. Nor is it simply that Londoners are less engaged in politics. New communities are debating London’s future and, moreover, voter turnout was higher in the 2024 London mayoral election than in the 2021 NYC mayoral election. And nor can it solely be that the London mayoral election is not until 2028. Important developments are ongoing in the meantime – for example next year’s London council elections and the ongoing negotiations around London’s 2026/27 integrated settlement – yet these have been subject to even less debate.
Instead, London lacks the genuine citywide debate about its future that NYC has, likely because of how weak the London mayoralty is. They have limited means of independently raising taxation and, beyond a narrow remit, have no direct means of influencing policy or service delivery.
Nevertheless, while the London mayor’s formal powers are limited – dampening civic engagement and raising the question “what is the point of the Mayor of London?” – they still, as the directly elected leader of the UK’s largest city, wield substantial informal authority. Used correctly, this can deliver meaningful results.
At the London level the mayor, while lacking direct control in many policy areas, can still achieve outcomes through influence and collaboration. Examples of this have grown in recent years, such as the London Growth Plan produced in collaboration with London Councils. At the national level the mayor can pressure central government for further devolution of fiscal and policy powers. England’s northern mayors – for example Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin – have been particularly adept at doing this in recent years. And at the international level the mayor can champion London’s competitiveness and openness to trade, talent and investment.
London’s mayor undoubtedly requires additional powers (watch out for our upcoming report on this). Securing them would allow the mayor to better drive London forward and catalyse a wider debate – in the manner of NYC – about how these powers should be deployed. It is welcome that there are growing calls for devolution to London.
Yet London’s mayor already possesses substantial informal authority which, if used well, can deliver tangible improvements now. Calls for greater powers in the future must run in parallel with scrutiny and debate about how existing powers are being exercised today.