London Calling? The Mayor of London at 25

Since it was created 25 years ago, the institution of the Mayor of London has been broadly viewed as a positive change for the city. In polling terms, the Mayor of London has high name recognition, and has generally had higher approval ratings than other UK politicians. Yet, more recently, some commentators have raised criticisms, claiming that as the Mayoralty turns 25 there are ‘lingering doubts about its purpose and power’.

We argue that the Mayor of London has been a success. Despite constrained powers, the possibility of direct election, individual leadership, and security of office have allowed successive mayors to develop a powerful combination of placed based leadership, policy and vision that remains a unique feature in the overcentralised landscape of subnational governance in England.

The Mayor of London: Strong and Weak?

A key characteristic of the institution of the Mayor of London is that it is simultaneously strong and weak: it is a powerful figure within the Greater London Authority (GLA), but relatively powerless beyond it. On paper, any occupant of City Hall is given a strong electoral mandate, alongside political legitimacy and high-profile accountability. But critics claim that London’s ‘Strong Mayor’ model is in reality remains under-powered and under-funded, and rests on an ‘uneasy compromise’ with central government above and London’s 32 boroughs below.

The Mayor’s direct election

The fundamental source of Mayoral power is direct election, which gives the Mayor of London a special and unmediated connection with the city, and a high degree of authority and visibility. The London Mayor has the largest personal mandate of any UK politician with a 6.2 million electorate in 2024. Mayoral elections have been crucial decision points and can be read as de facto referendums on ‘London issues’. Direct elections create clear mandates, as when Khan’s historic third victory offered a reboot of his ULEZ policy. Their strong mandate also has enabled London Mayors to speak on behalf of the city in times of crisis, as after the London bombings of 7/7 or during Brexit.

The personal mandate has allowed Mayoral candidates to run campaigns autonomous from-or even against-the positions of their parties. All three Mayors inevitably engaged in, or were unable to resist, the politics of spectacle from ceremonies to international rows, and commentaries on events. All three have given into the temptation to push media driven, populist or contrarian politics, from Johnson’s controversial defence of bankers during the economic crisis, to Khan’s conflict with President Trump.

The Mayor as a clear point of leadership

Since 1999 Mayoral policy has been heavily personalised. London has seen a succession of policies which are ‘visible’ in Londoner’s everyday life and traceable to Mayors. Transport has been central, as the only truly independent Mayoral policy power. Travers identified the congestion charge, bike hire and ULEZ as uniquely Mayoral changes, with a group of other reforms which would ‘probably not have happened’ without them, such as Oyster cards and the overground development (and perhaps the Elizabeth Line).

Some policy was also, on a deeper level, personal to each Mayor. Livingstone continued championing gay rights, Khan has been a supporter of minority rights, and championing of air quality was driven in part by his personal experience of adult-onset asthma and the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrahin in 2020 (the first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death). Johnson wrote in 2024 of his own personal conversion to climate change while Mayor, which led him to push electric vehicles and air pollution reductions.

Most importantly for the Mayors, their actions were tied to success. Livingstone’s 2003 congestion charge reduced traffic and air pollution, and Khan’s ULEZ made marked improvements to air quality and, to a lesser extent, well-being. Johnson stands out as the Mayor with the fewest policy successes, in part because his approach was marked by caution and a tendency to promise (but not deliver) grandiose building projects. His one major scheme, ULEZ, became associated with his successor.

Stability in Office

The security of office has allowed successive Mayors to follow a clear place-based vision for London. At the centre, and perhaps the one great continuity of the mayoralty so far, has been the prioritisation of the environment. London is not just a Labour city, argued Sadiq Khan, but also a green one.

The flipside of the argument concerns weak accountability. The Assembly lacks the mechanisms to properly challenge a mayor. Moreover, the fact that two Mayors have been elected for two terms and one for three is indicative of an entrenched advantage. Livingstone himself warned that a future London Mayor faces few effective checks, and called for a new removal power for the Assembly in the case of corruption.

Conclusions: Stronger than they seem?

Despite doubts, the Mayor of London is a stronger office than it seems. The institution has been stable and robust over the twenty-five years. Direct election gives power and a platform that has allowed successive Mayors to develop a distinctive form of place-based leadership and, frequently, policy success (and perception of success). All the three Mayors cultivated a representative claim for London, and ‘led by persuasion’. The lesson so far is that a successful Mayor is a pro-active and energetic one, especially when an incumbent chooses to be bold, as Livingstone and Khan did.

The Mayor of London stands out to voters above other local and national politicians with higher name recognition and approval ratings. There are signs that Mayoral policies can attract voters and are linked to perceptions of effectiveness though this has narrowed somewhat in the last few years.

But London’s three Mayors have showed a tendency to media spectacles and gestures, perhaps, built into the lopsided prestige and power of the institution. The security of the ‘Strong Mayor’ model has also raised concerns around a lack of sufficient accountability, corruption and the potential for misuse of the platform for personal ambition.