With London headed to be completely governed by Labour, Sadiq Khan could lose his excuse for failing to deliver, writes Eliot Wilson
Although wild rumours flew for a few hours, Sadiq Khan was elected for a third term as mayor of London, as almost everyone expected. Despite the fleeting and implausible notion on Friday that she might have won, Conservative candidate Susan Hall attracted significantly fewer votes than Shaun Bailey had in 2021. Labour’s representative now has another four years running the capital, and his party holds 11 of the 25 seats in the London Assembly.
The post of mayor will celebrate its quarter-century next year. Only three men (a disparate bunch: Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson and Khan) have occupied it, but the existence of a governing figure for the capital city is taken as read, hardwired now into the way we do politics. In think tanks and academic institutions, earnest wonks and scholars trade ink over what powers the mayor should have but there is little call to do away with the post.
An elected mayor was, of course, a New Labour project. With 12 parts and 425 sections, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was the longest piece of legislation for 60 years. And it was a technocrat’s nirvana: laboratory conditions to create fair, balanced, accountable governance structures for the 21 century, in a city at least two thousand years old.
Some elements have worked better than others. While London benefits from a high-profile mayor who can represent the capital nationally and internationally, and has the largest personal mandate in Britain, the London Assembly is an anonymous and often ineffectual body. Comprising 25 elected members, it is supposed to hold the mayor to account and scrutinise his work, as well as examine issues of public concern.
But it has never quite found its groove. Assembly members struggle for a public profile, and its atmosphere reveals it as an awkward cross-breed. It is too small to be a battleground of great civic leaders, like the councils in New York or Paris, but the echoing space of the former City Hall’s debating chamber was too formal and exposed to make the assembly feel like a hands-on scrutiny committee.
The institutions are likely entering a new phase. With a Labour mayor and a docile assembly, there are few checks and balances. If Sir Keir Starmer wins the general election, Whitehall and City Hall will be in the hands of the same political brand for the first time since 2008. The Metropolitan Police, the Fire Brigade, Transport for London and GLA Land and Property all come under the mayor’s control, and the assembly has very little power to remove the mayor. It is reasonable to be anxious, then, that Khan’s third term will gift him considerable freedom of action and few restraints.
What should Londoners think about this, as taxpayers, commuters, employees, entrepreneurs, citizens? The most important factor is that Labour will find little structural opposition: the assembly can do little more than raise questions and perhaps scold the mayor, and the diminished Conservative group of eight assembly members may lack much spirit even for that.
It is time to think about the environment that Khan and Starmer might create. The mayor set out 10 clear pledges in his manifesto, although I argued last month that his Growth Plan is an exercise in positive thinking rather than a matter of imminent achievement. He will freeze TfL fares for at least a year, though we should note that TfL accounts for more than half of the mayor’s total revenue.
The only measure which is neither qualified nor given linguistic wiggle room is Khan’s commitment to build 40,000 new council houses by 2030. But the mayor is already arguing furiously with the government over how much progress he has made in increasing the housing stock, with homes taking years to complete. Nationally, Starmer has talked of “reforming” planning regulations, though what he means is unclear.
A huge amount of Labour’s offering rests on a hope that a new government will be fresher and more efficient. London should not expect any significant devolution of new powers, nor are the taps of public spending going to be opened. The mayor may have a spring in his step this week, but he should consider this: if Labour comes to power nationally, he may have lost his best defence against any failure to deliver. For eight years, a better tomorrow has been promised when the government changes. But there will be no excuses any more.
