Abolish the Mayor of London, take back control of the capital

Another Blairite log for the pyre

There is a growing consensus across the British Right for a Great Repeal or Restoration Act. The Blairite state, blindly embraced by the Tories, is now seen as a key cause of the country’s woes, straitjacketing politicians and ushering in an era of blob rule. So ingrained is this belief that it has become the means to measure the likely success of a future Reform Government. It is no longer a question of if they can win, but whether they will go far enough.

Despite initial apprehension, the signs are promising. Operation Restoring Justice, Reform’s plan to secure the border and deport all illegal migrants, commits to leaving the ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act, and disapplying a number of international agreements — ideas considered nothing short of sacrilege under the previous Conservative Government, and central tenets of the Blairite project. Nigel Farage, during a recent visit to the US pledged to discard any and all laws that infringe on free speech. Agent provocateur Arron Banks has argued for abolishing the Judicial Appointments Commission, a position echoed by Richard Tice. All of this is very encouraging.

To this growing pyre, I make my own suggestion, another Labour invention destined to go up in flames: the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which established the Greater London Authority, the London Assembly, and the Mayor of London.

The creation of the Greater London Authority consolidated housing, transport, policing, and a range of new powers under a single entity headed by an elected Mayor. These responsibilities were previously held by an uncoordinated mess of local councils and national bodies, a legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s decision to abolish the Greater London Council (GLC) in 1986 after it became a hotbed of opposition to her Government.

While I believe it makes sense for authority in London to remain centralised and would not advocate simply returning to the pre-1999 model, it is my contention that a Reform Government should abolish the London Assembly and the Mayor of London, transferring most of their powers to a Minister for London, situated within the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Local councils in London will continue to exist and for the most part continue to hold the powers that they currently do, but will not be further empowered. Such a move, although radical, draws on historical precedent: not only Thatcher’s own dismantling of the GLC, but also the revival of a ‘Minister for London’ under the Conservatives from 2016 to 2024, albeit one that, characteristically, wielded no real authority and whose achievements remain unknown.

Why should Reform abolish the Mayor of London?

Simply put, Reform is never going to win in London. Even the Conservatives seem likely to be locked out of power there forever. Unless the boundaries are completely mutilated to include large swathes of Essex, Kent, and other parts of the commuter belt (none of which are likely to want to be governed by London in the first place), the numbers just do not add up. Yet London is our nation’s capital and, for better or for worse, plays an outsized role economically and culturally. There is zero upside in allowing a subversive Mayor to sabotage the Government’s agenda. Unlike most other regional counterparts, the Mayor of London has substantial power: they are not someone you can just ignore.

Thankfully, this notoriety is also the role’s greatest downfall, with all three officeholders now deeply unpopular for various reasons. Perhaps the least destructive, ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone (2000-08), will be most fondly remembered for his love of terrorists and his continued agitation for the socialist policies that define our current malaise. He was pushed out by the traitorous Boris Johnson (2008-16), who used the mayoralty as a launchpad for his disastrous national ambitions. This leads us to the third and current occupant, Sadiq Khan (2016-): the less said about him, the better.

No doubt Reform’s detractors will scream that such a policy is a naked power grab; after all, the people of London voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of the GLA in a referendum in 1998. True enough, but I don’t think that this is a legitimate reason not to pursue it. When Reform wins, it will be an all-out war with the current regime. They should use every weapon in their arsenal. Is one less London politician a bad thing? Would this not be a victory for the ‘left-behind’?

The unifying logic behind New Labour’s rewiring of the state was a desire to undermine parliamentary sovereignty by moving power away from the democratically elected to a permanent managerial class. Where ‘democracy’ was still seen as necessary, they deliberately tipped the balance towards their preferred outcome by manipulating electoral boundaries and through demographic change. Therefore, the real test for the success of a future Reform Government will be its willingness to repeal the ‘democratic’ elements of the intentionally undemocratic Blairite state. It is comparatively easy to leave the ECHR or dissolve an unknown quango. But can they reverse mass immigration, remove the Mayor of London, or undo Scottish and Welsh devolution? Last month’s ILR announcement, immediately branded a ‘threat to democracy’ by The Guardian, shows that Reform is on the right path.

With the Mayor gone, what should the Minister for London do?

There are many national policies that Reform will introduce which will benefit London. They are not the focus of this article. Instead, I propose a novel solution; a possible silver bullet that could go a long way in changing our capital’s fortunes.

The City of London is the financial district of London. It is the ancient core from which the rest of London developed. It has been a centre for settlement, trade, commerce, and ceremony since the Roman period. In just 1.12 square miles, the City counts 8,600 residents, 678,000 workers, and millions of domestic and international visitors, generating £109 billion in economic output annually, or 4% of all UK GVA. With more large firms than all of Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds, the City generates more in business rates than those three cities combined. The City is also a local authority governed by the City of London Corporation. The Corporation conducts all the ordinary work of a public authority, such as raising taxes and delivering services.

However, the Corporation has many unique features that distinguish it from other state institutions. It has maintained its own system of government since before the Norman Conquest (a Court of Aldermen is recorded in 1032). It has its own Lord Mayor, separate from the Mayor of London. It has its own police force, independent of the Metropolitan Police. Crucially, both businesses and residents of the City are entitled to vote in Corporation elections. It is for that reason that many have labelled the City a pseudo-oligarchy. Perhaps it says something about my politics, but the City is objectively the best-administered part of London. Just ask a Londoner.

The City is bordered by Westminster, Camden, Islington, Hackney, and Tower Hamlets councils, all of which are conventional local authorities. Of predominant interest to this article are Camden, Islington, and Tower Hamlets.

In the south-eastern tip of Tower Hamlets stands Canary Wharf, London’s upstart financial centre and fierce rival to the City. But between these two living monuments to wealth and power squats Whitechapel, the personal fiefdom of Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman (yes, there is another London Mayor) and source of many a ‘London Has Fallen’ video. Rahman, born in Sylhet, Bangladesh, was removed as Mayor and barred from holding public office for five years after being convicted of electoral fraud in the 2014 Tower Hamlets election. In 2022, no longer barred from office, he was again elected Mayor of Tower Hamlets by his loyal minions, many of whom are also, as it happens, from Sylhet, Bangladesh, with the majority living in heavily-subsidised social housing. Certain areas in London — including, we can assume, Whitechapel — were even recently described by Bangladesh’s ambassador as a home away from home:

‘I’m fortunate. When I was posted in Mexico and South Korea, my homesickness was worse and hit hardest at mealtimes. But so much of London — especially East London — feels like Bangladesh. I’m looking forward next year to iftar [the breaking of daily fast during Ramadan] in Trafalgar Square.’

—Abida Islam, High Commissioner of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom

Tower Hamlets, and Whitechapel in particular, is hopelessly corrupt and a blight on our city. It is an international disgrace. A Reform Government cannot allow this to stand.

Rather less horrendous is the southern corner of Camden, where you will find Euston, King’s Cross, and St Pancras train stations, important transport hubs both domestically and internationally. It is also the base for several US tech firms, including Facebook, Google, and its British subsidiary, DeepMind. Over the border in champagne-socialist Islington, you find the heart of London’s start-up scene, enthusiastically labelled ‘Silicon Roundabout’ by politicians and detractors alike. These places aren’t bad, but there is still far more that could be done.

This seven-square-mile arc could represent the greatest collection of human capital ever assembled. A place where extraordinary Brits do extraordinary things. Like Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam, a line of glistening skyscrapers will one day violently stretch inwards from these two competing financial centres. Set back from the Thames behind beautifully-converted brick wharves and newly-constructed mansion blocks, statues of Alfred, Pitt, and Salisbury will stand in pride of place along oak-flanked avenues. A Gail’s on every corner; youth centres replaced by pubs selling only the finest Somerset ciders; all food delivery services banned unless completed by autonomous drone or robot.

To achieve this grand vision, I propose two significant initiatives. First, the City of London Corporation’s authority should be extended (whether they like it or not), swallowing the entirety of the troublesome Tower Hamlets as well as the southern portions of Camden, Islington, and Hackney councils. The City of London Police should also see their remit expanded, becoming the premier local police force in the country, taking responsibilities away from the woeful Metropolitan Police. Most importantly, suffrage would not be automatically granted to residents in the expanded authority. A new model would need to be negotiated to maintain the City’s current demographics in terms of both the business-to-citizen ratio and the types of businesses and individuals. Elections would continue as normal in the City, but with an increased area of control. If for whatever reason it proves impossible to pursue this initiative under the authority of the City itself, then similar powers should be taken over this area by a new organisation that directly reports to the Minister for London but works closely with the City of London Corporation.

Second, the Minister for London should establish a new London Development Corporation (LDC) following the model of the highly successful London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC). The LDDC was a quango set up in the 1980s tasked with reviving the London Docklands into what we know today as Canary Wharf. Like the LDDC, the LDC would report directly to the Minister for London, rather than to local councils, operating across London but with a focus on the newly expanded City. The LDC would, however, be of a rather grander scale than the LDDC.

The aim of LDC? Demolish and redevelop vast swathes of the capital, replacing dull, dilapidated twentieth-century housing with denser developments that adhere to strict aesthetic guidelines. Areas of concentrated social housing would be the main priority, as well as those with good transport links, low density, and buildings of little architectural or historic merit. The LDC would have complete control over planning, drawing up master plans alongside developers, and using compulsory purchase orders to take over the land. Finally, the LDC would have a sunset clause to prevent institutional inertia and mission creep.

Taken together, these two policies, coupled with generally improved governance and planning deregulation, would fundamentally reshape the capital’s urban landscape, unlocking London’s latent potential and restoring its future.

In closing, I will invoke the words of the Lion of Lanarkshire, Zia Yusuf. Britain is at an inflection point; no longer content with its decline or learned helplessness, she stirs, restless. The veil has been lifted, and her shackles are now visible; all that remains is the will to remove them. Will Reform do it? There is reason to be optimistic.

---

This article was written by an anonymous Pimlico Journal contributor. Have a pitch? Send it to submissions@pimlicojournal.co.uk.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing. If you are already subscribed, why not upgrade to a paid subscription?