Sadiq Khan is currently the Mayor of London. According to Neil Garratt, the real issue in London isn’t the role of the Mayor itself or the London Assembly that keeps him in check—it’s Sadiq Khan’s performance in that role.
Tony Lodge recently wrote an article raising doubts about whether having a London Mayor still makes sense after 25 years. But while Lodge points out some valid problems like transport issues, rising crime, and unaffordable housing he blames the system itself. Neil Garratt argues that’s the wrong conclusion. The problem, he says, isn’t the role of the Mayor but how Sadiq Khan has handled it.
For example, Transport for London (TfL), which manages the city’s public transport, has grown into a large and expensive organisation. Khan tends to side with Tube workers who go on strike rather than with regular Londoners just trying to get to work. His way of dealing with strikes—offering big payouts—only encouraged more strikes, not fewer.
However, not everything has been bad since the Mayor role was introduced. The Oyster card, a simple tap-in/tap-out travel card, was launched in 2003 under Mayor Ken Livingstone. Before that, people had to buy paper tickets. In 2014, Boris Johnson made it even easier by allowing contactless bank cards for travel, which has become very popular. This kind of innovation shows how a Mayor can bring change, just like Andy Burnham did in Manchester with a similar system.
Big projects like the Elizabeth Line and the Silvertown Tunnel also show the value of having a Mayor. These wouldn’t have happened as smoothly without someone in charge who could push them forward. Both of those projects began during Johnson’s time and were finished under Khan.
On crime, Garratt agrees with Lodge that it’s a big issue. But again, he argues the problem is not the Mayor’s role, but how Khan has managed it. Khan hasn’t done enough to support the police or hold them to high standards. Garratt even wrote a report with clear steps to reduce phone theft in London, but Khan and his Deputy Mayor didn’t take it seriously.
Housing is another area where Garratt feels Khan is failing. London’s housing crisis is still growing, even though the Mayor has the power to lead big housing projects. Instead of acting, Khan seems to blame others and make excuses. He’s also slow to develop large areas of land owned by the city, like Greenwich Peninsula and the Docklands. In contrast, Boris Johnson used his time as Mayor to push for more housing.
Garratt also points out that London’s economy—especially its industries like finance, media, and technology—is crucial to the UK’s future. That means London needs a Mayor who can lead confidently and help the city grow stronger.
If the Mayor’s role were scrapped, its powers would go back to the national government, not local boroughs. That would risk losing focus on London’s unique needs, especially for transport and policing. It’s better to have someone whose only job is to focus on London and who can be held accountable by voters.
Even Labour council leaders are getting frustrated with Khan’s leadership style. That’s a sign something’s wrong. London needs a Mayor who can unite people and take strong action—like when Johnson and Livingstone helped lead the successful Olympic Games.
The best part of having a Mayor is that voters can see who’s in charge and decide whether to keep them or not. Sadiq Khan’s poor leadership shouldn’t mean we get rid of the Mayor position. Instead, it should remind us why it’s important to elect someone better—someone who can fix London’s problems, keep people safe, and make the city a better place to live.
