[BillEllson]

Greater London is made up of 32 London Boroughs and the City of London that provide the vast majority of municipal services. Each has a mayor or Lord Mayor. The powers and responsibilities of London Boroughs, and the local authority responsibilities of the City of London Corporation are set out in statute law, not delegated by the Mayor of London.

The Mayor of London is responsible for public transport, Fire and Rescue Services, major highways, some major town planning issues across the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London, and policing across the 32 London Boroughs. The Mayor of London has no general authority over any of the 33.

[arrowsmith]

Something else that a lot of younger people don't realize is the position "Mayor of London" is only 24 years old. London had no city-wide government between 1985 and 2000, and the pre-1985 council didn't have a mayor.

Personally I'd enthusiastically vote for a return to the pre-2000 system as it's not at all clear to me what these people do for us or what we gain from giving them all this money.

[pjc50]

The London Mayor and more recently the Manchester Mayor have been huge successes in transport coordination. I don't think many people would a priori say "the best structure for a large city is fifty non-coordinated boroughs". You could make a clearer case for abolishing the boroughs (especially some of the more corrupt and incompetent ones) and running the city as a unitary whole.

The only reason the GLC was abolished in the first place was naked party politics.

[bhickey]

> especially some of the more corrupt and incompetent ones

Do you have particular boroughs in mind?

[pjc50]

The mayor of Tower Hamlets is one of the few people in the UK to have a conviction for electoral fraud. Somehow this didn't stop him getting elected again.

[philipwhiuk]

> and the pre-1985 council didn't have a mayor.

True but it had a council leader.

> Personally I'd enthusiastically vote for a return to the pre-2000 system as it's not at all clear to me what these people do for us or what we gain from giving them all this money.

A failing on your part. About half of it is TFL.

Budget https://www.london.gov.uk/media/100391/download?attachment

[OJFord]

Unless different to the rest of the country though, not directly elected (to the leader role), which I assume was the point, since a mayor is.

Mind you, we don't vote for parties to govern or which member to lead them (and it needn't be an MP) either, but it doesn't stop people talking like we do. (I'm voting Labour - no you're not, you're voting for the Labour candidate in your area. I'm voting for Rishi Sunak - you're almost certainly not, the vast majority of people not being in his constituency. Etc.)

[mejutoco]

> Mind you, we don't vote for parties to govern or which member to lead them (and it needn't be an MP) either, but it doesn't stop people talking like we do.

You are technically correct, but those pesky people are onto something. In practice people that voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 did not vote for Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak, yet still were governed by them.

You are voting for a candidate, but their party might decide the next pm with the input of their members only.

[vidarh]

The pre-2000 system happened because Thatcher didn't like having a London government that represented the views of London voters, which was far more left wing.

That it what it gives us: Representation in a region more populous than most countries which is politically often poorly aligned with the national government.

The 1985 power-grab by Thatcher was deeply anti-democratic.

[bobthepanda]

regional coordination of services like transport is the big one. as a general example, if it were just the councils, Crossrail probably would not have gotten off the ground. And TfL is probably the only authority bucking the general British trend of bus services totally collapsing.