Londoners faced with limited options for mayor amid poverty

Subscribe to receive updates on the London mayoral election for free.

We will send you a daily email digest, called myFT Daily Digest, summarizing the latest news on the London mayoral election every morning.

The author is a senior fellow at the Institute for Government.

Becoming the mayor of London should be an immensely appealing political position. It offers a significant personal mandate, the opportunity to govern a global city, a national profile, and relatively few responsibilities with strong chances of re-election.

However, in the upcoming May election, Londoners will only have a choice between re-electing Sadiq Khan for a third term (despite being at odds with the Labour leadership, potentially costing them the Uxbridge by-election) or voting for Susan Hall, the Conservative candidate. Hall, a former councillor from Harrow turned London Assembly member, is not a well-known figure on the national stage. Prominent former ministers, such as Sajid Javid and Justine Greening, were only speculatively considered for a Tory ticket, and never officially selected.

Considering these front-runners, the time is ripe for an independent candidate. Prior to the 2020 mayoral race being postponed due to Covid, Rory Stewart, a former Conservative MP and minister (now out of the party), intended to run as an independent. In 2000, Ken Livingstone, having been denied the Labour nomination, defeated his official opponent in the first round and went on to win against the Tory challenger Steve Norris in the second round, thus becoming mayor for two terms.

Livingstone’s surprising success, which rebuked Tony Blair and made headlines worldwide, was made possible by the supplementary vote system introduced by the New Labour government when the mayoralty was established. This voting system, used for the election of metro and combined authority mayors, as well as police and crime commissioners across England and Wales, allows voters to express their second preference. It offers a compressed version of France’s two-round vote for president, allowing voters to choose a viable alternative or the “least worst” candidate if they can anticipate who will make it to the final two. However, next year’s elections will be different as the government has amended the Elections Act to impose the first-past-the-post system, aligning it with UK general elections. The opposition from Labour was relatively muted, with ministers claiming that the supplementary vote system was “overcomplicated and confusing.” Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that under the previous system, the winner in mayoral and police commissioner races was not always the person who would have won under the first-past-the-post system. In fact, in two-thirds of contests, an independent or smaller party candidate placed second after the first round emerged as the ultimate victor. The success of the climate-focused “Teals” in Australia’s recent parliamentary elections, held under the alternative vote system, demonstrated the potential for preferential voting systems to enable outsiders to win. It’s no surprise that major parties prefer a system that helps protect their monopoly on power. The barrier for any outside challengers in the London mayoral race has now become much higher, discouraging potential candidates.

There are broader implications as well. Under the previous system, which required reaching 50% of the final tally, parties sought out candidates with appeal beyond their core voters. This was one factor that led David Cameron to persuade Boris Johnson to run successfully in 2008, providing him with a springboard to Downing Street. Having broader support is advantageous in office, as mayors need to collaborate with other parties locally and sometimes work with governments of different political leanings. They must also be willing to stand up to national leaders within their own party if national policies do not align with local interests. A wider local mandate gives them legitimacy.

The ability to operate beyond partisan politics is a hallmark of successful mayors. Both Labour and the Conservatives acknowledge the importance of mayors in the devolution agenda. However, we seem to have disregarded a system that effectively granted mayors more influence with minimal debate. London politics will suffer as a result.