A leading think tank has called for a radical overhaul of London’s political landscape, urging a reduction in the number of local councils and the creation of an “opposition mayor” to challenge Sadiq Khan‘s authority at City Hall.In a new report, policy experts argue that the capital’s current governance structure is fragmented, inefficient and ill-suited to tackling London’s mounting problems, from housing and transport to crime and social inequality. The proposals, which would reshape how power is distributed across the city, are likely to ignite a fierce debate over democratic accountability, local representation and the future balance of power in the capital.
Think tank proposes restructuring London governance with fewer borough councils
The research group’s blueprint would overhaul City Hall’s relationship with local authorities by cutting the current 32 boroughs down to a smaller set of larger, more powerful councils.Advocates say this slimmer structure would strip out duplicated bureaucracy, give town halls real clout over housing and transport, and make it clearer who is responsible when services fail. Critics counter that residents risk losing the close-knit representation offered by existing ward councillors, warning that bigger units of government may feel more distant just as London grapples with record housing pressures and a fragile post-pandemic recovery.
Alongside leaner town halls, the proposal sketches out a radically different political balance at the top of the capital. A new city-wide scrutiny figure, informally dubbed an “opposition mayor”, would be tasked with challenging the incumbent administration across policing, planning and spending – a move designed to sharpen accountability at a time of strained public finances.
- Fewer councils to centralise strategic decisions
- Stronger oversight of the sitting Mayor’s policies
- Clearer lines of duty for major projects
- Potential cost savings through shared back-office functions
| Current Structure | Proposed Model |
|---|---|
| 32 borough councils | Fewer, larger councils |
| Single executive Mayor | Mayor plus opposition-style city figure |
| Overlapping local services | More shared, city-wide functions |
Call for creation of an opposition mayor to scrutinise Sadiq Khan and City Hall decisions
A new proposal from a leading policy institute urges Londoners to consider an independent citywide figure whose sole mandate would be to question, challenge and review the decisions taken at City Hall. This option figurehead would not control budgets or executive powers, but instead operate as a publicly visible watchdog, interrogating key mayoral strategies on transport, policing, housing and environmental policy. Backers argue that such a role could inject sharper democratic oversight into a system where the executive currently dominates the political conversation and media narrative. They say it would act as a counterweight to concentrated authority, ensuring that major decisions are not only debated behind committee doors but also subjected to sustained, high-profile scrutiny in public.
- Public hearings on flagship projects and spending plans
- Regular reports benchmarking promises against outcomes
- Open data briefings on costs, delays and performance
- Direct engagement with residents, businesses and borough leaders
| Area | Mayor | Opposition Role |
|---|---|---|
| Transport | Sets fares and projects | Questions value and impact |
| Housing | Approves major schemes | Checks delivery and affordability |
| Policing | Defines strategic priorities | Tests effectiveness and trust |
Supporters present the idea as a way to sharpen accountability without adding another full layer of government, positioning the role as a civic auditor rather than a rival executive. They argue that, alongside streamlined borough structures, a dedicated challenger could fortify trust in London-wide governance by making complex decisions more obvious and contestable in real time. Critics, however, question whether London needs another high-profile political figure and warn that overlapping mandates could blur responsibility when policies go wrong, potentially confusing voters about who is ultimately answerable for the direction of the capital.
Experts warn current system leads to duplication inefficiency and democratic disconnect
Policy specialists argue that London’s patchwork of boroughs, agencies and City Hall bodies has created overlapping responsibilities that waste money and blur accountability.Residents can find themselves dealing with different authorities for housing, planning, transport and policing, only to discover that no single institution clearly owns the outcome.Analysts say this fragmentation not only inflates back-office costs but also makes long-term strategy harder, with multiple layers of bureaucracy slowing decisions on everything from new homes to climate adaptation.
Critics also point to a growing sense that Londoners struggle to see how their vote translates into real power over local priorities. With so many elected figures operating in parallel, scrutiny is dispersed and public debate can lose focus. Think tank researchers argue that a streamlined system, including a clearly defined counterweight at city level, could sharpen oversight of the mayoralty and reconnect people with the choices being made in their name. Key concerns highlighted include:
- Overlapping mandates between boroughs and citywide bodies
- Rising administrative costs for duplicated services
- Weak, fragmented scrutiny of major spending decisions
- Voters unsure who to hold responsible for failures
| Issue | Impact on Londoners |
|---|---|
| Multiple planning bodies | Slower housing approvals |
| Split transport powers | Inconsistent local services |
| Diffuse accountability | Less trust in city governance |
Policy recommendations outline phased reforms funding changes and enhanced local accountability
At the heart of the proposals is a staged overhaul of London’s governance, beginning with a rationalisation of borough boundaries and responsibilities rather than an overnight redrawing of the map. The think tank argues for a multi-year timetable in which current councils would be encouraged to merge functions, share back-office services and gradually move towards fewer, larger authorities. Under the plan, early phases would focus on voluntary collaboration, while later stages could be underpinned by statutory reform if progress stalls. To prevent disruption to frontline services, reforms would be sequenced against mayoral and local election cycles, with clear transition periods and published milestones.
The report also calls for a reset of how money flows from City Hall and Whitehall to local leaders, including a shift to multi-year settlements and performance-linked grants.A new “opposition mayor” role, elected citywide, would be given defined scrutiny powers and access to independent fiscal analysis, creating what the authors describe as a “permanent, resourced check” on the incumbent administration. Key elements include:
- Phased consolidation of boroughs, starting with shared services and joint committees.
- Rebalanced funding, tying a portion of grants to clear, published outcomes on housing, transport and safety.
- Stronger scrutiny through an empowered rival citywide figure with guaranteed access to data and expert advice.
- Local accountability charters for each new or merged authority, co-designed with residents.
| Phase | Main Focus | Accountability Tool |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Voluntary service sharing | Public transition dashboards |
| Phase 2 | Council consolidation | Local accountability charters |
| Phase 3 | Funding reform | Opposition mayor scrutiny reports |
Closing Remarks
Whether the Center for London’s blueprint gains political traction remains to be seen. Yet its proposals have already achieved one aim: injecting fresh urgency into the debate over how the capital is governed.
As ministers weigh up devolution deals and City Hall prepares for future contests, the question is no longer just who runs London, but how. For now, the think tank’s call for fewer councils and an “opposition mayor” adds a provocative new layer to an argument that is unlikely to fade quietly from the political agenda.
