Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham, Dan Jarvis, the Labour mayors of London, Manchester and Sheffield respectively, are national figures. Why, as members of an imploding Labour Party, are they

respected at a time when politicians are held in such contempt? The short answer is that Metro-Mayors improve the experience of big-city life while operating within the limited budget given

them by central government. No mean feat. London has 8.5 million people, Manchester 2.7 million and Sheffield City Region 1.4 million. Over the last decade their funding has been cut to the

bone by government. The more complex answer, as Vernon Bogdanor recently argued in _TheArticle_, is that they are accountable and can give voice to the people who directly elected them. They

streets, council estates neglected, schools failing, parks and public places a mess. In 2002, Mayor Jules Pipe was directly elected and slowly turned the borough round. It’s now a great

place to live. It’s even fashionable — which is a growing problem as incomers drive up property prices. Millennials grew up with much talking and legislating by national government about the

role of local authorities: notably the Localism Act 2014, Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, though it was reform of the Greater London Authority under Tony Blair in 2000 that

brought plans for a Metro-Mayor of London into reality (the idea was first considered by John Major). The London mayoralty gave us Red Ken and, along with _Have I got News for You_,

launched Boris Johnson into the political limelight where he dangled on a wire, bought water cannons that couldn’t be used, introduced those nostalgia-trip Routemaster buses (but you can’t

jump on and off) and poured money into an eco-fantasy bridge over the Thames. It later emerged that he was also funding a pole-dancing entrepreneur who happened to be his girlfriend. But, to

Johnson’s credit, and that of the cycling lobby, he continued to cycle and persevered with the provision of cycle lanes. From City Hall to Downing Street proved a short cycle ride. If, as

Bogdanor suggests, the focus of devolution should be local councils, opportunities and threats open up under a Johnson government. The immediate threat is that London could be punished for

its strong support for Remain and for being a Labour stronghold. If the northern swing constituencies that are now “cloth-cap Conservative” are to get their reward and not revert to Labour,

somewhere else is going to feel the pinch. The rumoured reduction or abolition of London allowances for teachers, for example, would have dire consequences. The picture of London as the

heartland of smashed-avocado-on-toast breakfasting cosmopolitans queuing at Waitrose is a deceit. There is plenty of not-so-hidden poverty. Drug dealing and gang crime don’t come out of thin

air. “Posh” Islington has the 4th highest level of child poverty in the country (47.5 per cent — some 20,000 children). If the allocation of greater funds and attention to the North is to

be more than a political ploy, it must avoid taking from the poor of London to give to the poor in towns that have begun to vote Conservative. The opportunity for wider social and economic

change begins with asking “what is London doing right?” How and why has an urban culture developed that is mostly colour-blind and at ease with ethnicity? In a recent survey, about 90 per

cent of Hackney’s residents felt that “everyone got along together”. Courtesy and consideration for the old and disabled are widespread. Yes, London has key national and international

institutions, excellent comprehensive schools and health service. And yes, London attracts the ambitious, often the best, from around the world, some of whom get rich. Under all its mayors

it has had strong leadership on racial issues even under terrorist attacks. So why not learn from it? Support the people who keep this city moving, who promote a vibrant economy, and try

with inadequate resources to remove the face-to-face dark web of drug, knife and gang crime across its streets. In hard budgetary terms, we should give elected mayors much more control over

their city’s expenditure and its allocation. Reform of any kind is difficult. Nobody dares to revalue the decades-old Council tax bands, because owners of houses whose value has risen, fear

having to pay more. Room for mayors to manoeuvre is small. A prime minister interested in more than political advantage would encourage its expansion. But to build creatively on the social

and economic achievements of Greater London, not denounce its citizens as a cosmopolitan elite, gives Johnson no electoral advantage at all. Meanwhile, Corbyn has reverted to “resistance”. 

_Aux Armes, Citoyens. _The Labour Party will henceforth “resist” centralisation and Tory Rule. But, in the real world, it has been leaders such as Khan, Burnham and Jarvis doing the

resisting. They have created an urban governance model in opposition to centralisation and populism, doing the most they can within the limits set by their political opponents, retaining the

notion that politics is about gaining power to work for the common good. They have resisted the Corbynist vision of power, which is focused principally on winning conflicts _within_ the

Labour Party. So how should we describe Labour cities such as London, Manchester and Sheffield? The Labour Party Diaspora? Social democracy devolved? Urban democratic pluralism? We wouldn’t

need border patrols along the M25. But if London were to gain just a little of the autonomy of a city-state — it has a larger population and economy than many UN member states — Labour

members should stay to cheer, not flee and jeer.