Should Boris be given more power?

I wonder what variety of national government would best serve the interests of Boris Johnson over the next two years. I wonder what Boris thinks. If asked, I'm sure he would reply that he yearns for a thumping True Blue victory and the sight of David Cameron gliding smoothly through the door of No 10. Yet a part of even so deep-dyed a Conservative might be conflicted. No, not because an inner voice would be screaming, "It should have been me!" ( although we can't discount that possibility ). I'm talking about money; government money, of which there's set to be a diminishing supply. It appears that the flow will be especially constricted if the Tories, as expected, soon take charge of the Treasury. That could be bad news for Boris, because without a continuing, generous gush of taxpayers' cash, some of the projects he is most anxious to see flourish during his time as London mayor may falter. These include major initiatives instigated under his predecessor Ken Livingstone. There are the huge public transport enterprises of Crossrail and the ongoing, and deeply troubled, upgrades of the London Underground network. There is the supply of police officers for "frontline" law enforcement, which Ken greatly increased. Boris wants the same things, and it is almost comical given the contrasts between the two politicians, not least on taxation , that he's already been obliged to do the same things as Ken in order to achieve them. We see him doing it publicly: nagging , begging and demanding that the government keeps coughing up. When his old pal George gets hold of the purse strings, the task could become more demanding still. I've lately been trying to focus in my head how the budgets of the mayor and the wider GLA Group, over which the mayor has varying degrees of control , are constructed. For a man who would give an abacus a wide berth – and failed maths A-level too – this has been quite a challenge. But it has fruitfully concentrated my mind on the London mayor's – any London mayor's – shortage of autonomy in the vital area of finance and the consequent implications for policy. The mayor can affect revenues to Transport for London through public transport fares (as recently) and congestion charging (coming soon), not to mention taxing business too. He can raise money for himself through the council tax precept, most of which (as under Ken) is added to the pot for policing. But the latter in particular forms quite a puny proportion – around 7% – of the grand total of £14bn that the entire GLA Group requires ( see page 99 ). This puts into perspective Boris's relentless tub-thumping about his freezing the precept for a second year, and invites us to consider the true value of that to Londoners, especially in view of the financial pressures on the Met . But the much larger issue is whether Boris and his successors should be given far more freedom to raise or lower taxes at a London-wide level than the mayoral incumbent presently enjoys. And if they should, shouldn't their policy powers be extended too, perhaps to encompass the capital's health care and education provision? It will be interesting to see how Cameron, the avowedly radical localist, looks upon such arguments for further devolution to the nation's economic powerhouse. Tony Travers , the experts' expert on London governance, would like to see the mayoralty liberated and reformed so that it more closely resembles the American model it presently only half-imitates, with an enhanced role for the London assembly too. You can listen to his views in a recent interview . It would be good to know yours too.