Ken and Boris have made the office a huge success - but at what a cost to the rest of the UK. Sometimes, argues, you have to be cruel to be kind

"The government needs to stop pussyfooting around" warned Boris Johnson yesterday as he made his latest pitch for a third runway at Heathrow. This follows his call earlier in the week for supply side reforms to get the country out of recession. "London really can be the motor of our economic recovery," he opined.

When the Mayor of London speaks, the political cognoscenti listen. It is a perch unlike any other in British politics, from which the office holder commands a national audience, wielding the largest direct electoral mandate in the country.

The London Mayoralty has been an astounding success since the role was created in 2000. First under Ken Livingstone and latterly under Boris Johnson London has blossomed into a truly world-class city.

The value of the role is not in the administrative power. Shorn of responsibility for the usual local government challenges which remain with London's 32 boroughs, the mayor is strategic in the proper sense of the word; overseeing large-scale regeneration projects and the capital's vital transport system while providing the clout that gets London's priorities under the noses of ministers, investors and newspaper editors.

In fact, the mayoralty has been such a success that it should now be abolished.

Yes, you read that correctly. It's time to scrap the Mayor of London.

The reason is simple. London has now morphed into a city-state: autonomous, successful and happy to blaze a trail, while the rest of the country lags far behind. There are lots of historical reasons for this: the concentration of the nation's culture, finance and government will always put the capital out in front. But since 2000 the extra lobbying clout of the London mayor has accentuated these pre-existing trends.

The results are there for all to see. Crossrail, the new Wembley, the Olympics; even HS2, although ostensibly designed to benefit the North and Midlands in the long-term, is scheduled to be built from London outwards. What London wants, London has the political heft to get.

The mayor's megaphone means that London's voice echoes in the corridors of power, the boardrooms of the capital and the news conferences of our national media. The casual assumption that London's priorities are the nation's priorities has now become an unshakeable article of faith.

Last year the Institute of Public Policy Research found that £2,700 per person is spent on London's transport system compared with £5 per head in the north-east. Even allowing for an Olympic-fuelled spike in investment, this represents a colossal mismatch.

Last month's Department of Transport announcement of a £9.4 billion rail funding package included a whopping £350 million just to lengthen platforms at Waterloo station, the latest dollop of government largesse apportioned to London's priorities.

While the powers recently devolved to other cities by the government in the shape of 'city deals' are all very well, they are technocratic rather than political. No loudhailer is included in the package. Our other cities and regions cannot set their agenda in the way London can, a problem made worse since the demise of the regional development agencies.

For the country as a whole, this is madness. Economic capacity in the provinces is wasted while overcrowded, bustling London may be hypnotic and vital but it is also chaotic and expensive.

It's out fault. With one or two notable exceptions such as Liverpool and Salford, the north decided in May to stick with ornamental mayors. Photograph: Tim Graham/Tim Graham/Getty Images

It is now clear that the north of England, in particular, is not going to get political institutions in the foreseeable future to counter the effect of the London mayoralty, following the collapse back in May of efforts to create a college of powerful big city mayors. So the gap between London and the rest – both political and therefore economic – will grow.

So if a levelling-up of raw political power is not possible, then perhaps a levelling down is needed? This is not green-eyed provincial inferiority - good luck to London - but successive governments have set out to narrow the economic and opportunity gap between the capital and the rest of the country only to see the problem get worse.

So really, what other option is there?

Kevin Meagher chaired the Mayor4Sheffield campaign and was a strategist in the Yes for the North West regional assembly campaign in 2004