Hyperbole surely? Not if you believe the well-placed newspaper stories about who is in the race for mayor. Jeffrey Archer, Margaret Hodge, Glenda Jackson, Steven Norris, Trevor Phillips, Simon Hughes, Tony Banks, Michael Cassidy, Ken Livingstone and Chris Patten are - or are letting it be believed that they might be - interested in running for mayor of Europe's biggest city.
The election will probably take place late in 1999, with the new mayor (and an assembly) taking office in April or May 2000. Rarely can so many candidates have declared themselves (more or less) for an election so far in advance of the poll. Never have so many national politicians and celebrities wanted to go into local government. The mayor of London will be a big and powerful character.
The mayor will have responsibility for the police, public transport, fire and civil defence, strategic planning, economic development, the environment and, less directly, some aspects of the arts and leisure. He or she will propose policies, budgets and appointments to boards that will actually run the services. All these activities will be overseen by a directly-elected assembly of between 24 and 32 individuals. The mayor and assembly will together be known as the Greater London Authority. Some form of proportional representati on is likely to be used in the elections.
Education and health are not included in the list of service responsibilities. Schools will remain within the control of the London boroughs. Further and higher education institutions will continue to be funded and overseen by their respective quangos. So, why should the education world bother with the arrival of Britain's first mayor?
There are two answers to this question. First, it is inconceivable that the London mayor, who will be a figurehead and sounding board for all things good and bad about our capital city, will keep out of education. Second, under separate legislation, the Government is taking powers to license local authorities which want to experiment with new forms of local administration, including elected mayors. That means other cities may opt for mayors before London.
To take the first point, think back to the nationwide debate about the future of St Bartholomew's Hospital. Even though the mayor of London would not have had direct responsibility for the NHS in the capital, he or she would certainly have had a view about the future of Bart's. Now think forward to the day when there is a debate about the quality of education in London's inner-city schools, or a further education college appears to be on the verge of closure or a university suffers a catastrophe. Would the mayor really sit back and do nothing? Of course not. Mayoral aides would have a policy and the mayor would appear on the television to explain it.
Indeed, the quality of a city's education and training is of such importance to its economic future it is inevitable there will be mayoral (and assembly) policy about it. London has some of the country's worst-achieving schools and some of the world's highest-achieving universities. The mayor will want to improve the schools and be seen to enjoy the success of the colleges.
The London boroughs will, of course, have continuing responsibility for schools. But international evidence suggests the authority that will be conferred by direct election in a city the size of London will give the mayor immense political clout when it comes to debates with the boroughs. Even if the mayor and a borough council leader are of different political colours (and the mayor could, of course, be an independent), it is difficult to see a borough ignoring the mayor's views. The media - not least The TES, one suspects - would certainly relish a public disagreement between the mayor and a borough about education policy.
Outside the new capital-wide government arrangements, metropolitan districts, unitary authorities or even London boroughs may opt to experiment with directly elected mayors. It is hard to believe that cities such as Birmingham and Manchester will allow London to have a powerful and highly-visible civic leader while they struggle along with low-key leaderships. As with many other trends, good and bad, what happens in London first may spread to the rest of the country.
Mayors in metropolitan districts or unitary authorities would be a very different proposition from the London mayor. In these non-London authorities the mayor would set education policy and budgets (presumably within the oversight of an assembly). For the first time ever, education would be run by a directly-elected executive rather than by non-elected (and non-political) executives within the control of non-executive, elected, politicians.
The London reforms are more radical than they look. Not only will they create a new and powerful kind of local politician, but they will stir up media interest in local government. Once elected, the mayor of London will be able to aid London boroughs in lobbying for more government grant, more facilities and for more large international events to be staged in the capital. London cannot at present make an effective bid for, say, the Olympic Games or the World Cup. The mayor will doubtless lead a number of bids to bring such events to London.
The next stage in the progress towards the GLA will be in March, when a White Paper will be published containing the Government's definitive views about the mayor and assembly. Then there will be a campaign culminating in a referendum on May 7. If Londoners vote for reform, the legislation should pass through Parliament between November 1998 and July 1999.
The mayor could be ensconced in Admiralty Arch (the current hot favourite for London's city hall) by Bonfire Night on 1999. Given the hype and interest likely to be generated by the first London mayoral election, perhaps the first meeting of the mayor and assembly would be a fitting - and exciting - inaugural event for the Millennium Dome.
Tony Travers is a local government analyst at the London School of Economics
I was a teacher for two years and loved it. In those days teachers had a great deal of freedom to run their classes the way they thought best. Nowadays, though, someone on the outside is always trying to get more control over what teachers do.
The new mayor for London will have no control over schools - but that doesn't mean he won't have something to say on the subject. There's a danger here: politicians are always tempted to make a big noise about education, whether or not they have something to offer.
I believe that unless the mayor can deliver real practical help to London schools, he or she should keep entirely out of education. The last thing we need is another politician strutting about denouncing teachers. Nor do we need yet another "high-level task force" on standards. My own experience tells me that the more politicians and bureaucrats stick their noses into education, the worse it gets. Schools have been political footballs for the past 40 years, and it's time that it stopped.
However, I believe that a mayor could offer practical help, for example by co-ordinating efforts to get more support for schools from business. Some countries have well-developed mentoring schemes, where people from local businesses give individual support to individual pupils. It is happening a little in London too, but it needs to be given a great deal more encouragement. This is exactly the sort of school project in which a mayor could take a positive lead.
The way forward, I believe, is for all those who care about our children's education to offer specific and practical support for schools.
Lord Archer is a Conservative peer and best-selling novelist
Londoners clearly want a democratic voice. The idea of a directly-elected mayor has attracted warm support. The mayor will provide the leadership that London needs to maintain its place as a world-class city.
That's important for Londoners, but equally important for the rest of Britain. Three million jobs outside London depend on it and #163;8.2 billion more in tax is raised than is spent on public services in London.
How will London's mayor affect education? One guiding principle behind Labour's proposals is that decisions would be taken at the lowest possible level: schools will continue to run schools and local authorities will retain responsibility for raising standards.
But the legitimacy and the authority of office which an elected mayor brings will mean that he or she will be able to support schools and authorities in promoting London-wide interests. These range from arguing for a big enough slice from public funds to educate London's children to protecting Section 11 funding for those whose mother tongue is not English.Another key task will be to facilitate partnerships - public-private partnerships for economic development, partnerships to encourage private-sector training programmes, partnerships between education institutions and the private and voluntary sectors and so on.
Education will not be a core function for the mayor. But a charismatic mayor with a democratic mandate is bound to be a vital influence on the quality and range of education Londoners enjoy from cradle to crave.
Margaret Hodge is Labour MP for Barking and Dagenham, and chairman of the Commons Select Committee on educationP>