uddenly mayors matter. The 20 years since elected mayors were introduced half-heartedly by Tony Blair in 2000 had been years of obscurity. Now coronavirus has thrust them into the spotlight. We hear daily from Andy Burnham, “leader of the north”, from Liverpool’s Steve Rotheram, Birmingham’s Andy Street, Sheffield’s Dan Jarvis and London’s Sadiq Khan. The prime minister must consult, even “negotiate” with them over lockdown. So is the country breaking apart – or perhaps becoming a little more democratic? Among local politicians the increase in Covid infections has produced an aversion to another lockdown and a demand for greater local control over the response. There have been fierce arguments in Manchester and Liverpool, where case rates have been savaged by the government permitting the arrival of thousands of students last month. The infection rates at universities are reportedly up to seven times higher than those of the local population. Each mayor is now claiming the power of response, and compensation for local job losses and business failures. At the start of lockdown in March, Johnson and his Whitehall team ignored local government. Any role for it in the care sector or in emergency NHS capacity was rejected. Council staff stood idly by as the governments paid private consultants to do what local officials could have done more efficiently for free. When London imposed a blanket lockdown in Leicester its mayor, Peter Soulsby, hit out at a lack of consultation over hastily “cobbled together” plans. I doubt if back in March a single top Whitehall official or scientist could name a mayor outside London and Manchester. They can now. It is significant that mayors, not council leaders, are making the headlines. This reflects an important reality: that direct election confers a more potent mandate than any party machine. Given the harm and personal cost involved in lockdown – a 100% loss of income for many - it is a policy that requires intense sensitive accountability. Lockdowns demand on-the-ground leadership and powers of persuasion. Given the occupational disease of local government – a charisma bypass – this might have been hitherto problematic. But this crisis calls for a public name and a face, not a party apparatchik, and that is the USP of mayors. Enthusiasts for mayoralty hoped it would offer local talent a step up the ladder to national politics, as in the US and France. It is noticeable that almost all the leading civic and metro-mayors are former MPs. They have swapped the drudge of the green benches to serve as bigger fish in regional pools. Those such as Burnham and Jarvis might reasonably hope to imitate Johnson and see mayoralty as a route to national leadership. The mayors have been on high ground this week. Birmingham’s Andy Street wants to decide for himself how much economic pain to accept for the Midlands. Burnham accuses the government of being “morally wrong” and “fundamentally flawed”. How dare ministers inflict poverty on Mancunians without compensation as a result of their own policy shortcomings? His Manchester region was supposedly given responsibility for local health by George Osborne. Perhaps now Burnham will get the resources to clear up Johnson’s mess. Mayors should be taking charge, rather than left to complain on the sidelines. When the current crisis is over, Burnham and his colleagues should stage a concerted lobby for greater mayoral power. A forthcoming study from the Centre for London thinktank concludes that, after their first two decades, mayors are here to stay. Johnson in his term of office was “as well known internationally as David Cameron”, the study says. But outside the realm of transport, the study found it hard to register any deep impact on local policy, beyond a few dozen London skyscrapers. The problem is that English mayors have no real power. They supply few public services and have no real resources. When he was mayor, Johnson lobbied hard for fiscal devolution, for more local tax-raising powers. That crusade has fallen victim to his famous forgetfulness. But mayors have personal mandates distinct from parties. Right now they should be given short-term freedom to tax, borrow and spend – as has central government – to help rescue their local economies, be it on jobs, investment projects, the arts or sport. Meanwhile, the map of mayoralty has become shambolic. A metro-mayor such as Burnham has 10 Greater Manchester boroughs under his remit, but the real boss of Manchester is the leader of its city council, Labour’s Richard Leese. The same applies to Street in the West Midlands. Many might assume Street is mayor of Birmingham, but that city is led by Ian Ward. Most absurd is Liverpool, which has an elected “regional” mayor, Rotheram, and an elected city mayor, Joe Anderson. The structure of mayoralty ordained from London merely reflects Whitehall’s contempt for the whole concept. There is little doubt that England’s mayors have collectively brought new interest and vitality to a depressed local democracy. Pandemic Britain is paying dearly for that weakness. But a truly revived localism means mayors must have more scope to improve the lives of their electors. Devolution in the United Kingdom cannot be confined to an ever more distant Celtic fringe. Its future lies in mayoralty. • Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist