In his new report 'Planning for a Better London,' Boris sets out London's 'direction of travel' over the next four years. But with the Mayor's powers increasingly being delegated to advisors and to the boroughs, is this just really the first step on the road to the end of London-wide government?
At almost every Assembly meeting and committee since Boris came to power, the Tory Members have tried to tease out ways in which powers can be stripped from City Hall and given over to individual boroughs.
And as representatives of those boroughs and with no real powers of their own, it is hardly surprising that they should want to see the end of big government at City Hall.
But as the most powerful Tory politician in the country, it has been more surprising to see Boris Johnson so keen to get rid of his own responsibilities.
Because when Boris ran for Mayor he did so as the man who would wade in to solve the big problems that London faces. But at every stage over the past two months, he has been intent on giving away exactly those powers which would help him to do that.
The first sign of this was his decision to hand over all of his powers on major planning decisions to his unelected advisor Ian Clement.
Ian, who was given the title of 'Deputy Mayor for Government Relations' has effectively been given full powers over the biggest planning decisions in the capital, despite being virtually unknown outside of his old borough of Bexley.
So from now on in, when local groups appeal to the Mayor to intervene over the decisions of local authorities, it will be the old head of Bexley Council rather than the new head of City Hall who will be making the call.
The result of this is that in these first two months, Clement has allowed all of the major planning applications received so far to go uncontested through City Hall.
Now it may be that these were all perfectly acceptable applications, but what the Mayor's new consultation paper shows, is that Clement has been directed to allow almost all applications to pass without interference:
"The GLA Act 2007 has given the Mayor powers in certain circumstances to take over planning applications that are of “potential strategic importance” for his own decision. The Mayor intends to use his powers carefully and sparingly, only taking over those which do have genuinely strategic implications for the planning of London. It is likely, therefore, that he will use these powers only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Equally, in commenting on those applications which boroughs are required to refer to him, the Mayor intends to focus on strategic issues, rather than on matters of detail that are better dealt with locally. He intends to take a similar approach with borough local development frameworks. resources, and would not encourage the re-submission of applications simply because of the change of administration.
Now this is, or should be, dynamite. What it means, and what the first two months have proved, is that all but the most barmy of major planning applications will now be waved through without getting so much as a patting down from the Mayor's aide.
These decisions. And I'm talking only about major planning decisions here, will now be almost exclusively in the hands of the individual boroughs. So why does this matter?
Well seasoned Boris-watchers will remember Boris Johnson's much repeated promise to preserve the capital's playing fields for future generations. This pledge, which was part of a wider people versus the developers posture, was one of the few areas in which I thought Boris might bring improvements.
However, when Kensington and Chelsea Council decided to sell off Holland Park school playing fields to developers for luxury flats, the decision caused local and city-wide anger.
At a time when our children have become the most obese in Europe and when kids in London have fewer and fewer ways to use up their energy, the decision was clearly a bad one.
So when Boris and Kate Hoey made so many noises about protecting playing fields, local campaigners thought they had a new champion for their cause and threw their weight behind Boris's campaign.
But when the application was sent through to City Hall last month, Boris's aide waved it through without an objection. The parents and children of Holland Park had quite simply, been had.
A manifesto for abolition?
Because the problem with handing over more powers to the boroughs is that they often make completely bonkers and unpopular decisions.
In areas where voting majorities are high and seats secure, local authorities will often do exactly as they and as developers please without fear of recourse from the voters or from the press.
This is one of the main reasons why establishing a Mayoralty was a good idea in the first place. After a decade of bad decisions from selfish, reckless and often unaccountable local authorities, the Mayor and the GLA were able to serve as a final check, strategic director and democratically accountable face of a multitude of conflicting and rival bodies.
Now if Boris Johnson wants to return to the heady days of the end of the GLC, then that is fair enough. The people have voted him in and if he wants to use that mandate to set off gunpowder in the basement of City Hall then that is up to him.
But if, as it appears, the powers of City Hall will be quietly sneaked out of the back door without anyone even raising the alarm, then we could soon end up with the very worst kind of lame duck political body at the very centre of London government.