Martha Grekos Exposes Nick Lyons, Most Other City of London “Aldermen” & City Solicitor Michael Cogher For Flouting Democratic Principles

We have previously reported on the failings of Nick Lyons while he was Lord Mayor from 2022 to 2023, including his hypocrisy over pensions (exposed by the national press), his failed attempt to bully a woman councillor in his ward, his letting the Chair of Policy (= leader of the council) Councillor Christopher Hayward undermine the role of Lord Mayor even further and overstaying his term of office as an alder, which expired during his mayoralty.

Nick Lyons: serial misfeasor. He’s now resumed the role of chair of Phoenix Life. In mythology, the phoenix rose from the ashes. But that’s mythology. Will this entitled individual, who has brazenly breached one convention, and may be about to breach another (read on), fly out of the fire of public opinion?

Lyons must have hoped that no-one would notice his overstaying, or dare criticise him as the Lord Mayor in the weirdly cultish City council. He might have got away with it had not Martha Grekos called out his casual disrespect for the rule of law. This led the alders to instruct the City Solicitor, Michael Cogher, to bring a report to their meeting in December 2023. The report was discussed in the non-public part of that meeting, in the face of strong opposition from Grekos, who demolished Cogher’s poorly reasoned case for keeping the discussion secret. Her action triggered an extraordinary bout of bullying from Peter Estlin, who spoke to her as if he was training a disobedient dog (“noooo!”). Only residential Alder Sue Pearson voted with Grekos against the secrecy, adding to existing concerns that Christopher Makin, Alder for another major residential ward, had become too much part of the alders’ “club”. The details of what happened at that meeting can be found here.

At the alders’ next “General Purposes Committee” meeting on 6/2/24, Cogher presented a report addressing the convention which Lyons had breached that alders resign or stand for re-election after being in office for six years. The report was this time presented for discussion in the public part of the meeting. It is a measure of the impact that Grekos (with reliable support from Pearson) has had in the seven months since she became an alder that this report was written at all, as well as being presented to a meeting for discussion in public. Previously, conduct like Lyons’ overstaying would have been swept under the carpet in the age old tradition of the City council, reflecting its quasi-masonic culture of unity, hierarchy and secrecy. The alders must have realised from the experience of their December meeting, however, that trying to evade Grekos’ scrutiny through engaging in secrecy or delay would only result in their digging a deeper hole for themselves.

So they dug another hole instead, aided by the City Solicitor. His report encouraged them to pass a resolution which had the effect of:

– retrospectively validating Lyons’ overstaying (at least optically), thus saving face for him and the institution, something that is critical in their culture, and

– providing the means for any other alder to flout democracy by extending their six year term of office by up to six months, as long as a majority of the other alders (but not the voters) agree.

To achieve these disreputable aims, Cogher selectively consolidated a number of (mainly obscure) conventions, which served to soften the focus on the six year term, and invented a six month extension to that term.

Any extension could only be based on the “strict law”, which is of medieval origin and provides that alders are elected for life. The democratic repugnancy of that law was addressed in 1998 when the alders at the time introduced a convention that they would hold office for a six year term before resigning or standing for re-election. Cogher’s using the repugnant “strict law” as the basis for inventing the six month extension is analogous to a constitutional lawyer advising the national government that it could have recourse to the “strict law” of the medieval royal prerogative to modify any of the many conventions on which our national democracy largely depends. Such advice would, deservedly, not be taken seriously.

A debate ensued for 40 minutes (starting at 3:49 here) and revolved around three points that Grekos made at the outset. We set out those points below, together with other alders’ comments on them. Point 1(a) is technical in nature, so some readers may wish to fast forward to point 1(b). It was during the debate on points (2) and (3) that a majority of the alders revealed just how desperate they were to uphold their self-serving culture at the expense of democracy and rationality.

Martha Grekos: advocate for democracy.

(1) THE “PURDAH” CONVENTION

Grekos quoted the reference in Cogher’s report to “the convention relating [to the] post-Mayoralty period during which the Late Lord Mayor [City-speak for the most recent Lord Mayor, not a dead one] attends no Corporation events or meetings … and undertakes no Civic or representative duties in the period between the end of the Mayoralty [always in mid-November] and the Easter Banquet [this year on 9 May] … This [convention] is contained within the Alderman’s Handbook.”

(a) She queried why this “purdah” convention was not consolidated with the others. What, she asked, was the point of consolidating conventions but leaving this one out, and – as regards finding it in the Alderman’s Handbook – didn’t scattering conventions among various documents defeat the purpose of consolidation?

Cogher replied that this convention had never previously been among the undertakings signed by the alders. Tim Hailes, a self-described “pedant” (5:51 and 46:26), said that purdah was covered by the alders’ standing orders (7:44). Neither of those points answered Grekos’ query about why this convention – or rule if it was contained in standing orders – was not added to the consolidation now to achieve its purpose of gathering them all in one place. Regarding Cogher’s point, why should the six year convention, which had also never previously been among the undertakings, now be included, but not the purdah convention?

Peter Estlin, admitting that he was “splitting hairs”, said that the purdah convention applied only to alders who became Lord Mayor, which statistically was around one in two of them (9:55). But that didn’t explain why this convention shouldn’t be consolidated for the half of the alders to whom it would apply. Estlin’s argument was further undermined by the fact that another of the consolidated conventions applied only to alders who were magistrates, now also around one in two of them. As that convention was included, prefaced by the words “where appropriate”, why shouldn’t the purdah convention be treated the same way?

Hailes proposed that reference be made in the minutes of this meeting to the standing order (11:57), thus increasing the scattering effect.

Cogher, who as the City Solicitor should know more than anyone about the council’s rules and conventions, obviously didn’t know about the standing order when he wrote his report, as it was drawn to his attention during the meeting by officers in the Town Clerk’s department (8:51).

The wording of the purdah convention which he quoted in his report is, incidentally, considerably wider than that of the standing order (number 39). So more confusion.

(b) Grekos then challenged the existence of the purdah convention / rule, pointing out it was undemocratic for an elected representative not to represent their constituents for a few months.

William Russell said that purdah was “more to do with” a Lord Mayor who had just finished office “recovering from a 12 month period” (9:44). Quick as a flash, Grekos replied: “If only I had a few months to recover from my job each time, you know, if there’s a trial or something …”. Russell, out-argued, conceded: “I hear you”.

Vincent Keaveny said he thought that purdah had not “in any respect precluded” outgoing Lord Mayors properly representing their voters during their purdah (10:41). Russell agreed, saying that “When I was in purdah, I did attend – and I know Vincent was the same – a number of committee meetings”. The awkward thing for both of them is that the convention, as quoted in Cogher’s report, is that “the Late Lord Mayor attends no Corporation events or meetings …”.

The evasive responses to Grekos’ points on the purdah convention / rule may just reflect resistance to change which is instinctive for most alders. At least some of them, though, must have been aware that Lyons – having already breached the six year convention – might shortly breach purdah, as explained below, so were deliberately talking down its significance. Perhaps Cogher didn’t want to consolidate the purdah convention / rule with the other conventions in the form of “undertakings” in order to create wriggle room for Lyons to declare that he hadn’t breached an undertaking, which would create the impression that he hadn’t breached anything.

William Russell (the man with the hat): no match for Martha Grekos.

(2) A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE SIX YEAR TERM OF OFFICE

Grekos referred to paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of the consolidated conventions, which provided that any alder could extend their six year term of office by up to six months, as long as a majority of the other alders agreed that it was “reasonable to do so in all the circumstances”.

She pointed out that it was never reasonable in any circumstances for someone who had been elected to public office to stay in it for one day longer than their elected term, let alone six months. Each alder was elected by their voters for six years, not six years and six months in some cases. No alders had a democratic right to extend the term of any alder beyond six years, because they were not the voters.

Anticipating the usual response that – as a matter of “strict law” – alders were elected for life, and holding office for six years was merely a convention introduced in 1998, which thus allowed for some “flexibility”, she pointed out that this was not a valid response, because being elected for life was democratically repugnant, and the six year convention had been introduced as a democratisation measure. So it should be applied strictly, not with “flexibility”.

She added that the problems which the six month extension were supposed to address could easily be avoided by an alder who sought office as Sheriff or Lord Mayor ensuring that their term as an alder comfortably encompassed their shrievalty or mayoralty. They could do this by using their ability to call an election at any time within their six year term, and it had been done before [but not by Lyons].

Russell unwisely tried again to respond, saying that: “The issue … is that there is so much planning involved, whether you’re Sheriff or Lord Mayor, that we have to have some pragmatism, in my view, which is in the best interests – and you may say it’s not in the best interest of democracy – but I think in the best interest of the great City of London and financial and professional services … ” (15:07). Grekos had just made the point, though, that alders could manage the “planning” of becoming Sheriff or Lord Mayor by calling an election at any time in advance to ensure that their term as an alder comfortably encompassed their shrievalty or mayoralty. Russell acknowledged this, saying “people can go [to election] before [assuming those offices] and do go before”, which undermined his plea for “pragmatism”.

Revealingly, Russell said out loud that democracy must be subordinated to the interest of “the great City”, a soundbite he used twice. Is it any wonder that people even within the City council increasingly query its “democratic legitimacy” as an elected public authority?

Emma Edhem unwittingly enhanced Russell’s revelation by asking: “Why [should the extension of an alder’s term be for only up to] six months? Why be prescriptive [about] six months” i.e. why not longer? (15:53)  It’s extraordinary that a lawyer like her would advocate weakening the rule of law even further than had already been proposed. In her case, though, it isn’t surprising, as she’s a keen supporter of Turkish president Erdogan, whose regime isn’t noted for its respect for the rule of law – although even he observes his term of office.

Emma Edhem exceeds Erdogan in eschewing the rule of law.

Sue Pearson shone a sunbeam of sense into the responses to Grekos by supporting her, saying simply: “I do think we are elected, not selected, and I agree that [for those becoming Sheriff or Lord Mayor] to seek election early seems to be an obvious thing … You talk about ‘planning’, William [Russell], but actually we have a queue now, we’ve got so many people lined up for various roles … most of us have to plan our life, and being elected at the right time – that’s what you need to do …” (16:28) Russell’s response: “I hear what you’re saying”. He should have stopped there, but went on to add “that there are cases where we haven’t planned, looking over hundreds of years, obviously”. How was that relevant to Lyons, who could have planned not to have his term as alder expire during his mayoralty last year?

Bronek Masoja told an anecdote about how he had been suddenly elevated from senior warden to master of his livery company because the person due to become master was diagnosed with an illness. He explained that this supported the need to be “flexible”. But his anecdote, which concerned taking unelected office early, wasn’t relevant to extending elected office without voter consent. At least he’s on-message with the establishment, though, which should smooth his path from his present shrievalty to the prized mayoralty, and being on-message in the City council doesn’t require making sense.

One alder who pleasingly – and not before time – went off-message was Christopher Makin, who spoke in support of Grekos and Pearson (21:14). Perhaps he’s heard the concerns of some of his resident constituents about which way he’s going in the council. Let’s hope his willingness to speak out continues. A big test will be whether he will, at the critical moment, act strongly on behalf of his constituents against the London Wall West development and the promotion of it by council leader Christopher Hayward even if this risks him being ostracised by most of the other alders, who quietly worry about displeasing Hayward politically.

Sue Pearson: speaking sense amid nonsense   

(3) ENFORCEMENT OF THE SIX YEAR TERM OF OFFICE

Grekos pointed out that the consolidated conventions were framed as “undertakings” to be signed by the alders, presumably to try to make them more effective. But the only sanction mentioned for breach of these undertakings was the threat that failure to comply “would be one of the factors taken into account in assessing the suitability [of an alder] for high office”.

She explained that alders were no longer able to assess a candidate’s suitability for office as an alder, as that was now solely a matter for voters. And so it should be: the first female candidate for the office in 1975 was twice elected by the voters, but twice blackballed by the aldermen, apparently because she was a woman. (Alders subsequently lost the right to override the will of the voters.)

She said that the only “high offices” where alders still had a role in assessing the suitability of a candidate were those of Sheriff and Lord Mayor. But an alder who had held both offices, or did not want to hold them, was not subject to the “suitability” threat, which was the only (indirect) method of enforcement.

Grekos proposed that the six year convention should be modified so that each alder was deemed to submit their “letter of surrender of office” on the earlier of the sixth anniversary of the date of their last election or their 75th birthday. That would automatically set in train the electoral process, and make overstaying in office impossible.

She concluded that any alder who failed to ensure that their term as alder comfortably encompassed their term as Sheriff or Lord Mayor [like Lyons in the latter case] should bear the consequences of their lack of prudence, and not be baled out by the other alders bending the rules.

Cogher, after saying that he needed to be careful not “to trespass into policy and political views”, launched into an impassioned speech that was predicated upon an extremist political view that it was reasonable for an alder to seek an extension to their term of office without their voters’ consent. He warned the alders that if they did not agree to the six month extension he had invented, they “would get into enforceability issues”, meaning that if any alder overstayed their six year term, there was effectively nothing that the others could do about it (25:42). This kind of perverse logic – don’t have a hard convention in case people break it – appealed to the majority of alders, as evidenced by how they voted in favour of the extension (below). That vote provided cover for the bad behaviour of Lyons and others who might in the future breach a fundamental democratic norm.

Cogher must have noticed that Grekos had, both in correspondence last year and in this meeting, proposed a neat solution to the enforceability issue: simply modify the six year convention so that each alder was deemed to submit their “letter of surrender of office” on the earlier of the sixth anniversary of the date of their last election or their 75th birthday, as that would automatically set in train the electoral process. If he had any jurisprudential objection to this, he could have raised it, but he didn’t. He just ignored it. Instead, he rambled on about how there were provisions in local government law that allowed elected representatives not to do their duties for six months because of illness, and tried to conflate that situation where a representative didn’t perform their duties during their elected term with one in which an alder could extend their elected term by six months without voter consent, a concept that has no precedent in local government law because it is repugnant to democracy. Grekos did, of course, point out that the situations weren’t comparable and were being confused (30:38). No response from Cogher.

Estlin supported Cogher with the following extraordinary remarks (28:54):

– “it [allowing the six month extension] is putting each individual situation into the hands of the Court of Aldermen, which in itself is democratic, albeit it is not the electorate that is making the decision” – an oxymoron if ever there was one; and

– “this is a good outcome: the intent is always to comply with our obligations towards the electorate”, which he thinks is done by breaching the obligation to the electorate not to stay in office for longer than the elected term. 

Grekos reminded the alders about her enforcement solution of a deemed submission of a letter of surrender of office, and formally proposed a motion that the six month extension be disallowed.  Pearson seconded the motion, and referred to a situation that had arisen in her ward, where David Graves had overstayed in office as an alder by more than two years (32:28). Pearson pointed out, with wry understatement, that “there didn’t seem, from an elector’s point of view, much in the way of enforcement going on” there. She concluded: “leaving an open door to carrying on, and carrying on, and carrying on, is really just not the way to go”.

Jennette Newman asked how many times an alder had overstayed (33:58). Russell mentioned Gordon Haines [alder for Queenhithe until 2016] -‘’something happened there” – then asked Andrew Parmley, the longest serving alder (23 years), who said “in my memory, two or three times”. It seems it should be at least three times: Haines (as Russell alleged), Graves and now Lyons. In a seven year period, that’s a lot – an average approaching one every two years. But Russell didn’t think so: he triumphantly declared “It’s rare!” The establishment’s capacity for denying the truth is immense, and probably necessary for their survival.

Newman, who repeatedly needed to be told to turn on her microphone, said “[inaudible] defining ‘reasonableness’ out a little bit” (35:06). Russell didn’t want to go down that route, which might lead to Grekos’ points prevailing, so he shut Newman down by saying “So I’m keen to close this down, because we could debate this …  [sentence unfinished: presumably he meant to say something like “all day”]”. Newman complied without a word of protest.

Grekos made the point that until the six year convention was introduced [in 1998], it couldn’t be breached, so the time span for assessing breach was relatively short [and the record of breach was a bad one, as already seen] (35:25). She also engaged in understatement by saying “we need to modernise ourselves”, but that is the last thing most alders want, perhaps sensing that if they take that process to its logical conclusion they would end up extinct.

Pearson, obviously seeing that she would be in a minority of 3 out of 21 voting against the six month extension, made a last ditch attempt to limit the damage to democracy by proposing that an extension be granted only in “exceptional” rather than “reasonable” circumstances (39:48). But even this slight measure was too much for the majority. Keaveny opposed it, saying that “getting into drafting on the hoof is always dangerous … there is a great deal of case law on what is ‘reasonable’ in judicial interpretation of that concept” (40:40). Cogher, of course, agreed with Keaveny, and made out that there was a difficulty with defining ‘exceptional’ whereas there wasn’t with ‘reasonable’, which he thought was ‘a concept well understood by lawyers’ “(41:43). Grekos demolished both arguments by saying “I wouldn’t agree that ‘reasonableness’ is ‘a concept understood by lawyers’ because actually that’s what gets us to court … and that’s why there’s lots of case law … can I also add that we are used to drafting on the hoof: we do that many a time in CoCo [the Court of Common Council] when motions are changed” (43:12). Motions are indeed regularly amended in CoCo. It is, in fact, a standard tactic of the council’s political leadership to amend unwelcome motions to such an extent as to negate them (contrary to standing orders), but Keaveny has never objected to this as “drafting on the hoof”.

Hailes couldn’t resist adding “and I’m entirely in agreement with the comments Vincent [Keaveny] has made”, without addressing Grekos’ response.

The motion to replace “reasonable” with ‘exceptional” was predictably defeated, with 3 voting for (Grekos, Pearson and Makin) and 18 (all the rest who were in attendance) against.

Tim Hailes: a proud pedant (see 5:51 and 46:26).

THE FINAL VOTE

Cogher’s wording for the six month extension of alders’ terms of office in paragraph 1.2 was approved in a final vote, with 18 voting for and 3 against (46:06).

Those voting for were: William Russell (Chair), Charles Bowman (Deputy Chair), Andrew Parmley, Peter Estlin, Vincent Keaveny, Alastair King, Alison Gowman, Tim Hailes, Robert Howard, Prem Goyal, Emma Edhem, Robert Hughes-Penney, Sue Langley, Bronek Masojada, Alex Barr, Tim Levene, Jennette Newman and Simon Pryke. 

Those voting against were: Martha Grekos, Sue Pearson and Christopher Makin. 

OBSERVATIONS

Here are a few observations about those participating in this debate:

Martha Grekos, a lawyer herself, was opposed by six other lawyers in the room: Cogher, Keaveny, Gowman, Newman, Hailes and Edhem. Hailes and Edhem never miss a chance to remind people of their profession: listen at 5:51 and 58:16 respectively. Gowman didn’t say anything, but voted with the establishment, to which she remains intensely loyal, notwithstanding its publicly snubbing her for the role of Lord Mayor. Even collectively, those six failed to muster credible arguments against the case put by Grekos, who is plainly a superior advocate, even if she did have the advantage of being obviously right in what she said.

Sue Pearson is not a natural advocate, but speaks with deep sense and sincerity, which explains why she has won elections in the City with record-breaking numbers of residents’ votes. By contrast, most other alders have largely relied on the discredited business voting system to be elected, and sometimes merely in double figures, itself pulling a double finger at democracy.

Michael Cogher as the City Solicitor gives legal advice that is pleasing to the political leaders of the City council, and where necessary changes that advice for the same purpose. He has in the past claimed that it is his duty as a lawyer to serve his client, the council. But the council cannot be conflated with its political leaders, who promote him as a source of authoritative legal advice so they can use his “legal” reasons to persuade their passive supporters among the alders and councillors that something should or shouldn’t be done. When his reasons are challenged by another lawyer, however, he has typically not been able to sustain an argument beyond a couple of bouts, but most alders and councillors don’t care about this, because they don’t want their cosy boat to be rocked.

The many faces of Michael Cogher, all of which serve his political masters.

Ian Thomas, the Town Clerk, eventually intervened when Russell breached the procedural requirement that seconded motions had to be debated and voted on in sequence (36:11), but why did it take him four minutes to do so, and only after one of his staff, Gemma Stokely, appeared to prompt him, and Estlin separately pointed out Russell’s error? The extent to which Thomas relies on capable subordinates like Stokley, who supervised the voting in this meeting (37:00), is embarrassingly obvious.

Peter Estlin seemed to have learned a lesson about not behaving like a playground bully, because during this meeting he showed no sign of disrespect towards Grekos. He sat at the far end of the table instead of opposite her, didn’t have a fit of anger when she again got the better of the City Solicitor, and even said, ingratiatingly, “I agree with Martha that paragraph 1.3 should be deleted” (34:16). He was, in fact, conceding, nothing with this proposal, which the majority followed, because paragraph 1.3 was essentially duplicative of 1.2 in allowing a six month extension.

Emma Edhem is rumoured to be putting herself forward this year for selection as Sheriff. She’s overplaying her hand, as usual. Her query as to why alders’ terms should be extendable by only up to six months, and not longer, was apparently intended to impress the majority of alders as to how pro-establishment and on-message she was (so please vote for me to be Sheriff). But she misread the room. Although most alders were determined to approve the means for an undemocratic extension of their term of office, they were uncomfortably aware that this didn’t make them look good, hence the uneasy tone of the debate. They really didn’t need her to make them look in need of immediate abolition by wanting an even longer extension.

NICK’S NEXT TRICK

Nick Lyons wasn’t present at this meeting, presumably because he was complying with the purdah convention / rule, which specifically bars attendance at “Corporation … meetings” like this one. But, true to form, he may not be complying with it for much longer. That’s because at the short and formal “Court of Aldermen” meeting which followed this one, his “letter of surrender of office” was read out by the Town Clerk (at 8:33 here), five months after his six year term as alder expired – although he had the effrontery to begin the letter with the words “In accordance with convention …” . The letter mentioned that he intended to stand for re-election. His submitting it triggered the start of the electoral process in his ward of Tower.

Martha Grekos causing consternation in the formal Court of Alders meeting by voting against the formal adoption of the conventions discussed at the earlier meeting, contrary to the alders’ expectation that they act unanimously in this forum, another manifestation of the City council’s quasi-masonic culture.   

If Lyons is opposed in that election – and he should be, especially by someone who cares about women’s equality – he will need to campaign. How then could he comply with the purdah convention / rule, which requires him to be out of sight on matters relating to the City council until 9 May, when the election is due to be held on 21 March? If anyone claims that he’s acting in breach of standing order 39 / the unconsolidated convention in the “Aldermen’s Handbook”, expect that:

– Cogher will write another report seeking to justify the unjustifiable to please his political masters,

– Grekos will point out why his report is wrong,

– Pearson and (hopefully) Makin will support Grekos,

– all the other alders will “hear no evil, see no evil”, 

– Edhem will go too far by denying that “evil” could ever exist in the City establishment (or the Erdogan regime), and

– Lyons will wait to receive from the King an honour for which he’s already been nominated, presumably by the City Remembrancer, for services to public life.