Councillor Ann Holmes humiliated on International Women’s Day in Masonic Influenced City of London Council

Of the125 elected members of the City of London council, 39 are women. Two of them – Sue Pearson and Martha Grekos – have stood up to vile institutional bullying (see here for Pearson and here for Grekos). Bullying, particularly of women, and misfeasance is endemic in this council, whose culture has been heavily influenced by freemasonry, to which 26% of all its male members and 75% of the top leadership belong.  

The masonic influence goes well beyond the obligation of one brother to assist another when called upon to do so. The masonic principles of unity, hierarchy and secrecy have over decades shaped the the culture of the City council, to the extent that any elected member who wants to progress beyond being a backbencher, or even to have an agreeable time on the council, is under pressure to behave like a mason in a lodge: they must not engage in serious dissent, they must especially not challenge the hierarchy, and they must not disclose what happens behind closed doors. Taking things “offline” or using “back channels” are phrases commonly used in the Guildhall. This is all the opposite of democracy, but many members are willing to forego principle for the substantial benefits that being a member can bring them.

As a result, many male members who are not masons behave in council like those who are – as do some women members, although they are barred from joining male members’ lodges because they’re women. “Diversity” features prominently in the City council’s propaganda, but this conscious bias against women members is a taboo subject – remember it’s unity, hierarchy and secrecy that prevail here.

That way of doing things is rejected by Pearson and Grekos, but they’re in a tiny minority. Several women members go with the masonic flow in their ambition to achieve office or just to have a nice time socially within the council, which in many ways resembles an exclusive club. Catherine McGuinness, a former Chair of Policy, held the top political post for five years, but she did so on paper only, being sidelined by her predecessor, Michael Snyder (a mason – in fact the top mason in London), in negotiations over the City markets relocation, and undermined for much of her term by her successor, Chris Hayward (a mason). In a public meeting of the Public Relations Sub-Committee on 18/10/21, Hayward – who was then her Deputy Chair – endorsed the ponderous criticism (at 23:52) by Edward Lord (a mason) of McGuinness for making speeches at party conferences that were too long and lacking in relevance to the audience. 

After her term expired, McGuinness once briefly lashed out against the masons in a full council meeting, but it was too little, too late, and not repeated.

Mary Durcan and Helen Fentimen – both Labour Party members – have also been willing to embrace the establishment. They did its will by voting against the City council making a full refund to its social housing tenants of an unlawful profit which the council (in common with a number of other local authorities) had made on “water reselling”.

Ann Holmes has far more in common with McGuinness, Durcan and Fentimen than with Pearson and Grekos. The only good thing we can recall Holmes doing is opposing the London Wall West development in July 2022. It will be interesting to see how far she’s willing to go when over the next few months the planning application for this project is expected to trigger an open confrontation between City residents and the council’s establishment.     

Holmes has otherwise had a long record of supporting the establishment and conforming with the council’s masonic culture. Although she’s been a member of the  Labour Party for more than four decades, she’s stood as an “independent”  for the 11 years she’s been a City councillor. Together with Durcan, she voted against a motion that Pearson (with no party affiliation) put to apply a small part of the fund which the council uses to pay for its elected members’ free and dining and drinks toward renovating its housing estates that became dilapidated following decades of neglect due to bad leadership by people like Snyder. Holmes served the establishment as Chair of the discredited Standards Committee after its previous chair (a mason) had resigned after misleading the council about the suitability of the reappointment to that committee of an external member (another mason). She tried to save the Standards Committee, which should obviously been abolished, as it duly was. During her tenure as its Chair, she colluded with the establishment in its defence of Ian Luder (a mason), who had made an entirely false and scurrilous allegation of criminality against Pearson. When he did the same thing four years later against Grekos, Holmes – like most members – did nothing.

Holmes’ record as an establishment supporter helped her succeed, at her third attempt, in being elected by members as Chief Commoner for 2023-24. It’s a role so pointless that it’s difficult to describe, but one which carries prestige within the medieval fantasy world of the City council.

Most Chief Commoners like to do something during their term of office that becomes their legacy, to which they can afterwards point with pride. For one of Holmes’ predecessors, it was changing the colour of the walls in the suite of bedrooms in the Guildhall for members’ free or subsidised use. For another (a mason), it was changing the pigeon holes in the members’ computer room. We speculate that it was a desire for a legacy that inspired Holmes in her last month in office to put a motion at the full council meeting on 7/3/24 to change the way in which chairs and deputy chairs of sub-committees were elected.

Ann Holmes, introducing her motion.

Holmes’ measure was trivial, but had merit insofar as it might (at least in theory) slightly dilute the centralising power of the Chair of Policy, Chris Hayward (a mason), and his ruling clique, consisting particularly of his Deputy Chair, Keith Bottomley (a mason) and Chair of the Planning Committee, Shravan Joshi (a mason). It might also have succeeded, as there is growing resentment among many backbench members that they’re being taken for fools by the ruling clique, especially over recent proposals that the top political posts be handsomely remunerated on top of the cash allowances that all members are entitled to receive and the substantial benefits in kind that they can all enjoy.

In normal politics, a leader facing such a mild measure from someone who had supported the establishment for so long and was just looking to create a legacy could have responded in a relaxed manner, perhaps agreeing with Holmes in advance to support some part of her proposal if she would drop another part, and warmly giving her credit for raising the matter. Politics, after all, is the art of the possible, and that would have been a possible – and politically astute – response. But the City council doesn’t do normal politics. Hayward and his clique are obsessed with having total control: it’s either their way, or no way. Such is their fanaticism that all proposals for change must come from them: anything that comes from outside their circle is seen as an existential threat and must be defeated. This perfectly reflects their masonic mindset: unity and hierarchy are absolutes that must be respected.

So it was inevitable that when Holmes put her motion at the full council meeting on 7/3/24 (see from 1:26:04 here), it would end badly. 

After Holmes had proposed the motion and Brian Mooney, a former Chief Commoner, seconded it, Joshi struck the first blow. At 1:30:25, he read from a script (who wrote it? – it didn’t sound like him), ominously warning about the “unintended consequences” of this minor proposal, and becoming more agitated as he spoke. Throughout Joshi’s speech, Hayward, who was sitting next to him, nodded in assent. (We counted 51 nods.) One wonders why Hayward wasn’t doing the speaking and Joshi wasn’t doing the nodding, because the subject of the motion applied to all committees, and therefore fell within Hayward’s remit as Chair of Policy, not Joshi’s as Chair of Planning. But perhaps Hayward thought it was in his own interest to keep a step removed from defeating a motion that could have been popular.

Edward Lord struck the next blow. Lord is not one of the City council’s leaders, having never been close to taking any of the top posts. Lord has in the past chaired a couple of backroom committees, disastrously: one was Standards, which became so rabid under Lord’s influence that it had to be euthanised; the other was Corporate Services, where Lord presided over a “restructuring” of the City’s staff that was so bungled that it destroyed staff morale. In April 2023 Lord failed to be re-elected to the governing Policy and Resources Committee. Don’t expect Lord, though, to leave the stage willingly. After Joshi spoke, Lord raised (at 1:33:37) a point of order that Holmes’ motion was inadmissible on a technical ground in standing orders that only Lord is sad enough to know, namely that the motion should have gone to the Policy and Resources Committee before coming to the full council, which it obviously hadn’t.

Lord has form for preventing democratic debate on procedural grounds. The debate didn’t need to be prevented, because the members could have agree to suspend the impeding standing order, but Holmes didn’t seem to know that.

The Town Clerk, Ian Thomas, then “consulted with” the Lord Mayor, Michael Mainelli (a mason), in whose name everything is done, but who doesn’t do much himself in these meetings, except read messages on his phone, which he does a lot. There followed a break in transmission of the recording while the point of order was considered. When the transmission resumed, Thomas declared that the point was upheld, and that “the matter will be referred to your Policy and Resources Committee for further consideration”. His words were heard in sullen silence.

So Holmes, the Chief Commoner, had the humiliation of seeing her legacy motion rejected without debate in front of the whole council. We don’t know whether Lord was acting in collusion with Hayward and Joshi or if the Point of Order intervention was on their own initiative. Hayward and Joshi remain culpable, though, because they could have done what a normal politician would have done, which was to propose suspending the impeding standing order to allow a democratic debate. But they’re not normal politicians, and anything that serves their purpose – including the weaponisation of procedure – is something they evidently find acceptable.

Some members remarked after the meeting how awful it looked for a bunch of masons to humiliate a prominent woman councillor in such a public way on International Women’s Day. Again, while those optics would have been important to a normal politician, Hayward and his clique care little for external opinion, and as masons they would find that intuitive. Women aren’t eligible to join them, so who cares what they think?

Four masons celebrating International Women’s Day: from left to right: Chris Hayward, Shravan Joshi, Edward Lord and Michael Mainelli.

An “unintended consequence” of this disreputable behaviour by Hayward, Joshi, Lord and Mainelli was to expose Thomas as incompetent. When Holmes gave notice of the motion, nearly two weeks before the meeting, why didn’t Thomas spot that it was inadmissible without suspending standing orders, and tell her before the meeting? It’s part of Thomas’ highly paid job as Town Clerk to know this kind of thing. And he is very highly paid, as this public document reveals.

Ian Thomas, the Town Clerk, needs to earn his pay and learn the standing orders.

After the meeting, Holmes hosted drinks in the members’ bar, which had been arranged beforehand to celebrate her last council meeting as the Chief Commoner. None of the ruling clique (or Lord) attended. The message to all members was clear: don’t propose anything the clique doesn’t want, or you too will be dealt with like this.

The following day, Holmes – obviously riled by her treatment – sent out the following email:

Email sent on 8/3/24 from Ann Holmes (Chief Commoner) to Chris Hayward (Chair of Policy) and Ian Thomas (Town Clerk),  openly copied to all members of the Court of Common Council (= City council)

Dear Both,

It is never possible to predict with absolute certainty how a vote will go, but l’d place strong odds that a majority of members would have supported the amendments I brought to yesterday’s Court.

It is unfortunate that their opportunity to do so was curtailed by a procedural intervention. It is regrettable that I hadn’t been informed that my motion was inadmissible. It is, however, yet more regrettable that members were not informed at yesterday’s Court, that, as I understand it, the motion could still have been discussed had two thirds voted for the suspension of standing orders.

I think it fair to say that the debate was hijacked, and that, if we are to have faith in our processes, it needs to be reinstated.

It should be noted that the changes in my amendment do not require membership of subcommittees to be known since, as now, any member is eligible to stand and, on appointment/election to its chair or deputy chair, automatically becomes a member of that subcommittee. It should also be noted that changes in my amendment do not have a significant impact on administrative procedures.

The reason it is important is to have amendments agreed before the start of the 24/25 civic year, is to ensure they are in place before the first meeting of an appointing committee.

It is fortunate, therefore, that there are two meetings of P and R, before the April Court. The latter, over a month away, on 1 April, two weeks ahead of that Court.

In the circumstances, I would welcome a commitment from you to ensure that any necessary papers will be prepared to facilitate Standing Order 27:2, and possible alternatives, including the amendment in my motion, being discussed at the 1 April meeting of P and R and recommendations, including entailed amendments (such as mine to standing order 29:4) are brought to the April Court.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best

Ann

Hayward, as the first addressee of that email and the Chair of Policy, should have replied, but it seems he got Thomas to do so instead. Perhaps Hayward again thought it would be in his own interest to keep a step removed from defeating a motion that could have been popular, so shoved Thomas forward to do the dirty work. We set out Thomas’ reply as follows:

Email reply sent on 8/3/24 from Ian Thomas (Town Clerk) to Ann Holmes (Chief Commoner), blind copied to all members

Dear Chief,

I recognise that the outcome of yesterday’s meeting was not to your satisfaction, and I acknowledge that it is unfortunate that the procedural conflict was not realised until the day of the Court itself. But I think it’s important to recognise that the meeting was conducted entirely properly and in accordance with Standing Orders. The Point of Order was raised properly at the meeting and dealt with in full compliance with the rules and it would actually not have been in order to permit debate to proceed. Those present and those reviewing the event on YouTube will see that the Lord Mayor was attempting to invite Deputy Fletcher to speak before establishing that it was a Point of Order being raised. Members will be aware that debates are usually paused whenever there is a Point of Order, Point of Explanation or if an Amendment is being proposed.

It is not for the Lord Mayor to advise Members on their appetite to consider the suspension of Standing Orders. Nor is it good form for officers to suggest to the Court that it might wish to circumvent its own stated procedures through the use of suspension. That is a matter for Members to propose and determine. It is unfortunate to characterise what took place as a hijacking, one might argue equally that the suspension of Standing Orders to allow debate would have been a subversion of the Court’s own agreed processes.

I know my officers will turn their minds to the report in question as quickly as able. However, this was not an anticipated piece of work, and it has only been 24 hours since the meeting. I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss or consider the implications in terms of reprioritising resource, which I am sure you will understand. I note already that several Members have replied to your email raising related issues they feel must also be explored as part of this work. This in and of itself demonstrates the intricacies of considerations and implications that need to be mapped out and I will need to give thought to scoping any associated resource. I am conscious that the committee team are already undertaking over 20 governance-related reviews on top of their normal workload and so managing capacity and deprioritising items needs to be considered. It would be inappropriate at this time to provide any assurance in the manner you seek.

I hope this clarifies the Lord Mayor’s position on the management of this item at the Court and wish you and your family good weekend.

Regards

lan

Observations on Thomas’ reply

Thomas’ reply is notable for the following reasons:

– He doesn’t explain why he failed to notice that the motion was inadmissible before the meeting. He just says that was “unfortunate”. He quickly distracts the reader’s attention from his obvious failing by saying “it’s important to recognise that the meeting was conducted entirely properly and in accordance with Standing Orders”. So that’s alright then. He fills the rest of the paragraph with more self-justifying verbiage.

– He justifies resisting the temptation to facilitate democratic debate through making members aware of the possibility of suspending standing orders by saying that it is not “good form for officers to suggest to the Court that it might wish to circumvent its own stated procedures through the use of suspension”.  But the Court’s “stated procedures” themselves permit the use of suspension so as not to stifle debate on a matter of real interest to members, as this one was likely to be. It is not “good form for officers” to assist in the weaponisation of procedure in these circumstances.

– He claims that it is “unfortunate” for Holmes to have characterised “what took place as a hijacking”. What is “unfortunate” is that he assisted the hijacker. The passengers weren’t applauding him afterwards.

– He reneges on the assurance he gave to all members in the council meeting that “the matter will be referred to your Policy and Resources Committee for further consideration”. He now says “It would be inappropriate at this time to provide any assurance in the manner you seek”.

– He has invented an absurd excuse for not letting the matter be considered by the Policy and Resources Committee. Lack of resources is a standard reason given by bureaucrats for resisting something they don’t want (or in this case something that Thomas’ political master Hayward doesn’t want). Shouldn’t the members decide what the officers should be spending their resources on and in what order, not Thomas (or his master)?

– His email is written in the pompous and passive-aggressive tone beloved of bureaucrats. You could probably write any bureaucratic email just by arranging the words in this one in different combinations: recognise, outcome, acknowledge, unfortunate, entirely properly, full compliance with the rules,  characterise, implications, resource, normal workload and – the ultimate bureaucratic putdown – inappropriate. Perhaps a member could put a motion that officers write in normal English, not in this weird dialect, but you would probably receive a reply in which the same words were used in a slightly different combination.

Thomas’ willingness to serve Hayward and his clique rather than all the members suits the clique well, which is all that matters to them. This has caused Thomas, though, to lose the confidence of a number of backbench members. Sooner or later, a general crisis of confidence in the clique and those who serve it will erupt. Those in the tumbrils on their way to the guillotine never expected to end up like that: they thought they could carry on the way they had always done … why can’t the residents eat cake … does that sound familiar?