The Financial Times Calls The City Of London Council Undemocratic: This Local Authority Will Remain That Way Until Westminster Passes Legislation To Abolish Its Business Vote

The City operates an idiosyncratic system of “corporate democracy”. At best it is flawed, at worst a recipe for abuse. A connected problem is the scant choice of candidates. For every councillor position, there are just 1.3 candidates on average, radically fewer than in London’s 32 local boroughs. The aldermanic voting system is particularly open to manipulation. An old acquaintance and former Lord Mayor once told me that one explanation for the City’s sometimes reactionary instincts is a “shadow hanging over the whole structure” of the corporation’s supposedly democratic governance, Freemasonry. Close to a third of councillors are declared masons, including the chairs of nearly all the major committees. Three-quarters of Lord Mayors over the past century have been masons.

Residents Need A City Of London Reset On Repairs & For Something To Be Done About The Scandal Of The 66 Empty Council Flats In Black Raven Court

While the issue of the raw sewage leak on the Golden Lane Estate was disgusting enough for a story about it to be splashed across mainstream media outlets, there are many other matters relating to social housing that require addressing. Not only repairs and maintenance but also the 66 brand new social housing flats that remain empty in Black Raven Court, a completed tower block immediately to the north of the Golden Lane Estate. We understand that tenants moving into Black Raven Court has been delayed because material used above the balcony windows, behind the brickwork facade, complies with building regulations, but is not insurable. There is a now a contractual dispute about who pays for the remedial work.

City of London Council Leaders Propose That They Be Paid (A Lot) More – While Their Social Housing Tenants Shiver In Poorly Insulted Homes & Face A Rent Hike

Over the last few years, the leaders of the City of London council have quietly been preparing the way for a proposal that has now emerged – that they be paid substantial “special responsibility allowances” on top of their existing substantial perks and privileges. These same leaders have refused to spend a single penny of the council’s “City’s Estate” fund (formerly called “City’s Cash”) – out of which their “special responsibility allowances” will be paid – on accelerating the renovation of the council’s relatively small housing estates, which have fallen into disrepair due to decades of neglect, which is in turn due to decades of poor leadership. So City tenants shiver in winter because window replacements that have been overdue for decades remain on the council’s “to do” list, while the payment of “special responsibility allowances” to the leaders are to be implemented “as quickly as possible” in the 2024-25 financial year.

Spotlight On The City Of London’s ‘Independent’ Persons Who Oversee ‘Standards’ – Miranda Carruthers-Watt

Given the urgent need to reform the City of London ‘standards’ regime we thought it worth doing occasional posts on the ‘independent’ persons who oversee it. Since Miranda Carruthers-Watt has already come up in previous posts and we noticed that earlier this month it was announced she’d been made Deputy Lieutenant of Lancashire, we decided to begin with her. One doesn’t have to look far online to discover Carruthers-Watt isn’t popular with some journalists in the north west of England…

City Councillor Ruby Sayed’s Push For Extra Community Infrastructure Levy Funds For The Temple Church & Public Perceptions Of Probity

At a meeting of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RASC) of the City of London Corporation to discuss Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Funds (CILNF) grant awards on 17 May 2022, Cllr Ruby Sayed lobbied for a grant application from the Temple Church to be approved. Furthermore, she insisted that the grant should be considerably larger than £371,000 recommended by the officers so that the Temple Church could appoint a professional fundraiser. Sayed did so despite the likelihood that at least some City voters and other members of the public would perceive this as an influence-peddling reward to her chums at the Temple Inns of Court for the status-enhancing honour they had bestowed on her in July 2020.

On Will Gompertz Departing The Barbican Centre & The Speculation Swirling Around City Of London Executive Director Environment Juliemma McLoughlin

Within the culture industry Will Gompertz’s move from the Barbican Centre to the John Soane’s Museum is seen as a ‘surprising’ step down to a less prestigious role at a less visible institution. While there is widespread art world perception that the Barbican Centre is a troubled institution, there is less understanding that this is due to the City of London council’s stranglehold on the Barbican Centre Board. Insider word is that Gompertz wanted out of the Barbican Centre because an administrative job that involved pleasing a self-selected cohort of City of London councillors was just too much for him. The Artistic Director role he held is essentially that of a high level bureaucrat who takes gossamer thin ideas and stretches them out into faddish strategic institutional discourse which then requires approval and assessment by the Board and various subcommittees.

City Of London Planning Committee: From Bad To Worse

This City of London planning committee could have rejected the officers’ recommendation and refused the application for the Holborn Circus development because of the removal of mature trees with preservation orders on them– but it didn’t, for two reasons. Historically the City planning committee has approved almost every application for a major office development that has come before it, however controversial. Secondly, a Land Registry search on the application site reveals that its freehold owner is the City of London Corporation, which would benefit financially from the proposed development. The planning committee always approves applications in which the council it is a part of has a financial interest. Within the City of London council, but not elsewhere, that isn’t seen as a conflict.

How The City of London Council Works

For many members, belonging to the Court is a source of self-importance. Any proposal for change that might result in their ceasing to belong, such as a reduction in the number of members or a transfer of the Corporation’s various conflicting functions to other bodies, triggers a negative emotional response. Even a proposal for change that does not directly affect their belonging but alters the shape of the Corporation in some significant way, like using City’s Cash for the benefit of residents, can trigger a similar response. Members sense the Corporation is a fragile structure that owes its existence to history rather than logic, and fear that changing the structure could cause it to disintegrate.

The City Of London Police & Racism

This discrimination happened to staff who ‘didn’t fit’ because of their job role e.g. police staff, staff who worked part time, Black, Asian and non-white majority staff, women, staff with disabilities. Bullying and offensive comments or behaviour are framed as ‘banter’ and excused as just part of the job. Staff don’t feel able to raise issues about offensive or excluding behaviour for fear of being ignored or victimised. Several respondents had experienced or witnessed senior staff screaming or shouting at staff, making people cry, and other bullying behaviour.

Further City Of London Failures On Planning & Governance

As anyone familiar with the City of London Corporation knows, the reasons given for a particular proposal are not necessarily the real ones. The reasons given for the planning panels proposal by its supporters are easily rebutted since they will increase bureaucracy and decrease democratic accountability. The real reason for the proposal is to enable the Corporation’s leadership to consolidate its power by tightening its grip on the planning process. The leadership and its supporters evidently regard the promotion of the Corporation’s interests and those of office developers as articles of faith, and treat the Planning Committee as a rubber stamp in pursuing those interests. The repeated criticism which the Corporation has received internally and, increasingly, externally seems to have concerned the leadership enough to propose introducing panels in order to lessen this unwelcome scrutiny and the embarrassment caused by it. This real reason isn’t a good one.

RECLAIM EC1

No To Business Votes, Yes To Democracy!

governance