Maurice Glasman, a lecturer at London Metropolitan University was appointed a Labour peer in the New Years Honours List.
Maurice has long researched the City of London and all that is abusive about it. It is that research that has fuelled his belief in London Citizens and the need for effective social action to reclaim the government of London for the people of that city (I mean the whole great city - not the bit called the City) for the benefit of the citizenry of London.
It seems an obvious demand. But when the London County Council got near to being effective the City of London ensured it was abolished.
And when the Greater London Council got near to be ing effective it too was assigned to history.
And now we have a pathetic form of London wide authority with a Mayor who has to bow and scrape to the City - because that, as Maurice points out is where the power is.
It is a power Maurice has threatened, as he told at a meeting at the London School of Economics tonight when he shared a platform with Nick Shaxson of the Tax Justice Network, author of the best book on tax havens ever - 'Treasure Islands'.
Maurice threatened that power in a very simple way. He asked to have the title when offered a peerage of Lord Glasman of the City of London. And he was told that was not possible. He explained why it isn't possible.
You see, the City of London is in a very real sense not a part of the UK. And peers are. They take their title from a territory and owe their loyalty for having lien over it to the Crown which bestowed the privilege. But the City has never been subject to the Crown.
As Maurice related, when William the Conqueror conqured the rest of England and made it Norman he did not conquer the City. The City, with its origins in Roman times, made peace with him quite separately and in return kept all its rights and privileges - which it has had 'from time immemorial'.
There is not time here to relate all the consequences. Suffice to say that the City has ensured since then that those privileges. It has repelled its population so that the rights are preserved now, almost entirely, for the benefit of the City Livery Companies - and the businesses and business people that make them up. And it has a system of government that is wholly unaccountable - so much so that it has quite literally never published accounts of its considerable wealth - and is subject to no statutory obligation to do so - and as such that wealth is held unaccountably by a few for the benefit of a very few.
But that also means that the City is neither accountable to parliament or to the Crown - meaning that Maurice Glasman could not be Lord of the City of London becasue for these purposes it is not part of the UK - but a location quite separate to it.
I am sure Maurice is right.
But let's think about this for a minute. We have bailed out the City. Massively. to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. And yet the City we will not account to anyone for the wealth it has. What we can be sure of is that the wealth in question is massive - and it is dedicated entirely to promoting neoliberal unaccountable capitalism.
Well I have a better use for it. I think it is time for a very simple Act of Parliament. It reads as follows:
1. This Act shall be referred to as the City of London Act 2011
2. The Corporation of London shall be dissolved and its powers and responsibilities shall be assumed by a new London Borough of the City of London. The London Borough of the City of London shall in all respects rank equal to the other thirty two London Boroughs and shall have such powers, rights and responsibilities as are afforded to them.
3. The property of the Corporation of London shall be passed in its entirety to HM Treasury save that part that represents tangible physical property required for the day to day supply of services by the new London Borough of the City of London and those trading balances and working capital balances owed to or required by that same new London Borough of the City of London for that same purpose.
4. Those persons in the employ of the Corporation of London shall have their employment transferred to the London Borough of the City of London but no other compensation of any form shall otherwise be due to any party as a consequence of the dissolution of the Corporation of London.
5. Elections for the London Borough of the City of London shall be held on the first Thursday in May 2012 with those persons eligible to vote being organised for this purpose into no more than 10 wards designated for this purpose by the Electoral Commission and with all voting rights to persons other than those residing in those wards being abolished, with the new London Borough for the City of London to assume responsibility for government in the City of London from 1 April 2013.
I'm sure that could be tidied a bit - but you get the drift. Cut out all those who vote now who don't live in the City. Wipe away hundreds of years of absurd voting in wards where no one lives. Make the City democratically accountable. Transfer its property to the Treasury to pay for the bail out. Stop it using its funds to promote abuse by bankers. And most of all -bring it within democratic accountability.
It's not much to ask, is it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
So actually the City has almost exactly the same relationship to the UK as do Jersey and Guernsey – except that they get a share of an MP.
The City Act is interesting, but actually it shouldn’t even go that far: giving an area with a resident population of under 12000 (ONS 2010 estimate) the same level of authority as (say) Croydon – with a population of a third of a million – still looks wildly undemocratic. Go the whole hog and reduce it to two extra wards of Westminster.
James
Two ?
Most of its occupants live abroad for tax purposes, so why even one ?
“I’m sure that could be tidied a bit – but you get the drift. Cut out all those who vote now who don’t live in the City. Wipe away hundreds of years of absurd voting in wards where no one lives. Make the City democratically accountable. Transfer its property to the Treasury to pay for the bail out. Stop it using its funds to promote abuse by bankers. And most of all -bring it within democratic accountability.
It’s not much to ask, is it?”
To most sane, reasonable people who have some belief in notions of accountability and democracy Richard, it’s not. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be many such people in this government, and, I suspect, none at all in the City.
The City is a massive wealth creator, provider of opportunity, and an international competitor. In other words, the exact antithesis of the sprawling welfare state/public sector you’re so eager to create. Hands off please.
The City is a massive, self-interested, self-serving “off-shore” parasite that has more than played its part in the UK’s and the World’s economic woes – having done so it has expected to be bailed out to the tune of Billions by the UK taxpayer in order for it to carry on in the same self-serving fashion. The sooner it is brought under something resembling a responsible, ACCOUNTABLE jurisdiction the better, IMO
@Tyisha
This has to be one of the most absurd comments to have ever got through moderation here
The City single handedly destroyed more wealth in the UK from 2007 – 2009 than has ever happened before in history
We will pay the price for a long time to come
The biggest drain on our economy is the City of London – and when it crashes again, as it will, it could destroy he very basis of our way of life
Exactly why we need to a) stip its abuse b) make it pay c) stop it promoting this abuse as if it is desirable
Or to put it another way – absolutely everything you say is not just very obviously wrong – it’s a sign of serious delusions
Richard
I think one of the main issues with some of the people who disagree with many of your blogs is that they seem unable grasp causality – or indeed even consider it. Combine that with indifference (at best) towards the concepts of accountability, transparency, equity, and democratic principles, such as government by the people for the people (note: not by an elite for an elite) and freedom of speech and the right to protest, and its clear why your views are usually anathema to them.
Where could I find out more about The City of London and the implications of it? It sounds very interesting. How come this is not general knowledge?
Fantastic blog. particularly because it proposes some practical actions. something ukuncut could get its teeth into. I would suggest, slightly differently to another commentator, that it is absorbed into towerhamlets.
“Transfer its property to the Treasury to pay for the bail out”
I’m fascinated to know how this would work. For what I remember of the City’s property portfolio it’s all tied up in historic buildings.
Are you proposing selling them for redevelopment? I wouldn’t imagine you’re going to be very popular when Guildhall is knocked down in favour of a glass tower. And it’s not as if they could be leased back to their current occupiers because those bodies will have ceased to exist.
@bloke in spain
If you think there’s no value in those sites, think again is all I can say
That’s an absurd suggestion – even without any rebuilding
It’s also utterly absurd to think they do not have an extensive property portfolio elsewhere and massive investments
This is a body that has been accumulating wealth for 1,000 years
@Brass Tacks
Start with Nick Shaxson’s Book ‘Treasure Islands’ – it has a great chapter on this
Richard, there is no doubt value in those sites. There’s value in the Tower of London ‘site’ but would you really propose knocking it down? And as the ‘Tower of London’ it’s not actually worth anything is it? It just costs a lot of money to maintain which is defrayed by the visitor charges.
Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest, Highgate Wood. They’re under the control of the Corp of London. Housing estates?
@bloke in spain
Look, you might call yourself a “bloke’ but might I suggest growing up?
I’m not suggesting knocking down any such sites
And I’m also suggesting you’re being disingenuous or worse if you really think that’s the whole real estate of the City of London
If you really think they maintain these properties as charity and that’s all the Corporation of London does I suggest you have a lot to learn
And if you resent being patronised try bringing your debate up to something better than the level of “I heard it down the pub” – or is that what you intend with your moniker?
Well, I did work in the City for several years & I never remember anyone being in the slightest interested in the workings of the Corp of London. The ‘financial’ City & the the ‘administrative’ City are so divorced from each other they hardy interact. As for the ceremonial titles, guilds, swan upping & all that; getting involved with the pageantry just costs the participants a lot of money. It’s nonsense prestige stuff. Nothing I could have afforded.
And you don’t answer the question about Highgate Wood. Haringey Council can’t afford the open spaces its got. Have you seen Queens Wood & Ally Pally. It doesn’t want the responsibility.
A couple of points:
1. Richard Murphy appears to be conflating the ‘big finance’ companies we colloquially call ‘the City’ with ‘the City of London’. Big Finance isn’t solely based in the City of London.
2. Maurice Glasman asked to be made “Lord of the City of London” and was told this was “unprecedented” and “unacceptable”. It is literally unprecedented: we haven’t had a Lord of the City of London since 1801 (as far back as I can find records for), but we have had a number of peers of various of its wards, e.g. “Baroness Wheeler of Blackfriars in the City of London”, “Lord Sacks of Aldgate in the City of London”, and “Lord Sheikh of Cornhill in the City of London”. As for “unacceptable”, perhaps Glasman was asking for something that could not be granted. He is now Baron of Stoke Newington and Stamford.
Even if this was true (which is open to doubt – just how much opportunity is provided by the City, apart from to people who already have plenty of it? And surely a “sprawling public sector” would reduce the size of the welfare state – it’s certainly take people of benefits) -why should it allow the City to be treated any differently from the rest of the country? Why should an international competitor in the City of London be treated any differently from one in Manchester?
Tyisha’s comment really seems to sum up just how elitist and blinkered some people can be – when suggesting that the City be treated like anyone else is treated with horror, it becomes clear that they really do regard themselves as a breed apart, and everyone else as the masses who should be grateful for their brilliance.
@bloke in spain
So they excluded you and you thought that was OK
Exactly what they wanted to do, no doubt
As for public open spaces – of course they need money – tax money – which is exactly what the City deny them
I’d be making resources available for that purpose
@ukliberty
a) Nonsense – I’m not confusing anything – I’m talking about a near independent government in the UK run to promote the cause of the finance industry. The confusion is, I assure you, yours alone
b) Listen to Glasman and the response is the same – Nonsense
@GarethThe City of London creates next to no wealth. Some of its activities facilitate wealth creation. Too much of activities are little more than a casino where electronic claims on wealth are passed around.
Good in principal but the proposal as it stands does not make sense in administrative terms. Of course get rid of the City of London. But create a new Central London borough with its northern boundary along Commercial Street, City Road/Euston Road/Marylebone Road/Edgware Road.
The boundaries of adjacent boroughs might need to be adjusted as lumps will have been taken off Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Islington, Camden and Westminster. A useful opportunity to tidy up any anomalies in their boundaries.
That is a natural geographical boundary.
Richard,
a) I didn’t say you were confusing them.
b) Which bit is nonsense? The first part – “unprecedented” – is true. On the second part – “unacceptable” – I admit I don’t know the rules for peerages – do you?
(source for the unprecedented and unacceptable quote)
@ukliberty
Unacceptable – I quote Maurice Glasman – who was told so by the Garter Office
“So they excluded you and you thought that was OK
Exactly what they wanted to do, no doubt”
Excluded? Well only excluded in the sense that I was excluded from the Boy Scouts on the basis that I never asked to join. As a resident of the Square Mile I had a vote & I would imagine I’d have been a shoo in for the Goldsmiths being actually a goldsmith at the time.
Richard, just in case there is any confusion I am not saying you’re dishonest – I’m suggesting you’ve only been told half the story, if that.
It appears Glasman wanted to make a political point. He did so – well done to him. It doesn’t mean his point is literally true.
And you wrote,
But we do have peers of wards in the City of London, so that seems to refute this claim.
To add to the peerage debate, I think the problem stems from the City being a county (granted Henry 1 1132) which would make the honour a earldom not a baronetcy. All very medieval of course but that’s what a peerage is.
@bloke in spain
This is not a baronetcy
It is a peerage
@ukliberty
Look – you weren’t there to hear what Maurice said – I was – and his point was abundantly clear – this is not possible because of the status of the City – which most emphatically is not a county
Richard, a baron is a peer.
@ukliberty
And the holder of a baronetcy is a knight and is addressed as Sir, not Lord
As far as I can work out the Lord – that’s the political not the titular use of the word – of the City of London is probably the monarch; in the same way that’s she’s Lord of England etc etc etc ( & probably still holds claim to the throne of France as well. I’ve a document issued in the reign of Geo 11 that does anyway) That’d make sense of the Corp of London holding Epping Forest, Highgate Wood etc as these are in the Forest Charter 1217 as Royal Forests & they’re doing so as her liegemen.Other landholdings may be the same.
Yes, you’re right Richard barony not baronetcy. my stupid.
But whether the City is a County or not is an argument in feudal terms not administrative because we’re talking feudal terms. That’s what peerage is.
@bloke in spain
Don’t you really think you’ve utterly missed the point in your pedantry?
Maurice made a point for a political reason – that we have a feudal form of government in the City undermining the democracy of the UK
You have not challenged any of his facts – for facts they are – and have sought to divert attention from the issue
How very neoliberal of you
The explanation that you heard from Maurice Glasman is only part of the story. You are right that the City of London has won rights from the Crown – but again, it is only part of the story.
From the legal perspective, our history is dominated by the Conquest and the subsequent demands of people to assert their rights and privileges against the Crown. It could be said that the whole of the legislative book is an expression of that demand to limit the power of the Crown.
The City of London is not separate, in any sense; the law of England applies in the City of London as it does elsewhere. But at the same time, the City has a special place – it has its own police force; its own local authority and its own privileges from the Crown – some of which predate the establishment of Parliament as we know it.
The conflict that Maurice Glasman accidentally stumbled on when he asked to become a Baron of the City of London is a continuation of those arguments. Peerages are property – and the property in the name of the City of London belongs to the City of London – and it cannot be used by someone else without the City of London’s permission – which is unlikley to be given.
Forgive me, but this is not about a state within a state. It is about the property in the name …
@Evan Price
Maurice did not stumble across this
He made the request deliberately knowing that this is a place outside the laws of Parliament
And he’s right
London is s sovereign city state – that’s Glasman’s argument – and I think it’s true
Which is why it must be abolished
Sadly, his view is not one that would be shared by any lawyer I know. The fact is that he would have faced a similar difficulty seeking to use Lancaster, Windsor, York, Cornwall or any of the Royal titles.
Yes, this is a result of the peculiarities of out history, but it arises from the legal position that I have explained.
London is not outside the laws of Parliament. The Queen in Parliament is the Sovereign of the whole of England and in English law can legislate even over the powers and prerogatives of the City of London. Over the last few decades the City has given up land to neighbouring boroughs in order to limit the reforms that are imposed on it … And it has taken
on responsibilities for land that other local authorities don’t wish to retain – Hampstead Heath is an example.
If Glasman’s argument is that London is a City state, then he’s simply mistaken in my view.
@Evan Price
Of course you think that
You admit you’re a lawyer
And I note your address
Who do I think is expedient here and who right?
You guess
And you’re an accountant! So what if I am a lawyer? At least I am attempting to explain the legal status from a legal perspective … One that includes at least a little knowledge of the subject that I am attempting to explain.
@Evan Price
Let me tell you a little story
Every morning in every court in the land two lawyers get up and argue their opponent is wrong
Only one of them is ever right
It must be odd to be in a profession that is always at least 50% wrong
I admire your conviction
But you’re also wrong
But you’re in what you’d call good company – that of lawyers
Richard,
But it is possible – I have shown you that there have been peers of wards of the City of London, indeed there are at least three at the moment (Wheeler, Sacks and Sheikh).
@ukliberty
No you have not proved it is possible
You have proved it is possible for a ward
That’s different
And also utterly irrelevant to this debate
Very rarely are there arguments between lawyers about the law that applies to the circumstances of a particular case. The reality is that 90% to 95% of cases turn on the facts … and that is what the parties argue about.
Where legal issues are in dispute it tends to be about which law applies and on occasion what the particular law means.
If there were an argument about whether Parliament could legislate over the rights and privileges of the City of London, I have no doubts whatseover that Parliament would win … it is, as I have explained, Sovereign, even over the City of London.
I admire your conviction … it is an interesting conviction that one often faces with a client who wants their case heard, convinced of the rightness of it, even though their lawyers tell them that they are probably or even bound to lose.
@Evan Price
And let’s be clear – this is politics
And respectfully – I think you’re wrong politically as well as legally
BTW, the City is not a County it is the City of London: it is a unique local authority in that it combines ancient traditions, powers and prerogatives with the role and responsibility of a local authority.
@Evan Price
I’m glad you’ve finally agreed
Those powers and prerogatives are the problem, of course
With respect, Evan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ceremonial_counties_of_England seems to disagree with you on the City’s county status. Of course ceremonial county isn’t the same as administrative county but then we are talking in part about the granting of honours so it is relevant.
I don’t agree. The ancient traditions, powers and prerogatives of the City of London are, as with other parts of the UK, subject to the Queen in Parliament not superior to them …
Richard,
I don’t hold any brief for the Temple of Mammon under discussion, nor for the legal profession.
I have a lot of time for your City of London bill (perhaps with ‘More like Wat…’s amendment, but I think you’re over-selling your case when you say:
the City is neither accountable to parliament or to the Crown
Sorry, an inadvertent post at mid-point…
I only have to go to legislation.gov.uk to find legislation (modern and less so) specific to the City of London.
To a layman like me, that sounds pretty conclusive. How does that fit with lack of accountability to parliament?
And I don’t have to go much further into that legislation (in the City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Act 1996)
to read:
The Master of the Temple as holder from the Crown of the office of incumbent of the Temple Church exercises within the Temple those special privileges of the Crown which relate to his office:
So how does that fit with lack of accountability to the crown?
And lastly, on the historical issue you raise, if London was not part of Norman England, why is Tower of London – built at William’s direction – inside the City walls? If London had really seen itself as an independent city state, and been able to assert this, this would have been fatally compromised by allowing a separate sovereign to build fortifications on its territory. And William’s charter (1) is too general to provide any firm grounds for this construction.
(1) – http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Records_and_archives/Events/UNESCO_World_Register.htm
@Dermot Yuille
Respectfully, that seems like clutching at straws