Talk:City of London Corporation

Work

"Those who have worked for in the City" is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure if it's supposed to be "have worked in the City" or "have worked for $something in the City" so I won't correct it. dahamsta 08:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article title

The legal name is "The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London". Most people call it the "City of London". The Common Council decided that if "City of London" was confusing then "City of London Corporation" could be used as disambiguation.[1] --Henrygb 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

City of London vs. Corporation of London

What's the difference and relation between the City of London and the Corporation of London? I'm confused. Thanks in advance. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 12:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, the City of London is the area and the Corporation of London is that area's governing body. The Corporation of London is to the City of London what Westminster City Council is to the City of Westminster. Proteus (Talk) 12:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody from the City of London Corporation emailed us about their name change. Please do not revert the name change. See [2]:

The "City of London" will be the title used on a day-to-day basis and for branding all activities. The full name of "City of London Corporation" will be used where it is necessary to distinguish the Corporation from the financial City. David.Monniaux 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They can call themselves whatever they like (whether "on a day-to-day basis" or for their "branding"), but we are under no obligation to follow suit. WP policy is to use common names, and "Corporation of London" gets more than four times as many Google hits as "City of London Corporation". (And I don't like the way this "official" has gone about this at all. If he doesn't like the article name, he can create an account and come and argue his case like anyone else, instead of issuing quasi-decrees as if organisations own their articles and can dictate what actual editors do on them by sending e-mails to TPTB.) Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In practice, organizations requesting changes to articles typically write directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. David.Monniaux 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And obviously everyone's free to. But that doesn't mean we should jump to attention and do as they demand. Proteus (Talk) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We have guidelines for naming articles which state that we should go by the most common name. In this case this dictates the article name Corporation of London. There are provisions deaaling with naming conflicts, but I don't think they apply here. __meco (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A micronation?

“ Like Vatican City, London inner city is also a privately owned corporation or city state, located right smack in the heart of Greater London. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when king William III of Orange privatized and turned the Bank of England over to the bankers. ” — Ring of Power. ILLUMINATI Bloodlines part 2/31 (on YouTube)

__meco (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is fundamentally mistaken. The City of London was created by Alfred the Great as a burh by the at the latest 886 AD. It developed a civic commune in the 12th Century and this was supported by Royal Charters and Parliament. It was not much different in its evolution and constitution to any other provincial municipal corporation, except that it was the major economic city of England and then the UK. Its government was suspended by various kings, mainly because it usually supported an 'anti Court' party and because of its financial wealth gave loans to the king. It played the same role in the Stewart Civil Wars, financing Parliament. It was suspended by James II and the leading civic figures combined with the senior aristocrats to overthrow that king and invite William III & Mary II to establish a constitutional monarchy with Parliamentary government.

The Bank of England was created by Royal Charter of William III in 1694 as a 'Limited Liability 'joint stock' company - it did not exist before and it therefore was not a goverment body as it eventually became in 1945. It was set up to finance war debt, British foreign policy became antagonistic to French interests from this period.

The City corporation is not "a privately owned corporation" but a public body, a local authority, like any other, with an elected council. It does have one remarkable difference - it has separate income from endowments and property and so is not exclusively reliant on local taxes nor does it receive central Government subsidies. Indeed it has to distribute its business taxes across the other Greater London boroughs and it is the single largest contributor to both London Transport and to the arts and cultural life of the metropolis. Because of its economic independence governments have found no need to merge it with other councils and its ancient status means it continues its ceremonial civic arrangements which have largely died out in other towns. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

It has many legal exemptions and oddities, but because it has always arranged loans for the government of the rest of Britain it is left to run itself. As they say, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".86.42.205.116 (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

contradiction

Paragraph 1, sentence 1: The City of London Corporation (legally and formally known as the Corporation of London) ...'

Paragraph 2, sentence 1: The City of London Corporation is formally termed the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

So what is its formal name, the Corporation of London or the Mayor and Commalty and Citizens of the City of London? (I suspect that maybe the "Corporation of London" is its official name, and its formal name i.e. the name used in formal contexts and the English are ever so good at is "the Mayor and Commalty and Citizens of the City of London".)

—Felix the Cassowary 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

History??

Does anyone know when the Corporation of London was established? It doesn't have a royal charter does it? I see the date of 1189 in some places. Wikidea 10:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is assumed to be an original royal charter that has since been lost. But you have identified a weakness of this article (which is ironic considering the the corporation is notable for and very proud of its long history). — Richardguk (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Started a new section: City of London Corporation#History. There have been many royal charters, including the earliest surviving one from William the Conqueror in 1067, but the corporation is older still. Legally, the corporation is incorporated "by prescription", in other words, it is so ancient that the law presumes that it must have been incorporated even though there is no surviving direct proof. — Richardguk (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tax haven section

Hi,

I added a referenced section on allegations that the City is a tax haven, but it was removed by another editor in this edit. I wonder if a third person could offer their opinion on whether it is relevant to the article or should be removed.

Many thanks, Supersparrow 13 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Supersparrow, the situation is made clearer in the Criticism of the City of London entry here.

What's it got to do with the corporation?

And in any case the City isn't a tax haven. David (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The city is not a tax haven. The definition of a tax haven is a place where companies register themselves only for tax purposes to avoid more punitive foreign tax. The City of London could in no way be described as that. The user conflates two different concepts: a) a tax haven and b) a place where companies that use tax havens have offices. In reality the City of London loses money from some of their companies using tax havens such as the BVI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.168.197 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We probably need to think if the City/Corporation of London articles should go in one large section or two separate ones, one dealing with physical structure and layout, and the other with the administrative functions and businesses. There appears to be a great deal of duplicity across the two sections. --Andromedean (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have chosen this article for the criticism section for the reasons provided in the final paragraph. The City of London article is less appropriate referring mainly to physical infrastructure rather than commerce.--Andromedean (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

in a moment, I shall remove its lead-in. The present section consists of:

- criticism of the resident businesses in the City for hiding money, without the criticism remotely being specific to the Corporation (or, indeed, the City - the hiding techniques work equally well anywhere in the world and don't involve the City at all) - A defence of an attack on the Remembrancer's office, completely missing citations, which is not actually present in the criticism section at all. Such a defence could be justified if the criticism were there - though perhaps not so vigorously - but it isn't actually criticism and doesn't make a lot of sense.

Feel free to revive the section - it's possible and indeed not even hard to criticise the corporation and I'm sure references can be found that have done so - but the two points above are not criticism at all and without them the section is empty.89.201.163.12 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted Monbiot's quote in full which should resolve any ambiguity. The extent it is a plutocracy depends on who is voting within the business I suppose, presumably the bosses have a say? Whichever way one spins it the votes are cast from a minority of participants in the firm. So it looks quite plutocratic to me despite the sliding scale and I don't think the statement is misleading.----Andromedean (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)188.220.205.42 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section is inordinately large. Not that the City and corporation don't necessarily deserve it – and more besides – but a) this is an encyclopedia page about the entity, not a political discussion page; and b) the section as it is now conflates and confuses the corporation with the City per se and the businesses that operate from there. N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section was initially placed in The City of London article, but this seemed inappropriate since the section described the physical infrastructure rather than the commercial aspects which the criticism was directed towards. I attempted to raise the issue there, but got no response and eventually took the same section out and placed it here instead. The Corporation and businesses seem to be closely linked in this case and that is partly the reason for the criticism. If you can suggest a better summary then please do. --Andromedean (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, just because it isn't, or might not be, relevant there, and no one else offered an opinion on that there, doesn't mean it is relevant here. This page is about the Corporation, not the businesses that happen to work within the geographical area it administers. It's like having loads of general criticisms of the state of modern football, eg in terms of salaries, player conduct etc, on The Football Association page. If they are linked to the FA's administration of the game, then maybe they deserve a mention, but they should not just be chucked in there. Also, as I said, there's a fundamental problem with big sections headed "Criticism" like this, not least when it comes to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues, even if the content does genuinely relate to the topic. I'll probably go through it in a bit more detail later today and try to edit it a) to ensure it includes only material relating, directly or indirectly, to the Corporation; and b) to integrate the material that is relevant so that it's there thematically, not in the current "here's a laundry list of negative observations" format, which takes up about 60% of the page. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The criticism covers around 15% in space (perhaps 30% in word count) not 60% as you claim. Typing out 'City of London Corporation' into Google yields 8 out of 30 negative articles on the first 3 pages (excluding this Wikipedia article, a list of lobbying firms and a historic one about workhouses). They are mainly concerned with Tax avoidance/evasion and accountability. These key issues surely must be included.--Andromedean (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, 60% was a random guess and deliberately exaggerated. A word count just now suggests your 30% figure is right. But that's a huge amount for a "Criticism" section in any WP article, however terrible the subject might be. Regardless, obviously material that is relevant to the Corporation should be retained, even if critical – the point is that it has to be relevant to the topic and has to be organised differently rather than all being dropped in one bundled "Criticism" section. It's as ridiculous as having a "Praise" section that sources material from the FT and the government telling us how the City is the world's leading financial institution and how much money it makes for the country. That, too, would fail on the a) irrelevant and b) undue/pov counts. This is an encyclopedia article meant to tell us what the Corporation is and what it does, not to argue the merits or otherwise of rapacious financial capitalism and provide a platform for the random musings of people on either side of that debate. And finally, I'm not sure Google metrics of the sort described are something we should be basing editorial decisions on in the way proposed – and even if they were, you're surely not suggesting that random off-topic criticism should be included to make up the numbers? N-HH talk/edits 16:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

taking your example of Association Football, the nearest equivalent to the city of London corporation would be the administrators of the game FIFA. Their criticism section is also quite lengthy --Andromedean (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a theoretical example to illustrate the point – what actually is or is not on the FA or FIFA pages doesn't matter, since knowing WP they're as likely to be full of irrelevant stuff as any other page here. That said, the material you've pointed to on the FIFA page is not defined and titled as being a general and vague "Criticism" section, it is focused on specific things, with appropriate titles; plus most of what is there appears to be specifically about FIFA itself, not about football generally, which is what I am asking for here. Anyway, when I get round to it I will try to make some changes. Reading through some of the sources quickly, it seems some are actually more specifically focused on the Corporation than the way they've been summarised and rendered here would suggest (eg the Shaxson piece in the New Statesman). In such cases, I'll try to make that clearer; in others, where the content is not about the Corporation or does not refer to it, the material really will have to go. That's surely a non-negotiable point in principle; feel free to question how I might choose to apply it when it comes to it. N-HH talk/edits 16:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with tidying up this section and being reasonable. however, there seems to be no escaping the criticism. perhaps we have let the corporation off lightly. See Secret City the acclaimed investigative film written by Lee Salter and directed by Michael Chanan. The documentary explores the power wielded by the City of London Corporation and reveals its relationship to London’s position at the centre of global finance, and the economic crisis. --Andromedean (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm joining this discussion a bit late, but here goes, blaming the failings of the British, or International banking system on the City of L Corporation, is analagous to making the School Board of Washington DC* responsible for the US invasion of Iraq, the Vietnam War and US foreign policy in general - simply because the relevant decisions were made within 'its territory'. *(or some other wholly local body with specific wholly local power and responsibilities).

I have no objection to criticisms, but people need to be clear about the difference between the Corporation and the financial institutions that happen to be based in 'the City'.Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas Shaxton

Who is this person and why is most of this article about his random opinions on the City of London???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.168.197 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is all explicitly researched and referenced in his book and I think we can be sure he would have been sued out of his boots by now if it wasn't all true! It is also widely known via the tax justice network, and people are far less tolerant of the Cities antics since the banking collapse. --Andromedean (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What would Shaxton's take be if the C of LC owed £1.3bn instead of making and holding on to it? Are high state taxes and national debt really preferable to low taxes and no debt?78.18.252.15 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Wikipedia coverage of City voting system

The voting system of C of London Corp is covered on several page (including references on the Plutocracy page) ... There seems to be a fundamental inconsistency in the coverage, most pages referring to 'business votes' and to 'votes being allocated to businesses', whilst the Governance of City of London page states "Under the new system, the number of non-resident voters has doubled from 16,000 to 32,000. Previously disfranchised firms ... are entitled to nominate voters, ... and all such bodies are now required to choose their voters in a representative fashion.".

The difference between the two descriptions seems critical, if votes are simply allocated to businesses, then the system seems inherently paternalistic, if not plutocratic. However, if effective mechanisms are in place to ensure free elections WITHIN companies' workforces, then a completely different picture emerges (one might almost then call them 'worker' or 'employee votes').

I went as far as consulting the Corporation website, which merely suggests (rather then enforces) ways in which companies are advised to choose their voters.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the system - and whether it is effective - can contribute.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just altered the final paragraph of the voting system section in a way that (I hope) is clearer and less 'loaded'. We should accurately record the anomalies of the voting system, without passing judgement on them.

It also occurs to me that coverage of the City's voting system - and governance - is 'sprawled' across several pages, perhaps this coverage should be merged into one place for reasons of consistency and economy of space.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Like with the "City remembrancer" page, I've removed the Monbiot and Shaxson references. These are simply not credible and contain falsehoods such as:

"The City of London has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest,[26][27] partly due to its power as Britain's financial capital. These are also mentioned by the Statute of William and Mary in 1690" is a statement, not a criticism.

"Author and journalist Nicholas Shaxson argues that, in return for raising loans and finance for the British government, the City "has extracted privileges and freedoms from rules and laws to which the rest of Britain must submit" that have left the corporation "different from any other local authority. He argues that the assistance provided to the institutions based in its jurisdiction, many of which help their rich clients with offshore tax arrangements, mean that the corporation is "a tax haven in its own right"" - again this is not true, the City of London is not a tax haven and is subject to the same laws as the rest of England and Wales. Besides, this article is about The City of London Corporation.

"Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot argued that the corporation's power "helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens" and suggested that its privileges could not withstand proper "public scrutiny"" - The City of London Corporation does not regulate banks. That's the job of the Financial Conduct Authority.

Just because someone has an opinion on something, doesn't mean it is either correct, factual, or belongs in an encyclopedia. e.g. you probably wouldn't be quoting David Icke in any criticism of the British Monarchy.

87.112.14.26 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's take a step back. Shaxson and Monbiot are hardly David Icke. They represent a view of the City of London Corporation is well known and widely held. Even if it is wrong, simply deleting it won't improve the article. Deleting the section makes it look like the criticism doesn't exist or should be ignored. It is best to promote balance by acknowledging such criticisms exist and providing sources which counter their statements.

If any of the information belongs in a different section, then we should move it, likewise if there should be a clearer line between the City of London and the Corporation. Emma May Smith (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emma May Smith. "They represent a view of the City of London Corporation is well known and widely held." - says you. But doing some digging on this, all roads lead back to Shaxson. That's one man's opinion, not fact, and many of the assertions he makes, repeated by Monbiot, are not true. Shaxson is not a reliable source and I disagree with you when you say "Even if it is wrong, simply deleting it won't improve the article". Deleting incorrect information from an article can only make it better. Wikipedia is meant to be factual after all. If you have any reliable sources for criticism that don't cite Shaxson then please do put them in the article.

I haven't deleted the entire criticism section; you'll note I've left the Corporation cash account criticism. That's because it is backed up with a reliable source, an article in The Independent, not an opinion piece.

"If any of the information belongs in a different section, then we should move it, likewise if there should be a clearer line between the City of London and the Corporation." - yes, I've deleted stuff that's nothing to do with The City of London Corporation from The City of London Corporation article.