The City of London Council has rejected a proposal to establish a new Policy Leader
role, a move intended to enhance transparency and accountability within the City Corporation's leadership structure.
The motion, put forward by Deputy Ann Holmes, sought to have the Policy Leader elected by the entire Court of Common Council and to become Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee. If the proposal had passed, the Policy Leader would have been directly elected by all members of the Court, providing a clear leadership title and direct accountability to the entire body. The intention was to make the location of power and lines of accountability transparent.
The Court of Common Council, the City of London's primary decision-making body, met on Thursday, 10 September 2026, to discuss a range of important issues, including this motion. The Court is described as the sovereign governing body of this corporation
where Power resides with the honourable members of this court.
Its typical function involves considering and approving bills, debating and voting on motions, and making appointments.
During the debate, proponents argued for clearer leadership titles and direct accountability to the full Court, suggesting the current de facto leadership of the Policy and Resources Committee Chair lacked clarity. Concerns were raised that the existing system meant the de facto leader was only supported by a minority of members. One speaker noted that even if all 30 members of the Policy and Resources Committee voted unanimously, that would only represent 24% of all members, leaving 76% with no say in the matter. This lack of direct election by the entire membership was seen as a potential issue for democratic legitimacy and accountability.
The traditional role of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee is to provide political leadership for the City of London Corporation, a role that has been referred to externally as the 'de facto political leader'. Opponents, however, voiced concerns that the proposed role could shift the City away from its traditional committee system towards an executive leader model, potentially undermining its unique non-partisan approach. They argued that such a shift could lead to a leader and cabinet structure, moving most members to scrutiny roles. The Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee argued the motion was not sufficiently thought through and could fundamentally alter the authority of the office and its relationships with other committees and the Lord Mayor.
An amendment to establish a working party to further consider the title, role, and election method of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee was also debated. However, this amendment was lost, with some members expressing concerns that it would bog everything down again
and that there was no way on God's earth that this could come back with a recommendation in January.
The amendment was ultimately lost by a division, with 38 votes in favour, 50 against, and 6 abstentions.