Hustings used to be feisty. Heckling was a sport. Violent arguments between different factions were routine. Candidates1 had to be quick witted as they faced a barrage of unscripted questions and abuse. Times change.
Havering Cyclists organised the event. It was chaired by Rob Enifer of the Romford Town Wombles. There was a genteel discussion of environmental issues in Havering. Questions2 were pre-distributed to candidates, and no-one was ‘ambushed’. They were given two minutes for initial replies. It was fair, purposeful and informative.
The event was lucky with its candidates. They all showed a deep awareness of the principal issues. Gillian Ford had an excellent command of the issues and constantly referred to current Council policy achievements. She was well prepared, which fulfilled the organisers strategy of avoiding waffle.
Keith Darvill, Q1 (see below), interestingly said that he thought housing issues were the principal environmental challenge facing Havering.
Mark Whiley, Q2, hoped for innovative use of public land that was under-utilised.
Q3 was intractable for every candidate. Launders Lane is privately owned and the Council is apparently being held to ransom. A serious problem without an obvious solution.
Q4 Thomas Clark focused on the quality of pavements as well as dangerous roads as negatives for cycling. He worried about traffic flows, toxic air and traffic volumes.
The Q&A session
There was a telling exchange about the possibility, in Havering, of safer walking, wheeling and cycling for children and adults (Q4). Every candidate said this would fail. Mark Whiley said he felt unsafe on his bike. Thomas Clarke cited roads and pavements (again) and added potholes to his list of woes. Keith Darvill spoke of the lawlessness of drivers in regard to speed limits. Gillian Ford commented on Havering’s elderly population.
Surprisingly the last Q&A question referred to the proposed Data Centre. Answers were anodyne and reflected the grim inevitability of it going ahead with, or without, support from the Council. The issue is currently out to consultation.3
Addendum: Conservative and Reform UK
Neither party attended the hustings. Rightly or wrongly, it was believed they avoided the event because they are lukewarm on environmental issues. They avoided scrutiny of a critically important matter for a Green Borough. Havering is 50% ‘Green Belt’ and the management and promotion of that asset is cherishing the ‘Golden Goose’. It was noted that Reform UK’s Keith Prince made a song-and-dance at the recent Planning Committee about the Data Centre. Neither he, nor his representative, were present at the Environment Hustings to defend that position, which looks like political opportunism.
Notes
1 The candidates were,
Councillor Gillian Ford, HRA Deputy Leader
Councillor Keith Darvill, Labour Group Leader
Thomas Clarke from Havering Lib Dems and
Mark Whiley from Barking, Dagenham & Havering Green Party
2 The questions for every candidate were,
Q1) What’s your long-term vision for a cleaner, greener Havering and what would you prioritise as the most pressing issue?
Q2) Do you acknowledge the nature and climate crisis and what does that mean to you in terms of public investment and community involvement in Havering?
Q3) How will you resolve the Launders Lane environmental issues?
Q4) To what extent will you commit to safer walking, wheeling and cycling for children and adults in Havering?
Q5) Will you commit to keeping the ‘Green Forum’ running following the Local Elections in May, and what new ideas would you like to see added to this Forum?
The GLA budget is a billion pounds affair. Trivial sums don’t really matter but the West Ham United stadium scandal does empty the pockets of Londoners. It’s a £20m a year debt in the accounts. Keith Prince, Havering’s GLA member, opened the topic – the entire exchange is below – with the Mayor. He didn’t land a blow.
The contract was negotiated by Boris Johnson. It stinks (see Addendum). It’s so bad that an unkind observer might say it was corrupt. Huge losses are paid by the GLA – or, to put it another way: You. The £20m is just under the Havering deficit for 2026-7. That deficit is driving the borough into bankruptcy. £20m is a triviality to GLA accountants but is life-or-death for Havering.
Keith didn’t mention Havering. Nothing at all. The exchange between Keith, the Mayor and the Chief of Staff was too pally, too cosy and too complacent. Keith says – with a straight face – that he endorses Reform UK’s slash and burn attitude towards local government finance. Well, he should have linked the WHU/London stadium stitch-up with Havering’s financial situation. Havering’s wallet is emptying by an annual £500,000+.
The London Stadium was the showpiece of the 2012 Olympics. A national treasure. And now? Its current value is ZERO! NOTHING!
There were mealy-mouthed equivocations. No one cares. Keith was on the right track but didn’t, or couldn’t, follow through. Perhaps, he’s still in thrall to Boris ‘Partygate’ Johnson who negotiated the contract?
Solutions? What one bunch of smart-arse lawyers put together another bunch of smart-arse lawyers can undo. Or, the GLA could use hard ball politics. Naming rights were cited as being an ASPIRATION. But what do we see blazoned across the stadium: WEST HAM UNITED. Do they pay for the privilege? Who knows? Who cares? Have GLA lawyers been to the London Stadium? Do they know what is going on? No, they don’t.
The losses will massively increase if WHU get relegated to the Championship next season. Havering will be under more financial pressure from Boris Johnson’s toxic legacy. Meanwhile WHU pay huge amounts of money on players, most of whom are, or become, hopeless.5
London, United Kingdom – November 13, 2024: Stadium of West Ham United Football Club, a professional football club based in Stratford, East London.
The GLA Debate: Keith Prince’s contribution
Keith Prince AM: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Mayor, David, team. Just before I start, I will declare that I am a season ticket holder of the West Ham [United Football Club] Women’s team, just for clarity, because I intend to ask a question relating to West Ham. Mr Mayor, LLDC sold the London Stadium to GLA Holdings. Could you explain the reason for that move, please?
Sir Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Firstly, before I ask the Chief of Staff to respond, I hope we are still talking after Sunday. It is a big game on Sunday for both of our teams!
Keith Prince AM: I am very much hoping we will be talking. I will settle for a draw. How about you?
David Bellamy (Mayor’s Chief of Staff): This is part of the transition that took place at LLDC as it reached — we say LLDC is now in its third phase. The first was the run up to the games [2012 Olympics]. The second was the period after the games and then, with so much progress made, it is time to transition. With LLDC becoming a smaller organisation, the conclusion that we reached was that rather than E20 – as it was then called – being a subsidiary of LLDC, in turn a subsidiary of the GLA, it would be better done just to be a standalone company directly underneath the GLA.
Keith Prince AM: I will ask another question of the Mayor, but I am quite happy for you to answer, David. As we know, the deal cost GLA Holdings £1. That reflects the fact that London Stadium makes a significant loss each year. Who is now going to bear the burden of that loss, and what moves have been made to reduce that loss? (see Addendum) As people will be aware, for the last ten years, I have been encouraging LLDC to engage with West Ham in order to find a naming rights sponsor, which most people estimated would be of a value of around £4 million. Because it has not engaged with West Ham and because that deal has not been done so far, one could reasonably presume that it has lost £40 million. Either Mr Mayor or David, will there now be encouragement for the new holding group to engage with West Ham and to have a joint venture in relation to the naming rights? It cannot be done solely by GLA Holdings because of the rules around the Premier League.
David Bellamy (Mayor’s Chief of Staff): In answer to the first part of your question, Assembly Member, in terms of the losses the stadium makes as a consequence of the deal that was done by the previous Mayor, it routes differently. It used to route through LLDC, and it now routes through the GLA Mayor budget but, ultimately, the Mayor’s overall budget has to bear the consequences of that loss. What we do is we work hard to minimise that loss. There are clearly a number of aspects to that. There is the efficient running of the stadium. There are invest-to-save projects. For instance, over the years, we have replaced a lot of the seating in the lower bowl so that it is cheaper to move seats for other events. We have held additional events. There are commercial deals. In terms of naming rights specifically, it is a difficult market. You can see that with some other notable stadiums not having successfully secured naming rights. Any deal has to be one that will work for us and will work for West Ham as well. It is not accurate to say that this is something we have never worked with West Ham on, and there are there are discussions with it going on at the moment and, clearly, we always want to work well with West Ham –
Keith Prince AM: A quick question, please. Also, as part of the scaling down, Mr Mayor, you know that the planning powers have now been returned to Newham. I understand why that is done, but do you think that is sensible? Newham is the fourth worst borough for planning applications. Would that put at risk any developments coming forward?
Sir Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Let me just say, it was always the intention to give back to the councils the powers that had been taken from them. There were five boroughs involved in terms of the original LLDC. All of them now have their planning powers back. Do you think it would be wrong if we carried on in perpetuity the planning powers? Each council is in charge of applications in its respective borough.
2 The annual loss is £20.9m which the GLA finds out of its budget. Source loc.cit
3 This financial situation has led to the venue’s long-term value being assessed at zero by independent experts, a stark indication of the economic challenges it faces. Source loc.cit
There is a legal requirement that Councils have a balanced budget. This is impossible because Havering is bankrupt. Its statutory commitments can’t be funded from revenue. The strategy is to add to debts to pay revenue commitments. This is fiscal insanity as the interest can’t be paid.
Enter Chris Wilkins, Cabinet Member for Finance (13 minutes).1,2 He declared the budget will be legally balanced because…..he’d organised more debt. The debt mountain will be £229m by 2029. Chris gives an excellent impression of being a nodding donkey. He doesn’t seem to understand what he‘s reading. A debt of £229m means interest payments will be 30% of the budget by 2029. Chris didn’t mention interest charges during his 13 minutes speech. Philip Ruck (1:31) noticed and was outraged at the sheer folly of it. Annual (unpaid) interest payments would be about £17m and would be added to the capital. Credit card maxxed out!
Keith Darvill (25) introduced the Labour amendment3 self-consciously. He was ultra-defensive and apologetic – as if he was speaking out of turn.
Michael White (36) gave a masterful speech. He demonstrated his command of the subject and critiqued HRA’s four years in a probing, forensic way. The principal highlight was his remarks about the GLA budget, which amounts to nearly 25% of the total Council Tax bill. He made play about the lack of a medium-term plan for the dire budget pressures. He worried about the impact of the Israel-USA-Iran war on interest rates. Michael made obvious remarks about relying on loans for revenue expenditure. Thus, he successfully trashed Chris’s blissful optimism.
Martin Goode (53) denounced the reliance on long-term debt to fund current expenditure. He demanded that the Council throw in the towel and face facts. He wants Government Commissioners to take over the Council. Gillian Ford (1:00) said only the section 151 officer could ask for Government assistance like this. That ought not be a problem as she had previously stated HRA was following an unsustainable strategy.
Keith Prince (1:01) has a curious flippant style, which mostly falls flat. He worried about debt and the borough’s future Council Taxpayers. Interestingly he claimed the borough’s woes were turbo-charged by the lack of detailed scrutiny. This is theoretically likely but Havering’s culture of absenteeism4 by councillors means more scrutiny is unlikely. Unlikely because it involves doing homework and turning up.
Ray Morgon (1:28) indulged in chit-chat. Judith Holt (1:34) pointed out special skills were needed to read a budget book 1070 pages long. Nisha Patel (1:40) did a good review of Michael’s speech reinforcing some points. Gillian Ford (1:42) had a breathless shopping list of achievements. The concept ‘strategy’ appeared many times. Brian Eagling (1:45) said that football pitches had seen fees rise yet again and that sport should be promoted. Oscar Ford (1:48) used fluent management speech. This didn’t always coincide with reality. Barry Mugglestone (1:51) was combative, which livened the meeting up. He and Keith Prince exchanged pleasantries about the Freedom Pass. They were both right, which made it more entertaining.
Jane Keane (1:56) did a Hollywood Oscar’type speech praising the Council’s staff. David Taylor (1:58) is a class act who will be badly missed. His nemesis, Andrew Rosindell, was given a quick going over. Andrew has consistently voted for the bankruptcy of Havering. Luckily he was in the chamber to enjoy David’s speech. James Glass (2:01) was demob crazy and is a loss. What he lacks in accuracy he makes up for with boyish enthusiasm.
2 Group spokesmen had 20 minutes for budget speeches. Astonishingly, Wilkins only used 13 minutes.
3 This Council calls on the Administration to introduce and promote an SME Support Package, initially, funding such a proposal from unspent UKSPF (and/or other unspent grants) seeking partnership for such a support package with organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Adult College. (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 04/03/2026 19:30p1073
Ray Morgon created the Havering Residents’ Association (HRA).1They filled the power vacuum left by the Conservatives in 2022. Ray’s still in power in 2026.
The political comedy show ‘Carry on Defecting’ began immediately.
Sarah Edwards, Jacqueline McArdle and Sue Ospreay joined HRA a few weeks after being elected as Conservatives. The voters of Rainham weren’t consulted.
Jacqueline McArdle changed her mind and re-joined the Conservatives.
Phillip Ruck left HRA creating a new political party2 with John Tyler. The voters of Cranham weren’t consulted.
Paul McGeary left Labour and joined HRA. He got a transfer fee via a £25,000 cabinet position.
Robby Misir joined HRA after many years as a Conservative councillor. The voters of Marshalls and Rise Park weren’t consulted.
Christine Smith joined HRA from the Conservatives, without consulting her Hylands and Harrow Lodge voters
John Crowder with his wife Phillippa Crowder defected from the Conservatives to HRA. The very first husband and wife defection in Havering’s history.
Keith Prince did ’Double-Bubble’. He joined Reform UK from the Conservatives. In one deft move he changed Squirrels Heath AND the GLA Havering and Redbridge constituency into Reform UK. Two defections for the price of one! Not everyone can do that.
Christine Vickery, also Squirrels Heath, joined Reform from the Conservatives. The only explanation was a TV opportunity with Nigel Farage.
Robert Benham, Rush Green and Crowlands, defected with Christine to Reform also from the Conservatives. He too had 15 minutes of fame and glory.
Parliament
Andrew Rosindell joined Reform in January 2026 after 25 years as a Conservative MP. His Reform constituency office is in Margaret Thatcher House, Romford just as it was when he was a Conservative.3 So, no change there then.
Politics in Havering
This is the 360th weekly blog about Havering’s politics and it’s still difficult to understand the complexity of the political scene. Virtually none of the ‘political’ action is political in any meaningful way. There are six political groups for 55 councillors.4 Thirteen councillors, the GLA member and Romford’s MP have defected during the last four years. No by-elections have been called. Meanwhile the borough is bankrupt. This hasn’t been caused by stupidity but by inexorable financial pressures. Looming on the horizon are Farage’s opportunistic acolytes with their ludicrous Elon Musk version of his ‘thinking’.5
The democratic deficit is alive and well in Havering.
Addendum: Andrew Rosindell ~ Definitely, Maybe
Six weeks after Andrew’s defection he is still advertising the Conservative message. Perhaps he’ll follow Jacquline McArdle and change his mind? Perhaps he’s waiting for Farage’s millionaire sponsors to fund the dismantling? Who knows?
Andrew defected to the Reform Party UK,1 on the 18th January 2026. This was accomplished by a massively publicised handshake with Nigel Farage. But does he understand what he’s done?
Andrew’s fiefdom was the Romford Conservative party for 25 years. He was their ‘kingpin’. Councillors were made and broken by Andrew. His office in Margaret Thatcher House was more than it seemed. It was Andrew’s second home. During his long absence from Parliament2 it gave him succour. The office address was important because Margaret Thatcher was his boyhood heroine. The resonance of being a Conservative MP in Margaret Thatcher House was very important psychologically.
Margaret Thatcher House is the headquarters of Romford’s Conservative Party. This is confirmed on their website,
Romford Conservative Association3
Margaret Thatcher House, 85 Western Road, Romford, Essex, RM1 3LS
Andrew defected to Reform and cut decades of ties with loyal hard-working activists. He abandoned his political base. However, Margaret Thatcher House has continued as the Conservative party headquarters without him .
Does Nigel Farage Know About This?
Photo taken on 17th Feb 2026
Does he know what he’s done? This is a bizarre question. How could he not know what he’s done?
The Parliamentary website correctly identifies him as a Reform MP. Then a mystery is turbo-charged into political fantasy. Andrew says his constituency office is,
Margaret Thatcher House 85 Western Road Romford RM1 3LS
The Reform Party UK isn’t a tenant of Margaret Thatcher House. The only political party listed are the Conservatives. Andrew is a squatter waiting for bailiffs to evict him or has his influence extended to the entire Romford Conservative Party? Has he done a reverse take-over of the Conservatives. Have they been subsumed into Reform? A Rosindell-Farage meeting, in Romford, says Yes,
“….Andrew Rosindell [said], “Today marks a new chapter for our movement in Romford and across Havering. I am delighted to welcome a number of dedicated local councillors and council candidates to Reform UK today.”6
Is he The cuckoo in the nest?7
Addendum: Farage and Rosindell in Romford 16th February 2026
Havering’s councillors collectively have a poor attendance record for council meetings.1 In the six months to the 14th February 2026, 55 councillors were scheduled for 374 meetings. They attended 320, which is a 14.5% absenteeism rate. The British absenteeism rate is 4.1%. A 14.5% absenteeism rate is a giant Red Flag for any employer. Obviously there are wild variations between councillors. Two councillors had severe illnesses and were given leave of absence by the council.
However
Most councillors didn’t have severe illnesses but still had appalling attendance records. Osman Dervish attended one meeting out of the seven. Carol Smith attended one of her three meetings. Damian White attended one meeting out of four. These councillors collectively attended three meetings in six months and were paid £200 per week each. This is £15,600 for nothing. It’s shameful.
However
At the other end of the scale there are dedicated councillors. There were 14 councillors who had 10+ meetings scheduled. Six had perfect attendance records. The Magnificent Six: Councillors McGeary, Morgon, Christine Smith, Summers, Taylor and Whitney.
So what?
Six years ago, Politics in Havering said Havering has too many councillors2 and current attendance records backs that up. There are piles of dead wood in the council chamber who need clearing away. Ten councillors were scheduled for three meetings in six months. If they weren’t there would anyone notice? They are make-weights at best.
On previous occasions when this point has been made, outraged councillors have contacted Politics in Havering denouncing the lack understanding. Claims to be hard-working ward councillors are made but can’t be verified. All that can be verified is attendance at council meetings.
And the attendance statistics are grim.
Addendum
Keith Prince, GLA member, attended 23 meetings from a possible 28 in the last six months.3 This is 82%. Three GLA members have 100% attendance records.
The Beam Park Station fiasco illustrates the importance of the GLA’s regional role. The proposed station involves multiple agents. Obviously the railway system is impacted with freight trains and the passenger network affected. Timetables across the entire route will need adjusting. Then there is the economics of the station. Will there be enough additional traffic for the extra costs?
Beam Park is a massive regeneration project, which Johnson’s government shunted into oblivion along with the housing. The station is pivotal for 4,000 houses. Havering always misses its GLA housing targets and the houses would be ‘manna from heaven’.2 But: No station, No house building. The ultimate Catch-22.
In a surreal bureaucratic moment, a planning application was made for……..A ticket office (November 2025).3 Not a station: Just a ticket office.
Keith Prince used his six minutes allocation at Mayor’s Question Time to raise the Beam Park Station issue.4 Amazingly there was an actual discussion. It’s amazing because most questions aren’t questions at all. They’re tetchy, sarcastic or rude comments. The layout of the chamber doesn’t help (see below).
Keith described the impasse: No station, No housing. The Mayor conceded Keith’s point. He said the non-station was “perverse” “ridiculous” and there was a need to, “get this done.” In a moment of joy for democrats, Keith and the Mayor agreed a temporary solution. And the solution was?
Havering’s new SuperLoop service is scheduled to begin in Rainham. Keith proposed Beam Park. The Mayor pounced on this positive proposition. The new service would alleviate part of the problem, though it isn’t a solution. It isn’t a ‘done deal’ but it sounded promising. And this is sharp improvement on the normal negativity of the Mayor’s Question Time.
4 From 1 hour 40 to 1:44 The question was: Can you provide an update on the delivery of Beam Park Station? Keith Prince is the GLA councillor for Havering and Redbridge.
Andrew was a councillor between 1990 and 2002. He spent 12 years getting control of Romford Conservatives and has been a backbench MP since 2001. Andrew panicked when his majority collapsed by 82% in 2024.1
Political Calculations
The Reform party is the first viable third party since the 1920s. Unlike Farage’s UKIP and Brexit, Reform is the real thing. In 2024, Reform’s unknown candidate got 9,624 votes in Romford. Romford is now a marginal seat, and Andrew doesn’t have a ‘job for life’.
But what is Andrew joining?
Nigel Farage owned the Reform Party until recently,
“….[it] was founded in 2018 as a private limited company, with Farage holding the majority of shares.2
Reform doesn’t have policies. Farage’s previous efforts were pressure groups in drag. Reform’s current policies mimic Trump and Musk. Musk’s DOGE policy3 was endorsed in their 2025 local election campaign. Successful Reform groups tried, and failed, to implement DOGE.4
Reform voters were seduced by a slick PR campaign. The reality is more-of-the-same with ex-Conservative councillors in control. This is disappointing for voters hoping for a novelty.
Andrew knows this.
So, what happened in January 2026 to get Andrew to risk everything? Perhaps Suella Braverman offers a hint. She
“…..referred to homelessness as a “lifestyle choice”, who called pro-Palestinian marches “hate marches”…..who suggested asylum seekers were “pretending to be gay” to claim protection, a hard-right Conservative has joined Farage’s ‘people’s party’.5
She’s joined Reform. Reform don’t have policies but do have a direction of travel and Andrew wants to go there. He approves of Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick.6 Andrew wants red-meat right-wing policies, which persecute people he doesn’t like.
And that’s a lot of people.
The Downside
Andrew believes Romford’s voters voted for him. He’s oblivious to the implications of the 2024 result. Andrew ‘lost’ 9,624 votes to a complete unknown and 13,876 to Labour. 2029 will be a three-way election. Andrew is an ex-Conservative who won’t have the support he’s used to after 36 years of belonging to the Romford party and electioneering is his comfort zone. Campaigning in 2029 as a Reform candidate will be a challenge for him. And it isn’t difficult to imagine the leaflets by ex-colleagues who think he is treacherous.
Farage relies on charisma, which has a shelf-life. His money-grubbing tactics repel many voters. Voters resent politicians who line their own pockets. Andrew works hard and has a great reputation, but he’ll be tarred with the Farage brush. Reform is an abnormal political party. It’s a fiefdom. If Reform get critical mass, Farage will have severe problems because he isn’t a team player.
Conclusion
Andrew’s political journey matches that of Britain. The 1980s saw Margaret Thatcher’s policy driven Conservatism, which has shaped Britain ever since. Her Conservatism has been replaced by shameless ‘Get-rich-quick’ opportunists. Andrew is a hard-working MP. Farage rarely goes to his constituency and is wedded to Donald Trump’s utter disdain for morality.
After the break, opposition councillors came into the chamber like lions. They were transformed from being supine and acquiescent into decision-makers. It was all rather wonderful. It’s taken four years for them to fulfil their principal role of critically scrutinising the Administration. Better late than never.
What happened? HRA put an emergency motion on the Order Paper on the morning of the meeting,
This Council recommends a revision of the Mercury Land Holding business plan, to focus the company on delivering much needed affordable housing and driving down temporary accommodation costs, once it has reached its breakeven number of properties.1 (my emphasis)
Mercury Land Holdings is a multi-million pound company owned and controlled by Havering council. The motion calls for ‘revision’ of the business plan. There were no papers and councillors were asked to blindly trust the Administration.
But was it an emergency?
On the 3rd September, 2025 this Conservative motion was passed,
This Council recommends a revision of the Mercury Land Holdings business plan, to focus the company on delivering much needed social homes and driving down temporary accommodation costs. (my emphasis).2
HRA’s emergency motion was nonsense. They’ve had five months to create a new business plan for Mercury Land Holdings which pivots towards social housing.
The charge was led by Keith Prince (59 minutes)3 who described the emergency motion as an ‘abuse of Council’. I thought that was restrained. Ray Morgon said that social housing wasn’t viable. He’s very trusting. That is the patter used by building companies to avoid social housing.
The legal officer dived in and firmly said the motion was an emergency because a budget has to be written shortly. He didn’t remark it was a self-inflicted wound.
This so-called emergency motion was a disgrace. Ray Morgon has been badly let down by Graham Williamson who should have had urgent meetings during September 2025 to discuss the consequences of the motion.4 He always seems flaky and now this is proof that he is disengaged from his responsibilities.
The meeting ended at 11:15 with a shambolic ‘singing’ of the National Anthem.
3 Annotator Player times relate to this webcast. Keith had support from Michael White, John Tyler, Martin Goode, and David Taylor. David made the initial passionate speech, in September 2025, which triggered the overwhelming Opposition vote. Interestingly the only councillor lawyer, Keith Darvill, was silent. Why?
4 The meeting ended in stalemate with the motion being progressed to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee where there will be papers available. This by-passes the desire that the motion be passed on ‘trust’. There maybe an emergency Council meeting to make a substantive decision.
Councillors instructed ChatGPT to ask Family Friendly questions.
Sounds Familiar?
Q2 Jane Keane1 asked about CCTV. Barry Mugglestone said it defeated crime.
Q3 Darren Wise asked about parking tickets. Barry said they were wonderful.
Q5 Judith Holt asked about parking fees in Hornchurch. Barry is working hard to please everyone.
Q6 Trevor McKeever asked about speeding. Barry said enforcement is for the police.
Q7 Martin Goode asked about potholes. They are being repaired quickly and effectively Barry said, without a blush.
Q8 Judith Holt asked about Visitor Parking Permits. Barry said the system worked beautifully.
Q10 Christine Vickery asked about Gallows Corner. Barry said he’d do whatever she wanted but she might regret what she wished for.
Q14 Viddy Persaud asked about traffic monitoring. Barry said she could have whatever she wanted. But she’d forgotten what she’d asked for.
Q15 Nisha Patel asked about parking enforcement. Barry worried about elderly people putting a ‘O’ in the machine instead of a Zero. But cheerfully said he couldn’t do anything about it.
Barry sat down for the 20th time looking tired and happy.
Killer Questions
A killer question is one where every answer is wrong. These are perfect for pre-election QTs because answers can be publicised.
Q1 Dilip Patel asked about asylum seeker accommodation. This is a toxic question. Natasha Summers said she’d rejected the government’s request for accommodation. Dilip looked disappointed.
Q4 Keith Prince asked about unauthorised gypsy/traveller sites. Ray Morgon said officers were like bloodhounds seeking them out and were closing them with alacrity. Keith mocked this. He quoted the Daily Mail as evidence that Havering is overwhelmed with unauthorised sites. Ray said he didn’t read the Daily Mail.
Q11 Keith Darvill asked about housing allocations. Natasha Summers said they were on track. Keith said two years delay was unacceptable. Natasha said it was a software problem, and everyone was convinced.
Q13 David Taylor asked about temporary housing on the Waterloo Estate. Graham Williamson waffled. And that’s a multi-million pound scandal buried. A housing estate has been demolished and replaced by 18 temporary homes for the foreseeable future. Foreseeable means years, by the way.
Conclusion
The administration is lucky no-one knows how to use a killer question.
Politics in Havering 