Motions1
Introduction
Keith Prince (1 hour 44 minutes) did an accurate and tedious nit-picking dissection of the *RULE BOOK*. He enjoys nit-picking. No-one else does.
Motion A: Everyone agreed that Havering, “limit excessive private profits in children’s residential social care across the UK, in alignment with Scotland.”
Motion B: “This Council agrees not to spend valuable council resources on a referendum to leave London.”
Andrew Rosindell was a dark cloud looming over Reform councillors, keeping them on ‘message’. True Believers affirmed their commitment, though some were more slippery than others – step forward, Bailey Nash-Gardner (1:54), Luke Barry (1:55), and Gary Payne (2:02).
The motion introduced a fierce Gillian Ford (1:51), which was refreshing. Cut-and-thrust is always appreciated when it is done well. Three Reform councillors indulged themselves in jeering, which was really a bullying tactic.
Motion C: “Council recognises that adverse childhood experiences, trauma and other life events can affect a resident’s ability to engage with support services, sustain tenancies, maintain employment and participate fully in community life.”
The Reform Group’s Amendment was insane, “Council calls upon the Executive Leadership Team to support the Cabinet in achieving these outcomes.” (my emphasis)
The Reform Administration asked the Executive Team to cooperate with the policies of councillors. Asked! Keith Prince’s Administration obviously has a strange relationship with the Executive Leadership Team. Councillors agree policies, which must be implemented by the Executive Leadership Team.
Keith worries that the Executive Leadership Team can refuse councillor policies. The Executive Team must follow instructions. If they refuse, they must resign or demand written, legally binding, instructions. Those instructions act as a legal statement that the Executive Leadership Team were under duress and acting in opposition to their professional advice.
Apart from this insanity, the debate was wonderful. There was cross-party agreement on the importance of the motion. Matt Stanton (2:08), Graham Day (2:11) and Keith Prince (2:17) referenced known experiences which added to the texture of the debate. If there is indeed a ‘joined up response’ and recognition of the ‘ecosystem’ of support following this debate, Council can congratulate itself.
Motion D: “Commends the new Administration for their firm and determined action to tackle the ongoing fires, smoke and pollution from Arnold’s Field, Launder’s Lane, and the impact on residents in Rainham.”
This was Stalinist self-congratulation.
Best Motion: Motion C
Best Speech: Gillian Ford
Note
1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 02/09/2026 19:00 Motions in full For the webcast Annotator Player All times refer to this site
HEXIT is intended as a more heat than light identity politics issue, which Council Leader and GLA AM Keith Prince sensibly said he wasn’t going to pursue in any meaningful way.
Not because the debate has no merit, but because there is zero chance of meaningful progress on this constitutional issue, making it a distraction aka leave it to the MP to bang the drum!
So Keith was right to say the HARA were playing national party politics, games, to seek reassurance on a matter he had already ruled out.
Instead a genuine Havering opposition would have proposed a more realistic alternative, namely the need for an urgent reform of the GLA to make it more democratic and accountable ensuring more effective representation for outer-London boroughs.
Namely, abolish the post of directly Elected Mayor and return power to an elected assembly, elected by proportional representation giving effective representation to all areas including Havering, with the elected assembly electing the Mayor as in Havering aka reform rather than leave the the GLA.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment.
I’ll take this opportunity to quote you as *my* reply, “there is zero chance of meaningful progress on this constitutional issue,”
You’ve hit the nail on head
LikeLike