Havering Council Meeting, 27th March 2024

The Conservatives had a humdinger of a motion for debate (see Addendum). It challenged the HRA/Labour *solution* to the budget deficit.¹This naïve commentator waited for fireworks from political heavyweights debating the future of Havering.

What should have happened

Keith Prince would denounce the £54m loan as reckless folly, mortgaging the future. He pointed out that £54m @7% for 20 years creates a stonking £68m² in interest payments, more than doubling the original debt. Keith could continue that the loan ‘kicked the can down the road’. In 2026 everything would be the same with Adult, Children’s Services and Homelessness turbo-charging the deficit. What, Keith thundered rhetorically, would Ray Morgon do then? Borrow another £54m?

Ray Morgon would angrily riposte that defending government funding was bizarre. In 2010, Havering’s grant was £70m and in 2023, £1.9m. Meanwhile, after 14 years of government mis-management, inflation added 47% to costs.³ Therefore, Havering needs a £103m grant just to stand still! Additionally, the council had unfunded responsibilities. Homelessness came from government policies with enormous costs for the council. Ray might finish by saying everything will be different in two years’ time.

What did happen

Ray Morgon and Keith Prince agreed not to have a debate and went home two hours earlier than usual.

Addendum: Conservative Motion

This chamber calls on the council to release to the public the full letters, from the Government Ministers and from the Leader, regarding the Capitalisation Directive. The chamber calls on the Government to provide the funding as a grant instead of a loan.⁴

Best speech: None

Runner-up: None

Best sarcasm: Barry Mugglestone

Notes

1 Havering Council: Budget Setting – 28th February, 2024 – Politics in Havering

2 It might not be, we haven’t seen the T&Cs yet. Actually the money is ‘drawn’ down over the next two years so the £68m is calculated for 18 full years of interest.

3 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

4 Public reports pack 27th-Mar-2024 19.30 Council.pdf (havering.gov.uk) p117

Romford’s Brewery Car Park and Pricing Theory

Increasing car parking charges is political dynamite for Havering’s councillors. They have to increase charges because of impending bankruptcy but want to avoid alienating voters.

None of the councillors have run multi-site carparks according to their Register of Interest¹ statements. Yet they make commercial decisions worth millions of pounds! This is a recipe for failure.

Both photos taken on the 27th March 2024 mid afternoon

The Brewery car park has massive capacity but is half empty. Modern pricing theory² will solve this challenge. Calibrating price to demand is familiar and used by many companies. This includes the Brewery car park which increases prices on Saturdays. The car park also charges extra for convenience. The surface car park is significantly more expensive than the four levels of the multi-story section.

Increasing demand is a win-win outcome. More usage equals more income without increasing the cost base. What’s not to like?

The Brewery car park is adjacent to a railway station and centrally zoned for retail, commuters and office workers. They are priced out. A more aggressive and sophisticated pricing regime should be introduced. A season ticket with six entries for £35 could be very attractive and an even more keenly priced monthly ticket likewise.

The Brewery Multi-story Car Park is in wonderful location and a commercial flop. Why?

Notes

1 mgConvert2PDF.aspx (havering.gov.uk) This is Mandy Anderson’s, which was chosen because she’s first on the list. Every councillor has a statement.

2 Uber cabs vary prices almost minute by minute depending on demand. As do the airlines and many other companies. For the Brewery carpark see Plan Your Visit – Brewery Romford (thebreweryromford.com) accessed 29^th March 2024 The surface carpark is 50% more expensive than the multi-story for 2 hours.

Havering Council: Budget Setting – 28th February, 2024

Question: Havering is going bankrupt.¹ What did councillors do in the budget?

Answer: Dug a deeper financial hole.

(They took a government loan of £54m, without increasing Council Tax to pay the £3.4m annual interest therefore adding to the shortfall.)

Chris Wilkins (11 minutes)² His dreadful speech showed a tragic lack of awareness.

Keith Prince (29) Two minutes of ‘Thank you’ name checks was ‘padding’. A more-or-less content free speech followed.

Keith Darvill (44) The government loan is expensive – £3.4m in interest – but the ‘only’ option. Otherwise, he made sound political points.

Martin Goode (56) His speech was hesitant and expressed dismay at the loan proposition.

Phillip Ruck (1 hour 05) He discussed the loan’s implications. The £54m will be consumed in two years followed by a death spiral!

Judith Holt (1:33) She pointed out the iniquity of the Residents Parking Permit for those living in terraced houses without off-street parking.

Barry Mugglestone (1:39) Oblivious to budget problems. He loves 30 minutes free car parking in Hornchurch, where he lives, and £900,000 for five police officers.

Mandy Anderson (1:44) A considered speech. The budget is a ‘valiant effort’, which is damning it with faint praise.

David Taylor (1:47) He said the budget involved choices. He illustrated this with the million-pound subsidy for Hornchurch carparking.

Martin Goode (1:53) He liked the idea of government commissioners. Nothing would change as the council had no control anyway. The loan was dreadful.

Keith Darvill (1:58) Havering should grow the economy and, therefore, get more council tax. This is ‘a wish and a prayer’ economics.

Keith Prince (2:03) More nit-picking.

Ray Morgon (2:08) Summary remarks claimed it was a “budget of necessity”, which sort-of conceded Goode’s point.

Best Speech: Phillip Ruck

Runner-ups: Mandy Anderson and David Taylor

Audacious Proposition: Dilip Patel – a lottery to pay off the £54m shortfall

Wooden Spoon: Chris Wilkins

Notes

1 Havering Council Tax: Is It Too Low? – Politics in Havering This is four years old but the principal points hold good

2 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) Time refers to when speech began

Havering Council Meeting, 17th January 2024 (part one)

Keith Prince had a tour de force (1 hour18)¹ His motion was opportunist (see addendum) building on the anger that SEN children’s school transport should be ‘reviewed’. It’s believed this will reduce the quality of the service. (A clue is a possible £1.4m saving over four years.).²

Keith said HRA and Labour amendments were out-of-order. This isn’t a technicality. If they were out-of-order, HRA and Labour would be caught in a cleft stick. They’d have to vote FOR the motion and lose £1.4m. Alternatively, vote AGAINST and show they were ruled by accountants.³

The Monitoring Officer rescued them. In an excruciating passage he wriggled⁴ and produced a ‘solution’. HRA’s amendment was accepted and the review of SEN transport continues its ‘consultation’ period.

Oscar Ford (2:08) kept remarking on ‘cost effective’ transport and Havering’s financial position. Unfortunately, an option is Uber. Robert Benham (2:13) noted Uber allocates drivers randomly and many children need continuity or get distressed. David Taylor (2:28) commented on Uber’s surge pricing mechanism, which makes predictions impossible. Ray Morgon (2:41) quoted a comment from ‘someone’ who said cabbies were making ‘thousands of pounds’ from SEN transport to bolster his argument.⁵ No evidence, no names.

Keith Darvill (2:21) politicised the issue in a telling speech.

Addendum: The Conservative Motion

“This Council calls on the Cabinet not to proceed with the proposed cuts and changes in service, proposed in the Home to School Transport consultation. It further recognises that such cuts would have a detrimental impact on both children and parents, causing them increased stress and anxiety.” (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 17/01/2024 19:30 (havering.gov.uk) p39

Notes

1 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) All times refer to this webcast The item begins at 1 hour 18 minutes and finished at 2:01 hours = 33 minutes of debate.

2 Several councillors noted they’d spoken to protestors outside the Town Hall. Specifically, Cllrs. Persaud, Taylor and Wise who made comments in their speeches

3 Typically this is known as a lose-lose situation

4 Giving a minute-by-minute timeline to ‘explain’ why the cock-up wasn’t his fault. And then discovered an arcane sub-clause ‘rarely’ used to defend the indefensible.

5 This is an example of Confirmation Bias where *evidence* is used to support an argument and countervailing points are ignored or downplayed

School Ties – A Tax on Learning?

Havering’s academies obsess about school uniform, believing it’s a recipe for success. This obsession includes the colour of shoe laces¹ and ties are considered equally essential, “The understated yet smart combination of a black blazer with black and maroon striped tie is instantly recognisable, and underpins the high standards of work and behaviour within the school.” (my emphasis)² Ties are supported by the government who have made it policy. “We will support schools to introduce traditional blazer-and-tie uniforms, prefects and house systems.”³

The Prime minister tieless at Bolsover School. Clearly not on message!

Ties are relics of a by-gone age like barristers’ wigs. Believing in a connexion between ties and *high standards* is delusional. Marshalls Park is typical – “Ties must be worn with logo showing below the knot.⁴ Worse, academies exclude⁵ students breaching school uniform policy. Conformity is more important than the legal right to an education.

Academies invest resources enforcing school uniform and inflicting economic pain. The result? Academies report GCSE results Olympic Games style.⁶ They brag about superstar students with 9 ‘A*s’. About 30% of Havering’s students massively under-achieve and are invisible in academy reports. Are they an embarrassment?

Focusing on the silent 30% should be the number one priority, not school ties.

Addendum: School Ties – a tax on learning

Havering has 17,327 students in secondary school. A small sample shows ties cost about £7. Havering’s parents have paid approximately £127,289 for school ties for no educational benefit. Bizarrely, Harris Academy, Rainham demands boys wear ties, but not girls. They don’t care about the Equality Act, 2010,⁹ or the girls who miss out on the *benefits* of wearing ties.

The £127,289 is a minimum as many students will buy more than one tie in their five years in school.

Notes

1 Havering’s Academies: School Shoes and Shoe Laces – Politics in Havering

2 Uniform – The Campion School According to government statistics Campion is in the second category as being *above average.* Nonetheless 32% of their students didn’t achieve grade 5 in English and mathematics. All schools and colleges in Havering – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk)

3 Schools White Paper: 24 Nov 2010: House of Commons debates – TheyWorkForYou Gove admitted using cocaine in 2019 see Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use – BBC News

4 Uniform-Policy-1.pdf (marshallspark.org.uk) A logo automatically makes ties more expensive

5 Students who flout the rules regarding uniform will be kept in isolation, or sent home to change appearance/uniform item…. Persistent offenders will be given an automatic after school detention and an exclusion may be applied. (my emphasis) BEHAVIOUR POLICY April 2023 – Google Docs Redden Court school, which is typical.

8 All schools and colleges in Havering – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) Six are below average, 7 are average and 5 above average.

9 equality act 2010 – Search (bing.com)

Havering’s Half Baked Budget Consultation, 2024-5

“Even with the difficult proposals put forward in this consultation, the Council still has a budget deficit of £12 million.”¹ (my emphasis)

Only half of the savings/revenue increases are available for consultation. Another £12m is floating about. The consultation is farcical. Voters are expected to see half a budget and take the other half on ‘trust’. In other words, agree half a budget and get £12m of cuts sight unseen.

The £12 million deficit demands an 8% council tax increase ABOVE what’s proposed.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Huge deficits need bold, imaginative transformative options. Avoiding bankruptcy in February 2024, requires brave leadership.²

Instead, the Administration has lost hope.³ The majority of the £11.93m cuts and savings programme is contained within five items, none of which are sufficient for the task in hand.⁴ Financial juggling and increased parking charges, for example, are 49% of the £11.93m. Toxic options, which would solve the challenge, are avoided. Havering waits for government Commissioners to do the unpopular dirty work.⁵

Keith Darvill⁶ said borrowing £12m from the government is “massive.” Massive means: £12m at 7.1% (RPI + 1%) for 20 years = £17m interest.⁷Mortgaging future generations for a year’s deficit. The elephant in the room? 2025-6, 2026-7 and so on.

A genuine consultation should offer a 13% increase in council tax OR brutal cuts in services. Undemocratic play-acting is absolutely unacceptable in a mature democracy.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

This is a government inspired *perfect storm* for local authorities, not just Havering.

“I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy to destroy local government. But I think we are sleepwalking towards a position where councils just won’t be viable.”

He said that while assets could be sold off in the short term, it would lead to a big transfer of wealth of public assets into private hands.”⁸

I think there is a conspiracy to privatise local authorities and loot their assets.

Notes

1 Havering Budget Consultation 2024 – London Borough of Havering Council – Citizen Space

2 Romford Recorder² headline was: ‘Council could declare bankruptcy in 3 months’. 24^th November 2023 p3 Reporter Josh Mellor

3 The consultation document is here Budget Leaflet.pdf (havering.gov.uk) The summary statement is here 1 APPENDIX A SUMMARY SAVINGS PROPOSALS.pdf (havering.gov.uk)

4 Ibid (Appendix A) The top 5 account for 49% (£5.85m) the other 51% is 35 items the smallest of which is £23K

5 Reducing the library service to two libraries, closing Romford market and ending the 30 minutes free period for parking are obvious starting places.

6 Romford Recorder 24^th November 2023 p3

7 United Kingdom Retail Price Index YoY (tradingeconomics.com) RPI = Retail prices index

8 Jeremy Hunt’s budget cuts spark fears of ‘existential threat’ to English councils (msn.com)

Havering’s Budget Proposal for 30 Minutes Free Parking

Havering council is facing bankruptcy¹ and has a reckless budget proposal. The maintenance of 30 minutes free parking in Hornchurch and Upminster is expensive² and untenable. Worse, there’s no evidence that it helps shopkeepers, which is, allegedly, the justification for the policy.

Havering council’s free car parking policy is gesture politics. It’s claimed that shoppers demand free parking or shopkeepers will suffer along with the borough. The evidence is that the cost of car parking is less important than access to good quality parking. This is especially the case where shopping centres are pedestrianised or where cars have restrictions placed on them,

“Studies from the UK found an increase in trading of up to 40% across a number of pedestrianised sites.”³

Additionally, the other car parking proposals make the policy quixotic. The council intends to create £3 million of additional revenue. There will be charges for Sunday car parking, and increases for on and off-street parking, parking permits and in parks.⁴ Car parking charges in parks is a blow to the principal leisure activity for residents. (It could be halved if the 30 minutes charge was abandoned.)

Does anyone believe this policy will survive the bankruptcy solutions of Government Commissioners?

Notes

1 Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: The Road to Disaster (part one) – Politics in Havering

2 Council passes Havering budget for 2023/24 | The London Borough Of Havering It cost £650K in lost revenue in 2023-4. This will increase to about £750K in 2024-5.

3 Reclaiming the streets: the increasing trend of pedestrianisation around the world | Rapid Transition Alliance

4 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 08/11/2023 19:30 (havering.gov.uk)

Havering Cabinet Meeting: 8th November, 2023

Havering is facing bankruptcy because of Conservative government policies. It has off-loaded statutory duties onto Havering without funding them.¹ Consequently, the council taxpayer meets the costs of social care for adults and children. The direction of travel is that the entire budget will be consumed by these items.

Ray Morgon (@2)² led a blistering attack on the incompetence of the Conservative government. He scorned the Austerity programme, 2010-23. Chris Wilkins (@6), denounced the government’s use of the 2011 Census for Havering’s funding formula.

Gillian Ford (@11) said a 102-year-old woman could be evicted to save money. This might suit Boris Johnson but Gillian was outraged. Oscar Ford (@14) identified *hedge funds* as profiteers from children’s services. He prefers the Scottish no-profit system. Keith Darvill (@15) quoted woeful statistics about homelessness, which made him despair.

Paul Middleton (@22) confirmed libraries would be affected. Graham Williamson (@23) said the decline in the planning services continued. Barry Mugglestone (@27) defended his untenable 30 minutes free parking policy. The current financial situation makes this a luxury and there’s no evidence it works.

Keith Prince (@29) got Williamson to admit Havering’s police funding would be paid by ‘someone or other’. Mysterious! Martin Goode (@40) jog-trotted through the proposals. A feral cabinet³ attacked him. They didn’t like his pithy “scrambling in the dark” summary of their efforts.

The CEO (@58) reiterated his passion for lobbying. This is a triumph of hope over experience.

The Conservatives have thrown down the gauntlet to local government.⁴ Local councils should exploit the fact that 2024 is an election year and go into battle!

Notes

1 No solution to ‘broken’ children’s services that are crippling council budgets, MPs warned (msn.com)

2 All times relate to the webcast Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) @2 means 2 minutes into the webcast.

3 Mugglestone, Middleton, G. Ford and Darvill

4 Surrey Council tax rise of 15% scrapped – BBC News As there are 4 cabinet ministers in Surrey it’s widely believed a back stairs deal was done with the government. See also Havering Council Tax: Is It Too Low? – Politics in Havering

Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: The Road to Disaster (part two)

Margaret Thatcher’s prime ministership ended after introducing the Poll Tax for council financing. Every property was charged the same amount. A one-bedroom flat was taxed like a mansion. It provoked riots and she lost support in her party.

Panic-stricken, the Conservative government introduced Council Tax. Eight bands, loosely based on 1991¹ evaluations, remain to this day. These valuation bands are supposed to reflect house prices across the country.

The intention was that bands would be reviewed every five years. This would have captured changes in real time. Political cowardice prevented revaluations happening. Winners are happy and losers scream blue murder with obvious electoral consequences. London’s 73 MPs absolutely opposed re-establishing the link between property values and council tax. London’s house prices had rocketed and they didn’t want council tax to double as a consequence.

In Havering, Band D house prices in Rainham have increased eight times since 1991.²The earliest statement of council tax bands are for 1993-4 when band D was set at £535.³ For 2023-4, Band D is £2,088 – four times more.

Havering’s council tax would double if it was a property tax.

Havering’s road to disaster began in 1991. A panic-stricken Conservative government tried to rescue themselves after Margaret Thatcher. They made disastrous decisions, which have lasted 32 years. Havering’s 2023-4 budget raised £149m from council tax.⁴ This should have been a minimum of £300 million. And more if upward revaluations are included.

Havering is a victim of national politics.

Notes

1 How domestic properties are assessed for Council Tax bands – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

2 House Prices in Guysfield Drive, Rainham, Havering, London, RM13 (rightmove.co.uk)

3 Previous years’ bands | Council Tax bands and bills | The London Borough Of Havering

4 Decision – The 23/24 Council Budget setting report and 2023-2027 Medium Term Financial Strategy | The London Borough Of Havering

Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: The Road to Disaster (part one)

Havering’s Strategy Director Kathy Freeman stated: “We are very close to issuing a section 114, [bankruptcy] even six months away from this happening. Our average resources cannot meet the financial requirements.¹

In 2010 Conservative chancellor, George Osborne,² (see addendum) began his attack on local government. Without profiling the financial needs of local government, he capped Council Tax increases to zero%.

Instantly, he demonstrated he didn’t understand two fundamental fiscal principles;

The corrosive impact of inflation
The corrosive impact of the compounding of inflation.

Osborne’s decision was based on ‘something for nothing’.⁴ He talked of ‘waste’ and ‘inefficiencies’ to confuse the electorate. Simultaneously, additional duties and responsibilities were imposed on councils.

Since 2010, British inflation has been 46.88%.⁵Havering’s stand still council tax should have increased at the same pace. In 2010-11 a band D was £1,505. This year, 2023-4, it’s £2,088.13. Inflation linked council tax would have brought the figure to £2,210.56. Havering is minus £122.43 per band D house. There are 107,798 houses in Havering and band D is the average. Osborne’s misunderstanding about inflation has cost Havering approximately £14 million annually.

But the Conservative chancellors weren’t finished with their attack on local government. They reduced government funding. In 2010, Havering received £70 million. In 2023-4, it was £2.9 million. A real reduction of £100 million per year.

The cost of Conservative policies, 2010-23, for Havering is £119 million per year. This is why Havering will probably go bankrupt.

Addendum: Conservative chancellors 2010-23 (their university degree in brackets)

George Osborne (History)
Philip Hammond (Philosophy, politics and economics)
Sajid Javid (Economics and politics)
Rishi Sunak (Philosophy, politics and economics)
Nadhim Zahawi (Chemical engineering)
Kwasi Kwartang (Classics and history)
Jeremy Hunt (Philosophy, politics and economics)

Notes

1 Havering Council balancing on the brink of bankruptcy-A ‘114’ could be issued within months. – The Havering Daily

2 Osborne was educated at private schools: George Osborne – Wikipedia

3 Council funding for taxi trips for Havering school children with special needs to cease (taxi-point.co.uk) “….reimbursement for fuel or a trip via ride-hailing service Uber would cost approximately £30 per day….disabled children will experience changes, ‘appropriate measures’ will be taken to ensure their needs are appropriately addressed.” The human cost of bankruptcy. The weakest and most vulnerable suffer first

4 The 2016 Brexit referendum ‘battle-bus’ is identical with the false claim that leaving the EU would ‘free up’ £350m a week for the NHS.

5 Inflation calculator | Bank of England