Keith Prince’s Debut Speech as Leader of the Council
Keith is a veteran politician who’s a GLA member. This heightens expectations. So, when he did a *Memory Lane* about being born in Elm Park, I was puzzled. His jog-trot through Junior and Secondary schools was bizarre. It was as if he was overwhelmed. Keith didn’t tell us about his triumphs as a window monitor or school prefect, which was a relief.
My despair deepened by his claim to friendship with Ray Morgon. Keith said he was *Mayor*.1 Dear, oh dear! Where was all this going? It felt like a train crash.
Keith established that he’s an Essex Boy.2The unspoken statement was that unlike Andrew Rosindell, Keith was the *Real Thing*.3 Andrew was born after Havering was created and is, therefore, a Londoner. Keith had his political steel toe-capped boots on and promptly began using them. He denounced the ludicrous Hexit obsessions of Andrew who wants Havering to leave London and join Essex. Keith’s Reform council wouldn’t spend any time on this.
Keith went further. He said that Hexit would be a very expensive for the people of Havering. (Did I hear silent regret for the Brexit fiasco?) Keith said he’d be using his political energy working to elect a Reform GLA Mayor. This was sly because Andrew is a failed Mayoral candidate.
Reading between the lines, there was more. Keith doesn’t want Andrew to think that he is calling the shots in the Town Hall. Keith wants to be master in his own domain. And! Keith is in power and Andrew is merely a political influencer. There’s a world of difference between being a ‘mover and shaker’ and someone shouting from the sidelines.
Keith said that he has a 100-day plan in his pocket. I’ll be counting the days and looking for the accomplishments. Or not.
Addendum
Keith might want to consider these trivialities for his 100-days plan:
The Waterloo Estate fiasco
Launders Lane contaminated land and air pollution
The data centre on Green Belt Land
£272M of debt to the government at 6%
OR
He could stick with gesture politics, like putting the boot into Gay Pride Month
Notes
1 His speech begins at 1 hour 16 minutes. Go to 1:19:33 in the webcast Annotator Player Morgon was also a ‘friend’ by the way.
2 First mention 1:16:53 A very early signal which I should have picked up.
Keith Prince set out the 10 points of his Reform Groups policy for the next four years. Any political party in Havering could have done exactly the same points with a straight face. The podcast is 3 minutes long
For Havering’s Reform party to succeed, Keith Prince needs to be ‘Superman’. Havering is bankrupt. It faces financial pressures which are horrifying. Keith will have to the square the circle that is Reform’s desire for radical change and the pressures preventing change. Nonetheless:
Keith’s ‘Revolution’ gives him (1) opportunities as well as (2) headaches
(1) Revolutions demand Radical change, and
(2) Central government’s iron fist over local finance.
Opportunities
What do Reform councillors “Really, really want?1 Keith knows Farage’s motormouth slogans are nonsense. Havering can’t ‘Stop the Boats”. Keith can’t magic Havering out of London to fulfil the ludicrous ‘Hexit’ policy. And, Havering’s Reform councillors can’t vote Starmer out of Downing Street.
Keith must keep his 36 new councillors on board. He must keep thousands of Reform voters on board. What is he going to do? Keith is a class act. He’s been a councillor since 1990. He’s also a senior member of the GLA. This means he knows Mayor Khan very well and politics is the art of adroit compromises. Keith and Mayor Khan might not love each other but they can cooperate. Always assuming it works for all concerned.
Doing what is doable is the centrepiece of political agendas. Keith needs cheap, flashy policies that hit the button. Reform voters like flags. Why not have a flag budget for public buildings like libraries? This would be mocked but would work if the book budget was significantly increased. £50,000 should be enough. Reform vigorously opposed library closures and this would be a statement of difference.
The kiss of electoral death is,
‘Everything is different but nothing has changed.’
Headaches
Havering is bankrupt. HRA borrowed £100m+ to ‘Balance’ the books. That is as stupid as it sounds. But if the government don’t forgive the debt, the taxi meter is clicking along at 6% p.a., which is compounded. This could destroy Keith’s ambitions for a Reform revolution.
The intractable problem is the budget for Adult and Children’s Services. Both are demand led, making for budget instability. Someone is going to have to be very clever to cope with this. And this takes us to the principal headache for Keith.
Inexperienced councillors! Keith’s biggest fear is that his new team is ‘captured’ by officers who impose (ever so nicely) their agenda. His experience gives him a fighting chance of being able to spot talent. People willing to work hard, command detail and do politics.
Between 2022-26 the Conservatives collapsed after numerous defections. The principal beneficiaries were the HRA Administration. Three Conservatives joined Reform UK at the end of the period.
Reform could matter in 2026. The Green party existed in 2022 but was disregarded. That changed after their recent parliamentary victory. They aren’t as well organised as Reform but might do well and will certainly split the vote.
Electors can choose from a large number of candidates and parties. For example, HRA isn’t a single party, it’s an umbrella organisation.1 There are Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Independent RAs, and Reform standing as political parties. There are 302 candidates for 55 seats.
Low turnouts make elections a lottery. Voting is normally based on name recognition, or the first initial of the surname, or scattergun, or selection of a party. Gooshays in 2022 had a turnout of 23.46%.2 Winning literally depended on marginal decisions. In 2026 Gooshays has 20 candidates for three seats.
Conclusion
Havering traditionally has Minority Administrations. It’s a certainty to happen once more in 2026. But….Even certainties lose.
Addendum: Wards, sitting councillors and additional candidates
Beam Park (2 ward councillors) ~ Two Labour councillors plus 9 (more candidates)
Cranham (3) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 14
Elm Park (3) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 14
Emerson Park (2) ~ 11 (no councillors standing)
Gooshays (3) ~ One Labour; One HRA councillor plus 18
Hacton (2) ~ One HRA councillor plus 10
Harold Wood (3) ~ Three East Havering RA councillors plus 15
Havering-Atte-Bower (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 16
Heaton (3) ~ Two Labour councilors plus 14
Hylands and Harrow Lodge (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 14
Marshalls and Rise Park (3) ~ Two HRA; One Reform councillor plus 13
Mawneys (3) ~ Three Conservative councillors plus 13
Rainham and Wennington (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 15
Rush Green and Crowlands (3) ~ Two Conservatives plus 14
South Hornchurch (2) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 10
Squirrels Heath (3) ~ One Conservative; One Reform councillor plus 15
St Albans (2) ~ One Conservative; One Labour councillor plus 9
St Andrews (3) ~ One HRA councillor plus 15
St Edwards (3) ~ 16 (No councillors standing)
Upminster (3) ~ Two HRA councillors plus 14
Three councillors are standing for wards that they didn’t represent 2022-6
Notes
1 Two cabinet members voted against HRA policy without resigning for example.
Question one2 was a political question! Michael White (25 minutes) asked about Havering joining Essex. He was digging out Andrew Rosindell and his Reform UK party.Apart from flags, Andrew is obsessed by the ‘Evil Empire’ that is London. Ray Morgon eagerly joined in, listing the inescapable advantages that the GLA brings Havering. Michael concluded by saying that leaving London was “a risk too far”. Ray was only too pleased to agree.
QT went downhill after this
Questions 3 and 6 were identical (33 and 39). Barry Mugglestone realised that giving identical answers was ridiculous. It didn’t stop him.3 Irony isn’t Barry’s strong suit. He likes being the centre of attention at whatever cost to his dignity.
There were eleven questions for Barry out of 15. QT is a golden opportunity for councillors, but they don’t use it to any good purpose. Red hot topics are ignored. The East Havering Data Centre was unquestioned even though the three HRA ward councillors oppose it. This includes two councillors who are cabinet members. They haven’t resigned. Then there’s the multi-million pounds loan from government. How much has Havering borrowed this year, what’s the repayment period, and at what ruinous interest rate? No-one was interested.
Keith Prince (35) asked Q4 about mislabeling staff agency costs as telephone expenses.4The amount was £262,000. Apparently ‘mistakes’ happen and ‘lessons have been learned’. Keith accepted this. This is amazing. The ‘mistake’ is so bizarre it needs a vivid imagination to think how it could have been made. Keith’s fatal lack of probing curiosity is characteristic of councillors who literally don’t know how to do scrutiny. Everything is accepted at face value regardless of how ludicrous.
2 Can the Administration please confirm which services will be lost and what the approximate financial impact would be on the Borough should Havering withdraw from the Greater London Authority area? It shouldn’t be forgotten that Andrew tried, and failed, to become the Conservative Mayoral candidate.
4 In the interests of transparency can the Leader explain why, who and what amount is being referred to in the Standard article which says Havering Council has tagged payments to one of its recruitment and workforce suppliers as “telephone expenses”.
The consultation meeting held at the Town Hall was challenging. The room was inadequate. Neither the acoustics nor sightlines aided discussion. These problems were exacerbated by a chair who was inexperienced. Panel members huddled defensively behind computer screens instead of standing and clearly addressing the meeting. As a result, members of the public were helplessly holding up their hands for inordinate periods of time.
Havering’s Friends of the Earth: A Visualisation
The group1 have produced a visualisation to aid understanding. The link is here:
As with all intrusive industrialisation projects, there are heroic efforts to greenwash. The pretence is that there is an environmental gain from the industrial use of the Green Belt. The offer here is an ‘ecology park’ and small-scale agriculture.
This is a tragic lost opportunity. The Data Centre will become Havering’s industrial frontier. Why not go the whole hog? Why not pivot towards intensive industrial farming?2 Another warehouse would fit in visually and help meet Britain’s insatiable desire for salad food all year round. Industrial farming would curb imports and the destructive carbon footprint miles.
The ‘ecology park’ is comically misplaced. It’s as appropriate as putting it at the junction of the M25 and A13. Far better would be land south of Albyns Farm in Hornchurch Country Park.3 A sensitive development would enhance the ‘jewel in the crown’ that is the country park. It’s possible to imagine the ‘ecology park’ being a destination if placed in a country park. It is impossible to imagine people having a day out next to industrial warehouses.
Finally
Section 106 agreements could show ambition. A Data Centre is massively intrusive and alters the character of Havering. The Council should be demanding significant and bold investment in Havering as a mitigation of the industrialisation of the Green Belt.
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
Politics in Havering 