Keith Prince and the Reform Party

Keith is a career politician. He’s spent his life making political calculations which were for his party, the community and himself.¹ In local political terms he’s been very successful.² Keith earns £66,390 as a GLA member plus his Havering allowance of £10,750. His calculation is probable oblivion with the Conservative Party, or, a Reform Party triumph.³

Keith is a career politician. He has his eyes on the Rosindell fiefdom, which is the Romford constituency. Keith licked his lips at Andrew’s nail-biting *victory* in 2024. It was the beginning of a trend. The tectonic plates of British politics have shifted and destroyed old certainties.⁴ The shift will destroy politicians who aren’t agile enough to go with the flow.

ULEZ and Brexit showed the powerful undercurrents of dissatisfaction in Britain. People are taking back control from career politicians who have failed them since 2010. The colonization of lamp-posts for the St George flag is another powerful symbol of a desire for fundamental change. People are tired of career politicians pivoting around focus groups.

Radical change is hated by career politicians. Their cute sound-bites are destroyed and they have to produce a new narrative, which sounds insincere to a sceptical public. Career politicians are a disaster. They live in a bubble, which is self-reinforcing and ignores the wishes and desires of the public. Well now they have a wake-up call.

Keith has gambled and Andrew is a born-again Thatcherite.⁵

Notes

1 Keith Prince vs Damian White: 2022 Conservative Leadership Contest – Politics in Havering

2 Salaries, expenses, benefits and workforce information | London City Hall

3 Havering’s election is in 2026 and the GLA in 2028

4 Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell ~ Back from the Brink, July 2024 – Politics in Havering

5 Andrew Rosindell and the Reform Party – Politics in Havering and see also BREAKING: Havering Has Its First Reform Councillor As Keith Prince Defects. – The Havering Daily

Havering Cabinet Meeting, 3rd September: The Launders Lane Debate

The cabinet was instructed to report on 20+ years of the appalling situation in Launders Lane, Rainham.¹ HRA aren’t to blame.² They inherited this débâcle from Conservative administrations. But HRA’s three+ years of inertia is haunting them. They really, really want to be positive but lawyers, and legislation, are stifling their ambitions. The crushing defeat in the Judicial Review³on their decision-making about Launders Lane hasn’t taught them anything. Luckily for HRA, the opposition hasn’t learned anything from the Judicial Review either.

The cabinet meeting was a parallel monologue between the Chief Executive (CE) and Leader. It was tightly scripted. For example, between the 5^th and 9^th minute Ray and the CE echoed each other.⁴ They monotonously blamed lawyers. Firstly, the legislation was unclear and secondly, they were cautiously trying to get the ‘right decision’. The dynamic duo said the Judicial Review had castigated them for being too quick. (see addendum). This went unchallenged because opposition councillors hadn’t read the Judicial Review.

Gillian Ford chipped in. She said that the concept of smoke wasn’t legally clear-cut and this caused problems with attributing health risks to Launders Lane fires. A legal ruling might impact on bonfires, which would be a disaster. Later she said the Judicial Review had caused delays in the decision-making process. She implied it was a ‘Bad Thing’ and the people of Launders Lane only had themselves to blame for delays.

Keith Darvill worried, in his cautious, hesitant way, about the lack of urgency. He was told he knew about legal delays because he’s a solicitor, which I thought was cruel.

Mostly it was self-serving drivel but one gem made the torture of listening to speeches through a brick wall using a milk bottle worthwhile. The CE said that finance wasn’t a consideration in the decision-making.This was endorsed by Ray Morgon. Activists should be dancing in the streets.

Addendum: The Judicial Review, paragraph 105
“I [the judge]am concerned that the LA [Local Authority] appear to have been very confused about the correct legal approach to this site through the decision making process.” (my emphasis)

Notes

1 FORM A These are the cabinet papers for the Launders Lane discussion. The webcast audio was abysmal Annotator Player
2 HRA is an umbrella organisation uniting Resident Associations. RAs worshipped ‘Letting sleeping dogs lie’.

3 Clear the Air in Havering, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Havering [2025] EWHC 1492 (Admin) (17 June 2025)

4 Normally I’d cite times but the recording was so abysmal, I suffered on your behalf.

Romford’s Conservatives Prepare for 2026

Romford Conservatives have had a torrid time since 2022. They lost control of the council for the first time since 2002 to HRA.¹ Then they fell apart. They’ve had defections and three leaders in three years. Slowing the terminal decline is Mission Impossible.

Worse! There’s a right-wing alternative biting their ankles. The Reform Party is a private company owned by Nigel Farage as an off-shoot to his ego. They are a novelty and will give the Conservatives, HRA and Labour a hard time in 2026.

Romford Conservatives have a Rosindell loyalty test,

“I [Rosindell] am pleased that in Romford, we now have a united and loyal team of Conservative candidates, who will work with me to secure victory next year.” (my emphasis)²

Havering-atte-Bower is interesting. John Crowder defected to HRA, Damian White sulked for three years, and Ray Best has retired – did he want to? So, three newbies in what was a safe ward.

Marshalls and Rise Park had two defections and Conservatives have deselected Osman Dervish – unless he retired. This *safe*(?) seat has attracted two footloose and fancy-free councillors: Robert Benham and Nisha Patel. Did they make a good choice? Roll on 2026.

St Edward’s has been culled as Rosindell worries about loyalty. All three councillors have been ousted. Nisha Patel legged it before getting the bullet. Astonishingly, David Taylor was deselected because he is an effective campaigner. Veteran councillor Joshua Chapman left. Why? Who knows? Three newbies in a competitive election looks like poor tactics. But Rosindell has won elections and possibly knows what he’s doing.

Addendum: Political groups and their candidates

No word on HRA candidates apart from the chaotic St Edward’s. They are persisting with RA cliques for their candidates.

Hornchurch Conservatives will probably have a ring round for candidates in January to maintain the pretence that they are a political party. Does Julia Lopez know?

Labour will probably get round to announcing candidates.

Reform will take anyone that comes along.

Notes

1 HRA are an umbrella organisation cobbled together from Resident Association groups.

2 NEW TEAM 23 CANDIDATES SELECTED TO FIGHT HAVERING LOCAL ELECTIONS IN ROMFORD | Romford

Havering’s Council Meeting, 3rd September 2025 (part two)

Motions for Debate¹

Motions are the lifeblood of council meetings. Policy is discussed and scrutinised.² Havering’s housing crisis is caused by sky high house prices, student debt and massive deposits. Family networks and communities are broken up.

Two motions about housing were interesting. After Paul McGeary’s train crash answer about HMOs,³ the motion became redundant. Social Housing⁴ is sadly neglected. There are low profits for house-builders and politicians seem to dislike poor people. The Conservative motion was a wonderful surprise.

“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.” Motion B

David Taylor (1:40) made a brilliant speech. He explained the economics of social housing as a win-win for the council and those in need of secure, regulated housing. Additionally, the community benefits of social housing were discussed in compelling detail. David linked the HMO debate by showing social housing is vastly superior and a cheaper option than HMOs. David was supported whole-heartedly by Keith Darvill (1:50) and Frankie Walker (1:58). For Conservatives to get support from Labour is encouraging. It shows councillors aren’t party robots.

Graham Williamson ((1:45) doesn’t understand his brief. He spent five minutes trying to remember what officers had said prior to the council meeting. He failed. Likewise, finance defeats him. Graham doesn’t do his homework or, just doesn’t get it. Ray Morgon (2:01) winged it. He should have done a forensic analysis of David’s speech and responded.

The result? HRA lost the vote (2:07) but will it change policy? Meanwhile…..

3,000 residents languish on council housing waiting lists

Addendum: Singing the National Anthem

The Mayor (2:13) introduced the National Anthem – badly. This prefaced the worst singing I’ve ever heard. It destroyed the dignity of the National Anthem. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 03/09/2025 19:30 The Motions for debate The webcast is at Annotator Player All times for speeches refer to this webcast

2 Eight councillors were absent or, 14.5%. This is average and still shocks me.

3 HMOs = Housing of multiple occupancy see also Havering’s Council Meeting, 3rd September 2025 – Politics in Havering

4 What is social housing? – Shelter England

Havering’s Council Meeting, 3rd September 2025

Question Time (QT)¹

The 2026 election is fast approaching. QT is designed for councillors to strut their stuff prior to the election. Penetrating questions are asked to embarrass the Administration and make colleagues cheer. There’s a flurry of newsletters, Havering Daily articles and an inner-glow after flaunting their excellence for constituents.

So how did they do?

Two types of questions. The dedicated ward councillor working hard highlighting failures of the Administration. The second type relates to scrutiny of performance. At this meeting the balance was 50:50.

Local Issues

Jane Keane (23 minutes and 33)² asked questions on fly-tipping and air pollution from idling cars. Barry Mugglestone disliked the idea of a ‘Wall of Shame’ for fly-tippers. He was cornered because of its novelty and wasn’t sure how popular it might be. Philip Ruck (17) didn’t appreciate only the police could enforce the 20 mph zones. Darren Wise (26) was brushed off about recycling bags. Robert Benham (45) was also brushed off by Barry, who had returned to form.

Policy Issues

Questions about policy are embarrassing for HRA because cabinet members are weak. Graham Williamson didn’t know social and affordable housing are different categories in his answer to David Taylor’s (27) question. Likewise, Chris Wilkins. He floundered answering a penetrating question from Martin Goode (15). The question related to LBH’s bankruptcy and his lack of understanding made me flinch.

Paul McGeary plumbed the depths of ignorance. He said *ILLEGAL* HMOs³ weren’t shut down because they added to the homeless figures. Housing can be completely illegal and it doesn’t matter as long as tenants don’t turn up on the council’s doorstep. This was an *answer* to Tim Ryan’s (30) brilliant question. Is it the case that Havering ratifies *ILLEGAL* HMOs to massage the housing figures? Is this policy?

Conclusion

QTs was good for the Opposition parties but will they build on their successes? Probably not.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 03/09/2025 19:30 The QT questions The webcast is at Annotator Player

2 Times refer to the webcast

3 HMO = houses of multiple occupation

Havering’s Council Tax and the USA’s Alternative

Council tax reflects property values in the 1990s. The promised five yearly value reviews never happened because of political cowardice.

Property tax is reviewed annually in the USA, “…The amount of tax is determined annually based on market value of each property on a particular date.”¹ New Jersey has the highest rate at 1.89% and the lowest is Louisiana’s 0.18%.²21 states are above 1% and then the range is between Louisiana and Florida’s 0.97%.

So what?

The benchmark used for this blog is Maryland, whose tax rate is 0.87%. They are at the USA’s mid-point property tax rate. Havering’s average house price is £451,000.³Using Maryland’s 0.87%, the council tax would be £3,923.70 for an average house, instead of Band D’s £2,313.^4,5

Detached houses in Emerson Park average £1,125,079. Their effective council tax is 0.41% or less.⁵ In Havering, high value houses are under-taxed under the American property tax system.

Council tax is a failed property tax, which is political dynamite. Havering’s Band H houses would have a council tax increase from £5,161 to £9,788 if Maryland’s rate was used.⁶ Havering’s financial woes are 30+ years old. The financial crisis was created by Conservatives and maintained by cowardly successive governments.

Council tax is a sick joke benefitting the rich.

Addendum: Louisiana’s 0.18% property tax

Louisiana is *Third World* in many ways. Life expectancy is 72 years⁷ and literacy is 72.9%.⁸ If Louisiana was a country it would be failed state. It is an example of low tax levels destroying society. (A £3m house in Havering has Louisiana levels of property tax rate as a percentage.)

Notes

1 Property tax in the United States – Wikipedia

2 Property Tax Rates By State 2025 – Tax-Rates.org

3 Housing prices in Havering See also Havering Housing Market | Price trends and market breakdown

4 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

5 House Prices in Emerson Park Two houses are for sale at £3m+ and several at £2m+, which reduces the percentage that council tax represents.

6 A £3m house would pay £26,100 council tax in Maryland instead of £4,627 in Havering.

7 Louisianans’ life expectancy is lower than national average – Axios New Orleans In Britain it’s 87 years Life expectancy calculator – Office for National Statistics

8 Louisiana Literacy Rates – Studyville Literacy in Britain is 99% Literacy Rate in UK Statistics 2025 | Illiteracy Rate UK – The Global Statistics

Havering Council Meeting, 23rd July 2025 (Part Two)

This Council commits to taking back control of development in Havering, through the creation and implementation of Neighbourhood Plans and Social Value shopping lists within the next six months, putting residents and local communities at the heart of planning. Motions.pdf

David Tayor (1hour)¹ embraces Havering’s prejudices. Flats are alien in Havering, blots on the landscape. Preventing the building of them is politically a ‘Good Thing’. His cunning plan is pressure groups, or Neighbourhood Plans. Only Keith Darvill (1:06) said social housing is desirable even though this implies flats (see Addendum). Keith didn’t mention high density flats as a solution for homelessness. Graham Williamson (1:11) speaking for HRA, said he was helpless…as usual. Jane Keane (1:17) worried about ‘taking back control’ but didn’t say why. Jason Frost (1:19) favoured councillors as ‘influencers’. Chris Wilkins (1:21) was unintelligible.

The homeless are collateral damage to Havering’s negativity. Graham Williamson remarked on the harm development meant for residents. Residents are voters in this context. Havering has a problem, the hidden homeless,² many of whom are ‘sofa-surfing’. And then there are adults stranded in the family home at 30 years old. There are many such men and women in Havering. Havering’s housing policies serve only homeowners or, in the case of 16 councillors, owners of buy-to-let houses.³

Havering is heartless for any but the wealthy.⁴

Addendum: Housing density

The most densely populated square kilometre in the country, for example, is London’s neighbourhood of Maida Vale, which hosts around 20,000 people. In contrast, some urban areas in Europe exceed 50,0000 people, peaking at 53,000 in Barcelona. And if we take the number of people living in apartments as an indicator of housing density, this accounts for almost half (48%) of Europe’s population, compared with just 17% in the UK. This suggests that there may be the potential to increase the density of our residential developments, which would enable more homes to be built without expanding the development footprint. Source: Should we increase housing density? | CBRE UK (my emphasis. This would protect the Green Belt)

Best Cynicism: Damian White ~ absent yet again

Notes

1 Annotator Player All timings related to this webcast There was 18% (10/55) absenteeism at this meeting, which is utterly disgraceful.

2 “Hidden” homelessness in the UK: evidence review – Office for National Statistics

3 This debate reflects the councillors that Havering has See Havering’s Councillors: The Democratic Deficit in Action – Politics in Havering

4 JSNA Demography Chapter 2023 v0.3A.pdf p54 HRA opposed housing selling for million plus. See New Homes for Sale | Kings Green, Upminster Development See also The sale of ‘Hall Lane Pitch and Putt’: Conservative Revenge? – Politics in Havering

Havering Council Meeting, 23rd July 2025 (Part One)

Councillors quiz cabinet members at Question Time (QT)¹. Environmental questions dominated, with 8 out of 15. Two critical issues weren’t asked: (1) Green Belt development, and (2) Air pollution.² There was however, a motion about the Launders Lane disaster.³

QT is critical and only 35 minutes were used of the 45 available. This suggests that the 15 questions limit should be scrapped. QT should end when the 45 minutes are complete. This would bring it into line with Parliament’s PMQ.⁴

Discussion

Barry Mugglestone’s interesting style buries questions in a blizzard of legislation references. For supplementary questions he says either councillors or members of the public haven’t kept him informed, so it’s their fault there’s a problem. David Taylor’s question about tree feathering narrowing the pavement outside Mawney school (Q10, 43minutes) was a classic example. He said he’d prioritise this in 2026. Result!

Philip Ruck (31) asked about cabinet members avoiding scrutiny committees. Ray Morgon conceded the point and, in effect, said they’d been ordered to attend. Based on answers by Chris Wilkins (35 and 45), Graham Williamson (53) and Natasha Summers (26) attendance might not mean enlightenment.

Finally, Viddy Persaud (39) raised the important question of the premature collection of Council Tax. Ray Morgon conceded this administrative error, apologised and moved on. It is impossible to avoid the thought that some people might have been thrust into a temporary overdraft. This is costly. Viddy didn’t pursue that point.

Best Question: Philip Ruck

Notes

1 Council Questions 23 July 2025.pdf All times come from this webcast Annotator Player

2 Gallows Corner is shut and perfect for a *Before-After* analysis.

3 Motion C proposed a debate about this issue. Motions.pdf Surprisingly it didn’t demand the reinstatement of the Statutory Nuisance Notice.

4 The weekly Prime Ministers Questions

Havering’s Overview and Scrutiny Board, 3rd July 2025

Introduction

Item 6, concerned sick leave, agency staff and its financial implications.¹ Sick leave levels, “[Have] fallen further to 9.9 days at 30th April 2025.” Appendix 2says this amounts to 20,807 days per year. National statistics say, “There was also a fall in days lost per worker, to 4.4 in 2024…”² Havering’s council is 125% above the national average at a cost of £2m p.a.

Stress, depression and mental health costs the council £610K and Muscular-skeletal costs £506K, both annually.³ These are the two biggest categories.

Councillors are a poor example for staff.⁴ In the six months to 5^th July 2025, 55 councillors were scheduled to attend a total of 460 meetings. They attended 386 – a 16% absentee rate.

The council is rotting from the head down.⁵

Discussion

There were important contributions from David Taylor (1:55).⁶ He said that agency staff were healthier. At (2: 04) he said ‘Millennials’ were very sickly. His best point was (2:19) when he posited causes of muscular-skeletal sick leave (£506K). He suggested one cause might be ‘Working from home’ with poor working conditions. Jane Keane pondered ‘tolerated’ sick leave as a reason for sick leave. She then discussed domestic abuse and sick leave. Other contributions were made by Matt Stanton, Dilip Patel and Martin Goode.

Officers made few substantive replies to councillors with too many ‘getting back’ with emails later.

Conclusion

The committee is a joke. There was 41% councillor absenteeism at this meeting. This ruins institutional memory. The contribution of Phillippa Crowder (2:29) demonstrated the power of that memory. It also destroys any development of forensic debating skills. Scrutiny should be uncompromising but this committee is cosy and nice.

Innovative strategies for bringing Havering’s statistics in line with national levels don’t exist.⁷ Questions about dismissals for poor staff attendance weren’t asked. Likewise, challenging failed strategies was obviously infra dig.

Councillors are complicit in accepting Havering’s sick leave culture.

Notes

1 HR 1 – Report.pdf

2 HR 2 – Appendix 1 and 2 OS Report – Data Dashboard.pdf See also Sickness absence in the UK labour market – Office for National Statistics Havering is trying to achieve 8 days of sick leave, which is, apparently a stretch target.

3 loc.cit Appendix 2b

4 Havering Councillors’ Attendance: 1st August 2023 – 24th January 2024 – Politics in Havering

5 Absentees: cllrs Ruck (he was present via Zoom which counts as an absence), Garrard, Godwin, Vincent and Anderson: 5 out of 12 (41%)

6 Annotator Player Timings refer to this webcast

7 Worse than that: the target set is 8 days sick leave, 3.6 days above the national level.

The Contaminated Land at Launders Lane, Rainham

“…..I am concerned that the LA [local authority] appear to have been very confused about the correct legal approach to this site through the decision-making process.”¹

Background

Havering Residents’ Association (HRA) aren’t leaders. Dithering and avoiding decision-making is a toxic legacy from their petty-minded Residents’ Associations days. Prior to this judgement they were tested by the Institutional Racism report and ULEZ. They failed on both occasions.

Havering’s Institutional Racism report was suppressed until the campaigning Romford Recorder emerged triumphant in court. Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ propositions were mocked in a campaign tinged with racism. No-one in the HRA leadership team understood that ULEZ was a public healthpolicy.

HRA never apologised for suppressing the Institutional Racism report or opposing ULEZ.²

Arnold’s Field, Launders Lane

Deputy-Leader Gillian Ford is HRA’s spokesperson. She said, “…the site belongs to them [the landowner] and it is their responsibility to make it safe – the ball is in their court and as they well know, we are ready to work with them to solve the problem.”³

Designating land as contaminated means the council controls the situation. Landowners of contaminated land are instructed to remediate their land.⁴ Gillian doesn’t understand that the council can turbo-charge action. The landowner wouldn’t be remediating the land voluntarily; they’d be under a legal obligation.

It is impossible to believe that anyone could look at a site which had 64 fires in a few months,⁵ and not think it was contaminated.

The council decided that the land was the lesser category ‘statutory nuisance’.⁶ This was refuted by the campaigners’ legal team, “The fires arising on this [sic] are clearly caused by the land being in a contaminated state, so it is not accepted that this is a nuisance under the EPA.⁷

The judge was forensically precise in her determination. “…. the LA [local authority] appear to have been very confused about the correct legal approach to this site….”⁸ This is a damning judicial rebuke. Continuous spontaneous combustion couldn’t be anything other than a consequence of toxic contamination.

The designation of Arnold’s Field as a contaminated site should be urgently expedited after years of procrastination.

Notes

1 Clear the Air in Havering, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Havering [2025] EWHC 1492 (Admin) (17 June 2025) para 105

2 See Havering’s Institutional Racism Report – Politics in Havering and also Anti-ULEZ Conservative councillor David Taylor was gracious in his mea culpa Havering’s ULEZ Data (davidtaylor.online)

3 Havering Council’s response to Arnolds Field judicial review | London Borough of Havering

4 Can I Be Prosecuted For The Contamination Of Land? – Stephensons Solicitors LLP

5 Arnolds Field: Illegal dump owners say clean-up plan blocked – BBC News

6 The council continued avoiding any responsibility. The judge noted, “….but also no action is being taken in respect of statutory nuisance.” Clear the Air in Havering, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Havering [2025] EWHC 1492 (Admin) (17 June 2025) para 31

7 loc.cit para 29

8 loc.cit para 105