A tale of two boroughs: Havering and Westminster’s Council Tax

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Animal Farm by George Orwell (1945)

Council tax was created by a panics-stricken Conservative government after the Poll Tax riots. Eight bands were created and were meant to be reviewed every five years. George Osborne’s fiscal extremism was the coup de grace for local finance.It destroyed any sense of reality for councillors who have resorted to borrowing to pay current expenditure. The local authority credit cardhas, as it were, been maxed out. Osborne and expanding duties made bankruptcy inevitable with a mountain of debt for future generations. But, as Orwell would have said: not all councils are equal.

The 2025-6 council tax for Westminster is astonishing. Band ‘D’ is the mid-point in the council tax system and they have set the charge at £1,019. 17 miles to the east, and on a different fiscal planet, Havering’s band ‘D’ charge is £2,313.55. This is above band ‘H’ in Westminster.¹

As might be expected, Westminster house prices are very high.² The first house available on Rightmove costs £2.6m. (The second house listed is £80m.) Being immensely rich means Westminster has many more band ‘H’ houses than Havering.³ Many more is a galactic under-statement. Romford constituency has 40 band ‘H’ houses, Hornchurch and Upminster has 320 and Westminster……..15,530!

Obviously their revenue base is huge. Westminster’s band ‘H’ council tax is £2,038. For Havering it is £4,627, which is too low.⁴

Havering has been wrecked by (a) national politicians and their cowardice, (b) Conservative extremism, (c) ever expanding duties for adult services and homelessness and (d) local delusions.

Notes

1 Westminster council tax bands & costs 2025/26

2 Properties For Sale in Westminster | Rightmove

3 d:\Users\Chris\Downloads\CTSOP2_1_adhoc_2015_2024 (1).zip 4 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

4 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

Havering’s Council Tax 2025-6

Havering Council is bankrupt. The usual explanation is the cost of Adult Services and Homelessness. That’s glib. Council Tax was introduced in 1991 by a panic-stricken Conservative government reeling from the Poll Tax riots. They planned valuation reviews every five years, after which council tax would be recalibrated reflecting property price inflation. No reviews have taken place. Areas with massive property price inflation, like Havering, haven’t had council tax adjustments.

Havering’s Council Tax 2025

In 1991 a £320,000+ band ‘H’ house¹ in Havering had a council tax of £1070. This equates to 0.33% of its minimum value.

In 2025 a band ‘H’ property is worth about £2m.³ Council tax for band ‘H’ is £4,627, which is 0.23%. This doesn’t look much but it is a 30% difference.

Council tax has significantly reduced for band ‘H’’ property owners since 1991.

Inflation since 1991

Band ‘H’ houses were valued at £320,000+ in 1991. Using standard inflation, that increased to £733,720 in 2025.⁴ House price inflation is a multiple of standard inflation. A 1991 £320,000+ house is now £2,157,601,⁵ an inflation rate of 574%.

Council Tax is a failure

Political cowardice by governments has bankrupted Havering.⁶ Council tax is a failed mechanism for funding council services.⁷ Continuing to use 1991 valuations is ludicrous.

Correcting 34 years of inertia will take political courage………I’m not holding my breath.

Notes

1 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

2 Properties For Sale in Emerson Park | Rightmove

4 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

5 House price index | Nationwide

6 Havering Council Tax: Is It Too Low? – Politics in Havering This was written in 2020 but the analysis is still valid though the examples are historic.

7 George Osborne’s Age of Austerity programme, 2010-16, put the knife to the throat of Havering’s finances and matters more than sub-optimal increases in council tax.

The Political Importance of Ipswich vs West Ham, 25th May 2025

The Premier League relies on immigrants. The 22 players who began this match came from ten countries.¹ Eleven players were British (50%) and another ten countries are represented. (Only the Congo had more than one player.)

Both managers were British, which is odd. Only four managers in the Premier League are British and this game had half of them.²In contrast the Liverpool vs Crystal Palace game had 32% of British players. Neither of their managers is British. The two principal trophies in English football were won by immigrants.³

Politicians ignore this, using emotional speeches. Nigel Farage places the restriction of immigration front and central in his Reform Party political message.⁴

Premier League clubs spend fortunes on players, most of whom are immigrants. This commercial decision explains why preemptive positions on immigration are absurd.

Other sectors of the economy make similar but less spectacular decisions. Higher Education has 18% of its workforce as immigrants and the NHS has 17.7%.⁵The 2016 Brexit vote, notoriously, hit the hospitality sector very hard indeed as immigrants left.

Premier League football illustrates the importance of immigrants to Britain’s success. English football and its story reappears throughout the economy.

Negative political discourse about immigration is toxic and socially destructive.

Addendum

Eberechi Eze, a Crystal Palace and England footballer, is the son of Nigerian parents. He epitomises ‘British’ values. His charity provides opportunities in south London.⁶

Notes

1 Starting Lineups – Ipswich vs West Ham | 25.05.2025

2 List of current Premier League and English Football League managers – Wikipedia

3 Starting Lineups – Liverpool vs C Palace | 25.05.2025 See also “…..because of their [immigrant] backgrounds, typically from poorer countries, they do not take success or prosperity for granted. That is an ideal combination of factors for success.” How to find the most talented people on earth – Marginal REVOLUTION

4 Nigel Farage demands complete ‘halt’ to immigration as it ‘devalues UK’ | Politics | News | Express.co.uk see also REFORM 2025 LTD overview – Find and update company information – GOV.UK Reform isn’t a political party. It is a private company owned by Farage and others.

5 Number of non-EU academics in UK rises | Times Higher Education (THE) see also NHS staff from overseas: statistics – House of Commons Library

6 ‘Giving back is in our hearts’ – Eze on impacting South London – News – Crystal Palace F.C.

Drapers’ Academy and Disadvantaged Students

[Nationally] 25.2% of disadvantaged pupils and 52.4% of all other pupils got a grade 5 or above [in GCSE English and Maths]¹

Drapers’ Academy should be experts in educating disadvantaged students. In 2024 they entered 89 disadvantaged students for GCSE. They have a critical mass enabling the school to pivot teaching to their needs. Achieving Gold Standard GCSEs, which are Grade 5+ for English and Maths, for the disadvantaged demands robust strategies. Poverty doesn’t cause the under-achievement of disadvantaged children but there’s a correlation.²

Drapers’, in 2024, beat the national average. Their disadvantaged students achieved 28.1% Gold Standard.

Drapers’ Academy is managed by Queen Mary University, London. A university management trust should utilise their research expertise with GCSE results. They’re a diagnostic tool for research. Once data is analysed they can recommend the best strategies for improving outcomes.

St Edward’s Academy, Romford³actively research the achievement of the disadvantaged. (see Addendum two) In 2024 they achieved significantly superior⁴ results to Drapers’. If replicated at Drapers’, seven extra Gold Standard successes would have occurred.

The government’s 2024 Pupil Premium payment for Year 11 at Drapers’ was a minimum of £93,450.⁵ Did that £93K raise standards? Drapers’ are committed to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model of Child Development.⁶ GCSE results in 2024 didn’t endorse its insights.

Drapers’ had 89 students facing significant challenges in 2024. They have huge amounts of Pupil Premium funding, an academic management team and a desire to succeed. If St Edward’s can do it why not Drapers’?

Addendum One: Drapers’ Academy, Chair of Governors

Oliver Everett is a Liveryman of the Drapers’ Company. He is a farmer and a consultant specialising in the link between the private sector and government, working extensively in Africa. Outside work, he is an Entrepreneur Mentor in Residence at London Business School.

Addendum Two: St Edward’s and their access to research

Having Unity Research School as part of Unity Schools Partnership means that Unity’s schools have instant access to evidence-based information which they can use in the classroom to improve outcomes for pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In an age of over-whelming amounts of pseudo-evidence, Unity Research School provides a solid and trustworthy source of information, proven to work in school settings and can help each school apply the evidence so that it is relevant to their setting and pupils’ needs.⁷

Notes

1 Attainment at age 16 – Social Mobility Commission State of the Nation – GOV.UK

2 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/correlation

3 Results by pupil characteristics – St Edward’s Church of England Academy – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK They aren’t a privileged school. 36% of their students in 2024 were disadvantaged. Coopers Coburn had 5% disadvantaged students who achieved three Gold Standard passes.

4 Seven doesn’t look much but it is 28.5 percentage points greater.

5 The 89 students would have generated several hundred thousand pounds of Pupil Premium funding over their five years at the school

6 Pupil Premium – Drapers’ Academy

7 Unity Research School | Unity Schools Partnership

Havering’s Secondary Schools: Two Government Assessments

Havering’s schools have two forms of government assessment. Firstly, Progress 8 predicts GCSE results by using a statistical analysis of KS2. Schools which add value means children will out-perform their expected grades. Secondly, OFSTED reports. They happen at multi-year intervals. Inspectors grade schools using five headings, (1) Overall effectiveness, (2) Effectiveness of leadership and management, (3) Quality of teaching, learning and assessment, (4) Personal development, behaviour and welfare and (5) Outcomes for pupils.

Progress 8

Well Above Average¹

Sacred Heart of Mary, Campion and Harris Academy Rainham

Above Average

Royal Liberty, Coopers Coborn, Frances Bardsley, Hall Mead, Redden Court and Hornchurch High

Average

Gaynes, St Edward’s and Drapers’

Below Average

Abbs Cross, Emerson Park, Marshalls Park, Brittons and Sanders Draper

Well Below Average

Bower Park

OFSTED

OFSTED uses four summary categories Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement and Inadequate. Reports aren’t annual and not necessarily current.

Outstanding

Hall Mead, Redden Court, Sacred Heart of Mary, Francis Bardsley (3 categories out of 5), and Royal Liberty (short inspection)

Good

Every other school.

Discussion

There’s no correlation between the two government assessments.

OFSTED criteria, Quality of teaching, learning and assessment and Outcomes for pupils are critical for every stakeholder using the reports.

How can a 22% GCSE Grade 5+ English and Maths pass rate for disadvantaged children at Abbs Cross² be rewarded by a ‘Good’ assessment. OFSTED say, Trustees, leaders and staff have high expectations for all pupils, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). (my emphasis). ‘High expectations’ in this context is overblown.

Likewise, Marshalls Park. 42.1% non-disadvantaged children passed Grade 5+ English and Maths and are rated ‘Good’. This result is 5% below the national average and 10% below the Havering comparator. Worse: disadvantaged children achieved a sickening 21.8%⁴ English and Maths Gold Standard pass rate at Marshalls Park.

OFSTED reports aren’t fit for purpose. Their reports lack rigour and ignore outcomes which are important to society. Progress 8 focuses on added value, whichschools create. OFSTED ignores these insights. This is a criminal dereliction of duty.

Notes

1 Search results for “Havering” – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK See also Havering’s Secondary Academies: Their Progress 8 Rankings, 2024 – Politics in Havering

2 Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK Grade 5+ English and Maths is a Gold Standard acting as an entry point for many post 16 opportunities

3 Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College – Open – Find an Inspection Report – Ofsted

4 Results by pupil characteristics – Marshalls Park Academy – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK

The Consequences of Conservative Extremism, 2010-24

Havering is bankrupt.

Ray Morgon, HRA Leader of Council, is outraged because Havering is a victim. The Conservatives destroyed local government between 2010 and 2024. Ray Morgon and the new Labour government are victims. They’re making decisions they hate and despise.

There has been 51.4% of inflation since 2010.¹ In 2010, Band D Council Tax was £1505.²This increased to £2208 in 2024,³ up 46.7%. Council tax has therefore, more-or-less, increased with general inflation.

Bankruptcy is a direct result of government policy.

In 2010, Havering was centrally funded with £70m annually. In 2024, this had fallen to less than £2m. A 97% decrease. Conservative governments introduced funding based on specific criteria. The baseline for grants was 2010. The world changed but the baseline remained inflexible.

The demography of Havering shows startling changes.⁴ Havering has more young and old people than in 2010. Both groups are heavy consumers of council services. The inflexible baseline has damaging outcomes with Adult and Children’s Services budgets out of control. There isn’t any *control* because they’re demand led and can increase in a moment.

Havering isn’t alone. The spectre of bankruptcy is haunting local authorities. The consequences of Conservative government policies are lethal.⁵ Ray Morgon has an £88m problem. Rachel Reeves’s problem is a gigantic £7.8bn. She has to fill the national funding gap. Her challenges are dominated by the NHS, Education and Defence. The Conservative legacy is catastrophic.

Ray Morgon’s decision to borrow £88m to meet current revenue expenditure was the result of force majeure. Both he and Rachel Reeves are victims of chronic economic mismanagement.

Notes

1 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

2 110209agenda_feb.pdf

3 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

4 JSNA Demography Chapter 2023 v0.3A.pdf esp. pp6-7

5 Fair funding review modelling tools | Local Government Association

HRA Teeter On The Brink, 26th February 2025

The budget debate concluded dramatically as HRA were punished for poor political judgement. The Maggie Thatcher approach, ‘There is no alternative,’ nearly cost them power.

Ray Morgon has inherited the wreckage of George Osborne’s Austerity programme. Havering’s borrowing might increase by £88m to pay for adult and children’s social care along with the homelessness crisis. Everyone knows that’s expensive but no-one knows how much because it’s demand led.

The discussion about Havering’s £200m budget pivoted around food waste and libraries. David Taylor (1 hour 47)¹ said HRA made political choices. The choices are to close three libraries or introduce the food waste collection six months earlier than required.

The Conservatives demanded that food waste collection begins on 1^st April 2026. This saves £1.27m.² By not supplying bin liners a further £270,000 is saved. (See addendum) Three libraries could have their closure paused for a year.³

HRA went to public consultation on closure. 83% voted against but HRA’s ‘Maggie Thatcher Tendency’ led them to ignore the consultation. HRA have forgotten they’re in a minority. The vote on Labour’s amendment was a sharp reminder. The vote tied at 24:24 and HRA won on the casting vote of the Mayor.

Seven councillors were absent, including former Conservative Leader Damian White. If he’d turned up HRA would have faced a vote of confidence and possibly lost power.

Philip Ruck (1:08)⁴ taunted HRA with being in the pocket of the officers. And the papers confirm he has a point. The Labour amendment led to this comment from the principal officer,

“Although the saving is financially viable, as the Council’s S151 Officer, I am unable to recommend this.”

Amazing!

S151 officers only advise whether amendments make financial sense. Philip said, “Officers advise and politicians decide.” HRA have neither the confidence or ability to reject officer advice. They tried to defend the politically indefensible.

Addendum: Labour’s amendment (edited)

Proposal. The Labour Group proposes the following budget amendments: That the saving closing South Hornchurch Library is reversed

That the saving closing Harold Wood Library is reversed

To reduce the Capitalisation Direction

That Gidea Park Library is re-purposed for alternative use

Total costs. This would be financed by: Removal of costs of bin liners from the Food Waste collection £0.270m

Source (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 26/02/2025 19:30 p983

Best Speech: David Taylor

Notes

1 Annotator Player All times relate to this webcast

2 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 26/02/2025 19:30 p981

3 Martin Goode Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part one) – Politics in Havering At 58 minutes said that these were headline savings and didn’t include decommissioning costs.

4 Annotator Player

Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part two)

Background

Political groups nominated speakers to set out their propositions¹ and general debate followed. There were 12 speeches² and this gives a flavour of the debate.

General Debate

Michael White (Con) began (1hour 05) with, “He didn’t want to bring politics into the debate.” Michael believes everything is political. He said a pause in introducing the Food Waste collection would save the libraries. This is irrefutable.

Philip Ruck (Cranham RA) said HRA don’t understand their budget as it’s set by officers. He said borrowing £88m to put £5m into reserves is ludicrous. (£1m costs £50K p.a. in interest.)

Keith Prince (Con) said, “Politics don’t matter’. Councillors panicked, wondering who this imposter was. Keith, if it was him, identified savings which earn money like increasing the number of planning officers. He’s a fan of Harold Wood library and likes the police and CCTV.

Ray Morgon (HRA) Defended his budget quite well. He favours lobbying. A triumph of hope over experience.

Barry Mugglestone (HRA) He loves ‘law and order’ policies and liners for caddy bins. His argument for bin liners was feeble.

Gillian Ford (HRA) She got dewy eyed about libraries she’d visited 35 years ago with her children. Everyone wondered if she’d been in one since the 1990s. Apart from saying Gidea Park library was poor in the 1990s, that was it.

Graham Williamson (HRA) He should write his speeches to prevent confusion to himself and his audience. He tried, and failed, to trash Opposition amendments by saying the Finance Director was against them. He was, of course, wrong.

(Four HRA cabinet members spoke consecutively.)

Martin Goode (East Havering RAs) As soon as he spoke about Harold Wood library he was interrupted by Gillian. He failed to make a good point.

Brian Eagling (East Havering RAs) He denounced increased charges on football pitches. He was shouted down by Gillian and Barry. His good point wasn’t made.

(HRA really, really don’t like East Havering RAs and don’t conceal it.)

Robert Benham (Con) denounced the lack of ambition in the budget. He found it unbelievable HRA were borrowing their way ‘out’ of debt with £200m by 2026.

Jane Keane (Labour) Agreed with Keith Darvill’s tour d’horizon, which was compelling and depressing in equal measure.

Judith Holt (Con) She dislikes misery and feels councillors should recognise that Havering is attractive for people from other parts of London.

James Glass (HRA) He made an honest assessment of the budget. He showed how HRA councillors are tortured by decisions like closing libraries.

Best Speech: James Glass

Best Havering patriot: Judith Holt

Notes

1 Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part one) – Politics in Havering

2 Annotator Player This is in speech order beginning with White and ending with Glass.

Havering Council and the St Francis Hospice Charity

There are an impressive 16 charity shops in Havering.¹ The charity with the greatest number is St Francis Hospice with three shops.

Rated outstanding by the CQC, Saint Francis Hospice [SFH] provides expert care for people in our community with palliative and end of life care needs.²

SFH’s three shops had sales of £2.6m³ in 2023. This success encouraged them to open a ‘superstore’ in Hornchurch. Additionally, there’s the Loughton Boutique, which is their first shop in west Essex.⁴ SFH is a retail operator mixing charity with sound business acumen. It has reserves of £17.3m.⁵ SFH is a significant charity but ‘small’ financially.

Havering Council has tiny reserves,

“£8m of un-earmarked reserves is equivalent to c4% of the Council’s projected 2024/25 net budget of £19.75m [this is an error. It ought to read £197.5m] This is far below the recommended minimum level of reserves and is significantly lower than the average level of un-ring-fenced reserves across London.”⁶ (my explanation)

Havering’s dire financial position is illustrated by the fact that SFH has reserves twice the size of theirs.

Havering is a compulsory supporter of SFH.⁷ SFH pays 20% of the business rates due because of a 1988 decision.⁸ This decision costs Havering tens of thousands of pounds in business rates from the 16 charity shops.⁹

Havering is a ‘victim’ of a decision made 37 years ago forcing them to reduce the business rates for charity shops by 80%. Charity shops are worthy but there is no chance they’d still be getting a reduction if Havering had a choice.

Notes

1 havering’s charity shops – Search This site includes a map

2 Saint Francis Hospice – Home CQC = Care Quality Commission

3 application-pdf p26

4 loc.cit.

5 ibid. p44

6 5-14 Appendix H – Section 25 Statement of Robustness.pdf para 8:1

7 Charity Relief – Businessrates.uk

8 Business rates—charities and not-for-profit organisations | Legal Guidance | LexisNexis

9 This is a heroic estimate.

Havering’s Cabinet Meeting, 5th February: Budget (part two)

“I believe in miracles….” Hot Chocolate (1975)¹

The meeting began with Chris Wilkins, the cabinet member for finance, reading a document which he didn’t appear to have written (1:26).² Very sensibly, HRA don’t use Chris as their main man during financial discussions.

The discussion was brutal.

Ray Morgon set his stall out. The government review of Havering’s finance is vital to his strategy. The Fair Funding Review (1:31) is the miracle which will stave off Havering’s financial catastrophe. The Chief Executive (1:46) said that he wouldn’t consider requesting a council tax increase beyond 4.99% because Havering’s problems weren’t caused by decision-making in Havering. This reflects HRA’s policy.

The director of Finance expressed caution. She was ‘very concerned’ about the long-term sustainability of Havering (1:34). Keith Darvill (1:32) probed forensically, discovering that the interest on the capitalisation programme hasn’t been paid. This means debt accelerates each year through the joys of compound interest. The director said that the conversation will be ‘very different’ in 2028 if nothing changes.

“…if you have debt, compounding of the interest you owe can make it increasingly difficult to pay off.”³

Capitalisation Funding for day-to-day expenditure is insanity.

The Chief Executive (1:31) said after his meeting with the minister there would be no change in government policy concerning debt repayments.

HRA is hoping the government will back down first and won’t enforce the debt. HRA is engaging in a form of “Can’t pay, Won’t pay.”⁴Havering is depending on safety in numbers. They’re hoping that along with the 18 other councils which are being buried alive in debt, they will have to be rescued.

Notes

1 The lyrics aren’t about local government finance. But are great fun. Read them. Relive the 70s! i believe in miracles hot chocolate lyrics – Search

2 Annotator Player All times refer to this webcast

3 The Power of Compound Interest: Calculations and Examples

4 This is a Marxist play, 1974, by the Italian Dario Fo which is a satire on consumer resistance to high prices. Can’t Pay? Won’t Pay! – Wikipedia