Buckingham Palace isn’t in Romford but let’s suppose it is. It’s worth hundreds of millions of pounds. You’d expect the Council Tax to be stupendous. You’d be wrong. Council Tax protects the wealthy. The disabled on the other hand have just had their Council Tax increased by about 36.6%. The Conservative administration in Havering has changed government safeguards to the detriment of the disabled whilst at the same time not increasing the general Council Tax by the permitted amount. The disabled are partially subsidising the rich.

Buckingham Palace’s Havering Council Tax, 2019-20, would be £3,457 p.a.,¹ even though it’s worth hundreds of millions. Council Tax protects the rich from meaningful property taxes.

In March 2019 there are many houses for sale in Emerson Park at prices in the range £1-£4 million+.² They pay the maximum Council Tax of £3,457 p.a. This is about 0.2% of the wealth these houses represent. The most expensive house currently on sale is priced at £4.6 million. Its Council Tax equates to 0.15%.³

 

The Conservative administration believes that those receiving benefits are scroungers. Government authorised Council Tax Support (CTS) for the disabled is being corroded. In 2018-9 the disabled paid 15% of the general Council Tax. Havering has increased the 2019-20 CTS to 20%. This is a 36.6% increase in total. It is a vicious, premeditated punishment of the disabled.⁴ Large numbers of people are affected by this decision.

About 18% of working age people living in Havering disclosed that they have a disability or long term illness.⁵

I’d have thought that the disabled had enough to put up with without their lives being made harder by Havering Council.

 

1 https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20000/council_tax/168/council_tax_bands_and_bills

2 https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?searchType=SALE&locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2189&insId=1&radius=0.0&minPrice=1000000&maxPrice=&minBedrooms=&maxBedrooms=&displayPropertyType=&maxDaysSinceAdded=&_includeSSTC=on&sortByPriceDescending=&primaryDisplayPropertyType=&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=&oldDisplayPropertyType=&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=&newHome=&auction=false

This is the Rightmove site

3 These figures only relate to Emerson Park and there probably are other properties elsewhere in Havering which are priced higher.

4 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s34954/Council%20Tax%20Support%20Scheme%207%20CouncilTaxSupportSchemeOptionsAppendixF.pdf

5 http://www.haveringdata.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/This-is-Havering_Havering-Demographic-Profile_Main-Document-v2.4.pdf p5

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell belong to the European Research Group (ERG). They follow the Rule Britannia theory of Brexit negotiation. Their leaders are Jacob Rees-Mogg and Arlene Foster. Rees-Mogg’s Brexit hard line attitudes are wavering because of Arlene. He said he’d look ‘for a ladder to climb down’ if the DUP changed their position.

Northern Ireland’s DUP are interesting. Their current claim to fame is to be members of the Stormont parliament. This hasn’t sat for 26 months. Arlene Foster, first minister, remains on full pay (£114,000 p.a.). Everyone regards this as untenable¹ except Theresa May, who’s afraid of annoying Arlene.

Arlene Foster drove a hard deal with Theresa May in 2017, when she rescued her from the disastrous 2017 election result. Her ten DUP MPs attracted £100 million each for inward investment for Northern Ireland. A billion pounds of negotiating skill. Perhaps Arlene should accompany Theresa when she goes to the EU?

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell are Havering’s Conservative MPs. They have handed over the economic future of Havering to the most rapacious, bigoted political party in the UK. Julia and Andrew are Arlene’s puppets, as is the government. Perhaps she could advise our MPs on how to get £200 million of inward investment for Havering?

1 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-nireland-politics/uk-government-to-cut-pay-of-northern-ireland-deputies-amid-deadlock-source-idUKKCN1LM1H0

see also https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-mlas-salaries-to-be-cut-by-13k-civil-service-getting-powers-to-take-executive-decisions-37289339.html

“An additional £250k is to be built in for investment into CCTV.”¹

Smart phones and private CCTV systems make most of Havering’s CCTV network irrelevant. The 35 year old network needs a root-and-branch analysis. This won’t happen because Havering’s councillors uncritically admire CCTV.²

CCTV is thought to fight crime: does it? The Crime and Disorder sub-committee note CCTV in their reports but don’t examine its effectiveness. Consequently a thorough-going critique of the £250,000 capital investment is required.

The police and Home Office are less trusting about CCTV’s contribution to crime fighting.³

“Overall, use of CCTV makes for a small, but statistically significant, reduction in crime, but this generalisation needs to be tempered by careful attention to (a) the type of crime being addressed and (b) the setting of the CCTV intervention. CCTV is more effective when directed at reducing theft of and from vehicles, while it has no impact on levels of violent crime.”⁴

In other words CCTV wouldn’t have prevented the tragic murder of Jodie Chesney in Harold Hill. Councillors plan investment in CCTV believing they’re fighting crime, absolutely ignoring evidence to the contrary.

“CCTV is more effective when directed at reducing theft of and from vehicles,” this benefit has been overtaken by technology. Cars are more difficult to steal than 35 years ago. The Crime and Disorder Committee in their September 2018 meeting noted that:

Concern was expressed that nearly 20% of victims recorded by police were aged between 11-17, particularly around the Gooshays area – 69% of drugs were initially found by police, 20% by door staff and 10% by CCTV.⁵

The £250,000 is financing weapons to fight the First World War. CCTV is at a historic moment in Havering. Councillors should review CCTV to ensure that its role in 2019 hasn’t been overtaken by events. The £250,000 capital investment in CCTV should be used elsewhere. There would also be an annual revenue saving of £400,000 after a downsizing of Havering’s CCTV, which could be used to fight crime.

1 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/g6142/Public%20reports%20pack%2013th-Feb-2019%2018.30%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10 p46 para 2:3:2 capital programme.

2 https://www.havering.gov.uk/info/20096/community/534/community_safety_and_crime_prevention/4

3 http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05624/SN05624.pdf This is a Home Office briefing for MPs. The rationale for CCTV is to be found p3 para1:1 The critique of those underpinning assumptions appear on pp4-5

4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/what-works/What-works-briefing-effects-of-CCTV-2013.pdf p2

5 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=140&MId=4845&Ver=4 Agenda item 3

But! The report didn’t say who’s CCTV was responsible for the 10% of drug discoveries.

Julia Lopez quite rightly used her position as MP for Harold Hill to raise the issue of the murder of 17 year-old Jodie Chesney. What’s interesting is that her questions became subtly different in the three days from 4th-6th March.

Her question to James Brokenshire asked, “If the Government’s serious violence strategy is to work, we need confidence that all parts of the system are adequately resourced, including councils’ children’s services and social services.”¹

Brokenshire replied, “In the last couple of weeks, I have provided £9.8 million for a fund supporting families against youth crime, to help workers to intervene early to prevent such senseless violence.” He clearly believes there is a connexion between resources and knife crime. This is denied by Theresa May.

Compare her question to Brokenshire with the one Julia Lopez asked Theresa May on the 6^th March (full text in Addendum),²

“The public do not want to see politicians throw blame at one another for these stolen lives; they want to see them take responsibility for what is within their control, provide resource if resource is necessary and then demonstrate a relentless and total commitment to snuffing out violent crime.”

Julia Lopez on Monday 4^th March demanded, “….we need confidence that all parts of the system are adequately resourced…” On the 6^th March she said, “…provide resource if resource is necessary…” Julia Lopez had been told after her question to Brokenshire that the government’s police reduction programme had nothing to do with increased knife crime. This programme has reduced police numbers by 21,000 in the period of austerity, 2010-19.

The government’s protestations that reductions in police numbers don’t exacerbate knife crime have been trashed by two former Police Commissioners, Stevens and Hogan-Howe, as well as the current Police Commissioner. Nine Police and Crime Commissioners on the 7^th March 2019 also denied Theresa May’s self-serving analysis.

Julia Lopez is a rebel when it comes to Europe but she is also a party loyalist in every other respect.

ADDENDUM: Julia Lopez’S question to Theresa May (Prime Minister) 6^th March 2019

Julia Lopez It was with profound sadness that I saw my constituency this week join the all-too-long list of areas across our country to have lost a precious young person to knife crime. The public do not want to see politicians throw blame at one another for these stolen lives; they want to see them take responsibility for what is within their control, provide resource if resource is necessary and then demonstrate a relentless and total commitment to snuffing out violent crime. I welcome the announcement of an emergency summit, but what action will the Prime Minister be taking after that constantly to drive performance on these issues until we get the result the public rightly demand—to keep children safe?

Theresa May May I say to my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, that any death of a young person at the hands of violence is a terrible tragedy? I recognise, as she says, that her constituency has seen just one of the latest examples of a young life cut short far too early. I also say to her that, yes, as I said, what we are doing is bringing together Ministers, local government, police and others—other agencies. This needs to be a cross-society approach to deal with this issue, because it is not just about catching the perpetrators of the crime; it is about preventing the crime from taking place in the first place.

That is one of the reasons why the Government will be launching a consultation on addressing this as a public health issue. There has been excellent work done under what was Strathclyde police force, now Police Scotland, looking at and using the public health approach. What that does is ensure that all agencies—not just across Government, but in local government and elsewhere—are able to be brought together to deal with this issue. What I want to do at that summit is to hear directly from those agencies what further action the Government can take³, which we can then put in place to deal with the issue.

1 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-04/debates/59F8E888-4DE8-4FD0-AADF-08E0469A9105/OralAnswersToQuestions

Brokenshire is Secretary of state for housing, communities and local government

2 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-06/debates/60E51689-B568-44CC-AD5B-27BE49D4DF39/OralAnswersToQuestions

Theresa May’s answer to Julia Lopez’s question is markedly different to her initial reply, 4^th March, when she denied knife crime was related to ‘resources’.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/04/no-link-between-knife-and-police-cuts-says-theresa-may

3 Philip Hammond the Chancellor has said that no more money will be made available to the police. Let’s remind ourselves that Theresa May’s majority is dependent on the £100 million per vote deal with the DUP.

Chris

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell belong to Jacob Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group (ERG). They abstained in the vote to decide whether to have an extension from the 29^th March, 2019 Brexit deadline. This was passed by 502 to 20.¹ The ERG decided to abstain on this issue. They are an extremist group of Conservative MPs who are fanatical about Europe.

The vote on the 27^th February 2019 split the ERG. The new groupings are:-

1) Extremists: They number about 80 Conservative MPs. It’s this group, which both Julia and Andrew belong to.

2) Ultras: They number about 20.

The difference between the two?

The extremists favour Brexit without a deal and a ban on all immigration except for the highest paid most skilled people.

The ultras agree with the extremists except they probably don’t want any immigration at all. They also seem to favour recreating the British Empire.

1 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-02-27/debates/78B98FAF-F95B-42F6-848F-5047AEAC46A8/UK’SWithdrawalFromTheEU

Damian White’s magazine Living in Havering is devoted to his stellar qualities. He appears on eight pages, three of which are accompanied by photos. His close political friend, Osman Dervish, appears four times. Trailing far behind are Joshua Chapman (2), Robert Benham (1), Viddy Persaud (0), Jason Frost (0) and Roger Ramsey (0). Or to put it another way, Damian 8: the rest of the Cabinet 7. In Damian’s Cabinet, ‘Some are more equal than others.’¹ All very egotistical but is it legal?

The relevant government regulation is that-

….it is acceptable for local authorities to publicise the work done by individual members of the authority, and to present the views of those individuals on local issues. This might be appropriate, for example, when one councillor has been the “face” of a particular campaign. If views expressed by, or attributed to, individual councillors do not reflect the views of the local authority itself, such publicity should make this fact clear.²

Living in Havering fails this regulation. The majority of the cabinet members featured are heading council activities. Describing routine council activity doesn’t mean that they’re ‘the “face” of a particular campaign’. There is also a requirement that council funded local magazines should reflect views other than that of the council. ‘If views expressed by or attributed to individual councillors do not reflect the views of the local authority itself, such publicity should make this fact clear.’

Damian’s minority Administration is using a council tax funded magazine for political publicity and is breaching government regulations.

1 The Mayor, as the face of Havering, gets three appearances.

2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5670/1878324.pdf p4 para 20 see also p2 para 4

Chris

Air quality is a political issue. This is because of the public health implications of damage to the most vulnerable in our society.² The monitoring of Havering’s schools reveals that ten are in a less than ideal situation.³ Gidea Park Primary, located on Main Road, Romford breaches the EU Directive Limit for healthy air quality, which means the pupils are in an area of public health danger. Two more schools are also at peril of breaching EU guidelines. They are St. Mary’s RC and Parkland schools.

The agenda item identified the problem without offering strategies beyond exhortation (para 2:2, p22). Asthma is an increasing problem for the young making this a matter of urgency for the three worst schools. They should have separate plans to help mitigate this problem.

Havering’s 2019 Air Quality Action Plan⁴ is a generalised statement full of aspirational objectives. It’s entirely unhelpful for the three schools suffering poor air quality. Incremental improvements aren’t fast enough to deal with air quality challenges which are silent and deadly. There’s no sense of urgency in this item.

This crucially important item merits further robust discussion. The health risks of air quality problems need spelling out so that a context of urgency is established.

*1 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=5941&Ver=4

2 For example see https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_for_public_health_professionals_-_lb_havering.pdf

As an outer London borough with vast swathes of green belt Havering’s asthma statistics are far lower than inner London’s. However the statistics on p21 show that some schools are impacted by air pollution to a significant degree.

3 The report didn’t say whether every school was monitored and these were the ten worse. St Joseph’s school seems to fit the profile of an ‘at risk’ school. This school wasn’t monitored and has very similar air quality problems as Upminster Junior school, its near neighbour.

4 p27

“They [Brexit Conservatives] should read carefully what that party’s got to offer, because in my view they’re not Conservatives.”¹

Theresa May is a true blue Conservative. She first and foremost wants power and will do anything to keep it. The 2017 General Election led to an alliance with Northern Ireland’s DUP. The price was £100 million per vote which she gladly paid.

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell aren’t Conservatives in Theresa’s book. They’re driven by ideology. These Brexit MPs are extremists, despising pragmatic compromises.

Julia and Andrew are devotees of the European Research Group a self declared party-within-a-party. The ERG inflicted a tenth Brexit defeat on Theresa, 14^th February 2019. Both Julia and Andrew are seemingly intent on splitting the Conservative party.

The quotation is from Richard Harrington, a minister. His rhetorical comment demands an answer. And the answer is: neither Julia or Andrew are Conservatives. They’re not Conservatives because their actions are splitting the party.

Andrew’s a terrific constituency MP, however he has wider responsibilities which he isn’t fulfilling. He once declared, ‘I’m more UKIP than UKIP’. He probably is but that’s a bad look for a Conservative MP. He’s proved Harrington right.

Julia is also interesting. She learned politics at Cambridge. Julia’s has hooked onto the Rees-Mogg coattails as a career move.² She’s made a tragic mistake.

Harrington has hit the nail on the head. The European Research Group are cuckoos in the nest. They aren’t Conservatives and should leave the party forthwith.

1 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tory-minister-richard-harrington-nigel-farage-new-party-erg-a8780151.html

2 This quotation is from her Conservative Association biography

“Since 2015 Julia has worked with the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) to strengthen international trade and party alliances in developing nations and across Europe…” This doesn’t read like a hard core Brexit MP’s political biography.

https://www.hornchurchandupminsterconservatives.com/julia-lopez-mp

Havering is part of the East London Waste Authority (ELWA), along with three other boroughs. Their recycling policy is our policy. Their policy is more-or-less unchanged since the early 1990s. ELWA isn’t innovative. They shift tonnage as effectively as possible, making a good living out of it.¹

They note, in a tone of regret, that their target tonnage was missed by 25,000 tonnes.² ELWA seem oblivious to Climate Change and David Attenborough. Their cutting edge recycling policy is the bottle bank.

Havering isn’t a hapless victim in all of this. Havering Council endorses the moribund policies of ELWA. Osman Dervish is the chair of ELWA and Robert Benham is a prominent member. Havering’s politicians are movers and shakers in the ELWA set-up.

Havering has an Environment Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee. They don’t appear to realise what scrutiny means. None of their agendas have challenged the abysmal performance of ELWA in relation to recycling.^3,4 Indeed the 20^th February, 2019 meeting offers only vague aspirational tweaks to the current set-up. There’s nothing on investment or new, meaningful initiatives.

ELWA had an operating surplus of £7.2M⁵ and so there are funds available for capital investment in recycling and/or PR initiatives. I’d like to propose that Havering’s contract with ELWA is terminated because of poor performance, unless there is a sharp improvement in the next year.

1 http://eastlondonwaste.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/ELWA-Annual-Financial-Statements-2017-18-Audited-Final.pdf

2 ibid p4 para 3:1

3 Committee agendas helpfully tell councillors what they should be doing, see addendum. This sub-committee studiously ignores these prompts.

4 ibid p5 para 3:4

The committee received the ELWA report at their 4^th December 2018 meeting, which was a jog-trot through their activities. See democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/b8374/SUPPLEMENTARY%20AGENDA%2004th-Dec-2018%2019.00%20Environment%20Overview%20Scrutiny%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=9 pp14-5

5 loc cit para 4:1

Chris

Hornchurch High Street: people friendly and car friendly

Hornchurch high street is a centre for retail, leisure and service industry outlets. It provides opportunities for people. For people to meet each other by accident, or by design. To have a chat, a coffee or just push on with their lives. To be human in other words, which is the antidote of the Amazon experience.

Hornchurch high street has chain stores complemented by a lovely mix of independent businesses. There’s a wide selection of restaurants, takeaways, pubs, coffee bars and betting shops. Service opportunities abound with hairdressers, insurance, banking, a post office, solicitors. The chemistry is incredible. Amazon can’t compete with human vitality. The high street is vibrant, welcoming and successful.

High street footfall is fuelled by being both a retail and leisure destination. Hornchurch has wonderful public transport access but car parking is essential. Havering’s population is one of Britain’s oldest. It also has an unusually high car ownership. The high street needs good, plentiful car parking to maintain its competitive edge.

A prosperous high street means fewer voids, fewer charity shops and momentum. Momentum in terms of competition for space, higher rents but also higher house prices as Hornchurch becomes yet more attractive.

The council car parking policy is short-sighted and destructive. Car parking isn’t a cash cow which can be endlessly milked without damage. Car parking enables Hornchurch high street to be competitive in its ferocious competition with the monster that is Amazon.

Amazon Warehouse: robot friendly

Chris