Tag: Havering Council

Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: selling carparks

The Council borrowed £54m to pay its bills in Spring 2024 (see Addendum). They are also selling carparks to avoid (postpone?) bankruptcy. Four are going.1 The Romford Recorder 2 says they’re worth £9m and that’s why they’re being sold. The other reasons are,

“…they are underused and the aim is to have a better use of the land that can help the council reduce its waiting list backlog for affordable homes..”3

“Underused” is slippery. Two figures need stating, (1) target income, and (2), how big was the shortfall? How long will it be before the lost income equals £9m and, will the council tax from the new properties compensate?

Why is this important?

Finance is paramount when facing bankruptcy and trumps other considerations.4 Will the sales help or hinder the council’s problems? £9m is 11% of the shortfall over two years: it’s a drop in the ocean. And the revenue is gone for ever.

Selling income generating assets to fund revenue is insanity. The government is privatising Havering by the deliberate under-funding of statutory services.5 Voters will notice when quality-of-life assets are lost. But by then no-one will be able to do anything about it.

The government is forcing Havering to sell assets.  The government doesn’t want to fully fund statutory services which Havering must provide. They don’t like the truth that: Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.6

Addendum: The Loan

This is a government drawdown facility for unfunded statutory5 bills. The loan is charged at 7% for 20 years. The interest for 18 full years is £68m. In brief, it increases Council Tax until 2044.

Notes

1 Issue details – Site Disposals under the Asset Disposal Programme 2022-2028 | The London Borough Of Havering

2 Romford Recorder 26th April 2024 front page

3 loc.cit

4 The massive negative response didn’t see it like that at all. p18

5 Statutory services are those that the council must provide before anything else.

6 Taxes Are What We Pay for Civilized Society – Quote Investigator®

Havering’s Cabinet, 10th April, 2024

The Climate Change debate, Item 7,1 is critical for Havering but was trivialised. It’s difficult to believe cabinet members had read the agenda. The council intends to make cross-department responses through nine ‘petals’, whatever they are. Apart from Keith Darvill and Ray Morgon, none of the cabinet offered any comments. The report updated the 2021 position.

The ‘debate’ was surreal. Rainfall is increasing by 3.5% a year and Keith Prince (18 mins) decided the solution to the overwhelmed drainage system is water butts. (A 3.5% increase doubles Havering’s rainfall in 20 years.) Keith loves water butts and wouldn’t give it a rest. Martin Goode (29 mins) winged it and offered a rerun of his numerous ‘Golden Oldie’ speeches. Unusually he hadn’t done his homework.

A consequence of greater rainfall is flooding. The management of flooding is expensive both in capital and revenue. Less obvious are significant increases in insurance costs for the council, businesses and householders. Some flooding is due to driveways and forecourts not having drainage points, which are an obligation. The council have insufficient enforcement officers so the obligation is ignored. Blocked drainage grates are a perennial problem in water management. The contract needs better management.  

Interestingly there are a considerable number of grants available. Havering has received £3.5m in grants (see 30 minutes).2

Keith Darvill (25 mins) summed up by saying flood alleviation is very expensive. He appears to mean the existential crisis that is Climate Change is too expensive to solve. Humanity should take in on the chin! And disappear.

Absent Oscar Ford, Gillian Ford and Barry Mugglestone

Notes

1 Public reports pack 10th-Apr-2024 19.30 Cabinet.pdf (havering.gov.uk) Item 7 p85ff

2 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) Times relate to this webcast.

Havering Council: The Merry-Go-Round

Ray Morgon cobbled an administration together from Havering’s many Residents’ Associations (RAs) in 2022.1 They were rebranded Havering Residents’ Association. His second coup was a coalition with Labour. He’d filled the power vacuum left by the Conservatives and took power

And then the Merry-Go-Round began.

Sarah Edwards, Jacqueline McArdle and Sue Ospreay joined HRA a few weeks after being elected as Conservatives in 2022. Ray Morgon doesn’t care why. What’s important is they landed in HRA. The voters of Rainham weren’t consulted.

John Tyler is a Refusenik. He dislikes Labour and didn’t join the coalition, opting for ‘independence’ (or at least that’s how the story goes). Cranham is a hotbed of dissatisfaction. Phillip Ruck left HRA creating a political party2 with John. He wants the Finance cabinet post and won’t get it, so why not rock the boat? The voters of Cranham weren’t consulted.

Robby Misir joined HRA after many years as a Conservative councillor. The end of Damian White’s pot-of-gold politics might have been a push factor. Who knows? Could self-interest have motivated him? The voters of Marshalls and Rise Park weren’t consulted.

St Andrew’s ward has stopped being boring. Paul Middleton, Gerry O’Sullivan and  Bryan Vincent have fallen out. Paul isn’t in RA newsletters any more but remains in the cabinet. Is HRA strong enough to impose discipline on these apparently warring factions? Voters will be consulted in 2026.

Addendum

Three Romford Conservatives have joined HRA, this week, to escape that toxic zone. They are husband and wife team John and Philippa Crowder along with Christine Smith. Is this a reverse take-over by Romford who lust for power but can’t get it? This makes it seven Conservatives fleeing their party since 2022.
Notes

1 HRA = Havering Residents Association

2 Cranham Residents Association Independent Group

Havering Council Meeting, 27th March 2024

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

What should have happened

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

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

What did happen

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

Addendum: Conservative Motion

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

Best speech: None

Runner-up: None

Best sarcasm: Barry Mugglestone

Notes

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

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

3 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

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

Havering’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 5th March, 2024 (part two)

This agenda included a Housing item and the School Performance analysis. The latter is the focus of this blog.

Matt Stanton (1 hour47)1 expressed concerns about how wide the variations in achievement between schools are. He asked the Director what was needed to rectify this problem. Trevor Cook replied ‘Context’ was needed to understand the issue. This is pivotal as it implies underachievement is inevitable. It chimed with remarks about fortunate authorities who suffered less from Covid-19 and had superior funding.

Praising Hall Mead and Redden Court damaged his argument. In 2019 both were below average.2 They’re now average. This happened during five challenging years. Their performance has improved in the Covid-19 and Funding Crisis years.

The 2019 list of eleven below average schools has reduced to six in 2024.4 Emerson Park has dropped into the ‘below average’ group since 2019. A third of Havering’s secondary schools are below average (6 out of 12) and five schools left the 2019 list.

Matt’s concerns were echoed by Frankie Walker, Mandy Anderson and Judith Holt. Judith believed every Havering school should be above average. She refuted Trevor Cook’s response about Covid-19 and Funding. Her actual doubts related to whether his explanations were correlation or causation. All of Havering’s schools share the same challenges but nonetheless there are massive differences in outcomes.

Trevor Cook is soothing. However, members were in a combative mood looking for action. Some academies are successful but others are weak. A third of Havering’s schools are below average, which is far too many.

Notes

1 Agenda for People Overview & Scrutiny Sub Committee on Tuesday, 5th March, 2024, 7.00 pm | The London Borough Of Havering Go to webcast and then to one hour 47 for the beginning of his contribution

2 Havering and Redbridge: A Tale of Two Boroughs – Politics in Havering 29th Nov 2019

3 All schools and colleges in Havering – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) This gives the current status of every school in Havering.

4 Schools leaving the 2019 list are Abbs Cross, Hornchurch High, Royal Liberty, Redden Court and Hall Mead

Havering Council: Budget Setting – 28th February, 2024

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

Answer: Dug a deeper financial hole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Speech: Phillip Ruck

Runner-ups: Mandy Anderson and David Taylor

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

Wooden Spoon: Chris Wilkins

Notes

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

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

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

A Councillor who is absent from all meetings of the Council and any committees of which they are a member for a period of six months automatically ceases to be a member of the Council unless they have been given leave of absence by the Council before the expiry of that six month period – s.85 Local Government Act 1972

Havering’s 55 councillors must attend committees1 at least once every six months. Failure to attend means they lose their seats. (Councillors don’t lose their seats if they ignore their constituents.)

Councillors usually have legitimate reasons for missing meetings, which are accepted without challenge. In brief, they’re always given the benefit of the doubt.

Full attendance need not be onerous. John Tyler, Jacqueline Williams and John Wood attended four meetings each in six months for a 100% attendance record. Full attendance is the target but less than 50% needs explaining.

How did Havering’s councillors do?

Thirteen had full attendance. All parties are represented – seven HRA, three Conservatives, and one each East Havering RA, Independent and Labour. Just three out of nine cabinet members had full attendance.

Six councillors attended for 50% or less – four Conservatives2 and two HRA. The worst attender is Sue Ospreay, HRA, with a shocking 28.6%. This implies incapacity or malaise. Either way HRA should get a grip to resolve this affront to democracy.3

The least the electorate expect is that councillors ‘turn up’. 50% attendance or less is a disgrace without exceptional circumstances.

Notes

1 Councillors attendance summary, 1 August 2023 – 24 January 2024 | The London Borough Of Havering Data base accessed 25th January 2024

2 Robby Misir has defected to HRA. He’s currently got a 50% attendance rate presumably it will improve with his new colleagues.

3 Perhaps the problem is that Havering has too many councillors? See Does Havering have too many councillors? – Politics in Havering

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

Question Time (QT)1 gives backbench councillors an opportunity to quiz the cabinet. So, does it work?2

Because of a technicality, Independent councillor John Tyler cannot attend as a full member of council committees.3 What does he do? He only has to attend eight council meetings a year. Yet he doesn’t participate in those meetings. He doesn’t ask any questions at QT, ever. And, amazingly, he doesn’t contribute to debates. Silence is golden but this is taking it too far.

David Taylor, asked three QT questions, followed by Jason Frost, Dilip Patel and Keith Prince with two each. David (37 minutes) was probing. He elicited the fact that Romford Market is in line to be privatised. Lurching into hard-core Tory David (1:00) showed he believes in the Class War. He demanded that the back gate of Royal Jubilee Court be kept locked. Why? Homeless people now live there and the back gate opens onto a *private* road. David implied homeless people are a ‘risk’ to those living on that *private* road. Keith Darvill didn’t challenge him saying the gate would be locked.

Dilip Patel (1:07) asked a dog whistle question about housing refugees. Paul McGeary said it was a time-limited solution from which Havering benefitted. The houses revert to Havering after three years and enhance the depleted housing stock.

Notes

1 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) All times relate to this webcast

2 Absentee councillors Mandy Anderson, Stephanie Nunn, Tim Ryan, Damian White and Reg Whitney

3 See Havering Council Emasculates Independent Councillors – Politics in Havering There must be matters where he could make a contribution on behalf of his constituents. This assumes that he talks to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Addendum: The Conservative Motion

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

 

Notes

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

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

3 Typically this is known as a lose-lose situation

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

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

Havering’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 5th December 2023

Jason Frost1 made a convincing speech in December’s council meeting when requesting that his committee be sub-divided because of its overwhelming responsibilities. He was brushed off by Ray Morgon. This 27 minutes meeting2 proved Ray correct. Jason’s absence added further substance to Ray’s opinion.3

Frankie Walker chaired the meeting with aplomb.

There was an excellent discussion about the ‘hub’ for autistic adults. It’s in Romford Mall, the lease of which is very expensive and consumes most of its grant. Bryan Vincent (@17)2 said only 3.1% of adult autism sufferers use the facility, which means it fails 96.9%. Officers said this challenge will be met by the hub becoming ‘mobile’, using council facilities. Matt Stanton (@22)4 made the critical point that autism sufferers had an unemployment rate of 78%. He speculated this was due to poor support from DWP and the council. His insight was confirmed by the director who said that strategies were in place to correct this systemic failure. Matt built on a comment by Darren Wise (@15) about financing and forward visibility so proper planning could take place. The director supported them, describing multi-year contracts.

Gillian Ford (@9) attended the meeting. Neither she nor the chair understood her constitutional role. She entered the scrutiny debate, which is inappropriate. Cabinet members can only answer policy questions at scrutiny committees. The best mechanism for this is an unambiguous Q&A session. There haven’t been Q&A sessions in any Overview and Scrutiny committee and they ought to be introduced.

Notes

1 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) Jason Frost (1:40) Time refers to the webcast See Havering Council Meeting, 22nd November, 2023 (part two) – Politics in Havering

2 Agenda for People Overview & Scrutiny Sub Committee on Tuesday, 5th December, 2023, 7.00 pm | The London Borough Of Havering Times refer to the YouTube webcast available here

3 Along with cllrs Benham and Wilks.

4 Cllr Stanton isn’t on the committee but attended for the scrutiny discussion