Does Havering Have An Identity Crisis? Why Leaving London Is A Bad Idea.

Political activist Pat Farrell shares her thoughts on Havering and its identity crisis.

Bailey Nash-Gardner’s recent article, echoing the longstanding calls of MP Andrew Rosindell, advocates for Havering to break away from London and become part of a newly proposed ‘Greater Essex’ region. However, this argument is built on several myths and misconceptions.

At its core, Havering’s debate over identity is being driven by political opportunism rather than genuine local need. The push for separation is based on misinformation, nostalgia, and misplaced grievances rather than practical benefits; so, here’s a timely reality check.

MYTH 1: “Havering is Essex through and through”

FACT: Havering undeniably has historical ties to Essex, but administrative reality tells a different story. In 1965, the London Government Act brought Havering into Greater London, integrating it into the city’s transport, policing and economic infrastructure.

Over the decades, Havering has developed strong economic and social ties to London, benefiting from the city’s financial support, job market and governance. Clinging to the past won’t change the borough’s existing dependence on London’s systems, nor will it magically recreate an Essex identity that doesn’t align with modern-day realities.

MYTH 2: “Being part of London means being treated as a cash cow”

FACT: There’s a common belief that Havering contributes more than it receives, but in reality, London-wide investment benefits the borough immensely.

Despite being the lowest-funded London borough, Havering has still secured millions in GLA funding for transport projects, regeneration schemes and environmental initiatives. Leaving London wouldn’t increase financial autonomy; it would simply cut Havering off from investment it currently relies on.

MYTH 3: “ULEZ is unnecessary for Havering”

FACT: Air pollution is not just a central London issue; it impacts outer boroughs as well, including Havering. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is part of a broader, science-backed strategy to improve air quality and public health.

While debates over implementation exist, the fundamental goal is clear; reducing harmful emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses and environmental damage. Essex lacks a comparable environmental policy, meaning Havering would risk looser regulations and increased pollution if it were to leave.

MYTH 4: “We don’t get the resources we need in key areas like policing”

FACT: Policing concerns exist, but jumping ship to Essex wouldn’t solve the issue; it would likely make it worse.

Essex Police is already overstretched, operating with fewer officers per capita than the Metropolitan Police. Havering benefits from London’s larger force and greater funding. Instead of shifting jurisdictions, the focus should be on securing better funding and community policing efforts within the current framework.

MYTH 5: “Joining a new ‘Greater Essex’ area would give us more control”

FACT:This argument fails to recognise that moving to Essex wouldn’t magically hand Havering more decision-making power; it would create new layers of bureaucracy.

A transition to a unitary authority would mean governance adjustments, budget realignments and the risk of being sidelined by larger Essex towns. Staying within London ensures continuity, direct access to funds and stronger negotiating power.

MYTH 6: “A local referendum is the answer”

FACT: Referendums sound democratic, but they are expensive, divisive and often lead to political instability rather than solutions.

Beyond financial costs, referendums create uncertainty, fuelling unnecessary debates that distract from practical improvements Havering could be making within the London framework.

MYTH 7: “We’ll still have Oyster and TfL”

FACT: Transport for London (TfL) only operates within Greater London. If Havering were to leave, residents would lose Oyster card benefits, capped fares and TfL bus services.

Essex’s transport system is functional but lacks the affordability and connectivity of TfL, meaning travel costs would rise and accessibility would decline.

MYTH 8: “We’ll still get the Freedom Pass”

FACT: The Freedom Pass, funded by TfL and London boroughs, grants pensioners free travel across the capital. Essex does not offer an equivalent scheme.

Leaving London would mean elderly residents would face higher travel expenses, reducing mobility and financial security.

MYTH 9: “Council Tax will be cheaper”

FACT: Many unitary authorities charge higher council tax rates than London boroughs due to the absence of GLA support.

Havering benefits from city-wide infrastructure that helps offset costs. If it left London, the borough would likely face higher rates to compensate for lost funding.

MYTH 10: “London weighting doesn’t matter”

FACT: Public sector workers in Havering—teachers, nurses, social workers—receive higher salaries because of London weighting.

If Havering left London, recruitment would become harder, exacerbating existing staffing shortages and weakening essential services.

MYTH 11: “Essex Police would do a better job”

FACT: Essex Police is stretched thin, operating with fewer resources than the Metropolitan Police.

Shifting to Essex policing wouldn’t improve services; it would risk reduced officer presence and slower response times.

MYTH 12: “We don’t get anything from City Hall”

FACT: Despite receiving the lowest funding allocation of any London borough, Havering has still benefited from millions in GLA investments.

Leaving London wouldn’t guarantee more financial autonomy; it would likely lead to funding shortages and increased competition for resources.

The Real Record

MP Andrew Rosindell and his colleagues have consistently supported budget cuts that have weakened local services. Their proposal to leave London would only deepen Havering’s struggles rather than provide meaningful solutions.

The decision to parachute in Greg Bailey-Nash from Hertfordshire to stand in next year’s local elections, displacing a well-entrenched councillor, raises further concerns about political strategy. Local representation matters; long-standing councillors have firsthand knowledge of community issues, and swapping them out for an outsider risks alienating residents.

Rather than addressing the borough’s real challenges, political opportunism is reshaping Havering’s governance in ways that serve external interests rather than residents.

A Flag in Parliament Isn’t Enough

Rosindell recently criticised the government for failing to fly the Middlesex flag over Downing Street, arguing that it was part of a broader disregard for local identities. However, the Labour government has actively increased recognition of county flags across the UK, ensuring that historic symbols receive greater visibility in Parliament and other public spaces.

In response to Rosindell’s concerns, officials clarified that Havering is free to maintain its county heritage by flying the Essex flag if it wishes. Residents and local authorities can display the flag in recognition of the borough’s historic ties while still benefiting from London’s infrastructure, funding and services.

Ultimately, flags won’t fix Havering’s biggest challenges; investment, governance and meaningful political leadership will.

Conclusion

Rather than chasing an uncertain and costly exit from London, Havering should focus on strengthening its position within the capital. By working within the existing system, the borough can advocate for better funding, stronger representation and practical solutions without the risk of political upheaval.

Disclaimer:

This article represents my personal viewpoint and does not reflect the official position of the local Labour Party, of which I am a member.

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.