The threat of Hexit: could the London Borough of Havering really be about to secede from the capital?

Here we go again. Image: Getty.

It’s easy, when talking about politics, to belittle your opponents: to treat those who disagree with you, not as smart, decent, honourable people who simply happen to hold different views, but as misguided, stupid or, worst of all, evil.

This problem, I suspect, has always been there. But now, in the age of social media and filter bubbles, we can see it happening in real time. Indeed, we can get pulled into it, finding ourselves moved to mock or abuse the other side by nothing more than the desire for the likes or retweets that signal the approval of the in group.

This is a terrible trend that is gradually rotting the body politic from the inside, and I wish I knew how to stop it. Sadly, I don’t. So:

Bloody hell, look at this bunch of fucking muppets. From the Evening Standard:

Havering Council is set to vote on a plan dubbed ‘Hexit’, under which it would seek to renegotiate its relationship with the London Mayor and City Hall.

But the proposal - tabled by Ukip councillor Lawrence Webb - has split opinion in the borough.

Mr Webb said the plan was about “taking control” of the area’s future, but critics argued it could lead to major changes in policing and other emergency services.

Havering, if you’ve never been there, is London’s easternmost borough: a chevron-shaped chunk of suburbia pointing out into Essex, the county from which it was carved and to which it still feels an emotional pull. Its largest town is Romford; it also contains Hornchurch, Upminster and not a great deal else.

It is also, it’s worth noting, London’s whitest borough. In 2013, the population of London was 42 per cent black or minority ethnic. In Havering, it was just 14, which actually makes it slightly whiter than England as a whole (15 per cent). This may go some way to explain the borough’s identity crisis, and the fact that, even after 52 years as part of the capital, many there don’t feel like Londoners.

Much of the city prides itself on its diversity and its openness to people of all races and identities. Havering, though, looks politically much more like the Essex commuter towns to its east. Nearly 70 per cent of its voters opted for Leave in last year’s referendum on Brexit. Of the borough’s 54 councillors, just two are from the Labour party. It’s dwarfed not only by the Tories (22) and UKIP (6), but by three different residents’ associations. The borders of Havering are just eight miles from Hackney. Culturally, though, they’re on different planets.

So. Leaving Greater London would be a sensible idea then, right?

Wrong. It would be a very, very silly one.

Lawrence Webb has form for this kind of embarrassing grandstanding. In January 2016, the UKIP councillor orchestrated another vote, in which Havering voted to leave the European Union. What the point of this was I’m not exactly clear, since London Boroughs are not really allowed to set their own foreign policy, but it clearly made the local UKIP lot feel big, which I guess was the important thing.


(When I wrote about this, incidentally, I was accused on Twitter of being a typical metro lib showing contempt for the natives. I pointed out that I grew up in Havering, that most of my family still live there, and that I in fact I am one of the natives. I also asked my accusers when they’d last visited a place they were so concerned to speak for. Eighteen months on, I am still awaiting their response.)

In fact, there are genuine parallels between Brexit and Hexit: both votes represent a clash between identity and practicality. Yes, in terms of how people perceive of themselves, there are many in the borough who think of it as Essex more than London. But when you’re thinking about boring practical things like transport, policing or emergency services – or, in the case of Brexit, like trade regulations or what to do with nuclear fuels – identity is not always a great guide to what you should do.

After all, the residents of Havering need to be able to commute to the City or Canary wharf. The local buses need to cross borough boundaries, into Barking or Redbridge. The borough is part of London’s housing market, too, so the idea of running an entirely independent planning policy strikes me as a nonsense: in physical terms, it’s part of the broader conurbation, and it makes sense to manage it as such.

What’s more, were the council to quit London and become a unitary authority, it would find itself responsible for a whole bunch of support services that are currently pooled across Greater London. This, one suspects, might be expensive. To be fair to the council leader, the Tory Roger Ramsey, he seems acutely aware of this:

...Ramsey slammed the idea, saying the potential move would be a “complex adjustment” for Havering residents that would affect major services.

He said: “We’re part of the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire Brigade, Transport for London, and that would be lost.”

In other words, feeling like you’re from Essex is all very well. But you still can’t eat sovereignty.

The vote on whether to renegotiate Havering’s relationship to the capital takes place on Wednesday 26 July. But the results won’t matter, I suspect. As a council vote, not a referendum, it will carry less force than the Brexit vote. More importantly, the council has no power to unilaterally quit Greater London. To quote a spokesman for the communities department:

“The boundaries in London are set by parliament – any changes would require further legislation.”

Somehow, I don’t imagine this being a priority. So my instinct is that Hexit is never going to happen.

Then again, I thought that about Brexit, too.

Bloody hell, though. Look at these muppets.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

How can we stop city breaks killing our cities?

This couple may look happy, but they’re destroying Barcelona. Image: Getty.

Can’t wait to pack your bags and head off on holiday again? It used to be that people would look forward to a long break in summer – but now tourists have got used to regular short breaks through the year. We love to jet off to the world’s glittering cities, even if only for a day or two. The trouble is, binge travelling may be killing the places we visit.

You may even have seen some “tourists go home” graffiti on your last trip, and it’s not hard to see why. Barcelona is a good example of how a city can groan under the weight of its popularity. It now has the busiest cruise port, and the second fastest growing airport in Europe. Walking through the Barcelona streets at peak season (which now never seems to end) flings you into a relentless stream of tourists. They fill the city’s hot spots in search of “authentic” tapas and sangria, and a bit of culture under the sun. The mayor has echoed residents’ concerns over the impact of tourism; a strategic plan has been put in place.

It is true though, that cities tend to start managing the impact of tourism only when it is already too late. It creeps up on them. Unlike visitors to purpose-built beach destinations and national parks, city-break tourists use the same infrastructure as the locals: existing systems start slowly to stretch at the seams. Business travellers, stag parties and museum visitors will all use existing leisure facilities.

‘Meet the friendly locals’, they said. Image: Sterling Ely/Flickrcreative commons.

Barcelona may only be the 59th largest city in the world, but it is the 12th most popular with international visitors. Compared to London or Paris, it is small, and tourism has spiked sharply since the 1992 Olympics rather than grown steadily as in other European favourites like Rome.

Growth is relentless. The UN World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) even speaks about tourism as a right for all citizens, and citizens are increasingly exercising that right: from 1bn international travellers today, we will grow to 1.8bn by 2030, according to UNWTO forecasts.

Faced with this gathering storm, just who is tourism supposed to benefit? Travellers, cities, residents or the tourism industry?

Market forces

Managing the impact of tourism starts by changing the way destinations market themselves: once the tourists arrive, it’s too late. Tourism authorities need to understand that they are accountable to the city, not to the tourism industry. When the city of Barcelona commissioned the University of Surrey to look into how it might best promote sustainable development, we found a series of techniques which have been incorporated, at least in part, into the city’s 2020 Tourism Strategy.

In the simplest terms, the trick is to cajole tourists into city breaks which are far less of a burden on the urban infrastructure. In other words, normalising the consumption of sustainable tourism products and services. In Copenhagen, 70 per cent of the hotels are certified as sustainable and the municipal authority demands sustainability from its suppliers.

Higher than the sun. A primal scream from the world’s cities? Image: Josep Tomàs/Flickr/creative commons.

Destinations must also be accountable for the transport impact of their visitors. The marketing department might prefer a Japanese tourist to Barcelona because on average they will spend €40 more than a French tourist – according to unpublished data from the Barcelona Tourist Board – but the carbon footprint we collectively pay for is not taken into account.

Crucially, for the kind of city breaks we might enjoy in Barcelona, most of the carbon footprint from your holiday is from your transport. Short breaks therefore pollute more per night, and so destinations ought to be fighting tooth and nail to get you to stay longer. It seems like a win for tourists too: a few extra days in the Spanish sun, a more relaxing break, and all accompanied by the warm glow of self-satisfaction and a gold star for sustainability.


Destinations can also target customers that behave the most like locals. Japanese first-time visitors to Barcelona will crowd the Sagrada Familia cathedral, while most French tourists are repeat visitors that will spread out to lesser-known parts of the city. Reducing seasonality by emphasising activities that can be done in winter or at less crowded times, and geographically spreading tourism by improving less popular areas and communicating their particular charms can also help reduce pressure on hot spots, much like Amsterdam is doing.

Turnover is vanity, and profit margins are sanity. No city should smugly crow about the sheer volume of visitors through its gates. If tourism is here to stay, then the least cities can do is to sell products that will have the greatest benefit for society. Whether it’s Barcelona, Berlin, Bologna or Bognor, there should be a focus on locally and ethically produced products and services which residents are proud to sell. Tourist boards should work with small businesses that offer creative and original things to do and places to stay, adding breadth to the city’s offering.

The ConversationWhether Barcelona will introduce these ideas will depend on the bravery of politicians and buy-in from the powerful businesses which are happily making short-term profits at the expense of residents and the planet. It is possible to do things differently, and for everyone to benefit more. It may be that the tipping point lies in the age-old mechanics of supply and demand: bear that in mind next time you’re booking a quick city break that looks like it’s only adding to the problem.

Xavier Font is professor of marketing at the University of Surrey.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.