Reform UK Members Storm Out of London Assembly, Havering 2026

Key Points

• City Hall Chaos: Reform UK London Assembly members Keith Prince and Alex Wilson abruptly walked out of a plenary session following a heated procedural dispute.
• The Havering Dispute: The political row centered on a Liberal Democrat motion concerning whether the London Borough of Havering should gain independence from the Greater London Authority (GLA).
• Accusations Against the Chair: Reform UK members accused the London Assembly Chair, Andrew Boff (Conservative), of admitting a motion that they claimed contained false factual assertions about Councillor Prince’s stance on an independence referendum.
• Neutrality Maintained: Opposing political factions defended the admission of the motion, leading to a breakdown in assembly order before the walkout occurred.

Havering (East London Times) July 4, 2026 — Reform UK London Assembly members Keith Prince and Alex Wilson walked out of a City Hall plenary session on Thursday afternoon after the chamber descended into procedural chaos over a dispute regarding the Borough of Havering leaving the capital. The high-profile exit followed a contentious ruling by the London Assembly Chair, Andrew Boff, who permitted a Liberal Democrat motion to be debated. The Reform UK representatives strongly objected to the motion, alleging that it contained inaccurate statements regarding Councillor Prince’s position on holding a public referendum for Havering’s independence from London.

Why Did Reform UK Members Storm Out of the London Assembly?

The disruption began during a scheduled plenary session when a motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats was brought to the floor.

The motion focused on statements regarding the administrative future of Havering, a borough located on the northeastern edge of Greater London.

The text of the motion alleged that Councillor Keith Prince, who serves as both a London Assembly Member and the Leader of Havering Council, had formally rejected the principle of holding a local referendum on whether the borough should break away from the governance of the London Mayoralty and the Greater London Authority.

As reported by local government correspondents covering the City Hall proceedings, Keith Prince and Alex Wilson immediately raised points of order, arguing that the motion was built upon a false premise.

They maintained that Councillor Prince had not definitively rejected the mechanism of a referendum, and therefore, the motion mischaracterised his official executive stance.

When Assembly Chair Andrew Boff ruled that the motion was procedurally admissible and that the debate would proceed as scheduled, the two Reform UK members gathered their documents and exited the chamber in protest.

What Arguments Were Swapping Inside the City Hall Chamber?

To understand how the session disintegrated into shouting and an eventual walkout, the specific arguments raised by the respective political parties must be examined through official records and statements issued by the political groups.

Following the incident, the Reform UK London Assembly group issued a formal response clarifying the actions of their members.

According to statements released by the party, the walkout was an act of protest against what they termed an unfair and factually flawed political attack tolerated by the chamber’s leadership.

The Reform UK members argued that allowing a motion containing disputed facts into an official assembly debate compromises the integrity of City Hall procedures.

They asserted that Andrew Boff, in his capacity as Chair, failed to protect members from misleading assertions tabled by political opponents.

Representatives for Reform UK stated that Councillor Prince’s position on Havering’s relationship with the rest of London has always been focused on fiscal fairness and local autonomy, rather than a dogmatic refusal to consult the electorate.

How Did the Liberal Democrats and the Assembly Chair Respond to the Walkout?

Conversely, members of the Liberal Democrat group defended the phrasing of their motion, stating that it accurately reflected public statements and policy decisions linked to Havering Council’s leadership.

They maintained that the assembly floor is precisely the venue where such political discrepancies should be debated openly, rather than avoided through walkouts.

Assembly Chair Andrew Boff defended his decision to allow the motion to stand. Under the standing orders of the London Assembly, the Chair is responsible for determining whether a motion meets the necessary legal and procedural thresholds to be introduced to the floor. Boff indicated that the motion met all standard criteria for a democratic debate.

Other assembly members from the Labour Party and the Green Party expressed dismay at the walkout, arguing that leaving the chamber deprives constituents of representation during critical debates regarding the structure of London’s local government.

Background of the Havering Independence Movement

The political row at City Hall is the latest escalation in a long-running debate regarding the geographic, economic, and political status of Havering. Situated on the outer boundary of East London, Havering was created in 1965 under the London Government Act 1963, which merged the former Municipal Borough of Romford and the Urban District of Hornchurch into a single grand London borough.

For decades, a distinct cultural and political sentiment has existed among segments of the Havering populace who identify more closely with the county of Essex than with metropolitan London.

This sentiment has frequently translated into political campaigns advocating for “Havering Independence” or a “Hexit”—a complete withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority.

The debate intensified significantly following the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to outer London boroughs by London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

The policy drew sharp criticism from local politicians in Havering, who argued that outer London boroughs face entirely different economic and transport realities compared to inner London.

The financial pressures facing Havering Council, including rising social care costs and structural budget deficits, have further fueled arguments that the borough does not receive an equitable return on the business rates and council tax precepts it contributes to the central Greater London pot.

Prediction: How Will the City Hall Friction Affect Outer London Residents?

The growing hostility between Reform UK representatives and the mainstream political parties at City Hall is highly likely to accelerate polarization over the governance of outer London.

For residents living in peripheral boroughs like Havering, Redbridge, and Hillingdon, this development suggests that local administrative issues will increasingly be viewed through the lens of constitutional and geographic identity.

If Reform UK continues to use high-profile procedural protests to highlight their grievances against the Greater London Authority, the calls for structural devolution or formal secession referendums could move from the fringes of local council meetings into central legislative debates.

This could force the incumbent London Mayoral administration to adjust its fiscal policy, potentially offering targeted concessions or increased infrastructure funding to outer London zones to stymie separation movements.

Conversely, if the gridlock at City Hall deepens, outer London residents may face a protracted period of legislative inefficiency, where essential cross-borough strategies on policing, transport expansion, and housing delivery become secondary to ideological battles over the expanding boundaries of the capital.