Tomorrow there will be a march in Camden to protest at the council meeting that will decide the cuts budget. They need to find £35m worth of cuts.
The discomfort of councillors is intensified by the fact that this is a newly elected Labour council, charged with implementing what they describe as Tory cuts. Outside the chamber they are shouted at; members of their own party are urging them to refuse to implement cutbacks, a response they describe as unrealistic. The council has put up advertisements at bus stops stating: “National government cuts mean tough decisions for Camden’s future.” (When criticised for wasting scarce money on these advertisements, the council responded that the exercise cost £1,200.)
I must confess the article deeply depressed me not just the sheer volume of cuts to be made but the reaction of Labour councillors. One word sprung to mind, defeatism. Their collective bleeding hearts and hand wringing mentality cuts not ice. The reality is that people will lose their jobs, kids will lose their play schemes, social clubs will be lost, and the loss of basic and vital council services. But hey, better it be Labour to implement these Tory cuts then Eric Pickles. Kinder cuts from Labour? Maybe that should be the slogan from Labour councillors who vote through the cuts, “Tory cuts are the deepest, Labour cuts are the kindest”… Bit of a mouthful but you get the drift.
I must also confess that I don’t see any creative activism nor opposition except if we don’t then it will be Eric Pickles or this:
[S]ection 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 ….requires the chief finance officer in England and Wales to report to all the authority’s councillors if there is or is likely to be unlawful expenditure or an unbalanced budget. This would include situations where reserves have become seriously depleted and it is forecast that the authority will not have the resources to meet its expenditure in a particular financial year. The issue of a section 114 notice cannot be taken lightly and has serious operational implications. Indeed, the authority’s full council must meet within 21 days to consider the section 114 notice and during that period the authority is prohibited from entering into new agreements involving the incurring of expenditure.
The argument that keeps being put forward is that Labour councillors are caught between a rock and a hard place. But what about the people will be hit by those cuts. I too was outside Camden Town Hall Wednesday night witnessing the protest from parents with their kids and disabled people all chanting slogans along with being damn angry while councillors crept into the town hall through the side entrance….how brave! I felt angry on their behalf combined with anger at my own local authority (Bromley) campaigns as well to save services, worried and deeply scared at what will be left. I see an image of a decrepit society falling to pieces (so much for the Big Society con) with a shattered infrastructure built on defeatism and acquiescence to ideological attacks on the working class and the public sector.
And I still don’t get Paul’s, “cuts budget from a socialist position”… There is no such thing! How do you work out what to cut and what not to cut? Where do you stop? If you can condemn one cut then you condemn the whole lot. And why can’t councillors take a principled stand that confronted with a cuts budget resign? Why not mass resignations, or show some creative activism by showing some defiance? Voting for a cuts budget just shows councillors are rolling over and admitting defeat.
How exactly do you build a resistance when confronted with Labour councillors voting for a cuts budget? The thinking around this is wrong, what is a councillor’s job? At the moment councillors are faced with unprecedented cuts, huge attack on the working class and the welfare state. Job as a councillor at this moment in time is that’s there a huge full frontal attack and you are confronted with choices. Some which will be seen as unpalatable but it means building a resistance but what is being argued by Paul et al is undermining the struggle. You need to build a confident movement, how does voting for cuts budgets instil any confidence??
At the moment events in Wisconsin is giving me optimism unlike the situation here that makes me angry and demoralised. All of the Democratic state senators departed the state rather than vote through the Walker union busting legislation (bloody hell even the Democrats could do something radical for a change take note Labour Party!!). There are parallels with here and Wisconsin, a trade union bureaucracy that is probably desperate to sell out the activists. But at least in Wisconsin they are doing something radical and dynamic resisting these attacks. Opposition that includes strike action, a united coalition not like over here which has a “roll over and admit defeat” manifesto. It’s not councillors who are caught between a rock and a hard place but the people who are facing the cuts, the choice of either the ConDems or Labour. On March 26th Mister Ed should be at the front leading the demonstration not this definitely maybe…and that’s to only speak at the rally. This should be a priority to the Labour leadership.
Rather than read Paul’s 10 reasons…. have a read of this… gives you inspiration and optimism …doesn’t make you feel depressed either makes you feel upbeat in the class struggle and how to organise a movement.
Finally, if Labour councillors are made so powerless by the intervention of the chief finance officer then resign and get people who precisely will stand on an anti-cuts programme and fight for non-implementation. Fight for real democracy and an anti-cuts movement. You have to pick a side and know what side you are on. Those are the demands.
Posted by harpymarx 
