Corbyn statement on council cuts presents problem for local activists

The statement from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell stating that local council have no choice but to implement cuts is going to present a real problem for local activists, long critical of Brent Council’s ‘dented shield’ approach, who have joined the Labour Party and got involved in Brent Momentum. And, 'Yes' the actions of the Green minority council in Brighton presented similar problems for socialists in the Green Party'

From the Guardian article:

The statement from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, published in the Guardian LINK  essentially sets out the 'dented shield' strategy - that Labour councils are better placed to make cuts 'fairer' than those that would result in them being carried out by council offers or the Tory Secretary of State:

In a letter sent jointly with John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, and Jon Trickett, the shadow communities secretary, Corbyn points out that councils must set a balanced budget under the 1992 Local Government Act.

The letter says: “If this does not happen, ie if a council fails to set a legal budget, then the council’s section 151 officer is required to issue the council with a notice under section 114 of the Local Government Act 1998. Councillors are then required to take all actions necessary to bring the budget back into balance.”

Failure to set a balanced budget can lead to action against councillors under the code of conduct, a judicial review and, more significantly, intervention by the secretary of state, the joint letter states. It continues: “It would mean either council officers or, worse still, Tory ministers deciding council spending priorities. Their priorities would certainly not meet the needs of the communities which elected us."

This is essentially what Muhammed Butt and Michael Pavey have been arguing as they have made cuts in successive years.

A Green Left colleague commented on the Labour leadership's statement:

No doubt JC & JM feel that they “have no choice” as 95%+ of their councillors support this approach. But it does undermine those trade unionists and campaigners actively arguing for them to stand up to the Tories. It implies there is no choice, when of course there is a choice. Labour has over 100 Councils. If Labour nationally opposed the cuts and organised some or all of its councils to refuse to implement them, there is absolutely no way the Government could send in Commissioners to run them all. It would provoke a huge national debate on the cuts and local democracy, and have the potential to force the Government to back down partly or wholly. As it is, right-wing Labour councillors are tweeting the letter to attack anyone on the Left campaigning against the cuts.

In the end, the problem with the JC letter is that it completely understates the scale of the attack on local government and local democracy. This is not “business as usual”, a few nasty cuts etc.  This is a once in a lifetime, permanent dismantling and shrinkage of the local state, a huge extension of privatisation of local services and an undermining of local democracy itself - there is little point in having locally elected councillors if their job is (from Nicholas Ridley’s famous quote): “to meet once a year to hand out the contracts”.

The only silver lining in the letter is its appeal for councillors to support local campaigners (even if this is clearly contradictory to their councillors supporting cuts budgets!) and to be organising mass campaigns against local government cuts. This gives an opportunity to campaigners to point out that Labour councillors are only doing one half of the message from the JC letter, and not the other.

But it really could have been so much better.

According to the Guardian some Momentum branches have been pushing for a more radical approach:

It is known that Corbyn’s office has discussed various forms of defiance strategy with council leaders, such as setting a needs-based budget. This idea has been raised at some meetings of Momentum, the pressure group set up by Corbyn supporters to retain his support in the wider Labour movement. According to a Socialist party account, some Momentum group meetings are backing illegal budgets, and are planning to call for them early next year.

The account states that a conference is being planned to oppose budget cuts: “Given that we were told that Bristol has the largest Momentum group outside London, with a network already of over 800 names, there is real scope for a conference to be an important milestone in our campaign. It was explicitly agreed within both the Action Hub and the plenary session that part of the campaign against local authority budget cuts should also involve writing to every Labour and Green councillor and candidate, demanding that they refuse to comply with any cuts budgets."

Since the local government cuts began the idea of setting a needs-based budget has been raised, with a softer position being constructing a needs-based budget in parallel with a cuts budget. The former could then become a tool in campaigning for a budget (and thus funding) that really meets local needs whilst at the same time setting a balanced budget that fends of government intervention.

Can any real campaign be built between Councils, some of which like Brent are not exactly stuffued with Corbyn supporters, and labour and trade union movement and the wider community?

After all, Brent Council leader Muhamemd Butt, said that budgets for the next two years will be 'cutting into the muscle, if not the bone, of local services.'

Green councillors call for end to 'destructive', 'ideologically driven' local government cuts

-->

Green Councillors, Jenny Jones and Carline Lucas at Dopwning Street today

Six Green councillors will hand in a joint letter LINK to Number 10 Downing Street today November 18th on behalf of all 168 Green councillors to call on the Conservative government to end the destructive cuts to local government. 

Ahead of the Comprehensive Spending review (CSR) the Green Party are calling for an end to the government’s ideologically-driven austerity programme. 

Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, and Baroness Jones of Moulscomb, will all attend the event.

Bennett said:

The Green Party calls on the Prime Minister to not make any further cuts to local authority spending in the Comprehensive Spending Review on 25^th November.

Green councillors up and down the country tell me on a daily basis how this government’s cuts are wrecking essential services and damaging communities.

The Green Party is calling for a genuine review of economic policy in this Spending Review. Rather than Chancellor George Osborne continuing with his austerity agenda for the next three years, we must invest in people, in secure energy, and in vital welfare support.

Caroline Lucas MP said:

Proposed cuts to local authority grants will unleash further devastation to communities across Britain. In Brighton my constituents are facing the hollowing out of council services – included the proposed closure of up to five children’s centres.

Enough is enough. The Government must rethink its callous and counterproductive austerity programme and give local authorities the resources they need to deliver service to the people they work for.

Jenny Jones said:

The government’s austerity agenda is derailing the provision of services for all of us, all over the UK. Local government cuts strike at many of the things we have come to rely on, such as litter collection and services for children and old people, but also the things which enrich and improve lives, including parks, leisure, sports, libraries and museums.

The Prime Minister and his government must be made to acknowledge the damage they have already caused and we demand that rather than making it worse, they commit to repairing the damage they have done.

Local government cuts and offering alternatives to those attracted by ISIS

Guest blog by Scott Bartle
 

Friday 13^th was an eventful day as it was in the morning that David Cameron explained how he’d worked ‘hand in glove’ with the USA to execute Mohammed Emwazi in Syria, where we are not ‘at war’. This was a man that walked the same streets as us in Brent, perhaps buying food from the same checkouts and was described by those that knew him as a ‘nice guy’ before adopting the moniker ‘Jihadi-John’. Meanwhile, in the afternoon over at Woolwich Crown Court 19 year old Yahya Rashid from Willesden who had left the country to join ISIS was found guilty of terrorism charges. As the guilty verdict was given to Yahya, in France final preparations were being made by ISIS to attack Paris. After the mass-murders French Gendarme conveniently found a passport upon a perpetrator matching one shown by someone who identified as a refugee in Greece. However, other reports from the media indicate that the majority of others involved in the Paris attacks were more like Yahya Rashid, considered ‘home-grown’.

It’s beyond most of our capacity to do anything about a foreign policy so reliant upon fossil fuels we’ve contributed towards conflict over its supply since WW1. From the Baghdad Railway, to the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran in 1953 to the wars in Iraq and the funding of ISIS to topple President Assad in Syria, it can feel pretty stuck. However, within our grasp we do have the power to offer alternatives to people from our communities who may be leaving our communities to get involved with ISIS. We must recognise that ISIS is merely a gang for those in a multi-cultural world who are better connected. 

The myth of the ‘five star jihad’ is pervasive as recruits like those from Birmingham leave clutching their copies of ‘Islam for Dummies’ from Amazon. On social media images are posted of a hiphop lifestyle of five-star hotels, hanging with their friends, driving smart cars offering a perception that there will be more opportunities with the ladies. This is the allure of stuff, people looking for material things, love or a sense of community and belonging. These are life-goals shared by many that people have become disaffected in their ability to reach, and see joining ISIS as a more achievable way to meet their needs. What to do about these things hasn’t changed since 1936 when Winifred Holtby highlighted Local Government as the ‘first-line of defence thrown up by the community against our common enemies – poverty, sickness, ignorance, isolation, mental derangement and social maladjusment’. 

What’s changed is the ability of our elected representatives to recognise this and that cuts in the short term equate to costs – both financially and socially in the long term. 

More often than not adults who make choices to get involved with crime have had behaviour considered ‘anti-social’ or ‘challenging’ since childhood. Research aggregated by Professor Martin Knapp of the London School of Economics estimated that the cost of conduct related crime in England to range from £22.5bn to £60bn a year, and £1.1-1.9m over the lifetime of a single offender. 

These costs on the public sector are distributed across many agencies and are around 10 times high than children with no behaviour problems. Yet research has found that gross savings over 25 years from an intervention provided from services can exceed the average cost of the intervention by a factor of around 8 – 1. We need to recognise that despite this money being spread across many agencies it is still our tax money that is being lost. Local Government needs to recognise it’s likely to be around for ever and start operating on long term plans. As last month’s decision by the Labour run council to engage in ‘savage’ short-sighted cuts to youth services See LINK  or destroying places like Stonebridge Adventure Playground could cost us all dearly. 

Scott Bartle stood as The Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Brent North in 2015 and is a behaviour psychologist who works in forensic services. 

Green Councillors on Norfolk County Council resign committee positions over 'savage' spending cuts

In the light of an earlier post on local council cuts and the new Labour leadership LINK I thought readers might be interested in this news:

Green Party County Councillors Richard Bearman and Elizabeth Morgan will today stand down from their positions as Vice-Chairs of Norfolk County Council’s Communities and Adult Social Care committees, to take effect at the next full Council meeting.  Both councillors have said that they feel unable to implement the "savage spending cuts" which the government would force them to make.

The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and financial settlement is expected to deliver further cuts to local authorities, and the Green Party's councillors have warned that further reductions in government grants to councils will undoubtedly damage the ability of Norfolk County Council to deliver statutory services.

Norfolk County Council has seen its budget reduced dramatically over the past 3 years, and is going to have to save at least a further £111M in the years 2016-19. The modelling of a 25% reduction in funding, equivalent to £169M  over a three-year period has brought into sharp relief the potential devastating effects on local libraries, fire services and children’s social care.

Green group leader Councillor Richard Bearman explained:

“Efficiency savings are one thing, but we are being asked to support spending cuts which go way beyond this. We are effectively being expected to deliver a Conservative party manifesto for local councils; and as county councillors and members of the Green party we are not prepared to do that.”

He continued:

"The anti-austerity movement in this country needs to get its message heard in Whitehall loud and clear. The path of deficit reduction chosen by this Conservative government by slashing the funds they give to local government will change forever the way councils operate."

The trade union Unison, which represents council employees, recently described some of the proposals as “devastating” for staff and services. According to its local branch secretary, the cuts could lead to hundreds of job losses for Norfolk county Council employees.

Councillor Morgan echoed this, saying:

“The cuts to local government funding are hitting vulnerable people the hardest, and although one of the council’s four key priorities is supporting vulnerable people, we find ourselves forced into a position where we are simply no longer able to do that adequately.”

She added: 

“I did not get elected to implement the kind of cuts the chancellor wants us to, which would dismantle the essential services so many people in Norfolk rely on." 

Both councillors keep a place on their respective committees and will hand over any special responsibilities to their successors.  

 The Green Party has 14 Norwich City Councillors (Labour 22, Lib-Dems 3) 

 Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader, said:

"I know these two councillors personally and I know how dedicated they are to the welfare of Norfolk communities, and particularly to the most vulnerable people in them.

"Like councillors up and down the country, they are seeing funds for essential services slashed, communities torn apart by the loss of facilities and support, and I commend them for taking action to highlight this.

"Austerity is making the poor, the disadvantaged and the young pay for the greed and the fraud of the bankers - and that's hitting home in the furthest corners of rural Norfolk as well as in its cities and towns.”

The future of local government should be an election issue

Readers may be interested In this editorial from the Local Government Chronicle LINK :

“Britain is walking tall again,” declared George Osborne in his Budget statement last week. For much of the past five years local government has felt a long way from walking tall after being targeted in a series of cuts that have diminished councils’ ability to provide for their local populations. “Local government is walking small and lean,” is a fair representation of its fate.

The chancellor made much in his speech of the projection that in 2019-20 public spending, as a share of gross domestic product, will be at the same level as it was in 2000, three years into the Blair administration. However, this line from his speech – a response to the critics accusing him of taking public spending back to 1930s levels – hardly tells the whole story.

Further swingeing cuts take place in the next few years before, according to the Treasury, spending perks up in what is set to be the year before the next general election. Any respite from austerity seems a long way away.

Councils will contrast their current position with that of 15 years’ ago. Their spending power is far lower, at a time the ageing population and growing awareness of the scale of need in children’s safeguarding leads to a far greater demand for services.

The Local Government Association this week revealed a projection stating that adult and children’s care would take up over 60% of councils’ tax revenue in 2019-20, leaving far less available for other services. Environmental services, libraries, roads, regulatory services and culture, in particular, face a very rough ride.

Little wonder then that the sector has been making its case for a sea change in both the government and the public’s attitude to the sector. Shortly before the pre-election purdah begins, this week saw the LGA launch its Future Funding campaign to raise awareness of the 40% budget cuts councils have experienced in the past five years and warn that we face “difficult decisions about which services continue”. Both it and the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities have produced slick but powerful videos explaining councils’ financial predicament.

Some may note the irony of a sector spending money on publicising the fact that it has little money. However, this expenditure really is a drop in the ocean. It is vital that everything possible is done to make the public – the voters – aware of the impact of councils’ financial hardship. This is not to make a party political point; it is equally entirely right that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats point out the impact of the state running a massive deficit.

As Rob Whiteman points out, election debate too often takes the form of a lightweight and unbelievable soap opera. Discussion has focused on Ed Miliband’s two kitchens, with too little debate on the housing crisis which means that far too many people have no kitchen of their own at all. Sector leaders need to make their case loudly and clearly in an election crucial to local government’s destiny.

Green Left: It's time to make a stand and refuse to implement Coalition cuts

As councils across the country prepare their 2014-15 budgets and are confronted by the need to make savage cuts that will  drastically affect the quality of their poorest residents' lives, Green Left has issued the following statement:

The Green party of England and Wales fought the 2010 general election in opposition to the savage public service cuts supported by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The Green party offered a different approach to reducing the country’s debts, which included making the wealthy (people and corporations) pay their fair share of tax, investing in the economy to produce sustainable growth through the Green New Deal, some cuts for example to Trident and pledging to protect public services particularly for the most vulnerable in our society.

Unfortunately, we did not win the general election and so are unable to put these policies into practice, although Caroline Lucas has almost single handedly taken the opposition to the Coalition government cuts agenda. The ideologically driven shrink the state policies of the Coalition government aim to reduce public spending and turn most of the public services over to private corporations. Our elected representatives in local government are on the front line in the assault on public spending, with local authorities having their funding from central government cut by around a third since 2010. 

Councils of all political stripes are hurting and they worry about whether they will even be able to fund their statutory duties in the future. Local government is under serious threat and everyone involved in it knows this to be true, despite the blithe statements about local authorities making efficiency savings and encouraging local business growth to pay for services, trumpeted by the Coalition central government. All the easy savings and many not so easy have been made now, and a future of even more of the same is daunting.

We in Green Left say enough is enough, and call on all of our existing elected Green party local councillors and any that are elected in the 2014 local elections, to firmly refuse to implement these Coalition government cuts to essential public services. If the government sends civil servants to carry out their dirty work then the responsibility for the cuts will be firmly in the public view, and our elected representatives can be in the forefront of a popular campaign against them. The time has surely come to make a stand, in solidarity with our communities that depend so heavily on the services provided and with the local authority workforce who have endured cuts in wages if not redundancy.

Greens debate whether local councils should act as the Coalition's bailiffs

There was a lively and passionate debate at the Green Party Conference on 'Greens in Local Government' in which a position  that Green Councils should propose budgets that do not entails cuts, and another  recognising that the reputational damage to an anti-cuts party of Green Councils carrying out cuts on behalf of central government, may outweigh the benefits of trying to make cuts in a 'caring and consultative manner', were defeated.

Despite this setback a Green Left fringe meeting attended by some Brighton and Hove councillors carried on the debate, demonstrating that this issue remains live. The recent undermining of local government through financial cuts and the unexpectedly large cuts that will take place next year make this a genuine issue for all local councils of whatever political complexion. Are we content to be the Coalition's bailiffs?

These videos are  a record of that fringe meeting:

Why services are better in public hands - the need for a Public Service Users Bill

The We Own It campaign LINK  will launch their report on the need for a Public Service Users Bill on Monday. The Bill would promote and protect high quality and accountable public services.

They list the benefits of public ownership:

1. You use it

Meeting your needs – whether that's at the doctors' surgery or at the post office – should mean giving you time, attention and care. Public ownership makes it easier for staff to take the time that’s needed rather than squeezing services to boost profits. This means that when public services are in public hands, they tend to be better run. Local authorities across the UK are bringing services in-house to improve their quality and value for money.

2. You pay for it

Public services are something we all pay for, and we all use. Public ownership means your money is better spent, both locally and nationally. Money can be reinvested into services to improve them, instead of subsidising the profits of private companies. Savings are also made because services are integrated and there is no need to manage contracts. Publicly run East Coast rail has saved the taxpayer £600 million and if water was in public hands, household water bills would be around £80 a year cheaper.

3. You have a say in it 

When public services are run by local or national government, it's easier for you to know who to turn to when you want to complain, and to have your say in how you want services to be improved. The public sector must make data available to you and respond to Freedom Of Information requests (unlike the private sector). Public ownership also means it's possible for the whole of society to decide on a goal (for example, a long term energy policy) and achieve it efficiently. Most people want public services to be provided publicly and almost all of us want a say in how they are run.

4. You share it 

Public services are something we all share. When services are owned by all of us, it's easier for staff to work with service users and community groups to improve them. This can and should involve imaginative ways to keep making them better. In the 21st century, public services should be about people, not profit. Public ownership can sometimes involve the voluntary sector, social enterprises and cooperatives where that's the right solution, and where there are safeguards in place to protect public assets.

5. Examples all over the world show that it works better

In the UK, despite the current drive to privatise, many local authorities are bringing services in-house to boost satisfaction and save money. Across Europe, public ownership is making a comeback. For example, the water in Paris is now owned and controlled by the city, and in Germany energy is being generated locally by publicly owned utilities. In the US, a fifth of all previously outsourced services have been brought back in-house.

The Bill would ensure:

Public ownership would be the default for public services

1. Public ownership would be prioritised as the default option that is looked at first, before contracting out (supported by 60% of the public). Local and national government would always explore best practice public ownership, before turning to private companies.

2. There would always be a realistic, thorough in-house bid from the public sector whenever a public service – local or national - is put out to tender (supported by 80% of the public).

3. The public would be consulted before any service is privatised or outsourced (supported by 79% of the public).

4. Organisations with a social purpose – the public sector and genuine cooperatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises – would be prioritised in the tendering process (supported by 57% of the public).

Private companies running public services would be held to account

1. The public would have a ‘right to recall’ private companies who are doing a bad job (supported by 88% of the public).

2. Private companies running public services would be transparent about their performance and financial data - as in the public sector (supported by 88% of the public).

3. Private companies running public services would be subject to Freedom Of Information legislation - as in the public sector (48% of the public mistakenly believe this is already the case).

4. The public would be properly consulted about the services they receive through public service contracts.