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.'

Butt under pressure but sticks to strategy of acquiescence to cuts

There was a lively discussion yesterday evening when Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt met with members of the Brent LRC (Labour Representation Committee) which is a group of left-wing Labour supporters. Cllr Butt was accompanied by his political adviser.

Butt reiterated his commitment to setting a 'legal' budget although observers pointed out that it was not illegal to set a needs based budget and no surcharge is involved under current legislation. All that would happen is that council officers would implement the Coalition imposed cuts.

He said that there would be an additional 2% of cuts on top of those in the three year budget plan but that in 2013-14 the overall cuts are  likely to be less than in the last 2 years. Although figures must have been drawn up by now he gave no details to the audience. More cuts are in the Coalition pipeline for 2014-15 and onwards.

It was unclear what, if any, public discussion or consultation would take place about the budget despite requests (including mine at the Budget and Finance Scrutiny Committee in December)  that the period be used to build support for a needs led budget. This would be used as campaigning tool backed by  the Brent  public so that pressure, alongside that of other councils could be put on the Coalition to reduce or reverse cuts in local government funding.

LRC members were disappointed by  what they see as the council's acquiescence in Coalition cuts. One commented, 'They lack any concept of, or confidence in, a class fightback. At best they can see the need for modestly ameliorative policy measures. Even that takes a struggle with the right wing. That's how bad things are.'

Further disappointment came when Cllr Claudia Hector, who has previously been critical of cuts, said according to one source that the public were not in the mood for a fightback so that the Butt programme was all that could be done. Another source, who attended the meeting,  felt this wasn't an entirely fair summary of her comment stating,.  'When someone compared the situation to that of fighting the Poll Tax at the end of the 1980s, Claudia  said that there wasn't the same level of public awareness on the issues'.

Asked if paying employees the London Living Wage, which is Council policy LINK,  had been written into the multi-million Public Realm contract covering waste, recycling and parks maintenance that is currently being procured, Cllr Butt said it had not - leaving his audience somewhat puzzled.

On a slightly more optimistic note Muhammed Butt  made it clear that he opposes academies and free schools and would issue a statement on the issue if there was any local action.

Brent fails to connect with residents on budget

In January 2012 Ann John and Muhammed Butt toured the Area Consultative Forums to speak about the Council budget. LINK One year on, after Muhammed Butt ousted Ann John promising greater openness and engagement with residents, no budget discussion has been included on the agendas so far published for next month's forums.

Pleas to formulate a needs based budget as a campaigning tool to challenge the Coalition's unequal slashing of local government expenditure have been ignored. An opportunity to engage with local residents and mobilise them in defence of vital services appears to have been rejected.

Now known as Brent Connect Forums they meet on the following dates. I include the agendas that have so far been published. 

Brent Connects Kilburn and Kensal
08.01.13 7pm Kensal Rise Primary School, Harvist Road, NW6
Brent Connects Harlesden 
09.01.13 7pm All Souls Church, Station Rd, NW10

• Update from representatives of TfL, Network Rail and London Overground (LOROL) on the planned improvements for Willesden Junction Station approach

• The latest news on the Willesden Energy Recovery Centre (incinerator in Ealing)

• Plans for the development of a Neighbourhood Forum covering parts of Stonebridge, Harlesden and Dudden Hill

• Proposed improvements to parts of the Brent River Park (Phase 2)

• Local Policing update

• Doing more locally with Residents' Association Groups

Brent Connects Wembley
15. 01.13 7pm Pattidar House, 22 London Road, HA9
Brent Connects Willesden
16.01.13 7pm College of NW London, College Road, NW10

• Government welfare reforms (including Discretionary Housing Payments) - how this will affect you and the benefits you receive

• Customer services at the civic centre - what's on offer

• Local policing update

Brent Connects Kingsbury and Kenton
06.02.13 7pm Kingsbury High School, Princes Avenue, NW9

The case for refusing to make 'impossible choices' in Brent budget

This is the speech I made at this evening's Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt and Deputy, Ruth Moher, attended but were asked only one question. Muhammed Butt confirmed that carers working for the private companies provided adult social care for Brent would not necessarily get the London Living Wage. All other questions on the Budget were addressed to Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance.

I paraphrased towards the end of my speech when my 5  minutes deputation time began to run out.

I start with the assumption that none of the present administration stood for election in order to make cuts that would be to the detriment of the quality of life and the life chances of Brent residents.

I also accept that the Coalition Government’s increasingly discredited approach to austerity is the motor for local authority cuts. I would further argue that this is an ideological attack on local government and local democracy which leaves councils with the job of local implementation of the Coalition agenda.

Under Ann John’s leadership it seemed that the Council was seeing itself in the role of ‘managing’ these cuts with the argument that they could do this without harming services. After the leadership change there has been a slight change of emphasis but there appears to be a contradiction in the stance of Muhammed Butt, the new leader.

In his Priorities statement for the Full Council, Cllr Butt says:

The first priority must remain protecting the integrity of the Budget and making savings.

 But in his blog, he likens the Council’s task to the ‘impossible decisions’ that would have to be made in cutting a third from a household budget.

Again in his press release on the Early Intervention Grant Cllr Butt said that he is dedicated to making sure that no child in the Borough is left behind at a time when' impossible choices' have to be made due to the highly punitive cuts imposed on local authorities by the Coalition.

The issue is clear: maintaining the integrity of the budget and making cuts will mean making ‘impossible choices’ that will inevitably, whatever the council does in mitigation, damage the most vulnerable.

Of course Council officers will stress the legal requirements during the budget process but councillors are not just ‘managers’, they are also politicans and need to adopt a political response both to protect local government as a democratioc entity and to protect local people.

I have likened their position to that of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who, despite having his limbs cut off one by one and left (‘Tis but a scratch’ ‘Your arm’s off’ ) as just a bloodied torso, remains defiant and totally unware of the impossibility of his plight. The cruel twist is that the Coalition gives the Council the job of cutting off its own limbs!

The question for this year’s budget making is should the Labour Council continue to make ‘impossible choices’ and continue to cut off its own limbs.

My answer to that quuestion is ‘No’. Doing the ‘impossible’ is also doing the morally unjustifiable.

The impossible is compounded by the constant moving of goalposts by the Coalition, the Council Tax Benefit changes which will not only put more families into poverty and increase the number of defaults, the increased temporary housing costs caused by homelesslessness after the Housing Benefit cap, increased costs for Adult Social care, the permitted (but not encouraged)  increase in Council Tax without a local referendum now established at 2% (3.5% envisaged in forward planning) and anyway such an increase would again hit the poorest in the borough. Only yesterday I heard that in one month 63 children, affected by the housing benefit cap, have moved from a local primary school.

To truly represent local people the Council needs to devise a ‘needs budget’ which reflects the true cost of services that the people of Brent need to maintain their quality of life, consult on this in imaginative ways including going to the community in schools, community centres, places of worship and publicise it, and make sure that people understand who is responsible for the cuts being imposed and the implications of more cuts. Gathering mass support in this way through local action, and working with other councils, especially London ones, for a common approach, could begin a concerted campaign against Coalition policies.

Ken Livingstone, back in the days of the GLC, mounted a fierce challenge against Margaret Thatcher from his County Hal base.  Yes, it didn’t succeed in its immediate aims but did help undermine her in the long-term with an alternative popular agenda.  Brent Council could be in the forefront of such a campaign.