23 feb – 6pm- council cuts budget vote- demonstate, protest & lobby!

[editor]

I'm pretty confident that decisions were already made and no amount of pleading to save our services would have made the slightest bit of difference.

 

[Pickman's model]

i thought i'd broadly said that.

 

[stevebradley]

Interesting view stevebradley. Thanks.

Could you share what the alternatives are to the cuts in services please.

CUT INTO TWO PARTS - PART ONE

I'm not saying that there can be no cuts, as that is clearly not true. As the smirking note left in the Treasury by Liam Byrne MP when he left in May 2010 put it - " sorry old chap, but there's no money left". The country has a major financial problem that needs to be addressed. The government has passed local government what is, in my view, a disproportionate share of those cuts, and has also front-loaded them in an inequitable manner. So sadly cuts are needed, even if I don't agree with the way they've been handed out by the government.

That said, Lambeth has a CHOICE on what it chooses to cut and what it doesn't within the financial settlement given to it by the government. Labour have repeatedly pushed the myth that they have no choice, which has enabled them to blame others for their own choices and their own dirty work. Here is a non-exhaustive list of alternative steps they could have taken which would have led to less cuts taking place this year, and which would in turn have saved key services like libraries, Park Rangers, One O'Clock clubs etc.

1) COUNCIL RESERVES
- All councils require reserves for a rainy day. But Lambeth has total reserves of £120m - the 3rd highest in London. That's YOUR money collected by the council in council tax and stuck in a corner earning sod all interest with no clear plan of when they'll ever get round to using it, or what they'll use it for.
- Of those reserves, the vast majority are 'ear-marked' and rightly can't be and shouldn't be touched. In otherwords, they're allocated towards an actual or notional activity that is important for the good running of the council.
- The problem is that there are other such reserves earmarked for purposes that, on balance, aren't that important any more, or are important but don't need the particular size of sum allocated to them.
- Labour have just accepted Finance Officers' advice that all Lambeth reserves are sacred, and haven't done their homework in looking at every single sum individually and asking themselves ' Is this sum really required for that purpose any longer, and is it more prudent left here or used to save a particular service' ? Finance Officers love having little pots of money squirelled away that they can whip out if they ever need to. Even if they never need to, they just like them being there. But they're not the ones facing the political flack for shutting libraries etc etc.
- Don't take my word for it : just look at a couple of examples of Earmarked Reserves within Lambeth's budget :

£4m squirrelled away for the last 6yrs under the 'invest to save' programme.
- This is up-front funding to spend on things that should save the council even more money in return. A sensible idea.
- Yet after SIX YEARS neither officers nor the administration cllrs have come up with any ideas for what to spend it on ! Which begs the question - when is the brainwave going to hit them ?
- They've had 6yrs, they've done nothing with the money, they have no plans for what to do with it in the future, and it has sat there earning almost no interest. So let's use it to save some services rather than watch it continue to gather dust.

Civil Emergency Fund
- The council has set aside a rolling £1m in case we get hit with swine flu or a nuclear attack or some other huge, unforseen catastrophe.
- Again, this is usually prudent stuff and money that you don't realistically expect or hope to use.
- But why is £1m the magic number here ? Would it be any less prudent to have £750k or £500k set aside for the next year or two, use the rest to save some services, and then go back to the magic £1m allocation figure again in 2-3yrs time ?
- £500m taken out of there would save all the Parks Rangers and most lollipop ladies, for example. Or save more than two libraries or multiple youth services.
- Some may even argue that all of that £1m should get used to save services in the short term, before being restored again in 2-3yrs.
- But there is no evidence that this sort of analysis has been done and these sort of options even considered.

Litigation Fund
- Every year Lambeth puts aside over half a million quid in case it gets sued outside of its normal legal budgets etc. And every year the money goes largely unspent. Add to that the fact that having a pot of money there in case you get sued is likely to see some officers take a more belligerent attitude when faced with legal challenges.
- Again - why is £500K the magic number ? If that sort of sum is being used every year, then it should be reflected in the operational busget and not in reserves. And if that sort of sum is going unused year in year out, then it would question whether it is genuinely needed at all.
-Taking £100k out of that pot for each of the next two years would still leave money for emergencies but would also enable 10 lollipop ladies to be saved to make walking and cycling to school safer, for example, or keep a few yough facilities open. Instead, we're stuck with money gathering dust which may only encourage belligerence amongst officers when faced with legal challenges.

- Then there's the over £20m of reserves that are completely unallocated. That's cash collected from you going unused, and with no plan for what rainy day it's supposed to be there to tackle. Why not take a small amount of those unallocated reserves to keep services going for the next 2-3yrs, and then return to the current or even higher level of reserves once the funding situation improves afrre then ? If now isn't the time for Lambeth to spend some of its abnormally high reserves, when is ?
- In response to this suggestion, Labour just trot out their usual lie that the Lib Dems left Lambeth with no reserves. Not only do they know that's a plain lie (there was £26m in 'Adjustment A' money reserves in 2006, which Labour well know), but it does nothing to answer the question of why haven't they scrutinised the ear-marked reserves to see which ones are REALLY needed, and why they insist on squirrelling away unallocated council tax money every year to never use, even in the current financial crisis.
- And if Lambeth has the THIRD HIGHEST reserves in London, that suggests that we're being far too prudent at such a critical time. It would in no way be imprudent or risky for us to aim to hold the average level of reserves for a London borough over the next 3yrs, use the money that releases to save key services, and then seek to build the reserves back up again after 3yrs.

2) COUNCIL TAX
- Lambeth has the lowest council tax collection rate in London, and the 5th lowest in the UK.
- By just doing properly something they should be doing anyway - collecting what they're owed - they'd have a few million extra every year to spend on services.

3) EMPTY HOMES
- Lambeth has more empty council-owned homes than any other borough in London - 1,500. More than double the figure of 4yrs ago. 20% of all empty council homes in the whole of London are now found in Lambeth.
- By leaving these homes empty - many for 3-4yrs - the council not only loses rent, but has to pay itself council tax out of the tenants' rent pot at the rate of £1.5m per year. Think about that - tenants in Lambeth are being charged an extra £1.5m EVERY YEAR just to give another department in Lambeth the council tax on the homes that Lambeth Living can't be bothered to sort out. Madness.
- If these empty properties were brought back into use it would enable the council to reduce rent charges by £7 PER WEEK for every tenant.

4) EMPTY OFFICES
- Lambeth already has an excess of office space. Once it makes their proposed job cuts, it will have even more empty spaces.
- Lambeth is also holding on to office blocks that it can no longer use as they are unfit for purpose under employment regs (H&SW, DDA) e.g. Porden Rd.
- To address that they should sell some of the office blocks - in particular Phoenix House in Vauxhall, which was bought to meet a short-term problem in accommodation in 2005 (i.e. to enable the unfit offices to be decanted and then either rennovated or disposed).
- Far from selling in a slump (EricJarvis), it is estimated the council would pocket (from memory) approx £45m in one go and realise a £5-10m net gain vs purchase price if it sold Phoenix House now.
- And what about that wreck of a building on Porden Rd that has been left empty for years now ? Is leaving that council-owned wreck derelict more important than saving libraries etc ?
- Just like the reserves, Labour seem obsessed with collecting unused and un-needed office blocks with no idea of what to do with them. I would personally rather see unneeded ones go if it meant libraries, One o'clock clubs etc stayed open instead.
- Labour's sole response on this is to say to the Lib Dems 'but you bought Phoneix House'. Yes. But so what ? That doesn't mean selling it now at a profit isn't the right and smart move to make.

 

[stevebradley]

PART TWO - CONTINUED FROM ABOVE (Apologies for length)

5) PARTY ALLOWANCES AND STAFF
- Disgracefully, Labour's sole change to any salaries is a £250 reduction in the telephone allowance for cllrs. That represents less than a 0.5% reduction in income for their Council Leader and his £51,000+ salary. A disgrace.
- All cllr allowances should be cut - in my view by a minimum of 10% base, with a bigger cut for those who get further allowances for additional responsibilities.
- It may not save a fortune - but it would certainly save a few jobs or services. But a mere £250 cut on a £51k leader’s salary is an insult to Lambeth staff and residents.
- Same with party staff. Labour now have NINE members of their own staff at the Town Hall, paid for by the council tax payer. The other parties have one and a half in total between them. Reducing Labour's hacks to a more proportionate level would save £348k per year - enough to save almost two of the four libraries threatened with closure. So which is more important to the people of Lambeth - Labour having their own party political hacks at the Town Hall, or a couple of libraries....?

6) SENIOR SALARIES
- Some councils have introduced big reductions in the pay of their senior staff - e.g. Hull with a 20% reduction in Chief Exec pay.
- What has Lambeth done to trim its bloated senior management pay ? Nothing. And that’s without mentioning the millions spent on permanent consultants at huge expense.

7) Council Propaganda
- Alongside increasing their own salaries, one of the first things Labour did when they took control of the council in 2006 was to recruit their party's Deputy Director in London as the council's head of communications, and pack his department with 49 staff.
- They exist to churn out endless propaganda at your expense telling you how wonderful everything is in Lambeth. They also refuse to print anything in Lambeth Life from opposition parties, for example, that is critical of the council. For example – it took them a month, and criticism in the South London Press – before they even published the result of my by-election win in 2008 in Lambeth Life, because it was a Labour defeat.
- Labour’s budget cuts this department’s funding by £300k. Not enough. We have proposed a £1.2m saving there instead. I'll leave it to readers to decide if the £900k difference would be better spent on council spin or on services for residents.


As the above shows Ms T, there ARE some things the council could choose to do to ensure some of the services they are axing are saved instead. Had the meeting last night gone as planned, there would have been plenty of speeches outlining these in detail. Instead Labour pedal the arrogant myth that their own package of cuts is the ONLY one that can be done, and that anything else would be illegal. Yet Lambeth's own Finance Officer has signed-off the Lib Dem alternative budget as legal (and probably the Tory one as well). That confirms the obvious fact that there is more than one way to deal with the cuts passed to Lambeth by the government.
The Guardian newspaper has shown that Labour councils are implementing the biggest council cuts nationwide. Despite traditionally being a friend of Labour, The Guardian has suggested that this is because Labour councils are using the government cuts to force through needlessly high levels of unpopular cuts for political reasons, so they can pass the blame on to the government. Sound familiar ?

The council has a choice on what it chooses to cut within its government settlement. Anyone who buys the lie that Labour has no choice in it all is just letting them off the hook and leaving them to laugh behind your backs in closed-session meetings and on the dancefloor of the Brixton Bar and Grill. Lambeth DOES have a choice, and it DIDN’T have to cut everything that got axed last night.

Apologies for the length of response, but the issue is much more complicated and nuanced that the 'powerless Lambeth' myth it suits those running the council to peddle.

* For anyone who doesn't know, I am a Lib Dem councillor in Lambeth, and a long-standing visitor to this site (including for 3yrs before I was elected).*

 

[Bob]

Thanks for that Steve. It would be good to hear people's views on the other options as well - since there's far too much shouting and far too little discussion of what the council should do, rather than just what it shouldn't do.

I'm slightly surprised that nobody is calling for a council tax rise. The council can increase council tax by 3.5% - and would keep 1% of it (more complex than that - but that's the effect). A slightly ridiculous situation - but even a 1% council tax rise would help.

Declaring an interest for those of you who have forgotten me - I'm a Lib Dem who has known Steve for some years.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I'm slightly surprised that nobody is calling for a council tax rise. The council can increase council tax by 3.5% - and would keep 1% of it (more complex than that - but that's the effect). A slightly ridiculous situation - but even a 1% council tax rise would help.

Why?

2) COUNCIL TAX
- Lambeth has the lowest council tax collection rate in London, and the 5th lowest in the UK.
- By just doing properly something they should be doing anyway - collecting what they're owed - they'd have a few million extra every year to spend on services.

Why should they increase council tax rather than collect what's owed to them?

 

[Bob]

Why?



Why should they increase council tax rather than collect what's owed to them?

I'm not advocating a council tax - I'm more pointing out that it's odd that nobody is even discussing it when it would increase the resources available to the council. Given that Labour are advocating fewer cuts than the government, it does rather imply higher taxes at some point.

I completely agree that council tax collection is an obvious place to start - there's no reason at all (apart from rubbish management) that Lambeth can't increase the amount collected.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I'm not advocating a council tax - I'm more pointing out that it's odd that nobody is even discussing it when it would increase the resources available to the council. Given that Labour are advocating fewer cuts than the government, it does rather imply higher taxes at some point.

I completely agree that council tax collection is an obvious place to start - there's no reason at all (apart from rubbish management) that Lambeth can't increase the amount collected.

They've not been able to do it properly for the decades I've been here. Can't see that changing

 

[stevebradley]

So basically you are in favour of the council making permanent cuts. At least that clarifies the Lib Dem position a little from the current one of cuts must be made but any cuts made by Labour are wrong.

I also fail to see how it can be good value to the people of Lambeth to sell a building now if it's likely to fetch a far higher price a couple of years down the line. It may pay to keep a few things open for the next couple of years, but in the medium term it means losing large sums of money. Maybe you don't care because all that matters to you is what happens up to the next round of council elections, but some of us look at Lambeth as the place we expect to be living in for the next few decades.

I see your approach as epitomising the cheap and tawdry instant political gratification nonsense that has pretty much destroyed most people's faith in British politics. You don't give a damn about anything beyond the next election and barely care about anything beyond the next petty snipe.

It is a fact that when Lambeth closes things down they don't get re-opened again. We have seen enough libraries, housing offices, schools, childrens clubs, public conveniences etc etc over the years close never to re-open to prove that that is a fact (all, coincidentally, closed under Labour in previous years).

And it is also a fact that a council that runs less things will need less staff. If you don't think this is a factually correct statement, please clarify why.

So when I said that Lambeth won't be in a rush to go out and replace the staff, I was stating fact based on the above experience/obvious conclusions, rather than opinion.

If you think the above logic is flawed, please explain how. Otherwise please save the cheap shots, frothing rhetoric/outrage and nakedly biased rant for another thread.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Streatham Leisure Centre is a classic case of the above

 

[Streatham_Mao]

I see the Lambeth Lie is out and whitewashes what happened. It calls itself a 'newspaper' - perhaps someone should report it to the ASA.

 

[Gramsci]

Weirdly, my handle is my full name. Which says a lot about my mother...

I personally think it's nice to see a Cllr here, under their own name and not doing a post-and-run. It's the sort of thing I want to see more of. Unless I've missed something and it happens all the time around here.

Since Paddick got in trouble for talking to the "baby eating Anarchists" on Urban75 politicos have shied away from posting up. Though Ive heard some lurk here. There is Cllr who posts up here.

My view is that if Cllrs want to post up here thats good. And if they want to say they are a Cllr but use an online name thats ok.

Its an Urban tradition to use online names. My online persona is slightly different from offline. And I can say things here I might have to be quieter about offline.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks Jason. As my login name shows, I'm making no attempt to hide who I am. I'm probably the only person on here who uses their real and full name to post. Hope all's well in your new home.
.

It bad form to mention a posters real name. We all now who he is.

 

[Gramsci]

PART TWO - CONTINUED FROM ABOVE (Apologies for length)


The Guardian newspaper has shown that Labour councils are implementing the biggest council cuts nationwide. Despite traditionally being a friend of Labour, The Guardian has suggested that this is because Labour councils are using the government cuts to force through needlessly high levels of unpopular cuts for political reasons, so they can pass the blame on to the government. Sound familiar ?

.*[/I]

This article by Polly Toynbee is worth a look. Quote:

The Local Government Chronicle first outed these figures, but this remarkable fact has not percolated into national consciousness. Perhaps it's just too hard to believe that any government could do such a thing so blatantly. Research by the House of Commons library found the political match is near perfect: the more solidly Labour the district, the harsher its cuts; while the more blue Tory the shire, the less it is affected, with the Lib Dems in between.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/11/defence-brutal-cuts-attack-lies-blame

Your Government is making sure the worst cuts are going to areas of the country you dont want to lose votes in. Whilst in traditionally Labour areas your Government is imposing worst cuts. So your party can sit there and have a go at how Labour Councils are somehow financially incompetant.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks for putting this up Streatham Mao. Here is quote from Reeds speech

This council will do whatever we can to protect the most vulnerable people in our borough from these Tory-Lib Dem cuts. But there will be no going back to the 1980s, no illegal budgets. That failed in the past. We won’t run up the white flag by refusing to set a budget and let Eric Pickles send in his administrators to make far deeper cuts that would hit people in this borough even harder.

Instead we will set a budget that seeks to protect the most vulnerable, keep people safe, and invest in better homes, better schools and help to get people back to work.
l.[/QUOTE]

Its a mistake for Steve Reed to say that cuts of this size can be done in way that does not damage society. Cuts imposed by central Government like this cannot be done without damaging vulnerable people. Also I see people worrying about all these cuts. They arent in the vulnerable people category. But I see this society becoming worse in general for all people. Except Bankers

Steve Reed doing this lets the LDs like Bradley make obscure technical arguments about how LD cuts would be better.

Thats Bollox. Itsyour party in power Bradley. Making some mild criticism about your party in power does not wash.

And by the way Clegg is a posh twat like Cameron. No wonder they get on so well together.

It would be better for Reed to say we have little choice but this is the long term damage it will do.

There is a specialist school near me closing at the end of this school year. That a frontline cut imo.

Im afraid Labour will try to justify some of these cuts as efficiency saving. Also Im afraid Labour Cllrs will start telling constituents these cuts are as fair as possible and there are others more vulnerable than them. That we all need to work together, stop complaining, in Coop Council.

 

[Gramsci]

Steve Reed isn't any better.



You can argue all you like about who caused this situation – the previous Government, or a global banking crisis that hit every major industrialised economy in the Western World. They talk today about overspending, but when the Tories and Liberals ran this council they used to complain that their funding increases weren’t big enough, they never once complained there was too much spending. But wherever you stand, is it fair for this Tory-led Government to pay down the debt by targeting the poorest people in the poorest parts of our country? Places like Lambeth?
.

This is the problem of NuLabour. You cannot provide people with a vision of a better society to strive for if you dont analyse the past.

The problem for NuLabour is that they fell in love with the City. They were in awe of it.

You cannot "move on" without seeing what your past mistakes were. NuLabour always talk in the way that Steve Reed does above. He should say that the New Labour was mistaken in letting the City and big business have everything there way. That the Tory/LD cuts are ideological. Using the word fair does not mean much. All politicians use it. Sounds not to threatening to middle England.

There is plenty of new books out for politicians to read.

For example Stiglitz"Freefall" and Paul Masons recent book "Meltdown: the end of the age of greed"

Mason argues for a return of political economy. (NuLabour bought into the end of history idea. Democracy plus free deregulated markets. They assumed it was permanent.)

Stiglitz argues for Keynesianism. He saw how IMF imposed cuts damaged societies.

Its all very well for politicians of the 3 main parties to argue about how quickly to cut the deficit.As though they are being adult and sensible. They are not. The whole idea of "deficit reduction" is ideologically driven. Bankers are really pleased at this. Nor do I see the three main parties dealing with the bankers. The bankers really run this country. What they say goes.

I do not see any questioning in the "centre ground" of the idea that deficit reduction is the main problem to be sorted out first. The only vision I see is the Tories nightmare one of reform. Reform that was never in there election campaign-like NHS "reform". And the "Big Society". Another nightmare of compulsory volunterism

Oh I forgot politicos of all parties were reading the "The Spirit Level" a book about the importance of equality. They were all quoting from it at the last election. Its got a vision of a better society in that book. Trouble is none of 3 main parties will carry it out when they are in power.

 

[Gramsci]

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

The spirit level website

 

[Gramsci]

I was at demo. Probably bumped into Urbanites from the number posting up they were there.

 

[Gramsci]

exactly my sentiments

 

[Gramsci]

couple of pics.

 

[Streatham_Mao]

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

The spirit level website

I've started reading Shanxons' "Treasure Islands". I think you'd enjoy it.

 

[stevebradley]

Thanks for putting this up Streatham Mao. Here is quote from Reeds speech

This council will do whatever we can to protect the most vulnerable people in our borough from these Tory-Lib Dem cuts. But there will be no going back to the 1980s, no illegal budgets. That failed in the past. We won’t run up the white flag by refusing to set a budget and let Eric Pickles send in his administrators to make far deeper cuts that would hit people in this borough even harder.

Instead we will set a budget that seeks to protect the most vulnerable, keep people safe, and invest in better homes, better schools and help to get people back to work.
l.

Its a mistake for Steve Reed to say that cuts of this size can be done in way that does not damage society. Cuts imposed by central Government like this cannot be done without damaging vulnerable people. Also I see people worrying about all these cuts. They arent in the vulnerable people category. But I see this society becoming worse in general for all people. Except Bankers

Steve Reed doing this lets the LDs like Bradley make obscure technical arguments about how LD cuts would be better.

Thats Bollox. Itsyour party in power Bradley. Making some mild criticism about your party in power does not wash.

And by the way Clegg is a posh twat like Cameron. No wonder they get on so well together.

It would be better for Reed to say we have little choice but this is the long term damage it will do.

There is a specialist school near me closing at the end of this school year. That a frontline cut imo.

Im afraid Labour will try to justify some of these cuts as efficiency saving. Also Im afraid Labour Cllrs will start telling constituents these cuts are as fair as possible and there are others more vulnerable than them. That we all need to work together, stop complaining, in Coop Council.

Thanks for being pretty much the only person to address what I posted last week Gramsci - even if i have had to check if there is a face-palm emoticon on here in response.....

Just to check, which of the below alternative suggestions to the councils cuts do you think are "obscure technical arguments" :

1) That the council should collect the council tax that it is owed, and not be one of the worst in the country at this.
2) That ALL councillors and senior staff should take a pay cut.
3) That the council should fix up its empty housing, or sell some to a housing association if they won't fix it up themselves.
4) That the spin doctors and political hacks the Town Hall has become packed with in the last 5yrs should be reduced.
5) That it would be better for the people of Lambeth if empty, unusable and in some cases derelict office buildings were sold to provide the funding to keep services/facilities open.
6) That some of the relatively large sums of money Lambeth has squirrelled away in the bank with no idea what to do with them should be used to see it through the next few years.

I'd be grateful if you could explain which of the above alternatives could be fairly described as obscure and technical ? And even if they were obscure and technical, that wouldn't make them any less valid. It may be a lot easier to occupy and demonstrate than to get stuck into the detail of what is going on in the Town Hall's finances, but that doesn't make it either less valid or likely to be less productive.

I'd also be grateful if you could explain why you seem to be against things like councillors and senior management having a pay cut and council tax being collected properly ?

To your last point - Labour's strategy is very clear. They will make no effort to try to explain their cuts as fair etc. Instaed, they are just claiming that they're the government's cuts and that Lambeth had no choice in them at all. Which is pure nonesense. The council DOES have a choce of which cuts it passes on within the government settlement given to it. But most people on here seem only too happy to swallow the line that Lambeth is powerless (as evidenced, I suspect, by the almost complete absence of responses to the various alternatives I posted earlier).

 

[Gramsci]

Hi Bradley.

The point I was making about technical arguments is that in the usual spat between LD and Labour in Lambeth about who is more efficient the overall political picture is lost. Ive seen LD and Labour Cllrs together and u can tell no love is lost in Lambeth between the 2 parties.

Some of your suggestions are sensible. But its argueable that the 6 you list should be done anyway whether there is a recession or not. Its just good management practise.

By the way number 3 selling to HAs. Looks to me like the Council is starting to sell off land and housing on open market. There is ongoing issue of street properties being sold at auction for poor prices. The Council argue they get more Capital receipt. If they sell to HA they normally discount price due to fact that social housing is built.

However I do not think that any of the above 6 suggestions is going to get away from the fact that the Tory / LD government imposed cuts are going to seriously socially damage this country. However much the 6 suggestions you have put forward are used. Thats apart from Cameron reform aganda which suddenly appeared once he was elected.


I dont think LDs realise the amount of resentment against them in the country. Many people who voted for LDS did so because of there stance on Iraq , Tuition fees and coming across as not as right wing as NuLabour. People I talk to complain more about the LDs than they do the Tories ( who are in the majority ).

Clegg is Orange Book liberal. He is quite comfortable with Cameron type politics.

If I was LD Cllr I would be seriously thinking of distancing myself from what the LD leadership are doing. The most support Ive seen for LDs is when I was at a meeting of Council tenants and the LD said if the LD were in power they would support a ballot for getting rid of ALMO. Unlike NULabour.

I think those on the left in LD should be campaigning against cuts (Im not saying not set Council tax) in there areas.

As for pay cuts. I think people should have proper pay and conditions. What I dont like is the way some people get paid poorly and the Chief Exec gets £200 000 a year. What I would like to see as part of the "Cooperative Council" is a move to equality of pay. After all Tessa says Cooperation and Mutualism is part of Labours DNA. Cooperatives usually have equal pay in practise or at least not a big difference.

got to go now.

 

[Mairead]

Thanks for being pretty much the only person to address what I posted last week Gramsci - even if i have had to check if there is a face-palm emoticon on here in response.....

Just to check, which of the below alternative suggestions to the councils cuts do you think are "obscure technical arguments" :

1) That the council should collect the council tax that it is owed, and not be one of the worst in the country at this.
2) That ALL councillors and senior staff should take a pay cut.
3) That the council should fix up its empty housing, or sell some to a housing association if they won't fix it up themselves.
4) That the spin doctors and political hacks the Town Hall has become packed with in the last 5yrs should be reduced.
5) That it would be better for the people of Lambeth if empty, unusable and in some cases derelict office buildings were sold to provide the funding to keep services/facilities open.
6) That some of the relatively large sums of money Lambeth has squirrelled away in the bank with no idea what to do with them should be used to see it through the next few years.

I'd be grateful if you could explain which of the above alternatives could be fairly described as obscure and technical ? And even if they were obscure and technical, that wouldn't make them any less valid. It may be a lot easier to occupy and demonstrate than to get stuck into the detail of what is going on in the Town Hall's finances, but that doesn't make it either less valid or likely to be less productive.

I'd also be grateful if you could explain why you seem to be against things like councillors and senior management having a pay cut and council tax being collected properly ?

To your last point - Labour's strategy is very clear. They will make no effort to try to explain their cuts as fair etc. Instaed, they are just claiming that they're the government's cuts and that Lambeth had no choice in them at all. Which is pure nonesense. The council DOES have a choce of which cuts it passes on within the government settlement given to it. But most people on here seem only too happy to swallow the line that Lambeth is powerless (as evidenced, I suspect, by the almost complete absence of responses to the various alternatives I posted earlier).

To be honest I get a bit pissed off with the Politicking going on. I am no apologist for Steve Reed but really Cllr Bradley as a Lib Dem you should be hanging your head in shame. I work in the local voluntary sector and I can tell you that because of the cuts imposed on Lambeth by YOUR government the voluntary sector is being decimated and will be in no position to bid for all those shiny contracts that Cameron is saying will be coming our way instead they will go to the private sector NOT local voluntary and community sector groups, this is not just a local issue it is being replicated all over the country - so how do you respond to that uncomfortable truth? And by the way before you start pointing to your 'alternative' budget I have read it and I genuinely can't see your commitment to local vulnerable residents shining through. There is nothing that would have actually protected local VCS from the horrific cuts they have faced, and isn't it a bit rich to talk about council tax collection and better management of local housing - tell me Cllr Bradley what was the last Lib Dem administrations record in these areas? Cllr Fitchett anyone?

 

[Gramsci]

Bit of a tangent. But this article a friend from Canada sent me is applicable here. Shows how the rich got super rich in US at the same time as organised labour became weaker. I notice the main people behind campaigning against the cuts here are not the Labour party but unions.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline?page=4