“In recent days, there has been some comradely discussion between lefties about what local councils, and specifically Labour councillors, should do in response to the cuts.”

For a start, how about apologising for the fiscal incontinence of the last Labour government?

“but should focus their anger on the Tory/Lib Dem government which is responsible for these cuts.”

Sorry, shouldn’t that be the Tory/Lib Dem government who are FORCED to make these cuts….cuts which the last Labour chancellor was also going to be forced to make.

Its always worthwhile discussing the question of blame and responsibility with a former cityboy who buggered off to South Africa rather than stay and help deal with the consequences.

Luckily Tyler – we have created a website just for ideologically blinded people like you:
http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/whats-the-false-economy-alternative

That said – you’re rapidly turning into a hysterical troll who just repeats the same stuff every blog post. This article isn’t for people like you. Go back to fantasising about how deep the cuts will be to people’s meagre incomes.

@ Sunny

Yes, I’ve seen that site. Frankly laughable hyperbole, massive historical revisionism and not a hint of a workable solution in sight.

In fact, a perfect mirror to yourself.

Oh, and I prefer “realistic” to “ideologically blinded”. Though of course, it would be totally unfair of you to call me ideoligically blinded when of course you are nothing of the sort…..I mean, surely, being a proffesional partisan left-wing shouty person, ideology never enters *any* of your arguments.

Oh, and by the way, I’m happy to give your False Economy site a proper, evidence based fisking. Assuming it hasn’t been done already.

Luckily Tyler – we have created a website just for ideologically blinded people like you

Um, yes. About that website – it appears to be based more or less entirely on a misapprehension.

They start by saying that we should not try to get rid of the whole deficit in four years. A longer timetable allows economic growth to do more of the work of deficit reduction. This is because growth will reduce the amount the government needs to spend on unemployment and increase the amount it gets from tax (even without changing tax rates).

The Coalition is not aiming to get rid of the whole deficit in four years. They are aiming to get rid of the structural deficit in four years. Which, according to your site, you seem to agree with:

However we cannot pretend that the recession never happened. The banking crash showed that some of what was thought to be real economic growth was an illusion. As we have explained, part of the deficit is structural and won’t disappear even when the economy is growing strongly again.

So in reality, all you’re doing is disagreeing with the balance between tax rises and spending cuts. Except, obviously, that you’re opposed to the VAT rise. And the taxes you propose? The Richard Murphy tax gap and the Robin Hood tax. Oh dear.

Oh, and on that note:

This second part of the deficit is much smaller than the first, but it will hang around even when we get proper growth and the economy working efficiently again. This is why it is called the structural deficit. Dealing with this part does require difficult decisions that involve tax and spending. But no-one can know what the size of this structural deficit will be until we have got the economy working properly again.

So, we don’t know how big it is, but we can be sure it’s ‘much smaller’ than the cyclical element? How exactly does this square with the OBR’s analysis that the structural element of the deficit amounts to approximately 8% of GDP – ie: well over half the total deficit? Did you get any economists to have a look at this before it went live? Or did you just give it to nef?

Sunny – your party has already admitted how stupid it was to not mention cuts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/30/labour-gordon-brown-cuts-douglas-alexander

Why must you repeat their folly with your “no cuts please, we’re lefties” bullshit?

So in reality, all you’re doing is disagreeing with the balance between tax rises and spending cuts.

No shit sherlock. As if there’s no difference between 80:20 over four years vs 50:50 to halve the deficit over 5. You’re quick these days aren’t you Tim J?

I’m sure all those people who are going to be homeless, have their disability benefits withdrawn or be made destitute will agree with you that the difference is negligible.

Except, obviously, that you’re opposed to the VAT rise. And the taxes you propose? The Richard Murphy tax gap and the Robin Hood tax. Oh dear.

Oh dear? When Mervyn King himself thinks your golden boy Osborne is a twat then perhaps you shouldn’t be using those words for lefties, but the Conservative administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-mervyn-king-cameron-osborne

Tyler – you couldn’t fisk yourself out of a wet paper bag. But thanks for the offer anyway.

@6 Tim J

Totally agree with you, and would also add that growth of 2.8% YoY, as it was last quarter, is actually ABOVE long term trend growth rates (as I proved to Duncan Weldon the other day).

So why can’t we start dealing with the deficit while the economy IS growing strongly again?

Is the problem growth, and the fact that the Coalitions plans aren’t causing the economy to collapse in any way, or is it that cuts force people to look at the previous government’s record on overspending and financial mismanagement?

Why must you repeat their folly with your “no cuts please, we’re lefties” bullshit?

First – I’m not the Labour central command and I disagree with the Blairites. Secondly, it’s hard keeping up with ignorant idiots on here these days since we’ve become so popular, but here is a ready made response:
https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/09/why-the-left-cannot-and-should-not-oppose-all-government-cuts/

@ Sunny

Wow, another one one of your wonderful, evidence laden retorts. it’s a sure sign of a man lsoing an argument when he resorts to off topic insults and hyperbole.

So what if Mervyn King doesn’t like Osbourne? He hated Brown as well, but I don’t really think liking chancellors is his job. It’s also a pretty far strech to say that the Tories are going to make peopel destitute and homeless from trying to reform the welfare and housing budgets….but its one that people like you love to take.

As for the False Economy website – I’ll happily fisk it in public. I’ll even write an article as to why the suggestions won’t work in real life (as opposed to happy clappy socialist land). Care to publish it on here? Go on, I dare you….

….and then you could even try to refute my points using those little things you seem to ignore so much. You know, arguments and examples? (hint: try one at some point, rather than spurios abuse).

Oh, and I’ve just been reading NEF’s Green New Deal paper….

Amongst the many woolly or just downright stupid things in it come one standout contradictory gem.

After going on about how low interest rates caused the credit bubble and how bad all that was, they then go on to talk about (and support) Keynes. I quote;

“Keynes argued that the level of employment and activity in an economy depended critically on the rate of interest. Prerequisite to a prosperous and just society was a low rate of interest.”

You can’t sit on both sides of the fence kids….

“It’s also a pretty far strech to say that the Tories are going to make peopel destitute and homeless from trying to reform the welfare and housing budgets….but its one that people like you love to take. ”

Even the government has conceded that their welfare and housing cuts risk making people destitute and homeless:

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/30/dwp-admits-cuts-risk-increasing-homelessness/

Potential thread on strategy and tactics hijacked again. There are plenty of threads for endlessly repeating arguments on the deficit, what caused it, and how quickly to deal with it. This could be an interesting thread on tactics and strategy for those opposed to cutting this quickly, perhaps even branching out into a wider discussion of how grass roots campaigners and local councillors should work to oppose a central government scheme (i.e. something conservatives could join in). Instead the usual suspects have turned up to de-rail it.

What I fear will happen, though I certainly hope that it will not, is that Labour Councils will cut the meat and leave the fat. They will be keep their back office staff, cut front line workers causing hardship and then blame it all on “the evil Tories”.

Perhaps I’m just feeling very cynical today.

Falco – there will be an easy way of knowing whether that happens though, all you’ll have to do is compare services in labour run councils to tory ones, correct for demographics so you are comparing like for like, and then see.

@ 13 Don

Erm….thats what cuts are, aren’t they? People will be worse off – as will employed people who are going to have to pay more taxes. Almost everyone will be in fact.

The point is that capping housing benefits (to a still whopping 400 a week), stopping people claiming a council house for life (so other more needy people can access them more easily) and making small decreases in other (lets face it, unearned) benefits is *not* going to see huge swaths of poverty across the nation – that is total hyperbole.

I’d go as far as to say there will be little change at all in the levels of poverty and homelessness over the next five years. You might even see (as happened in New Zealand and more recently Sweden) that some people are incentivised to get back into the economy.

We simply don’t have the cash to keep spending as we are. Welfare is the biggest single bill, and has to take some strain. I’m not saying you have to like it, but at least be realistic about what has to be done.

@3

On the link you provide it makes a few suggestions about ways to stimulate growth such as:

* A new green investment bank that can help move the economy away from over-reliance on finance to generating growth and jobs in a low-carbon economy.

By that do you mean exactly the sort of thing that Chris Huhne has just introduced?

It also suggests ways to make the tax system fairer, things like:

* Closing the £40 billion UK annual tax gap – this is the amount of tax that could be raised by more efficient enforcement and by closing loopholes.
* A Robin Hood tax on financial transactions that could raise £20 billion a year.

Both of which are being done, to some extent, by the government. So what is the point of that link exactly? To support government policy?

No shit sherlock. As if there’s no difference between 80:20 over four years vs 50:50 to halve the deficit over 5. You’re quick these days aren’t you Tim J?

Now now. I’m just pointing out that your website pointing out that ‘there is an alternative’ to the coalition’s economic policy starts off by misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what that policy is, then moves on to accept the underlying basis of the coalition’s actual policy. If all we’re arguing about is what proportion of cuts and tax rises should be used to eliminate the structural deficit, then well and good.

Oh dear? When Mervyn King himself thinks your golden boy Osborne is a twat then perhaps you shouldn’t be using those words for lefties, but the Conservative administration.

Grow up a little please Sunny, there’s a good boy. If the left’s alternative economic policy is really to raise taxes by £45bn over the life of this parliament, I think you need a bit more backing to that than Richard Murphy and the nef.

@ Sunny and other Liberals

this isn’t really on the topic of the article, however reading the comment section I just thought I would post something (I generally don’t post on any websites and this is my first post on LC). I just wanted to say keep up the good work Sunny, don’t let trolls stop you from speaking up. We need vocal people on the web and in real life to stick up for society as a whole.

As a person whose family is in the rich bracket, I have had a very easy life in regard to my working class friends. For example my best friend walks an hour to work and is doing about 10 hour days to support himself and his sister. Where as I had the luxury of only needing to work a part-time job to fund my expenses while doing about 30 hours of voluntary work to help me get back to university on a graduate medicine course. Honestly the cuts are hardly going to touch me but my best mate is going to be hit so hard by them as he was struggling before them.

As a rich person I feel its my responsibility to help as much as I can (obviously my best mate has pride so he doesn’t take any hand outs from me). However I am a realist, I know lots of greedy people in my ‘class’. Trust me they bitch and moan about how higher takes will stop them innovating or hiring but thats a complete lie. My parents have so much money in the bank it would sicken most people, trust me higher taxes on over £100,000 or earnings wont even dent our standard of living.

I think the problem is that my family and other conscientious rich people are so disconnected from the lives of most working people so they don’t really see the pain that people are going through. the rich who actively want to take social support away from people, I have no excuse for them, I just hope the ones that I know aren’t the majority of the rich.

Unfortunately I voted lib-dems last election… didn’t realize the orange bookers would use the chance to ruin the last electable left-wing party. I hope Ed brings his party back to the left, I want to live in a fairer society.

Anyway guys you’re doing a great thing in speaking up for the underprivileged, keep it up.

Well, the post itself is more interesting than the comments. One thing that’s worth remembering about that roll of honour is that almost all direct local government resistance to central government ends in the total defeat of the brave little Labour council in question. And the record was pretty bleak even before the situation was further weighted against local government in the 1980s. Expecting Labour councils to try at that sort of thing is unreasonable and getting angry at them went they don’t is childish.
Of course, just because direct resistance will always end badly does not mean that more passive forms of resistance will. After all, are not the great strongholds of the Labour movement in this country also the great strongholds of passive-aggressive bloody-mindedness?

Good point planeshift – from now on I’m going to delete off-topic comments screaming YOU ZANULIEBORE BASTARDS BANKRUPTED EVERYTHING STOP NOW YOU MUST PAY etc etc under threads which are on other issues.

Sick of regurgitating the same arguments again to people who plainly aren’t interested in engaging, only spamming.

Ahh, dont you just love all these Tory Trolls who still haven’t grasped the concept of counter-cyclical spending more than 70 years after it was invented.

@22 You put forward the same OPs again and again, i.e. Wicked baby-eating Tories grinding the faces of the poor for ideological reasons, cuts are evil, let’s spend our way out of debt.

Same people coming back again and again to tell you what a load of old toss this is = spamming.

Keep your toys in the pram.

“Ahh, dont you just love all these Tory Trolls who still haven’t grasped the concept of counter-cyclical spending more than 70 years after it was invented.”

I don’t think either lot has covered themselves in glory on this particular. Glass houses etc.

Indeed, it’s a shame that Don’s very good post has been overrun by off-topic nonsense, and I’m supportive of Sunny if he decides (and actually has time to) delete irrelevancies. I think comments threads on decent sites like this should where possible should aspire to the ideal of ‘internet-based seminar’ where the moderator is a chair interested in faciliting relevant discussion after an initial opening from the OP author.

But of course I’m off topic and should be deleted……

Two point on Don’s OP:

1) Don is absolutely right that the law has changed and a Liverpool/Lambeth is no longer a realistic option. The Chief Financial Officer (Section 151) officer does have the authority, under sec 114 and following of the Local Govt Finance Act 1988 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/section/114), simply to stop transcation if he feels a council administration is in danger of setting an ‘unlawful’ budget. S/he then calls a Council meeting, during which it is not possible to enter into transactions.

What I think is open to discussion in the public domain (in the ways that Don suggests) is how the sec 114 officer makes a decision about whether a budget is unlawful. I’ve had debates with my own sec 114 officer about this, and will blog about it another time, but in the end whether or not it a budget is unlawful maty boil down to judgments about whether projected incomes will meet expenditure etc etc., and the consequent need to retain specified reserves; clearly most Sec 144 officers are going to verge on the small c conservative, but equally clearly some of that is open to challenge, and the way in which sec 114 officers have been quietly politicised just as much as 1980s officers supportive of Lab council were politicised is open to public scrutiny.

2) When leftie activists call for resignations, they ignore the fact that the cuts agenda is in fact, despite all, only a percentage of a councillor’s overall concerns and workload. To see a councillor as only a council chamber based protoganist is a bit of an insult to many councillors.

The casework/local organiser role has grown massively since the 1980s, and for Lab councillors to resign could, in many case, simply lead to the installation of shit Tories/LibDems who are not interested in the basics of what a councillor does (or vacancies). Of course this is a broad brush statement, but we do still need Lab councillors, esp in deprived areas, willing to work their bollox off for people who would not otherwise have a voice, cuts or no cuts.

OK Tories, lets try and include you in the discussion on strategy and tactics. Imagine the following scenario:

Labour gets elected and introduces a whole new set of statutory responsibilities on local authorities without increasing funding. The only way local authorities can meet this is by raising council tax by 25%. Your grass roots activists are pissed off at this and urge conservative councilors to resign on mass, your councilors tell the activists “we don’t agree with it, but by law we have to increase our council’s responsibilities and fund it via this”. There is a split in your movement. How do you resolve it and build an effective campaign?

“In summary, the activists are Wrong but Romantic, the councillors Right but Repulsive.”

Hah. Well put.

27 – That’s more or less what happened 97-2010 isn’t it? And the result was soaring council tax rates, and not co-incidentally, pretty crushing local election results for Labour. And what Conservative (and Lib Dem) councillors mostly did was take credit for the positive elements of increased spending, while putting the blame for higher taxes on the Government.

Apologies for going off topic earlier – I was responding to SH’s link.

Tim, you’ve pretty much outlined the central dilemma here, councilors implemented the unpopular policy in order to benefit their party over the long run, grass roots activists thus lost on the particular issue. The tension is thus between winning over an issue, or waiting for a party to benefit from the issue’s effect on public opinion.

Whatever your approach might be, you should bear in mind that many Lib Dem councillors will be just as anti-cuts – many of them will still be lefties; many will be hostile to their right-wing leadership, and that you may be able to build a coalition on the ground with local Lib Dems against the national Lib Dem leadership.

We’ve been accused of being lots of different parties in each different part of the country for years; why not make use of that?

“a Liverpool/Lambeth is no longer a realistic option.”

They weren’t even realistic at the time; that was part of the problem.

Good post – well said. I’ve been struggling to articulate something similar. In fact, it’s the same conundrum too for any public sector Chief Executive or a university Vice-Chancellor – how do you manage reaching agreement and then implementing your strategic and budgetary plans, which are your best response to the government-imposed cuts, in the face of vociferous and often disruptive opposition from your staff/students?

I wrote my post (linked above) following the first wave of protests at Lewisham Council but am seeing them first hand at the university in London at which I work. The Vice-Chancellor and the team have to get on with budgeting and planning, many aspects of which need to be done months and even years ahead (eg. prospectus printing), if the university is to remain a going concern for all the many students who benefit from that education.

It would be suicidal for any VC to come out and make unequivocal statements against government policy – instead it is more usual for them to campaign and lobby to influence policy behind the scenes in the usual way – through their lobby groups and meetings with governments ministers and senior civil servants.

““a Liverpool/Lambeth is no longer a realistic option.”

They weren’t even realistic at the time; that was part of the problem.”

So true. Way to make the left look like a bunch of irrelevant idiots.

“A labour council, a labour council” I believe were the words at the time.

Good to see realistic attempts to build bridges and encourage people on the left to effectively oppose the government. Keep it up Sunny.

@22 Sunny

The problem is, you never argue a point. If some actually tries to argue a case against yours or prove you wrong, you revert to shouting some playground political nonsense about evil baby-eating Tories, go off topic and/or threaten to block all “trolls”.

I was under the misapprehension that this site was open to discussion from ALL sides. Or are you going to stifle any dissenting voices?

I also offered to write a critique of the False Economy site – why in real life most of the ideas on there are non-starters. You can then publish it here and make your case. Care to take me up on my offer?

Interestingly devolution has produced the first great clash between regional and central government, with the Welsh Assembly deciding to pay 2/3 of the fees for welsh residents, regardless of where they study. This has seriously pissed off a lot of people in england, and I think will lead to serious pressure within england. But illustrates exactly how I think local authorities should react – use the limited powers they have to do things differently, make sure they consult about their plans widely, and ensure that when a service does get hit – as it inevitably will – local residents are in no uncertain terms who is responsible.

On the activist side, I think there is a need for more careful planning of targets – pressure needs to be brought on labour councils to do the above, but within realistic limits, whilst at the same time ensuring efforts are not wholly targeted at local authorities but at central government.

More strategically speaking it is vital that pressure is placed on all parties to adopt policies that further devolve and de-centralise power, with further powers for local authorities and regional governments to raise revenue, and with fewer statutory powers.