LIVERPOOL
COUNCILLORS than to break the poor campaign of opposition to the Rates Act. BILI HAMILTON looks at the options.
The complete failure leadership to fully back the cause of local government was personified by Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, in his speech at Labour Party ingham advised local councils 'to hang on at all costs until a Labour government is returned at the next General Election'. That would mean three years of the Rate Act, at least, and existing provisions in the Act will allow the Government to force further cuts on every local authority.
This strategy the reverse of the one we need.
The main objective labour councils and trade unions must be front the government and make the Act unworkable.
Tactical questions must be considered within this framework Hilda Kean has reservations about the rates' position, and is right to point to the lack of clear commitment for mass ac tion, in unis postlion. . This would lead to dependence on manocuvie. local council chambers.
is clear that the particular financial situation of Hackney has led councillors local parties consider deficit budgetting.
Greater London Council Inner London Education Authority London Boroughs:
Brent • Camden Greenwich Hackney Haringey Islington Lambeth Lewisham Southwark 1984-85 budget.
of the parliamentary John Cunningham, CunnThere is little chance of uniting the 17 rate-capped authorities on this line.
Ted Knight has argued that the refusal to set "Tory' rate can unite not only rate-capped councils but others faced with cuts in Rate Support Grant and government penalties. One problem nenes that this can appear to be a figh around the council right to raise the rate — a policy which can be used to hit the local communities.
Sliding over this problem is an attempt to unite those who want fight the Tories those who don't.
In reality, the emphasis must De placed on the budget-making process, campaigning on budget to meet the needs of the community. If this is not done, weaker local the list of councils selected for rate-capping in 1935.
Merseyside Sheffield This list was arrived at by picking out councils which in 1984-85 are budgeting to spend more than 20% above GRE and more than 4% above their targets. The councils listed have been given expenditure levels for 1985-1996. Fifteen of the eighteen are allowed to spend no more in cash terms than the amount pre vided for in their 1984-85 budgets: the Greater London Council, Inner London Education Authority, and Greenwich are deemed to be worse offende and have been set a level requiring a cut of 1.5% in cash terms below their authorities break and negotiate deals rallKs with Jenkin.
This campaign to defend government will after the miners' strike, be the single most important struggle with this Local councils must Take the lead defending the tracking class, from this attack Labour presents a united TUlL Tories will find it impossi- On this issue, the Able to carry through their plans.
Reaction
Councils must state categorically that they will make no cuts in jobs or services, will refuse recognise the Rate Act, will campaign in the unions CoCa and the community for a budget based on this posi tion. It will be necessary to For sondarily any council which Jenkin tries to pick off.
Tactics must remain flexible, bull thing must be paramount. Never again must working class communities be forced to bear the burden of Labour Council's refusal to face to Tory attacks. there is no solution which remains within the law.
They are:
Metropolitan counties South Yorkshire Metropolitan district:
Non-Metropolitan districts: Basildon (Essex)
Leicester (Leicestershire) Portsmouth (Hampshire) Thamesdown (Wiltshire
----- pull-quotes -----
IN THE PAST two issues of Socialist Action Ted Knight and Hilda Kean have debated tactics for the
The councils rate-capped for 1985-86 On 24 July Patrick Jenkin, secretary of state for the environment, announced