Do you live in Camden? Are you poor, or not so well-off, maybe? Do you, or members of your family, use council services and facilities like housing, home care, after-school care, play schemes, special-education services, or any of Camden council's social services?

Tough.

The Liberal Democrat-Conservative administration at Camden Council is about to launch the biggest attack on services and jobs that Camden has seen since the early 1980s. Several hundred Unison members turned up to a Camden branch meeting this week to hear about this - the council chamber, where the meeting was held, was packed, as you might expect. The council plans to cut £23m from the council budget in 2007 to 2008. Some 350 jobs are also expected to go.

As usual, the services that vulnerable people need most will be chopped. The council wants to take £3m out of children's services, and close play schemes and cut care services for vulnerable children. So much for the next generation. Some £9.8m in cuts are planned in housing and adult social servics. The council's interpreting and translation service is also in the firing-line, as is the welfare rights team.

Quite why the council wants to take its service-users, housing tenants and unionised staff on in this way isn't terribly clear: after all, this is the council where unions, service users, housing tenants and a wide variety of community groups have worked very successfully over the years to beat back government privatisation initiatives like Arms Length Management of housing stock, and housing stock transfers. The Camden grassroots is quite legendary in activist - and indeed government - circles, precisely because of the talent it has shown for taking privatisation initiatives and shoving them up the relevant authority's arse.

'This [cuts programme] is not necessary, financially,' Camden Unison branch secretary Dave Eggmore told his members through gritted teeth at this week's branch meeting. 'The council got one of the biggest annual settlements of any council in London this year.'

The council also has more than £33m in reserves, and it managed to find up to £750,000 to pay KPMG consultants for the review and report that found that services should be cut. The council also managed to find more than £30m for agency staff last year - £6m of which was paid in agency fees. Why, said branch vice-chair Barry Walden, do councils keep trying to argue that there isn't enough money around to pay for public services and the staff who are trying to provide them? Why is it more important to help pay KPMG's huge bonuses than it is to help the homeless into houses?

'The council keeps telling us that they can do things better and cheaper,' Walden said. 'And how do they know that? KPMG told them. We should refuse to do any work to cover the vacant posts. We have to support members who do this. We may need to take sustained strike action.'

The councillors, said Eggmore, are liars. KPMG's proposals are based on seriously flawed information about payroll costs and the balance between frontline and support services. 'Some of the housing benefits staff were described as back-office staff for the purposes of this report.' Housing benefits officers are not back-office staff, he said - they're the ones who deal with people who need help with their housing benefits. The council is trying to say that they're not needed, because they don't work in the frontline, although they do. 'Its just one way that the council is seeking to mislead you and the public.'

'Camden's financial position doesn't warrant this,' John McDonnell said. 'They got one of the biggest grants from the government this year. They're just doing what the government has done across service after service around the country. This is privatisation [for the sake of privatisation]. We need to work with the branch to expose what's going on.' McDonnell said that there was no point trying to negotiate with the government. 'New Labour sees a willingness to negotiate as a weakness.'