HOME | IMC UK | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

Liverpool Indymedia

Labour Left Back Down on Cuts in Preston

River | 05.01.2011 22:09 | Other Press | Public sector cuts | Workers' Movements | Liverpool | World

5 Preston Labour councillors, who voted for a motion against cuts and privatisation at the Preston Trades Council and at Anti Cuts meetings spoke and voted against the same motion when it was put to full council

Preston Councillor Michael Lavalette has told the story of how 5 Labour councillors voted one way on an anti cuts motion proposed at Trades Council and Anti-Cuts meetings, and another way in the council chamber when the anti-cuts motion that they had originally backed was actually proposed.

His article is in the current issue of 'Socialist Worker' and is reposted in full below:



"How should councillors oppose the cuts onslaught?
by Michael Lavalette



At a recent full council meeting in Preston I proposed a motion that the council should commit itself to a policy of no cuts, no job losses and no privatisation of services.

The motion was widely discussed locally and got the unanimous support of Preston Trades Council and Preston Against the Cuts.
These are broad based forums where people from across the left come together and work against the cuts.
Five local Labour councillors voted for the motion at these meetings.


Yet, when it came to the council meeting, not a single Labour councillor voted for the motion.

Many in the public gallery were shocked that Labour councillors who had spoken in favour of the motion at public anti-cuts meetings, now spoke and voted against the motion.

Labour councillors proposed an amendment arguing for voluntary redundancies and “natural wastage”, with compulsory redundancies as a last resort.
It argued that while Labour councillors were opposed to cuts, privatisation and outsourcing, they would be prepared to make those decisions if necessary.

Both the Tories and the Lib Dems voted for Labour’s amendment.

Between now and April councils across the country are going to set their budgets for next year.

These will involve pushing through massive job losses and fundamental changes to local service provision and delivery.

Anti-cuts groups should target these council meetings in the same way that campaigners against the poll tax protested against similar meetings.

But the meetings are likely to throw up questions about the role of local councillors—particularly the role of Labour ones.

The Labour Party holds all sorts of contradictions.

On the one hand it has a continuing connection with the trade union movement, both nationally and locally.

It portrays itself as, and is often seen as, the party of the working class.

Given the scale of the attacks, it is not surprising that the party is experiencing a growth in membership.

These new members are joining because they are against the cuts and we have to work alongside them in non-sectarian ways.

On the other hand though, the Labour Party has always portrayed itself as a responsible party of government, putting the interests of the nation first.

In reality this means that the interests of the powerful—the banks and the captains of industry—will be prioritised at the expense of the interests of ordinary working people.

At local government level, however, these contradictions don’t always work themselves out in predictable ways. Local councillors are closer to the communities they represent.
There are historical examples where Labour councillors have been pushed by local campaigns to challenge cuts.

The most famous was the case of the London Poplar councillors.

In the 1919 local government elections Labour won 39 of the 42 available seats in Poplar.

Council leader George Lansbury famously said, “Labour councils must be different from those that they displace, or why displace them?”
He and his councillors set about establishing and protecting local services, and paid for them by refusing to pay precepts (general rates) to London-wide services like the police and utilities.
They said that better off boroughs should pay for these services—because the rich in areas like Westminster and Chelsea paid proportionately less tax for better services than people in poorer boroughs.

The result was that 30 councillors were jailed for six weeks.
But their sacrifice was part of a successful and militant campaign that united local communities, trade unionists and activists in defence of jobs and services.

It offered a glimpse of what a principled and determined campaign against cuts can look like.

Yet rather than celebrate Lansbury’s victory, the Labour Party denounced him.

London Labour leader Herbert Morrison denounced the action as “unconstitutional” and made two claims that still ring true within Labour circles today.

First he said that the best way to fight the cuts was “to educate people to vote Labour”.

And he claimed that Labour at local government level had to show that they could run services smoothly and efficiently—proving that they are fit to govern.

It was the same thinking that led Neil Kinnock to denounce poll tax protesters as “toytown revolutionaries” in the late 1980s.

He called for a “dented shield” policy, arguing that Labour would administer cuts and outsourcing, but more humanely than the Tories!

Rather than the Lansbury tradition, it was the Morrison and Kinnock tradition that dominated the actions of Preston’s Labour councillors.

And it is this tradition that is likely to dominate the actions of Labour councillors over the next few months in council meetings across the country.

While we stand and fight alongside our Labour Party colleagues in anti-cuts groups, we have to be clear: a cut implemented by a Labour council is just as painful as one implemented by a Tory or a Lib Dem council.

We will support every Labour councillor who takes a stand against cuts and job losses.

But we must retain the right to act independently against any council and any authority that implements the cuts."



River
- Homepage: http://riversstream.blogspot.com/2011/01/lavalette-and-5-labour-fainthearts.html

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

[navigation.actions2016]

[navigation.actions2015]

[navigation.actions2014]

NATO 2014

Actions 2013

G8 2013

Actions 2012

Workfare

Actions 2011

2011 Census Resistance
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Occupy Everywhere

Actions 2010

Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands

Actions 2009

COP15 Climate Summit 2009
G20 London Summit
Guantánamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
University Occupations for Gaza

Actions 2008

2008 Days Of Action For Autonomous Spaces
Campaign against Carmel-Agrexco
Climate Camp 2008
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Smash EDO
Stop Sequani Animal Testing
Stop the BNP's Red White and Blue festival

Actions 2007

Climate Camp 2007
DSEi 2007
G8 Germany 2007
Mayday 2007
No Border Camp 2007

Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
Faslane
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
SOCPA
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech

Publish Your News


Temporary Scroogle search

-->