“- no restrictions on care to be provided to our oldest and most vulnerable of residents,”

But how do they define “most vulnerable”? Are they doing what many councils are doing and shafting people who are less severely impaired but still have very real assistance needs?

So “front line” services can be preserved while savings found?

Excellent.

Hi Lisa,

Good point, and reinforces the cases for higher council tax to provide social care for people who currently miss out on what they need because of ever tighter eligibility criteria.

Chomsky talks about “official” vs “operative” policies of elites. The “official” policy of Jules Pipe is that there has been no cuts. We will see the realities of the “Operative” policies in the coming years.

But there is no point sinling out any parties. The Labour Party blame the Tories for cutting funding to local councils; the Tories blame Labour for running up a deficit; and the Liberal Democrats blame the government despite the fact that their party is propping it up. Unusually for politicians, they are all right.

There’s a full report from the gallery of Hackney Council here – http://politicaldynamite.com/2011/03/hackney-votes-for-cuts-a-sketch-from-the-gallery/

Hi Jasper,

You agree with the Tories about Labour “running up a deficit” while also quoting Chomsky? And think that Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are all the same, while protesting against the Tory/Lib Dem decision to reduce massively the funding which Labour governments allocated to Hackney?

Not a very compelling analysis.

“………in order to help protect our communities when this bunch of sub-Thatcherite extremists took over.”

Are we talking about 1997 or 2010 though?

Don, what did hackney cut, as reading some prominent tweeters last night the verdict was quite damming of counselors both during and after meeting.

My understanding of why Hackney has not raised council tax is that it is one of the highest in London so poor people in the borough are already paying more than they would elsewhere. On top of that, the amounts raised sound like a lot of money to you and me but are relatively little in the context of the cuts and costs of running the services.

“Labour councils are still boasting about having taken the “tough decision” to freeze the council tax. I think most councillors are doing their best now in desperately tough times, but a really tough and correct decision would have been to raise council tax while Labour was in power, in order to help protect our communities when this bunch of sub-Thatcherite extremists took over.”

When the decision was made to freeze Council tax Councillors had no way of knowing that the cuts would be implemented in 2011/12. Councillors obviously thought at the time that adequate services could be provided whilst freezing ouncil tax. It would have been ridiculous to increase council tax just in case a future Government might reduce the Central Govt grant and impose a Council tax cap.

i only wish my Labour run council had frozen Council tax over the same period.

UKcuts – you can see the budget here, I’m not quite sure what precisely protesters were protesting about (apart from the general principle of making cuts).

Matthew – take the point, but you can provide a lot of services for £3 million, and even £90,000 in extra council tax freeze grant could provide a range of playschemes across the borough in areas where there’s not much for children to do during the school holidays or mean that some people with long term health conditions get the help they need – might not be much on a “macro”, big picture level, but a pretty big deal to the people affected.

Fungus – I reckon decision-makers in Hackney could have predicted in 2006 that there would come a time when central government would stop giving them very generous grant settlements and that it was worth preparing early.

Sorry, Hackney budget at http://mginternet.hackney.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=8798#mgDocuments

Yes, Don, they’ve certainly cut right down to the bone.

When the former Chief Executive resigned a couple of years back, she only got a little over £300k in redundancy payments.

Squeeze a few more quid council tax out of the trendy young professionals in the borough and you’ll be able to give the next one a proper send off.

Make the pips squeak!!!!!

Labour’s lack of regulation of the city and failure to tax corporations properly DID cause the deficit!

The point is that the Tories and Lib Dems were totally complicit.

And that is why people are baying for something different

Hi Jasper – fair enough, thought you were agreeing with the Tory criticisms of Labour’s economic policy!

“There is an irony in watching protesters who say all political parties are just the same with one breath, while with the next protesting against the Tory/Lib Dem decision to end Labour’s policy of giving more money to the most deprived areas.”

Infuriating, isn’t it?

‘Bloody New Labour – never did a single thing to help ordinary people! And these bastards are just the same, what with cutting Tax Credits, the Child Trust Fund, Sure Start, the EMA, Building Schools for the Future…’

Good post, Don. As we’ve discussed before, I am of the opinion that councillors should not vote through these budgets largely for the reasons outlined in previous LibCon articles.

I was in the public gallery last night at Hackney (I suspect I may be one of the tweeters to which UKCuts refers).

My feeling is that there were definitely councillors who genuinely believed they were making the right decision by voting through the budget. Some seemed anxious, some genuinely weary.

The protesters were accusing councillors of being Tories last night not because they failed to see a difference in policy, but because there is something very galling about watching Labour councillors deride cuts as unethical and ideological and then vote them through anyway. That’s what protesters were angry about: the consequences were still the same, regardless of the party in power.

As the protesters became more irate, some councillors (particularly Luke Akehurst and Luisa Thompson) began goading them and jeering. Several of the councillors began applauding the budget announcement and eventually cheered as the budget was passed.

I’m sure most councillors there hated having to administer these cuts. Six of them voted against the budget, in fact. But to sit there and watch Labour councillors apparently delight a programme of £44m cuts is a very unpleasant experience to say the least, regardless of whether that applause was borne of indignation or not.

I also don’t think Hackney Council should be too pleased with itself with regards to saving frontline services either. At least 20% of the population of Hackney work in the public sector. To try and ignore the fact that these cuts will result in hundreds of job losses for local residents is very disingenuous indeed.

I don’t envy the Labour councillors. It must have been hard, I would imagine any triumph would have been due to managing to set any budget at all.

Don, I agree about small incremental council tax increases. I assume you mean above RPI? It’s about making hay while the sun shines, and it’s not hard on any particular group.

My council inherited a precept frozen for years, the public had got used to it and were up in arms when it had to be hiked because the reserves had been squandered. It was a case of stupidity that will not be repeated!

Ellie Mae

“there is something very galling about watching Labour councillors deride cuts as unethical and ideological and then vote them through anyway.”

But it’s the cuts made *to local government funding* that are being derided as unethical and ideological. And the question of councillors voting those cuts through or not voting them through just doesn’t arise; they’ve been made by the national Government, and that’s it.

Of course, the reason those cuts are regarded as unethical and ideological is that they mean councils have, in turn, to cut spending on local services. But that doesn’t mean councillors making such cuts are being unethical, or acting in line with Tory ideology – any more than I am if I cut spending on clothes for my kids in response to an unethical, ideological Tory cut to my tax credits.

We need to put the blame where it belongs here. Councils are the *victims* of these cuts, just as much as housing benefit claimants or schools or police forces are. It’s no use blaming people or organisations with less money to spend for spending less money.

I doubt if many local authorities are expecting to be thanked for the cuts, sorry,I meant savings when they are on such scale?

But given the size of Britain’s debt – put at a staggering £4 trillion when hidden liabilities are accounted for
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britainrsquos-debt-the-untold-story-2025979.html

But shouldn’t somebody have noticed that we had hit a financial iceberg some time ago – even allowing for the banker’s largesse?

By invoking the cuts required by Citizen Dave, the people’s toff, Hackney councillors have threatened the future jobs of up to 20% of the local population. I think the annual report will probably argue “Could have done better”.

a&e

“the size of Britain’s debt – put at a staggering £4 trillion when hidden liabilities are accounted for”

The description of those liabilities as ‘debt’ is a bit of a stretch – the biggest liability identified is pensions we’ll one day have to pay. You might as well say I’m £100,000 in debt because that’s the amount I’m going to have to spend on food over the rest of my lifetime.

(I think the central point is probably fair enough though – that future generations are going to end up picking up the bill for our pensions etc because we’re not paying enough tax ourselves.)

Okay, I think I’ve finally been convinced.

http://danieljfrost.blogspot.com/2011/03/council-cuts-dilemma.html

I just don’t think setting illegal budgets is an option =/

@16

Yes Ellie, you were one of those I was referring to.

We’ve discussed in articles by Paul & Don why they had to pass something, otherwise central gov would make cuts without looking at the impact locally – simply going off spreadsheets.

I know we disagree Ellie, but I just dont see the sums banded about by Richard Murphy coming anywhere close to saving cuts being needed. Most figures wouldnt even make a dent.

Cuts are needed sadly, it’s just this government has set themselves a goal of 5 years so if the achieve it they can all give each other high fives and brag as part of the next election campaign. Yawn

Since the gov announced council settlements last year, there has been no ant-cuts interest. Infact some councils have been openly planning to cuts services since the emergency budget!

Everyone knew it was coming, but did FA until a local meeting was taking place. The fights were being staged in the wrong place; the hight street. Now staff are lost (many serving notice, and gone by April), and services cut making it too late to reverse without huge financial costs – which wont happen.

As someone (was it Don or Paul?) said. The fight for 2011/12 budgets is over, and WE LOST. The fight now is to stop even worse (as many councils have already warned) in 2012/13 budgets!

Good article Daniel – spot on!

But of course how many in the council will be affected by the cuts, in my area it’s the disabled the sick who are talking the brunt as the labour council shuts respite centers, it took us years to get them, Dial a ride has gone, and of course the Community centers set up for meeting places for the disabled all to close.

But do not worry the £17,000 used to sponsor the golf course is to stay because well the chairman and his colleagues are now on the committee to ensure the poor to do not get into the course or play golf, it was to be for the locals but we knew different.

labour Tory, Tory labour, it the people at the bottom who will get hit while the council gets to keep it’s golf.

@10

“I reckon decision-makers in Hackney could have predicted in 2006 that there would come a time when central government would stop giving them very generous grant settlements and that it was worth preparing early”

I totally disagree with this. Firstly Councillors would have assumed that if in the future central government cut funding they would be able to increase Council tax at that time. Of course the Council tax cap has removed this possibility.

Also to increase council tax for families to build up their reserves in case of pressures in future would have been totally irresponsible assuming their current reserves are adequate. I can’t imagine the electorate being to happy about having increased taxes imposed on them ‘just in case’.

@ukcut, @misselliemae

I take some issue with Miss Ellie Mae’s reporting of what the “people” in the crowd felt or were thinking.

First of all, I would like to congratulate all those who have done the Condems’ work for them. A cut of £44m was imposed by them, not Hackney council. Like councillors and other members of Hackney’s communities, you should be targeting your ire at Eric Pickles. Despite the decimation of government grant to poorer areas like Hackney, Jules Pipe and the councillors have worked hard to make sure NO front line services are cut, and the hit in job losses affects senior managers rather than ordinary working people. One would have thought this would have been welcomed. Silly me.

The fact you were offended when councillors clapped speeches they agreed with kind of demonstrates that you don’t participate in local democracy, which is a shame because these discussions take place every week, not just when there is a budget to be set. It would be great to have more involvement throughout the year in discussions, which any member of the public can do through scrutiny or full council.

Whilst there are arguments for and against whether there should have been an increase in council tax previously, surely its worth remembering that whilst cuts were anticipated with this Condem government, nobody anticipated cuts of £44m. Any increase in council tax would not have covered that.

Overall the tweeting/reporting was no more balanced than the daily mail. I’m sure the Conservative PR team will be in touch with you to thank you for doing all their work for them. You should expect a christmas card from Eric Pickles.

20 Tacitus

“By invoking the cuts required by Citizen Dave, the people’s toff, Hackney councillors have threatened the future jobs of up to 20% of the local population. I think the annual report will probably argue “Could have done better”.”

How, out of interest?

I don’t think we can be too angry with the Hackney councillors – they could only play the hand they have been dealt.

What I don’t get is why somebody, somewhere, failed to point out a while back that cuts would be severe if debt, interest payments and so on spiraled out of control in the way that they have?

Maybe they did – but nobody was listening – judging by the behaviour of individuals it seems that debt-culture is endemic?
http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2010/05/05/personal-debt-rises-again-now-at-1-460-billion/

@29

I think the answer is that no one was listening. Too many people, and especially politicians of all parties think about the present rather than the future. There have been very few years since WW2 that we have run a balanced budget. Politicians need to make more and more promises to voters to get elected. Why worry about the pensions time bomb if its going to happen 20, 30 years down the line when they are no longer in office?

I think what became clear to me, following the Hackney meeting on twitter, and then attending my own Tory council budget cuts meeting is the emphasis which councillors place on setting ‘legal’ budgets. To me this essentially shows that local councils do not exist to represent the people who elect them, but to act as local managers for central government.

They are powerless to do things simply because the are in the interests of the people who elected them, and they have to comply with central government policy no matter what party or parties are in power at a local or national level. It’s obvious that local councils are the opposite of localism and are merely just an extension of central government.

I think that this is part of the issue which we see from some councils not wanting people to take in cameras or phones and being generally twitchy or outright abusive (I’m looking at you Luke Akehurst) towards what amounts to their core voters.

What has really shocked me is that councillors seem happy that this is the case, they accept the constraints placed on them which effectively deny them from representing their constituents, I’ve seen numerous people argue that councils should set ‘legal’ budgets, but no-one calling for the law on council budgets to be changed so that local councillors can do their job properly.