Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
10 February 2011

Lib Dem council chiefs speak out against cuts

88 council chiefs rail against the scale and pace of cuts, as evidence builds that the vulnerable wi

By Samira Shackle

 

In the most significant sign yet of grass-roots discontent with the coalition, 88 Liberal Democrat council chiefs have written to the Times (£) to criticise the scale and pace of cuts.

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A weekly dig into the New Statesman’s archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
I consent to New Statesman Media Group collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with the Privacy Policy

The 17 local authority leaders and 71 local party heads – including the leaders of Newcastle, Milton Keynes and Hull City Councils – warn that services for the most vulnerable will have to be cut. While accepting the need for local councils to play their part in reducing the deficit, they say that spending reductions are too big and being implemented too quickly. They also personally attack the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, for “shak[ing] a stick at councillors” rather than working with them.

Rather than assist the country’s recovery by making public-sector savings in a way that can protect local economies and the front line, the cuts are so structured that they will do the opposite . . .

This front-loading means councils do not have the lead-in time necessary to re-engineer services on a lower-cost base and ease staff cuts without forced, expensive redundancies. Inexplicably, local government is also being denied the opportunity to spread the cost of reorganisation and downsizing over several years – at no cost to central government – which just makes even bigger in-year cuts inevitable.

This intervention is a serious blow to the unity of the coalition, and is particularly significant because the Liberal Democrats are, and have always been, a party of local government. Such an unequivocal statement of discontent shows that loyalty to the leadership is stretched to its very limit.

Indeed, while the localism agenda appears at first glance to be an area of concordance between the two coalition parties, this incident points to a key difference: the Lib Dems favour local government as a means of delivering this, but Cameron’s Conservatives would rather diminish councils in favour of non-state voluntary groups. However, as the outcry in the last week has demonstrated, there is a contradiction inherent in the Tories’ view of this, as much of the funding for the charities they would like to expand comes from grants from local councils.

Meanwhile, an in-depth survey of the largest local authorities (also in the Times) suggests that at least 140,000 council jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts, and that the elderly, mentally ill and disabled will be hit hardest.

Elsewhere, the BBC’s Mark Easton shows that the more deprived an area, the bigger the proportionate cut in its budget:

Every voter in Labour-controlled Hackney [will] lose £210.19 in “spending power” as a result of the cuts (8.8% reduction), while their equivalent in Conservative-controlled East Dorset is losing £2.86 (roughly 2%).

These Lib Dem councillors were right to speak out against this assault on local government; now we must hope that someone in central government is listening.