[Islington's labour Group and Local Government Committee in…]

Scan page 7

Islington's labour Group and Local Government Committee in session: debating how to fight Tories Socialists should fight to movement, in the communmobilise for defiance both of ity, and in other local workimposed by the government tenants' associations. Islingand of the indirect cuts in ton's current campaign could services imposed by the gov- be a useful start on this. ernment through rate rises. What it needs to strengthen LONDON ASSEMBLY: the House, Euston Rd, London will take place on Saturday London Council and other Labour council groups and Labour parties are debating plans for 1983-4: hor to respond not. We have found that we our essential argument across much better by not appearing to be abstract dogmatists).

Since our July victory, on the one hand the campaign has gone ahead - with various delays and obstructions - and on the other there has been something of a backlash against the no rate rise implications.

Labour Party members have been campaigning door to door with letters demanding the Tories give Islington more money, and doing it enthusiastically and with success. Some work - not enough - has been done in the council unions.

But most Labour activists understand the campaign's aim not as actually getting the money from the Tories, but as showing the people of Islington that we have tried to get the money, and that rate rises are the Tories fault, not Labour's. Even among Labour activists who would vote with us on rate rises, there has been little confidence about a showdown with the government. There is a self-confirming pessimism.

At the last LGC-Labour group meeting, in December, a 'no rate rise resolution was heavily defeated and a resolution was carried opposing over 25%, and also rejectins cuts, opposing any rate rise a deficit budget. This latter policy is arithmetically impossible: according to current estimates, Islington will need a 43% rate rise (f4 per week for the average domestic ratepayer) just to stand still.

On a cold calculation, the most probable outcome is that after some massaging the figures a budget proposal will come up offering no cuts and a 30-odd per cent rate rise, and its supporters will be able to convince the Labour Parties that this is after all not much over 25%.

Returned

In London, at least, many of the activists who last year were saying "no more rate rises' have_ now returned to back rate rises. There is a feeling that new Labour councils like Islington must have 'more time' (though what they're supposed to do in that time that will improve their prospects for defiance, is not clear).

. If we're in a minority, it all we can do is make a propaganda stand against rate rises, then we should make a stand - patiently explaining our case, without bluster, pointless self-isolation, or declamatory poses, but withOn Fridays at 8pm Channel Four is showing a six-part TV series on the Spanish Civil War. out sinking into the mush of "do better next time' leftism.

However, it had previously been agreed that the deciSIVE LGC-Labour group meeting would not be the December one but February. motion was in a view a the no rate rise mOLOn was in our vew a particularly badly worded one. So the policy of defying Tories is by no means lost.

It all depends on our ability to convince. The problem can be put like this: if the counci goes for detiance, the result wil be just that it has no money to pay its workers. So the council collapses and the workers are alienated. What is gained?

There is no answer to this problem within the sphere of council action as such. A council has very limited noware to An anuthino Sor- purvis u uv any mung. wuv ialists should obviously use those limited powers, such as they are: but for a policy of direct defiance of the government, the council can serve only as a platform.

If we ask 'what should the council do' • we pose the question askew. The question is, what should socialists do in the labour movement, including on the rounril?

the cuts in jobs and services second London Assembly January 29 1983, from 10 am to 1.30pm at Friends We should propose alternatives which point in a socialist direction: nationalisation without compensation of the banks and financial institutions, millions for public services not war.

As part of that we argue for the counci to formulate an unbalanced budget - on the one side, minimal necessary expenditure, on the other, a żero rate rise. On tne expenditure side we should be as conservative as possible: it would be tempting to throw in the whole manifesto and many other desirable things, but the point is to convince people that defiance is a bitter necessity rather than a whim of utopian enthusiasts.

On the income side, the figures should be published showing that a 5% or 6% rate lises wowu not valalice ut anna renald not halanaa tha budget. Figures should also be published showing what cuts would be necessary to balance the budget with a zero rate rise.

This is not just an alternative administrative decision for the council. The policy must be fought for by us,' and also, we should argue, by the whole Labour group - in the local labou in tha laon1 lahoma class organisations like NW1. Called by the Greater groups to 'bring Londoners together to discuss how we it is, I think:

a) - if we can get it - a firm call from the council and the Labour Parties for no rate rises, b) talk of direct action to back up defiance, • c) more effort directed to the council unions. (A precondition for this to be effective is that the council should be seen to back the council unions on issues like the current pay claim. Islington should fight publicly and vocally for Labour councils to make a collective break from the Tory-dominated negotiating machinery and negotiate separately, granting the unions' claim of about 8 per cent).

As the culmination of this fight, a local labour movement conference should be called (involving tenants' associations and community groups as well as orthodox Labour/trade union organisations: indeed Labour should fight for new tenants associations to be formed); and the Labour group should bind itselt to follow its decisions.

It is, of course, not certain that such a conference would vote for our policy. For example: the council unions know very well that whatever happens the council will not go for job cuts next year. Yet they will have to be in the forefront of any defiance of the government.

To vote for our policy can defend, extend and improve our services' '. Organisations are invited to nominate up to two representatives.

NICARAGUA: exhibition of they will have to vote to take the risks of struggle, not on immediate trade union interests, but for the sake of the immediate interests of the ratepayers and the more long-term interests of themselves (and others).

We must certainly argue for a policy of defiance -otherwise we abandon the basic principle of a class, not purely sectional, outlook -and we can base ourselves on the fact that many council workers are Islington rate. payers, and all of them face the effects of Tory local government cuts, whichever borough they live in: but success is not certain.

What should we do if a different policy is carried? It depends. If one section whether council tenants, or council workers - is willing to fight, but has been voted down by the rest, then I think it is the duty of socialists to side with the fighting minority, even at the cost of having to resign official positions.

If there is a majority decision which implies a direct attack on such a section, then socialists would not be able to act as representatives of the majority.

But if the local labour movement simply decided that it wanted to duck a fight this year and raise rates instead, then that would be wrong, but not a decision as to make that labour movetrades council policies. At Architectural Association, 10 Percy St, London W1: details 602 6734.

Hand-printed silk-screened T-shirts: • Socialist Organiser: paper masthead with option of local group's name added at 20p per T-shirt extra. • Solidarnose logo, red on white. • Labour against the witch• Red star on white background.

£2.50 each except SO T-shirts, £3. Postage 50p. T shirts come in white or yellow, please state preference. Also individual designs undertaken, cost £6, must have details of design and idea. Allow 14 days for delivery. Send orders to Kevin Glover, 19 Ranton Way, Leicester. ment one in which socialists could not accept mandates. (Our own views on rate rises would have been expressed loudly to the whole local working class in the conference and in the run-up to it).

It is more important, though, to work out what wè can do if a defiant fighting policy is carried. What happens next after the council takes a decision for defiance?

a) The officers could refuse to draw up the unbaianced. budget, and make their own budget decisions. Legally they can do this.

b) The district auditor (a government official) could order an extraordinary audit and bring a legal action to get the councilors surcharged and disqualified. If he did this the officers would take over while new elections were held. It is no longer legally possible for the government to send in commissioners.

c) The banks could refuse to lend money to the council. Because councils' rate income is bunched at the beginning and end of the year, while expenditure is evenly spread, councils depend heavily on credit for day to day finance. Apparetly the GLC and Lambeth have already faced short-lived credit collapses.

c) Then the council would be unable to meet current expenditure - of which the biggest item is wages.

Theoretically it is possible that the officers, the govertiment, and the, banks could all hold off and wait until the council ran out of money for wages. If so, then when that point nears the council should stop paying debt charges (which are about 30% of current spending). That could only preserve the possibility of paying wages for a week or so -but it could ensure that the crunch is council vs. banks, not council vs. workers.

In practice it is almost certain that the officers would intervene at the start. What then? The council and the Labour Parties should call on trade unionists, tenants, and householders to stick by the elected council, not unelected officials - to refuse implement cuts, and to refuse to pay rates or rent. Such refusal would have to escalate quickly into strike action by the counci workers.

Much the same conclusion would be reached if the crunch comes different way. Then struggle decides.

Obviously and especially in view of the industrial weakness of the labour movement Islington, where we have 26.5% unemployment - support must be sought outside Islington. After a successful local conference the next step should be a national conference such as called in 1981 by Lambeth.

The hard fact is, though, that no defiance of the Tories will happen in 1983 unless Islington takes a lead without any guarantee of others following. Also, the strength that even one local authority can mobilise should not be underestimated. Clay Cross did get the Housing Finance Act wiped off the statute book. When the Labour council in Lambeth - a borough scarcely more industrial than Islington, and much less solidly working class and Labour -showed signs of defying the Tories and called protests. there was a big response.

The Tories are not invincible!