Last week Brent Labour councillor Frank Hansen argued the case for rate rises as the best realistic way for Labour councils to

Scan page 10

defend jobs and services against central government cuts. Pete Firmin replies, arguing for Labour to mobilise against the government on the basis of 'no cuts, no rent or rate rises' FRANK HANSEN argues that the only 'serious' option for the left on Brent council [and presumably other Labour councils tool is to push for high rate rises to cover no rent rises, no cuts and slight growth. Hansen's main defence is that rates actually redistribute income. This is wrong on two basic counts.

Firstly, the only redistribution of income taking place when rate rises are used to cover Tory central government cuts is from the ratepayers • to central government and the banks -hardly a socialist concept! In addition, it is only half true that rates are progressive tax. While it is true that a significant proportion of rates comes from businesses, within that small shopkeepers are hit harder than large firms, and within the domestic section many lower paid pay proportionally more of their income in rates than do the better-off.

Workers

Rate rises do hit the working class. So what is Hansen's argument for accepting them as a lesser evil? "There is no evidence to suggest that la policy of confrontation] would even get the support of its [the council's] own unions, let alone the public at large'. True, but there is also no evidence to suggest the contrary! In Brent, like most other labour authorities, there has been no attempt in the last three or four years to mobilise a campaign to demand more money from the government | leaving aside deputations of a few councillors), and no attempt to involve council employees and tenants in the discussion of how the Council should fight back.

Rate rises will undermine a fantasy' and so on.

He even knowingly misrepresents the arguments against him, writing : 'the argument that rate inereases and cuts are exactly the same is nonsense' True, but who says they are? . Cuts are a direct attack on jobs and services, an increase in unemployment and social deprivation. Rate increases, as an attack on living standards, are a lesser evil than cuts, but an evil.

Opposing the use of rate increases to offset central government cuts does not mean we are always opposed to labour councils inereasing the rates. No-one on the left, to my knowledge, opposed Clay Cross inereasing the rates in their fight against the Housing Finance Act. The GLC was justified in using rate iner14 21 3 10 18 25 Thursday 11 19 26 Friday 12 13.20 27 •Saturday Sunday fight against cuts eases to bring down London Transport fares [the problem was that these increases were interwoven with those used to offset cuts].

Alternatives

In these circumstances rate rises were used to improve services and in a fight against central government • not as an alternative to such a fight, which is what Hansen is proposing.

Hansen has to argue that a fight is impossible: 'after nearly four years of Tory attacks and numerous betrayals by the Labour leaders, the working class movement is on the defensive' , but seems blind to the fact that despite these massive betrayals large sections of the working class have shown themselves willing to fight back BAN Plastic Bullets: a labour movement delegate conference. Saturday February 26, from 1lam at UMIST, Barnes Wallis Building, Sackville St, Manchester 1. Sponsors include Labour Committee on Ireland. Credentials for labour movement delegates £3 from Plastic Bullets Con-

----- pull-quotes -----

Monday 1 8-15 23 Wednesday 2 17 24