Should Labour councils pass illegal budgets?

By Daniel Blaney

On Saturday 15th January, the Labour Representation Committee (“LRC”) AGM voted, pretty overwhelmingly that:

“Labour councillors should, where they are in control of the council, refuse to draw up or endorse budgets for 2011-12 that implement the draconian cuts demanded by the government” and “work with representatives of community groups, local authority workers and trade unions, trade councils, Labour Party members and other political activists to block council officers or government commissioners from seizing control and implementing the cuts.”

Only one councillor spoke in the LRC debate. Islington councillor Charlynne Pullen explained how Labour has recently taken control of her local authority and, for the first time, budgeted so that all council workers earn the Living Wage. She reminded the conference that if it was a matter of herself and a few other councillors going to prison it would be far easier for the Labour Group to defy the settlement imposed. However the reality is that if Labour don’t pass a legal budget, a designated officer will – with no regard to the Living Wage or any other policy of the local Labour Party and without an accountable approach to protecting (or not) some of the most essential services for the most vulnerable of people.

Essentially a Labour group can only decide whether a final budget of cuts is set by themselves or by a bureaucrat. Not cutting is not an option available. Meanwhile, there is a counter-argument: defying the law and settimg a budget that does not implement cuts. Sure, it’s not a realistic strategy as far as most Labour councillors are concerned. They see the balance of political forces rather differently.

Nevetheless, it is thought-provoking. If there was a collective defiance of Eric Pickles by scores of local authorities (essentially going on budget strike), and their act was vindicated by Labour gains in the local elections, it could force a political crisis on the Tory-led coalition. A cascade of “no-cuts” budget decisions by local authorities across the country could be the most effective resistance to the cuts so far.

However, it’s an all or nothing strategy. If the success of resistance was not immediate the stakes for the most vulnerable people in society are almost too high to contemplate. Should cuts be implemented with care and tears by Labour councillors or implemented without heart by bureaucrats? Its a heavy responsibility for Labour councillors.

Strategies of resistance are matters of tactics not principles. Labour councillors will take painful decisions, and will no doubt make mistakes. But the best alliances against the cuts will be the broadest, and the involvement of Labour councillors, who know the implications of the cuts only too well, is vital. Labour councillors are not the enemy, and the anti-cuts coalition cannot afford to be distracted from its focus on the government by labelling and scapegoating Labour councillors who are in an impossible position.

If a labour movement-based organisation passed a resolution expressing, say “solidarity with those Labour councillors who feel they cannot, in all conscience, vote for a budget that implements Tory cuts”, it would be a thoughtful resolution of solidarity with people who deserve respect. But the left does itself no favours instructing others to follow a particular political strategy, in as yet unchartered waters, and dressing it up as a new political principle.