Why councillors should fight the cuts

What should Labour councils do in the face of government demands to cut?

This is an important issue for our movement to debate, as the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) did openly and frankly at its conference Resist the Cuts, Rebuild the Party two weeks ago.

Delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution which stated unequivocally: "Labour councillors have a clear political duty to resist these unprecedented attacks on working people.

They cannot allow themselves to become the local agents of this anti-working class coalition government."

The resolution also called for councillors to "work with representatives of community groups, local authority workers and trade unions, trades councils, Labour Party members and other political activists" so that "a national movement can be forged to defeat and bring down the coalition government."

It is important to explain what motivated the 300-plus activist Labour members and trade unionists to vote so overwhelmingly, but first we must clear up the consequences for councillors, as it is relevant to the debate.

There is some confusion across the left - as highlighted by the Morning Star's own Industrial Spotlight column this week - about what the legal context is for councillors refusing to implement cuts.

Far from councillors having to be "revolutionaries who are prepared to go to prison for their stand," councillors refusing to make cuts today are not faced with prison, or even surcharging, as the rules have changed since the stand made by some councils in the 1980s.

Today councillors refusing to set a balanced budget would first be warned by officers that they could not do this and if they persisted would be replaced by government commissioners.

During a debate on how Labour councils and councillors should act, LRC member and Islington councillor Charlynne Pullen set out why she would vote for cuts.

While there was some heckling she was perfectly audible throughout, and she was politely applauded when she had finished her speech.

Her defence of her position was honest and brave - no other councillor spoke in the debate - but as the conference overwhelmingly decided, her message was wrong.

Let's be clear.

Labour councils are being put in an invidious position by the government.

The government wants councils to act as their bailiffs, carrying out part of their attack on welfare provision.

Without doubt this is not what most Labour councillors wanted to do when they stood for election.

Many councillors believe they can mitigate the effects of the government's attacks but the scale of the attack makes this impossible.

With the best will in the world, councils carrying through the cuts are having to cut front-line services.

But there is an even more compelling argument for Labour councils to refuse to do the government's dirty work, and that is that doing so brings them into conflict with both trade unionists and users of the services.

It is not only that these councils will be seen by many as making the cuts, without the subtle distinction that they are being forced to by the government.

We may well see the occupation of libraries, day centres etc. against their closure. Where do councils and the councillors stand then? Do they call on the police and courts to evict the occupiers?

And trade unions locally, regionally and nationally will inevitably be taking industrial action against attacks on the terms, conditions and jobs of their members in local government.

Other trade unionists will support them. Will councillors urge the breaking of those strikes so that they can continue to carry out the cuts?

Yes, councillors should protest at the decisions the government is forcing them to make - although too little has been seen of that to date - and yes, we need to build a mass movement against the cuts both among workers in and users of services.

But councillors could contribute massively to such a movement - they are after all the elected leaders of their communities - if they refused to do the government's bidding instead of putting themselves in the position of shielding the government by doing its dirty work.

If we are to defeat this government we need our movement united in opposing the cuts, not hamstrung by feeling that they are obliged to administer them.

Pete Firmin and Andrew Fisher are joint secretaries of the Labour Representation Committee.