Index

Paper presented in about November 1986.

Rosamund Stock of Chingford CLP on 62%

Rate Increases resulting from Policy Review: The Case for Restraint. At the LGC conference on November 15th, we considered the priorities for policy review. Some of us thought that the conference was to consider the priorities for spending within the financial constraints imposed upon us by the government. In fact it did nothing of the kind: we spent a long and uncomfortable day shifting specific items in and out of categories,mostly into category B (major commitments), and nearly all of these changes represented increases in spending. At no point during these discussions was any reference made to the overall effect of these changes nor to the overall level which even the original proposals would have produced. It seems a strange way to set priorities to lump everything into one category. Items were promoted to category B on the grounds that they fitted the definition rather than because we though we could afford to do them or that this was an appropriate time, of all times, to be increasing the council's expenditure. Implicit in the cheerful way in which we agreed to place numerous items in category B was the assumption that we can, in fact, afford to spend fairly freely. I challenge this assumption. It has never been debated nor agreed upon in principle and before we go any further we must consider the central issues that lie behind our financial policy. The failure of the conference to come to any clear conclusions about the priorities for policy review is a direct consequence of its failure to think about the final result that was desired. What exactly do we want to end up with? There are two questions to be answered; Firstly, for it is the determinant of the second, what level of rate increase are we prepared to tolerate? Secondly, what is to be the main thrust of this council's policy? In a sense, "for what do we wish to be remembered?" It is simply not good enough to agree to a set of spending proposals which will send us all home feeling very virtuous in having performed our socialist duty and then squeal about a large rate increase when it suddenly becomes obvious that a storm is brewing. The only thing we can guarantee about this whole business is that there will be a stink in the local press which will make the fuss over the community programme look puny in comparison. Our beloved local newspaper, not to mention the Liberals, are going to have a field day. We are in the unenviable position of inheriting four years of Tory neglect, in which most of the council's reserves have been used up in keeping the rates down and the services have been left to fall apart. As a result rates would have had to rise this year by 23% just to avoid cuts, just to keep going. The decisions taken in committee so far have taken this rate rise to 38%. At the last conference we agreed a category of manifesto commitments which, if we implemented the lot, would take that rise to 55%. The inclusion of the next (C1) category would only bring the total to 58%. This suggests that we should have been thinking about expenditure levels as soon as we took power and that we have a ridiculously overloaded category B. I don't think any of the borough's residents are actually going to thank us for putting up the rates but most people acknowledge that there is a need for improvement, and also realise that this means higher rates. Presumably most people were aware of this when they voted Labour. Moreover there is evidence from national opinion polls that people are willing to pay more for better services, and I don't suppose anybody thought there was likely to be anything but a hefty rate rise once Labour was in power. I would suggest, however, that their tolerance is likely to be limited. Up to a certain point a rate increase will meet with grudging assent. This will turn very rapidly into angry repudiation once the level of increase slides over 40%, the precise point can only be guessed at and will depend on a particular person's outlook but 1 would suspect that once the increase is nudging 50% we will have very little credit left. It does not take a genius to work out that the higher the level of increase the more people we are going to alienate, and that alienation may well take the form of voting against Labour at the first possible opportunity, most probably next year's general election. The arguments in favour of increased spending were all sufficiently aired at the last conference. The arguments in favour of restraint fall into roughly two halves: 1) There is a very high probability that there will be a general election next year, and 2) Unless we get a change in government we will be rate capped next year. The problem lies not only in the fact there will probably be an election but that this election is crucial. The enormity of the situation facing us cannot be overstated. This country is very nearly in ruins and it is difficult to know which would be worse: a further term of Thatcherism or the sort of undignified haggling that characterised, for example, the last administration in this borough which would result from a coalition. A coalition would not work because their is no consensus upon which to base it and it would probably turn out to be even more spiteful than the Tories because it would be working from a position of weakness. But further Conservative rule would see the end of the NHS and most of the welfare state, and, as the economic situation worsened, almost certainly punitive benefit cuts. It would also bankrupt what is left of local government. It is difficult to put into words the appalling plight in which we find ourselves. We cannot afford to lose the next election. The existence of a third party has confused the electoral issue, even while the political map remains essentially two party. We cannot be sure of anything, not even Waltham Forest. We may have won last May, but we did not win by a large margin, a few percent the other way and we could been five seats short of a majority. It was a good result but far from brilliant. Moreover the area itself has been changing rapidly with the influx of more well paid yuppies, the sort of people who have done well out of the last few years and do not want to give up their advantages however their consciences might be moved. Such people are a gift to the Alliance. Nobody can afford to feel complacent. Walthamstow are defending a slender majority, and the Labour party in Leyton failed to take seats of the Liberals that they should have done. The Labour Party is going to need every single seat it can get its hands on. If you take Waltham Forest as a microcosm of Britain as a whole, and it often reflects national trends, then we may win but by a slender margin. Not only do we need to be sure of the seats we hold but we must do everything in our power to help the Labour Party nationally. Whatever our criticisms of the national party we must exert every effort to build the image of a party capable of taking power and running the country constructively and responsibly. People, thanks to a hostile press, fear and distrust Socialists. The only way we have of showing this to be wrong is in the way we act. People will judge us by what we do. And refusing to accept that we live in a time of financial stringency will not be seen as bravery in adversity but as crass irresponsibility. There seems to be little point providing home helps for elderly or disabled people if those same people's lives are to be cut short by the cruelties of the present regime. What is the point of re-grading hostel staff when there will be no money to provide for those being slung out of Claybury? However much good may be done to particular people by extra or improved services, and the need of those people may be desperate, in the long run it is no earthly use to them if they remain at the mercy of the present government. And what if we do not get the Tories out? What happens when we are rate capped? If the Tories have just won an election they will be seeking to finish off local authority spending. It is more than likely that we will be rate capped at a level that is actually lower than our present expenditure, i.e. forcing us to make cuts. Even if we make increases in spending this year we may be forced to ditch them next year or may be prevented from even putting them into action. The government is spending money in order to win votes, money that it will want to claw back next year. If it is bad now, once they really get their teeth into us, it will be infinitely worse. We will have helped the Labour Party lose an election to no avail, we will be worse off than ever. The loans will eventually have to be paid for, and the greater the degree of spending we insist upon now, the less leeway we will have for coping with that problem in the future even with a favourable government to bail us out. And will we really be helping an incoming Labour government by immediately having to go cap in hand to them? Is the act of responsible people to start spending when we do not know where our next pay cheque is coming from, when we may well be unable to pay our bills in the future? In many ways this is the crux of the issue. Are we acting responsibly in refusing to accept the constraints placed upon us by these two circumstances; the imminence of a general election that we cannot afford to lose and the financial strait jacket that is bound to exist for the next few years? This government, in addition to all the damage it has done to our economy, has done something worse than create unemployment. It has broken down the direct relationship between power and responsibility. Here we have a government that acts as it sees fit and when the direct and inescapable consequences of its action become apparent it denies them, it denies that its actions led to those consequences, and furthermore denies that the direct link implies responsibility on their part. Many Labour councils have behaved in an analogous fashion, particularly over the setting of rates. It is a very Thatcherite thing to do, to do just as you please now and refuse to take the consequences of your actions in the future. This is the attitude that keeps Mrs. Thatcher in power. Given the financial circumstances, to put the rates up in election year by more than 50% is sheer political ineptitude. Public opinion will probably accept that things need to be done, but will believe that we should be cautious. People will accept, albeit with difficulty, 23% increase that is outside our control, they may even stomach a 20-25% increase to help services. I doubt very much if they will put up with much more. This would mean limiting our rate rise such that we can only carry out a proportion, possibly less than half, of category B. In this case we will have to make some rotten decisions which will please nobody. We cannot run away from making difficult choices. If you are ill or unemployed or elderly, or poorly paid, you have to face up to a miserable reality every day of your life. You can't walk away. It is about time the Waltham Forest Labour Party faced up to the responsibility of being the party in power. It is relatively easy to say "Let's spend", let's do everything today and to hell with the future, the city thrives on such an attitude, it is fundamental to the yuppies who keep Mrs. Thatcher in power. The only way we can defeat it is to behave differently, to reckon up the problems honestly, to be prepared to invest in the longer term, to sacrifice easy gains for more solid growth and security. Until we are prepared to do that, Thatcherism will rule even when the Tories are out of office. Rosamund Stock Chingford CLP