Fighting Cut in Lothian

Scan page 2

On September 1st, Lothian Labour Council completed its collapse before the Tories by voting for further cuts — making a total of £24 million.

The panic freeze on spending decided at the last council meeting was ended, but all the protests and fine words about 'no cuts' are gone forever. The counciltors protest that defying the Tories would mean breaking the law - as if they didn't know that JIMMY BURNETT is one of the seven who opposed cuts. He spoke to FIONA all along.

and DAVE MILLIKEN.

Can you tell us what you think the Labour Group position will be at Tuesday's council meeting? (Sept. I) It's fairly obvious the Labour Group will, in cooperation with the trade union leadership, put forward another round of cuts midway between £5 and £10 million, over and above the £15 million already cut, with a view to approaching the Secretary of State for a compromise.

Chaos

In my opinion they will also lift the moratorium which has caused chaos in the Region and the services. And they will be reissuing the temporary contracts to the 900 teachers.

Fight

I would assume the seven who voted against cuts at the last council meeting would continue our policy of no cuts and calling on the trade union movement to mobilise to fight against these cuts.

Will you vote for the Labour Group cuts as 'the lesser of two evils'?

The difference between the Labour Group and Tory proposals will be £5 to £6 million. That might not appear much, but between now and the end of the year it would mean 3,000 redundancies. Over and above 1500 non-filling of vacancies it would involve doubling home help charges, increasing by 250% meals on wheels charges, closure of schools, closure of some old folks' homes, and the closure of half a dozen social work area offices.

Ability

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of working class people to understand the position ot pragmatic realIsm, when it is explained why we attempted to mobilise support within the Labour Group and unions for the no-cuts position; how we've failed; how we have nevertheless, taken the principled position of breaking the Group Whip and publicly stating why we believe the authority should not make cuts; publicly stating what that will mean; and then at the end of the day, the necessity of defending somewhere between £5 and £10 million of public services by nevertheless voting for the lower amount of cuts.

Trunch If we were living in the 1920s, when there were tremendous layers of working class people ready to take to the streets at the drop of a truncheon, so to speak, then I think we would much less perturbed about abstaining.

Our problem, at the moment, is, like it or lump it, we are in the position of taking decisions which affect people's lives and their services, and while there appears no mass movement to defend these services then we feel it would be grossly irresponsible simply by our abstèntion to allow bigger cuts to happen.

There were 30,000 out on strike on June 30, and 20,000 of them prepared to go out on the streets. How has it come about that people who were prepared to show that level of fight have done virtually nothing since?

There was a lot of effort put into the 30th.

It was an exercise that hasn't taken place in local government politics for 20, 30 or even 40 years. Labour councillors were running round half a dozen meetings a day and addressing mass meetings of workers, urging them to come out on the streets and defend not only jobs but services, and telling them that the only real protection for jobs and services lay in -mass industrial action.

All-out A one-day strike by no means suggests that people are prepared to take all-out action. Fairly soon after that, at a large NALGO meeting, the motion for all-out industrial action on the first withdrawal of the Rate Support Grant failed by quite a substantial margin, and the vote for industrial action when the first redundancy was announced was passed by no means a huge majority.

But there's no doubt that the gains that were made up to June 30 were not built on. And I suppose all of us must bear responsibility for that to varying degrees.

I think, however, that the office bearers of the local union branches must bear the brunt of that responsibility.

You said earlier you'd vote for Labour Group cuts as opposed to the Tory proposals. What effect do you think the Labour Group's position has had on the Even before the £15 million cuts, I think the trade union leadership were certainly of the opinion that cuts were inevitable. I think however the imposition of these £15 million cuts. has taken us down a particular path which seems to me to go inevitably towards furthe further cuts.

With the RSG being reduced next year, cash guidelines being tightened and elections coming up, you could well find, with non-filling of vacancies next year, within two years we'll lose 3-3,500 staff, which will take us down to the staffing level which we wert at 3-4 years ago. And ali the gains will have gone. So why vote for the lesser evil?

People are already pointing the finger at the seven of us for having caused supposed chaos at the last council meeting - people such as John Lambie, Alistair Macrae, Alistair McQueen, Terry Weir, and the whole gamut of the trade union leadership locally.

Blamed

If we did not support the lesser evil then the seven Labour councillors who abstained would be blamed by the trade union movement, via its leadership, for having sent 5,000 down the road and having decimated services.

I'm not at all convinced that it would be desirable to be seen for principle's sake to have allowed that to happen.

But you recognise that the working • class need some kind of leadership, and that Labour councillors could give that leadership even though the trade union leaders play a reactionary SERNING -CISIONL Joe Baxter NALGO Regional and Branch officials have drawn out the full absurd conclusions of the political path down which they and the majority of the trade union and labour movement leadership have lead the working class of Lothian.

At a branch meeting on Thursday 27 August the officials proposed and won a resolution which calls on the officials to participate in discussions with the Region Labour Group over which cuts should be made - and also reminds NALGO members that national policy is for no cover for unfilled vacancies.

Needless to say, the cuts being negotiated will result in unfilled vacancies.

The Labour Group have managed to get themselves in an even bigger mess, too. By the time Socialist Organiser reaches its readers the cuts will total around £25 million, possibly more, since THE the Secretary of State George Younger is unlikely to settle for less than £30 According to the Region's Chief Executive, Robert Teggie, "Failure to achieve the target must result in a continuation of the moratorium on expenditure."

He is therefore recommending cuts of £30 million.

His proposal includes increasing bus fares, and increasing charges for home helps, meals on wheels and school dinners.

And the £30 million cuts could even go through with the help of seven councillors who previously voted against any cuts.

The response in the Labour Party is still gathering momentum, with West Edinburgh CLP calling for disciplinary action against the councillors who voted for the last round of cuts.

But certain sections of the left are heading off the anger, arguing • that the matter of disciplinary action should be let go. For them the priority is to get a good budget... next year.

What we need now is to reorganise the Regional Action Committee •to include on it tenants and community groups willing to fight the cuts. Shop stewards committees should be invited to send delegates on the basis of planning to fight the cuts even if this means they have to come along unofficially.

And an effort should be made to involve the unofficial cuts campaigns which are springing up.

The Labour Party has to show that it is not repres ented by councillors who are willing to make cuts and who play with the hope and fears of the working class in Lothian.

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

JETOA ise