cils abound in the left press because of the failure of key figures like Ken Livingstone at the GLC to put words into action and actually lead the fight against Jenkins ratecapping legislation by refusing to set a ralk.
to set a rate it's clear that not only have individual council leaders ducked the fight but the strategy decided upon by leaders of this battle was itself flawed. The key mistake made was to try and unite councils and councillors who were not prepared to fight Labour to stay in office and make cuts the left bent to this line and replaced refusing to make a rate with deferring the decision to set a rate.
and fudge and allow the right in the councils and now remains in the hands of the unions whether McDonnell one of the councillors at the GLC who voted to defer setting a rate on 7 March.
Group at County Hall on 7:
We always knew it would the that allowed the Tories to labour right in the group.
had held tirm we would THE FIGHT to reinstate three residential social workers sacked by Newham Labour Council for attending a union meeting, received a setback on the 1 May when a mass meeting voted by 700 to 200 that the NALGO branch should ballot on the question of all-out strike action if the three are not reinstated. The motion was moved by the right wing to undermine the strike by 200 workers who were calling for all-out action from the meeting.
Whilst actively preventing some low-paid members from attending. the council LAC majority NALGO members paid time off to attend. This move contrasts with their refusal to she riges to meet, a rerusal residential workers which led to the sackings.
Straight after the meeting the strikers discussed their position, and censured the branch SCrECtarY putting the ballot motion before that of the branch committee which called Speakers: Tony Benn, Kay Sutcliffe, But as council after council crumbles and agrees As Kinnock and Cunningham campaigned for The no rate option became an excuse to delay councillors to counter attack. In many authorities it Z Valerie Coultas discussed these issues with John WItn Over IOw , IEA and all oter made in February was a seLa budget that would bring Lien UNLO for immediate action.
It was decided to return to work rather than remain isolated, but campaign Group' to meet regularly around the sackings and other attacks on the union.
This attack оп Newham NALGO is reverberating around the local movement of NALGO's right to organise, and pardemand port from the Labour Parbringing positions sharply into just around group elections reselection candidates for next years local Wednesday 15 May, 7.30 Sharon Atkin, Sarah Roelofs Room 143 County Hall, London SEI which they did On March the GLO and I.EA would refuse to set a rate then the boroughs Talecapped would pass a motion, the same as Liverpool's last year, that would bring them into legal jeopardy about five or six weeks later.
Because the GLC and ILEA have a legal deadline lo set a rale we knew would be at the front line of the others. But neverago INE elections. The majority of 'left' councillors joined in the attack on NALGO, in elections in the group elections, which the left порей, Iol Lee rounde to win the key positions of Leader and Chair of Per sonnel, plus consolidating their hold on the chairs o several other committees.
The price was the three sackings, disciplining and possible sacking of six social services shop stewards, and a total clampdown U1l the ability of NALGO members to organise. As theless we made the agreement in February that this was the line to be pursued whatever the odds.
But wasn't the agreement that was made in February the Association Labour Authorities (ALA) one that would unite soft councils with those that would take a hard line on a position that could be interpreted as simply putting off the fight. Wasn't there a position put there by Ted NORE ста- CUT not go USS MEAN WE CUN QUE Knight not to refuse to set a rate but instead to defer Ted Knight didn't tervene on this. We knew that no matter what form of the motion was agreed that it would be construed as illegal.
But isn't there a difference between deferring the decision and refusing to set a rate?
No it's completely up to But no council has yet refused to set a rate have they?
The legal challenge anyway.
Leicester, Lewisham have set a legal rate Cancell Greewich Southwark Sheffield. Hackney Islington have not.
Hackney's legal
have gone These councillors are sur Returning to the GLC boroughs taken a stand but now agreement Who this legal?
outlined had used last year. Is it your view that when the crunch comes a council like Lambeth will continue to fight on 15 May! The! only have a majority of On 15 May and after when the District Audilo decides to move againsi local authorities a number will have majorities in council chamber and stand firm Others will have very small majorities large part of the burde will fall on the LITON the movement generally to en sure they stand firm In Southwark the left have fought off the right They occupied the first council meeting and talked out the right's proposal at the second council meeting last week.
Comparing the stand of the council against miners against Thatcher the halance sheet isn't so good. Don't you have any doubts about the strateg. the left adopted?
I don't have any doubts about the strategy. There valua but to stand fight. Deficit budgeting creative accounting or acWU|l have simply meant defeat. Not setting a rate was the only opportunity we had to seek to fight.
occupation stops
----- pull-quotes -----
Labour Briefing Public Meeting 'Rebuilding the Left'