Oppose the cuts: we need a more reasonable approach

Published: 30 September, 2010

• AS you report, the council will certainly be forced to make cuts in services as a result of the Coalition’s decision to slash the deficit at all costs (costs to ordinary people, in fact) rather than supporting the fragile economic recovery (Revealed: Services Facing Axe, September 23).

There is also no doubt that as usual – and in a sense understandably – the local council will be blamed for loss of local services, when these losses are actually the result of central government decisions.  

The Coalition argues there is no alternative – but the alternative is for everyone who supports the public sector – not just the council – to oppose the cuts as strongly as possible and argue for a more reasonable approach.

Part of this opposition to the Coalition is to refute the propaganda perpetuated by Cllr Matt Sanders (“Report reveals cuts to lifeline services”) whereby the whole responsibility for the current situation rests with the previous government.   

While the Labour government may have indulged the financial sector to a dangerous extent, it is unlikely that the conservative party would have behaved differently during the boom years, since they were always very supportive of the City.   

Once the crash arrived, the then government was surely right to support the banks and thus to avoid what would otherwise have happened – their complete collapse. 

As your Comment reminds us, the credit crunch was the result of the behaviour of the banks, not of Gordon Brown.
Professor Elizabeth Wilson
W1

 

Why Labour can’t lead

• YOUR editorial of last week criticised some local councillors for “wringing their hands” over cuts in spending (If Labour can’t lead the protest against cuts, who will? September 23)

But the only people wringing their hands are those that say that cuts can somehow be delayed for as long as possible, or even avoided altogether. 

The national debt is increasing every day, and will, by early next year, reach an eye-watering £1trillion. Every day we put off paying off the debt, the bigger it will become.

Each and every household is already spending £2,000 in taxes purely to service the interest payments on this national debt. 

That is money that could and should be spent on public services, rather than lining bankers’ pockets.

Camden Labour can’t mount a resistance campaign because it was a Labour government that first announced the biggest cuts since the 80s, back in the spring.
LEE BAKER,
Regent Square, WC1

Economic sadism

• THE terrible impact on Camden of the government’s 25 per cent spending cuts is exposed in horrible clarity by your report. The potential loss of vital services from Sure Start to community centres and youth apprenticeships is devastating.  

This economic sadism is being inflicted on the borough despite the fact there is no mandate for it in Camden or the country. The comment reported from Lib Dem conference that the Tories had been “surprisingly fair” in  the brokerage of the coalition is at best naive.  

The Lib Dems gave the Tories exactly what they wanted: a parliamentary majority for a right-wing slash and burn economic policy in contravention of everything the Lib Dems claimed to support at the elections.  I had assumed all those Lib Dem leaflets we received featuring Margaret Thatcher were supposed to be an attack but it now seems they are best viewed as a homage.

Of course all sane people know there is a pressing need to rebalance the national finances following the banker-induced crisis.  There would certainly have been cuts had Labour won the general election.

But the decision to go so far and so fast risks tipping Britain back into recession. 

Just look at Ireland.  

Following a government massacre of jobs and services, that country had its credit-rating downgraded in August and has just announced its economy is shrinking again.

For many of us elected to Camden Council in May the notion that provision of services and facilities that so many local residents need and value may be ended weighs extremely heavily.  

Be assured that the Labour Group on the council will subject all budgetary proposals from the Council’s Cabinet to the toughest of scrutiny.  

But we are also aware that their hands are to a large extent tied by the national government.  

I will be attending the TUC’s Day of Action on October 19 to demand the government changes course and would urge anyone from Camden who cares about protecting our services to also attend.
Phil Jones
Labour councillor, 
Cantelowes Ward

Fear already stirred up

• IN his new role as critic of the Labour administration in Camden, Lib Dem councillor Matt Sanders (Report reveals cuts to lifeline services, September 23) seems to have forgotten what the present government has already done to our borough to “stir up fear”.  They have already removed some £168m from the budget for rebuilding our secondary schools.This is despite a David Cameron pledge to continue with the programme.

Prior to the election the Lib Dems, and I assume Councillor Sanders, opposed the spending cuts in their present form. Councillor Sanders is quoted as saying “it is critical the council talks with residents to understand which services are absolutely crucial”.

Unfortunately, when his party was in power in Camden this was far from what happened.

Out of the blue in February five primary schools in Camden were told that the spending of £22m on the Primary Strategy for change had been “postponed indefinitely”.

Councillor Sanders is in fact a governor of one of these schools yet we heard no protest from him about his party’s decision then or now.
Larraine Revah
Labour councillor
Gospel Oak Ward

 

Priorities

• LAST week’s CNJ revealed that free swimming for under-16s and the over-60s will continue until March 2011. Obviously good news for the groups affected (I myself come into the “over-60s” category).

But meanwhile we learn “Abuse victims’ support group could be axed”; judging by the article this is due to government cuts, rather than Camden’s, but how can anyone justify cutting that while keeping a service which probably won’t save each beneficiary all that much? Which is more important: saving women from abuse – possibly leading to severe injury or even death! – or free swimming? 
Margaret King
Belsize Grove, NW3

Safety Net

• FOLLOWING your article “Abuse victims’ support group could be axed” (September 23) we want to reassure users of Camden Safety Net that the council values the service and takes the issue of domestic violence extremely seriously.

Camden Safety Net is just one of the areas we will be reviewing within community safety. The community safety budget is under immense pressure, and whilst there is less funding in the form of government grants, we will work to preserve as many front line services as possible.
Cllr Abdul Hai,
Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Camden Council