Although it has been said many times before, it remains the case that Labour-led Labour Councils must fight back against government-imposed funding cuts. Councils should do this by supporting local trade unions to launch highly visible public campaigns to demand the money that we need to fund local public services. This is the demand currently being placed upon Nottingham City Council by local socialists – a Council that is comprised of 50 Labour councillors, and 5 other independent councillors.
On January 22, 2024 UNISON Nottingham City Branch launched an online petition (which you can sign here) which stated:
“Over the last 10 years, there has been an average shortfall in Central Government funding to Nottingham City Council of £97 million each year. For this coming financial year 2024/2025, the City Council are preparing to make £50 million of cuts to jobs and services. This will have a devastating impact on services that citizens in Nottingham need and use every day.
“In addition, in this current financial year, there is an in-year shortfall of £23 million that has led to the issuing of a Section 114 notice, which means that all new spending unless absolutely needed for safeguarding and other statutory purposes, has ceased.
“We, the undersigned, do not accept that the City Council has to make these cuts. There are alternatives, one of which includes the launching of a public campaign by councillors to demand direct support from Central Government to offset the proposed £53 million cuts and any in-year deficit. There is recent precedent for such direct government assistance that includes £70 million given by government to Northamptonshire County Council in 2018, and £100 million given to Surrey County Council in 2022 in return for Surrey Council restructuring its special needs provision.
“We call on Nottingham City Council to immediately launch a campaign to secure this additional funding in order to avoid any further cuts to jobs and services.”[1]
Writing for the Socialist newspaper (January 17, 2024), one UNISON member stated:
“Current proposals to achieve these cuts are horrendous, involving attacks on critical frontline services and 554 full-time-equivalent (FTE) posts at risk over four years. The three council adult residential homes are threatened, as is the much-loved Jackdawe homecare service for adults with complex and challenging behaviours.
“The library service faces 31 FTE jobs being cut, although the council is likely to think twice about further library closures after a recent magnificent campaign saved three libraries. The welfare rights service is under threat, as is the remaining young people’s centre, and an adventure playground, with many other services at risk.
“In response to the threat of government commissioners coming in, the Labour council has essentially told the government there is no need, as they can make the cuts themselves!”
In order to manage Tory austerity, the Labour-led Council simply chose to undertake a controversial public consultation (running between December 17, 2023 and January 16, 2024) which outlined all their proposed cuts which they presented in a table. In this table we can see by way of an example their plans for welfare cuts (worth £392,000) which will see the reduction of 23 FTE jobs in the coming years being described like this: “Proposal to remove Council’s benefit and welfare advice offer except to Council tenants.”
Nottingham City UNISON Branch continues to lead the local fight against their Council working with the local trades council and the campaigning group Nottingham Save Our Services, but to date “No Labour councillor has yet spoken out publicly against the proposed cuts, whether or not they have made some words of opposition in the Labour group.” Therefore the organising of public protests and the lobbying of relevant politicians continues, with further planned for the weeks ahead. And in the latest news it was reported that…
“…at a monthly meeting with union representatives on Thursday (February 15), [Labour] Councillor David Mellen said there would be a twelve-week consultation on whether to close 12 branch libraries…
“It would mean swathes of the city being left without a library service and Des Conway, part of the Save Nottingham Libraries campaign, says such cuts would be ‘savage.’” (Nottingham Post, February 16, 2024)
Evidently Labour Party elected representatives remain unwilling to listen to trade unionists. This was also apparent when Nottingham’s “Executive Board” met earlier in the week (on February 13) and failed to even discuss the options presented to them by the trade unions who had organised a protest/lobby of this meeting.[2] The draft minutes of this important meeting noted the councillors made some of the following comments…
“…withdrawal of welfare rights support will put citizens into a vulnerable position as it will be harder for them to know the benefits for which they are eligible, potentially leading to homelessness and poverty.”
“…there is no national plan for adult social care funding, which has been affected by rising inflation, increases in the minimum wage and Brexit, along with an increase in demand and increase complexity of cases. Families are facing eviction or losing their homes in order to pay for their care. Proposed savings in this area such as the closure of two outstanding care homes will have a devastating impact on vulnerable citizens.”
“…many of the savings proposed in the short term to balance the budget such as stopping funding for Marketing Nottingham, Advice Nottingham and Futures, will reduce investment into the city and so in the longer term will lose money for the city.
“…the Council has had to pay the costs of the Improvement and Assurance Board, and will have to pay the costs of appointment of commissioners which may be more. This is not a good use of public money.”
This is all true, and one positive development from this Executive meeting was that the councillors present at least refused to ratify the proposed cuts budget. But while the Labour councillors clearly understand the gravity of the situation facing their city, they refuse to act proactively in the public interest by working with trade unions in an effort to build a mass campaign to force the government to fund local services. That is why they Labour must be forced to see sense, and if they refuse to serve our interests then we must organise to remove them from power.
As Nottingham “Save our Services” (SOS24) group put it:
“It is clear, now that the dust has settled on the City Council Executive Board meeting yesterday, that regardless of abstentions on the day the people of Nottingham still face the threat of swingeing cuts, redundancies, library closures, 60 no-fault evictions, sale of two care homes and other public property and vicious cuts of contributions to community and youth facilities leading to complete loss of services.
“As a campaign we resolve to stand with all those threatened and the whole community – mobilising for a massive show of anger and determination at the full council meeting currently scheduled for the beginning of March. We urge councillors to back off from this disastrous course and unite with unions and the local community to demand immediate emergency government aid and restitution of money cut since 2010.
“As a campaign we will talk to the directly affected about preferred actions to resist what is planned. We will treat any arrival of Commissioners as a coup against local democracy from a desperate and politically exhausted government.” (Facebook, February 15, 2024)
JOIN THE UPCOMING LOBBY OF LABOUR CITY COUNCILLORS ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19.
[1] Nottingham City Council can still draw upon their reserves to set a no-cuts budget as a part of a strategy to build a public fight back against the government, although it remains the case that the Council continue to reject this strategy. This is a strategy that has been promoted by the trade union movement for many years. It is also noteworthy that in previous years Nottingham City Council chose to make far better use of their “prudential borrowing” powers than other Council’s, like for instance Leicester. In a recent report Nottingham City Council discuss their “authorised limit for external debt” which they explain…
“… is a key prudential indicator and represents a control on the maximum level of borrowing. This represents a legal limit beyond which external debt is prohibited, and this limit needs to be set or revised by the full Council. It reflects the level of external debt which, while not desired, could be afforded in the short term, but is not sustainable in the longer term.”
Nottingham’s “authorised limit” for 2023/24 was £980.4 million, although for some reason the Council are seeking to reduce this in coming years as part of what they call their “voluntary debt reduction policy”. This would mean that this limit would be reduced to £940.2 million for 2024/25 and £831.7 million by 2027/28. Total Nottingham Council debt in 2023/24 was £930.5 million (which is below the “authorised limit”), but the Council aim to pay back these loans in the coming years more quickly than they need to, so that by 2024/25 their debt would be £890.2 million and by 2027/28 would be £781.7 million. For example, the minutes of the February 13, 2024 meeting note, “the council has repaid £58m of long-term loans early during the year 2023-24 which has been authorised under the Section 151 Officers delegated treasury authority.”
[2] The Councillors present were: Councillor David Mellen (Chair), Councillor Audra Wynter (Vice Chair), Councillor Cheryl Barnard, Councillor Steve Battlemuch, Councillor Kevin Clarke, Councillor Jay Hayes, Councillor Corall Jenkins, Councillor Angela Kandola, Councillor Pavlos Kotsonis, Councillor Sajid Mohammed, and Councillor Linda Woodings
Thoughts of a Leicester Socialist 