impossible and the choice will either be cuts - or bankrupcy. If we argue that the latter way is preferable, then we must ensure that those who will suffer most are aware of the consequences & willing to enter the struggle.
Cde Misrahi is correct to argue that it's a pity that the issue of rate increases has dominated the anti-cuts struggle. As he points out, the central question is building a broad fight-back campaign agreement.
what basis should the anti-cuts campaign be launched? It is here that the question of rates raises its head and the differences begin to emerge.
ALTERNATIVE The essence of Cde Misrahi's position is that rate increases -which hit businesses harder than working people - are a temporary means of offsetting cuts in service ordered by the government. As my original article stated, this misses the point.
The aim of the Tory cuts is to make working people pay for their crisis. Tax concessions for the rich are to be paid tor by put up rates by a mammoth Hoping inflation.
CALLAGHAN It is, in essence, far worse.
The point remains, however, on Below Bernard Misrahi (Chartist Group) and Dave Mcleod (Socialist Action) debate the issue.
working people through less jobs, hospitals and schools. Does put ting up the rates, as Cde Misrahi argues, challenge this?
On the contrary, it merely passes the burden onto them in a dis. guised way. Tax concessions are to be paid for not through cuts but by taking money directly out of workers' pockets in increased rates. Maybe small businesses do pay more, but that is little comfort to a council house family forced to pay out an extra few pounds a week at a time of gallHowever Cde Misrahi tries to justify it, his position violates a basic socialist premise: that working people didn't create the crisis and shouldn't have to pay for it.
the same position as that of the last Callaghan government - an analogy which Cde Misrahi finds 'insulting'.
But what is the difference? Jim Callaghan argued that it was better to have a Labour government making cuts than a 'brutal' Tory one. And what is the argument in favour of rate increases? That it is better to have a Labour council in power - making huge rate increases - than nasty Tory commissioners who would be I can assure Cde Misrahi that Labour voters will treat these councils - such as Lambeth who recently upped the rates by 49% as wel! as rents by £1.50 - in the Callaghan last year. Iney won't blame the Tories but the council that was prepared to do the Tories dirty work for them.
COUNCIL WORKERS Cde Misrahi argues that council workers - such as those in Lam beth - could not be won to a no cuts no rate increase argument because it would mean the loss of their jobs. His argument is wrong because it falls into the Tory 'divide and rule' trap.
One cannot fight the cuts - and threatened redundancies - by making Peter pay Paul, by bleeding dry one section of workers coume tenants to oroo up all' other (council workers). The only way to protect jobs is to start from the premise that no workers should have to pay for the Tory crisis and fight for a united campaign.
This position has to be fought for in the local council unions as the only way to safeguard jobs. This year, councils like Lambeth have upped the rate by 49% and still have been forced to cut back on job opportunities. Next year, when the Tory axe falls even heavier, what will they do? Put up rates even higher and cut back even more savagely on jobs?
FIGHT The problem with Cde Misrahi's position is that it ducks the need for this fight. Everything he says is to suggest that people 'aren't ready' for a confrontation, that it's 'too soon'. Rate increases -propping up services and jobs -becomes a substitute for a real campaign against the Tories. The point is that, unless socialists take a lead - and fight for councils to take a firm stand -it will never be time for a fightback. Whatever Cde Misrahi may say, councils are using the 'rate increase' tactic as a means of getting off the hook from a real fight-back.
Lambeth council, interestingly enough, proves the point. They led their mass struggle against the Tories on a 'no cuts/ no rate increases' position forced upon them by the local Labour Parties. Now that they have decided to increase •he rates- to aroid going bank semblance of a campaign.
NO WONDER And it's no wonder, It is imposs ible to launch a mass action fight against the Tories when the coun cil leading it is actually doing their dirty work by making workers pay TOTC CUS If councils adopt such a policy -and many have - it will only put off a confrontation with the Tory government and ensure that when it does occur, it will happen after thousands of trade union activists have become demoralised by councils telling them that a fightback can be avoided.
(NUPE)
the Labour council has not
----- pull-quotes -----
HOTS LO KIDS IGHT ON MANDIE FIGHT AVE