Liverpool Leader Joe Anderson came under fire from the TUC at his council headquarters in Dale Street last night, as they lobbied in opposition to the £120 million of cuts due to be imposed on the city by the coalition government, and Anderson’s response to it.
The TUC have reacted strongly after Liverpool Vision leader Max Steinberg revealed the job loss figure, believed to be around 7000 in Liverpool alone and 16000 throughout Merseyside, and have asked The Labour head to consider a hard-line approach.
In light of the governments plans Councillor Anderson described it as ‘perfect torture, becoming leader of Liverpool Council under a Tory government.,’ but says he will ‘be responsible and show leadership,’ and negotiate for a better deal.
But TUC bosses state that a firm message of ‘no co-operation' should be sent to the government with regard to their propositions.
Inside the Town Hall last night Anderson outlined the 5 year plan the coalition government have for Liverpool, and said that over 5 years, the amount will be nearer to £1 billion in retracted funding for the city, including 350m for the BSF (Building Schools for the future) and 10m in area grants.
Anderson urged opposition party members to give him a vote of solidarity in whatever stance he takes. Mike Storey of the Liberal Democrats replied that until there was a clear stance outlined, no support was possible.
There will be no support from the TUC, a spokesman last night declaring that ‘the cuts are not inevitable, and were caused by the bankers, they are the ones who should be footing the bill.’
He added ‘This country has more than enough in banking reserves to cover this supposed deficit, in fact there is no deficit, it’s being used as an excuse to perpetrate a conservative ideology which peaked in the eighties.’
The TUC are not the only group offering an alternative approach to the governments proposals. Tony Mulhearn heads a group of 47 surcharged councillors (1983-87), who have written a letter to Anderson, in which is contained the steps of an alternative process they undertook 25 years ago.
Included is a proposal, amongst others, to take Liverpool Direct back in-house, as opposed to paying a company to manage it, and saving the city £29 million alone.
They point out that their strategy led to the then Thatcher government releasing funds of up to £60 million so Liverpool council could fulfil its electoral promises, and are urging the Council leader to follow their example.
The strategy is based on resistance but is seen as a more sensible measure than that taken by the TUC who are keen on ‘organised demonstrations and industrial action’ which may not receive the expected support this time around.
Councillor Anderson released his own letter in response. He described the cuts as ‘obscene’ and pointed out that ‘We have had a grant cut more than any other city and we’re the second worst affected council in the country,’ but doesn’t believe Mulhearn’s way is viable.
Anderson described the supposed gained millions from cancellation of the Liverpool Direct contract as ‘a myth’ as well as disagreeing with the vast majority of the other proposals.
Support for Anderson comes in the form of Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, who on behalf of both councils outlined the current approach, 'we have to expose the government when they come up with daft ideas, but we also have to find ways of working with them to benefit local people.'
Councillor Anderson states he is 'more than happy' to meet and discuss the issue with those offering alternatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment