Council budget: IWCA wins more money for working class areas
A successful IWCA intervention at Oxford City Council’s budget meeting last month ensured that almost £400,000 of funding for refurbishing play areas over the next three years will be distributed to area committees according to levels of deprivation, thus providing more money for working class areas.
Stuart Craft, leader of the IWCA group on the council, said, ‘This is an important proposal because it aims to reverse some of the regressive effects of the council tax system by redistributing revenue according to social need. In the future we hope to ensure that even more of the council budget is allocated in this way.’
Running scared
Earlier in the council meeting an IWCA amendment on council tax had threatened to topple the Lib Dem minority administration. However, Labour—which has the most councillors—performed a last-minute U-turn, seemingly to avoid having to take control of the council itself.
Labour was proposing an above-inflation 4% council tax increase in each of the next three years, as opposed to Lib Dem plans for a 3% rise this year followed by 2% increases for 2008/09 and 2009/10.
Because council tax is a highly regressive tax that has a disproportionate impact on the least well-off in society, the IWCA believes strongly in keeping any increases to a minimum. Nonetheless, it was also felt that 2% increases weren’t feasible without unacceptable cuts or moves to outsource services. Therefore the IWCA introduced a separate amendment to the budget proposing 3% council tax increases for the next three years.
After Labour’s amendment for 4% was defeated they were logically set to support the IWCA’s proposals. But after half an hour of horse-trading with the Lib Dems, Labour inexplicably withdrew its support for the IWCA amendment, allowing the Lib Dems’ plans to be adopted. This will mean a loss of over £340,000 in revenue to the council over the next three years—money that could have been ploughed into play areas or children’s holiday play schemes.
Stuart Craft commented: ‘It’s outrageous that the Labour Party have reversed their position on the council tax purely to save themselves from having to take the reins in a deal done with the Lib Dems. What does it say about a party that has more councillors than any other party but refuses to take over the administration when handed the chance on a plate?’
The real party of social justice
An IWCA move to get the council to take a stand against pay inequality by reducing the salary for the vacant post of chief executive was predictably opposed by the two main parties.
Pay inequality in the UK has soared under the current New Labour government to levels unseen for 100 years. The IWCA proposal to cut the council’s top salary was based on the belief that the public sector has a duty to promote equality and provide an alternative example to the unregulated private sector.
Both Labour and Lib Dems had tried to pose as ‘the party of social justice’ at various points in the meeting. Despite this, the two parties were united in their horror at the thought of any future chief executive having to get by on less than £110,000 a year.
Opposing divisive multiculturalism
The IWCA has for many years taken a consistent stand against policies that divide people along ethnic or religious lines. This view, which is seen by most people as pure common sense, is starting to become more acceptable amongst the political elite, with both Tony Blair and David Cameron recently expressing concerns about multiculturalism, albeit after years spent promoting it.
In Oxford, however, the Labour Party still doesn’t seem to have grasped the problem with different treatment for different sections of the community. As part of the budget proceedings Labour introduced a measure to spend money on an ‘Asian Families Worker’, whose role would be to ensure that Asian families—mainly Bangladeshi and Pakistani—on Rose Hill receive the benefits they are entitled to.
The IWCA opposed this, arguing that any family that isn’t receiving the necessary benefits should be helped. If Bangladeshi and Pakistani families are the worst off then they would logically receive more assistance under a fair system but restricting help along ethnic lines is guaranteed to generate resentment.
Labour’s Antonia Bance (who incidentally is a councillor for Rose Hill—where the money will be allocated) vehemently opposed an IWCA amendment that called for a ‘community families worker’ instead.
Either Labour councillors are completely unable to see that their approach simply racialises an issue that is primarily about poverty, or their stand is based on narrow electoral calculations.
It was interesting to see, however, that finally a number of councillors on the Green and Lib Dem benches broke ranks to support the IWCA on this issue.
The IWCA also voiced its opposition to a council grant, allocating £10,000 to celebrate the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery. This grant was opposed on the grounds that celebrations are somewhat premature given that slavery still exists across the globe today.
Undoubtedly, the money will be allocated along ethnic lines, as the celebrations are set to be the preserve of Oxford’s black cultural nationalists and their supporters. It is more than likely that the event will be an excuse to regurgitate the self-serving story of slavery being simply the oppression of blacks by whites. The IWCA will not allow this tiresome nonsense to go unchallenged.
Leys Independent, issue 35, March 2007
| 
