NALGO strike, council leader Margaret Hodge has announced her resignation. She has a new job with, would you believe, city accountants Price Waterhouse as an consultant on local Nothing could be more symbolic of the utter collapse of the so-called 'dented shield' approach to countering Tory attacks on local government. Margaret Hodge has changed sides - and so have Labour councils en bloc.
This summer has seen a swathe of strikes against Labour councils as NALGO and local government unions have fought back against sackings and cuts.
In addition to strikes in Islington, Tower Hamlets, Birmingham and Hampshire county council, major new redundancies have been announced in Sheffield.
There be no doubt about the Hot air, but no fight against cuts: Islington Council Hodge hedges significance of the latest round of cuts. The Tories' aim is the reduction of local government to a buying in' agency for privately provided services.
Since the mid-1980s advent of rate capping the soft left and right wing among Labour councils have argued a simple case: don'tgo for confrontation with the government which could lead to disqualification Despite occupation of union HQ Stay in power, duck and weave, go for 'creative accountancy', manoeuvre to avoid the worst of the cuts.
This approach led directly in 1985-6 to the isolation of Liverpool, and Lambeth as the only two councils which, in the end, stood out against setting a rate capped budget. And of course it led to the defeat of the antirate capping struggle.
This 'dented shield' ap proach then underwenta noneoo-subtle change; it became caring cuts'. Labour councils would be forced to cut back, but this would be done in such a fashion to defend the most needy. This was of course a complete fantasy.
Now, as exemplified by Is lington, we are into a new 'third period' of Labour local government betrayal - the period of pre emptive cuts and privatisation, privatisation in preparation for expected government legislation.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the ideological change in Labour councils has been the attempt to set the interests of local government workers against those of the local community. This goes under the name of service delivery, but in reality means rationalisation and new management techniques.
Local government workers must do more with less personnel and resources, all in the name of providing à service to the poor and needy. Inefficiency in council services is nothing to do with cutbacks, but the fault of those greedy inefficient council workers.
Where does all this leave 'muncipal socialism'? It is not only dead, it has got rigour nortis. Anti-cuts councillors are few, isolated and being witch hunted. Many others have either dropped out or lurched violently to the right.
Now the defence of local government, whatever auxiliary role might be played by left councillors, is in the hands of the local government unions and the wider labour move ment.