By John Leech MP - 5th April 2011
John Leech MP says Labour is making "politically motivated" front line cuts in Manchester.
One of the first campaigns I ever got involved in (representing Barlow Moor Ward in 1998 as a Councillor) was opposing plans by the Labour Council proposal to reduce the hours at Barlow Moor library to save money. This is an area that falls into the top 5 per cent of deprivation in the country; also an area that the Labour Leader of the Manchester City Council has stated is “not a priority”.
Three years later the library was burnt down, and despite promises to the contrary (and insurance money totalling £125,000) the library was not rebuilt, and instead was relocated into a shop unit on the other side of the road. When the library was burnt down both myself and the local Councillors agreed that the Council should delay the rebuilding of the library while discussions continued about the revamping of the shops and the opportunity for a joint service centre on the Merseybank Avenue.
Labour in Manchester have a track record of flashing the cash at big money large libraries whilst ignoring and running down small community ones often at the heart of deprived communities.
We now find ourselves seven years down the line with Manchester receiving a tough budget settlement, not dissimilar from other high profile cities. Liberal Democrat controlled councils such as Sheffield have received similar budgets settlement’s from the Government but done things differently keeping front line services.
The budget settlement handed Labour in Manchester the opportunity to make politically motivated front line cuts including the axing of a number of front line services including libraries and leisure centres.
The proposals put forward by Labour in Manchester were a case of déjà-vu for many residents with an eye for detail. Many of them were previous failed attempts at closures by the council. The budget settlement presented Labour with the perfect smokescreen for the front-line cuts they had also wanted to make.
They said there was no alternative and informed the people of Manchester ‘it’s all the Government’s fault’. The Liberal Democrat opposition on the council put forward an alternative budget which would have kept open all the libraries and leisure centres, but sadly it was voted down.
It wasn’t however the alternative budget that nailed the lie that there was no alternative to cutting front line services like Barlow Moor Library and leisure centres. It was a huge community campaign against the closure of Levenshulme Baths just a few miles down the road from Barlow Moor.
The Manchester budget proposals included the closing of a popular swimming baths neglected by the council for years, thousands of residents got behind the campaign resulting in the council getting cold feet and performing a huge u-turn and keeping the baths open.
Just when Labour said it was “unavoidable” up pops a community campaign that sent shock waves right through the ranks of the decision makers in Manchester Labour. What they said was unavoidable wasn’t, it was just that they started to fear the consequences in the ballot box.
To finish with a quote that was said recently by a politician, (a quote that could quite easily have been said by me or even the minister), “Libraries are a vital resource; they are hubs of our communities.
Libraries open doors to a world of opportunities, not just for reading, but for learning, self-improvement, access to employment. Closing libraries denies many people these chances and leaves us all poorer.” This was actually a quote from the Labour shadow libraries minister, it’s just a shame Labour in Manchester don’t feel the same.
The purpose of the debate is to kick-start the proud community of Barlow Moor into running a not dissimilar campaign that kept Levenshulme Baths open and force Labour in Manchester to give the residents of Barlow Moor the library they rightly deserve.
It’s upsetting that the Labour party in Manchester put votes before people and embarked on making politically motivated front line cuts intent on harming the Liberal Democrats in the ballot box.
John Leech has been Liberal Democrat MP for Manchester Withington since 2005.
Article Comments
As per usual your comments stretch credulity to breaking point. Lets be clear; you are part of the governing coalition (although I note that despite being a longer serving MP you have yet to make it to within a mile of the even the most junior ministerial office) its the coalition that's requiring the Council to make cuts and then you pretend to be against them for your local audience.
My experience on your own doorstep in the last few days is that your constitituents are seeing through the 'face' both ways say anything to get elected party' that is the Lib dems.
Pete Shilton Godwin
6th Apr 2011 at 3:29 pm
The essential argument here is that the local Labour council is implementing cuts (which it is accepted have been imposed by the central Tory-Lib Dem government) in a way that will inflict more pain than necessary and so turn voters against the Tories and Lib Dems.
But the Tories have just one seat on Manchester City Council (out of 96) and that councillor was elected as a Lib Dem. There are no Tory councillors for angry voters to turf out.
The Lib Dems have just 30 councillors, of whom 10 are up for election next month. They are not such a great threat to Labour that the council needs shock and awe Mancunians into voting Labour.
In May 2008, John Leech wrote that, 'At the last election [2005] Labour tried to con people in Withington, by saying that if they voted Lib Dem they would let the Tories back in. This wasn't true, and it won't be true at the next election [2010]
Now Leech has let the Tories in and needs to take responsibility for the programme they have imposed on Manchester.
Stephen Newton
5th Apr 2011 at 5:50 pm
The cuts are necessary because, as Labour's outgoing Treasury Secretary said, 'There's no money left.' However, that is not the case in Manchester, where they are sitting on a contingency fund of over 70 million pounds. At least the government have a reason for cuts, what is Manchester's Labour Council's excuse?
Matt Gallagher
5th Apr 2011 at 11:55 am
For John Leech to claim the Lib Dems put forward an alternative that saved services is frankly dishonest. Their 'alternative budget' proposed spending money that simply isn't there. They put forward over 4 million pounds of entirely speculative 'savings', with absolutely no indication of how they could be delivered. And they proposed over 1.5 million pounds in increased income that was impossible to realise. There was a hole in their budget of (minimum) 6 million pounds. They then claimed to be able to spend this missing money on saving libraries, Manchester Advice etc. The reason they are able to put forward a budget that doesn't add up is because they know they can't take control of the Council at the next election, so they will not be in a position where they have to implement it.
The City Treasurer was asked at the aforementioned Scrutiny Committee meeting if he considered the Lib Dem budget proposals as 'prudent' to which the answer was 'no'.
Jeff Smith
5th Apr 2011 at 10:50 am
So, just to clarify; you are part of a government instigating the most savage cuts seen in this country since the days of Thatcher and you complain about cuts in Manchester. Moreover, you say the Lib Dems have an alternative. Does your Leader know about this?
Unfortunately Mr Leech, your attempts to save your seat and that of pretty well every Lib Dem councillor in Manchester by trying to put the blame onto Manchester Council will, I fervently hope mean the death of Lib Dem politics in Manchester.
Tim Bamford
5th Apr 2011 at 9:08 am
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.