Stavkalarni belgilaydigan isyon - Rate-capping rebellion - Wikipedia

Qo'zg'olonda qatnashgan kengashlar ko'rsatilgan xarita.

The stavkani cheklovchi isyon ingliz tilidagi kampaniya edi mahalliy kengashlar majburlashni maqsad qilgan 1985 yilda Konservativ hukumati Margaret Tetcher kengashlarning xarajatlarini cheklash bo'yicha vakolatlarini qaytarib olish. Ta'sir qilingan kengashlarning deyarli hammasi chap qanot tomonidan boshqarilardi Mehnat partiyasi rahbariyat. Kampaniyaning taktikasi shuki, byudjeti cheklangan kengashlar 1985-86 moliyaviy yil uchun har qanday byudjetni belgilashdan bosh tortadi va hukumatdan mahalliy xizmatlarni ko'rsatishga bevosita aralashishini yoki tan olishni talab qiladi. Biroq, dastlab stavkani belgilashdan bosh tortgan o'n beshta kengashning barchasi oxir-oqibat buni amalga oshirdilar va kampaniya hukumat siyosatini o'zgartira olmadi. Kengash byudjetini cheklash vakolatlari shu vaqtdan beri o'z kuchida qolmoqda.

Mahalliy hukumat xarajatlarining oshishi uzoq vaqtdan beri markaziy hukumatni tashvishga solgan, ammo shaxsiy kengash byudjetlarini cheklash bo'yicha to'g'ridan-to'g'ri vakolatlar ziddiyatli bo'lib, ba'zi Konservativ partiyaning a'zolari ularga qarshi chiqishgan. Ushbu chora parlamentdan o'tayotganda ichki norozilik Liverpul shahar kengashi byudjetni uzoq muddatli kechiktirishga olib keldi, bu faqat davlat grantlari ko'paytirilganda tugadi. "Liverpul" ni imtiyoz berishga majbur qilganiga ishongan Leyboristlar kengashining etakchi rahbarlari, "Liverpul" ning muvaffaqiyat qozonishi mumkin emasligi to'g'risida ogohlantirishlariga qaramay, ularning yondashuviga taqlid qilishga qaror qilishdi. Byudjetni belgilashdan bosh tortish noqonuniy edi va kampaniya ikkiga bo'linib ketdi: Leyboristlar partiyasining chap qanotini qo'llab-quvvatlashda birlashtirmadi va partiya rahbariyati uni qo'llab-quvvatlamasligini aniq ko'rsatib berdi.

Sakkizta kengash o'z kampaniyasini rahbariyat qonuniy byudjetni taklif qilganida tugatdi, oltitasi ko'pchilik guruhning rahbarlari muxolifat maslahatchilariga qo'shilib, etakchilikni bekor qildilar; Lyusham noyob sharoitlarda tan olingan. Ikki kengash, Lambet va "Liverpul" boshqalarga qaraganda uzoqroq ushlab turilgan va g'ayrioddiy narsalarga duch kelgan audit natijada byudjetni belgilamaslik uchun mas'ul bo'lgan maslahatchilar kengashning foizlar uchun yo'qotgan miqdorini to'lashlari kerak, shuningdek, o'z lavozimidan chetlatilgan. "Liverpul" ning byudjetni belgilashni kechiktirishi og'ir moliyaviy inqirozni keltirib chiqardi, bu Leyboristlar partiyasi rahbari tomonidan qoralandi Nil Kinnok.

Fon

Narxlar

Shotlandiyada 1989 yilgacha va Angliya va Uelsda 1990 yilgacha mahalliy kengashlar o'z daromadlarini "soliq" nomi bilan yig'ishgan stavkalar. Har qanday mulkka, xoh turar-joy bo'lsin, xoh tijorat bo'lsin, unga yillik ijara narxini hisoblab chiqadigan baholanadigan qiymat berildi. Byudjetni tuzish jarayonida kengash mahalliy miqyosda yig'ish uchun zarur bo'lgan umumiy miqdorni ishlab chiqadi va keyin uni umumiy baholanadigan qiymatga taqsimlaydi. o'z chegaralarida har bir uy egasi yoki korxonasi to'lashi kerak bo'lgan stavka qiymatining ulushini ishlab chiqarish uchun. Ushbu nisbat yil uchun "stavka" deb tanilgan va shuning uchun jarayon "stavkani belgilash" deb nomlangan.

Agar mahalliy hokimiyatning ikki darajasi mavjud bo'lsa, ulardan biri (quyi daraja) asosiy mahalliy hokimiyat organi etib tayinlangan, yuqori darajadagi hokimiyat o'z stavkasini a shaklida o'rnatgan. ko'rsatma u qamrab olgan quyi darajadagi hokimiyat tomonidan belgilangan stavka darajalariga qo'shildi. Barcha quyi pog'onalar yig'ilib, so'ngra ko'rsatmalardan tushgan mablag'ni uni belgilagan organga topshirishlari kerak edi.

Maqsadlar va penyalar

The Konservativ partiya 1979 yilda hokimiyat tepasiga davlat xarajatlarini kamaytirish majburiyatini olgan va mahalliy hokimiyat tomonidan xarajatlarni kamaytirish boshidanoq ushbu istakning bir qismi bo'lgan. 1979 yil noyabrida Atrof-muhit bo'yicha kotib Maykl Heseltin haddan tashqari sarflangan mahalliy hokimiyatni cheklash uchun vakolatlarni qabul qilish niyatini e'lon qildi. 1980–81 moliya yilidan boshlab ortiqcha sarflangan deb hisoblangan kengashlar markaziy hukumat tomonidan beriladigan grantlarni kamaytirdilar; 1981-82 yillarda "nishonlar va jarimalar" deb nomlanuvchi tizim joriy etildi.^[1]

Biroq, 1981 va 1982 yillarda bo'lib o'tgan mahalliy saylovlarda yana ko'plab leyboristlar maslahatchilari va leyboristlar kengashlarining saylanishi, ularning aksariyati chap qanot bilan bog'liq bo'lganligi sababli, ko'proq kengashlar davlat xarajatlarini ko'paytirishga aniq kirishdilar. 1982-83 yillarda mahalliy hukumat xarajatlari yana ko'tarila boshladi.^[2] Kengashlar markaziy hukumat tomonidan beriladigan grantlarni qisqartirganligi sababli, ularning javoblari byudjetlarni qisqartirish emas, balki kompensatsiya uchun stavkalarni yanada oshirish edi.^[3] Hukumat ichidagi bosim, ayniqsa xazina va Bosh kotib Leon Brittan yanada samarali choralar ko'rish uchun atrof-muhitni muhofaza qilish bo'limiga murojaat qilindi.^[4] 1982 yil 16 iyulda Brittan konferentsiyada aytib o'tdi Mahalliy hokimiyat bosh ijrochilari jamiyati Haddan tashqari sarf-xarajatlarni davom ettirish "markaziy hukumatning har doim noaniq aralashishiga va mahalliy hokimiyat moliya ustidan katta vakolatlarga ega bo'lishiga olib kelishi shart edi".^[5]

Vazirlar Mahkamasi qo'mitasi

1982 yil iyun oyida Brittan o'tirgan mahalliy hukumat moliyasini ko'rib chiqish uchun Vazirlar Mahkamasi qo'mitasi tuzildi.^[4] Ushbu qo'mitada birinchi bo'lib stavkalarni cheklash bo'yicha vakolatlarni qabul qilish bo'yicha markaziy hukumat g'oyasi ishlab chiqilgan; ammo bu qo'mitadagi ko'pchilik vazirlarga juda yoqmadi: Maykl Heseltin va uning o'rinbosari Tom King bu juda murakkab va ehtimol konstitutsiyaga zid bo'ladi deb o'yladi va Bosh prokuror Janob Maykl Xeyvers maslahat berishi kerak edi. Qo'mita 1983 yil 17 yanvarda Vazirlar Mahkamasiga stavkalarning cheklanishiga qarshi hisobot berganida, Margaret Tetcher uning hisobotini rad etdi va Tom Kingga (atrof-muhit bo'yicha kotibi lavozimiga ko'tarilgan) aqldan ozish tizimini ishlab chiqishni buyurdi.^[6]

Narxlarni cheklash taklif qilingan

King Terri Heiserni qo'ydi, a rasmiy xizmatdagi kishi keyin atrof-muhitni muhofaza qilish departamentining moliya va mahalliy boshqaruv bo'yicha mas'ul kotib o'rinbosari,^[7] siyosatni ishlab chiqish uchun mas'ul; Heiser "selektiv" va "umumiy" stavka cheklovi deb nomlangan ikkita sxemani ishlab chiqardi, ular 12 may kuni Vazirlar Mahkamasi majlisida - Tetcher chaqirgandan uch kun o'tgach tasdiqlandi. umumiy saylov.^[8] The Konservativ partiya manifest e'lon qilingan:^[9]

Bir qator haddan tashqari ekstravagant ishchilar ma'muriyati bor, ularning haddan tashqari yuqori talablari ishbilarmonlarga ham, mahalliy pul to'laydiganlarga ham katta qayg'u keltirdi. Biz yuqori xarajatli kengashlar tomonidan stavkalarning haddan tashqari va mas'uliyatsiz oshirilishini to'xtatish va agar kerak bo'lsa, barcha mahalliy hokimiyat idoralari uchun stavkalarni cheklashning umumiy sxemasini taqdim etish uchun qonun chiqaramiz.

Saylovda konservatorlarning g'alabasi 1983 yil 1 avgustda a oq qog'oz qaysi taklif haqida batafsil ma'lumot. Unda ta'kidlanishicha, hokimiyat nafaqat "Grant bilan bog'liq xarajatlar" bilan solishtirganda xarajatlarning mutlaq darajasi (xizmatning standart darajasini ta'minlash uchun Hukumat tomonidan belgilab qo'yilgan shartli daraja) emas, balki bir nechta omillar asosida tanlanadi:^[10]

Ammo boshqa omillar ham hisobga olinishi mumkin, masalan, hokimiyat xarajatlarining boshqa taqqoslanadigan vakolatxonalarnikiga nisbatan so'nggi tendentsiyalari; davlat kotibi tomonidan vakolatli organlarga berilishi mumkin bo'lgan har qanday xarajatlar bo'yicha ko'rsatmalarga nisbatan uning umumiy ishlashi; uning ishchi kuchi darajasi; va uning stavkalari darajasi.

Grantlarga qaraganda ancha ko'p va hukumat maqsadlaridan ko'proq xarajat qilayotgan mahalliy hokimiyat organlarini aniqlash, ularning barchasi leyboristlar partiyasi tomonidan nazorat qilingan. London korporatsiyasi shahri. Hukumat qonunchilikni 1984 yilda qabul qilishni, so'ngra ularning stavkalarini 1985-86 yillarda cheklash uchun kam sonli kengashlarni tanlashni maqsad qilganligini e'lon qildi.^[11] Stavkalarni cheklash to'g'risidagi taklif munozarali bo'lib, mahalliy hukumatda ko'pchilik bu qayerga olib borishi mumkinligidan xavotirda edi; xususan Taftish komissiyasi, mahalliy hukumat sarf-xarajatlarini nazorat qilish uchun mas'ul bo'lgan, uning mustaqilligiga shubha tug'dirib, siyosiy kurashga tortilishidan xavotirda edi.^[12]

"Stavkalar to'g'risidagi qonun" ning parlamentdan qabul qilinishi

20 dekabrda "Atrof-muhitni muhofaza qilish bo'yicha yangi kotib" stavkalari to'g'risidagi qonun e'lon qilindi Patrik Jenkin agar u buni qabul qila olmasa, iste'foga chiqishini aniq ko'rsatmoqda. Qonun loyihasi, ayniqsa, a'zolari bilan juda ziddiyatli bo'lishi kutilgan edi Lordlar palatasi va Jenkin ularga eslatgan deb aytilgan edi Solsberi konvensiyasi bu Lordlarning saylovoldi dasturida ko'rsatilgan har qanday qonun loyihasini rad etishiga to'sqinlik qildi.^[13] Tez orada Bill parlamentda konservativ deputatlar tomonidan tanqid ostiga olindi Jefri Rippon va Entoni Bomont-Dark,^[14] va uning tashqarisida Devid Xauell.^[15]

Qonun 1984 yil 17-yanvarda muhokama qilinganida, oppozitsiyani sobiq bosh vazir boshqargan Edvard Xit hokimiyatni markazlashtirishga hujum qilganlar; Xit Billga qarshi ovoz berishda jami 24 ta konservativ deputatni boshqargan, yana 11 kishi ovoz berishda qatnashmagan Frensis Pym.^[16] Muxolifatdagi deputatlar Billni batafsil muhokama qilishlari bilan, Hukumat a harakat qilishga majbur bo'ldi gilyotin harakati ba'zi konservatorlarning noroziliklariga qaramay qabul qilingan 29 fevralda.^[17] Kichik kengashlarni tanlab qo'yishdan ozod qiladigan kichik imtiyozdan so'ng,^[18] Bill Lordlarga bordi, u erda Leyboristlar muxolifati "mahalliy demokratiyani jiddiy ravishda susaytirishi" va qonunni rad etish to'g'risida tuzatish kiritdilar. O'zgartirish 235 tomonidan 153 ga yo'qoldi,^[19] Hukumat bu masalani kamdan-kam qatnashadigan ko'plab tengdoshlarini chaqirishga haqli bo'lgan ishonch masalasi sifatida ko'rib chiqdi.^[20]

Hukumatga yuqori stavkalarga vakolat berishning asosiy bandi lordlar tomonidan ba'zi konservativlarning betaraf qolishiga qaramay, ko'pchilik 10 ovoz bilan qo'llab-quvvatlandi,^[21] va yana bir qancha imtiyozlardan so'ng hukumat Lordlar orqali Billni mag'lubiyatga uchramay ko'rdi. 1984 yil stavkalari to'g'risidagi qonuni 26 iyunda Royal Assent-ni oldi.

"Liverpul" 1984 yilda byudjetni belgilaydi

Liverpool Town Hall, shahar kengashining shtab-kvartirasi va hukumat grantlariga rahbarlik qilgan ba'zi ommaviy kampaniyalarga e'tibor bering.

Leyboristlar partiyasi 1983 yil may oyida bo'lib o'tgan mahalliy saylovlarda Liverpul shahar kengashi ustidan nazoratni qo'lga kiritgach, kengash rahbariyati samarali nazorat ostida edi Jangari tendentsiya, kengash guruhi faoliyatini boshqargan Liverpul okrugi mehnat partiyasining faol a'zolarining ko'pchiligiga ega bo'lgan guruh.^[22] Yangi rahbariyat tomonidan belgilangan byudjetni meros qilib oldi Liberal partiya ulardan oldin bo'lgan ma'muriyat, bu elektorat oldidagi majburiyatlarini 25 million funt sterling miqdorida bajarish uchun etarli emas deb hisoblaydi. Kengash militsioner rahbarligida 1983 yil yozida hukumatdan ko'proq manbalarni qo'lga kiritish uchun siyosiy kurashni boshladi.^[23]

Hukumat pozitsiyasida hech qanday o'zgarish bo'lmasdan, kengashning 1984 yilgi byudjetini tuzishda noqonuniy taktikani qo'llaganligi to'g'risida gap bor edi va 19 martda okrug auditori Les Stenford har bir kengashga qonun stavkasini belgilamaslikning oqibatlari byudjet inqirozi to'g'risida ogohlantirdi , bilan qo'shimcha to'lov va maslahatchilar uchun diskvalifikatsiya. Eddi Roderik boshchiligidagi olti kishilik leyboristlar guruhi noqonuniy byudjetni ma'qullamasliklarini e'lon qilishdi, ammo leyboristlar guruhining aksariyati bu xat ularni orqaga qaytishga qo'rqitish taktikasi deb o'ylashdi.^[24] Kengash rahbariyati 29 mart kuni noqonuniy byudjetni taklif qildi; sakkiz soatlik yig'ilishdan so'ng Roderik, zobitlarga qonuniy byudjetni tayyorlashga ruxsat berish uchun byudjetni belgilashni 11 aprelgacha kechiktirish to'g'risida tuzatish kiritdi. Kengash rahbarining taklifi Jon Xemilton va moliya raisi Toni Byorn vaqtincha moliyaviy nazoratni amalga oshirish uchun favqulodda qo'mita tuzdi, ammo kechiktirilgan tuzatish tushdi: konservatorlar va Roderik guruhidagi oltita maslahatchilar tomonidan qo'llab-quvvatlandi, ammo liberal maslahatchilar bunga qarshi chiqishdi va kengash rahbariyati tarafdorlari betaraf qolishdi. .^[25] Oltita leyborist isyonchi, 30 liberal va 18 konservatorlar ko'rib chiqishni keyinga qoldirish uchun ovoz berishdi.^[26]

25 aprel kuni o'tkazilgan navbatdagi byudjet yig'ilishida noqonuniy byudjet yana taqdim etildi, ammo Roderik guruhining qarshiliklari tufayli u mag'lub bo'ldi; konservativ va liberal guruhlar alternativa bo'yicha kelisha olmadilar va masalaning to'xtashiga yo'l qo'yildi; kengash rahbariyati orasida stavkani belgilashni kengashning uchdan bir qismigacha bo'lgan mahalliy saylovlar natijalariga qadar qoldirishga qaror qilindi. Tadbirda Leyboristlar etti o'ringa ega bo'lishdi, bu Roderik guruhi qarshi chiqqan taqdirda ham ko'pchilikni tashkil qildi.^[27] Kengashning navbatdagi yig'ilishi 15 mayga belgilangan edi, ammo 9 may kuni Patrik Jenkin uy sharoitlarini ko'rib chiqish uchun 7 iyun kuni Liverpulga borishini va u erda kengash rahbarlari bilan uchrashishga tayyorligini e'lon qildi.^[28] Shuning uchun kengash ushbu muzokaralar natijalari ma'lum bo'lguncha byudjetni rejalashtirishni yana qoldirdi.^[29]

7 iyun kuni bo'lib o'tgan kengash a'zolari bilan uchrashuvdan hech narsa chiqmadi, kengash rahbariyati hanuzgacha noqonuniy byudjetni taklif qilmoqda.^[30] ammo Jenkin ular bilan 9 iyul kuni Londonda yana uchrashishga rozi bo'ldi. Ushbu uchrashuvda Jenkin kengash a'zolariga uy-joy uchun 20 million funt sterling qo'shimcha pul taklif qilishi mumkinligini aytdi. Ushbu imtiyoz Liverpul shahar kengashining etakchi a'zolari tomonidan katta g'alaba sifatida qabul qilindi va ikki kundan so'ng kengash qonuniy byudjetni belgilab qo'ydi.^[31]

"Liverpul" ga munosabat

Boshqa sharhlovchilar "Liverpul" ning taktikasi muvaffaqiyatli bo'lganiga qo'shilishdi: The Times bosilgan a rahbar "Bugun Liverpulda munitsipalitet jangarilari oqlandi" deb boshlangan va hukumat "so'nggi to'rt yil davomida butun mahalliy hukumatning moliyaviy siyosatini buzib tashlagan; bu kengashlar mos kelmaydi va ular g'alaba qozongan" deb aytish uchun kengashlarga ochiq taklif yuboradi. ularni kiymang ".^[32] Konservativ hukumat tarkibida siyosiy ta'sir juda katta edi.^[33] Hukumat 1984 yilda bir vaqtning o'zida katta jangga kirishni xohlamagan edi konchilarning ish tashlashi, munosabat tezda qattiqlashdi.^[34] Margaret Tetcher 1984 yil noyabr oyida ma'ruzasida, omon qolganidan bir oy o'tgach suiqasd qilishga urinish besh katta konservatorni o'ldirgan, qonun ustuvorligini buzadigan guruhlar spektri haqida: "Spektrning bir uchida bizning chegaralarimizdagi terroristik to'dalar va ularni moliyalashtiradigan va qurollantiradigan terrorchi davlatlar bor. Ikkinchisida" Qattiq chaplar "faoliyat yuritmoqda. bizning tizimimiz ichida, qonunlarni buzish, bo'ysunmaslik va buzish uchun kasaba uyushma hokimiyati va mahalliy hokimiyat apparatlaridan foydalanishni kelishib oldi. "^[35]

Chap tomonda ko'pchilik "Liverpul" ning 1984 yildagi byudjet mojarosi natijalari uning qarama-qarshi yondashuvini tasdiqladi deb o'ylashdi.^[36]

Aksiyani shakllantirish

1984 yil may oyi oxirida "Liverpul" bilan bog'liq kelishmovchiliklar hal qilinmagan bo'lsa-da, allaqachon chap qanot rahbariyatiga bosim o'tkazilgandi Lewisham London Borough kengashi Liverpul variantini nusxalash va kamomadli byudjet bilan Hukumatga qarshi turish.^[37] Iyun oyi o'rtalarida Londonning leyboristlar nazorati ostidagi yig'ilishida ko'plab kengashlarning stavka undirishdan bosh tortgan yagona strategiyasi g'oyasi ilgari surildi.^[38] Ushbu g'oya, ayniqsa, to'rtta Janubiy Londonning Lambet, Sautuark, Lyusham va Grinvich tumanlari rahbarlari va Jon McDonnell, moliya qo'mitasi raisi Buyuk London kengashi. 1984 yil 22-iyunda ular nashr etilgan bayonotga imzo chekdilar Labor Herald strategiyani belgilab bergan.^[39]

Keyingi kun Labor Herald nashr etildi, taktikani muhokama qilish uchun chap qanot kengashi rahbarlari Liverpulda yig'ilishdi. Ko'pgina kengashlarning stavkalarni undirishni rad etish strategiyasi juda muhokama qilindi: Jon Ostin-Uoker, rahbari Grinvich London tuman kengashi "Hukumatning qo'lini majbur qilish uchun etarli" kengashlar birlashishi haqida aytilgan.^[40] Ayniqsa Londonda siyosat Leyboristlar kengashi guruhlari va Buyuk London Mehnat partiyasining ijroiya organlari tomonidan ma'qullandi.^[41]

Leyboristlar partiyasining rasmiy yo'nalishi strategiyaga qarshi chiqish edi, chunki u noqonuniy edi. 7-8 iyul kunlari dam olish kunlari Sheffildda partiya tomonidan tashkil etilgan konferentsiyada Leyboristlar kengashchilari uchrashdilar; chunki taklifnomalar mo''tadil kengashlarni o'z ichiga olgan, uchrashuv rasmiy chiziqni tasdiqlashi kerak edi.^[42] Uy egasi, Sheffild shahar kengashining rahbari Devid Blunket konferentsiya uchun "jamoat harakati, shahid bo'lishga emas, hukumatning orqaga chekinishiga erishish maqsadi" deb yozdi.^[43] Yig'ilishda qonunni buzishga tayyor bo'lgan ko'plab maslahatchilar bilan kelishmovchilik munosabati qabul qilindi; shuningdek, Liberal vakili tomonidan mahalliy hukumat haqida ko'rsatmalar mavjud edi Simon Xyuz liberal maslahatchilar ham shunday qilishi mumkin.^[44] Ushbu qoidalarga rioya qilmaslik tizimga tariflardan foydalanish to'g'risidagi qonunda kiritilganidan kelib chiqib, kengashga uning qopqog'ini qayta baholashni so'rashga imkon berdi: bu davlat kotibi talab qiladigan har qanday ma'lumotni etkazib berishni anglatar edi va davlat kotibiga "majburlash" vakolatini berdi. uning sarf-xarajatlari yoki moliyaviy boshqaruv bilan bog'liq talablar, u "zarur deb hisoblaydi". Mehnatkashlar tomonidan boshqariladigan kengashlar ushbu qoidani konservativ vazirni o'zlarining siyosatidan yuz o'girishdan bosh tortgan siyosatini batafsil tekshirishga taklif qilgan deb hisoblashdi.^[45]

Ko'rib chiqilayotgan variantlar

To'satilishi kerak bo'lgan kengashlar ro'yxati ma'lum bo'lgandan so'ng, ularning rahbarlari muntazam ravishda yig'ilishlarni boshchiligida boshladilar Mahalliy hokimiyat haqida ma'lumot,^[46] Grant jarimalari ularning byudjetiga ta'sir qilganligi sababli, xuddi shu strategiyani qo'llashga qaror qilgan ba'zi birlashtirilmagan kengashlar (shu jumladan "Nyukxem", "Liverpul" va "Manchester") bilan birlashdi.^[47] Beshta strategiya ko'rib chiqildi:

1. Kengashning pul etishmasligi va kreditlarni to'lamasligi bilan stavkani belgilashni muddatsiz qoldirish
2. Kamomad byudjetini qonuniy stavka yoki qoidalar bilan belgilang, ammo xarajatlarni mos ravishda kamaytirishni rad eting
3. Qopqoqning ustidagi stavkani o'rnating
4. Stavka yoki ko'rsatma berishdan umuman bosh torting
5. Istefo ommaviy ravishdayoki boshqaruv partiyasi vazifasini bajarishdan bosh tortish va muxolifatga chiqish.

Ushbu variantlardan birinchisi Londonning janubidan kelgan stavka bo'yicha kengashlar tomonidan qattiq qo'llab-quvvatlandi.^[48] Bunga etakchining o'rinbosari bo'lgan "Liverpul" qattiq qarshilik ko'rsatdi Derek Xetton uni "umuman salbiy strategiya" deb bilgan,^[46] va jangarilarni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi kengash a'zosi Felisiti Dowling jiddiy oqibatlarga olib keladigan rasmiy "stavka yo'q" pozitsiyasiga qarshi bir necha oy davomida ommaviy ravishda bahslashayotganidan shikoyat qildi.^[49] "Liverpul" birlik uchun boshqa kengashlar bilan bir qatorda borishga majburligini his qildi^[46] garchi ular ba'zi rahbarlar o'z guruhlarini qo'llab-quvvatlamasligiga amin bo'lishgan^[50] va boshqa kengashlarning aksariyati tez orada tark etishadi.^[51]

Mehnat partiyasining konferentsiyasi

Faoliyat stavkasini cheklash bilan shug'ullanadigan kengashlar, shuningdek, kampaniyani qo'llab-quvvatlamagan boshqalar bilan birgalikda Leyboristlar partiyasining oktyabr oyining boshida Blekpulda bo'lib o'tgan partiyaning konferentsiyasida ularning yondashuvini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun ovoz berishiga umid qilishdi. 3-oktabr, chorshanba kuni ertalab mahalliy hokimiyat muhokamasida bo'lib, uchta masala ovozga qo'yildi. The Milliy Ijroiya Qo'mitasi hukumatga bo'ysunmaslikni ma'qullagan va birdamlikka chaqirgan, ammo noqonuniylikni aniq qo'llab-quvvatlamagan bayonot uchun ma'qullashni izladi.^[52] Keyin ikkitasi bor edi kompozitsion harakatlar; birinchi (kompozitsion 42), tomonidan ko'chirilgan Davlat xodimlarining milliy ittifoqi, NEC bayonotiga binoan, lekin "texnik qonunbuzarlik deb ta'riflanishi mumkin" bo'lgan byudjetlarni tuzadigan kengashlarni qo'llab-quvvatladi.^[53] Ikkinchisi (43-kompozitsion) nomidan Derek Xetton ko'chirildi Liverpul Broadgreen Mehnat partiyasi saylov okrugi "Tori hukumati siyosati natijasida qonunni buzishga majbur bo'lgan har qanday kengashlarni" qo'llab-quvvatlashini e'lon qildi.^[54]

Oldingi kuni Nil Kinnok partiyaga "qonuniylikni mensimaslik" ni aytdi, lekin NUPE Bosh kotibi Rodni Bikerstaff Kompozitsiya 42 harakatlanayotganda, talab qilinadigan qisqartirish kengashlarni qonuniy majburiyatlarni buzishga majbur qiladi, deb javob berdi: "Biz qonunni buzmasligimiz kerak, ammo qaysi qonunga bo'ysunamiz?". NEC nomidan munozarani yakunlaganda, Devid Blunket (Tezlik bilan belgilangan Sheffild shahar kengashining etakchisi) NEC 43-sonli kompozitsiyani berilishini so'raganligini aniq aytmadi, ya'ni qo'shimcha ko'rib chiqish uchun olib qo'yildi. Zaldagilarning qo'llarini namoyish qilishda NEC bayonoti va ikkala kompozitsiya olib borildi. Natijada, noqonuniy byudjet mablag'larini qo'llab-quvvatlash, partiya rahbariyatini bezovta qildi.^[55]

Yakuniy strategiya

1984 yil dekabrga qadar birinchi variant eng maqbul strategiya sifatida paydo bo'ldi, chunki kengashlar stavkani belgilashni keyinga qoldirish uchun ovoz berishsa, kengashlar o'zlarini zudlik bilan qonunga xilof ravishda jalb qilmaydilar. 1985 yil yangi yilida har qanday dasturning qopqoq darajasini qayta ko'rib chiqish muddati (15 yanvarda belgilangan) yaqinlashganda strategiya keskinlashdi. hech qanday kengash murojaat qilmaganida, muddat 24 yanvargacha uzaytirildi,^[56] ammo kengashlar qat'iy turdilar. Biroq, ba'zi kengashlar norasmiy yondashuvlarni amalga oshirdilar va atrof-muhitni muhofaza qilish vazirligi ba'zi cheklovlarni qayta ko'rib chiqdi.^[48] Narxlarni belgilamoqchi bo'lgan kengashlar kampaniyani rejalashtirish uchun yig'ilishdi va Patrik Jenkin ularga berdi amalda ularni guruh sifatida kutib olish orqali tan olish.^[56]

1985 yil 4 fevraldagi yig'ilish kengashlar uchun yomon o'tdi, Jenkin stavkalarni cheklash va penyalarni berishdan bosh tortdi; Jenkin kengashlar muzokara o'tkazmoqchi bo'lsa, ular bilan yana uchrashishga tayyorligini bildirdi.^[57] Biroz oldin Leyboristlar partiyasi etakchisi Nil Kinnok stavka belgilamaslik siyosatiga qarshi ekanligini aniq aytgan edi; u Leyboristlar partiyasi mahalliy hukumat konferentsiyasida Leyboristlar tarafdorlari aytganidek: "Hech qanday qalqon bo'lmagandan ko'ra, qoqilgan qalqon yaxshiroqdir. Hokimiyatdan ko'ra bizga yordam beradigan barcha ishchi kuchi yaxshiroq joylashtiruvchilar hukumat siyosatining to'liq kuchini kengaytirish ". U strategiyani xizmatlarni himoya qilishga yordam bermaydigan ishora deb bildi.^[58] Uning tanqidiga qaramay, 26 ta kengash qonunni rad etish masalasini ko'rib chiqmoqda.^[59]

Huquqiy asos

Aksiyaning asoslaridan biri 1985 yildagi kengash byudjeti to'g'risidagi qonunning ayrim jihatlari to'liq aniq emasligini bilish edi. Shunisi aniqki, barcha mahalliy hokimiyat idoralari byudjetni va shu sababli yillik stavkani yoki qoidalarni belgilashga majbur bo'lishdi, 1967 yilgi Bosh stavka to'g'risidagi qonunning 2 va 11 bo'limlariga binoan.^[60] Prestij organlari o'zlarining byudjetlari va qoidalarini yangi moliyaviy yil boshlanishidan kamida 21 kun oldin belgilashga qo'shimcha mas'uliyat yukladilar; chunki mahalliy hokimiyat moliya yili 1 aprelda boshlandi, undan 21 mart oldin - 10 mart.^[61] Bunday stavka stavkalarni belgilash organlariga qo'llanilmagan. Amalda ko'pchilik byudjet va stavkani yangi moliya yilidan bir necha hafta oldin belgilaydi, ammo barchasi ham bajarmagan; ba'zi hokimiyat organlari o'z stavkalarini moliyaviy yil boshlangandan keyin muntazam ravishda oshirib borishdi.^[62] Umumiy stavka to'g'risidagi qonunning 2-qismining 1-qismida, shuningdek, stavka boshqa manbalar tomonidan qoplanmagan barcha taxmin qilingan xarajatlarni qoplash uchun etarli bo'lishi kerakligi va shu bilan har qanday defitsit byudjetini noqonuniy holga keltirishi kerak edi.^[63]

Kengash faoliyatini tekshirish hududiy auditor tomonidan tayinlangan Taftish komissiyasi; agar auditor hokimiyatga moliyaviy zararni kengash a'zolarining qasddan qilgan xatti-harakatlari sabab bo'lganligini aniqlasa, u holda ular mas'ul maslahatchilarga pulni qo'shimcha ravishda qaytarib berishni buyurib, ularga guvohnoma berishlari shart edi. Agar to'lash kerak bo'lgan mablag 'har biri 2000 funtdan ortiq bo'lsa, maslahatchi ham lavozimidan chetlashtiriladi. Kengash a'zolari ushbu summa uchun "birgalikda va alohida javobgar bo'lishlari" kerak edi, ya'ni boshqalar to'lay olmasa, umumiy summa har biridan undirilishi kerak edi.

Aksariyat maslahatchilar stavkani belgilashni kechiktirishni o'ylab, eng muhim nuqta birinchi stavkalar bo'yicha to'lovlar to'lash muddati kelgan yilda keladi deb hisobladilar; agar kengash o'sha paytda stavkani belgilamagan bo'lsa, unga to'langan to'lovlar bo'yicha foizlarni qaytarib ololmas edi. 1967 yil 50-bo'lim va 10-jadval bo'yicha "Umumiy stavka to'g'risidagi qonun" ratifikatorlarga yil davomida oylik oraliqda to'lanishi kerak bo'lgan o'nta qismga to'lash huquqini berdi. Moliyaviy yil 31 martda tugaydi, to'lovni boshlashning so'nggi sanasi 1 iyul edi; to'lovni to'lash muddati to'g'risida kengash o'n kun oldin ogohlantirishi kerak edi, shuning uchun qaytarib bo'lmaydigan qarzlarsiz stavkani belgilashning so'nggi sanasi 20 iyun edi.^[64]

Mahalliy hokimiyat idoralarini yopish

Atrof-muhit bo'yicha kotibi Patrik Jenkin mahalliy hukumat ro'yxatini e'lon qildi Jamiyat palatasi 1984 yil 24-iyulda. Ro'yxatda 18 ta hokimiyat bor edi:

• Basildon tuman kengashi
• Brent London Borough kengashi
• Camden London Borough Council
• Buyuk London kengashi
• Grinvich London tuman kengashi
• Hackney London Borough kengashi
• Haringey London Borough kengashi
• Ichki London ta'limi boshqarmasi
• Londonning Islington tuman Kengashi
• Lambet London Borough kengashi
• Lester shahar kengashi
• Lewisham London Borough kengashi
• Mersisayd okrugi kengashi
• Portsmut shahar kengashi
• Sheffild shahar kengashi
• Southwark London Borough kengashi
• Janubiy Yorkshir okrugi kengashi
• Temzdaun tuman kengashi

Jenkin ushbu kengashlarning 15tasining 1985/86 yilgi byudjetini 1984/85 yilgi byudjetining naqd pul darajasi bilan cheklashga qaror qildi. GLC, ILEA va Grinvich, masalan, byudjet mablag'lari grant bilan bog'liq xarajatlaridan 70 foizdan yuqori bo'lgan va 1981/82 yildan beri 30 foizdan oshgan bo'lsa, u 1984/85 yilgi ko'rsatkichdan 1½ foizga pastroq qo'ydi. byudjet.^[65] 18 ta kengashdan 16 tasi ular tayinlangan paytda Leyboristlar tomonidan ko'pchilik nazorati ostida edi. Istisnolardan konservativ ko'pchilik bo'lgan Portsmut,^[66] va Brentda hech bir partiyaning umumiy ko'pligi bo'lmagan. Leyboristlar ma'muriyati hokimiyatni egallab olgan edi, ammo 1983 yil dekabr oyida Leyboristlar kengashi a'zosi Ambrozin Nil konservatorlar safiga qo'shilganda, konservatorlar Liberal ko'mak bilan nazoratni o'z qo'liga oldi.^[67]

Portsmut shahar kengashining konservativ etakchisi Yan Gibson byudjetni qoplash to'g'risidagi qarorni "noo'rin" deb atadi,^[68] yuqori xarajatlarning sababi, kengash bir necha yil oldin keng ko'lamli qayta qurish uchun katta qarz to'lovlari bo'lganligi bilan izohladi. U apellyatsiya mexanizmidan foydalanishga va'da berdi,^[69] ammo masala 25 sentyabr kuni ovoz berishga kelganda, kengash buni qilmaslik uchun ovoz berdi.^[70]

Qopqoqni o'rnatish

1984 yil 11-dekabrda Patrik Jenkin 18 ta kengashning ro'yxatini tasdiqladi va ularning byudjeti uchun vaqtinchalik raqamlarni e'lon qildi. 18-dan 12-si uchun byudjet chegarasi uy xo'jaliklari to'laydigan stavkalar darajasining mutlaq kesilishini anglatadi.^[71] Yanvar oyida Portsmut hukumat belgilamoqchi bo'lgan cheklovlarni qabul qilishga va byudjetni tuzishga qaror qildi; shuning uchun u ro'yxatdan chiqarildi.^[72]

Byudjet cheklovlari to'g'risidagi ko'rsatkichlar qayta ko'rib chiqilgandan so'ng Patrik Jenkin 1985 yil 6 fevralda Jamoatchilik palatasida to'rtta hokimiyat (GLC, ILEA, Mersisayd va Janubiy Yorkshir) bo'yicha byudjetlarni cheklash bo'yicha birinchi buyruqni kiritdi. Qisqa munozaralardan so'ng 255 dan 193 gacha ovoz bilan buyruq tasdiqlandi.^[73] Qolgan 13 stavkalarni belgilash bo'yicha vakolatlarni o'z ichiga olgan ikkinchi buyurtma 20 fevral kuni munozaraga qo'yilgan edi, ammo oldingi kuni Jenkin tuman auditoridan xat olganidan so'ng, Xaringey uchun limitni qayta ko'rib chiqishga rozi bo'lishi kerak edi. defitsit, agar dastlabki limit qo'yilgan bo'lsa. Tartibni muhokama qilish kerak bo'lgan kecha kechqurun soat 10.15 da Jenkin bahs kechikayotganini ma'lum qildi.^[74] Oltita kengashning raqamlari o'zgartirilgandan so'ng, 25 fevral kuni Jamoalar palatasida 267 ovoz bilan 184 ga qarshi ovoz bilan kapaklar uchun qayta ko'rib chiqilgan raqamlar tasdiqlandi.^[75]

Belgilangan byudjet cheklovlari jadvalda keltirilgan. Birinchi ustunda kengash stavkani tuzganmi yoki uning nomidan boshqa hokimiyat organlari tomonidan yig'ilishi kerak bo'lgan ko'rsatma berilganmi. Keyingi ustunda 1985/86 yilgi byudjet chegarasi berilgan; shundan so'ng 1985/86 yillarda kengash nimani sarflashni rejalashtirganligini ko'rsatadigan byudjet rejalari. Kepka tomonidan belgilangan maksimal stavka (pensiya bilan) keyingi o'rinda turadi, undan keyin 1984/85 stavkalari darajasidagi maksimal foiz o'zgarishi kuzatiladi. Oxirgi ikkita ustun kengash belgilagan stavkani va 1984/85 stavkalari darajasidagi foiz o'zgarishini ko'rsatadi.

^[76]

Yuridik stavkani belgilaydigan yopiq kengashlar

Brent va Portsmut konservatorlari tomonidan nazorat qilingan ikkita yopiq kengashlar hech qachon stavka belgilamaslik strategiyasining bir qismi bo'lmagan. Portsmut allaqachon o'z kepkasini qabul qilib, o'zining byudjetini 1985 yil 5 martda voqealarsiz belgilab qo'ydi. 1983 yil dekabrda konservatorlar egallab olgan Brent 1985 yil 13 martda qonuniy byudjetni o'rnatmadi.^[77]

Mersisayd va Janubiy Yorkshir

Ikki poytaxt okrugi Kengashlar 10 martgacha o'zlarining ko'rsatmalarini berishlari uchun qonuniy talablarga bo'ysunishdi. Shuningdek, ular 1986 yil mart oyining oxirida o'zlarining bekor qilinishiga duch kelishdi. Agar ular byudjetni aniqlay olmasalar va doimiy ravishda mavjud bo'lmasalar, zudlik bilan qonuniy sanktsiyalarni kutish ehtimoli bilan duch kelishdi va stavkalarni cheklash bo'yicha o'z e'tirozlarini bildirishga moyil emas edilar. 19 fevralda yopilgan kengashlarning yig'ilishida ikkalasi ham qonuniy ko'rsatmani o'z vaqtida belgilashlarini aniq aytishdi.^[47] Keyin Janubiy Yorkshir okrugi Kengashi byudjetni kapa ichida belgilashini ochiqchasiga aytdi va buni 7 mart kuni bo'lib o'tgan byudjet yig'ilishida davom ettirdi.^[78]

Mersisaydliklar shuningdek, 7 mart kuni kepkaga qarshi chiqmaslikka, balki 213 million funt sterling miqdoridagi byudjetni limitdan ancha pastroqqa belgilashga qaror qildilar: 73 p bo'lgan ko'rsatma 82.86 pikseldan ancha past edi,^[79] ma'no stavkalari ruxsat etilgan 27% o'rniga 11% ga o'sdi.^[78] Byudjetda kengashning sarf-xarajatlari haqida batafsil ma'lumot berilmagan, ammo kengash xarajatlarni cheklash uchun maxsus mexanizm yaratdi. Kengash ushbu harakatlar xavfli bo'lganligi, ammo agar kengash o'z byudjetini ushlab turishga astoydil harakat qilsa, qonuniy deb qabul qilinishi mumkin bo'lgan huquqiy maslahat oldi.^[80] Kengash rahbari Keva Kombes qo'shimcha yordamga chaqirdi, ammo Patrik Jenkin rad javobini berdi.^[78]

GLC va ILEA

Jon McDonnell, GLC moliya kafedrasi, stavkalarni cheklashga qarshi kampaniyani olib bordi.

Dastlabki bosqichdan boshlab, GLC va uning etakchisi Ken Livingstone va moliya kafedrasi Jon McDonnell stavkalarni cheklashga qarshi kampaniyani rejalashtirishda katta ishtirok etishgan. Ularning ishtiroki ham o'z ichiga olgan Ichki London ta'limi boshqarmasi bu texnik jihatdan maxsus qo'mita edi Buyuk London kengashi, ichki Londondan GLCga saylangan a'zolardan va yana ichki a'zolardan bittadan a'zodan iborat London tumanlari. GLC va ILEA ikkala stavka o'rniga emas, balki biron bir qoidani belgilashganligi sababli, ikkalasi ham 10 martga qadar byudjetni belgilash bo'yicha qonuniy talabga binoan. Livingstone GLCdagi Leyboristlar guruhi so'nggi paytlarda qonunga bo'ysunmaslik to'g'risida qaror qabul qilish tajribasiga ega ekanligini bilar edi, 1981 yilda 23 dan 22 gacha ovoz berib, Lordlar palatasi jamoat transportida yo'l haqini ko'tarish to'g'risida qaror chiqargan qaror.^[81] U ko'proq maslahatchilarni byudjet to'g'risidagi qonunni buzishni qo'llab-quvvatlashga ishontirishga ishonmagan, ammo Hukumat 1985 yil 31 martda GLCni bekor qilmoqchi bo'lganligi sababli, u kampaniyani qo'llab-quvvatlash bilan birga bordi.^[82]

Stavkalarni belgilamaslik taktikasi stavka belgilanadigan kengashlar orasida ommalashganligi kabi, Hukumat ham mag'lubiyatga uchradi Lordlar palatasi bu GLCga qo'shimcha yilni taqdim etdi va uni 1985–86 yillarda byudjetlashtirish va stavkalarni belgilashga bo'ysundirdi. Leyboristlar guruhi maslahatchilarining muqarrar ravishda bo'linishi tufayli, bu masalani muddat tugashiga qadar muhokama qilmaslik to'g'risida kelishib olindi; Ayni paytda, hukumat byudjetga qattiq chek qo'yganini to'xtatish uchun kengash batafsil byudjet hujjatlari e'lon qilinmasligini buyurdi. Jon McDonnellga kampaniyani boshqarish mas'uliyati yuklangan bo'lib, u stavkalarni belgilash rejalashtirilgan xarajatlarning 138 million funt sterlingini kamaytirishni talab qiladi.^[83]

GLC etakchisi Ken Livingstone dastlab qo'llab-quvvatlagan, ammo cheklov GLC sarf-xarajatlar rejalariga zarar etkazmasligiga ishongan.

Byudjetga ovoz berish vaqti yaqinlashganda, Livingstone stavkani belgilamaslikni hal qilish bilan bog'liq bo'lgan aniq noqonuniylik o'rniga, boshqa kengashlar qonuniy kulrang maydondan foydalanishni rejalashtirayotganligini aniqladilar. Ushbu strategiya ularni GLC va ILEA-ga zudlik bilan noqonuniy bo'lgan boshqa holatga keltirishi mumkin edi.^[84] Bosh direktor Mauris Stonefrost tomonidan tayyorlangan byudjet hujjatlari shundan so'ng, cheklov hali ham kengashga xarajatlarni sezilarli darajada oshirishga imkon beradi; qog'ozlar 1 mart kuni GLCning barcha a'zolariga tarqatildi. 4 mart kuni bo'lib o'tgan Leyboristlar guruhi yig'ilishidagi uzoq va keskin munozaralar 24 byudjet tomonidan 18 ga qarshi bo'lib, qonuniy byudjetni 25 million funt sterlingga o'sishini qo'llab-quvvatlashga kelishib oldi. GLC Leyboristlar guruhi uch guruhga bo'lindi, ulardan biri Jon McDonnell boshchiligidagi 10 kishidan biri stavkani belgilamaslikni talab qilmoqda, Ken Livingstone boshchiligidagi 8 kishidan biri qonunga bo'ysunishga tayyor, ammo agar bu pozitsiya amalga oshmasa, byudjetni qabul qilishga tayyor. har qanday noqonuniy byudjetni qo'llab-quvvatlashni istamaydigan uchinchi guruh.^[85]

Birinchi bo'lib 7 mart kuni ILEA uchrashdi; stavka yo'qligi strategiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlovchilar bu hali ham bo'ysunmaslik uchun ovoz beradi deb umid qilishgan, ammo hokimiyat to'rtta ovoz bilan qonuniy byudjetni qabul qildi.^[47] GLC ertasi kuni uchrashdi; rais bilan Illtyd Xarrington ovoz berishda ovoz berishni taqiqlashdan tashqari, bitta leyborist kasal bo'lib qolgan va boshqa birov ta'tilga chiqmagan bo'lsa, ovoz berishning to'liq kuchi leyboristlar 45, konservatorlar 41 va Ittifoq 3.^[86] Ovoz beriladigan birinchi byudjet - bu konservatorlarning stavkalarni 27 pgacha pasaytirish to'g'risidagi taklifi; this was rejected by 48 to 38. A budget setting the rate at the maximum allowed by the cap was defeated by 59 to 30 with both Livingstone and McDonnell opposed. At this point the meeting was adjourned until Sunday 10 March, at which meeting a second attempt to set a budget at the cap level was rejected by 54 to 34. After a further budget proposed by the Conservative group was rejected, another budget at the cap level was proposed by Stiv Yuz but again rejected by 53 to 36. Finally a budget proposed by moderate Labour councillor Barrie Stead, setting the rate below cap level, was passed by 60 to 26.^[86][87]

Basildon

From an early stage in 1984, before the official announcement of the councils to be rate-capped, Basildon had worked on the assumption that it would have its budget restricted. In March, prior to the capping list being announced,^[88] the council leadership invited the Taftish komissiyasi to independently investigate its spending, hoping that it would vindicate the council's decisions.^[89] The report found that the council's high spending was not the result of inefficiency but of policy decisions, and the fact that as a yangi shaharcha it had higher interest payments and higher spending on managing housing.^[90] The council duly published the report after it was capped, making much of the fact that the Audit Commission had exonerated it.^[88]

Determined to frustrate the capping order, Basildon announced at the end of February 1985 that it could evade it by setting up a cheklangan kompaniya – Basildon Economic Development Corporation Ltd – through which the council would contract to pay grants of £140,000 to voluntary organisations.^[91] When it came to the budgeting meeting on 7 March 1985, a group of rebel Labour councillors pulled back from pressing the council to join the others in refusing to set a rate; instead the council set the rate at the limit allowed by the cap. The council leader Harry Tinworth claimed that the council had won the first round in a battle with the Government to preserve essential services.^[92] Later that month the council announced its plan to sell council mortgages to a merchant bank to raise capital finance to build sheltered homes for the elderly, also evading the cap.^[93]

Councils joining the protest but backing down

Shimoliy Tyneside

The north-eastern borough of North Tyneside was not rate-capped but the effect of rate penalties had reduced its rate support grant from £55m to £38m. On 26 February 1985 the Labour leadership of the council called a press conference to announce that the Labour group had decided to recommend to the council that it not set a rate, to allow negotiations with the Government to produce improved grant.^[94] At the council's budget meeting on 8 March, all Labour councillors voted along these lines; the council leader Brian Flood declared that he wished to see spending growth of £4.2m.^[95]

In the middle of March the district auditor, Brian Singleton, sent a letter to every councillor warning them of the legal dangers of delaying setting a rate. At a special council meeting called by the Conservative group on 22 March 1985, the Labour chair of the Finance Committee Harry Rutherford proposed an £83m budget which included uncommitted growth of only £300,000 instead of the £4.2m wanted by the Leader; he attracted the support of the opposition Conservative and Alliance councillors together with 12 other Labour rebels and the budget was passed. The chief whip of the Labour group Stiven Byers said that the auditor would have to check the budget was legal.^[96] Four of the thirteen Labour rebels were suspended from the party for terms between six and twelve months, and the others were reprimanded and required to give a written undertaking to observe group policy in future.^[97]

Thamesdown

After the rate-capping of Thamesdown was announced, the Member of Parliament for Svindon Simon Kumbs (kim edi Parlamentning xususiy kotibi ga Kennet Beyker, the local government minister) pressed the council to use the appeal mechanism provided in the Rates Act 1984. The ruling Labour group maintained the unity of the capped councils by refusing to appeal, and on this issue had the support of Conservative councillors.^[98] However the leadership of the Labour group was relatively moderate and wary of the 'no rate' strategy. Thamesdown seemed to some observers an odd target for capping; The Times ' correspondent reported local rumours that it had been selected for capping in the hope that it might appeal and be removed, thereby damaging the policy of confrontation.^[99]

On 7 March, Thamesdown passed a motion declaring its inability to set a rate.^[100] The council's chief executive, David Kent, wrote to all councillors after the meeting telling them that a rate had to be set by the end of March, and pressure appeared also from the Sog'liqni saqlash va ijtimoiy ta'minot bo'limi which warned on 21 March that there would be a problem paying Uy-joy uchun imtiyoz to the council if no rate was made. The council felt sufficiently concerned to avoid budget chaos that it set up a special resources sub-committee to agree emergency measures for ordering supplies. On 25 March the Mayor summoned a special council meeting for 28 March, while senior councillors discussed options with the borough solicitor.^[101] The meeting on 28 March saw prolonged disruption from the public gallery by those who supported continued defiance, and Mayor Harry Garrett called on the police to keep order. Among the councillors the decision was taken to approve a legal rate of 196.65p; a council spokesman claimed that the council would be going ahead with what it was going to do anyway.^[102]

"Lester"

Initial figures for the rate cap of Leicester City Council would have required it to lower rates by 57%, a level which council leader Piter Soulsbi described as "savage treatment".^[71] However, later figures allowed the council to include an additional £3.7m in its budget. On 7 March 1985 the council approved a budget of £30,650,000 (significantly over the cap), but not a rate to go with it; the motion also told the Secretary of State that if the rate limit and grant penalties were withdrawn, the council could set a rate rise lower than the rate of inflation.^[103] Although this vote was unanimous, the Labour leadership soon decided that there was no point in holding out.^[104] The council came under pressure not to give in, with a letter from the 'West End Rate-Capping Campaign Group' sent to each councillor urging them to continue to set no rate, and a petition of 2,000 presented to the council opposing rate-capping by Mrs Megan Armstrong who urged the council to defy the Government even if it meant breaking the law.^[105] From the other side, the Conservative group on Lestershir okrugi kengashi attempted to get their authority to initiate a sud nazorati as Leicester collected and passed on its precept; the attempt failed as the Liberal group opposed it.^[106]

The council leadership proposed a deficit budget at a policy committee meeting on 27 March; despite being told by city treasurer Michael Lambert that it was illegal, the committee referred it to full council the following day.^[107] Although 22 petitions containing 9,000 signatures were presented to the council meeting calling for continued defiance, the council adopted the budget; finance committee chair Graham Bett said that it was not the rate of elected councillors but of a "remote right-wing Government in London".^[108] Seven Labour councillors were absent from the meeting, continuing to support defiance.^[104]

"Manchester"

Manchester town hall, in front of which a rally was held in March 1985 to oppose rate-capping.

Manchester City Council was not rate-capped. However its leadership was fully committed to the strategy of not setting a rate, arguing that the effect of the grant penalties system harmed it.^[47] A large rally protesting against rate-capping was held in Manchester on 6 March 1985, followed the next day by the council voting not to set a rate.^[109] When, the following week, the opposition Liberal Party group on the council called a special meeting to propose their own budget (which included a 4.4% rate rise), the council leader Grem Stringer insisted that the no rate strategy would continue.^[110] Liberal leader David Sandiford was ruled out of order by Stringer when he attempted to speak about the no rate strategy at a Policy Committee meeting on 17 March.^[111]

Legal pressure on the council leadership began early when the District Auditor wrote to the City Clerk saying that the decision not to set a rate was 'wilful misconduct'.^[111] At the special meeting of the council on 22 March, the Liberal proposed budget was defeated, but 16 Labour councillors (including the Lord Mayor) supported it. One of them, Paul Murphy, insisted the council could make a rate without job losses.^[112] A further council meeting on 25 March saw 17 Labour councillors support the Liberal budget, but it was again rejected by 52 to 23.^[113]

On the last day of the financial year, 31 March, the council met again in its fifth budgeting meeting in a month.^[114] In a six-hour meeting, a left-wing amendment declaring it impossible to set a rate was defeated by 51–45, with 31 Labour councillors opposing it. A Conservative budget involving a 0.7% rate rise was voted down; the Labour chair of the Economic Development committee then proposed a 257.5p rate (a 6% rise) which was agreed by 83–1 with 12 abstentions. Graham Stringer declared that "Manchester's case and the national campaign has been weakened" but pledged that there would be no cuts and they would continue to support other councils.^[115]

Councils beginning the financial year with no rate

Lyusham

Commitment to the no rate strategy by Lewisham, under its leader Ron Stockbridge, was strong and the council passed a motion on 7 March declaring its inability to make a rate along with many others.^[100] Lewisham worked together with the other south London boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark and Greenwich in a joint publicity campaign under the title 'Standing Together'.^[116] However, the council's stance was unexpectedly ended at a council meeting on 4 April. A group of 20 trade union members had invaded the chamber prior to the start of the meeting, protesting against rate-capping and intending to prevent the council meeting from being held at all. Labour councillors then withdrew to a separate room to discuss tactics, not noticing that after an hour the demonstration had dispersed. The Conservative councillors who remained in the council chamber then quickly convened a meeting under a temporary chairman, and passed a budget reducing rates by 6%.^[117]

The Labour group, incensed at being caught off guard, took legal advice but were told that the budget as approved was "more legal than not". The Conservative councillor who had led the initiative of calling the meeting claimed that Labour councillors had told him it was the best thing to happen, as it removed the threat of disqualification and surcharge while allowing Labour to blame the Conservatives locally for any service cuts.^[118] However, Ron Stockbridge subsequently resigned as council leader.

Xaringey

The Government had been forced to change the level of the cap on Haringey Borough Council due to the discovery that it had overpaid housing subsidy. Due to the system of penalties, the repayment of £5m required a rate rise of £16m.^[119] On 7 March, the council passed a motion in similar terms to others, declaring its inability to make a rate.^[100] At the next meeting on 4 April, all 34 members of the Labour group stuck to their decision and were joined by an independent councillor in voting not to set a rate (23 Conservatives disagreed).^[104]However at a party meeting on 10 April the attitude of the council leadership had changed and a significant split opened up.

Council leader George Meehan proposed at a meeting of Labour Party councillors that a legal rate be set at the council meeting the day after, but was defeated by "a clear majority" in favour of delaying a rate until 29 April by which time the council would have met ministers. Meehan then offered his resignation.^[120] At the council meeting Meehan formally proposed the legal rate and then joined with 12 other Labour councillors and the opposition Conservative group to pass it; the majority of the Labour group voted in favour of delay until 29 April.^[121] Meehan then left office and Berni Grant succeeded him as leader.^[122]

Nyuxem

Although not capped, Newham was severely affected by grant penalties. It had worked with the capped councils and decided to join the campaign: on 7 March the council members unanimously passed a motion declaring that they could not set a rate. Council deputy leader Alan Mattingly said that the majority of councillors would go to jail rather than cut services.^[123] It was soon clear that there was a significant split in the Labour group as Leader Jack Hart told a council meeting on 28 March that the Government would not increase their spending limit and urged members to be realistic. His ally, councillor David Gilles, proposed a budget of £151.5m. Alan Mattingly by contrast urged the council to stand firm and despite Hart's support the budget was defeated by 18 to 35; a budget proposed by the SDP was voted down by 20 to 33.^[124]

In April the council leadership received a warning from the trade unions representing council workers that their support for the council's stance was limited and "the day you stop paying wages then our fight is with you". A meeting of Labour councillors on 15 April agreed to support a budget of £150.6m, and a council meeting the following day approved it.^[125]

Sheffild

With council leader Devid Blunket holding a place on the Labour Party Milliy Ijroiya Qo'mitasi, Sheffield was one of the most prominent Labour councils of the 1980s and Blunkett was an unofficial spokesman on behalf of Labour in local government. One of the rallies held on 6 March to protest against rate-capping was held in Sheffield.^[109] On 7 March the council passed a budget (including capital spending which was not subject to the cap) of £249m, which was £31.1m over the cap; £11.8m of the gap was met from reserves. The council then passed a motion calling for income and expenditure to be reconciled and instructed the Policy Committee to prepare a detailed budget.^[126] The council did not set the rate to go with the budget but instead passed a motion declaring that it could not set a rate.^[78] Later in March the council passed a second resolution which explained that it would not set a rate until learning the outcome of Greenwich borough council's application for sud nazorati which was due to be heard on 12 April.^[127]

Sheffield's own action for judicial review of its spending limit ended on 2 April when Mr Justice Woolf refused it permission, ruling that while the High Court had jurisdiction, any matter involving political judgment should be dealt with through the democratic processes;^[128] an appeal failed on 2 May.^[129] A further meeting on 24 April again postponed setting a rate.^[130] By the beginning of May, leading members of the council were acknowledging the risks of their stance: the deputy leader Alan Billings talked of "asking people to commit political suicide for the greater good", while Blunkett talked in Tribuna of "those who look for corpses .. to prove that there has been a genuine struggle".^[129] Blunkett appealed for campaigners to avoid a shambles such as had happened at the GLC.

On 7 May the council came to a crunch meeting at which the council leadership put forward a motion which stopped delaying fixing a rate but instead refused to set a rate until the Government began negotiating. It was understood that this motion would invite immediate legal action.^[131] Instead, after a five-hour meeting, 20 Labour councillors voted with the Liberal and Conservative groups on the council in favour of an amendment to set a rate within the cap limit; the amendment passed by 46 to 38 with one abstention.^[132] After the vote, it was noticed that the rate demands sent out by the council appeared to have been printed before the council had formally set the rate.^[133] The problems for Sheffield did not end there as the council leadership asked chief officers to implement the original budget. A report by the district auditor in July declared Sheffield's deficit budget illegal and the council had to instruct the service committees to reduce spending in line with a capped budget.^[126]

Minora Hamletlari

Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, which was not capped, was in the unusual position of being unable to set a rate due to the actions of dissenting councillors from the majority group combining with the opposition. The council had a leadership from the right-wing of the Labour Party; council leader John Riley argued that the rates were high enough and that ratepayers ought not to have a massive increase. However two left-wing Labour councillors Chris Rackley and Thérèse Shanahan announced that they would join with the opposition Liberal group to support a 'no cuts' budget.^[134] Their stance attracted others and the Labour budget was defeated with nine Labour councillors voting against it.^[135]

The response of the Labour leadership was to expel the nine rebels, a move opposed by the Greater London Labour Party and by the majority of Labour Party members in the borough.^[136] This move reduced the Labour group to a minority on the council.^[137] When the Mayor Bob Ashkettle attempted to put through a budget at a council meeting on 23 April with an 8% rise, legal advice was sought and the motion was ruled unconstitutional. The Liberal group was opposed to this budget, demanding extra spending.^[138] The leadership then tried to compromise, but an extra £3.5m in the budget failed to shift the Liberal opposition on 8 May.^[139] It was not until a meeting on 14 May 1985 called by the Liberal group that a rate was set by 33 votes to 10.^[140]

Xakni

Support for the no rate strategy among leading councillors in Hackney was among the strongest anywhere. The open declaration by the council of its intentions led one Hackney resident, Mourad Fleming, to go to law before the council held its budgeting meeting seeking judicial review of the council's actions. In February 1985 Fleming had been the SDP candidate in a byelection in Hackney's Kissold ward which had been won by a Labour candidate pledged to the no rate strategy.^[141] On 6 March 1985 in the Oliy sud, Mr Justice Mann issued an interlocutory declaration that the council had a duty to set a rate which did not breach the cap and that it could not use interim borrowing powers. Notwithstanding the judgment and firm advice from the borough solicitor that the council had to set a rate, on 7 March the council passed a resolution declaring that "the council considers it would be impossible to make a rate". The resolution disguised the refusal to set a rate as a delay pending negotiation with the Secretary of State.^[62]

On 20 March, council leader Hilda Kean declared that the council would be bankrupt by the middle of April if unable to set a rate and abjured the use of ijodiy buxgalteriya hisobi to evade the cap.^[142] The council slightly softened its policy on 28 March, declaring that it was only deferring making a rate and committing to making a legal rate in due course; a motion to stick to the previous formula was defeated by 32 to 24.^[127] The council having ignored the High Court's interlocutory declaration, Mourad Fleming's judicial review application proceeded to trial on 1 April; Fleming agreed to vary an order and let the council use borrowing powers in the 1985/86 financial year, but said that he would ask the court to appoint a receiver to run the council if no rate was set.^[143] At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Woolf found both Hackney's resolutions of 7 and 28 March unlawful and quashed them but refused to immediately order the council to set a rate. Instead he adjourned the case to 16 April.^[144]

Mr Justice Woolf's judgment on 16 April observed that the council "have determined, irrespective of their legal duty, not to make a rate".^[62] Having decided that this was unlawful, he then grappled with the issue of the discretion available to the council of when to set its rate which he found the council had to use reasonably and in the interests of ratepayers.^[145] Woolf again declined to issue an order of mandamus compelling the council to set a rate, instead stating that he would do so unless Hackney indicated it would make a rate within an acceptable timescale. After hearing submissions about what such a timescale would be, he decided to give the council "a relatively liberal period of time in which to give effect to this judgment" and fixed the end of May as the deadline.^[146] On 2 May, Hackney also lost its appeal against the ruling in its own judicial review challenge of the Secretary of State's spending guidance, and was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.^[147] The council was warned by the borough solicitor that the legal costs of attempting further legal challenge would probably be the subject of a surcharge of councillors.^[47]

By the middle of May it was clear that enough Labour councillors in Hackney had become willing to vote for a legal budget and that the council would not defy the court judgment. A group of Labour councillors joined with the council's Liberal group to produce an acceptable budget. An attempt to hold a budgeting meeting on 16 May was thwarted when some town hall staff locked up the building and refused to allow councillors in;^[148] when the council met on 22 May, it allowed addresses by delegations from trade unions and community groups at which the secretary of the joint shop stewards Alf Sullivan described what was proposed as "a bent budget" introduced to "cover your retreat from the fight". When the vote on the budget was called at 12:45 AM, the chamber was invaded with the result that the meeting was adjourned to the following day.^[149] On 23 May the council finally approved a legal budget put forward by Labour councillor Tony Millwood. 24 Labour councillors joined six Conservatives and three Liberals to pass it, while 26 Labour councillors remained opposed. Hilda Kean, who said the decision was a betrayal, resigned the leadership along with her deputy Andrew Puddephatt.^[150]

Southwark

Part of a group of four south London boroughs, with whom it had formed a joint publicity campaign,^[116] Southwark was strongly committed to the no rate strategy. The council duly passed a motion on 7 March declaring its inability to set a rate, and at the end of March reiterated its stance by a large majority.^[127] When the council asked ratepayers to keep paying the same rates as the previous year, the local government minister Uilyam Valdegreyv said in Parliament that until a rate was set, ratepayers need not pay anything.^[118]

While the leadership was determined not to set a rate, there were moderate Labour councillors who were willing to defy the whip to vote for a legal budget. Supporters sought to prevent them from being put in such a position. On 16 April, council leader Tony Ritchie prevented a meeting called to set a legal rate from continuing by using powers under the council's doimiy buyurtmalar to adjourn pending new advice; the meeting lasted only two minutes.^[151] A further meeting on 24 April was also swiftly adjourned, although on this occasion it was because Ritchie collapsed and had to be taken to hospital.^[130] When the council finally met on 26 April, the chamber was invaded by members of tenants groups and council staff with the result that the meeting broke up and was cancelled by the Mayor.^[152]

On 1 May the council managed to meet, and the meeting went on for seven hours of angry debate. It resulted in a legal budget written by Labour moderates, which would have cut the rates, being voted down by the Labour leadership and the Conservative group.^[129] A further, more orderly, meeting on 8 May voted down a Conservative budget and a deficit budget proposed as a compromise by a minority faction in the Labour group.^[153] The next day, the District Auditor Brian Skinner wrote to all councillors in authorities which had not yet set rates telling them to do so without delay and certainly before the end of May deadline given by the High Court in the Hackney case.^[154] The council maintained its defiance at the next meeting on 16 May, but by a margin of only one vote (24 to 23).^[155] On 23 May, a vote to continue not setting a rate was passed only on the ovoz berish of the Mayor.^[156]

As the end of May deadline approached, the Conservative group leader Toby Eckersley voiced his dislike of the pressure put on him to vote for a budget featuring an increase in spending of 34% to solve the dispute, especially since the motion also included political criticism of the Conservative government.^[157] Finally at a meeting on 30 May, the council voted by 26 to 23 to set a rate at the maximum level allowed, although the budget did not fund £9.5m of spending commitments.^[158] The final voting showed that 25 Labour councillors had supported the budget together with one Independent, 21 Labour councillors and two Independents had opposed, while the eight Conservative and two Liberal councillors had joined one Labour councillor in abstaining.^[159]

Islington

The leader of Islington borough council, Margaret Xodj, had chaired the meeting of the Labour london boroughs in June 1984 at which the strategy of setting no rate had been decided upon, and according to Ken Livingstone, claimed to have come up with the idea.^[38] Hodge was one of the public leaders of the campaign and on the evening of Thursday 7 March the council organised a people's festival in the civic auditorium while the council formally voted not to set a rate.^[160] On 22 April the council published the results of an opinion poll it had commissioned which showed that 57% of people in Islington supported the council in the struggle, with 20% supporting the Government. Asked what the council should do, the poll found 37% wanted the council to continue not to set a rate, 27% wanted the council to resign and force an election on the issue, and 21% wanted the council to set a legal rate.^[161]

When the council met again on 23 April, the members had been warned by District Auditor Brian Skinner of "serious consequences" including surcharge should they decide not to set a rate; Margaret Hodge ignored the advice and commented as she moved the motion that she would not "abandon the collective unity that is so important in the struggle against the Government".^[162] However the council sent out a circular requesting ratepayers to volunteer rate payments in accordance with the previous years' demands.^[163] The council deliberately took steps to justify its delay in setting a rate by obtaining counsel's opinion; on 26 April Hodge wrote to Brian Skinner declaring that "important [specified] matters justifying such a deferral arose" and that "matters [have been] taken to minimize and cancel any possible losses which might arise".^[164]

After a series of warning letters, District Auditor Skinner was invited to Islington town hall on 8 May to meet the council leaders and discuss his draft report on Islington. Skinner found that the streets outside were full of thousands of demonstrators supporting the council, which the councillors insisted had arrived spontaneously. Despite police protection he was kicked when attempting to leave after the meeting, and had to be smuggled out lying on the back seat of a police car covered by coats.^[165] An application for an favqulodda munozara ichida Jamiyat palatasi by Islington North MP Jeremi Korbin was turned down that afternoon.^[166]

As with other councils still without a budget, the auditor had ordered Islington to set a legal rate by the end of May or face an extraordinary audit. On 30 May, the Local Government committee of the Islington Labour Party narrowly voted to support a legal rate,^[167] and the following day Margaret Hodge proposed a legal budget to the council. The galleries were crowded with people urging the council to continue the fight and an amendment to continue to defer setting a rate was moved by Chris Calnan, but the amendment was lost by 34 votes to 10 with six abstentions and Islington duly set a legal rate a few hours before the deadline.^[168]

Kamden

All 33 Labour councillors on Camden Borough Council voted on 7 March against setting a rate; they included Stephen Bevington who had only been elected a week before on a platform of setting no rate.^[169] The Conservative group on the council, who had supported setting the rate at the level of the cap, immediately called for surcharges on councillors where the delay in setting the rate led to financial losses for the council.^[170] At a Labour group meeting on 26 March, Alan Woods moved a motion to declare that Camden would continue to refuse to set a rate even if other boroughs gave up; with council leader Phil Turner abstaining, the motion was lost by 15 votes to 14.^[171]

For the moment the council continued, citing the forthcoming judicial review action by Greenwich as justification.^[127] In the middle of April, a Labour councillor was quoted by the Hampstead & Highgate Express contemplating alternate strategies of non-compliance and worrying about drifting into surcharge and disqualification "through nothing more than indecision, confusion and default",^[172] although the council continued to vote against setting a rate at its meeting on 24 April.^[130]

Along with other councils who had set no rate, Camden was sent a statutory report by the district auditor Brian Skinner on 9 May giving them until the end of May to set a rate or face an extraordinary audit. The Conservative opposition thought this move may have been counter-productive,^[157] and the council went until 5 June before meeting. This meeting continued until 3 am when ten Labour councillors rebelled to vote through a budget proposed by former council leader Roy Shaw which passed by 33 to 26.^[173] Shaw, who was a member of the Taftish komissiyasi, had agreed with the Deputy Controller of the commission that he would be alerted before his council position came into conflict with his audit role.^[174] The budget agreed by Camden was prima facie unbalanced and illegal as it showed expenditure of £132.46m against a cap of £117.609m, but by counting income from the GLC's 'stress borough' fund and using accounting tricks, it came into balance.^[175]

Grinvich

Greenwich had shown early interest in leading a fight against rate-capping, and its leader John Austin-Walker had signed the personal statement published in Labor Herald on 22 June 1984.^[39] The council duly passed a resolution declaring its inability to set a rate,^[100] and John Austin-Walker accepted that his refusal to cut spending "may place us beyond the law".^[176] The council brought its own proceedings for sud nazorati against the government's decision to cap its budget, which was set down for initial hearing on 12 April^[127] with the main hearing not until 19 June.^[120] In April the council sent out standing order forms to ratepayers which were calculated on the basis of a budget at the cap limit, but denied that this marked a concession.^[177]

On 19 April the council was warned by the District Auditor Brian Skinner that the judge's decision in the Hackney case not to require the council to set a rate did not give Greenwich the same leeway,^[178] but on 24 April the council again refused to set a rate.^[130] The auditor followed up with a formal audit report on 9 May, giving a deadline of the end of that month to set a rate, accompanied by counsel's opinion which stated that the pending High Court case did not override the council's legal duty to make a rate. The council had obtained its own counsel's opinion that refusing to make a rate pending the outcome of the High Court case was reasonable, and the auditor's opinion took steps to nullify it by stating "A councillor cannot escape from being guilty of misconduct by relying on advice of counsel where that advice is shown to be wrong".^[178] The borough solicitor Tony Child continued to insist that the council still had discretion to refuse to make a rate.^[179]

Despite the auditor's deadline, Greenwich voted by 39 to 19 against setting a rate on 29 May,^[180] although it quietly stopped using the demand for spending concessions as a reason for its actions.^[167] A 12-hour council meeting called on Saturday 8 June eventually voted to set a rate, under two weeks before the High Court hearing on which the council had pinned its hopes.^[181] The judicial review went ahead but on 18 July Greenwich was notified that it had lost: Mr Justice McNeill ruled that the government acted lawfully.^[182] Greenwich appealed but the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.^[183]

"Liverpul"

Despite their doubts about the strategy, the leaders of Liverpool City Council were keen not to damage the unity of the campaign;^[46] after the previous year's experience the council believed there was no legal requirement to set a rate until June. Accordingly, on budget day in 1985, Liverpool's Finance Committee chairman Tony Byrne stated that the council needed a £265m budget, but because the Government grant penalties restricted them to £222m, the council would not set a rate.^[184] There was one significant change from the past year, as the Audit Commission had appointed Tim McMahon as the new District Auditor for Liverpool at the beginning of May 1985.^[184] McMahon wrote to all councillors on 21 May warning them that not setting a rate by the end of the month would result in an extraordinary audit and asking them individually for reasons why they should not be surcharged.^[185] The council's leadership believed that the deadline really was 20 June, and had pencilled in a meeting on 14 June for setting a rate.^[186]

On 10 June, the auditor sent out letters to the Liverpool councillors reporting that the council's failure to set a rate that financial year had already caused a loss of £106,103,^[186] and notifying them of an extraordinary audit under section 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.^[185] According to council deputy leader Derek Hatton, the letters had the effect of prolonging the dispute: "According to McMahon's assessment of the situation, we had already broken the law. So what the hell had we to lose by doing it again?"^[187] Their continued defiance took the form of a deficit budget involving a 9% rise in rates, which was to produce £236m, but also approving £265m of spending. The budget was approved by 49 to 42 on 14 June, with five Labour councillors opposed.^[188] The council leadership saw the deficit budget as a tactic to comply with the law in one sense and so buy time.^[189]

The council was given notice of an extraordinary audit on 26 June with the auditor concentrating on the council's loss of interest on payments from the Department of Health and Social Security (which would have covered the rate rebates element in housing benefit subsidy), and on payments from the Treasury Valuer (which paid contributions o'rniga of rates on Crown property). The amount of both of these payments depended on the level of rates, and so no payment could be made until the level of rates was set.^[64]

Lambet

From the start, Lambeth had been in the forefront of the campaign. Despite rumours that three might break ranks, all 34 Labour councillors present voted on 7 March 1985 not to set a rate.^[190] As the new financial year approached, Labour councillor Stewart Cakebread dissented, saying that a budget set at the cap limit would not require cuts.^[191] The Conservative group summoned an emergency meeting on 10 April 1985 but their proposal for a legal rate was defeated by 34 to 30.^[192] A second Labour councillor, Janet Boston, rebelled at a special policy committee meeting on 30 April, supporting a Conservative motion to call a special council meeting on Sunday 5 May; both Boston and Cakebread were advokatlar. Meanwhile, council officials estimated that the failure to set a rate by 1 May had already cost the council £170,000 in lost interest.^[193]

As had happened on other councils, the district auditor wrote to all councillors on 9 May telling them that an extraordinary audit would follow if no rate had been set by the end of the month; kengash rahbari Ted Nayt insisted that the council would not set a rate at its meeting on 15 May "or any time after until the Government returns the money it has taken from us".^[154] At this meeting a third Labour councillor, Vince Leon, joined Boston and Cakebread in voting for legal budgets.^[194] Boston and Cakebread were removed from all committees by the Lambeth Labour Group at the end of the month,^[195] and Boston was told to resign her seat by her local ward Labour Party (she refused). Cakebread received the support of his branch.^[196]

Lambeth town hall, a focus for the council's protests and also where territory was recaptured from the Auditor.

The district auditor, Brian Skinner, found that his permission to use offices in Lambeth town hall allocated to NALGO was withdrawn in mid-May;^[197] he was also surprised to discover his photograph on a threatening mock 'Wanted' poster in his local supermarket. Skinner's employers, the Taftish komissiyasi, sought police assistance in tracking down and destroying copies of the poster.^[198] After a council meeting on 5 June again rejected a legal budget (by 32–30), the Audit Commission stated that a letter would be sent immediately to all councillors who had not voted for the motion (possibly including two Conservatives who had been absent) notifying them of an extraordinary audit and possible surcharge over lost interest which by then amounted to over £270,000.^[199]

While the council finances were sustained by loans amounting to £29m from the Jamiyat ishlari bo'yicha kredit kengashi,^[200] 1985 yil 21 iyunda Leyboristlar kengashi a'zosi Mayk Braytning iste'foga chiqishi, ozchilikning doimiy ravishda bo'ysunmasligini qo'llab-quvvatlaydiganlarni qo'ydi. Brayt iste'foga chiqish to'g'risidagi ariza yozib, muvaffaqiyatga umid qilmasligini va qo'shimcha haq olinishini kutayotganini aytdi: "Shahidlik qanchalik qahramon bo'lsa ham, odatda yo'qolgan ishning belgisidir".^[201] Ted Nayt Brightni "[shtat] mashinasining qurboni" deb ta'riflagan.^[202] Favqulodda audit to'g'risida rasmiy xabarnoma 18 iyun kuni e'lon qilinganidan so'ng,^[203] 32 ta maslahatchi 27 iyunda auditor ularni 126 947 funt sterling miqdorida qo'shimcha to'lov bilan javobgar deb hisoblashi to'g'risida xabar oldi.^[204] Kengash a'zolarining javobi, ularni himoya qilish uchun "Fighting Fund" ni tuzish edi, uni taniqli aktyorlar qo'llab-quvvatladilar Jill Gascoine, Frances de la Tour, Metyu Kelli va Timoti G'arb;^[205] Leyboristlar guruhi Mayk Brayt fonddan yordam olish huquqiga ega bo'lishi kerakmi yoki yo'qligini muhokama qildi.^[204]

3 iyul kuni bo'lib o'tgan navbatdagi kengash yig'ilishida a'zolardan keyin shov-shuv ko'tarildi Vauxxoll Mehnat partiyasi saylov okrugi konservativ guruh ortidagi jamoat galereyasidan banner ochdi. Konservatorlar maslahatchisi Toni Grin bannerni yirtib tashlaganida, Leyboristlar kengashi a'zosi Terri Rich unga qarshi chiqishga shoshildi va uni boshqa bir maslahatchi faqat boshini ushlab turdi. Uchrashuv 20 daqiqaga to'xtatildi. Qayta tiklangandan so'ng, Janet Boston va Styuart Kekbread qonuniy stavkani 32 dan 31 gacha oshirdilar.^[206] Kengash Hukumat tomonidan 5,5 million funt sterlingga qo'shimcha mablag 'va Buyuk London Kengashining "stressli tumanlari" sxemasidan 6 million funt sterling miqdorida mablag' sarflanishining oldini olishga muvaffaq bo'ldi,^[207] shuning uchun Lambeth Fighting Fund kampaniyaning "moliyaviy jihatdan" muvaffaqiyatli o'tganini da'vo qildi.^[208]

Natijada

Lambet yil uchun stavkani o'rnatgan so'nggi kengash bo'lsa-da, ratifikatsiya kurashining ko'p jihatlari hal qilinmadi.

Favqulodda tekshiruvlar

1985 yil 9 sentyabrda Lambet va Liverpulning tuman auditorlari 81 ta maslahatchi (Liverpuldan 49 ta, Lambetdan 32 ta) stavkalarni belgilashdagi sustkashlik qasddan qilingan xatti-harakatlar ekanligi va shuning uchun ular qo'shimcha xarajatlar evaziga xarajatlarni to'lashlari kerakligi to'g'risida xabar berishdi: 106,103 funt. Liverpulda, Lambetda 126 947 funt. Ikkala holatda ham har bir maslahatchi uchun mablag '2000 funtdan oshdi va shuning uchun ular ham diskvalifikatsiya qilindi.^[209] Tuman auditori Lambet Boro Kengashi 1984 yil sentyabridan beri 1984 yilgi stavkalar to'g'risidagi qonunga va hukumatga qarshi siyosiy kampaniyaga kirishganligini aniqladi. Uning stavkasini bajarmaganligi bu jangda siyosiy dastak bo'lganligi sababli, muvaffaqiyatsizlik qasddan qilingan xatti-harakatlar edi va shuning uchun mas'ul maslahatchilar qo'shimcha xarajatlar uchun kengash harakatlarining narxini qoplashlari uchun javobgardilar.^[210] Lambetdan ham, Liverpuldan ham qo'shimcha haq olgan maslahatchilar qo'shimcha to'lovlar ustidan Oliy sudga murojaat qilishdi; ish 1986 yil 14-yanvarda ochilganida, Lambet kengashining maslahatchisi Lionel Read QC, stavkani belgilashni kechiktirish uchun sarflangan xarajatlar hukumatdan ko'proq pul olishga urinish uchun qonuniy xarajat ekanligini ta'kidladi. Shuningdek, u foizlarning yo'qolishi qaytarilmas emasligini ta'kidladi.^[211]

Lambet bilan kurashish jamg'armasi Oliy sud ishi ochilguniga qadar 74 ming funt sterling yig'di, uning 69 ming funti allaqachon sarflangan.^[212] Kengash, shuningdek, "Lambet stavkalari demokratiyasi" deb nomlangan reklama uchun 31,050 funt sarflagan, bu mablag 'konservativ guruh tomonidan tanqid qilingan.^[213] Oliy sud kengashlarga qarshi og'ir qaror topib, o'z qarorini 1986 yil 6 martda chiqardi. Lord Adolat Glidewell maslahatchilarning pozitsiyasini "shunchaki siyosiy posturing" deb ta'riflagan; Janob Adliya Kolfild qasddan qilingan qonunbuzarlik dalillarini "ezish" deb ta'riflagan va maslahatchilarning pozitsiyasini "siyosiy buzuqlik cho'qqisiga chiqqan".^[214]

Sud to'rt yilda bir marta har bir o'rindiq uchun saylovlar o'tkazadigan Lambetda to'liq kengash saylovlari o'tkazilishidan bir oz oldin hukm chiqarildi. Agar maslahatchilar apellyatsiya berishgan va yutqazgan bo'lsa, ular muddat o'rtalarida diskvalifikatsiya qilinib, kengashning Mehnat nazorati uchun xavf tug'diradi. Lambet Leyboristlar guruhi (etti xil fikrda) apellyatsiya shikoyati bermaslik, diskvalifikatsiyalarni qabul qilish va yaqinlashib kelayotgan saylovlarga nomzodlarni tanlash yaxshiroq deb qaror qildi.^[215] Kengashni saylovga qadar o'tkazish uchun maxsus yig'ilishni o'tkazgandan so'ng, qo'shimcha ish haqi olinmagan (Janet Boston va ikkitasi stavka belgilanganidan keyin saylovlarda saylangan) uch nafar leyboristlar kengashidan iborat maxsus qo'mitaga o'tkazildi. 30 mart kuni diskvalifikatsiya qilingan.^[216] The Transport va umumiy ishchilar kasaba uyushmasi aprel oyining boshida "Liverpul" va "Lambet" maslahatchilari uchun moliyaviy yordamni tugatdi va shu vaqtgacha 107 ming funt sarfladi.^[217] 1986 yil iyul oyi oxirida qo'shimcha pul to'lagan Lambet maslahatchilariga qo'shimcha to'lovlarni to'lash uchun 21 oy muddat berildi; ular o'rtasida oyiga 5000 funt to'lashlari kerak edi.^[218]

Liverpulda to'rt yildan uch yil saylovlar bo'lib o'tdi, har bir saylovda kengashchilarning uchdan bir qismi saylandi. "Liverpul" maslahatchilari apellyatsiya shikoyati bilan murojaat qildilar - favqulodda audit kengash a'zolariga og'zaki eshituv o'tkazish huquqini qasddan qilingan qonunbuzarlik aniqlangunga qadar ularning ishlarini qo'yish huquqlari to'g'risida xabar bermaganligi haqidagi dalillarni keltirib chiqardi. Apellyatsiya sudi og'zaki eshituvga ruxsat berilishi kerakligi to'g'risida kelishib oldi, ammo keyingi Oliy sud muhokamasi ushbu kamchilikni davoladi. Keyin maslahatchilar Lordlar palatasiga murojaat qilishdi, u 1987 yil 12 martda bir ovozdan raddiya qabul qildi va auditorning protsedurasi adolatli va kengashga nisbatan xolisona qaror topmadi.^[219] 47 amaldagi va sobiq maslahatchilar (bu orada ikkitasi vafot etgan) tomonidan to'lanadigan umumiy qo'shimcha to'lov 333 ming funtni tashkil etdi.^[220]

Lambet maslahatchilarining besh yillik diskvalifikatsiyasi tugagani kabi, ularga 1991 yil 3 aprelda Lambet shahar zali binosida bo'lib o'tgan 1985-86 yillardagi yakuniy yil hisob-kitoblariga bag'ishlangan tinglovda qatnashishga taklif qilingan xatlar yuborildi. Auditor kengashning 1986 yilda qo'shilgan summadan 212000 funt sterling miqdorida qo'shimcha foiz yo'qotilishini ko'rsatgan yakuniy natijasi yangi qo'shimcha to'lov mavzusi bo'lishi kerakmi yoki yo'qligini ko'rib chiqdi. Kengashning sobiq rahbari Ted Nayt buni "jodugarlar ovi" deb ta'riflab, hukumat tomonidan kengashlar faoliyatini yana besh yilga to'xtatib turish to'g'risidagi siyosiy qaror edi va bu xuddi shu jinoyat uchun ikki marotaba sud qilinganligini ta'kidladi.^[221] Boshqa qo'shimcha to'lov olinmadi.

Liverpul byudjeti

"Liverpul" 1985/86 yil uchun kamomad byudjetini qabul qilganligi sababli kengash tezda pul etishmasligini anglatadi. Sentyabr oyiga kelib, yangi mablag 'manbaisiz, kengash dekabr oyida to'lovga qodir bo'lishi aniq edi; shuning uchun ish beruvchi sifatida u o'zining butun ishchi kuchiga 90 kunlik ishdan bo'shatish to'g'risida xabarnoma berishga majbur edi. Ushbu qaror 6 sentyabr kuni e'lon qilingandan so'ng,^[222] kengashning qo'shma do'kon rahbarlari muddatsiz ish tashlashga chaqirishdi,^[223] va shuningdek, kengash binolarini egallab oldi va ishdan bo'shatish to'g'risidagi xabarnomani rasmiy ravishda ovoz berish uchun yig'ilish o'tkazishga to'sqinlik qildi.^[224] Kasaba uyushmalarining milliy rahbariyati o'zlarining mahalliy filiallarini ish tashlashni to'xtatishga harakat qildilar,^[225] va NALGO a'zolari 7,284 tomonidan 8,152 ga qarshi ish tashlashga qarshi ovoz berganlarida, u bekor qilindi.^[226]

Ishdan bo'shatish to'g'risidagi xabarnomalar 27 sentyabr kuni, kengash rahbari va rahbar o'rinbosari (Jon Xemilton va Derek Xetton) tomonidan biron bir xodimni shtatdan bo'shatish niyati yo'qligi, ammo qonuniy talab ekanligi to'g'risida tushuntirish xati berilgan. Vaqt tugashi bilan kengash xabarnomalarni tarqatish uchun taksilarni yollashi kerak edi.^[227] Keyingi hafta Leyboristlar partiyasining konferentsiyasida Devid Blunket Xatton bilan GLC bosh direktori Moris Stounfrost "Liverpul" ga maslahat berishi mumkinligi to'g'risida kelishib oldi. Stonefrost stavkalarni 15 foizga oshirishni va uy-joy dasturini qisqartirishni taklif qildi.^[228] Kengashning 1985–86 moliya yilidagi byudjet muammolari faqat kengash daromadlarni moliyalashtirish uchun kapital byudjetidan 23 million funt sterlingni olib tashlaganida va kapital fondini to'ldirish uchun Shveytsariya banklaridan 30 million funt qarz olganida hal qilindi. Kengash, shuningdek, boshqa Mehnat kengashlariga bergan 3 million funt sterling kreditini o'tkazdi va byudjetdan 3 million funt tejashni topdi. Kengashning Moliya qo'mitasi ushbu rejani 1985 yil 26-noyabrda ma'qulladi.^[229]

Audit jarayoni

Nazorat ostida ish olib borgan tuman auditorlari Taftish komissiyasi, bu markaziy hukumat tomonidan (operatsion jihatdan mustaqil bo'lsa ham) tashkil etilgan organ edi. Juda siyosiylashtirilgan kurashni hisobga olgan holda, Hukumat Komissiyani rag'batlantirmoqda degan taxminlar mavjud edi. Tarixga nazar tashlaydigan bo'lsak, Martin Loughlin Hukumat Komissiyani rasmiy ravishda boshqarayotganga o'xshamasligini, ammo keng qamrovli maslahatlashuvlar bo'lganligini ta'kidladi.^[230] Komissarlar 1985 yil 6-iyunda Lambet va Liverpulning navbatdan tashqari auditorlik tekshiruvlarini boshqargan edilar, ammo o'sha vaqtga qadar tuman auditorlari ushbu kursni o'tashni rejalashtirgan edilar.^[231] Auditorlar kengashga etkazilgan zararni Sog'liqni saqlash va ijtimoiy xizmatlar departamenti va G'aznachilik Valuer tomonidan to'lanadigan foizlar bo'yicha to'lovlardan yo'qotilgan miqdor sifatida hisoblab chiqdilar, ular stavka o'rnatilguncha to'lay olmadilar; Martin Loughlinning ta'kidlashicha, bu foizlar aksincha Hukumatga kelib tushgan va shu sababli davlat hamyoniga hech qanday pul tushmagan.^[230]

Boshqa kengashlar ataylab hech qanday stavka belgilamagan holda yangi moliyaviy yilga kirishganini va ettitaning kechikishi tufayli moliyaviy zarar ko'rganligini hisobga olib, Taftish komissarlari ularni Lambet va Liverpulda buyurilgan auditorlik tekshiruvlariga jalb qilish-qilmaslik to'g'risida o'ylashdi. 1985 yil kuzida Lambet va Liverpul maslahatchilariga qo'shimcha to'lovlar to'g'risida rasmiy xabar yuborilayotganda, Komissarlarga ular bilan oldinroq orqaga chekingan kengashlar o'rtasida sezilarli farq bor-yo'qligi aniq emas edi. Komissiyaning muntazam yig'ilishlarida nazoratchi o'rinbosari Kliff Nikolson yangilanishi kerak edi; uning doimiy javobi shundaki, auditorlar ish boshlashdan oldin kengashlardan ma'lumot kutishgan. Amalni kechiktirish uchun bir necha sabablar bor edi: Lambet va "Liverpul" ning murojaatlari ko'rib chiqilayotgan edi, to'lovlarni to'laydiganlar hisob-kitoblarga alohida e'tiroz bildirgan va Islington va Xakneydagi yangi auditorlar kengashlar tomonidan e'tiroz bildirilgan edi. Shuningdek, Komissiya ettita kengashga qarshi yoki birma-bir yurish to'g'risida yuridik maslahatga muhtoj edi.

Komissiyaning konservativ a'zosi Yan Koutts uzoq vaqtga cho'zilganidan xavotirga tushdi. Taftish komissiyasining 2008 yildagi "Pulga ergashing" tarixida qayd etilishicha, nazoratchi va nazoratchi o'rinbosari 1985 yil oxirigacha Lambet va Liverpulda ish tutib, boshqalarga nisbatan hech qanday choralar ko'rmaslik yaxshiroq bo'lar edi. bu etishmovchilikni oqlash uchun sabablarni izladi. Ushbu pozitsiyaning sabablaridan biri Lambet va "Liverpul" ning murojaatlari muvaffaqiyatli bo'lishidan xavotirda edi; boshqasi shundan iboratki, keyingi moliyaviy yilda biron bir kengash xuddi shu strategiyani bajarishga intilmadi.^[232] O'n yil oldin yozgan Martin Loughlin, shuningdek, eng qarama-qarshi bo'lgan kengashlar bo'lgan Lambet va Liverpulni misol qilib, Taftish komissiyasi boshqalarni ta'qib qilishning hojati yo'q deb hisoblagan.^[233]

Oliy sud "Liverpul" va "Lambet" bo'yicha auditor foydasiga qaror chiqargandan so'ng, Komissiya huquqiy maslahat oldi Robert Aleksandr Boshqa kengashlarni qabul qilish foydasiz bo'lishiga rozi bo'lgan QC. Devid Blunkett bergan intervyusida rozi bo'ldi Yangi jamiyat 1986 yil mart oyida boshqa kengashlarni ta'qib qilish "o'ta siyosiy" ko'rinishga ega bo'ladi va Komissiya Lambet va Liverpulni tekshirishda erishgan natijalarini inkor etadi. Garchi Sheffild uchun tuman auditori 1987 yil mart oyida ikkita hujjat tayyorlagan bo'lsa-da, biri qasddan qilingan xatti-harakatlar to'g'risidagi guvohnoma berilishini asoslagan, ikkinchisi esa yo'q va unga birinchisini topshirishni maslahat beradigan qonuniy xulosani olgan bo'lsa-da, u hech qanday choralar ko'rmaslikka qaror qildi; boshqa hech qanday auditor stavkalarni kech belgilaganligi sababli yo'qotishlarni ta'qib qilishni istamadi.^[234]

Huquqiy o'zgarishlar

Hukumat tezlik bilan byudjetni tasdiqlash uchun muddatni belgilaydigan qonunchilikni kiritib, stavka belgilamaslik taktikasini takrorlash imkoniyatini bekor qilishga o'tdi. Professor Malkolm Grant, mahalliy hukumatning etakchi akademigi, ushbu bo'shliqni to'sib qo'yishni e'tiborsiz qoldirganliklarini ajoyib deb hisobladi Narxlar to'g'risidagi qonun 1984 yil.^[235] The Mahalliy hokimiyat to'g'risidagi qonun 1986 yil 1-bo'limda har yili 1 aprelga qadar stavkani belgilashni talab qiladigan kengashlar, 1986 yil 26 martda Royal Assent-ni oldi.^[236]

Ushbu Qonundan keyin Mahalliy hokimiyat to'g'risidagi qonun 1988 yil, bu auditorlarga qonunni buzilishiga olib keladigan mahalliy kengash tomonidan qabul qilingan har qanday qarorni bekor qilish to'g'risida "taqiq buyrug'i" berish huquqini bergan va shuningdek auditorlarga mumkin bo'lgan har qanday qaror yoki harakatni sud tomonidan ko'rib chiqishni boshlash huquqini bergan. kengashning hisob raqamlariga ta'sir ko'rsatishi kerak. Taftish komissiyasi, xususan, ikkinchi hokimiyatni keng ma'noda kutib oldi.^[237] The Mahalliy boshqaruv va uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun 1989 yil keyinchalik mahalliy hokimiyat idoralaridan o'zlarining ofitserlaridan birini "Monitoring xodimi" etib tayinlashni talab qildi, u moliya direktorini har qanday qonuniy shubhali qaror to'g'risida ogohlantirish vazifasini bajarishi kerak edi.^[238]

Siyosiy ta'sir

Styuart Lansli, Leyboristlar partiyasi jurnalida yozmoqda Yangi sotsialistik 1985 yil iyulda, ratapapping kurash juda tez Hukumatga qarshi kurashadigan kengashlardan Leyboristlar partiyasi ichidagi kurashga aylanganini ta'kidladi. U byudjetlar qabul qilinganda Leyboristlar kengashlarining uchta rahbari iste'foga chiqqanligini va kengash majlislarida suiiste'mol qilish, kamsitish va qo'rqitish g'azablangan sahnalarini ko'rganligini ta'kidladi; Sautuorkdagi norozi maslahatchilarga oq tuklar yuborilgan edi.^[239] Martin Loughlin, "Qonuniylik va mahalliylik" muallifi, kengashga qarshi chiqish chaqirig'ining muvaffaqiyatsiz bo'lishining sababini ular paydo bo'lganidek birlashmasligini aytdi; ba'zilari buni hukumatning to'g'ridan-to'g'ri qarama-qarshiligi deb hisoblashgan, aksariyati esa qonunda noaniqlikdan foydalanish imkoniyatini ko'rishgan. Faqat juda oz sonli kengashlar ochiqdan-ochiq noqonuniy siyosat uchun ko'pchilik ovozini olishlari mumkin edi.^[240] Mehnat partiyasi rahbari Nil Kinnok partiyaning Mahalliy hukumat qo'mitasiga 1986 yil 10 martda Leyboristlar hukumati qo'shimcha to'lovlardan retrospektiv tovon puli uzaytirish imkoniyati yo'qligini aytdi.^[241]

Leyboristlar partiyasining konferentsiyasi bir hafta bo'lib o'tdi, "Liverpul" kengashi xodimlari ishdan bo'shatish to'g'risida ogohlantirish oldilar. Ertalab leyboristlar partiyasi rahbari Nil Kinnok "Liverpul" ning Anglikan va Rim-katolik yepiskoplari maqolasi bilan chiqishlari kerak edi Devid Sheppard va Derek Uorlok jangari rahbariyat va kengashning "qarama-qarshilik siyosati" ni qoraladi.^[242] Kinnokning nutqi "Mehnat kengashining grotesk xaosini qoraladi - Mehnat kengashi - o'z ishchilariga ishdan bo'shatish to'g'risidagi bildirishnomalarni tarqatib, shaharni aylanib o'tish uchun taksilarni yollash ".^[243] Nutqdan keyin Leyboristlar partiyasi Milliy Ijroiya Qo'mitasi Liverpul tumani Leyboristlar partiyasini to'xtatib qo'ydi va tergov o'tkazishni buyurdi,^[244] natijada barcha jangari tendentsiya a'zolari Leyboristlar partiyasidan chiqarilishiga olib keldi.

Davom etayotgan ratecapping

Kengashlar tomonidan qonun ijrosi doirasida xarajatlarni yashirish uchun "ijodiy buxgalteriya" texnikasidan foydalangan holda, reytepapping darhol hukumat umid qilgan mahalliy hokimiyat xarajatlari kamayishiga olib kelmadi. Bir kuzatuvchi 1987 yilgacha ishdan bo'shatish orqali ishchilarni qisqartirish to'g'risida hech qanday dalil ko'rmadi.^[245] Taftish komissiyasi bosim ostida ijodiy buxgalteriya texnikasini diqqat bilan kuzatib bordi Atrof muhitni muhofaza qilish bo'limi unda Komissiyaning "hozirgi kunga qadar biron bir ta'sir o'tkazishga qodir emasligi" tanqid qilingan. Kengash amaliyoti yanada takomillashib bordi, chunki tuman auditorlari tomonidan jamoat manfaatlari to'g'risidagi hisobotlar ko'payib bordi. Ammo faqat qonunchilikdagi o'zgarishlar g'ayrioddiy moliyaviy amaliyotni to'xtatishga muvaffaq bo'ldi.^[246] The Mahalliy hokimiyat to'g'risidagi qonun 1985 yil u tomonidan yaratilgan yangi hokimiyat uchun avtomatik qoidalarni cheklashni joriy qildi metropolitan grafliklar.

Xuddi mahalliy hokimiyat va hukumat o'rtasidagi stavkalarni cheklash bo'yicha kurash 1985 yil mart oyidan boshlangani kabi, Hukumat narxlarni almashtirish o'rniga mahalliy hokimiyat uchun soliqning yangi shakli bo'yicha taklifni davom ettirish to'g'risida qaror qabul qilar edi. mahalliy kengash hududida yashovchi har bir kattalar rezidenti uchun stavka uchun to'lov. Ushbu islohotning e'lon qilingan bir tarixiga ko'ra, stavka chegarasi bo'yicha kurash va xuruj hukumat va bosh vazirni ushbu o'zgarishni qo'llab-quvvatlashga yordam berdi. Ushbu taklif oxir-oqibat sifatida qabul qilindi Jamiyat to'lovi.^[247] 1986–87 moliya yili uchun o'n ikki mahalliy hokimiyat stavkalari belgilangan edi. Ulardan o'ntasi o'tgan yili stavka bo'yicha belgilangan (Basildon, Kamden, Grinvich, Xakni, Xaringey, Islington, Lambet, Lyusham, Sautuark va Temzdaun); ikkitasi yangi tanlandi, Liverpul va Nyukasl apon Tayn.^[248] Keyingi, 1987–88 yillarda, 20 ta hokimiyat stavkalari belgilangan va 1988–89 yillarda 17 ta edi.

1990 yil iyun oyida, Hukumat huquqshunoslarining ijobiy xulosasidan so'ng, 1984 yilgi stavkalar to'g'risidagi qonunda qabul qilingan, ammo shu vaqtgacha ishlatilmay qolgan barcha hokimiyat idoralarida mahalliy hokimiyat byudjetlariga umumiy cheklov qo'yish uchun vakolatdan foydalanishga qaror qilindi. Ushbu qaror mahalliy hukumatning aksariyat moliyaviy avtonomiyalarini olib tashladi.^[249] Ushbu "universal cheklash" 1991–92 moliya yilidan 1998–99 gacha davom etdi; u tugagandan so'ng davlat kotibi zaxira vakolatlarini o'z zimmasiga oldi 1999 yilgi mahalliy hokimiyat to'g'risidagi qonun ning oshishini tartibga solish Kengash Soliq (Jamiyat to'lovini almashtirgan). Davlat kotibiga alohida mahalliy hokimiyat idoralarining byudjetini kamaytirishni talab qilishga ham ruxsat berildi.^[250]

Adabiyotlar

Manbalar

• Beyker, Kennet (1993). Notinch yillar. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN  0-571-17077-3.
• Butler, Devid; Adonis, Andrew; Travers, Tony (1994). Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax. Oksford: Oksford universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  0-19-827876-4.
• Campbell-Smith, Duncan (2008). Follow the Money: The Audit Commission, Public Money and the Management of Public Services, 1983–2008. London: Allen Leyn. ISBN  978-1-84614-068-6.
• Hatton, Derek (1988). Chap ichida. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN  0-7475-0185-8.
• Grant, Malkom (1986). Rate Capping and the Law (2-nashr). London: Association of Metropolitan Authorities. ISBN  0-902052-06-3.
• Livingstone, Ken (1987). If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It. London: Kollinz. ISBN  0-00-217770-6.
• Loughlin, Martin (1996). Legality and Locality: The Role of Law in Central-Local Government Relations. Oksford: Oksford universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  0-19-826015-6.
• "Rates: Proposals for Rate Limitation and Reform of the Rating System" (Cmnd. 9008), Department of the Environment and Welsh Office, 1 August 1983.
• Taaffe, Peter; Mulhearn, Tony (1988). Liverpool – A City that Dared to Fight. Fortress Books. ISBN  1-870958-00-4.

Tashqi havolalar

• GLC / ILEA Meeting: Thames News report on the preparations for the GLC's budget meeting (7 March 1985)
• Post GLC: Thames News interviews with Ken Livingstone and Patrick Jenkin (11 March 1985)
• Ratecapping Hackney: Hackney council leader Hilda Kean explains her position to Thames News (3 April 1985)
• Southwark demo: Islington leader Margaret Hodge comments after Southwark appears ready to set a rate (1 May 1985)
• Hackney and Southwark: Hackney's challenge fails, while Southwark's meeting sees protests (2 May 1985)
• Methodist Central Hall Rally: Thames News coverage of a rally of ratecapped councils. (13 May 1985)
• Ted Nayt: Lambeth council leader Ted Knight responds to the District Auditor's letter (10 June 1985)
• Lambeth sets a rate: Fighting at the meeting when Lambeth finally set its rate (4 July 1985)
• Swindon is 'Ratecapped': Live local television coverage of a public meeting in Svindon in 1984 over the ratecapping of Thamesdown borough council, from the archive of Swindon Viewpoint.