The Lib Dems and cuts: A letter to the editor? That's proof of who really has failed councils

Most recently, Kemp has said that Pickles is "trying to trash local government". There's no doubt that Town Halls are taking much more than their fair share of the cuts pain, but it wasn't supposed to be that way.

Ahead of the elections, David Cameron hailed local government for being very efficient and good with cash, and on more than one occasion said Whitehall could learn a lot from local government.

Yet the heaviest cuts still came to the town halls. A case of quick lips before the election soon forgotten by the speaker of the promise? Maybe - but where was the defence from local councils when big cuts were being talked about?

If a group of celebrities can get together and get the government to think twice about selling off forests, and senior officials at the most overspent department of the lot - the Ministry of Defence - get spending constraints lifted, why couldn't local councils mount a decent defence of themselves?

After all, they spend at least £14million a year in subs to the Local Government Association. You'd have thought with that money, this glorified lobbying organisation could have ensured it got the access it needed in Whitehall to press the right case to keep council cuts to minimum.

A good starting point would have been: "Before the general election, David Cameron said...."

Of course, it was always going to be easier for the government to push cuts on to Town Halls because it places the cuts that little bit further from ministerial responsibility. But the LGA took the decision not to present doomsday scenarios to government ahead of the spending settlement, unlike most other areas of government. Very noble you might say, but talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Even with the spending settlement confirmed, the LGA couldn't present a co-ordinated defence of town halls, with town halls. This week, random Lib Dem councillors from across the UK signed a letter to The Times which criticised the cuts. Superb - really, well done. A letter to a national newspaper guarantees attention, but it soon became clear it wouldn't change anything.

Prior to that, the LGA took weeks to wake up to the fact that the spending settlements were going to hurt deprived areas more than affluent areas - long after individual councils had cottoned on.

The problem with the LGA is that it is political. It feels a lot like a council - it is run by officers but with political groupings made up of councillors from across the country, so getting consenus on anything is nigh on impossible. So while Lib Dem councillors cry foul about the cuts, Tory councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham and Ribble Valley crow about how their sound financial management has meant no cuts for them.

The cuts will hurt frontline services. The government has been unfair towards local government but the response and the defence of the body set up to represent councils has been shockingly poor. Cllr Kemp has been involved in local government since 1975. You don't do it for that long, especially in Liverpool, without maintaining a sense of being in the role to help the community.

But in being the constant critic of the cuts on behalf of the LGA, Cllr Kemp is doing himself and town halls a dis-service. At its time of greatest need, local government has been let down big style by the LGA. There can be no justification of the millions it costs councils to keep the LGA going. The LGA's poor lobbying has left the likes of Cllr Kemp in the role of government critic and the government isn't listening. Why not? Only the LGA knows the answer to that.