The cuts are coming. Adam Wakelin speaks to two of Leicester city's Labour councillors who must wield the axe

Councillor Vi Dempster

A half-eaten cheeseburger lies abandoned in the budget documents that sprawl across Vi Dempster's desk. Vi talks and talks, leaving what's left of her lunch to congeal in its scrunch of grease-proof paper. Eleven years, she says. That's how long she has been a school governor in Leicester.

She was a children's social worker for more than 25 years.

So, say what you like, slag her off all you want, says Leicester City Council's cabinet lead for children and young people's services, but don't say she doesn't understand. And don't you dare say she doesn't care.

"I understand what these cuts mean to the ordinary people of this city," she says.

"I know we won't have the same depth of services. I know we'll be asking less staff to do more work.

"Over 100 people are going to be made redundant in children's services, people that are hard working and loyal and work for the city council because they believe in public service.

"I did not want to make those people redundant."

But she will, though, won't she?

"And that's why this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do," she answers. "The hardest thing, ever."

Vi takes a disinterested bite of her burger and puts it down, wiping her hands, no longer very hungry, it seems.

It's hard, sitting here listening to Vi, not to be reminded of Neil Kinnock's conference speech against Labour's militant tendency in Liverpool.

"A Labour council, a Labour council!" he roared. "Hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers."

The circumstances today are very different, of course. But making people redundant, slashing budgets, cutting services, closing the children's information centre in Bishop Street – that's not what people like Vi joined the Labour Party to do.

"Did I come into politics for this?" she sighs. "Certainly not. This hurts, this definitely hurts."

It would be worse under the Tories, says Vi. Far worse.

Central Government has effectively cut her department's budget by a non-negotiable £13million.

"Savage," she says. "I was absolutely dumbfounded. We couldn't deliver that without affecting the life chances and quality of life in our city."

Vi wouldn't do it. So she argued and cajoled, pushed and persuaded, getting Leicester's ruling Labour group to find £6million from the council's reserves to keep frontline services going, at least for a while.

"I've tried to make sure that no services cease," she says. "Yes, there may be service reductions, and they are never easy. But we're not closing libraries or youth clubs. I think it's important to look at what we're protecting.

"We need to get our facts out there. I'm not making an argument for our budget, I'm stating a fact. We would not be doing this if it weren't for the savage cuts from the Government.

"It would be so much worse if it weren't for a Labour-controlled council in this city.

"That's what people need to hold on to."

That may or may not be right. Speak to a Tory and they'll tell you something different.

It doesn't really matter, though, because people won't hold on to that, will they?

It's hard to think, "Well, it could be worse" when you're picking up your P45, working harder or waiting longer to access a service you and your family have come to rely on.

They won't blame the bankers or George Osborne, these people. Nor will they point the finger at the previous Government. They'll blame the local politician who has been handed the hatchet.

"People are going to be angry with us, with me. I understand that," says Vi. "It's very difficult for us to get our message across. I wouldn't have to do any of this if this Coalition was not cutting harder and faster than they needed to.

"The vast majority of councillors are not out for what they can get. We're councillors, not multi-millionaire cabinet members.

"A lot of councillors, if you add up their hours, they work for less than the minimum wage. We care about our local communities and the city as a whole.

"I'm happy to let anyone have access to my diary. It's very, very rare that I work less than a 55-hour week, because that's what this job requires.

"When you look at this budget in the context of why we become councillors, it's very, very unpleasant. We can talk about big numbers and percentages and millions of pounds, but that's not the reality.

"The reality is how these cuts, in all of the services, are going to affect thousands of people. That's what upsets me. I just feel really cross about them."

Vi is cross. Livid would actually be a better word. She talks in a barely interruptible torrent.

You can't get a question in edgeways. And this isn't feel-your-pain political posturing. She genuinely, honestly, does seem upset by all of this.

So why do it? Why bother with all the grief? Why hasn't she held her hands up and said: "Sorry, but I can't do this. I don't want to."

Because someone has to. Better her than someone who has never worked in children's services and might not understand what has to be fought tooth and nail for.

"Because of my background and experiences, I think I have something to offer as cabinet lead," she says. "I couldn't just walk away."

Vi says she's not looking for sympathy. Which is just as well.

There will probably be a backlash, even to this. Someone's possibly typing the D of "Diddums!' in an on-line comment under this interview right now.

The message boards and letters pages may well say we've been too soft on her. Perhaps we have.

"It will be, 'Poor councillors! What do they want, a medal'?'' smiles Vi. "I feel honoured to be cabinet lead for children's services in this city. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me. I just want people to acknowledge the facts and acknowledge the huge dilemmas the council is facing."

Councillor Michael Cooke

Spare a thought for Michael Cooke. Come on, you can at least try. A few weeks ago, Michael was sitting comfortably on Labour's back benches. Now he's the councillor who's having to defend the most controversial cut of all – shutting eight elderly people's homes.

And it wasn't even him who signed them into oblivion. Michael only took over the adult care brief when Rory Palmer excused himself to go to fight Peter Soulsby's mayoral election campaign.

Elderly people are angry and they're frightened. Relatives are furious. And who can blame them?

Michael's put his head above the parapet to say he thinks it's the right thing to do, that the money saved can be used to provide better specialist services, give the elderly more choice and help them to stay in their own homes for longer.

He could have hidden behind a review and stalled the decision until after May's local elections, he says. But that would have been the wrong thing to do. Our system of elderly care needs reforming now.

Yes, he concedes, it would have been better to hang on to the council-run homes for longer, but the budget doesn't allow that.

And those principled arguments have resonated like a bicycle bell being been gently tinkled on the main runway at East Midlands Airport.

The din of outrage drowns out almost everything he has to say.

We might blame the bankers for blowing a huge hole in the public finances, but Michael's the man who's trying to fill it with old folks' homes.

That's the perception. And it probably makes him more unpopular than they are. Not a nice place to be.

"I'm going to go into those homes meeting those people," he says. "There will be times when I'm tongue-tied and embarrassed, but that's what I have to do.

"People who know me know what I stand for. I'm not a classical bull-s*** politician. I'm doing this because it's right."

These cuts had to come, sooner or later, says Michael.

Leicester has an ageing population who need better services. It also has council-run care homes that, aside from being a huge drain on resources, have seen better days.

The sensible thing to do, he argues, is to sub-contract residential care to the private sector, convert some of the old homes into specialist centres for people with conditions such as dementia, and hand the rest of the saved cash back to the elderly so they can spend it on care that helps them stay independent for longer. "I'm 67 and I'm already talking about how we can convert our house, so we can pop our clogs here," says David.

"Do you want to end up in an old people's home before you have to? I don't. I don't think many others do either. We need more intermediate care and more help so people can make it home out of hospital.

"I listen to Radio Leicester and people are calling in. A lot of the stuff I'm hearing, I'm uncomfortable with. People do have a misconception of what is happening at the moment.

"Everyone talks glowingly of every home and everyone living in one. That's not what I get back. I know someone who works in a home and they tell me no-one wants to be in there.

"There's a lot of talk of 'homes fit for heroes'. My view is that the residential homes run by us don't provide that. They're 1960s models, out of date, and they need changing."

Michael says he'll say all this when people are tugging his coat in the street to tell him he's doing the wrong thing and that he's made the biggest mistake of his life. And he'll be doing it until early April. He might have the courage of his convictions, but he's still a politician.

"I'll be blaming the Tories for closing those homes come election time," he says, "because I'd be stupid not to."