Why do Labour offer no local opposition

Yesterday the Tory council of Coventry (the country's 9th largest city) voted through its budget.
Left wing journalists called it controversial.
Yes there are some services ceasing and resources being diverted, yes there are some potential job losses.
It is odd however that the Labour opposition that ran the city (into the ground) for over 20 years prior to the current administration offered no alternative. No opposing budget. No constructive critique, nothing, it appears moribund.
It has basically rejected any "cuts" very vocally, but not said how it would even attempt to balance the books. Nothing, not a jot.
Opposition is about alternatives, offering nothing is not an alternative.
Will the main stream media notice this, LA doubts it, bad news gets listeners and sells papers.
It is notable that the main reason the council has problems balancing the books without service restructure, is the increasing burden of duties placed on it by central government, but with no central government funding. Gordon Brown has found this quite a wheeze. He can promise the nation all sorts of things from Westminster knowing that it will be Local Government that has to raise the tax revenue.

In terms of the budget LA is unhappy at the increased parking charges within the City, in a recession the City needs to encourage visitors not charge them more. but given the invidious position Browns withering government has left councilors LA is not sure what else they could have done.

David Cameron visited the City last week and said local government should be more Local. This must mean less Central targets and more local prioritisation.
That is true democracy, of course true democracy needs effective alternatives too, Coventry's Labour party is currently neither effective nor an alternative.

LA