This is a British Democracy Bernard.

At the start of the year, The society of chief librarians announced their four "universal offers" I won't go into massive detail the full thing is here but there is some good stuff in there and the competently run library services should be doing most of it all ready.

The four offers are:

The Universal Health Offer
The Universal Reading Offer
The Universal Information Offer
The Universal Digital Offer

I find the use of the word "offer" intensely annoying in the public sector. But I digress. The substance as I have said is good taken in the whole and I was keen to find out if my local authority were signed up to this new initiative and if the non-statutory "volunteer" ran libraries would be part of the "offer" and if to meet the requirements any new funding would be put into the library service. The response I got was:

"Oxfordshire Libraries will be part of the national programme.  There will be no extra funding directed at delivering the offers.  The four offers reflect service areas which modern library customers regard as integral to public libraries and largely consist of what we in Oxfordshire have already been doing.  By launching the offers as a new national approach, it is being made clear to the public what they should be able to expect from their library and, yes, this will apply to all libraries in Oxfordshire."

Which for the fully funded statutory libraries this is clearly a good thing, I'm disappointed and bemused that the volunteer groups are going to be expected to deliver all of this stuff. After my recent visit to Walcot library and seeing what happens when the staff hours are cut back (they get ten hours of staffing support) they remaining staff time gets used up by the admin and keeping the book shelves organised. My local library that is getting it staffing cut by half will be in a very similar position and I doubt there will be any staffing time left to do this stuff so its down to the volunteers (not me btw I refuse to volunteer until my library is statutory) to pick up the following tasks:

• A network of local hubs offering non-clinical community space
• Community outreach supporting vulnerable people
• Expert staff with local knowledge 
• Assisted on-line access 
• Self-help library resources 
• Health and care information services
• Referral and signposting
• Public health promotion activity
• Social and recreational reading opportunities like reading groups
• Volunteering and community engagement activities  (for teenager groups)
• Books on Prescription
• Free books and reading resources
• Free community space
• Supported online access
• Community outreach 
• Services for targeted audiences
• Access to local and family history resources
• Multimedia reading resources
• Bring together government and non-governmental sources of information, which have 
• been researched by information professionals in public libraries, giving a level of quality 
• assurance to the user. 
• Ensure that public library staff and volunteers are continually developing their skills to 
• provide help to people accessing information and services. 
• Free access to the Internet for every customer (for a minimum period of time)
• Clear and accessible online information about library services 
• Staff trained to help customers access digital information
• Ability for customers to join online
• Ability to be contacted online/via email for answers to customer enquiries
• 24/7 access to services through a virtual library presence
• Ability to reserve & renew items remotely via an online catalogue

Not all of the above are relevant to my point, some are existing online things obviously, but this is just the bullet points from the scheme, there is plenty more and there is lots of good stuff in there, volunteers have no business doing most of it though. If you also get volunteers to empty the bins, do some adult and children's social care and then we can scrap councils altogether. Maybe that's the whole point, the Big Society is about taking us back to Victorian times where there was no state and you provide it yourself or rely on wealthy philanthropists to provide services. Its a failed policy by a government without a mandate and the policy itself is completely without evidence. Its whats so disappointing about the SCL and their support of using volunteers to replace paid staff in libraries. If librarians of all people cannot use data and information to support their arguments and have to rely on a single, flimsy theoretical example then it means we may be without hope in winning the argument. The states should provide services where the market cannot, this is why we pay taxes. I shouldn't have to pay tax and then give up my precious free time to provide statutory services to myself. Neither should retired people, they have put into the system more than I have and should be free to choice what to do with their spare time not bounced into providing important services to themselves. In years to come, when this whole business has finally been seen for what it is, I hope those who have supported it hold there hands up and admit they should have stepped up and spoke out against it. The Big Society and Community Libraries will be remembered, by me at least with other policy failures where those in charge refused to listen like Poll tax, WMD, PFI and Beeching etc.

We will economise on the beaches

The minister, the SCL, ACE, the LGA , Locality all seem to think the way forward to save libraries in these difficult times is to hand them over to the willing arms of the “big society” Little Chalfont and a few other libraries have made a success of running a library themselves and this has been extrapolated into a massive wholesale push by local authorities to rid themselves of their smaller branch and rural libraries as if Chalfont can do it then it’ll work everywhere. Because we are only a few years into this massive experiment with the library service there is no body of evidence to suggest it does work. Before I go any further, I need to make clear this isn’t an attack on those who, when backed into a corner have, rather than let their library be closed have stepped up to prevent the libraries closure. I have nothing but admiration for those people. Chalfont have been lucky, it’s a very affluent area and they have been very successful raising thousands of pounds from the community and have access to a large pool of well educated, retired volunteers. I haven’t seen their issues stats and I don’t even know if the library is still considered statutory by Bucks CC anymore but their success has meant that the ideologues in government, both local and national, the quango’s, locality and various others are falling over themselves pushing the volunteers as a way of saving money in the library service.

Anyone how has looked at the CIPFA data can see that cutting the low paid library assistants and managers in small branch libraries saves little money. But how much damage does can it cause to a local library?

In Oxfordshire, they have declared after using some rather dodgy data analysis that 21 of the mainly rural libraries are no longer statutory and the libraries will be run by the community with limited staffing, a self-service machine and telephone support from other libraries that haven’t been cut.

I recently went to Walcot library recently to see them with Shirley Burnham, this library was threatened with closure and in 2009 and a group of volunteers stepped up to prevent it closing down by merging it with a charity shop. The hours were reduced, self-service installed, half the library space was turned into a charity shop and they get staffing support and access to another library on the phone who can deal with queries.

The two volunteers I met spoke of how they hoped there actions were a safety net, it was better than no library and they hoped that once the economy recovered the authority would support the library properly again. It’s a very deprived area and has massive issues with literacy, they spoke of children who cannot be read to by their parents as the parents are illiterate. This is in 2013 in one of the richest countries in the world.

I FOI’ed both the CIPFA returns for Swindon and also the issues data for the individual libraries. There hasn’t been much change in the staffing numbers in Swindon library since 08/09, they have obviously shifted the staff around to increase the staffing in some libraries. Since Walcot library was handed over to volunteers however the book issues have fallen off a cliff, going from 13,830 to 3,790 and declined every year since:

Since the library was given over to the volunteers on in April 2009 the issues have dropped by 87% this is a library in a deprived area, I’m amazed they were allowed to do it considering the findings of the Charteris report. It also doesn’t bode well for other libraries that are currently being forced down this route.  How many will be Chalfonts and how many will be Walcots? Ironically, the library still gets about 10 hours staffing help, but this is admin and to sort out the book shelves, there are probably more hours to add to this total with the support from neighbouring libraries, this is again almost the same as what the cut libraries in Oxfordshire will end up with.  Support is one thing but its the volunteers that run the library/charity shop in Swindon. 

I applaud the volunteers for keeping their library alive, I condemn Swindon Borough Council for killing it.

I contacted the former councillor Peter Mallinson who along with other volunteers saved the library for his views, it’s my belief that libraries need library managers and assistants, he is responding to view on this being one of the main causes of the library issues decline:

“Dear Mr Craig,

I disagree totally with your interpretation of the data, not having paid library staff is not the problem.

You have not taken into account the very large reduction in books and space occupied by the library since we took over.  It is considerably less than half in floor area and the display of book is very small.  Have you also checked the hours of opening.  Looking at the table you provide it shows that the largest fall in books (2439) was in the year 2008/2009.  Since the volunteers took over with the reduced library the total fall in books is 1900 and that is for four years, 2009/2012.  When you compare the old and the new library systems, you are not comparing like with like.

How do you equate having two paid members of staff with an increase in use under these conditions.  If local people wanted books they would not be slow in telling us. 

The whole of Sussex Square (the shops) has suffered a lot of closures.  People are not using the square like they use to in fact there are now only four shops left.  Even the pub has gone.

Times are changing and the library staff must try to move with the times.  What we offer is what people want and they don’t want books. 

I do not agree with you that “libraries should be staffed and supported by the council rather than volunteers”, libraries should provide what people want and that is I.T.not books.  We have enough libraries full of books and paid staff in Parks and the Town Centre to satisfy those local people who want to borrow books, we do not need any more.

I think your interpretation of the data could be seen to show that there is no longer a requirement for a library in Walcot apart from the I.T. section.

What I intend to do now is to speak to the Leader of the Council and his Cabinet to see if we could increase I.T. and reduce or remove most of the books.

Sorry if I sound a bit brutal but this needs sorting out.

Regards

Peter” 

Mr Mallinson and I have differing views on the need professional staff nor do we share views that people no longer want to borrow books and an Internet café/charity shop will suffice, other libraries in Swindon have increased their issues over the period.  There is a formula that works in some of Swindon’s libraries they have proved that, they just have to identify what works, fund it and replicate it in the other libraries, not give the libraries to volunteers who do a amazing job but it inevitable leads to a loss of issues. If we are to get out of this economic mess, without being a nation rich in natural resource, the minds of our citizens are key and to quote the OECD yet again:

“reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors.”

Walcot is an area with multi-generational unemployment and poverty, just like where I grew up. Libraries helped me break out of that cycle, how is the cycle to be broken there without educated, well read citizens?

 Here are the links to the data:

The issues data:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/library_issues_data#incoming-376024

The CIPFA returns:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/library_cipfa_returns#incoming-368610

12:25 Further to the above, more of the email exchange, starting with my reply to the above and then his response:



"Dear Mr Mallinson,

I will certainly add the points you raise to the post I'm writing, the issues about the book stock and space the library actually has and the decline of Sussex square as other reasons for the issues decreasing. It is still my belief that have paid library managers and assistants can help maintain and drive up the issues in libraries, John Lewis is bucking the trend in retail and one of the main reasons for that is staff knowledgeable on the products and good customer service, some of the libraries in Swindon have had their hours increased but without staff present just the self service machine and this hasn't increased the issues. You may disagree with my point but its my opinion. I think the fact that some of the libraries in Swindon are increasing their issues does show that people still want to read paper books. You said yourself there are problems with literacy in Walcot and I fail to see how having a internet cafe and charity shop rather than a library would address this.

As I think I said when I met you, I grew up in a area of Sunderland that is very similar to Walcot. My education was patchy and without access to the local library I would not have been able to drag myself out of the unemployment and deprivation that still exist in Sunderland. Its to be applauded that you have managed to keep a library going in difficult circumstances, I thought you had said it was a safety net and hoped that the council would support it again once the economy picked up?

I think you should consider very carefully before you make arbitrary decision to remove books from the library, have you consulted the community it serves, the council who I would imagine still provide some funding the building and in staffing support and your fellow volunteers? You are clearly well connected to the party running the council but does that give you the authority to make sure big decisions alone?

I will add your email in full to the post I'm writing, I want to make sure your views are fully reflected and not distorted by selectively quoting you, don't feel obliged to enter into lengthy correspondence over this, I don't wish to impose upon your time too much and I appreciate the time you have taken to respond. I wish Walcot every success and I hope the council comes to it senses and staffs and promotes a library in a area where one is clearly needed, again as I think I mentioned when we met:

OECD research has proved that “reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors.”

Which I think shows it is vital for a community to have access to a good library that promotes reading to the area it serves, the key to our economic recovery as a nation is through the minds of our citizens after all.

With best wishes,

Trevor Craig"


And Mr Mallisons response:


"Dear Trevor,

Thanks for your reply.

It is and always will be my intention to maintain the status quo until the planned redevelopment of the square takes place, however you have put forward a compelling argument of under use of book lending in Walcot.  You have done so without balancing the probabilities of why this is happening.  It may be partly because of no paid staff being present at all times, it may be because of reduction in space, it may be because local people do not want it or it could be any other factors.

You talk about John Lewis and good customer service, I think you can rest assured that all our volunteers give excellent service in all parts of the shop and library.  It is a fallacy to say that paid staff would make a difference or do better.

To give some idea of what people want I will run a mini survey in the shop and library to ask people what they would like.  The alternatives to put to them could be;
More/Less books
More/Less I.T.
Less shop facilities
No tea or coffee facilities
Paid staff instead of volunteers
Longer opening hours for library
We can put the forms out for people to take and fill in anonymously, it could run for a couple of weeks to see what the uptake is like.

I resent your remarks about  “You are clearly well connected to the party running the council but does that give you the authority to make sure big decisions alone?”,  I do not make any decisions, all decisions are made by the trustees of the charity.  You can contact the council as easily as I can, they will listen to you in the same way that they listen to me.

My final point is this, we have many libraries in Swindon, some larger than others.  They all perform a useful function in the communities they serve. To use raw data as a comparison of how well these libraries are functioning is not the correct use of that data.  There are many factors that come into play and this data you are using does not address all of them.

We are now in our fourth year of running something that is a success, has won two pride of Swindon Awards and will be very much missed by the local people if it was taken away.  All this is regardless of the number of books borrowed.

Peter"

Epistemological? What are you talking about?

Ed Vaizey has been given a speech proclaiming the arts sector is in "rude health" this is while Newcastle are slashing their arts budget by 50% and Westminster council by 100% and responded to the decimation of library service by listing lots of cherry picked examples of stuff going on and proclaiming: "Libraries “In Crisis”? Again, I don’t think so."

Yes there are new libraries opening, they seem to be large city centre libraries, replacing their 60’s predecessors backed financially by the widely discredited PFI method of funding and the other stuff he mentions is blue sky bullshit about business incubators, hatchery spaces and other nonsense descriptions of the things that good libraries have been doing for years anyway. All the waffle, nonsense and Boris lite bluster doesn’t disguise the fact that actually library numbers are being savagely cut.

In the last few years 347 libraries have closed, 7.5% of the library service. This is before the cuts have even really kicked in. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number for 2013 is higher than the 201 that closed in 2012. And on top of that the arts council say that by April this year, 425 libraries, or 12% will be community supported, in other words, local authorities no longer see them as part of their statutory network and volunteers are keeping them open.

So since the coalition came to power, 19.5% of libraries will have been closed or cut either wholly or partially so they have to rely on volunteers to replace the low paid library managers and assistants. A fifth of libraries, cut. Crisis, I do think so.

By the end of this year, the 19.5% is obviously going to be a much higher figure, if Ed worked in the real world and the business he was responsible lost this many branches he would be out of a job. At what point will he think any of the 151 library authorities will be in breach of the “comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof” 25%, 30%, 50%? This is from the man who when one authority was closing libraries in 2009 declared: “If Andy Burnham is not prepared to intervene when library provision is slashed in a local authority such as the Wirral, it is clear that he is ignoring his responsibilities as secretary of state, which in the process renders any sense of libraries being a statutory requirement for local authorities meaningless.”

The hypocrisy is so high I’m surprised it hasn’t breached the distance across the curved universe and hit Ed in the back of his own head. The minister is of course selectively ignoring part of the act, he has also ignored the part about needing an advisory body but helpfully has added in extra parts saying councils can factor in the resources available to then as a factor on deciding what their statutory library provision should be. As long as they tick the boxes in the right way, they can close as many libraries as they want. The councils rather than band together to pool the management resources are in nearly all cases cutting the low paid library managers and assistants rather than tackle the duplication that exists across the authorities borders and the shocking high service support costs of running library services. The sensible plan, as cuts are inevitable would have regional library management hubs to cut down on the duplication of having 151 library authorities, the Tories, despite supposedly the party of efficient public services are not doing this though.

Ed’s boss Dave, went to the electorate with the central plank of his manifesto being the “big society”. The public said no, so we are getting it anyway, without a mandate. Others including quangos and taxpayer funded organisations are also supporting the big society, also without a mandate from voters, the Arts Council, The LGA, SCL are all pushing the approach that cuts low paid staff, maintains the bloated service support and get the volunteers to provide the service to themselves approach. The approach that is destroying the library service on the altar of Dave’s vision of the big society.

In 2025 the library service is likely consist of lots of badly managed, glass monstrosities, with PFI liabilities soaking up whatever’s left in the library budget. In the areas outside the city centres, in the rough suburbs of Swindon, Sunderland, Liverpool and beyond, in the remote rural villages, in the shires and the Home Counties thousands of communities will have had their beating hearts ripped out, never to recover, never to be replaced.

Two types of chair

I stuck in a email to Dan Jarvis MP asking some questions on why Labour were not doing certain things in opposition on libraries. My concern is despite the hours and work Dan Jarvis is putting in, the position if Labour get back in may be little different to what we have now.  Below is the email exchange:

Me:

I appreciate you engaging with me over the libraries issues on twitter (rubymalvolio) I do as I have said appreciate all the hours you are putting in over the issue, nobody can doubt you are doing your best. Reading the thing you wrote on libraries does have some good stuff in it but there is nothing that ties a future Labour government to do anything to save libraries and so many have been lost already. I appreciate it must be very difficult and as a shadow minister half way through a parliament you have to be careful not to box yourself in. I have repeatedly asked you to name one authority that you don't believe is "comprehensive and efficient". I have no disagreement with you over the nonsense of the funding formula but you cannot really defend the conduct of Newcastle Council and maintain any sort of credibility with library users. Lots of councils are cutting way beyond what The Wirral did that triggered the Charteris Report intervention by Andy Burnham. You could do the following things that would help, without boxing yourself in too much:

Dan Jarvis:

Many thanks for your email, which I much appreciated – it is always a pleasure to have really thoughtful and constructive input. You make some very good points, which I'll respond to in order. 

First, I agree that the cuts in Newcastle and elsewhere are very worrying. The library service as a whole is being badly hit: 343 libraries have been closed or come under threat since April, with hundreds more closed to handed over to volunteers since 2010 – I'm sure you will have seen the Public Library News figures. I think we are on course many more in coming years. 

My concern is that attacking the councils for the cuts puts the focus and blame on them, and risks letting the government off the hook. Councils have an important part to play finding ways to protect frontline services, but they also face some genuinely tough choices. They might have to decide between cutting care for the elderly and cutting libraries. Libraries are not an optional luxury, and I think we should be supporting councils and strongly encouraging them to find innovative ways to make savings without closing branches. But I am also reluctant to parachute in without the benefit of long analysis of the specific challenges they face and criticise them for the difficult judgments they make. I know the financial position that Newcastle for example finds itself in is extremely challenging.

Me:

1. Announce that if you get into government you would properly define the 1964 "comprehensive and efficient for all the desire to make use of thereof" Proper benchmarks and measures that are minimum requirements required by the act.  

Dan:

In relation to defining the 1964 Act, I agree that it is being rendered meaningless in current circumstances, and that needs to change. At the same time I think too rigid a definition of service levels would be the wrong path. I personally support re-examining the interpretation of the Act to make the requirement more meaningful, and will pursue that if I am still in this post when Labour returns to office. The first step would be to publish better information on how local authorities are performing.  

Me:

2. Start pushing for interventions by the current government into a couple of the worst offending authorities, Glos, Brent, Newcastle, Swindon, Liverpool there are lots to choose from. Any of them really, but choose a Labour and a Tory pair to maintain neutrality.

Dan:

 I agree that government should be ready to intervene in some cases, but I am reluctant to call out specific authorities for same reasons I am reluctant to publicly criticise them. I also think the first thing the government should be doing is supporting councils – working with them to identify ways of making savings without cutting services, providing incentives, and sharing best practice. I also think there is a lot of scope to link libraries with other aspects of the work of government, like health and employment, so long as it does not compromise the independence and core functions of the library - and that this could potentially be used to generate more funding. (An example could be funding to create business incubation centres in libraries, which the government has in fact given a small amount of money towards – also greater use of libraries as centres for community life and education). Sanctions have a place in the worst cases, but I believe the first focus should be on finding positive ways to realise the potential of the service, which is huge. 

Me:

3.The biggest cost to most library authorities is the management and professions costs and service support. Its mind boggling how expensive the councils say library services cost to support (this is service support, other expenditure in the cipfa returns). Suggest a network of regional library management hubs, based on the Tri Borough arrangement in London, there are lots of savings to be made by joint working. 151 service supports, 151 other expenditures, 151 management and support structures, its exact duplication up and down the land. All the libraries could be invested in further and millions could be saved if there was the political drive to do this.

Dan:

 I agree this is one option to look at for making savings, and an important one. Not every library authority is suitable for amalgamation, and there are a lot of issues to be worked through first – the Tri-borough model took some time to organise. But I think there is a big role for government in actively engaging with councils and encouraging them to look at this option. I've spoken in favour of this idea, but clearly not loudly enough. That is something I hope I can rectify in the future. 

Me:

 I know he is doing bugger all now but Vaizey was a vocal critic and urged intervention in a specific case in opposition, there is no reason why you cannot do the same. 

Dan:

As you say, Ed Vaizey was good at declaring his indignation about libraries in opposition, though he has been much less effective at standing by his words in office. I don't want to fall into that trap, but there is a lot to be indignant about in the current situation. I have been trying to make the case in various speeches and press releases, but I hope I can amplify that message further.  

Trevor, thanks again for your points. Afraid I have very limited resources with which to do this job – not a single £ of resource for a wide shadow ministerial brief, so I’m not able to enter into protracted correspondence, but once again many thanks for taking the time to engage.

A tax is the best form of defence

Dave and George those two intellectual super powers running the country keep going on about this “global race” we are in. It’s a very odd way to win this race when our competition the emerging economies are investing their vast resources into schools and libraries. At the same time we are cutting our libraries hard or passing them to the unwilling volunteers or the “Big Society” as it’s called.  Yes we are going through difficult times but there is no way we are going to compete against the rest of the world when increasingly our natural resources are drying up and we are cutting the one thing that according to the OECD research “reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors.” So if a young child, denied access to books because of poverty or because the child’s parents are lacking vision then that child isn’t going to raise up the ladder in life, pay lots of tax, create wealth and help us win this so called “global race”. They will not fulfil their potiential in life being a burden on the state and in old age ending up in the adult social care system. You could argue that the chain of events described above is a thin argument, it’s entirely plausible because if I didn’t have access to books growning up I word be in a dead end job and when I’m older would be relying on the state. In Swindon they are slashing library hours to save 99k, in Oxon supposedly 313k. How many kids growing up need to be denied access to books for those “savings” to not be savings at all in the long term? Currently local authorities pay about £500 a week for an old person’s residential care if they cannot pay for it themselves. Two grand a month, per person or 24k a year, for one person. So in Swindon based on today’s figures if the library cuts denied four children access to books, harming their life chances so the council has to end up paying their care in 60 years then they are not making efficiencies at all, they are actually making poor short term cuts that are going to hurt them a lot more later on.

The opponents of libraries trot out that old "books are over" or  "give them a kindle" or "books are really cheap on Amazon". There are a few problems with that:

1.     Kindles may be coming down in cost but the e-books are not free

2.     Libraries also provide space for children to study away from home (very important for some kids sadly)

3.     Books, both paper and electronic are still very expensive to buy.

I had a look on amazon and got the prices for the top ten kids books, both in kindle and paper book format. Below is the books and the figures:

For a poor single parent family or family on benefits I think they would struggle to find £500 quid a year if their two kids were getting through a book a week. It’s probably not a lot of money to most people but if the household is on a low income £20 a week for paper books or £17 for the kindle versions is going to be hard money to find. And getting the kids to actually enjoy reading in the first place is always going to be easier if you put them in a library full of books and letting them browse.

Of course children’s reading is only one aspect of how libraries could help us win the “global race” the job seekers using the Internet to apply for jobs or ordering books for self-study to get a better one, the elderly person whose visits to the library help them to keep active and keep their minds ticking over keeping them out of the 24k a year care system is another saving and will help us win the “global race”

I accept that libraries have to change, paper books are not going to be here forever but the PLR stats show that with children’s reading (despite the cuts so far) on the up, cutting libraries isn’t going to help us win anything, we are just going to be losers.

Back closer to home, Oxfordshire County Council are planning a 1.99% council tax increase. Considering the inflation rate last year was between 5 and 2.3 percent then it isn’t really an increase at all.  I would imagine the council is under massive pressure from Pickles, Cameron and Osborne to not have this “increase” If the extra revenue is ploughed back into services that help educate the minds of children or help keep people out of the expensive care system both now and in the future then it’s something most people I think would support. Labour didn’t put any amendments to the proposed budget, they resolved to write a letter to the government to complain about the cuts, a complete waste of time, what are they there for exactly apart from pontificating?

If the government want to save money and win "the global race" they should #savelibraries. If they want us to be stuck in a stagnant economy with no hope of growth and a ever increasing welfare bill then don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/11/social-care-costs-cap-analysis

http://www.edutopia.org/global-education-libraries-developing-countries

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/children-boost-plr-library-stats.html

The Labour budget "amendment" 

http://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s19845/Labour%20Group%20Amendments.pdf

FFS!

You can be open or you can have government

I was getting very cross with Terry Deary's comments so I decided to email him to try and understand where he is coming from. The complete exchange is below. He did give his permission for me to put this up:

This bit is my initial email :

"Dear Terry,

We don't know each other but I come from the East End of Sunderland, next to Hendon where I understand you are from, growing up it was as you no doubt know a utter shit hole. I didn't do that well at school and my home life wasn't great but the one thing that helped me better myself in life was libraries. I know you have strong views and I'm sure the PLR money isn't fair but libraries are something that are of massive benefit to society. How can anything that provides information and knowledge to anyone without any prejudice be a bad thing? If I was growing up today a kindle would be as much use as a door stop because I wouldn't be able to afford the e-books and libraries offered the space away from home and the bullies at school to learn.

Please re-consider your views on this, libraries aren't finished and are still vitally important. Councillors and politicians are going to jump on your words and use them as justification for closing libraries. There will be lots of kids from the rough parts of Sunderland that libraries will offer a way out to. It did for me. 

With best wishes,

Trevor Craig.

p.s. I am very angry about this and I hope you will take up the offers of a public debate so I can at least understand better what it is that informs your views"

Too which he kindly replied:

"Hello Trevor

I am not sure exactly what you have read of my views – the media distorts and edits mercilessly. What I have been trying to say is that I want all people of all ages to have access to literature. A book is filled with an author’s ideas and its purpose is to entertain and communicate with a reader. A library is just a building. I want to know if libraries (buildings) are still the best way to enable writers and readers to come together. I am asking a question, not proposing a solution. If librarians feel threatened by that question then you should not. If they are doing a wonderful job that justifies every penny of taxpayer’s money you have NOTHING to worry about.

If you are arguing that socially deprived children from places like Hendon need access to books then I agree wholeheartedly (as you can imagine). But the answer is to find the BEST way to ensure EVERY Hendon kid has the BEST access. Many children (like me) found libraries intimidating places full of old stock with old attitudes, wholly inappropriate to children growing up in the 1950s. But just because they were useful in the past doesn’t mean they have a God-given right to exist forever. The world is changing at an ever-increasing pace. I’m not advocating the closure of libraries – I am saying that, when there are so many social and economic problems, the libraries have to work much harder to justify their existence and demonstrate they are fit-for-purpose (sorry, horrible phrase) in 2013 and beyond. YES, they were great in the past and, yes, they helped people like yourself. Can they still do the same today? Can they do better? That’s all I’m asking.

A public debate? Sorry I am not a fan of debates. I can air my views and someone can argue against me but will a “debate” change a single thing? I’m not convinced. And you would not believe the amount of vile abuse I’ve received for daring to challenge the orthodoxy. Do I really want to stand up to be shot down? It is very tiring at my age to be on the receiving end of so much spite and bitterness. On which note I must sincerely thank you for your considered and courteous message … I would never have guessed you were angry until your footnote said so. I wish everyone were as restrained and intelligent.

All the best

Terry"

There was a couple of further brief bits but they are not worth putting up, its fair to say Terry has similar views to the political classes as I do but it adds nothing to the libraries debate that is going on. There has been a lot of stuff flying round on this now, included stuff by me on various comments boards. He is right to say the media edit and distort peoples views and take things out of context. I am going to have a re-read of all the stuff written on this and try and reconcile it to the view he has given above.

Opposition is the enemy in exile

Democracy should be for the voters about choice, when there is no difference between the two main parties in a council or in Westminster then where is the choice for voters? There is an old saying about Westminster politics that if both side of the house agree on something then it’s probably the wrong idea. This equally applies to local politics, if the party seeking office intends to do exactly the same as those that are in power then what is the point? Dan Jarvis MP has been making all the right noises on libraries, yet when he travels to Newcastle to speak to one of the worst councils for proposed libraries cuts he has not a single negative think to say about the council and their clearly dodgy statistics. Some people seem to be of the view (myself included) that it’s just a tactic anyway to raise the profile of the ambitious leader to help him in his next attempt to secure a safe seat. Dan has nothing to say about the dodgy stats or the leader’s ambition, it’s the evil Tory cuts to blame, nothing else. These are the same cuts that Labour in Government would have made, despite what they say now. The banker’s bonus tax cannot pay for everything.

Closer to home in Swindon, the Conservatives are slashing the opening hours of libraries, sacking the low paid library managers and assistants, and protecting the bloated back office and service support and decimating the library service all to save a measly 99k.  You would think the Labour party would have at least a few different ideas, sadly not. They are planning on doing exactly the same thing as the email below shows from a Labour spokesman to a local campaigner:

“I've spoken with Jim Grant and he's asked me to forward on the following information to you:

The cuts to the library services are as a result of the cuts being made by the Coalition government centrally which are supported by the Tory and Liberal Democrats locally.

Were Labour in power nationally or locally it is hoped we wouldn't have to make these cuts. However, because of the financial constraints being imposed by central government local government has to make very hard choices about how we spend what little money we have.

Labour will be amending the overall budget by finding additional savings in non essential spending in order to preserve services which have a direct affect on the lives of the vulnerable people of the town. This will not include opposing the cuts to library services.

Labour's long term plan for the library service is to ensure that libraries are contained within community hubs, similar to the Old Town library moving into the Arts centre. Unless this path is followed the future cuts to local government, supported by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, will inevitably mean permanent closure of libraries in Swindon”

So the Swindon Labour position is: It’s the Tories fault, along with the Lib Dems, if we were in power we hope we wouldn’t have to make these cuts but since we have to we plan on making the same cuts to libraries as the party in power and if we don't co-locate and make savings, libraries will close.

The Borough does however have a chief exec of a small borough council on a basic salary of £161k a year, more that the prime minister who is on 142k, for  more like for like comparison Sir Jeremy Heywood , who is responsible for every civil servant in the country is on 200k. Even after the cuts (and they have made some) they still have 115 staff on over 50k a year, getting rid of two of the 115 staff would save the libraries from cuts, two back office officers are worth more than the library service it seems. Considering nearly all council services are outsourced it seems odd they need so many well paid people when the services have been contracted out. These are the people who the councillors ask to make the cuts, they are hardly going to suggest chopping themselves.

I’m sure if I looked at the >500 spending data there will be plenty of stuff in there where efficiencies could be made. The sad thing is the “opposition” don’t appear to be trying, they just want to have the power, blame the other side and take no responsibility. They libraries don't have a direct affect on the vulnerable, they are wrong. Cut the libraries and what is lost to society won’t appear on the annual balance sheet but when their power to transform lives, raise aspirations and open up minds is lost then you will certainly see it in years to come when more people don’t realise their potential and have to rely on the state for their pensions and social care. All parties bang on about aspiration and closing the gap between the rich and the poor, sadly they don’t have the vision to see that libraries are one of the best ways of doing this. And when it comes to choice, at the ballot box in Swindon, it seems we don’t have any.