Comments on: Campaign for the Book newsletter December 2009

By: Alan Gibbons

Alan Gibbons — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:31:54 +0000

Oh, that’s easy. I am a life long socialist. I just wish Labour were more so!

By: Andrew Preston

Andrew Preston — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:53:54 +0000

Alan

I’m sorry , this is not history we’re talking about. At least , with, for example the London libraries stuff, the proposals can be challenged. And the current government have quite specifically demonstrated that they are prepared to uphold the Act

The purpose of Conservative policy , and actions, is to ‘localise’ , undermine the 1964 Act , and make it impossible to challenge proposals.

In a few months time there is an election. Which do you prefer ?

By: Alan Gibbons

Alan Gibbons — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:36:39 +0000

Andrew,
Historically, Labour may have been pro public service- my old Labour family were a classic product of the Attlee-Bevan agenda- but in recent years I’m afraid it no longer washes. The whole Blair project was built on the idea that private profit was the driver of ‘reform.’ This idea has led to a shrivelling of Labour’s base, given room for the BNP to grow, and created a ‘Butskellite’ convergence between the parties. If Brown has any sense he will shift Labour back towards its roots but I am not holding my breath.

By: Andrew Preston

Andrew Preston — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:23:25 +0000

Alan

Actually, I rather thought that a primary result of the Wirral enquiry was that Foulkes had been completely discredited.

As I understand the 1964 Act, a huge part of why public libraries are a statutory responsibility, and also why the act states ‘comprehensive and efficient’ is quite specifically to prevent libraries from becoming subject to local political and economic convenience.

So it is easy to understand why the Conservative party intends to undermine the 1964 Act, or perhaps institute a ‘review’ process designed to achieve the same objective.

I see no equivalence between parties, when one has traditionally been supportive of public service, and another which has traditionally despised public services.

By: Alan Gibbons

Alan Gibbons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:56:47 +0000

Andrew,
In my opinion, Burnham was most definitely wrong to refuse the inquiry the first time round and I told him so in writing. All credit to him however that he did change his mind. No matter who is in Government after May, New Labour budget cutters or New Tory budget cutters or even Cleggite ‘Savage Cutters’, we will have to fight hard for public services such as libraries, especially if the privatisaion/localisation front is pushed even more strongly. I suspect that a major focus will be defending the 1964 Act itself. This is now being targeted by some in local government, led by the Wirral’s New Labour council leader Steve Foulkes. The great tragedy of this situation is that not one of the three major parties stands for robust action against the bankers, not one of them really recognizes the injustice of slashing public services to protect the casino madness of the City, not one of them is seeking to ‘roll out’ the lessons of Sue Charteris’ excellent report. Library users will get only what they are willing to fight for.

By: Andrew Preston

Andrew Preston — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:27:44 +0000

No minister orders a public inquiry lightly, and imo it was absolutely proper for Burnham to initially be ‘not minded to’.

He did order it though.

I just wonder, given the Conservative aspirant government’s desire to ‘localise’, ‘clarify’ the meaning of ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library services.., and otherwise attempt to evade responsibilities…….. , how easy might it be to get them to call a public inquiry in the event that they get their greasy fingers on power.