Libraries are normally 1% or so of the overall council budget. A large (“disproportioinate”?) cut to them may have a drastic impact on their users but not really solve any other council problems.

See my page on saving money without closing libraries for other ideas, of course.

Let’s make this clear. No librarian or campaigner I have ever seen has ever said libraries should be immune from the cuts. That would be, as you suggest, of itself unfair. What library users and campaigners do want is a fair crack of the whip, not to be seen as a soft and easy option. Not to be seen as a “luxury” service. The purpose here is to explain why we are not – again see another page on this site, the “reasons for public libraries” page.

Let’s make this clear. Rolling over and dieing is not fair to those who use public libraries. We need to advocate our case, as surely every other service is doing, or we will be as certainly being unfair in quite a different direction – as libraries needed by so many would be completely destroyed within the next couple of years.

And disproportionate cuts are not in themselves bad. Should a council levy the same level of cut across all of its services?

Of course not. Of course the slash and burn is to be regretted and opposed, but even here it comes back to the age old adage: if not libraries, then what DO you cut? Because cut you most surely have to.

All this stuff about the library budget being hit worse than other budgets might be true in one or two councils but it is obviously complete rubbish for the country as a whole.

Staffing down a mere 4.3%? Hardly enough to justify the squeals coming out of CILIP.

Libraries are actually doing quite well compared to some other services.

An inconvenient fact for many, no doubt.

By which you mean:

“If a library buys fewer books then people take out fewer books”.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Great blog, by the way.