Comments on: The good, the bad and the good or bad: Haringey, Coventry, Dudley, Liverpool and Wolverhampton https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2017/02/the-good-the-bad-and-the-good-or-bad-haringey-coventry-dudley-liverpool-and-wolverhampton.html What's happening to your library? Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:39:45 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: Will Miles https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2017/02/the-good-the-bad-and-the-good-or-bad-haringey-coventry-dudley-liverpool-and-wolverhampton.html#comment-8047 Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:39:45 +0000 http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/?p=12001#comment-8047 That’s a poor article for Lewisham’s libraries in the big issue. We have had poor coverage of late in the borough. But that ecocommunities dude is not what he seems. We know he tried to personally mortgage several of the properties that his organisation was on contract to run as community libraries, and would have gotten away with it had a campaigner not informed the council. He had a tide over loan for a very short time from the charity arm of the Big Issue, so there is a potential conflict of interest really, explaining this puff piece.

I don’t know what moral compass he is operating with, but I would say the needle points towards entitlement, and the main evidence of doing good in his book is his bank balance. Are libraries really a role for the charity and private sector, as his interview ultimately implies? Economically for the tax payer they make most sense council staffed, as professional investments of intrinsic value to the community. Allowing users to apply themselves in these spaces is good value for money. The world of decent work and industry and business prospers from good, impartially provided services by the state, as it does good public education, infrastructure, justice and security. Not-for-profit social enterprises can be a good model to endeavour sustainably, and not in chains that run off when globally times get tough, and take it offshore and rip the heart out of communities. Sure! But these same social enterprises can be in name only, can be just a front used by the sort of dubious companies that just want to extort on increasing the value of their property. They want to appear friendly and people powered, receive council grants, pay no tax, fraudulently conceal profit without much sign of an audit, and get a slice of council budgets perpetually, with little accountability and PR blessings from politicians that have political reputation riding on voters not clocking on to their dodgy deals.

I know it is a national problem, and we the dormant civil society haven’t been having the conversations enough building an approach for a better way of doing things that is inclusive and viable for a strong economy, for the welfare states to function sensibly globally, and we just aren’t vigilant and active enough so unengaged and weakened councils just do the easy thing, but they can go into their reserves and resist cuts more smartly. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pmqs-labour-councils-sweetheart-deal-surrey-theresa-may-austerity-a7571156.html

I expect publiclibrariesnews is well aware and in general agreement with the basics of that argument, but there I go making again. These things are so infuriating.

]]>