Library policy hits poor people

Published: 13 January, 2011

• HERE may well be some grains of truth in Councillor Julian Fulbrook’s diatribe against Conservative MP Mike Freer’s views on student grants (No ladder for the less fortunate, January 6) but, from a general education viewpoint, is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black? 

It is often very difficult to tell the difference between Conservative and New Labour policies.

Eric Pickles, local government secretary, has been cast by the media in the role of the quintessential right-wing bigot who is dedicated to destroying the welfare state. Perhaps he is, but consider this quotation: “Before we see libraries closed, I want to see them [councils] merge their back office functions. I’d like to see them sharing chief executives, their legal department, their accounts department, their payroll, their IT, their planning, their education support functions. When they’ve done all that, if they feel they have to close libraries, then they should come to see me again.” – as reported in the Yorkshire Post on December 14.

If Mr Pickles is as he is painted, compare his attitude on library closures with that of the Labour administration in Camden and wonder how many people there have views that are to the right of him. 

He is advocating measures to avoid library closures and Camden is effectively starting from the point where library closures must occur – no contrary argument to be allowed. 

Of course, the usual Camden consultation charade will occur (it is necessary to provide the appearance of local democracy), but it will be kept within the bounds of what the council wants to achieve. What Camden has historically wanted, when controlled by the Labour Party, is fewer public libraries.

It is difficult to understand why the local version of a political party founded by trade unionists should so dislike a service which was invented with the prime objective of improving social mobility through self-education. 

The inescapable conclusion has to be that the party is simply no longer interested in improving social mobility.

Not only is this supported by data showing falling social mobility during its long period in government but also by the growing enthusiasm within it for the heredity principle (think Miliband(s) and Benn). 

The New Labour clique is safely inside the castle and is pulling up the drawbridge.

There is compelling evidence, very close to home, that this is the case. The early part of a person’s education career determines how well he/she succeeds in later life. 

Thus the more help that the young people of Camden receive during this period, the better are their life chances, that is, the more upwardly mobile they will be. 

The table above is the result of a survey of young people’s opinions on the help provided by their respective library services. Comparing the Camden figures with that of its peer group (the inner London boroughs) provides an appalling picture. 

The best that can be said for Camden is that it is consistent – consistently the worst of the bunch. It seems to be dedicated to keeping the poor in their place. 

It has been suggested that the Labour Party sold its soul in the mid-1990s in exchange for power. If it did it is time for it to seek redemption. 

It must once again work towards a fairer society and support those activities which can enhance this. In Camden, a small step towards this would be to, at least, match the views of bogeyman Mr Pickles. 

Using the current financial crisis to mask the further implementation of a long-term plan to run down a cheap method of improving literacy and numeracy in the local population should be seen as a covert attack on those not born to privilege.

ALAN TEMPLETON
Chair, Camden Public Libraries Users Group