What people really want

Published: 5 May, 2011

• ALL political parties in Camden appear to support the need to “explore in depth any reasonable alternative cost-saving measures in partnership with local residents, library users, library staff and voluntary groups” 

This phrase was present in the original motion for the April 27 council meeting on its libraries and was carried through to the Labour Party amendment of that motion, so one can be forgiven for believing in universal agreement. 

Unfortunately, the attempts by officers and cabinet members to restrict the range of possible cost saving measures to the destructive and divisive ones suggest that the amendment was not as comprehensive as it should have been.

The lamentable quality of the debate during the council meeting graphically illustrated the difficulty that the present administration has in defending its library policies. On the night, this defence carefully avoided the original Liberal Democrat contention that “any proposed service changes should not include any closure of the 13 libraries within the borough”. 

The removal of this section of the original motion by the Labour Party amendment is a clear declaration of intent by those who run the borough. 

The hard-liners in the party are determined to get their way and resent any attempt at completely open discussion. With the hard-liners in charge, the debate that should have occurred in the council chamber has to take place elsewhere.

Superficially, the Camden libraries consultation would seem to be the answer to the need for a more open debate. However, this opportunity was effectively destroyed by the design of the survey documentation. 

An open debate means that disagreement has to be allowed and that was severely restricted by Camden’s approach. The attitude exhibited by the consultation design was that the council knows best and this was the residents’ opportunity to agree with it. 

While Camden made a mockery of the consultation process, Camden Public Libraries Users Group tried harder. Its survey of the views of Camden’s population allowed disagreement with any or all propositions and even allowed a “don’t know” declaration.

In spite of the open approach, the CPLUG survey found that the Camden public was almost 83 per cent in favour of keeping all Camden’s libraries open. 

To be absolutely fair, 3.6 per cent of the responses were in favour of a closure programme. These responses were probably not all from Labour councillors and almost certainly included some members of the public. In argumentative Camden, an 83 per cent agreement with a proposition is as close to unanimity as it is possible to get.

This result will almost certainly be reflected in the council’s survey result, to some extent. The biased survey design will not be able to completely disguise the Camden residents’ hatred of library closures. 

The rejection of the main plank in the council strategy is a severe blow to its desire to coerce local communities into running the small libraries themselves. 

The council can still threaten to close libraries in order to blackmail local inhabitants but the threat is less credible now. 

There are many ways of saving money from the Camden libraries budget without the need for library closures and the CPLUG survey asked Camden’s population for its views on 11 of these. If you wish to see what the borough thought about these options go to: http://www.facebook. com/home.php?sk=group_215663901779378

ALAN TEMPLETON
CPLUG Chair, NW6