Discipline and fear

Letwin - hoping everyone has got the fear.

I couldn’t let this go without at least writing a short blog post about what this means to me.  In case anyone needs reminding, Oliver Letwin said the following about the public sector:

“You can’t have room for innovation and the pressure for excellence without having some real discipline and some fear on the part of the providers that things may go wrong if they don’t live up to the aims that society as a whole is demanding of them.”

The implication, of course, being that the public sector workforce are complacent and unproductive and, as such, require a bit of fear up them to force them to be more productive like, say, the private sector.  Well, I have worked in the private sector and I want no-one to go through what I went through.  I experienced what it was like to work in fear and it certainly made me less productive (and prompted me to leave).

It all happened a few years back when a new manager took over the store I worked in.  Up until his arrival, I had had a good reputation amongst other managers.  I was earmarked by my manager at the time as a future store manager and had embarked on a development programme to achieve this. Things were looking good and secure and I felt like I was finally going places.  All that was about to change.

Initially we got on fine.  Like I said, I had a good reputation so this obviously had some bearing on our relationship.  Then, at some point, things seemed to change.  I have always sought to offer my opinion on the decision making process.  Always constructively and always accepting whatever final decision is taken.  I also liked to talk things through with my manager to help identify ways of addressing staff performance and improving the department I ran.  Soon, however, I got the impression that he didn’t really enjoy talking things through, especially difficulties that needed facing.  And what was once a productive relationship, soon became cordial at best.  Then came an unexpected development.

I discovered, through another store manager I knew, that my manager was trying to put me out on secondment to another store, ostensibly to help pass an examination I needed for my role.  I was reluctant to do so and informed my manager that I felt I would be more successful if I remained with my team and completed the qualification at a later date – particularly as I was already on the management training programme. I felt that I should complete the programme first before embarking on any further training.  However, I was pushed into a corner and had to accept the secondment.

So, for the following six months I was seconded out to another store.  During this time I suspended myself on the training programme so I could commit fully to the examination I needed to pass.  During this period I didn’t hear from my manager once, which was rather odd considering the nature of the secondment.  I knew something was up when, a couple of weeks before I was due to return, the area manager came to see me.

I was shocked to discover that they wanted me to stay put, take a pay freeze and no longer work in my existing role.  As this was a secondment I knew I could say no, so I insisted on returning to my store.  This was accepted and I was told that I would need to improve my performance upon my return.  That no-one had ever questioned my performance before wasn’t mentioned, and in hindsight I probably should have raised it.  That said, I was young and intimidated and just kept quite.

Upon my return I was asked to see the manager in his office.  As I sat there he proceeded to tell me that I was being taken off the programme as I ‘didn’t contribute’ on any of the sessions (people who know me will no doubt be laughing at that one).  Silent from the shock of that revelation, the manager then slammed his folder on the desk and demanded that I gave him my full attention.  At this point I was really scared.  In my mind I had done nothing wrong.  I had worked hard and had shown full commitment to the programme.  My performance was never raised as an issue before my secondment or whilst on the programme.  But again, I was young and scared.

The remainder of my time there was hell.  It was clear to me that my manager felt put out that he didn’t get what he wanted by my refusal to stay at the store I was seconded too.  He made it quite clear to me I wasn’t wanted.  During the subsequent weeks and months I was told by colleagues that members of staff had been asked to ‘spy’ on me and report back to the manager.  Furthermore, I would often receive phonecalls from the manager (who often liked to work from home – I worked in retail, go figure how that is even possible) threatening me with disciplinary action if I didn’t action something or other by the time he saw me next.  To say it was an uncomfortable period in my working life is a bit of an underestimate.  I found it extremely difficult to motivate myself at work and I was constantly looking over my shoulder, worried that I might put a foot wrong and face disciplinary action. It still affects me to this day and I will never forget the treatment I received during those last few months.  Thankfully, I had some very good friends that helped me through it and their friendship during that time will always be very precious to me.

Luckily, I got my big escape into the world of libraries and never looked back.  Handing in my notice was quite the most pleasurable experience of my life.  In some ways I wanted to stay and fight.  My union rep said I had a very strong case for harassment in the workplace in light of my treatment going right the way back to the secondment.  However, sometimes it is best to ‘cut and run’ and in this regard I have no regrets.

I would not want anyone to go through what I went through.  Fear and discipline do not lead to increased productivity.  They lead to stressed, unhappy and intimidated individuals who are scared to act creatively and productively.  If Oliver Letwin and his fellow ministers want a productive, successful nation driving the economy forward, it is not fear and discipline that is needed in the workplace.  It is respect and freedom.  Only then will this country truly prosper.  In every sense of the word.

Kent County Council – embarking on an #epicfail?

Is KCC making a big (and costly) mistake?

As I noted in an earlier blog post, Kent County Council are about to install RFID self-service units in libraries across the county.  The first batch of installations are due to take place in April with Dover, Deal and Sandwich first in line for the technology.  The council claims that introducing this technology will save money in the long run.  Of course, the system itself won’t save the council any money at all.  It will, in fact, cost more.  The only savings that Kent will make from installing this system is through the redundancies they will be making in the mistaken belief that they will need less staff to ensure that the roll-out of the equipment is successful.  Although, one suspects that part of their consideration is the future closure of a number of libraries across the county (more on that later).

Kent County Council seem to be banking on the fact that the equipment they are buying in will be cheaper, more efficient and relieve the pressure on staff (this ensuring they can offload a few without having an impact).  However, a recent survey should give them cause for alarm.  Conducted by Mick Fortune, the annual survey (see here for more details about the survey) into the current status of RFID in the UK library market produced some interesting (and disturbing results).  Feedback from the 2011 survey included the following remarks:

“2nd year of debate with our supplier re handhelds. No connectivity to LMS although we were sold product on understanding that LMS and handheld units were compatible.  Also some software doesn’t work on Windows 7 PCs – we have just upgraded our equipment to Win 7 so software unusable.”

“Have been very unimpressed by the equipment and the support offered. The machines look good but are very prone to failure.”

“We had very high demands on a rapid installation which all attempts were made to carry out. However we received little training at the time of various installs, and support since the installation has been extremely poor, in terms of speed of response, adequacy of response, communication, reference numbers, engineer visits (timing, lack of communication or notification), software upgrade/update information, …”

“Too early to give a definite response, and very difficult to measure because so many other variables have also changed, but there are indications that we overestimated the savings to be made on circulation functions.”

“Cause reliability issues with LMS.  High ongoing running costs”

“I wasn’t involved in the selection but there seems to have been unrealistic expectations of staff headcount reductions to offset against the capital expenditure”

“staff time not reduced”

“Only semi-functional system has not bred confidence amongst staff or public, take up low and slow, unable to deliver maximum / intended benefits.”

I think the most pertinent comments from Kent’s perspective are those suggesting that the cost reductions anticipated by the introduction of the system were exaggerated and the fact that staff time has been greatly impacted by their introduction (not a good sign if you are using the equipment as an excuse to get rid of staff).

Now, the council may well argue that I am being opposed to technology and opposed to developing a 21st century library service.  This is, of course, nonsense.  By all means the council should be looking at how to bring the service up to date.  However, this does not mean that the council should make decisions based on short term outcomes.  As I have argued before, now is not the right time for self-service in public libraries.  The technology simply isn’t ready yet (although it is getting there).  Decision making like this will have costly implications for the library service and for tax payers in the county.  Not wise in the current climate.  The best thing the council could have done was wait another year and then introduce the equipment, when the standards are all in place and the equipment is more efficient (and more cost effective).

But then there is the suspicion that this is all immaterial as the council will undoubtedly be closing libraries across the county sometime in 2012.  There are already rumours at County Hall of a list of libraries that are earmarked for closure.  It would certainly appear that the most likely candidates for closure will be those libraries that will not be receiving self-service equipment, and those that are only staffed by one assistant.

I have raised my concerns with Councillor Mike Hill about the introduction of these units at this time and the decision to make staff redundant to enable their introduction, but as yet I have had no response.  I sincerely hope that Kent have carefully considered all the implications of introducing RFID and have not simply seen it as a cheaper alternative than employing staff (which it appears that they have done).  If they have not, it will very likely result in poor customer satisfaction and, as with all services whether private or public, poor customer satisfaction is likely to lead to a decline in usage of the service.  And we know what a decline in usage will lead to.  Watch this space for 2012.  Library closures are coming to Kent.

Volunteers running libraries

Can volunteers really run public libraries?

Whilst this has been knocking around in the library world for a while, volunteers running libraries seems to be the hot top in the media at the moment.  It would seem that, for some, volunteers present the magic bullet that can prevent library closures and ensure communities have the library provision that they deserve.  However, whilst volunteers play an important role in supporting the delivery of public library services (including advocacy which is vital), they are not a viable alternative to trained, paid staff.  Keeping a library open is only marginally better than having no library at all if the service is solely provided voluntarily.

One of the prime issues with volunteers running services is the lack of skills amongst those that would be in a position to volunteer.  Working in a library now requires a high degree of IT literacy.  You are working with computers all day.  You are expected to be able to employ appropriate search techniques on various Internet search engines (yes, ‘appropriate’ – searching is not about ‘bunging in a few words’, it is a skill to get the right results).  Searching the Internet requires skill.  A skill that, as I have mentioned on here before, even some journalists fail to grasp….naming no names (look it up!).

But it’s not just the point about searching the Internet that is cause for concern, other aspects of the library service require a degree of knowledge that volunteers are simply unable to provide.  Take for example local studies materials.  When I worked in a public library, we had a huge number of local studies materials.  Maps, photographs, newspaper cuttings, countless items of interest to local history researchers and the community.  The biggest problem I found with these materials was a way of making it easy for the public to find the materials they wanted.  For example, we trialled different ways of making the huge number of maps we have searchable.  The system that was employed at the time involved a long list of the various maps that were held.  Yes, they were organised appropriately on the list to ease use, but it wasn’t the easiest way to find what you were looking for and I believed that there were alternative options worth exploring.

I decided to try out some different tools that were available on the Internet to make it easier for staff to locate materials.  One of the first things I tried was a Zoho Wiki.  The plan was that just by putting in simple search terms, staff would be able to locate all the materials linked to a particular area of the local community – this would make it quicker and easier for the public.  Unfortunately, I never got to complete my plan (I left to start a new job elsewhere), but I think it could have worked with some tweaking.

Now, I don’t want to tar all those in the voluntary sector with the same brush, but how many volunteers are there who have the knowledge to be able to establish a wiki and adapt it for the purposes outlined?  Sure, I bet there are a few people able to volunteer who could do it (like I said, I don’t want to tar all volunteers with the same brush), but are there enough to staff and man the number of libraries that are being lined up for closure across the UK unless local communities step in?  Of course not.  Is there a large, ready supply of tech savvy people out of work who are happy to volunteer their services to keep their library open?  No.  Are there dedicated members of the community frightened at the prospect of their local library closing and are prepared to do whatever they can to keep it open?  Yes.  But they shouldn’t be forced into keeping libraries open on the back of fear and bullying from local councils.  Surely this is the Big Society being proposed not the Bullied Society?

But this isn’t about being ‘anti-volunteers’.  This is the reality for community libraries:

Four years ago, Buckinghamshire County Council closed eight of its libraries. Two of these, including Little Chalfont, have kept going as volunteer-run community libraries, offering a comprehensive library service. Last November, a further 14 were told that they must become community libraries or face closure, leaving only 9 council-run libraries in the county.

Now LCCL is being held up around the country as the model of the future of our libraries, which places Brooks at the eye of the storm. Librarians from all over the country are beating a path to his door, wanting to know how this small community managed to save their library.

But be under no illusion. This was not simply a matter of a few volunteers taking over the jobs previously done by professional library staff. The original terms from Bucks County Council were that the library had to be provided at NO COST to the Council. The community had to raise enough money to pay for the rent of the existing building, charges for IT equipment, supplies such as bar codes, and a management fee to the Council. They also had to choose whether to pay the council an annual fee (£7k to rent existing stock, or to create their own stock from scratch through donations. (They chose the latter path.)

In all, their running costs amount to some £20k pa – money which is raised from a mixture of public donations, grants, library revenues (i.e. fines), and letting out the building to other community groups.

The volunteer staff, between them, have to provide not only basic librarian skills but Financial Management, Health and Safety, Staff Management, Stock Procurement, Building Maintenance, Data Protection, and a host of other managerial functions.

Jim Brooks, Chairman of the Friends of Little Chalfont Community Library, is angry that Councils are holding LCCL up as the blueprint to be used, willy nilly, elsewhere. He strongly believes that a check list of key criteria must be met in order for a community library such as theirs to be viable.

“Where communities meet these criteria, we are happy to give them all the help we can. But where they don’t, councils must understand, it’s a non-starter.”

Volunteer run libraries are not the answer to a long-term, sustainable library service.  They are a stay of execution and nothing more.  If a council near you is threatening to close your library unless the community has the volunteers and the will to do so, fight them all the way.  This is their responsibility, not yours.  The danger is that if councils force this to happen, we will result in a two tier library system.  One for those in large urban areas run by paid professionals and one for those in small rural areas staffed by untrained volunteers.  Now tell me, is this what David Cameron means when he calls for a ‘fairer society’?

Cambridge and how to stitch up a public consultation…..

Be
wary of library consultations…..

I guess this is going to be common place over the coming months, councils using dubious surveys to back up their arguments for handing over
libraries to local communities who are ill-equipped to provide the comprehensive service that is required. Take this news from Cambridge:

Plans to use self-service technology and volunteer labour to limit library
closures have won some support. More than two-thirds of survey
respondents – around 3,900 out of 5,600 – said they thought
adopting new working methods and reducing the number of paid staff was a good idea if it stopped branches from being shut. The analysis is based on a consultation which took place in
Cambridgeshire in the second half of last year, the results of
which have just been released. Nearly half the respondents – 48 per cent – said they would volunteer in libraries and 1,800 have
already registered their interest in helping out.

Well, reading that it certainly seems to suggest that libraries run by volunteers has a lot of support, but does it really? Well, no. The key phrase in this report is, of course, ‘adopting new working methods and reducing the number of paid staff was a good idea if it stopped branches from being shut‘. In other words, they aren’t supportive of volunteers running libraries as such, only if it prevents library closure ie if all other avenues have been
explored. It seems like Cambridge haven’t really provided their local community with an option. Essentially, it boils down to ‘we are either going to close your libraries or let groups of volunteers operate them’. What a choice! Well, I’d rather have small woodland animals run my library than have no library at all, but that doesn’t mean I want small woodland
animals running my library. Upon reading the consultationreport with the questionnaire that they used to get the views of library users, it is fairly obvious what their aim
was….so much so it seems little point even bothering to consult.
Take these two questions for example:

12. Thinking about library services in 5-10 years time, which of the following scenarios most appeal to you? (Please tick all that apply)

• Fewer, bigger better libraries
• Library services mostly digital – e.g. downloadable e-books
• Library services mostly digital – e.g. downloadable e-audio books
• Library services mostly digital – e.g. more information online
• Library buildings also used as community meeting places – for community groups, exhibitions and other activities
• Other public services sharing library building

How about improving existing libraries? Oh, of course, that won’t be an option as they have already decided to close some and don’t want people to oppose the closures. And then we have this question:
Q13. We are proposing to put self-service machines into all our libraries, reducing the number of paid staff, and recruiting volunteers to help deliver the service. This way of working has the potential to save money without closing any libraries. Do you think:

• This is a good idea if it prevents library closure
• You would rather see fewer libraries but fully run by paid staff
• Didn’t answer /couldn’t commit to one or the other

Again, what options are provided here? It seems that the suggestion is you either have volunteers or less libraries. No middle way, no third option. Either prevent library closure by taking on more volunteers or accept library closures and have paid staff. These are not
options. They simply ensure that however people respond, the council gets the answer it wants (ever was it thus): fewer staff or fewer buildings. Either way, the library (and by extension the community) suffers. Library users and community groups up and down the country need to take very great care when engaging in the consultations. If they aren’t making acceptable suggestions, complain about it. Write to your council and demand they conduct a proper consultation rather than some flim-flam that’ll give them the results that they want. This is about what you want not them. They are elected to represent you, they are not elected to tell you what is best for you. The Cambridge consultation is just the start…more manipulation from other councils is sure to come.

Braving the trolls……

Beware the trolls! (Flickr image: kevindooley)

I’ve often banged on about getting out there, getting engaged and arguing the case for libraries, no matter how volatile the audience is (in some ways, the more volatile the better!).  Problem is, this is sometimes harder than it sounds.  You have to be made of pretty stern stuff at times to plough through some of the verbal garbage that is thrown in your direction dare you pop your head above the parapet.  Sometimes even I find it hard to commit myself to the moment.  Not because I am fearful of the response, but because I begin to wonder what the point is – these people don’t listen.  So sure are they of their own beliefs (no matter how illogical), nothing could possibly persuade them they are wrong.  Facts won’t work, in fact the only thing that will is quite possibly first-hand experience.  But when so hostile, what is the chances that they will ‘dip their toes in the water’? Probably zero.

But then, this isn’t really about persuading ‘them’ anyway.  I never seriously believe that I am going to change the mind of the individual I am arguing with.  What I aim to do is to try to show how weak their arguments are so that when an open-minded individual comes to read the thread (they do exist you know!), they see how illogical some of these people are.  Stick to facts and logic (avoid name calling at all costs) and you are on to a winner.  Stray far from that and you are in trouble.  Never, ever resort to name calling.  Once you do that, the argument is lost.  Besides, in my experience, nothing annoys them more than your sheer reasonableness (and I do love to be reasonable).

However, as well as trying to expose the weakness of their arguments, it is also about providing a voice for those that are unable to speak up in their defence.  As I have said repeatedly in the past, both on this blog and elsewhere, 9 million people in the UK have no experience of using the Internet at all.  It is self-evident that this sizeable minority (15% of the population) cannot engage in such debates.  It is those that have Internet connections that engage in these discussions.  Not only those with Internet connections, but those that seek to hijack these forums to promote their own particular political viewpoint (this is especially the case on Comment is Free which tends to attract, shall we say, ‘non-typical’ Guardian readers).

I was trying to think of a suitable analogy for these types of forums and discussions.  The best I could come up with was that it was rather like discussing a woman’s right to vote in a gentleman’s club at the turn of the century.  The people who are truly affected by the discussion are totally excluded from it.  Instead, it is left to those who only see things through a particular prism.  Sure, there is bound to be someone who speaks out, but they will undoubtedly be drowned out by all the others in the room.  Still, isn’t it a good thing that person did speak out?  There is always the potential that one person in that room will leave thinking that the crazy outspoken dude may have had a valid point.  And if one person can be converted………

Part of the problem, I feel, is that too many people suffer from a kind of social myopia.  There is an utter failure to appreciate and comprehend the bigger picture.  Too often it is about what is relevant to the individual rather than what is relevant, or beneficial, for society as a whole.  Or even just a basic failure to see things from more than one perspective – to take a more balanced view.  You see this in many aspects of our society.   Many people only see certain events from their own perspective, they fail to appreciate how those same events are interpreted by ‘the other’.  That’s why, to take a recent example, we see certain people attacking the recent student demonstrations against the rise in tuition fees.  They’re not at university anymore, they are not affected by the rise in tuition fees, so why should they see things from the students’ perspective?  Of course, this avoids the point that maybe their children may be put off going to university by the introduction of higher tuition fees, or indeed the point that many of the students protesting will not be directly affected as they would have left by the time the new regime is introduced.

This myopia also affects the library debate.  Too many of those involved in the various debates fail to see how the proposed cuts and closures affect other people.  The people who do use the library regularly.  The people who rely on libraries to access the Internet and take advantage of a service that they take for granted.  The people who are unable to leave their homes and rely on their library service to deliver books to their door and relieve their feeling of isolation. The children who rely on libraries to support their learning and give them their best hope of reaching their potential and prospering at school.  The people who simply rely on libraries as a safe, secure and non-judgemental public space.

So where does that leave us with the trolls?  To be honest, I don’t know what the answer is.  I’m torn between my need to correct falsehoods and my understanding that it is virtually pointless.  What do you think?  Engage or ignore?

Library Usage Increases

Library usage is on the rise...

There’s a headline you don’t see very often!  Yep, another statty type post I’m afraid, kinda sums up my week really.  Anyway, I’ve been digging a bit further into the library statistics provided by CIPFA and found some more interesting results.  Most interesting of all are the statistics related to library usage.  Often library usage statistics simply refer to the numbers of people walking through the door.  However, this does not take into account the increasing numbers of people who search the catalogue from home, reserve items or renew books they have on loan, borrow ebooks or eaudiobooks, consult reference resources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica – all things that once required a library visit but can now be achieved virtually.  So, with that in mind, here are the overall figures for library usage for the past four years:

2006/7 – 401,332,115

2007/8 – 404,677,184

2008/9 – 438,480,469

2009/10 – 441,721,165

Yep, library usage has grown by 40 million in just 4 years, not bad going eh?  Yes, I know, this combines physical visits with virtual visits and is perhaps misleading but, as we all know, many of the online visits have replaced the previous need to visit the library (ie for book renewals, reservations etc) so I think it is fair to combine the two.

A good indication of this change in usage can also be identified in the number of requests for items.  Again, worth keeping in mind that it is now much easier to reserve items than ever before now you can do so from home:

2006-07 – 10,917,385

2007-08 – 12,026,938

2008-09 – 13,629,479

2009-10 – 15,025,060

Unsurprisingly given the ease with which people can now look items up on the library catalogue and reserve as appropriate.  Certainly it indicates, as I have repeatedly argued, that people are changing the way people interact with their library but, crucially, they are interacting with their library and more so than ever.

However, this change in usage does bring to mind a number of questions.  If, as appears to be the trend at the moment, libraries are devolved to local communities and handed over to the voluntary sector, what will happen to the IT part of the service?  Who is going to ensure that those staffing the library have the skills to deliver the level of service that is required?  I am not denigrating those that do volunteer but one wonders, where are all these highly computer literate volunteers going to come from?  How are local communities and volunteer groups going to ensure that not only are their IT skills up-to-date, but that they also provide the equipment and variety of online services that current users require?  Maybe I am misjudging the types of people who are likely to take over these services, but I do not see how they can possibly maintain these aspects of the service without sizeable funding.

I guess this all stems from the belief that libraries are all about issuing books and the only skills required are those needed to put books on shelves when they are returned, and stamped when they go out.  Never mind the need to deal with complex queries that require advanced skills in Internet usage (it isn’t just a case of first result on Google you know!).  Never mind the ability to provide a wealth of services online (including ebooks and digital collections).  I’ve not seen a single person outline how these services will be provided by volunteers and local communities, perhaps because these services will no longer be provided.  Given the figures provided above, it rather demonstrates how little people at the top understand both how libraries work and what libraries users expect from them.

Library Book Loans Still Going Strong

Book loans are higher than two years ago.

Cast your minds back, if you will, to the days of 2008.  A time of despair for libraries.  A time when they looked like they were in terminal decline (with 6/7 years of continual decreases in lending and visiting numbers according to official statistics).  A time when people said that they had no need to borrow books from the library as they could buy them cheaply from Amazon etc.  A time when library campaigners were claiming that:

…..the heart of the problem of the UK public library service is the quality of the stock on offer in each public library……

Sad times indeed.  Fast forward two years and where are we? Well, in many ways we are in much the same place.  Same old, tired claims about libraries in decline, librarians are apparently making poor decisions leading to people losing interest in libraries at a time when reading has never been more popular (or lucrative).  Except….there is one big difference between then and now:

2007/8 – Library issues: 307,571,240

2009/10 – Library issues: 309,350,755

Yep, that’s right, a rise in book loans of 1,779,515.  And, I’d wager, there have been a fair number of libraries closed in the past two years, not to mention hours and staff cut.  Makes you wonder how many issues there would have been had library authorities not indulged in cuts.  I look forward to library campaigners talking up the strengths of the library service in the face of cuts and closures, instead of constantly harping on about the negative aspects (and there are some don’t get me wrong).  So how about it?  Let’s talk up the positive side.  By talking about the bad aspects, all we do is play into the hands of the government and local councils who can point to libraries and say that they are failing and need to be taken over by people who can ‘make it work’.  The same old trick played before any attempt at privatisation – talk the service down, increase public sympathy for handing it over (see the Royal Mail – 26% increase in profits, but the ‘negative’ side is talked up so it can be handed to the private sector). It can work without palming them off to volunteers and the private sector.  The proof is there, now just give them some funding.

The Media and the Public Library Narrative

So that’s that then. The narrative has been set – libraries are in decline. Never mind that the argument has been framed around a deeply flawed survey that in no way reflects actual library usage. Never mind that loans were actually up last year. Never mind the evidence that library use is changing. It’s just a blessed relief that there were so many voices out there prepared to speak up for the service and underline their importance to society. Not only the wonderful Phil Bradley and brilliantly passionate Lauren Smith, but also a range of people young and old who rely on their local library service to deliver services that meet their needs. Indeed it was a pleasure to hear many older users accepting that there is a place for computers in libraries and that the library service has to adapt. If only the narrative of ‘libraries in decline’ more accurately reflected the views of the communities that are so passionate about their service.

One of the critical factors behind this narrative is the belief that libraries are about books on shelves, nothing else. Not housebound borrowers, not information access, not online services, not local studies materials….in short only a small proportion of the service is worthy of discussion. That this has been led by campaigners who fail to even question the report, makes this even more depressing. No wonder pubs and supermarkets are suggested as alternatives…if it’s just about issuing book stock why bother with expertise in other areas? Clearly that is a waste of resources that can be ploughed into more book stock. More book stock in a commercial environment, subject to the whims and, dare I say, censorship policies stock selection of corporations. It could make a grown man weep.

The question is, what to do next. Those who follow me on Twitter know that I am quite keen on setting up a blog that can act as a rival (if you want to call it that) to the Good Library Blog – something that can share positive experiences of libraries, campaigns across the UK, examples of the things libraries do aside from book provision all the stuff that is missing from the debate as framed by the usual suspects. Ideally it would be a place where librarians, library staff, users and advocates can blog about the great things libraries do and highlight threats to the service (such as closures etc). This is a lot for one person to take on though, so I’d really appreciate ideas, suggestions, blog titles, hosting options, design ideas and volunteers to help set up and administer. Maybe I’ve not thought this through and I won’t have the time to commit as much as I’d like, but it’s got to be worth a try right? I’d really appreciate any thoughts/suggestions on this below. It would be great to take this forward and challenge the so-called ‘decline’ that is currently being propagated.