PeteM01 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I may be wrong but weren't 2 of the early labour parties aims to provide libraries and public transport to widen the horizons and enrich the lives of the working class. These were 2 of their excellent policies which we should value. I doubt that our Tony would think that a suitable use for tax payers' money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 It's a fabulous use of money but it doesn't just have to be taxpayers, there are ways and ways. I'm happy with the figures until somebody says different. Obviously you'll appreciate that what I'm trying to do is to understand the realities behind the decision to save a big chunk of the mobile library budget. I'm a bit fed up of half **** ill thought out comments ("ooo you can't cut this or that") without some reasoning behind it. > Cost of every book borrowed from a mobile library: £5.75 > Cost of every visitor to a mobile library: £13.17 Gives us something to discuss. To me it looks like terrible VFM and if I was running libraries I'd be thinking of other ways to deliver services that are more effective cost wise and service wise. Sometimes we need a shake up of the old ways to stimulate new ideas and progress. As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm a bit fed up of half **** ill thought out comments So am I. Mainly yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 And there you go spoiling what could have been a proper discussion of a serious topic. What a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruby Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Surrey spends approx £70k a year on each of its 5 mobile libraries and 1 residential home service (total ££446,000) http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Mobile-libraries-facing-chop/article-3173787-detail/article.html I think there's a danger of falling into knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. If you split the cost of things like mobile libraries between the number of taxpayers, it actually costs very little to keep services going, compared to huge sums of money being spent elsewhere. I agree with this. Whilst I'd agree that it's worth looking at the cost efficiency of library service it does feel we are descending into arguing over crumbs for our public services and losing sight of why we are in this situation in the first place. And no the Labour government was not entirely to blame (though not blameless!). Why should the poorest/most vulnerable pay for the fallout from the banking crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolli_pop Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I agree with this. Whilst I'd agree that it's worth looking at the cost efficiency of library service it does feel we are descending into arguing over crumbs for our public services and losing sight of why we are in this situation in the first place. And no the Labour government was not entirely to blame (though not blameless!). Why should the poorest/most vulnerable pay for the fallout from the banking crisis? And we have to remember that 'cost efficiency' is not just what appears to be the cost of providing the service - you have to look at the cost/benefit to get the full picture. Axing services may appear to be an attractive quick fix, but actually it might end up being more expensive once you take into account the costs (including the cost to society, and economists can and do quantify this ) of not doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosyRat Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 And we have to remember that 'cost efficiency' is not just what appears to be the cost of providing the service - you have to look at the cost/benefit to get the full picture. Axing services may appear to be an attractive quick fix, but actually it might end up being more expensive once you take into account the costs (including the cost to society, and economists can and do quantify this ) of not doing something. Well said, Lolli-pop and that's the problem with trying to deal with people who don't understand the difference between services and business. There has never been a way to collect "soft" data on how services like libraries enhance people's lives, so those who seek to make reductions only look at outputs, not outcomes. This is why customer satisfaction surveys are run every year and the results sent to CIPFA. These are all available for members of the public to see but, I'm afraid these won't be asked for, only the service costings. What does it say about people who base the value of a service on what it costs to run, rather than what it achieves? Big Society indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fibutton Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 All I can say is , we have a fantastic new library here in Aston, along with a brand new medical services centre. So in my opinion, the money is being spent correctly here at least, but we are RMBC, maybe that makes a difference ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Well said, Lolli-pop and that's the problem with trying to deal with people who don't understand the difference between services and business. There has never been a way to collect "soft" data on how services like libraries enhance people's lives, so those who seek to make reductions only look at outputs, not outcomes. This is why customer satisfaction surveys are run every year and the results sent to CIPFA. These are all available for members of the public to see but, I'm afraid these won't be asked for, only the service costings. What does it say about people who base the value of a service on what it costs to run, rather than what it achieves? Big Society indeed. and of course this is the problem,The two are not mutually exclusive. Some people seem to have an idea that running a public service should not be looked at like running a business. The way that I see it is.. You and I the taxpayer give our money to a body of people( the Govt or the council) and entrust that body to provide good service for us.We expect good value for money. We dont expect that economics play no part. We are not stupid. We do understand that if we pay ( say) £120 council tax per month and running all our services actually costs £150 per month then the people in power should, (hopefully) not spend £150 when they actually dont have it, because when they spend it and dont have it it creates a burden for our children and grandchildren. I hate the idea that my son/daughter would be paying for wreckless spending by any authority for the next 30 years and would applaud an administration that took sensible but hard decisions to ensure this kind of situation doesn't happen again.Wouldnt you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolli_pop Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I hate the idea that my son/daughter would be paying for wreckless spending by any authority for the next 30 years and would applaud an administration that took sensible but hard decisions to ensure this kind of situation doesn't happen again.Wouldnt you? I'd agree with you in general terms but the key is "sensible". There's no point carrying out headline cuts if the overall cost to society either doesn't change or actually increases. It's a false economy, serving only to make life a little bit more unpleasant for people who benefit from a particular service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.