There appears to be confusion as to the nature of Brent's proposed library privatisation. The three interviewees quoted in the Kilburn Times piece all have rather odd comments. The FKRL campaigner is critical of the concept of privatisation, which seems odd for someone who has spent years campaigning in favour of privatisation. Former councillor Paul Lorber claims that the library service has been "decimated" when in fact it is considerably better than when it had more buildings. Cllr James Denselow's comment seems ambiguous as to what the proposed arrangements are. I have posted before that there are various possibilities. These could range from a technical arrangement, a company where the Council is the sole shareholder in the same way as an ALMO or a commerical provider like Greenwich Leisure Ltd. Some of the possibilities of Trusts are covered here.
It would be helpful if all this could be made clearer.
UPDATE
Responding to the comment below, by "privatisation" I mean the transfer of a public asset to a private organisation and/or continuing public subsidy for the same. By that definition, which I think most people use, all volunteer libraries are privatised.
2 comments:
Nasty slur to say FKRL campaigner has campaigned in favour of privatisation when you are well aware that the reverse is true
Privatization is the process of transferring an enterprise or industry from the public sector to the private sector and the motivation is usually the making of a profit.
The charity or community sector is not the same as the private sector - public 'good' is not the same as 'for profit' and for the most part the 'third sector' works for the good of communities.
Post a Comment