What would The Bard say?

England. Home to great works of art, theater, and literature. Center of the 16th -19th century blooms of culture. England is home to authors of such great works as John Bunyan (A Pilgram's Progress), Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels), the poets William Wordsmith and John Keats, Mary Shelly (Frankestein), the Bronte sisters, Jane Eyre, and many more. And looming on the fame-meter high in the ranking, of course, is Shakespeare. For the sake of this conversation, we're going to crown Shakespeare as the judge and jury representing all of the talented literary artists aforementioned.

England -- home to culture, right? Would you believe this country is currently cutting funding to and ultimately causing the closure of scores of libraries across the country? On the news the other day, a government spokesman defended the position by saying: "Difficult times call for difficult measures. And at any rate, libraries have become irrelevant with the advent of electronic media."

I know of at least one reader who might support this position being an avid Kindle-owner, but I must say that this position is frankly shocking. Libraries are a place of learning, a place of gathering for learning, and much more than dusty shelves with dusty books. Forget that there are some people who still enjoy the actual tactile feel of an old-fashioned paper and binding book, but a library affords more than just those books. It is a place we take our children to learn to love books and browse topics to let their minds roam. It is a place for older adults to gather to discuss their recent book club selection. It is a place that has a business support facility for small business owners to assist them in understanding applicable laws and regulations. A library is a place where you can ask for support in finding an appropriate journal article or how to use a search engine within a University. And most of all, a library is a symbol -- a physical beacon that a city values education and learning.

I haven't lived here long enough to be able to fully enter the political debate, and I am no economist by any means. A true economist might go on a tangent about how government cuts never solved a recession as opposed to creating economic stimulus, but let's pretend for a moment that it makes sense in times of hardship that cutting spending is a good way to save money and thereby help in a recession. Again -- I'm not a political guru or economist, so I could use your help. Let's take a look at something together. Below is a graph of the 2009 (sorry - can't find 2010) UK government spending by sector:

The number one area of spending is Social Protection. In the US, this would roughly translate as the Welfare System. And it would be hard to debate that there isn't room for improvement in the efficiency of spending in that area -- in any country. Indeed, the current government is attempting to target that area. (I'm sure there are many debates on the "how" of the cuts.) And we've all heard quite a bit about how the UK government is providing less funding to university students in cutting the third largest area -- education. Libraries fall into the bright blue "other" bucket -- where the funding for libraries is mixed in with many other services such as the collection of trash/rubbish. It is a very small percentage of overall spending in comparison.

-

Did you notice anything? What's that you say? Oh yes, dear me. We've completely missed the 2nd biggest area of spending by the UK government -- healthcare. Now before I completely lose you, I have to say I'm a HUGE fan of the NHS. I wish we had something like it in the US, honestly. I'm not about to attack its existance. However, wouldn't it make just a teeeny eeny weeny bit of sense to take a hard look at spending in....say...your top THREE sectors to ensure there aren't areas that could be made more efficient and thereby lest costly BEFORE going to some of the smaller spending areas? Surely, even a 1/2% decrease in spending due to efficiences would tally up to far more government savings in high-spending areas than in closing down libraries. Is there something I'm missing?

-

My thought on this is that tackling the NHS must mean political death to any governmental party and that is the reason it remains untouched. Or -- am I missing something else here? I honestly would love to hear your opinion on it.

-

But back to the libraries. The news of the libraries followed closely to the news of the UK government selling off a large portion of national forests to private hands. That, however, was halted due to large public outcry. While I'm sure there is great room to bring many libraries into the 21st century and embrace electronic media, I think that jumping to widespread closures is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-

So what would His Excellency Judge Shakespeare say in light of the library cuts? I'd suspect he'd rule harshly. (Actually, if we're to believe historians, maybe he'd just swill down another pint, hop into bed with a lass, and turn it into another tragedy. Afterall, life was short in those days and there was no NHS.)