The article says "hiving off" but really this is just privatisation of civic, public services. If Wandsworth Libraries (and any other public library systems) are privatised, then it is because local councillors with generally right wing views have decided that it must be so, despite the 1964 Public Library Act, which requires local authorities to provide comprehensive library services, and those who drafted this legislation have made it clear that the intention was that the services be provided DIRECTLY by the local councils.

As far as I can see, it follows that the proposal to privatise is illegal: that local councils cannot do an impression of Pontius Pilate with the services for which, they, and they alone, are responsible. What always follows privatisation is a loss of quality, of standards of professional work in public libraries. All in the name of saving money, and not thinking about the undercutting of the bedrock of civilised, social life in communities which requires that services be provided directly by those elected to provide them.

Will our MPs follow the lead of local councillors everywhere by privatising the libraries of the House of Commons (and even the House of Lords)? If privatisation is such a good thing why has this not been done? I have no argument with private libraries, e.g. the London Library, because they have always been private: no political action has forced them to go public, to be nationalised, as it were. The problem is not whether something is public or private, but whether it can be changed from the one state to the other for any good reason that is not political, and hence money saving driven. A professional librarian who acquiesces to such changes as privatisation of the library service which he or she heads, and who says yes to the politicians because that is the easier thing to do, is someone who should be considering their position.

All this is about as likely as the survival of a snowflake in hell.
Any comments welcome, really.