> In the UK, funding for libraries [] has been increasingly cut in the name of austerity.
Focusing on one thing here, for convenience. The problem remains that costs are up far in excess of budgets - austerity be damned! We are forced to prioritise, cutting the generally useful but "non-essential". (There is often a legal duty to the essential things)
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-english-councils-fu...
Is a great breakdown. To illustrate my argument see Table 1. Real-terms spending per person by service area, various years (2024–25 prices)
> Within total service spending, per-person spending on children’s social care services [] increased by 11% in real terms. Spending on adult social care [] was also relatively protected, falling by only 2%. This meant much larger cuts to other services: more than 40% in the case of housing, culture and leisure, and highways and transport, and nearly 60% cuts to planning and development.
We cut what _could_ be cut, and that's a prioritisation call.
edit: now in https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/fixing...
Great rabbit hole for my Wednesday morning! :D
Yeah - I used "austerity" as a slightly sloppy shorthand in my comment. My two closest local libraries were closed due to cuts made during "the credit crunch" by the coalition government (from memory!), when "austerity" was the buzzword, so I felt it'd communicate most broadly (to HN's international userbase) the phenomenon I was gesturing at.
From what I can understand, these sources are saying: "because costs are up, those past cuts have not yet really been reversed, especially not in terms of real-terms funding per-capita, or funding for 'non-essential' services".
Super bleak reading - it's a very dark rabbit hole!
> Super bleak reading - it's a very dark rabbit hole!
That it is! It will require an actual change to the societal contract to resolve as best I can tell - and it remains unclear to me what direction the change will take.
The size of the core funding cuts to councils by HMG outweigh everything else the councils are facing according to the figures.
Now, purely by memory, I recall commentary over the years that 1) David Cameron was cutting taxes on various categories of land assets to benefit large land asset holders to the detriment of the budget, 2) the battle of any tax cuts are spending programs in disguise vs no they aren't and 3) May, Johnson, Sunak, Starmer etc have not reversed any of the tax cuts put in place by Cameron.
There's no doubt a more delicate story to what has happened, but a fact check of this into Deepseek before I posted this confirmed that the throughline is credible.