Helj

I agree with Tzijlstra. It’s true society would be poorer without volunteers. However, when you look at the use of unpaid workers now, it really does remove jobs for people who need paid employment. Retired librarians doing a professional job unpaid are taking away the jobs of younger people who need them. Similarly in other professions. It is a hard choice to make as to whether not doing the volunteering might see the loss of a valuable service entirely, or the city might finally find the money to pay for a service. There’s truth in the saying that people don’t value anything that is free. If they are doing work that has never been a paid post, that is different. But volunteers like this are the same as the so called 'graduate internships' which see young people working unpaid for 3-6 months and then replaced by more which all replace a paid full time person. These retired volunteers are doing exactly the same. The main argument is that the council hasn't the money to pay for them so the posts wouldn't exist. It just shows how little value people put on the library service.

I find it hard to accept current Labour MPs not supporting the view of the current leader as a reason to deselect them. Of the 35 years Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP, the 33 years of being on the back benches showed him regularly at odds with the Labour leadership and frequently not voting with them. Until now, Labour has been seen as allowing a much broader range of views, all of which were seen as valuable. The thing I find hardest to accept from the Labour leadership -Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and Murphy is the aggressive way they speak of those within their party who are not in agreement with them, and their use of altering the rules and turning a blind eye to encourage local CLPs to deselect those they see as not helpful to their view of the Labour Party. Under Blair and Brown, Corbyn and McDonnell were not treated this way, despite not being on the same side of the party.

Exactly, Top Cats Hat. SO she has to vote the way she believe is best for her constituents. I suspect abstaining was because believing Brexit wasn't going to help constituents she couldn't vote in favour of it, and she was maybe worried that voting against it would indeed lead to deselection given her CLP views. She wasn't going to be able to win on this whatever unless she voted in a way she believed would be bad for her constituents.

The thing is that MPs are supposed to be representatives not delegates. They are there to represent the best interests of their constituents as they see it, not as delegates mandated by policies. The MP isn't directed to vote as mandated by their constituency labour (or conservative) party, but to vote how they believe serves their constituents best interests. This is what the Constituency Labour Parties who are threatening deselection fail to understand. They are there to represent all the constituents, not just the few who turn up on the night to vote for local policy. They also represent all the labour voters who aren't party members, and all the constituents who didn't vote labour. Their responsibility is to everyone.

For people who think Nick Clegg’s promises on the NHS and mental health are worth listening to, look at the review here of the NHS and mental health services under the coalition and the funding links to the LibDems from private healthcare https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/carl-walker/four-reasons-nick-clegg-is-no-mental-health-saviour And looking at the coalition and their Conservative partners, the fact that Lynton Crosby, who is responsible for their election campaign strategy is so heavily involved in promoting private healthcare and sees insufficient government funding as an opportunity should ring warning bells! “A strategy paper, drawn up by Mr Crosby’s firm CTF Partners and seen by The Independent, proposed targeting key government figures, including the Prime Minister, to enhance the “size, acceptability and profitability of the private healthcare market”. It also stated that “insufficient public funds” were a strategic “opportunity” for private healthcare firms. It added the campaign’s long-term strategy should be “achieving decision-maker recognition that health investment in the UK can only grow by expanding the role and contribution made by the private sector”. “ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tory-election-chief-lynton-crosbys-firm-planned-to-expand-role-of-private-healthcare-in-the-uk-10223112.html A vote for Nick Clegg is a vote for the Conservatives-either in coalition or independently

Because the 'bedroom tax' zero hours contracts and cuts to disability benefit and care services aren't where they can give directly and can be seen to hit those who most need help. SOme people actually do care for others, not just themselves. If Osborne proved his post-election cuts weren't going to be where people would think they were completely wrong he would say where they are going to be felt, but he consistently refuses to say. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 21:42 ---------- And it will be Osborne not Boris who takes over after Cameron

I think a lot of the Coppard success is down to the same way Richard Allan won for the LibDems-he is local and can be seen to have local connections and interests. Allan did really well, he was an excellent MP. Nothing to say Coppard won't do the same,

Maybe they would rather vote for a fairer society, despite having the 'mansions' ?

Even that bastion of toryland the Daily Telegraph says Clegg will either win by 1,000 or lose by 1,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11567634/The-age-of-Nick-Clegg-is-drawing-to-an-end.html It is too close to call. No certainty or heartland of conservatism about it

They weren't voting tactically to put Richard Allan and then Nick Clegg in if it is naturally Tory-why didn't they keep voting Conservative as it always had been? Why did it change to LibDem?

For those of you who believe that Labour voters on here don’t live in Sheffield Hallam I suspect one reason is it’s never been worth voting Labour before, it’s been a wasted vote as Labour were so far behind. LibDems got all the anti-Tory votes. This year, because the Conservatives are tacitly supporting the LibDems, Labour is the anti-tory vote AND real Labour voters finally feel that their vote might count. There is actually a candidate and a team who look like they believe they can win.

Gas and electric are private cmpanies too but they have regulation. I don't see why rental properties shouldn't too.

I agree that many landlords have rental properties for their business and I have come across many good ones. As you say there are rubbish tenants and the 6 month contracts initially would make sure that landlords could get rid of them. At the moment rents are going up so fast all the time, and many people can't afford anywhere the size they would like and can't afford to buy either. It's a bit like fixing a contract with the gas & electric, if you know what you are paying for 2 years and know it can't rise by more than inflation it gives you some stability. i don't think that is unreasonable

I can’t see why pegging rents to inflation would result in poor accommodation. It works in other countries, and it gives some security to people, who would know they could afford the rent for at least a couple of years before they might have to think about moving on. I have lots of family in rented accommodation and they have a variety of good/bad landlords and it isn’t determined by how expensive the rent is but by how good a person they are and whether they are interested in keeping good tenants or making as much as they can and not care about the quality of life their tenants have at all. Good tenants deserve good landlords and fair rents. The fact that the rent pegging and longer contracts don’t come into force for 6 months gives the landlords a chance to get rid of tenants they don’t want. All huge rents do is result in people on low incomes having to claim housing benefit and the state puts the money in the landlords pockets-another way of looking after the rich.

I think Oliver Coppard’s promises are pretty much the same as Richard Allan’s were when he stood for the LibDems, and he was an excellent MP. On the local issue, I wasn’t born or raised here but my kids were and I want someone who will committ themselves to supporting the constituency rather than just the party. I also think Labour nationally has more concern for young people and a return of rent controls has to be a good thing. The continual increase in rents means young adults can’t afford to even rent away from home and feel like adults, let alone be in a position to buy. I would like to see him go further and reintroduce fair rents. They worked well, giving a good income for the landlords and security for tenants. And a living wage would mean that the government isn’t subsiding employers by constantly topping up wages with housing benefit and other benefits, if they had a living wage they wouldn’t be claiming benefits and they would be paying taxes-it would be a win-win for the treasury. And further, on privatisation of the NHS I don’t want the Tories to have their hands on it for another Parliament. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/far-more-nhs-contracts-going-to-private-firms-than-ministers-admit-privatisation So if Oliver Coppard is promising to be a good local MP and obviously support Labour then I think he will be the best for the constituency

Hi Try one of these quizzes-they suggest who you should vote for based on your priorities and views. If you do more than one, hopefully they will give the same answer! https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/ https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ This tells you a bit about why you should vote, although it does spend some time talking about the problems of the current system. It is Rick Edwards talking about young people voting. I hope they help you make your mind up

I think before Richard Allan stood people didn’t believe the LibDems could win. I think this also proved the value of having a local person standing. The boundaries have also changed, and as well as Fulwood etc. it does include Crookes and other more traditional Labour areas. At the last election the students really did turn out for Clegg, so I suspect they will turn out this time to vote against him. I remember tv footage of students at Ecclesall queuing up at 10.00pm and being disenfranchised because they weren’t allowed to vote past 10.0pm. This year anyone already there at 10.00pm will be allowed to vote. Osborne went from university straight to being a researcher at Conservative Central Office, having originally intended to go into journalism (according to Wikipedia), having done a History degree-not even the usual PPE, so no real sign of economic training there. Having said that, I think he’s far sharper than Cameron. I would have thought being a lecturer at Harvard would qualify as a ‘proper’ job for Miliband? Or does working in education not count?

I think that this is the first election in 15 years that a vote for Labour could actually make a difference. I am in Sheffield Hallam and the amount of money LibDems or Nick Clegg’s personal campaign is putting in is phenomenal. He is definitely worried. I suspect he is getting a significant amount of personal donations to be able to afford the publicity coming through the door. Letters personally addressed via the post rather than just leafletting is considerable, with a variety of letters rather than one standard one (we have 3 people on the electoral roll at the same address and the letters have been different). Lots of glossy expensive material. Oliver Coppard has been leafletting and posting material but it is all pretty much identical and not the high gloss of LibDems. It is clear he doesn’t have the same amount of money, but this year for the first time they obviously feel optimistic and the canvassers look cheerful and committed, as opposed to non-existent in previous elections. I think the difference isn’t so much that Labour HQ is putting money in but that they have a local candidate they actually support and the response on the doorstep is encouraging them. Blair donated £1,000 to each of the 102 candidates on the list of targeted seats and Coppard doesn’t qualify. I think he a long way down the list and not really being supported financially by Labour. In previous elections we have never had more than one leaflet through the door from Labour. I think Oliver Coppard is in a similar situation to Richard Allan when he stood for the LibDems-seen as a good local, who know the area and will work for it. I thought Richard Allan was excellent, but I wouldn't vote for Clegg.

I found this link to the timetables of Northern trains from Sheffield: http://www.northernrail.org/travel/timetables/669100 and also the full list of timetables here, but it is difficult using any kinf of journey planner online to ensure you only use Northern trains http://www.northernrail.org./travel/timetables

Thanks for listing this-it's great! Just planning where to go now.

Nearly 30 years ago at the height of the Thatcher cuts to local authorities I lived in London and my local library in Willesden Green was open until 8pm every week night to allow workers and schoolchildren to use it, and also all day on Saturdays and for some of Sunday. Looking at the opening times today, it still is open until 8pm each weekday night and most of Saturday and 12-5pm Sunday. It really does depend upon where the council officers and their voting public put their priorities. London Borough of Brent according to Wikipedia is the joint fourth-worst Borough in London for child poverty, so as you can see it isn’t an affluent authority. It really does come down to priorities. If a council thinks it is essential for the wellbeing of their voters, and their own re-election, they will find a way to keep libraries open or refurbish. Hence the other northern cities are prepared to borrow to support theirs.

PFI is expensive but I think unsustainable is not strictly true if it is budgeted for, and if, as with the later ones, the cost of repairs etc. are carefully written into the contracts, and at least the service is being provided. In Sheffield we will not only not have a decent Central Library-and things like the local history and business services can’t be devolved to the local libraries-our local libraries are being closed and handed to volunteers as well. The whole library and information service provided by both local and central libraries is not valued either by the council or by the majority of Sheffielders. If you look at previous threads on libraries people see them purely as somewhere to get the latest adult fiction books. The link is not made to the provision of services to children, to students, to businesses. The central library is not seen as a space for providing 150+ computers for people without internet access or free wifi space for teenagers studying for A Levels. These other cities have provided a really valuable space and service for their people and I don’t think the PFI will be unsustainable and I think they are worth the cost in repayments from council tax for the returns in literacy and education they provide. But that is where decisions have to be made and planned for-the political parties would have to put that cost on a local party manifesto for the council elections, and people would have to vote for it. I would, but I'm not convinced the rest of Sheffield would.

I agree that money is short, but I do think to keep it being used it needs some sort of refurbishment and investment to make it attractive. Actually, having investigated the funding further, Manchester got Lottery Heritage funding, Liverpool used PFI and loans, and Birmingham used loans and a massive donation form the Wolfson Foundation. The Wolfson Foundation said awarding the grant was a "strong statement" about the value of public libraries at a time they faced financial pressures. You have to wonder how Liverpool with pay back the £50m PFI funding, but they certainly look like they got a good building for the money. http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/practitioners/big-new-libraries-liverpool It does create a building people will go in-if only to find public toilets-and once they are in, hopefully you catch them to use the services. But it isn't something that can happen overnight, it does need budgeting for years in advance. At the moment I'd support you in just not having the hours restricted to the point where you would give up because you'd never remember whether it was going to be open or not. Because once usage statistics go down, then they say there is no demand, but really you have created low demand because of the poor opening hours and lack of new stock. The libraries being given to volunteers won't have new stock or any trained staff to help with queries on how to use the internet or what is available across the city for particular information for hobbies or any research. The expectations will lower as will the attendance and then the council can justify their closures.

I agree Sheffield Council don't have money to spare, but neither did the other cities. None of them are famous for being rich areas. They spent years researching European grants and various other options on ways to get central government funding to make their plans work. They didn't happen overnight, but as a result of years of planning and hard work by the councillors. They have also seen it as an investment in the literacy of their cities and an essential service. It is a case of where they see their priorities.

I commpletely agree with Anna above. Once this service is gone, it will be gone for good. I think it is very shortsighted. Other cities have seen the value in keeping their libraries open-even investing in them. I visited Birmingham library a couple of months ago and it is really impressive. Brand new building, with gardens on each level and lots of study space. It’s airy, with lots of study rooms and literally hundreds of computers that are bookable and lots of facilities available online as well. They have valued their special collections, too. I think it is so short sighted to close down libraries when a city is trying to encourage literacy, have spaces for children and adults to study, encourage IT literacy and enable more people to have access to online facilities, and to help small businesses who can’t afford the marketing information that could help them, that used to be available from central business libraries. Look at the photo, it is fantastic http://www.libraryofbirmingham.com/ Liverpool has also invested heavily in their central library with cafes, free wifi access, 150 computers for booking, brilliant space for booking conferences and studying. It also values younger readers and has a great childrens library, plus ebooks, too. http://liverpool.gov.uk/libraries/find-a-library/central-library/ I do worry that Sheffield will regret giving up the infrastructure of a central library in the future.