Adrian’s defence of Seacombe Library was referred to during October 2009 in a (then) current issue of Wallasey News.  The paper reported on his opposition to closing Seacombe Library before its replacement facilities were in place. 

The convention of strict Mayoral impartiality (Discussed in our posting of 20/12/2009.) dictated that Adrian had no public voice during the consultation period at the start of the year, nor before his  term of Mayoral office ended.   Not only publicly but in the Council Chamber, too, he was obliged to remain scrupulously impartial during heated debates that he had to chair even-handedly – showing no favour to any political party.  Nor did he vote. But however strict a convention may be itcannot be legally enforced.  At least one senior Tory Councillor challenged Adrian on the grounds that he could have broken the highest standards of impartiality on the grounds that the Council’s constitution does not demand it!  What an attitude!

 But Adrian’s judgment was that he would observe the much higher standards set out in ‘Civic Ceremonial’ – the ‘bible’ for Mayoral behaviour in Britain- which resides in the Mayor’s office for guidance.    Its front cover describes it as ‘A Handbook, History and Guide for Mayors, Councillors and Officers’. 

Incidentally for those interested in such things (and at least one Tory claims to be) there is another ‘Bible’ which some regard as a bit of a handbook for good behaviour.  There is even a bit in it called the Decalogue (or the Ten Commandments).  Now, on the premise that the highest standards of good behaviour can be set aside on the slender grounds that they cannot be enforced in law, some of those commandments could just as readily be binned.    Wouldn’t the logic of the Tory position justify those who ignore (just an hypothetical example, of course) ..err… say the 7th and the 10th?  But that  wouldn’t make it  desirable.  Would it?  

Yet one of the most senior Tory Councillors had a right old go at Adrian for oberving the highest possible standards of Mayoral impartiality on the grounds that it is not an absolute requirement of the constitution.  Couldn’t make it up could you?

Without compromising the convention of strict Mayoral impatriality in public utterances Adrian was able to put the case for retaining Seacombe’s facilities in writing. He did so, arguing strongly against the closure of Guinea Gap Baths and our Seacombe library, and he did so in advance of the public consultation - making his case a permanent matter of record from early on.  

The defector from Labour Cllr Denis Knowles ludicrouslyu challenged Adrian in Council on the grounds that Sue Charteris had not mentioned his submission in her report.  So what?  It’s entirely up to her to include or not include whatever evidence she wants to.  But while he was making his rather juvenile accusation Cllr Knowles totally forgot the obvious:  he was perfectly free to have done exactly the same thing!  But when Adrian was putting a cogent case for retaining our facilities what was Knowles in fact doing?  He was publicly declaring that the closures would be ‘For the greater good’.   You couldn’t make it up, could you?  Yet again!

The plain fact is that Denis Knowles, whatever tears he now says he sheds, was both arguing and voting for the proposed closures.  However much he wriggles the votes are a matter of record and he cannot escape his record.  But Adrian argued against the closure of Guinea Gap Baths and was delighted when the decision came, quickly after his request, to withdraw Guinea Gap from the plans.  Adrian is even now arguing that as there is no immediate plan to build a new sports complex or anyhthing else that would provide a new swimming pool the Council should declare that Guinea Gap should be regarded as before, a permanent fixture.  After all, they built them to last in those days and he sees no reason why it shouldn’t last for many decades at least.

But Adrian’s case was never about hanging on to a Victorian model of library provision, which is all the Tories seemed to campaign about. Their crude case, that nothing should ever change, would make Seacombe, and indeed Wirral, an expensive fossil.  That short-termism might suit Tory propaganda and spin but isn’t it a disservice to our Seacombe children, when far better facilities could be provided?   

Adrian’s argument was very simple:  new facilities should be in place before the old were to be wound down.  The Tories’ case was that antiquated facilities should simply be ‘Conserved’ indefinitely with the result that Seacombe would never have the far better facilities that could be provided.  The opportunity to have a state of the art Super-Centre and Library on the former Liscard Hall site is now gone - at least for the foreseeable future. 

Wallasey Tories showed little understanding that we are in the Twenty-first Century and moving fast from an overwhelmingly book-based learning model to one using a mix of traditional books, computers, the internet, and ever developing new technology. 

Sorry Wallasey Tories – but the mediaeval time-warp in your posturing, wanting to ‘Conserve’ and stagnate, won’t do.  ‘Groats’ won’t pay for improvements of the magnitude required to put Seacombe in the fore-front of development.  However much you may want to ‘Conserve’ and fossilise Wirral you need to grasp that goose-quills and sepia-bags have rather been overtaken as the only tools of education.  Our children can do without being left behind just for your spin-gurus to concoct propaganda.  Seacombe children need, and deserve, a serious, new, modern, approach to the support of learning and leisure.  Your Tory ‘do nothing’ policy isn’t going to help them.

The Tories conducted a loud and raucous campaign, paying no heed to the opportunity for a £20,000,000 modernisation of services with its massive investment in far more modern facilities, nor to the need to live within our financial means.    They presented their shoddy propaganda as though the Council had only the closure of facilities in its sights.  They had not a good word to say about the huge new investment that would come with it.   And once a decision was made in Council not to close these facilities – exactly the resuilt Adrian had asked for – the illogical Tories then voted against the Labour motion to provide the funding for the libraries to remain open! 

It’s all but unbelievable but it’s true.  Having called for the libraries to remain open they then tried to vote down the means to pay for it!   Can you imagine such completely confused thinking as this? 

During the consultation, and also to the Charteris Inquiry, Adrian argued in writing that Seacombe has a higher proportion of low income families, needing maximum support, than most areas and also a greater population of older people than many other areas.  Our retired citizens use the library and many children use library facilities for their school work.  Adrian argued that we should use the former Liscard Hall site (which we already own so would cost nothing to buy) to build the new super-centre that the Council planned.  

Click on   http://seacombelabour.org/because-seacombe-matters-/tag/liscard-hall/ 

This picture, on the left, shows Liscard Hall just before it was torched by arsonists.

The next picture shows the empty space since its demolition – the site where Seacombe could have had a state of the art Library and Super-Centre had the longer term plan been possible.  But although Adrian wanted that to be in place before the old facilites were closed it nowseems a dream too far.

  The case Adrian put for Seacombe:

• Existing facilities should remain in place, with no vacuum, until the new facilities were up and running.
• New, modern, state-of-the-art, facilities to be built on the Liscard Hall site, only a few hundred yards from the existing library - keeping them in Seacombe.  They would also be only a short distance from Liscard Shopping Centre. 
• The Labour Government has announced a programme to extend lap-tops for kids.  Our own Oldershaw School (where Adrian is a governor and where two of his children were pupils) introduced computers and the web to many Seacombe homes – where they did not exist before. Well done Oldershaw for being ahead of the field!
• Adrian’s case is that this should be extended, together with placing more books, and softare, in the schools’ own libraries where the kids have immediate access to them.
• In the case of Guinea Gap Adrian argued that the baths should remain ‘for at least a period of years until we know what swimming facilities will replace them’ .  That view was accepted by the Council almost immediately.
• He underpinned his case for the library on the grounds that in Seacombe we have financial disadvantage impacting heavily on children, many of whom do not have computers at home. 
• Seacombe also has a high proportion of retired people who make considerable use of the library. 
• The Tories just argued for ‘no change’ – it was shallow, vote-chasing, propaganda doing nothing to help our children.
• Adrian’s case was entirely different.  He argued against closing Seacombe library before these new initiatives were in place.. 
• That’s what the new £20million investment was for. 

Did the Tories’ raucous electioneering, and their acceptance of defector Knowles (who positively supported the proposed closures) perhaps have very little to do with the best interests of Seacombe’s library services and everything to do with the fact that a general election is approaching?  We suspect that’s an easy one to answer.