The difference in being involved in local politics in Highbury is that the people you argue with over parking and dog-fouling turn up the next morning on the Today programme discussing Iraq or, worse, modern political culture.
This morning, Mark Easton, home affairs editor at the BBC, came on to discuss a survey showing the surprising popularity of the Iraq intervention among the English middle classes. Some two-thirds of the electorate supported the intervention when it looked like it was going to be an easy victory. A third continue to do so now. I am not sure why anyone is surprised at this. In a list of the electorate's top political priorities, gathered in the same survey, Iraq does not feature.
It would feature in my list - I would like to think that it is the end of the culture of sanctions. This cruel instrument starves and crushes the innocent and the vulnerable, making them easier prey for tyrannical regimes, but which have the undoubted advantage that they are poor television.
The last time I came across Mark was to photograph him on the school run in a campaign to stop rich parents trucking their children 100 yards to school under the ludicrous excuse that they are too 'busy' to walk. The other argument is that the roads are not safe - not least due to over-frenetic parents trucking their children 100 yards to school. I won't mention the o-word. All right then - obesity.
Next up was Peter Oborne, discussing the mendacity that is apparently become endemic in modern political culture with Steve Richards, the Independent columnist. They are a lively pair of self-publicists, capable of a decent and heated discussion about nothing at all.
Peter is not above local politics. Like Mark, he prefers to drive his children about in his car, even if only as a political statement - he once made a documentary for Channel 4 on this important human right. On another occasion, when I told him his local newsagent, Harendra Bhatt, was threatened by planning approval for a Tesco to open 20 yards from his kiosk, the story was soon in the Evening Standard. Peter's wife, Martine, was a Conservative candidate in the local elections last May. One of her fellow candidates, Dave Barnes, a rather notorious character in Highbury politics, cheerfully told me that her contribution to the campaign had been to hold a dinner party. Their house is palatial - though I have never personally been invited in. I could imagine however that a dinner party chez Oborne could easily involve up to 15 voters.
Showing posts with label Tesco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tesco. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
What Is the Point of Small Shops?
One reason the Liberal Democrats have managed to look so successful in Islington is that previous Labour administration left them a spectacular windfall - a vast portfolio of real estate.
The Labour regime in Islington refused as a matter of policy to ever sell any of their sprawling estate, with the result that 1. they established for themselves a reputation as poor managers and 2. they left their political opponents a rich source of income. Margaret Thatcher's chancellors had to produce ex-privatisation revenue receipts, but a local authority is way below that kind of scrutiny. The money has gone into the council's coffers and distributed at the whim of the ruling party.
The lastest sell-off is a job-lot of shop leases on Essex Road. Labour councillors are up in arms. Huff this, puff that, sell-off, rip-off, public heaven, private hell, developers, chain-stores, capitalism, globalisation... .
Really? Essex Road? There is already a Sainsbury and a Tesco on Essex Road, and most of the chain stores are represented at the Angel and on Holloway Road. No one is any longer capable of counting the number of Starbucks on Upper Street, but plenty of people seem to want to go into them.
But there are some fundamental questions here. The first is obvious - why should the London Borough of Islington be a commercial landlord? In my view it should not be. I want my council tax to go into education, social services, cleaning and maintaining the borough. I do not expect them to be spending my money randomly subsidising businesses. That said, I would not mind if the current leaseholders and/or tenants were offered a discount to buy out the council's interest.
The second question is why does the Labour party - anyway in Islington - automatically oppose the 'Tescopoly' of modern retail? Supermarkets are generally good for the poor. They provide better quality products at lower prices than small shops. They represent the industrialisation of food and grocery distribution that you might expect socialist theory to welcome. They provide better employment conditions, better benefits, training and more opportunity than any small shop could hope to provide.
Instead of standing up for small shopkeepers, who will express their gratitude by voting Lib Dem and Tory, should Labour not campaign to ensure supermarkets are more accessible to those who cannot affort cars?
The Labour regime in Islington refused as a matter of policy to ever sell any of their sprawling estate, with the result that 1. they established for themselves a reputation as poor managers and 2. they left their political opponents a rich source of income. Margaret Thatcher's chancellors had to produce ex-privatisation revenue receipts, but a local authority is way below that kind of scrutiny. The money has gone into the council's coffers and distributed at the whim of the ruling party.
The lastest sell-off is a job-lot of shop leases on Essex Road. Labour councillors are up in arms. Huff this, puff that, sell-off, rip-off, public heaven, private hell, developers, chain-stores, capitalism, globalisation... .
Really? Essex Road? There is already a Sainsbury and a Tesco on Essex Road, and most of the chain stores are represented at the Angel and on Holloway Road. No one is any longer capable of counting the number of Starbucks on Upper Street, but plenty of people seem to want to go into them.
But there are some fundamental questions here. The first is obvious - why should the London Borough of Islington be a commercial landlord? In my view it should not be. I want my council tax to go into education, social services, cleaning and maintaining the borough. I do not expect them to be spending my money randomly subsidising businesses. That said, I would not mind if the current leaseholders and/or tenants were offered a discount to buy out the council's interest.
The second question is why does the Labour party - anyway in Islington - automatically oppose the 'Tescopoly' of modern retail? Supermarkets are generally good for the poor. They provide better quality products at lower prices than small shops. They represent the industrialisation of food and grocery distribution that you might expect socialist theory to welcome. They provide better employment conditions, better benefits, training and more opportunity than any small shop could hope to provide.
Instead of standing up for small shopkeepers, who will express their gratitude by voting Lib Dem and Tory, should Labour not campaign to ensure supermarkets are more accessible to those who cannot affort cars?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
