Why you should back High Streets First

A new campaign wants locals to be given powers to limit the number of betting shops on their streets

A new campaign wants locals to be given powers to limit the number of betting shops on their streets.

Betting shops are now more common than post offices, libraries and newsagents on some high streets in our poorest areas. As businesses shut in the downturn, more bookmakers are opening in their place. They play to people's faith in brute luck rather than effort, they tempt addiction, and they are beyond the control of local democracy.

I'm not against responsible gambling. I gamble myself. But my constituency in Southwark is one of the most deprived areas in London and has 77 bookmakers (I pass ten on my walk to the train station every morning) while Hackney has 64. As councillors we get complaints about bookies "taking over the high street" and putting off other businesses from moving in. Brave colleagues like Claire Hickson have spoken out but we have no meaningful way of stemming the tide.

High Streets First is a new campaign designed to change all that. We have a rare opportunity to make a difference. An independent review from Mary Portas has recommended giving councils new powers to limit the number of bookmakers on their streets. The government is now deciding whether to accept that recommendation, promising to report back by May. If we want the government to say yes, we need to make some noise.

Currently bookmakers have it frighteningly easy. They can open up in the same premises as a bank, estate agent, job centre or restaurant without a change in planning permission. In her review into British high streets, Portas recommended changing the "use class" of bookies, giving local councils the chance to limit the growth of new outlets.

The independent gambling reform group Grasp is helping to lead the campaign. David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, has endorsed us from the left and Tory councillors including David Parsons, chair of the LGA environment committee, support reform from the right. The Local Government Association, Joan Ruddock MP, Harriet Harman MP, local councillors, charities and residents are all calling for change, and we're backed by and all the major progressive blogs.

And there's one other reason to support High Streets First. It has a good chance of winning. What we're asking for is tangible, specific and it seems consistent with the government's rhetoric on pushing power downwards. As a first step, sign the petition and invite Eric Pickles to agree.

Local democracy should be a principle, not a gamble. Our high streets don't deserve anything less.

Sign the petition


Rowenna Davis is a councillor, journalist and author of Tangled up in Blue: Blue Labour and the Struggle for Labour's Soul, published by Ruskin Publishing at £8.99. She is also a Labour councillor.


Rowenna Davis is Labour PPC for Southampton Itchen and a councillor for Peckham

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.