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 Change.org 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

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland