Ed might want to revise his position on "Tesco-isation of the high street"

Big stores go bust, smaller ones follow.

Shortly after he was elected labour leader Ed Milliband criticised the "Tesco-isation" of British high streets, calling for specific policy changes. Asked on the Daily Politics show if if Labour would prevent more supermarkets on the high street, he said: "I think that is an issue, yes and it is something that we're looking at … It's about local people. It is about planning."

Back then, he was adding his voice to a generally held view, that big chains stifle competition on the high street and kill off independent stores. But figures to be released next week by the Local Data company suggest a rather different picture. It's the big stores themselves that are in trouble, and they're taking the small ones down with them. According to the FT today:

The scale of closures among the big chains is having a knock on effect on independent retailers, many of whom rely on chains to anchor high streets, and act as a magnet to shoppers.

There was a net decrease in large chain stores by 1.4 per cent in the first half of the year, down from a net decrease of 0.25 per cent last year, as more big stores closed than opened. This is a sharp change even from 2009, where despite the banking crisis the number of big stores on the high street was still growing by 1.2 per cent.

The independent stores are following suit: while still on the rise, there has been a significant slowdown from last year. A net increase of 2.4 per cent has become a net increase of 0.8 per cent. And according to Matthew Hopkinson, director of the Local Data Company, it is town centres that are bearing the brunt.

It will be interesting to see if Miliband revises his position in view of this news.

 

Ed Milliband. Photograph: Getty Images
Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496