High street retailers teeter on the brink

With every rent day, the threat of redundancy.

"Lady Day" might sound like a nice day at the races but traditionally it was the Feast of the Annunciation, and the first of the four traditional English quarter days. The "Lady" here being the Virgin Mary. Falling on March 25, Lady Day was even New Year’s Day up to 1752.

Every rent quarter day brings speculation that another retailer will go under, especially after the first quarter day on 1 January this year heralded the administrations of HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster. Yet there were notably fewer major administrations following the most recent rent quarter day at the end of March.

Of course, a rent day does not automatically trigger retail insolvencies. The high profile casualties we have seen since October, with the exception of fashion retailer Republic, have been retailers with a business model that has been challenged by the e-commerce market, such that the delivery method of their core products to customers has fundamentally altered. They cannot survive on the scale they operated in previously in a principally bricks and mortar operation. (Republic’s failure in February was because it was burdened by too many loss-making stores as customer’s buying habits became more budget focused, rather than being challenged by technology.)

In general, this isn’t the case of a fashion retailer buying the wrong ranges for a few seasons or failing to brighten up its stores. They face a technology competitor to their business model that is far greater than any business competitor. These challenges cannot be dodged and a rent day bill might just be the last straw, but is not the cause.

The number of stores closed by retail high street chains in Britain has soared over the past 12 months and the start of this year felt like the end of 2008 when Woolworths collapsed. According to research by the Local Data Company, there were a total of 7,337 store closures in 2012. It seems the retail world has just had another "clear out" this year.

Those are stark statistics but completely relatable when you factor in two big phenomena threatening the high street. The first is technology via the internet, the second, the significant expansion of out-of-town shopping centres, which has made it almost impossible for local high streets to compete.

The cost of parking is one reason the high street cannot compete with out of town shopping. Moreover, 30 years ago, high streets had butcher’s shops, greengrocers, off-licences, chemists and a range of clothing and fashion retailers. Retailers with financial clout have moved out to the shopping centres – and more will follow this year and next. The anchor stores are deserting the high street, as shown by the number of retail chains closing their stores there. This leaves the shops that remain in an even more difficult predicament.

Despite these challenges, high-street retailers can still prosper if they adapt. All too often in my job I see management sticking to what they know – what was once a successful formula – in the face of all the evidence telling them they need to change. Unfortunately, by the time we are called in, it’s usually too late. As individuals’ shopping habits change, retailers must too. That means multi-channel buying – not just static internet buying – but mobile shopping as well. Online does not have to be completely divorced from bricks and mortar. Shops and online can work well together. “Click and collect” has given a life line to stores such as Argos. John Lewis has excelled in using technology to get people into their shops.

Many stores have become too big and inefficient, unable to attract the footfall in relation to rent. Retailers can instead reduce the size of their stores and operate them like large vending machines. A customer can go in and put their card in a giant jukebox – where they can pick a film or return it for example. If they are late, it automatically charges their credit card. There are ways for retailers to continue to prosper with some restructuring.

Those shops that remain may benefit from the others’ decline and closure. Despite the headline cases, corporate insolvency rates remain historically low, especially when contrasted with previous recessions and periods of recovery. Low insolvency rates are good for employment, which is a key concern following the many retail administrations. In fact just under half of jobs in the major retail insolvencies survived the administration process in 2012.

However, while businesses exist in distress and corporate insolvencies remain low, the economy continues to stagnate. A healthy economy requires activity at both ends of the economic cycle – it needs business growth and expansion, as well as the recycling of capital following business failure. The high street can survive if it changes and adapts, and deals with greater challenges than the quarterly rent bill.

This story first appeared on economia

Photograph: Getty Images

This is a news story from economia.

Getty
Show Hide image

Banishing safe seats, and other proposals to bridge the democratic divide

How to improve key areas of democracy.

Labour’s election train is finally pulling into the station, with its new leader announced in just over a fortnight. However, a summer absorbed in the party’s internal democracy has obscured a deeper truth confronting the country: the general election confirmed that unequal political participation rates in the UK – by age, class, ethnicity and region– have become increasingly hardwired into how our democracy operates.

IPPR’s new report underscores the scale of the democratic divide.  For example, less than half of 18-24 year olds voted, compared to nearly four-fifths of the over-65s, while three-quarters of "AB" individuals cast a ballot, against just over half of "DE" registered voters. Critically, this marks a sharp rise in turnout inequality over time. In 1987, for example, turnout rates by class were almost identical but have steadily diverged since.

Similarly, age-based differences have got significantly worse over time. In 1964 turnout for 18-24 year olds was 76.4 per cent, almost matching the 76.7 per cent turnout rate of those aged 65 or over. By 2005 only 38.2 per cent of 18-24 year olds voted against 74.3 per cent of 65+ year olds, with only a very slight improvement this year.

Underlying growing disparities of electoral voice are striking divergences in perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of our democracy. For example, IPPR/YouGov polling suggests a striking 63 per cent of "DE" individuals think that our democratic system serves their interests badly, while "AB" voters are evenly split.

Given these signs of democratic distress, there remains a strong case for establishing a wide-ranging constitutional convention to reset how our democracy operates. Yet Westminster shows no appetite for such constitutional reformation, and there would only be so much a civil society-led convention could achieve in terms of practical change.

In our report we therefore propose a series of achievable reforms that could update the civic, institutional and technological architecture of our democracy in the here and now, with the explicit goal of ensuring that all voices are better heard in the political process.

On electoral reform, while we reiterate our support for proportional representation for national elections, we know this simply isn’t going to happen this Parliament. We had a referendum on change in 2011 and it was heavily lost. The energies of electoral reformers should therefore focus on extending PR in local government, where it is more obviously in the self-interest of the major parties, as a means of extending their geographical reach.

In addition, the reduction in the number of MPs provides an opportunity to chip away at the number of safe seats. More than half of seats are "safe", a number that has grown over time, even allowing for the electoral earthquake in Scotland. Safe seats typically have lower levels of participation, lower turnout rates, and less electorally powerful voters. While safe seats will always be with us in a first-past-the-post system, too many can be damaging to democracy.

Given this, we have recommended that the various Boundary Commissions of the UK be given a new duty to consider the electoral competitiveness of seats – ie. to tilt against the creation of safe seats – when boundaries are redrawn. The priority would be to meet their current duties of ensuring the geographic coherence of a seat and roughly equal electorates.

However, where these duties can be met we suggest that the Commissions should consider revising boundaries to reduce the number of safe seats, as a step to increasing participation and the voting power of the average elector. Of course, this will clearly not "abolish" all safe seats – nor should it  but it could help re-empower millions of voters currently with little meaningful say over the outcome of elections and force political parties to up their game in safe seats.

At the same time, the transition to the individual electoral registration process risks excluding millions from the franchise, people who are disproportionately younger, poorer or from an ethnic minority. For example, there are clear inequalities by age and ethnicity in terms of who is registered to vote: in the 2010 general election, for which figures are most accurate, 90 per cent of people aged 55-64 were registered, compared to 55 per cent of those aged 18-24, while nearly 20 per cent of BME individuals were not registered to vote, compared to only 7 per cent of the "white British" population.

There are simple steps the government could take to ensure all who are eligible are able to vote: extending the registration deadline to December 2016, and making support available to local authorities to assist registration efforts, weighted towards authorities with higher levels of under-registration, could help reduce inequalities.  In the longer term, electoral registration officers should be given new duties, and the Electoral Commission more powers, to drive up registration rates, with a particular focus on presently under-registered demographics. 

Finally, we recommend introducing a Democracy Commission. At present, the Electoral Commission effectively regulates elections and party funding. Democracy, however, is far richer and broader than electoral processes. It is about formal representation, but also about participation and deliberation, in what Marc Stears has called "everyday democracy".

A statutorily independent Democracy Commission could give institutional ballast to the latter and help reinvigorate democratic life by providing research, resources and capacity-building to facilitate local, civil society-led initiatives that aim to increase broad-based levels of powerful democratic participation or deliberation in collective decision-making processes.

For example, a Democracy Commission could work with the GLA to introduce participatory budgeting in London, assist the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in instituting a public deliberative body with real teeth over how to integrate health and social care in the area, help the Scottish government conduct citizens’ juries on the future constitutional shape of the country, or support civil-society experiments to bring people closer to collective political decision-making processes in their locality.

We are living in a paradoxical political era, where growing political inequality is accompanied by ongoing social and technological change that has the capacity to collapse unnecessary political and economic hierarchies and build a more inclusive, participatory and responsive democracy. However, there is no guarantee that the age of the network will necessarily lead to democratic revival. The institutions and technologies of our political system, products of the 19th century, are struggling in the fluidity and fracture of the 21st century, inhibiting democratic renewal.

With our economy post-industrial, our ways of communicating increasingly digital and more networked, our identities and relationships ever more variegated and complex, it is therefore critical public policy seeks to update the democratic infrastructure of the UK, and, in so doing, help reverse entrenched political inequality.

Such an agenda is vital. If we simply accept the current institutional arrangements of our political system as the limits of our ambition, we must also content ourselves to live in a divided – and therefore inherently partial – democracy. Yet our democracy is not immutable but malleable, and capable of being reformed for the better; reform today can make democratic life more equal. After all, the story of British democracy’s evolution is one of yesterday’s impossible becoming today’s ordinary.

Mathew Lawrence is a research fellow at IPPR and the co-author of "The Democracy Commission: Reforming democracy to combat political inequality". He tweets at @dantonshead.