Show Hide image

Real Meals: a double-shot of sanctimony

Starbucks coffee is so bad I'll happily walk several blocks just to avoid drinking the stuff

I visited the Pacific Northwest quite a bit in the early 1990s. Seattle struck me as having a definite coffee hue, just as many other cities have a predominant colour (the piss-green of Paris springs to mind). A coffee hue, and a coffee smell. Starbucks began frothing in the 1970s, and the chain was set to lash out across the US and then the world on the cusp of the 1990s. But this year, Starbucks' CEO, Howard Schultz, announced that there would be significant closures among the approximately 700 Starbucks in the UK, and ruefully admitted that the business had expanded far too recklessly.

I should cocoa. Time was when you couldn't turn your back on a family-run cafe without the twin-tailed corporate siren - a logo, incidentally, that was once replaced with a crown to facilitate market penetration in the Islamic world, which was offended by the display of the female figure - snaffling it up. Starbucks operated at a loss, saturated local areas, doubled up franchise and company-owned outlets and exploited loopholes in planning laws. The headline in the US satire 'zine, The Onion, said it all: "New Starbucks opens in restroom of existing Starbucks".

Skinny-this, frappe-that

I wouldn't mind all those local businesses being swamped in the half-fat tide, if Starbucks didn't serve such dreadful coffee. It's so bad that I'll happily walk several blocks just to avoid drinking the stuff. The company boasts that it employs a "state-of-the-art espresso system", the Mastrena, but that's neither here nor there. Good espresso is a function of two things: high pressure steam, and high quality coffee - end of story.
All that bollocks about skinny-this and frappe-that is enough to make the discerning coffee drinker (or addict, as he or she is known) puke. It's as if your local smack dealer offered a loyalty card, wifi access and "fair-trade" heroin. (Come to think of it, given the parlous state of the Afghan economy and its democratically elected traffickers, the latter isn't such a bad idea.)

Not that the punters only visit Starbucks to get their caffeine fix - they go to eat as well. Popping into Starbucks for a breakfast of muffin and froth has become as much a part of British urban life as bread and dripping were to earlier generations - so much so that in my post-apocalyptic novel, The Book of Dave, the breakfast of the distant future is known simply as "Stabbuk".

Some view the Starbucks ethos with a venti cup full of foaming cynicism. You won't be surprised to learn that I'm one of them. Even on a quiet weekday afternoon, the reek of sanctimony is stronger than the aroma of freshly brewed coffee. Starbucks has perfected the hessian-sack, blond-wood school of pseudo-caring capitalism. Relax in this armchair under a ghastly mass-produced daub that looks like an enlarged detail of a Matisse, and let the caffeine'n'sucrose wave sweep you away!

Mrs Jellyby with a lawyer

In British branches, all espresso is made with 100 per cent Fairtrade-certified coffee - everywhere you look, there's a screed on "The Starbucks Coffee Story". I don't doubt that Fairtrade does help some poor farmers, but Starbucks is a Mrs Jellyby armed with a big, stick-shaped lawyer. While you sit there sipping your frappucino and dreaming of all the downtrodden coffee farmers you're helping, remember Howard Schultz's remark about organised labour: "If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn't need a union."

Starbucks employees in the US have claimed they were dissuaded from joining a union. As quite a few of them are immigrants from the coffee-yielding zones, there's a nice symmetry in their labour being directly yoked to a support price back home. But I wouldn't go so far as those soi-disant "anti-capitalists" who smash up branches during G-whatever meetings. The petrol-bombers and the muffin-munchers are two sides of the same foil-wrapped chocolate coin. No amount of equitably bought coffee is going to abolish the US farm support price, just as no amount of beating on "da pigz" is going to end in a cosy world full of bike-riders composting their own shit. But what - I hear you cry - was the food like? It was OK. The tuna was the healthy option - and cheap. As for the cheesecake - there's not a lot anyone can do wrong to that, unless they're vegan. But the coffee? As Seattle's most famous son would say: "Nevermind".

Will Self is an author and journalist. His books include Umbrella, Shark, The Book of Dave and The Butt. He writes the Madness of Crowds and Real Meals columns for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 16 November 2009 issue of the New Statesman, Dead End

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.