No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by quattrobhoy on Jan 2, 2020 11:02:29 AM
Britain is a nation of shopclosers

With apologies to Adam Smith.

Report 2020's boarding up, shuttering down and repurposing of retail stores here.

quattrobhoy - 02 Jan 2020 11:05:58 (#1 of 332)

Brighthouse fires the starting gun on "what promises to be a fantastic year and a remarkable decade for our United Kingdom"

Impedimenta - 02 Jan 2020 11:13:54 (#2 of 332)

"Training, face-to-face support and access to research". That should turn back the tide nicely.

TommyDGNR8 - 02 Jan 2020 11:16:32 (#3 of 332)

Last time we tried a new title format for the Retail Woes thread, we ended up with Brexit and half a billion dead celebrities, so be aware that 2020 is now your fault.

col2001 - 02 Jan 2020 11:23:52 (#4 of 332)

"Training, face-to-face support and access to research". That should turn back the tide nicely.

Been thinking about this a lot, while watching my home-town crumble.

Market-forces should mean that many empty properties get filled. They don't because of the dysfunctional commercial property market and its indebted zombie companies.

Fixing that would have far more of an effect than nonsense like that linked-to.

Impedimenta - 02 Jan 2020 11:27:30 (#5 of 332)

Indeed, col. See also more coherent local planning of issues such as business rates, parking spaces, mixed use occupation. But no, what is missing is a seminar on store front presentation, a chat with somebody considerably more successful than you, and a time-bound link to some graphs.

col2001 - 02 Jan 2020 11:30:38 (#6 of 332)


They're not serious.

Impedimenta - 02 Jan 2020 11:40:38 (#7 of 332)

As a veteran of New Deal For Communities I am highly cynical. NDC, in which most of the money ploughed into our area in a bid to revitalise it went on rebuilding a community centre, repainting a bridge and opening a health centre, while the supposed 10-year funding of local services (including of course 10 years of wages for mostly local residents in jobs which were providing valuable local services) was curtailed after 6 years because it wasn't what they were supposed to be spending the money on*. Never mind that the local residents said, "No, we really want these services to continue" and "Give us time to attract funding from elsewhere, rather than withdrawing the money now."

* you can't put a plaque on a community play worker, a health visitor or an exercise class for the over-50s.

col2001 - 02 Jan 2020 12:32:50 (#8 of 332)

Ah, yes. One-off costs for one-off projects.

Lets politicians present investment as a marvellous thing, even when it's a tenth of what's needed.

nemo75 - 02 Jan 2020 14:59:38 (#9 of 332)

Government is terrible at long term funding. Over 12 months is unusual and greater than the next spending review practically impossible.

This short termism wastes more resources than it saves. It’s infuriating.

moto748 - 02 Jan 2020 15:29:17 (#10 of 332)

What's the (if only partial) solution, then, nemo?

nemo75 - 02 Jan 2020 15:33:58 (#11 of 332)

The needed outcome is secure funding for projects of at least 5 years. This is hard for politicians because commitments that endure longer than a parliament can easily be swept away by successor administrations.

As I understand it Ireland overcame this through cross party pledges to fund major infrastructure, and so on. A similar approach should be possible here. In fact, I really want the opposition parties to push the Government to exceed their commitments on regional restructuring, and so on.

Sorry, I’m on phone so struggling to type

Tenesmus - 02 Jan 2020 15:38:29 (#12 of 332)

"Sorry, I'm belming into the void so struggling to talk."

nemo75 - 02 Jan 2020 15:39:03 (#13 of 332)

Noooo. Typing on phone.

Tenesmus - 02 Jan 2020 15:40:31 (#14 of 332)


xDiggy - 02 Jan 2020 15:56:42 (#15 of 332)

Indeed, col. See also more coherent local planning

Welcome to Stoke-on-Trent. Start with six town centres (plus Newcastle) that have been in pointless competition since forever, add 456 big-box drive-in retail parks, end up with something that looks like the set of a steampunk zombie movie filmed in suburban Wisconsin.

nemo75 - 02 Jan 2020 15:57:45 (#16 of 332)

Oh. That shouldn’t have sounded interesting, should it?

xDiggy - 02 Jan 2020 16:02:30 (#17 of 332)

Netflix didn’t think so. Prime never returned my calls.

Gotout - 02 Jan 2020 16:06:49 (#18 of 332)

Perhaps Brighthouse is losing money because their APR is too low at a mere 69.9%?

Tangent - 02 Jan 2020 16:29:01 (#19 of 332)

This short termism wastes more resources than it saves. It’s infuriating.

This is part of the legacy of the Plowden Committee. Macmillan commissioned it in the late 1950s, as part of his general drive for modernisation of administration and economic rejuvenation in the post-Suez aftermath. And it sought to reconfigure public expenditure on the basis of long-term planning matched to resources.

Unfortunately, the mechanisms which were put into place once the Committee reported in 1961 were utterly inadequate ensuring that public expenditure could be controlled in the crisis-hit circumstances of the 1970s, where inflation and greater demands on public services caused spending projections to balloon far beyond the acceptable fiscal envelope. Healey abandoned a crucial tenet of the Plowden system and went back to cash limits for project accounting, and what remained of the mechanisms was gradually removed during the Howe/Lawson years. All long-term spending projections since then, it seems to me, have been much more piecemeal.

CarlosFandango - 02 Jan 2020 18:12:50 (#20 of 332)

Dog's breakfast.

Check Subscriptions
Home » UK News