Lanre Bakare writes about the campaign to stop the building of a new Tesco’s in Stokes Croft. Unfortunately, he shoots himself in the foot from the off.
As you come into Stokes Croft you are met by one of the many Banksy murals in the south west city of Bristol.
Unfortunately, the presence of Banksy’s vandalism is just one example of why the area is a run down dump. A Tesco’s superstore would be an improvement, frankly.
Stokes Croft’s demographic is a mix of students, artists and members of Bristol’s Caribbean and Somali communities. The campaign against Tesco aimed to benefit people in all those different communities who live in the area. The knock-on effect of the supermarket would not just offend the sensibilities of a few anti-capitalists, it would have financial implications for the Somali shopkeepers and the Caribbean restaurant owners. That kind of solidarity is what makes Stokes Croft one of Bristol’s most interesting areas.
Riiight… And there was me thinking that is was just another run down dump; a boil festering on the arse-end of the city. Silly me. Bearing in mind that Tesco’s wouldn’t be competing with the restaurant owners, it is up to the people who want the small businesses to thrive to boycott the Tesco’s store and shop at the small Somali delicatessen – that’s what solidarity is all about. If Tesco’s have got it so wrong, why on earth would there need to be violent protest to prevent it from being built? If that solidarity really does exist, then the scheme will fail and Tesco’s will pull out.
As we are well aware, that isn’t what will happen. If the store is built, people will flock to it – despite having engaged in “solidarity” with the “artists” and students. The reality is that Tesco’s provides what people want – plentiful produce at a reasonable price. The anti-capitalists want to deny people that choice. And the people who live in areas like Stokes Croft tend to be the less well off, the very people who will benefit from a store such as Tesco’s.
Love ’em or loath ’em, Tesco’s will provide not only cheap produce but work in an area that desperately needs it – rather more than it needs an old office block converted into a canteen for “artists” to gather.
The anti-capitalists want to impose their will on everyone else – by force if necessary. They clearly do not have faith in their so-called solidarity, or the whole thing would be shrugged off while they wait for the store to wither and die. That it won’t wither and die rather undermines their argument, somewhat. A conundrum that they resolve with violence and intimidation. Or is it “art”?
Have you been asleep?
They have not only opened the Tesco but it has been closed and boarded up after the police lost control of the area after trying to evict squatters last Thursday.
Not convinced by your argument about just buying from local shops either. Tesco can easily afford to keep an unprofitable store open 24/7 until other shops close.
Yes, actually…
Maybe they will try to keep the store open even if unprofitable. I doubt, however, that it will be unprofitable. Again, it is up to the local people to have more stamina than Tesco’s. Personally, I don’t think that the silent majority are opposed.
Do you recall the protests a couple of decades back on Kellaway Avenue? Apparently no one wanted the store, yet when it opened, people flocked to it.
I noticed in the comments to the CiF article, that local people do not necessarily feel that the Anti-capitalists speak for them at all.
It’s interesting to see the way the anti-Tesco comments always morph into this “they will just run the store at a loss until it destroys the competition” line, it sounds like a good point until you stop and think for a minute. If people boycott it it won’t make a blind bit of difference whether it’s run at a loss or not, the other stores will just carry on as usual. What I find particularly amusing about all this is that a few years back, before these expresses opened, all the right thinking types were asking why there weren’t small local versions of the out of town superstores and wouldn’t it be a good thing if there were as it would help stop the decline of local shopping centres, which, if the one nearest to me is anything to go by, seems to be true.
Thanks for the voice of sanity, L. Mrs P returned from her office today regaling me of some there who reckoned “Tesco deserve it ‘cos there are too many stores in that area” – it’s a sad malaise of the British people that they now deem vandalism acceptable to assuage their own opinion, despite the fact that many others would find a great deal of use for such a store.
There’s something very unseemly about the way CiF is fairly salivating at the thought of civil unrest… 🙄
Interesting as I post on Tescos tomorrow at Orphans. Vandalism is out, of course but all the same, Tesco have some thinking to do on other matters.
The thing that gets me about this ‘free market’ is that it is not all that free.
Like it or not Tesco (and their ilk) do have an advantage not just over ‘local’ shops in the way they can operate and muscle out competition, but over farmers, suppliers and distributors. The benefit to the consumer is supposed ‘cheaper’ food, but it isn’t (in my experience) even that much cheaper and perhaps convenience, which by dint of their coverage and long opening hours, they might be.
I don’t particularly object to Tesco opening shops but I do object to the ‘full spectrum coverage’ or whatever the doublespeak management jargon is these days for the blitzing that they impose on our high streets. Personally I try to buy local where I can, but the plethora of Tesco, Starbucks and other multinational shite absolutely everywhere IS removing that choice for me. For trying to fight in a small way that I applaud the people of Stokes Croft.
Tesco (and you) may well think that they are the good guys, trying to make shopping better for the masses, but while there are concerted attempts to stop them, often not by small bunches of protesters either (however you like to consider them) it is the supermarket that needs to think about its PR.
I live in a small market town which still has something resembling an old-fashioned high street, and earlier this year we saw the opening of a megalithic two-storey we-sell-everything 24/7 Tesco, in the aftermath of 4 years of petitions, protests at Council meetings, planning permissions refused, resubmitted, refused again, all against the background of the relevant government department insisting it must be built and only the details could be negotiated. Twelve houses (compulsory purchases), three long-standing successful small shops and the Boys’ Club were demolished to make way for this monstrosity, and none of the promised deal sweeteners have yet to come into being.
And things have proved interesting since. The greengrocer-cum-fishmonger which has been there since 1904 is busier than ever. The two family butchers have queues out the door every Saturday. The market is busier and better populated. And the bakers-which-is-not-Greggs is doing very nicely.
I’ve been in Tescos a couple of times out of curiosity. I was struck by several things: the prices of fruit and veg were shockingly high and the range was miserable; it was much emptier than I expected; and whatever pulling-power they thought they would have has not been done through appealing to people without a lot of money. Most strange.
So, whatever happens in Stokes Croft, I would strongly dispute the notion that Tesco are always right in their judgement (hell, even their sole rival and serial incompetent Sainsbury is busier since they opened).
Voyager: Your example is evidence of ‘corporatism’ on the part of local and/or national government. If we pay taxes for restrictions through the planning system, we should expect them to carry their promises through. Still not the fault of Tesco. In fact, it boosts Longrider’s argument IMO.
PT Barnum: Yours does too. 🙂
Free markets, guys and gals. They work.
Twelve houses (compulsory purchases), three long-standing successful small shops and the Boys’ Club were demolished to make way for this monstrosity, and none of the promised deal sweeteners have yet to come into being
One might have thought that libertarians would object to the use of the coercion and bullying implicit in compulsory purchase. But I guess those scruples melt away when the bullying is done in the service of unaccountable big business and the ‘free market’.
There’s something very unseemly about the way CiF is fairly salivating at the thought of civil unrest…
The unrest will happen whether or not CIF ‘salivates’ at its prospect. Besides we have had nearly of year of libertarians gloating at the prospect of hundreds of thousands of job losses in the public sector, so I don’t see that the right have much of a moral highground from which to pontificate.
Voyager – I don’t buy the notion that the supermarkets have a stranglehold on the farmers etc.
Supermarkets for the bulk, sell other peoples products. Brand names that have been manufactured by other companies and are long removed from the growing stage.
They do sell a lot of fresh stuff that they buy direct but they cannot dictate prices to the point where the farmers are not making a profit.
I work for a company that does a lot of contract work for large blue chip companies. We have a lot of competition so we have to keep our quotes low in order to get the work. Still, we get a lot of contracts, the staff all get paid, the company continues to run at a large profit and the chairman drives to work in an Aston Martin.
Large companies can use pressure to bring prices down but there is a point where that stops. Market forces dictate that point.
I have a freind who works for a chocolate company. They make one particular chocolate in long strips. A large up-market chain buys the centre section for it’s own good quality chocolate and a supermarket buys the end bits for its cheap own brand chocolate.
It’s the same stuff, just cheaper because it’s less aestheticaly pleasing. So your not loosing out on quality by buying the own brand and no one is being squeezed for profit.
I didn’t say that they did. I said that they could
I do.
“Besides we have had nearly of year of libertarians gloating at the prospect of hundreds of thousands of job losses in the public sector…”
We have? I must have blinked and missed that. 😮
All these arguments were made nearly 30 years ago when Safeway opened a store in the middle of Blandford Forum. Having just returned to live in the area I was pleased to see that the fruit and veg shop right outside the door of Morrisons is doing well, despite being less than 20 paces away from Morrisons’ fruit and veg section. Furthermore, since then a 24×7 Tesco has opened as well.
I’m also reminded of the boss of Tesco being interviewed on BBC news a week or so ago. The interviewer made some comment about Tesco being too big, to which we got some mealy mouthed PR wibble. What he should have said was something like – dude, WTF. Do you expect me to put security guards on every store and turn away every 10th customer?
No doubt the Stokes Croft soapdodgers will be screaming like scalded pups at this news:
http://t.co/5IQSxA1
😀
Oh, dear… 👿
This riot had precious little to do with Tescos and a lot to do with bad policing. The story here should be idiot plods not anti-capitalists.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-fallout.html
“The story here should be idiot plods not anti-capitalists.”
Police turn up to do their job, the collection of raggedy-arsed soap dodgers turn out to stop them, police bring in more reinforcements, and a huge battle kicks off.
And it’s entirely the fault of the police? Hmmm, no. Don’t think so.