Keeping
Money in the City: a local levy on giant supermarkets
“a
classic example of trendy politics colliding with reality “ according to Gary Hopkins, but his Evening Post comment was more like a classic case of party point-scoring colliding with
reality. Maybe he feels his role in the LibDem group is being challenged
Gary was dismissing the proposal
brought to last Tuesday's council by the Green group – and, on the
day, roundly rejected by the other parties .
Had
the other councillors accepted it, and if broad support could be
shown from other councils and civic groups across the country, it
would have strengthened the chances of a request to government to let councils (if they
think fit) impose an 8.5% levy on the business rates payable by
certain large retailers on their patch – particularly supermarkets.
Government could not reject the suggestion out of hand – it must
first negotiate with the Local Government Association. All being
well, it would ultimately lead to the law makers allowing councils
this limited discretion to raise money for public use from some of
the most destructive of retailers.
Complicated,
that. Clearly too complicated for Gary's LibDems, for Labour, and,
of course, for the Tories. Too complicated for the council officers
charged with providing an objective report to the council. And far
too complicated for the Bristol Post.
Together,
they rewrote the story. It became, in their view, a proposal that
Bristol should now impose an 8.5% levy on all its big shops. That
would send out a message that Bristol is unfriendly to business. It
would induce all such shops to abandon their lucrative trade in
Bristol. The poor would be then unable to buy cheap food. Even if
the shops remained, the poor would pick up the tab at the tills.
Only
one small part of this gross distortion did have a rationale of
sorts. The council cannot at present distinguish between the
'comparison' retailers like B&Q or Harvey Nichols (not that the
poor would find they'd lost much there) and the prime target, the
huge and profitable food supermarket businesses.
But
anyone who'd looked at the real proposal (and 'Local Works', which
had prompted it) would know that legislation would be needed. That's
where a distinction between the business types could be written in.
It was a non-objection. And the rest was pure invention.
Fortunately,
not all councils, or parties, are as blinkered as Bristol's. In
Gloucester and in Torbay, it's been the LibDems who are making the
running (Gary please note). In Leeds, with an overwhelming Labour
majority, a similar proposal was passed with cross-party support. In
Liverpool, though, it was Labour who took the supermarkets' side and
killed it off
Of
course, there's no reason to think that the ill-informed debate at
Tuesday's meeting, with councillors voting en bloc along with their
parties, reflects public opinion. It doesn't even establish council
policy. It's still within the mayor's powers to sound out real
public opinion, and if he can show that people would like the option
of a levy, he can join other councils in seeking powers from
government. That's how the Sustainable Communities Act works – by
encouraging initiatives from the grass roots, to complement the usual
centralist 'top-down' legislative structures.
But
how to show George that Bristolians think councils should be given
this power?
Writing
to Mayor Ferguson is one option – you can draw on the information
on the Local Works pages.
The
quickest way, though, is to sign up to Charlie Bolton's petition
on the council website.
