This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
that there should be less choice in where people shop. Guaranteeing choice and competition by supporting what the OFT consider to be a monopoly in some areas is an odd position to take. The point is not that these shops are refusing to 'compete' with Tesco, but rather than Tesco distorts the market to avoid competing with them. Its resources allow Tesco not to have to compete, as they sell certain staples at a loss. They can afford to do this because, once competition has been eliminated, they raise the price of everything else. Big stores only compete for as long as they have to, and they compete with each other (i.e. those with the resources to compete with them) as rarely as possible. There is an example given above of the reduction of product lines after a local deli had closed. Also consider the fact that in areas where Tesco faces less competition from local shops, customers pay 69% more for their groceries than they do in shops where there is vigorous local competition (Citizen's Organising Foundation, 1998). Campaigners are angry that Tesco uses its resources to distort the market, driving out competition, and then charges what it likes for whatever products it likes. Monopolies thrive on barriers to entry into markets, and those in the retail sector are reasonably high: shop frontage, stock, staff. You cannot close a shop one year, when Tesco prices are lower than yours, and open it again when they rise. The problem is that it does not work in reverse. The barriers to entry of the market are high enough, and big supermarket chains have resources enough to ensure that there will never be a free market in food in this country, and those who support Tesco are doing what they can to make it less free. Oh, and, by the way, before you get too deep into Newspeak, it's interesting to hear those campaigning to protect a diversity of choice 'fascists', while those who support a state-approved (just look at Tesco's involvement with local government) monopolist are 'promoters of free choice.'
Fat boy - "small shop owners attempting to ban Tesco" No one is campaigning to ban Tesco. People are saying that Tesco's anti-competitive practices need to be addressed. "the UK's most popular shop" - Um, what else could a monopolist (as identified by the Competition Commission), encouraged by the state be? Pravda was the Soviet Union's most popular newspaper therefore it had to be the most competitive? Yes, I accuse you of Newspeak. Success in an un-free market does not imply competitiveness. To refuse to address the distortions of the market openly practised by supermarkets, or to pretend they represent the natural functions of a market smacks more or corporate-fetishism than any commitment to the function of markets. I'm sorry to disagree with you again, Brett, as your opinion seems to be much better-considered than some of those who apparently agree with you. If I understand you rightly you resent the use of the term 'community activism' to describe a campaign that defends a vested interest. I, however, do not see the two things as mutually incompatible. When Luddites threw their clogs into the wheels of Spinning Jennies (feel free to tear that bit apart: I'm sure it was the Saboteurs who threw clogs, and Spinning Jennies are probably unbreakable, but you get my drift. When they did whatever they did) they were undoubtedly representing the community of weavers in which they lived. The ones who were being put out of work. However, they were also clearly defending a vested interest: their own. Maybe a more interesting argument would have been about these campaigners being neo-Luddites,
is not fascism. Morgoth . Is there no argument against Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools? Would we never feel entitled to ban a school which we thought damaged the children in it and the society around it (let's take a private Satanist school. You may as well say that campaigners against faith-based academy schools are against 'parents having choices'. as I think they are a reasonable analogy. about representing one's interest in society." No. to provide a school with fantastic facilities in order to proselytise is not unheard of. Not to stop paracetomol being sold in France. a community should have no say in whether it can be installed in their locality? I ask these as honest questions.* "By the way. of course. The campaigners in the documentary were campaigning to stop a fourth Tesco being installed in the same square mile. Maybe that would be *shock horror* inefficient! Maybe there is not the demand! JohnM . Also. the ability to get a headache pill at 1am in the morning was taken away from her by exactly the sort of people that are attacking Brett in this thread. under a 1968 law put into place by basically Small shops. Morgoth .) Participation in democracy is. or that doctors who prescribe certain drugs or advise having certain procedures are against 'patients having choice'. but the argument over King Fahd school certainly show that some people are willing to try to ban them because they feel they threaten our way of life.. couldn't resist. maybe then we could have had an interesting discussion about the state's role in protecting both consumers and producers. All government activity prevents someone (an individual) from making an opposing choice. Are we really saying that." Girlfriend get a lot of headaches. you did know that it was illegal. As an evangelical exercise. together with their involvement in local government. and yet was funded by donations. is a lie." This. if you'd like. for an example)? How about a private fundamentalist Christian school that taught Creationism. often. does she? *Sorry. for French supermarkets to advertise on TV up until the 1st of January this year?" No. probably."Oh trust me. light and staff supermarkets in case your girlfriend gets a headache. though. as I am sure you well know. not fees. as it is privately-funded. It might be Luddism. nor does it necessarily make you wrong. is about preventing people having choices. about the debasement of the term 'choice'.resisting the irresistible."But we don't live in an ideal world. There are three other Tesco to go to. (We could have another argument. but I think we have accepted that restrictions on advertising are part of living in a liberal . and their interests being in opposition to those of the consumer. but it's not Fascism."Nobody would feel entitled to ban the establishment of private faith based schools because they 'kill' other less popular kinds.. and I am not positive of the answers myself.. And when she lived in France. Participating in a local consultation. and encouraging others to express their view to do the same. Government.. so going there cost nothing. What we are saying is that Tesco's anti-competitive practices (as identified by the OFT and the Competition Commission). make them a stateapproved monopoly with the resources to starve out competition. whatever its end. Promoting your views does not necessarily mean you want to ban those who hold opposing views. and occasionally things happen. there was the demand. maybe the right to get paracetomol at one in the morning was taken away from her by *gasp* the market! Maybe it is not efficient to open.
I'd be more than willing to take a listen and jump on the bandwagon. not a sign of fascism. that might make some sense. Waitrose." In 2000.' And I would argue that living in a liberal democracy demands statist interfering. "You don't know much about Satanism. the withdrawal of product lines when local competition has been driven out. Sainsbury's. Safeway and Marks and Spencer all agreed to cooperate on promotions. That. Asda. It is they who benefit from . Brett. Democracy. but I think we have accepted that restrictions on advertising are part of living in a liberal democracy. and enhance those of others. Sorry. If Brett were arguing for a stateless society. and labelling himself a freedom fighter whilst he does it. You have addressed none of the points about barriers to entry to the retail trade. including manipulation of local planning regulations. Waitrose. will always restrict the freedoms of some. the taxpayer pays for eggs through the tax system what it does not pay in Tesco. The question is not to do what I think is acceptable and unacceptable. If anyone benefits from state involvement. M&S and a range of other supermarket chains. Those who benefit from government interference in the markets are the supermarkets and only the supermarkets. Are we closer to fascism because cigarette companies cannot advertise on television? We are certainly less free. Anticompetitive strategies and practices have been consistently identified. not to stop it. to the fact that local government is more often used to foist developments on local communities then resist them. and the ability of the large supermarkets to trade (in certain items) at a loss to drive local competitors out of business. Their profits are protected by the subsidies given to farmers. it is the normal operation of a democracy. Are we significantly less free as compared to the benefits to some members of society? That is debatable. Just more statist interfering where it doesn't belong. The purpose of democracy is to guide the interference. but your theses just do not fit with any reasoned look at the world: "If Tesco were the only player on the blcok. Co-op. product launches and distribution. If small shop owners can command that kind of power in France that is a product of their involvement in the democratic process. He is arguing for monopolistic manipulation of unfree markets. do you?" No. the action of government. In 1996 Tesco. and the selling below cost of certain staple items (hardly indicative of an efficient market). the Competition Commission (which had already said that it sought to encourage supermarket development) found that the five major supermarkets were involved in two complex monopolies. but then not all are fascist. You have failed to address any of the points made about supermarkets prices being 69% higher in areas where local competition has been chased out. If it does not interfere then it is not doing the job it was created for." I don't think they are either. Safeway/Morisons. not a sign of fascism. Not all laws are right. and I'm willing to bet that people in communities know even less. but he is not.democracy. That is the point of a state. This hardly sounds like the competition red in tooth and claw you believe (without evidence) is going on. I do not accept. "No. it is the major supermarkets. My point is that this is not fascism. but where communities do and do not have a right to put their views. Sainsbury. but they have fierce competition: ASDA.
for one. besides the Queen asks an MP to form a government. There are lots of types of people. I'm changing my mind. Tesco owned 25% of retail grocery business. In strictly technical terms. you are. because of their social background. we should campaign. An attempt to pitch this a middle-class hemp-growers against everyone else is just mistaken. a business is considered a monopoly when it controls 25% of the market. There are the types of people. You did pick a side. and. if we're talking about things sticking in craws (and I realise that was Brownie's phrase and not yours) that is a little rich. By calling anyone who disagrees with you a fascist. when you call any opposition to your position 'fascism'. but we should never stop thinking. Any campaigner for anything is a campaigner for a vested interest. these people's concerns were not as important as your own. . There are the 32% of the country who do not own a car."There are two types of people: those who shop at Tesco and other supermarkets. and have no easy access to out-of-town shopping. and the attempts to lump all concerns anyone might have together as 'fascist' shows that some people here don't get that. However. Brownie ."Some people can't afford your principles. You suggested that. Brownie . You did not brook the thought that any reasonable. we should debate. thinking person could oppose you without being an incurable snob. I am not making a value judgement. I can't. they can call themselves what they like. We should get angry. it's not up to anyone else."I don't like the "pick a side and cheer" style debates at all. I do think people should pick a side and cheer. 'cheering' comments made in your post. I don't want to have to go back and pull out the divisive. To label it 'fascism' just shows the paucity of the arguments made." I should hope I have made the same thing clear. Brownie . Are you really arguing with a placard? That's like someone in 1984 responding to chants of "Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!" by saying: "But that can't happen! There would need to be a leadership election in the Conservative Party. that we are not important. each supermarket leads to 276 people losing their jobs. and those who can afford not to.I hope I dealt with that point a while ago. black-and-white. You can see them as well as anyone else can. That is when we become fascists. Quite frankly. I think all too often we assume that we cannot change things." Quite. who are forced to pay more for their groceries as there is no local alternative to their supermarket.government intervention. for instance. You did cheer. According to the National Retail Planning Forum. There are the unemployed. They also all have an argument that they are representing their part of the community." No." Brett . By 1998. Actually. It's our right and our duty to argue and fight for what we think is right.
I'll have you know my jackboots are made from locally-reared cows. and if they demur. you're just lowering the tone." This. the nature of local campaigns. astrology. We give arguments about the nature of local democracy. the 1941 Committee. es." Yes.. women. people. which are not as numinous and malleable as you'd like to suggest. and historical terms. Social Credit." I don't accept this at all. don't you know?" And it's my 'right' to disagree with you. It's our 'right'. don't you know? By the way. and not assume that anyone who disagrees with us is automatically one. and the fact that they use the mechanisms of the state to increase their hold on local retail. Oh. it is used even more wildly than in print. massive unemployment. and corporate sponsorship of nationalist movements. Let's give the 'fascist' thing a rest shall we. but a literary flourish should a) be in some way literary. but you might notice that Brett talked about 'the roots of fascism'. come on. and are buffed to a bright gleam with the blood of the workers. "the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. shopkeepers. cultural. they mainly have dust on). I never used the word 'right' in my post. Fascism is "a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation." Still more disturbing is the fact that because something is a 'literary flourish' it is "not an accurate representation of what Brett genuinely thinks about such people."Yes."I'm sorry but if you take Brett's use of fascism in the title literally then you are just an idiot and it also undermines your argument to concentrate on the word rather than the people it describes. Brett . Until now. that is the roots of the state.. and no other grocery shops (although there are two corner shops which sell come dried and canned goods. the fact that they have monopolies. Neither I nor Brett are seeking to deny them such a right. homosexuality. We're just having a pop at them. defined in exclusive biological. let's stop flinging loaded terms like 'fascist' around." When Brett chooses to give us an accurate representation of his feelings. Kipling. Priestley's broadcasts. Chiang Kai-Shek. In conversation. I'm sorry. what . I'm quite certain this was a literary flourish and not an accurate representation of what Brett genuinely thinks about such people. bull-fighting. as you imply with your 'satirical' use of it with quotation marks. of course. Graham . force them to do it your way. and to create a mobilized national community" (Wikipedia) The roots of fascism were Italian frustration at not being given enough protectorates after the Treaty of Versailles."The roots of fascism is the beief that you can tell people what to do 'for their own good'. "Oh. "Yes. I'll debate those. Whom I obviously hate. above all other loyalties. and b) Probably not form the title of a post. Gandhi. Brownie . almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. and give the "fascist" thing a rest.." George Orwell. We have given numerous arguments about the anti-competitive nature of supermarkets. corporal punishment. is just funny. We are told that the argument is not about this. of course.. dogs and I do not know what else. this is the best we've got." No. the 1922 Committee.My local town has one Sainsbury's. of course 'campaigners' have a right to 'campagin' for whatever they like. I do not own a car. Youth Hostels. I have heard it applied to farmers. shall we? I mean. fox-hunting. and here it is later on: "This is a mini fascism.
and your posting is absolutely right. apparently. We are told that the argument is not about this. My mistake was assuming there was a point of any kind behind it. "We're just having a pop at them. Graham . they stuck in Brownie's craw. But I couldn't resist coming back for a peek. I agree with you. ." Brett says he didn't like the activists. There is no argument here. They just don't like them.community involvement consists of. you saw it exactly. What we do get.No. they used first-class carriages. I'll leave it in their hands. I had gone away from the page." Yes. it's an ad hominem attack on a kind of people Brett and Brownie don't like. and no amount of argument on any of our parts will change that. intent on not getting any further into this. My arguments are all above. have principles which hard-working families cannot afford. I. is that the argument is about: "the people it describes. So now this.