San Francisco’s shoplifting epidemic is shocking to behold. But we shouldn’t imagine that the same couldn’t happen here. In fact, we’re well on our way. According to the British Retail Consortium, theft from stores across 10 UK cities is up by 26%. More, “incidents of violence and abuse against retail employees have almost doubled on pre-pandemic levels.”

On Tuesday, Asda Chairman Stuart Rose told LBC that “theft is a big issue. It has become decriminalised. It has become minimised. It’s actually just not seen as a crime anymore.”

In the absence of an adequate response from the authorities, retailers are beginning to take defensive measures. For instance, home furnishings company Dunelm is now locking up duvets and pillow cases in cabinets; Waitrose is offering free coffees to police officers to increase their visibility; and Tesco plans to equip staff with body cameras. 

The “progressive” response to this phenomenon isn’t quite as deranged as it is in in the US. Nevertheless, British liberals have responded as expected. A piece in the Observer is typical. You’ll never guess, but apparently it’s all the Tories’ fault: “Starving your population and then ‘cracking down’ on it for nicking baby formula or a can of soup can start to make a government look rather unreasonable.”

But as the writer ought to know, the issue here isn’t the desperate young mum hiding a few groceries in the pram. Nor is it the schoolboy pilfering the occasional bag of sweets. Rather, the real problem is blatant, organised and sometimes violent theft of higher value items. Criminals who never previously thought they could get away with it increasingly now do — thus presenting a material threat to retail as we know it. 

But instead of addressing the issue head-on, the writer blames the victim: “Once goods were kept behind counters, but since the birth of large supermarkets they have been laid out near the door, ready for the taking.” How terribly irresponsible of them! On the other hand, perhaps the open display of goods isn’t just a convenience for customers, but instead the hallmark of a high trust society. 

In fact, modern shops are a minor miracle of civilisation: public spaces, stacked high with products from all over the world, that passing strangers may freely inspect and handle, but which aren’t looted by anyone who feels like it.

Surely, that’s something worth defending. But if you’d prefer to abandon retailers to their fate, then don’t moan when they do what it takes to survive. Some will close, of course, and others will move their operations online. Those who stay open will guard themselves and their stock behind plexiglass and electronic tags. And then there’s the hi-tech solution: the fully automated and completely cashless store, in which customers have to be authenticated to even get in. 

Remember that retail facilities like this already exist. One day, when they become the norm, we’ll remember what shops used to be like. Then, we’ll ask why no one stood up for them.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---

For all the failings of modern British politics, one virtue has largely remained: big money plays little role in deciding our elections. We stand in stark contrast to the United States, where this year’s midterms — in which the House of Representatives and roughly a third of the Senate will be elected — are forecast to cost $11.6 billion in advertising alone. Such spending in America dwarfs campaigns in Britain, where the entire 2024 election ran up a bill of just £94.5 million — just £2 for every eligible voter.

The news that two of Reform UK’s biggest backers are donating £36 million each to Nigel Farage’s party is a sign that British politics might be about to become more American. Ben Delo, who along with fellow mega-donor Christopher Harborne, made money through cryptocurrencies, said the donation would create a “level playing field” between Reform UK and the more established parties. Some in those parties worry it’s actually an attempt to buy the next election for Farage.

It would be too defeatist (or triumphalist, depending on your perspective) to conclude that these donations mean the next election is already over. In fact, history suggests that large donations can leave the electorate unwooed. Michael Crick has reported that James Goldsmith, founder of the Referendum Party, donated around £40 million (around £80 million today) to his nascent political outfit in the Nineties. His money enabled the party to contest the vast majority of constituencies in the 1997 election, but the reward for his spending spree was zero seats and just 2.6% of the vote.

How can so much money produce so little? A major factor is Britain’s campaign laws. Although the rules for how much parties can receive in donations are pretty lax, how they can spend it is another matter. In the regulated campaign period leading up to the last election, a party contesting every seat in Great Britain could spend around £34 million on party campaigning, with candidates subject to separate spending limits.

Between now and the next election, however, these donations will have an impact on our politics — both inside Reform and beyond. Many of Reform’s supporters will be cheering this financial injection, but enormous donations to party headquarters will likely leave the ordinary party member feeling more irrelevant. Our traditional parties have never overcome the need to fundraise from their members and affiliates, with trade union levies (in Labour) and donor clubs and speaker dinners (for the Tories) still an essential part of the fundraising mix. With tens of millions rolling in, Reform no longer needs their members’ money in the same way. And with that, the membership is likely to lose some of its influence.

For the other parties, the need to keep up with Farage’s war chest could change the way they operate. Labour is already tapping into its supporters’ fear that the crypto-billionaires are setting Farage on course for Number 10 by asking for donations as small as £3. At that rate, they will have to persuade a lot of voters to open up their wallets before they can match the funds Farage now has. The alternative to persuading their supporters to donate en masse will be spending more time recruiting their own rich donors.

In the US, the relentless need to fundraise for campaigns means individual legislators are forced to “dial for dollars”, with members of Congress sometimes subjected to targets and told to raise thousands of dollars every day. Such are the consequences of big-money politics. If Reform’s record-breaking donations mean Britain’s political parties now have to spend more time fundraising, then our politics will have become a lot more American — and will be worse for it.

---

Lee David Evans is an historian of the Conservative Party and the John Ramsden Fellow at the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary, University of London. He is the author of Coronations & Defenestration: Choosing (and losing) Tory Leaders and the co-host of the podcast Since Attlee & Churchill.

LeeDavidEvansUK

---