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_

---

Beijing is tightening its grip on the global car industry. This June, for the first time, China exported more than one million cars in a single month. Shipments rose by 71% from a year earlier, putting the country on course to export more than 10 million vehicles in 2026. This is more than another Chinese manufacturing record: it is further evidence that Europe, and Germany in particular, misunderstood how China would transform the global car industry.

Any conversation about Chinese competition is also a conversation about the capacity of European political elites to anticipate the future global economy. For years, European leaders worried about their dependence on China as an export market. Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW came to rely heavily on Chinese consumers, while European governments assumed this relationship would endure.

In Berlin, the main worry has always been access to China’s market, rather than Chinese competition. However, Germany failed to consider the opposite possibility: that Chinese manufacturers would first displace European brands inside China and then outcompete them in Europe and the rest of the world. That is what is happening now.

China has built a manufacturing ecosystem covering almost every part of the car manufacturing supply chain. This has allowed Beijing’s companies to move faster in the production of electric vehicles, and then offer increasingly sophisticated cars at prices European manufacturers struggle to match. This increasing dominance is demonstrated by the fact that, during the first four months of this year, Chinese car brands accounted for around 6% of EU vehicle registrations, almost twice their share a year earlier.

The response from European leaders is coming late and may be insufficient. The EU has added additional duties on Chinese-made electric vehicles and is considering similar measures for plug-in hybrids as Beijing’s manufacturers adapt their exports to bypass existing restrictions. After China’s new record, we are likely to see increased calls for stricter measures and more trade conflict. Tariffs might be a necessary tool, but they cannot compensate for the absence of an industrial strategy.

In this sense, it is important to remember that the problems of the European car manufacturing sector do not start in China. The industry faces expensive energy, weak domestic growth and slower product development. Raising the price of Chinese products solves none of these problems; at best, it gives European manufacturers some more time.

Another problem is that, in trade, European governments have differing beliefs on which approach should be taken. For example, France has pushed for stronger protectionism, while Germany remains divided between defending domestic production and preserving access to the Chinese market for its largest companies. Spain has sought Chinese investment, while Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has encouraged “avoiding another trade war”.

Brussels, meanwhile, is taking a tougher stance. European Council President António Costa last month called the EU’s roughly €1 billion daily trade deficit with China “simply unsustainable”, while Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné has asked for trade tools to be used “more systematically”.

Europe has not decided between a range of options. This includes whether it wants to preserve European-owned carmakers, its market share in China, industrial jobs, cheap vehicles or the fastest possible green transition. All of these approaches cannot happen at once, and many won’t ever happen. Protectionist barriers may be necessary, but the way they are being formulated feels more like a way to kick the can down the road without confronting the political cost of shaking up Europe’s inefficient economies. It may already be too late to save Europe’s car industry in its present form, but decisions need to be made now.

---

Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam

---