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_

---

This is the time of year for tales of phantasmagorical terror. The Telegraph this weekend features an especially chilling scenario: namely, Ed Miliband and Zack Polanski standing on the steps of Number 10 as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

But that’s just one of the extraordinary possibilities that British voters are now faced with. In ascending order of likelihood, the paper goes on to list six outcomes for the next general election. Least likely is a Conservative majority, which is judged all but “impossible”. That’s followed by the “very unlikely” possibility of a Labour majority. Next up is a “national government” involving Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories (“unlikely”). Alternatively, Labour could form a progressive coalition with two or more Left-of-centre parties (“possible”). A Reform majority is also rated “possible”, but the most “likely” outcome, the Telegraph argues, is a Right-wing coalition of Reform UK and the Conservatives.

This analysis arguably underestimates the probability of a Con-Lib-Lab national government. It also underplays the permutations of the “progressive” option, as a Lib-Lab government would be a very different beast from one relying on a substantial number of Scottish National Party or Green MPs. For instance, the SNP could force a second referendum on Scottish independence, while a Lab-Green coalition would mean shifts to the Left across several areas of policy.

Whether Polanski would get the deputy PM position would depend on the numerical balance between Labour and Green MPs, plus those of any other coalition party. At the very least, he’d demand the Energy and Environment briefs, meaning there’d be no course corrections to Miliband’s least sustainable Net Zero policies. And though a Labour prime minister would be insane to surrender the Treasury or the Home Office to Green control, he or she would have to soften Labour’s already weak stance on borrowing and immigration. For a Lab-Green pact to work at all, Polanski would have to be willing to back down on defence issues such as nuclear disarmament (though the fine print of his party’s policy — “begin the process”, “no first use” — already allows for some wiggle room).

Labour’s biggest problem would be selling a coalition with the Greens to moderate voters. Even if Polanski could be persuaded to tone down his more radical rhetoric, there’s no guarantee that he would remain Green leader if he became Mr Compromise, given that his party holds automatic leadership elections every two years. Much easier, then, for Labour to shut down all talk of a coalition before election day and only entertain the possibility once voters have had their say.

British politics as we’ve known it since the Second World War is over. Every general election from 1945 to 2024 boiled down to Tory versus Labour, with various smaller protest vote options for those unwilling to make the main choice. It was a limited electoral menu, but at least voters got to decide which of the two main parties ran the country.

Now, British politics is non-binary, with multiple parties and even more possible government configurations. That sounds like more choice, but it won’t be — not if governments are effectively chosen in secret negotiations by senior politicians.

This isn’t an argument for electoral reform, because proportional representation doesn’t change the fact that voters are asked to choose between parties and not the various coalitions that could now emerge after their votes are counted. It’s not a different electoral system Britain needs, but instead full disclosure from each party leader about which other parties they’re willing to govern with and what compromises they’re willing to make. Without that information, voters will be left in the dark with limited influence over the process of government formation.

And that’s not even the worst-case scenario. Though cutting out the voters may give party leaders more control over the composition of the next government, it could also allow malign actors to influence the outcome by completely undemocratic means — for instance, through the threat of violent disorder on the streets, or the orchestration of instability on the money markets, or by the exertion of diplomatic pressure by foreign powers.

Much better to conduct the coming era of coalition politics out in the open, both during and well ahead of general election campaigns. There is, of course, a glamour to high-stakes negotiations behind closed doors. Indeed, that’s what a certain kind of politician lives for. They should just be mindful of what else might lurk in a smoke-filled room.

---

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

peterfranklin_

---