 |
 Navigation |
| Choice 2 |
HomepageRobert Golden
Last year there was a debate over the question of allowing several more supermarket chains to open in and around town. Many argued that it was an already proven way to gut a town of locally owned shops, of turning the wealth of the town into the wealth of distantly owned corporations and of reducing our tax base. The counter argument was that we must be allowed a CHOICE where to shop.
That meant and continues to mean that while one may now purchase the same dog food, crisps and frozen chips at four and soon to be five supermarkets in and around town it has also meant that our South Street fish shop owned by our neighbour and run by skilled people has been driven out of business. His local taxes which support our schools, infrastructure and services will not be replaced by the corporations who pay taxes elsewhere; his skills will not be replaced by the semi-skilled workers hired for woeful wages by the corporations, and his business will probably be replaced by another real estate agent or charity shop.
This is the true meaning and consequence of this kind of choice and our politicians, including our MP know this. We may ask why do they encourage the death of their own town, why do they capitulate to the corporations, why do they not provide leadership and wisdom?
It is lamentable that the answer is not to be found in a shared humanity and caring for their neighbours but rather in the irrationality of so-called rational economic preoccupations which offer jobs, business and wealth but deliver unemployment, low wages, inequality and an impoverished culture.
It may seem a grand idea but what we are witnessing is the way in which unfettered globalisation, cheered on by our MP and town officials, overwhelms and undermines a distinct local culture. Meanwhile our fish shop of 40 years goes out of business. Although the reasons are complex and largely invisible to most of us, the reality will be an empty shop and an emptier town. So much for 'choice'.
Our communal memory may recall that thirty years ago, before Regan and Thatcher, political decisions were often made by asking 'how does a law, regulation or social policy serve the well being of the population, how do we think of it in terms of morality and ethics, how will equality and democracy be served? But now we have been convinced that all must be about profits and loss, business and accountancy and somehow the rest will care for itself. This amoral way of thinking only serves the corporations. We can see that the increase in wealth has created greater inequality, greater debt and less social cohesion. As we watch the fish shop close it is perhaps time to ask if this illusion we are sold is really serving us. And someone needs to apologise to the owner and workers of the fish shop.
| Back To Top |
| PRINTABLE VIEW | - | TELL A FRIEND | - | ADD TO FAVOURITES |