Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TJHaines May 30 2012, 11:45 AM

"There are currently 15 Tesco stores within a 16 mile radius of Newbury town centre."

Nearly 1 Tescos per mile around Newbury seems pretty ridiculous if you ask me! It'd be nice to see some cheaper shops open up in the area, although I'm sure the Pub mentioned in the article could be converted into something much better and more worth while than a Tesco Express!

I've heard in the past that Tescos have just bought land to stop other Supermarkets buying it. I have nothing against Tescos, and quite like the one along the main road (saves all the hustle and bustle at the retail park, and is much closer to home) but don't think we need so many in the area.

What are all your thoughts on this?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2012, 11:58 AM

I agree that is seems an unhealthy 'monopoly'.

Posted by: Roger T May 30 2012, 12:06 PM

I agree. Too many Tesco's.
In this case, I feel every little does not help.

Perhaps we might want a Sainsburys. Or an Asda. Just not Morrisions. They will always be "northern" to me.
I miss the days in the 90's. Waitrose, when Somerfield, was a much nicer shop. I remember a relative working in there (not the Nephew) but have since grown apart.

Posted by: On the edge May 30 2012, 12:09 PM

They are beginning to look and feel like the Co-op back in the 50's. Do everything, are everywhere and give you a 'dividend' if you are a member(Club points). When does the Funeral Department open?

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 30 2012, 12:59 PM

You soft southern b'stard!

There was a Morrisons where I used to live. Knocked spots off the Tesco & Asda. Had a great bakery & deli and a much better range of fresh ready meals & pizza's etc.

Nowt wrong wi' Morrisons ah tell thee!

Posted by: Nothing Much May 30 2012, 01:10 PM

I have never been fond of Morrisons, but they do have an impressive fish counter.
The meat displays look like they have used a chain saw.
ce

Posted by: Roger T May 30 2012, 01:25 PM

Morrisons in Reading I find reminds me of Lidl. Just with yellow instead of blue. They have nice fish but unfortunately I agree with NothingMuch about the meat. I'm sure it's delicious when cooked in a wholesome broth, but the sight of it is enough to ruin anyones appetite.
Not that of Mrs T though. She piled as much as she could carry into the trolley.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 30 2012, 01:35 PM

Talking about Yellow.RogerT. Shopping can be a hazard. Supermarkets change the aisles every so often.
The empty quarter north of Oman/Yemen springs to mind.

Now they have changed Marmite for the jubilee.Called It Maamite.The familiar yellow top has gone.
I had an elderly moment and asked for help. I aint stoopid. but I was foxed.
ce

Posted by: Roger T May 30 2012, 01:40 PM

I agree.
Why is there a need to move items around, so frequently. One minute, Frozen Peas, the next, packets of instant rice. I became bamboozled rather rapidly.
We should go food shopping together. I imagine it would be quite the experience.
Be thankful we are not in the colder continents. I remember they banned Marmite from sale. People import it now, from the UK or similar.

It's become the hushed spread for the masses.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. May 30 2012, 03:42 PM

It's a direct manipulative ploy. They realised that after shopping in a supermarket for a little while customers had themselves a kind of 'route' they would follow through the store. Thus missing many products. This is no good to multi-national corporate giants. So they deliberately move things about instore so that you have to go looking for it and thus will now be walking past other items they want to sell you and which you either did not go in for, or didn't realise you needed. Kerching!



Denmark did not actually 'ban' Marmite. But because of the number of additives it has, the Danes felt you would be better off getting them from say fresh fruit (or whatever) so they stuck it on their 'unauthorised' list, which basically means you pays your money and takes your chances.


Since there are no Marmite factories in Denmark and never have been, it's always had to be imported.

Posted by: Roger T May 30 2012, 04:01 PM

Privately, I meant. On Ebay and such. Rather than chains of Irma.

Posted by: GMR May 30 2012, 04:02 PM

Doesn't Tesco's also own OneStop?

Posted by: Penelope May 30 2012, 04:14 PM

As far as I know, one stop is C store group of independent owners with a buying office in Walsall. Bit like the Miss fascia.

Posted by: Penelope May 30 2012, 04:15 PM

Calm auto correct. Nisa.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2012, 05:32 PM

I don't understand the hostility that Tesco attracts. I must have missed it - where are they opening a new shop?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2012, 06:02 PM

A former pub in Burghfield.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/plan-to-turn-burghfield-pub-into-supermarket-granted


I think the hostility is borne out of the effect they have on local community enterprise. Also, they seem to be hoovering-up spare land capacity all over place. One day it is feared they will be able to name their price due to the lack of competition.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2012, 06:18 PM

By "local community enterprise" do you mean small independent food retailers? Times have changed. Tesco are successful because they constantly adapt to give shoppers what they want - people chose to shop there in preference to other places, and there are plenty of other places to shop in Newbury.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2012, 06:37 PM

Tesco are also popular because they can afford to have 'failing stores' and product lines. What your 'support' doesn't illustrate is the effect a successful supermarket chain has on farming and quality of goods, viz, the populations health and environmental sustainability.

Posted by: user23 May 30 2012, 08:11 PM

On one hand it's little strange that we don't have an Asda or Morrisons however I'm sure they must have entire departments devoted to evaluating whether it would be profitable to open a new store in a specific area who must have deemed that it's not.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2012, 09:31 PM

I think Royce Longton's reasoning is questionable. He says it's s tragedy the pub closed, but it closed because it's a siht hole and no one went there, and he says a Tesco will rob trade from the postoffice and general store, but if people want to shop at Tesco in preference then that's not really any of Royce Longton's concern is it, and shouldn't the postoffice and general stores just up their game? Anywho, WBC's decision to refuse planning for no good reason has cost the tax-payer a fair few quid on the developer's successful appeal.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2012, 09:37 PM

You are focusing on one aspect. You have to also question the wider impact of a Tesco becoming a new 'Skynews'. I know that isn't WBC's concern, but someone has to take this into account.

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is good for the prosperity of everyone.


If counicls just say yes to everything, then we may as well do away with them. It is incumbent on councillors to speak for their environment. Has there been an active petition for a Tesco in Burghfield.

Posted by: Roger T May 30 2012, 10:30 PM

Despite your best efforts, I still did not understand what you tried to say.
I am sorry.
Truly.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2012, 10:42 PM

But councillors can't decide planning decisions on their arbitrary subjective judgement, they have to weight the decision against planning policy guidance, development plans, and planning legislation. There is a statutory presumption in favour of sustainable development and the development was objectively sustainable, and this is why planning permission was granted on appeal at considerable cost to the tax-payer. By all means let elected local government write the local development plans but let's do away with unqualified amatures making planning decisions and leave it to apolitical professional planning officers.

Posted by: Strafin May 30 2012, 10:47 PM

I used to be a councillor.....

When attending a planning meeting, there will be numerous applications, normally with the associated paperwork posted up on the walls for everyone to look at. A planning officer or "expert" will talk through each application, from a legal standpoint and make a recommendation. The councillors then ask questions about whether or not certain objections are likely to stand up, evaluate any opinions from the public and then vote. It is quite a good process in my experience.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2012, 10:54 PM

Planning permission is granted for the site, not the applicant, so the fact that Tesco was interested in the site can't legitimately have influenced the decision.

But I take your point, there is a social and environmental dimension to how we shop, though it's bigger than just Tesco. Ideologically I'd like to believe that the free market should be allowed to regulate itself without any anti-competative monopoly legislation. It's not in the interests of the supermarket buyer to drive the price below that at which the supplier can afford to sell, the supermarket needs to buy next year as well as this year and if they break the supplier where do they buy from?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2012, 10:58 PM

I don't see what councillors bring to the party. Couldn't the whole process be done more effectively by professional planners?

Posted by: Strafin May 30 2012, 11:16 PM

I don't believe a professional planner would take feelings from the community into account. They wouldn't necessarily take into account any objections either. Plus a lot of planning decisions are based on opinion, such as something being "in keeping" with the area.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2012, 11:33 PM

Do you think it was a decision against Tesco, or any supermarket chain?


you said 'ideologically, but do you think it is possibly a naive concept? I'd prefer a 'freeish' market. The problem with corporations is that they can get two big and powerful; as a political power, as well as a commercial one.


A subordinate manager eager to impress his boss for a reletive short term gain will not be too bothered about next year. And that is a part of the problem. Supermarkets offer some food that is simply not set at a sustainable price. Hence why we complain when the price of food goes through the roof.

On a more ecological/philosophical point. I think the ease we can get and buy food is a part of an insidious problem we have with gluttony, sustainable food supply, poor diet, and food waste.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2012, 11:37 PM

I read 'cheaper'. Provided the councillors' concerns are genuine, I feel it is a part of the apparent democratic process. Big businesses (the suits, the bean counters, the vulture capitalists) have little conscience.

Posted by: blackdog May 30 2012, 11:59 PM

So why not let the pubco know that they are not going to get megabucks for the site and give them the incentive to put in a decent landlord and make it a good pub that people would go to.

Posted by: On the edge May 31 2012, 05:40 AM

I suppose the key issue is that the planning application and Tesco have become inextricably liked. Seems to me if it was 'Miggins Grocery' putting in the application there woulde be no major issue (save those who think motheaten pubs are historic monuments!)

The free market point is why people are concerned about Tesco. It is not a free market, they are part of an oligopoly which does manipulate and control the market. At long last there is talk that a Regulator is to be appointed.

However,don't hold your breath - Regulators haven't worked well in Railways or Water! We have to make our minds up - do we want the Amerckian capitalist model - the horse race, or the European one - a marathon. Miost of the comments here its the latter.

That would need an effective regulatory framework and further an effective and working Competition Commission.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 31 2012, 07:13 AM

I'm admitting a weakness in my argument. Ideology can be a helpful guide but sometimes free market ecconomics might not always be best, but that doesn't make socialist big state interventionism a better ideology.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 31 2012, 07:21 AM

Why not let the free market decide on the best use of the site within the constraints of the development plan?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 31 2012, 07:31 AM

I'm not convinced. If small agricultural producers can't get an ecconomic price for their produce then they need to improve their efficiency, increase their leverage, or fold their business - why should agri-business be any different from any other business.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 31 2012, 10:35 AM

Some might argue a lack of interventionism is what has put us in the economic situation that we now find ourselves. I also don't think it is a matter of an idealogical pendulum swinging from one extreme, to another. To reject a total free market idea, isn't promoting socialism. I see a balance of the two is better.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 31 2012, 10:36 AM

Correct, and that is what is happening.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 31 2012, 11:30 AM

Is it? And is it a problem?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 31 2012, 11:43 AM

It is only anecdotal, but I watch the Sunday farm program, and it frequently shows farms closing under cost pressure, and now councils are selling their farm land as well. A good thing or a bad thing ...


... depends on the criteria for 'a problem'. Sustainability, ecology, animal welfare, etc.

I believe agri-business has value that is not apparent, mainly in its effect on the ecosystem. Notwithstanding what I already said about the effect of cheap food.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 31 2012, 12:04 PM

Or just a thing?


Yes, I agree here, agri-business shapes the landscape, and if we want to preserve a particular look to that landscape then we need to pay for that, and to some degree that now happens. But like any business, if a farm can't turn a profit it folds, and if supermarkets can't source produce they have to pay more - supply and demand. Would you go back to butter mountains and milk lakes?

However, I agree that there are sustainability, environmental, and food security issues with importing so much food that can be produced more cheaply abroad, though that's hardly a consequence of supermarketization as it was already happening early last century.

Posted by: On the edge May 31 2012, 01:35 PM

No intervention al all is pure Adam Smith of course - absolutely right! However, political meddling is actually damaging fair markets and so there is an argument that intervention is right but only if it represents a 'missing or damaged' participant. UK Bacon producers who are obliged to implement UK animal welfare rules haven't a chance of competing with Continental imports which don't. Arguably, HMG should intervean to stop buyers in UK industry purchasing dead stock which had not been reared against our strict rules.

So much for the EU making trade fair. OK, consumers can use their power - but like it or not, the mass food market is driven by price. Again, we need to decide if we are going to 'regulate' to secure a fair markets - where competitive forces are distorted, or just let things rip. Doing the latter means you end with a monopoly.

Might not be as bad as all that - but even the most free state in terms of markets - the US has some regulation. For instance, the Anti Trust legislation means that there is more than just Esso in the oil industry. In UK, ironically, the trader everyone thought was the predatory monopolist - the Co-operative, went into reverse without any intervention. So, those worried about Tesco might take comfort. Where will they be in the future. In the meantime, enjoy the low prices!