Supermarket Monopoly

The Competition Commission (CC) is expected to back a controversial move that will increase the number of supermarkets and encourage huge new superstores on the edge of towns. This is not in the interest of communities, but the supermarkets alone. The move of any business out of the town to a position almost in the countryside means traffic congestion problems do not arise. Until the business attracts more traffic. The provision of a supermarket or two or three... will encourage new suburbs outside the town to be constructed and so in perpetuity, the supermarkets grow and perversely, but almost certainly by design, control the growth of the towns. Growth. But the complete decimation of a town. And so the old town gets rebuilt and 'creates' wealth through the new build. Really perverse is the eventual 'inside out' movement of communities. Originally, houses and residents lived towards the edge of town and businesses were placed centrally to serve the community. The new plan is the other way around: communities grow in the town centre to 'serve' the interest of the businesses that 'grow' on the edge of the town. As the town perimeter is extended away from its centre, the separation of a community will demand that a second supermarket diametrically opposite to the first will be built. Then a third (all three ultimately at the points of a triangle). The test of forward planning would be the first two would cover an area that encompasses only two of the three points of a triangle. The third would then complete the triangle.

• Who knows, really forward planning could even produce four outlets forming a square totally ensnaring the community (DA).

Hazel Blears (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) insists that the needs test, where councils assess the need for a supermarket against local requirements and population levels, should be dropped. That is quite in line with a simple prediction that since the communities will be driven out of town, then there is no need to assess the non-existent requirement, but behave yourself and as your reward Hazel Blears will be on your side. One supermarket is 'needed' for every 50,000 people. And somehow local business does not seem to feature in the equation. It has to be a supermarket. A rule at some time and by some (presumably) government department (Communities and Local Government probably) has been created that defines this ratio.

Incidentally, this Secretary of State used to be Ruth Kelly, now Secretary of State for Transport.

It's so predictable by its simplicity. Nothing complicated, so nothing to be seen until the overall long term plan has just... materialised.

Then, of course, there is the regeneration of the destroyed towns. Flatten and rebuild. Money (growth) to be made by both activities. Again it's so simple to predict the plan. And the community will disappear. It's a very perverse and highly peculiar logic, yet it has logic. As long as you are not a consumer. Then it's like a football being kicked around.

Nothing in, nothing out

The concept of growth is synonymous with interest on a loan. Perversely, it doesn't go anywhere or improve life standards. The illusion is that growth is the answer to everything, but like any crop that grows nutrients, something must be supplied by the land. The crop is, in fact, like a parasite. It grows at the expense of the host.

More buildings.

Perverse: wonderfully twisted (and over-used) word.