Jobs threat is reality of supermarkets

I WONDER if David Cameron realises what a frightening message he provides when welcoming Asda’s plans for a £500m expansion (Yorkshire Post, January 23). Does he realise what the net loss of jobs might be?

He is pleased that this expansion will create 5,000 jobs. This does not take into account the number of jobs and businesses which will be destroyed by Asda’s expansion. Superstores, of course, thrive because they operate on economies of scale and central purchasing which are not available to other shops.

About 12 years ago, a research organisation called the National Retail Planning Forum – financed by Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Boots and John Lewis – published a report on the superstore’s impact on employment. This found:

n Strong evidence that new out-of-centre superstores have a negative net impact on retail employment up to 15 km away;

n The 93 stores the Forum studied were responsible for the net loss of 25,685 employees;

n Every time a new supermarket opened, 276 people lost their jobs;

n The New Economic Foundation has calculated that every £50,000 spent in small local shops creates one job, but you need to spend £250,000 in superstores for the same result.

The trouble with the Conservative Party is that they are not so much the party of business, but the party of big business.

From: David Quarrie, Lynden Way, Holgate, York.

ASDA has announced plans to build 25 new superstores and open three new distribution depots, and yes, this is better news than shops closing or firms going out of business, but it is hardly the wonderful news for the UK economy that PM David Cameron is crowing about (Yorkshire Post, January 23).

It might generate 5,000 new jobs, but what this country needs is new manufacturing businesses. We need firms that can make the machines that make parts in engineering works, car plants, shipbuilding, locomotive, wagon and carriage manufacturing, heavy industry, long term apprenticeships, exporters of quality goods, in the same superb way that Germany does all these things and much more.

From: John and Carole Burgess, Holmfirth.

WE have read with interest the article (Yorkshire Post, January 24) on the subject of the proposed Tesco store for Holmfirth.

Last of the Summer Wine days are now over and we believe “moving forward” should be the words now used.

In our opinion the proposed Midlothian site, away from the town centre, is the only viable location for a Tesco store. We welcome this proposal and, probably like many others, would also welcome the increased variety, value for money and much needed job creation that Tesco has to offer.

From: Tim Radcliffe, Radcliffe Machinery, Binn Brow, Binns Lane, Holmfirth.

I FIND it slightly amusing the Keep Holmfirth Special drop into metric units of measurement when voicing their opposition to the proposed Holmfirth development which the majority of residents within the valley strongly support.

I suppose that 1km sounds further than three quarters of a mile. Strange that in 2009 KHS were formed and called Holmfirth Against Tesco, strange also that they suddenly performed a U–turn in their opposition to any supermarket development in the valley and came out in support of Lidl, a German company.

Furthermore, the assertion that a Tesco in the Holme Valley would drain the lifeblood from the town is utter nonsense, it would revitalise a declining town and bring some much needed prosperity.

My view and that of most of the residents is “Get on with it Tesco”.

The Last of the Summer Wine is over and we need to be looking to the future rather than living in some kind of cosy past.

Benefits for every child?

From: Bob Swallow, Townhead Avenue, Settle.

I HAVE a deal of sympathy with the proposal to limit the cap to £26,000 per annum per family (Norman Fowler, Yorkshire Post, January 25). It is more than my wife and I receive together as pensioners, despite working in my case for just short of 50 years and a little less for my wife.

However, I feel that this is really just scratching at the problem. Surely it is time our masters looked deeper into the benefit culture. There is a significant section of our community which appears to produce children solely to claim more benefit and possibly need a larger property to house them. Perhaps the time has come to say, “after two children you will not receive any further benefit in this respect”.

Now let me be clear, I am not suggesting this retrospectively rather after a period of time when people have had time to assimilate the implications, let’s say for example 18 months. After that date any child born above that threshold would not receive benefit. The choice would therefore rest with individual families.

From: Mrs V Mood, Hodge Lane, Little Smeaton.

ONCE again “common sense” seems to be a thing of the past, and once again the Church of England has spoken up about a subject that is not really within their jurisdiction.

If they would only stand up and preach about morality or the lack of it in society today! I would dearly have loved to have had another child but my husband and I made the decision not to increase our family because we did not think we could afford to. As simple as that.

From: BJ Cussons, Curly Hill, Ilkley.

SHOULD a bishop’s job be to encourage people to produce families they cannot afford to proved for – or to discourage them? Should a bishop’s job be to encourage single parenthood – or to discourage it?

It seems wrong to use money that other people need – people who have worked hard in life but have had bad health or bad luck – in order to support people who have made selfish and ill considered choices.

Is the Church the right body to dictate how public money is spent?