Liberal Eye

We all know that British supermarkets are highly competitive and give outstanding value for money.  And how do we know?  We know because they told us so.

If you smell a rat you are right.

What we actually have are 4 near-identikit firms who maintain an illusion of competition but actually have no real interest in duffing each other up and every interest in maintaining a system that suits them just fine.  What they actually do is to use their size and power to roll over and squelch any upstart competition that emerges so ensuring that real competition is minimised and that they are left with free reign to beat up their suppliers and achieve ever greater margins.

As Cheshire dairy farmer Ray Brown told the BBC:

“If you [the farmer] are lucky you get 26-27 pence per litre, it’s the same price as we were getting 11 years ago.

 

“Supermarkets have a big score to settle there. The consumer then was paying 40 pence per litre, currently they are paying 57-58 pence.”

 

He’s absolutely right.  This means that consumers are being overcharged by a minimum 45% by the supposedly ‘competitive’ supermarkets (and that’s only using the reference point of 11 years ago).  Could there be any clearer evidence of market failure?  Could there be any clearer justification for a strong anti-monopoly response from Govt?

I think hard-pressed families (and farmers!) deserve some answers and some action.

In this context the publication yesterday of the latest investigation by the Competition Commission is yet another depressing example of the utter uselessness of the established system of regulation (see also Northern Rock etc).   Predictably, and in line with established form, the results will not worry the supermarkets.  Not that they actually wrote it as such but they do seem (as David Boyle suggested recently in this excellent piece on monopoly) to have successfully framed the issues in ways that play right into their hands.  It’s appears that in the rose-tinted World of the Competition Commission the supermarkets are basically virtuous and hence deserving of all possible support—which they are naturally pleased to give with just the lightest possible rap on the knuckles.

For instance a principle plank of the CC’s proposals is that planning applications for new stores or store extensions should be made subject to a ‘competition test’.  At first this seems reasonable until you stop to think that using Planning to address a Competition issue is basically barmy.  Moreover, it does nothing to address established local abuses—for instance Tescopoly reports that Tesco is the dominant retailer in 67% of postcode areas and has a greater than 50% market share in 5 areas.  (In contrast note that the CC had earlier concluded that over market shares of over 8% lead to abuse).

Another main plank of the CC’s proposals is that a supermarket ombudsman be appointed to oversee and where necessary enforce a stronger code of practice for dealing with suppliers.  Predictably the supermarkets are engaging in heavy breathing and talking ominously of costs of “hundreds of millions … which could be passed on to the consumer”.  To say this is a bit rich in view of their soaring margins on for instance milk is an understatement.

Actually, I too am opposed to the idea of a revised code of practice but for a very different reason.  It’s an administrative solution for a problem that requires a market solution and as such it simply won’t work for its intended purpose—although it might well provide lots of new civil service jobs!

David Boyle is absolutely right—Lib Dems should make this issue their own.

One of the curious features of the sub-prime crisis is why no-one in authority seems to have spotted what was going on and stopped it before it got out of hand.   After all, it doesn’t take a financial genius to realize that something is wrong when loans are made with complete disregard for ability to pay - hence the description of some borrowers as “NINJAs” (No Income, No Job, No Assets) - coupled with widespread evidence of predatory lending practices ranging from gross misrepresentation to illegal kickbacks.

Whether the primary motivation is consumer protection or regulating the financial system the answer has to be the same: this is dangerous, possibly even criminal.

Now it turns out in an article written by Eliot Spitzer shortly before the events that cost him his job as Governor of New York State that the growing sub-prime scandal was spotted in good time.  In fact the authorities in all 50 states took action to curb predatory lending ranging from litigation to legislation but unbelievably were prevented from doing anything by the Bush Administration.

Indeed the Bush Administration went so far as to promulgate new rules based on old legislation enacted for an entirely different purpose to prevent states enforcing their own existing consumer protection against national banks despite determined opposition from state authorities.

In the final analysis government must be a deeply moral activity; amongst other things, it must protect the weak and not allow itself to become a tool of the rich and powerful.  Without a moral compass it will loose whatever mandate it might have started with AND will also screw things up for everyone - including the rich and powerful.