The premises of this thread baffle me on so many levels. For starters it seems to be based on the Chinese model of state capitalism where the town is a money-generating entity in competition with other towns. But I realise that the ethic (and bogus economics) of such competition has fully entered the public sector in this country too now so shouldn't be too surprised.
Another premise I find odd: the idea that the high street needs more people. Very strange thought if you've ever tried to walk down it on a Saturday. Surely what is meant here is it needs the *right kind* of people. That's the subtext I read anyway. Meanwhile what happens to the people already here?
And another odd idea: that chain shops can be a catalyst for something positive, rather than, say, the destruction of locally-run businesses. Yeah, that'd be great for Brixton. The people who own shops now could go and work in the new chain shops for £6.50 an hour. Woo!
Odd idea number four: that the opinions of people who live outside Brixton (and find it scary) should matter over the opinions of people who actually live here (who mostly like it).
Odd idea number five: an implicit assumption that Brixton exists in economic isolation from the rest of London, which if my memory of the map is correct, is actually quite close by. It's ridiculous to talk about the economic revitalisation of Brixton without considering its place in London. Maybe its a bit poor because there are poor people in London. Strange thought. Are these people poor because of lack of 'inward investment' into Brixton? We live in the middle of one of the biggest job-generation centres of the world, mostly easily accessible by public transport. I don't think people are poor because there aren't any jobs around. It's a bit more structural than that. So if your 'inward investment' isn't going to help the poor people, is it just going to drive them out?
And oddest of all: is posting on random bulletin boards what counts as research in local government now? In which case we're fucked
