Boris Johnson and his fiancee, Carrie Symonds, have spent an estimated £200,000 from who is aware of the place renovating their official flat in an effort to keep away from the disgrace of being upper-class individuals with middle-class furnishings. It’s not stunning that their – and in accordance with Tatler magazine their guests’ – distaste for Theresa May’s “John Lewis furniture nightmare” appears to have attracted simply as a lot consideration because the questions over how Johnson may need paid for it.
John Lewis, like all class signifiers in Britain’s neurotic social minefield, means greater than only a identify: it means respectability and, by extension, middle-class acceptance. Although it’s been round for ever – it first opened in 1864 – within the final 20 years the brand has taken on ever higher social cachet. Its recentish progress mirrored New Labour’s aggressively middle-class aspirations, and the concept the way in which to “rescue” declining excessive streets was successfully to cost working-class individuals out of utilizing them.
For cities and cities that lacked a department, getting a John Lewis felt like greater than an important shot at financial regeneration: it was a approach of saying that the place mattered. Its latest historical past factors to its standing as a boom-time retailer, related to the increasing homeownership and booming fairness of the 2000s. Between 2008 and 2020, the company opened greater than 20 new shops and, previous to the pandemic, deliberate to open much more.
But there was one thing subtler and extra insidious happening in parallel. John Lewis’s relentless emphasis on understated “good taste” and “quality” – to not point out the piety of its profit-sharing partnership mannequin – was made for an period by which class markers, removed from dissolving amid mass affluence, have been solely turning into extra entrenched. The laughable concept that “everyone” went to John Lewis – inform that to my whole prolonged household – was cemented by the chain’s extravagant, Brown- and Cameron-era Christmas adverts, but it surely was by no means the case in actuality.
Having a John Lewis in your excessive avenue meant one thing greater than “footfall” and “average spend”: it meant middle-class – dominant class – credibility. Indeed, the success of this technique appeared to insulate the company towards the broader collapse of department shops after the 2008 monetary crash. But just for so lengthy. The John Lewis Partnership, which only some years in the past appeared to be on a ceaseless upward trajectory, reported losses of £517m for 2020 and has introduced the closure of 16 shops – a few third of its whole property – since July 2020.
In 2015, a brand new purchasing centre, Grand Central, was opened at Birmingham’s refurbished New Street station, with an enormous John Lewis costing £35m as its “anchor” retailer. Whether Birmingham wanted one other division retailer is one other matter: it was actually throughout the street from an unlimited Debenhams – like BHS, quickly to vanish from our excessive streets – and the gimmicky, New Labour-era Selfridges building.
Last summer season, when it was introduced that the shop would shut completely after the primary lockdown, the West Midlands Tory metro mayor, Andy Street – whose earlier job was truly working John Lewis as its MD – declared that to shut one of the chain’s largest shops was “a dreadful mistake” and that John Lewis wanted to take care of a presence within the massive regional cities.
That the second largest metropolis within the UK couldn’t maintain its personal department of John Lewis appears important in itself, till you take into account Birmingham’s demographics: nearly half of the town’s inhabitants is underneath 30, with an total unemployment rate of 9.8% and – because the Observer reported late final year, extra employees on furlough than some other native authority within the UK.
The reality is that John Lewis by no means had an opportunity in a metropolis that’s disproportionately younger, poor and weighted in the direction of individuals renting out of necessity somewhat than selection. It couldn’t have picked a worse time or place to attempt to set up itself. By distinction, on the top of the prolonged credit score growth in 2001, it opened a department in close by Solihull – far richer, a lot older and loads whiter – which stays open.
On listening to the announcement that the Birmingham retailer was to shut, native Reddit customers started to take a position on what they wished to see fill the cavernous constructing after John Lewis’s departure, and the listing returned a plangent – and unmistakably Brummie – assertion of working-class issues and budgetary choices: Ikea, B&M, Wilko, Wickes. These are exactly the sort of shops that regeneration-by-retail consultants don’t need to see extra of within the metropolis centre, irrespective of how helpful they’re.
To Birmingham, then, having a John Lewis was an announcement of confidence in a metropolis that doesn’t have loads of confidence to spare. Relying on a division retailer to spice up your picture, in an period when department shops are on their approach out, isn’t going to repair that. The period of cities and city centres counting on particular shops and types as an “anchor” for regeneration is over.
Places similar to Preston realised this a very long time in the past, and it must be a supply of embarrassment to Birmingham’s leaders that they haven’t but caught up. The much-heralded Preston mannequin – the place metropolis councils look to native companies and foundational companies, somewhat than massive names, to anchor their economies – happened exactly as a result of of the failure of what we would name the John Lewis mannequin.
The Lancashire metropolis spent a lot of the 2000s attempting to get an unlimited purchasing centre, Tithebarn, off the bottom with the event behemoths Lendlease and Grosvenor as backers and – sure – a brand new John Lewis as its important attraction. When the 2008 crash put paid to the whole project, Preston was compelled to return to sq. one and ask what its residents truly wanted, somewhat than what they have been instructed they need to need. And – as was the case at Downing Street – generic, overpriced furnishings wasn’t on the listing.