There is a pattern that I'm starting to see in the city council that I'm really concerned about. The idea that the economic market should decide who is able to live here and work here, which is the basis of neo-liberalism and a major contributor to the decay of community life and heritage.
The idea that an "invisible hand" would guide a free market to make the best decisions was introduced by Adam Smith and has been used as justification for Tories to strip away public services and banking regulations. I'm never surprised to see it happen in a Conservative administration, but I am surprised to see go by unchallenged in a Labour administration. I would expect to see socialists attempting to buffer vulnerable people from the brutality of the free market, and on the whole Labour have been trying to do that in the face of massive central government cuts. But when officers write reports saying that it's possible to get a bit more money out of people because someone will pay the prices they're proposing, I would expect to see some push back.
That is what has happened recently with the case of the river moorings, and is also happening with the cost of renting market stalls from the council. The officers have presented evidence to suggest that more revenue can be made by squeezing a bit harder, and so far Labour seem willing to go along with it. They ruled out auctioning off mooring licenses, but the proposed price rises would just have the same effect more slowly. I don't really believe that Labour wants to pick on anyone, or wants to force anyone to move out, I think it's more the case that they are too busy and overstretched to see the consequences that price rises would have. I feel confident that they will overturn the river proposals now that CamBoaters have given a very robust communication of their situation at the River Review meeting last Saturday and also in the consultation responses.
But I still fear that the council might agree to put prices up for the market stalls again this year, following a crippling rise in fees that many of them faced last year. I wrote about this, and some of the problems faced by traders, at the time.
Since then, many of the problems have got worse. Evidence of any economic prosperity, or a boom, is nowhere to be seen. This week the market was half empty nearly every day. The stall coverings are still dirty, torn, and leaky. The boards are still worn and unhygienic. People have had nasty accidents tripping on the cobblestones that have become uneven and need to be reset. Traders are still coming into work, and spending time that they have paid for to clean up human faeces and hypodermic needles from their pitches. There is a sign in the antique Victorian toilets downstairs warning traders to beware of needles, the problem is widespread.
The benchmarking exercise that officers undertook to demonstrate that the prices could be increased for the Cambridge market didn't take into account the astonishing disrepair and dangerousness of the facilities. It didn't take into account the lack of convenient parking or promotional efforts. And it didn't propose offering a "cold weather" discount as offered by some other market towns. Some traders here have to pay a surcharge of 5 pounds to trade as casuals, if they want to trade occasionally on different days, even if they are here every week of the year. The adminstration fee for amending licenses is being raised from 25 pounds to 30 pounds, it's the kind of charge that estate agents and banks levy just because they have the power to do so. A trader who occasionally uses a microwave to warm up the 5% of his produce which is savoury is charged a 7 pound "hot food" fee for both of the stalls that he rents. Very unfair and bureaucratic.
Many of the traders are confused about why the council seems to want to kill off the market by the death of a thousand cuts. Residents and nearby business surely don't want this to happen? Cambridge BID has recently commented that it would like the market to run 24/7 but it is not even going to exist in the daytime if it keeps getting milked. People speculate about possible alternative plans for the space - somewhere for Hotpoint dishwashers and BMWs to be demonstrated to high-end customers? Perhaps another suitable space to build houses?
The market needs investment to make it look beautiful and to be a fitting centre for a city like Cambridge. Or if it is kept in service as a slum market then there should be a price freeze or reduction. There should be a consultation about how to do this, and the council should be looking for partners who can contribute to this without privatising it and spoiling it. But it also requires a review of how to treat the traders fairly, treat them as people, and how to keep the local economy strong and vibrant.
Free-market capitalist thinking isn't always a sign of cruelty, sometimes it is just laziness or a lack of inspiration. It has become the default with the help of right-wing media organisations, and it takes effort to prevent it from being ubiquitous. It threatens working class people, minorities, traditional ways of life and beloved heritage institutions. I believe Jeremy Corbyn would stand up against it, and I want Labour to do so locally as well.
Cambridge Past Present and Future gave a presentation at the Festival of Ideas last year called "How to build a better Cambridge" talking about the shameful state of the market which is the centrepiece of our historic city. The way that it is laid out is uninviting, and it's unlikely that many people will be tempted in to browse the goods. The photo on the left illustrates the point - what lies within?
They have been working for years to develop a plan for the market square which also brings the fountain back into use and provides a space for public gatherings and protests, making it more accessible without removing a single stall. They are now working with a local virtual reality developer to communicate their ideas. They also worked with students at the Judge Business School to produce a report which showed that investment in the market would have wider benefits.
"For every £1 spent in the market, customers spend £1.75 in nearby stores." (Source: Research by The Institute of Place Management, Manchester Metropolitan University and National Association of British Market Authorities).
The city council has claimed not to have the money to invest in the market square in the past, but now it is actively looking around for good investments. A report to full council in October said:
"Another major problem for the council is the low level of income from bank balances we
hold. In recent years inflation has often been higher than interest rates, creating a loss in
real value of those balances as well as lower levels of income from them. The recent cut in
interest rates may be followed by a further reduction and there is a risk that interest will be
charged on money held in bank accounts."
Surely the market square is one of the most obvious investments the council should now make? There is no mention of it in the Budget Setting Report for 2017/18 but I believe there is still a chance the investment will come. I think that should happen, along with a consultation with residents and traders who must be allowed to set out their ideas for the future of the market. Perhaps after investment and regeneration there will be a moral and financial argument for raising stallholder fees, not before.
See also, our Green Party film about the market:
https://vimeo.com/199695803
And this petition to the council:
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/invest-in-the-historic-cambridge-market-and-stop-raising-fees
