An economy that removes agency from communities should not be surprised when people disengage from politics. That is why warnings that Labour risks electoral wipe-out unless it improves Britain's high streets, to which I referred yesterday, really matter.
High streets are not simply commercial zones. They are where people experience whether they have any say in shaping the places they live. When they empty out, what disappears is not just shops, but presence, participation and a local voice.
The government's answer is the Pride of Place scheme, which is allocating £5bn of spending across 330 local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland; even though this would appear to abuse the powers of the devolved governments in the last two countries. Let's be clear: that funding acknowledges that something has gone badly wrong. However, local business leaders are already saying that what is missing is not just money, but practical support, and the ability for communities, through their councils, to decide how local economic space is used, the absence of which exposes a number of issues which need to be addressed.
Firstly, the biggest obstacle to community agency on the high street is ownership. When property is held primarily for speculative gain, local people have little influence over whether spaces are used, left empty, or priced beyond local needs. Councils then become supplicants, negotiating with owners who have no stake in community wellbeing. Compulsory purchase orders could change that balance of power. They would allow communities, through democratic institutions, to recover control over places that structure everyday life. Without that, regeneration is always dependent on private permission, and that is never going to be supplied to regenerate our towns and cities in the way now required.
Secondly, public or community ownership would then make it possible to ask a different question, which is not “what is most profitable here?” but “what is most useful?” High-street units could become community centres, locations for advice services, micro-retailers offering affordable essentials, training providers, adult learning hubs, and centres for charities working in circular economy models such as ‘libraries of things' and repair projects. They could also host youth services and small start-ups that are rooted in local needs rather than external investment cycles. These are not marginal activities. They are how people build networks, skills and mutual support. Agency grows when people can act together in such visible, shared spaces, of which there is a decided shortage at present, whilst High Streets stand empty.
Thirdly, these spaces could provide routes into work that are connected to community life rather than detached from it. Paid training, apprenticeships and placements in retail, digital services, maintenance, logistics and community enterprise would allow young people to contribute to, and benefit from, the places they live. Skills matter, but so does belonging. Employment that strengthens local institutions builds both income and attachment, reducing the sense that opportunity only exists elsewhere and the need for a person to leave their locality to find opportunity.
This is why the politics of care cannot be reduced to spending on services after harm has occurred. Care, in economic terms, is about whether people have the means to participate in shaping their futures. When communities lose control over property, training, employment and services, they are turned into passive recipients of policy rather than active agents within it. The consequences are being seen now in our High Street.
What follows is that regeneration cannot be delivered as a centrally managed programme of improvements. It must be built around local decision-making, long-term planning and shared ownership of outcomes. Competitive bidding for short-term funds does not build agency. It encourages councils to chase projects rather than develop coherent local strategies.
There is also a democratic dimension that should not be ignored. When people feel that decisions about their towns are made elsewhere, whether by distant investors, national chains or remote departments, trust in politics erodes, participation declines, and cynicism grows. High Streets then become the physical evidence of political exclusion.
If Labour fails to rise appropriately to this challenge, it will not be because communities are asking for too much. It will be because they will have been unwilling to shift power as well as money. Pride of Place could be an opportunity to do exactly that and to give councils and communities the tools to shape local economic life rather than merely react to its decline. Regeneration, in this sense, is not about restoring consumption. It is about restoring agency, dignity and collective capacity. Without those, no amount of funding will rebuild trust, participation or long-term prosperity.
This article has been co-authored with James Murphy, who worked in local authority planning before joining Funding the Future. He also volunteered with a community charity running a 'Library of Things' whilst at the University of Leeds.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Here in Frome we used to own the Westway Centre, a small precinct of 60’s shops developed by the Urban District Council just before it was abolished.
Then sold off by its successor Mendip District Council (sigh)
Wells Town Council and Bath and North East Somerset Council both have large commercial estates which really makes a lot of sense as it gives Councils some control over economic development and activity in their areas as well as the opportunity to encourage ‘public benefit’ as a for example a business I know has to replace their roof every 20 years and had to do so recently BUT the landlord would not allow them to install solar panels.
Looking at the recent hoo-haa that the hospitality industry is making over business rates and employers NI, Oh Woe is us, oh Woe is us I see no details about what that represents as a percentage of their costs compared with their lease. Again isnt the inflated costs of land and property simply levying a private tax on business that public ownership of ‘commercial’ property could either reduce or capture for the community?
I could not agree more. My biggest fear is that with the anticipated move to larger combined authorities, the issues explored in this blog will only get worse and the arrangements will only entrench market power and agency and indeed even expand it.
Agreed
That seems to be the intention even though it is never mentioned.
The move from the system of committees to the the model of elected mayors or council leaders and cabinets happened to facilitate the corporatisation and democratic weakening of local authorities, giving greater freedom for property developers and similar to do their self-interested best.
All part and parcel with the neoliberal aim of taking power away from the electorate.
Cracks in the systems will provide the opportunities for the Politics of Care. This morning’s posts look at two such cracks. You highlight the more progressive approach taken by the Scottish Government to addressing child poverty.
The Scottish Government have been doing some significant work around Community Wealth Building (CWB) – there is a Bill before parliament – effective delivery will require legislative support. CWB looks to provide a ready made set of practical tools and coordinated approach that an more all embracing Politics of Care will require.
Community Wealth Building is an approach to economic development that aims to stimulate and retain economic activity within the local economy. It’s delivered by ‘anchor’ institutions in public, third and private sectors.
The Scottish approach is built around 5 Pillars.
1. Spending (procurement)
2. Workforce (fare work agenda)
3. Land and Property (community asset transfer)
4. Inclusive ownership (social enterprises and coops)
5. Finance (local retention).
https://spice-spotlight.scot/2025/11/11/an-introduction-to-the-community-wealth-building-scotland-bill/
Thanks
Two thoughts:-
1. The comments about competing for small short term grants is bang on target. The third sector is then under pressure to adapt to the (short-term) priorities of the grant-maker, rather than the grant-maker adapting to the (longer-term) needs of the local community. Been there, refused to do that.
2. When my neighbourhood got one of the Tories last “levelling up” grants, for our local shopping street (a bustling hub in the 60s) the aspect of the project that was, and remains the hardest to get information about, was how it would deal with the commercial realities facing the small local businesses on both sides of the street so that the streetscape might feature more open viable businesses and fewer graffiti covered, permanently closed security barriers. Im still dubious.
James wrote much of this with real feeling.
Robert
I volunteered at the Mind centre in Bridgwater 2010-2014 and the manager spent a lot of time writing bids which expired with no renewal.
The big businesses in our town were often part of a chain and not interested.
A charity can’t be a replacement for the statutory services but they can provide local human contact, which can’t be priced but is very valuable.
Such a vital service to the community needs to be funded on a long term basis.
Much to agree with
A very timely and pertinent post Richard/James. Community ownership of land in town centres takes me back to the ‘dream time’ decades ago when a group of us were producing ideas aimed at Labour – that they eventually turned into the useless ‘Land Commission’.
Its kind of depressing that things have gone so far backwards ( or forwards in neoliberalism terms) – that I was sort of startled to read your suggestions.
As J Boxall says – the ‘vox pop’ kind of reports from pubs and other hospitality places the BBC loves, never ask about other costs – and especially not the lease/rent etc etc
That Commission did good work.