Claire’s Accessories goes under - blaming Rachel Reeves for the 1,300 jobs lost

[ProudAmberTurtle]

Claire’s Accessories has just gone bust - and over 1,300 people have lost their jobs.

I know it’s overpriced plastic and the piercing guns were always a bit controversial, but it’s been a total rite of passage for many girls. First earrings, birthday parties and that excitement of spending their pocket money on some glittery rubbish... it feels like another bit of childhood nostalgia is being wiped out.

But what’s really grating is why. According to the owner, the final nail in the coffin was the massive hike in National Insurance contributions from Rachel Reeves. It wasn't the only factor obviously - the high street is doing very badly, but it was the decisive factor.

How can a business that relies on young, part-time staff survive when their overheads have just been hiked through the roof? It’s not just the big brands; it’s the independent shops too. We’re going to be left with nothing but vape shops and empty units at this rate.

There was a report yesterday that Starmer will sack Reeves if the local elections go badly for him. Why can't they both go whatever the result?

I don't approve of the staff blaming, but everything else in the post was right. Their business model was on the way out well before Starmer ever got anywhere near Downing Street. You can't keep a defunct business open just to avoid job losses. Claire's, a purveyor of cheap Chinese tat at expensive prices, is not the hook to try and hang the save our high street crisis on.

Hilarious 😂

It's not me that said it - it's the people who were running the brand.

It's even mentioned in the opening of the BBC story about it closing down.

If your margins are so tight that you can't afford to pay bottom-level wages, your business model's broken.

The writing's been on the wall for Claire's for ages; they weren't adjusting their model for the changing marketplace. That's what people are pointing out.

I'm sad about the demise of The Original Factory Shop (TOFS) for similar reasons. They issued a grown-up statement about the causes, rather than trying to blame a small, foreseeable increase in staffing costs.

Claire’s was always a tacky chain store that sells disposable crap to kids with pocket money to spend. Sorry for the people who have lost jobs but it’s not like they were a cultural institution. I spent a lot more money to get my DDs ears pierced at a local reputable piercer - that’s actually supporting a local business.

People will excuse policy and say businesses aren’t viable as costs go up, as they do those threads where posters stress their young adult dc can’t get work will also go up.

OP do you think the people who were running Claire's and failed to keep it viable might have some incentive for blaming outside factors they couldn't change, rather than the discussion being about things they maybe could have done more about?

Dan Hodges, yes he is a reliable source.

This

It was widely reported this weekend.

There are a few people on Mumsnet who I think are going to be a little bit surprised next Friday when they discover the Labour Party aren't as popular as they want them to be - and the state of the economy is at the heart of that.

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-final-roll-dice-save-premiership

People will still buy Chinese tat just via Temu and all that goes with it, plus fewer jobs here.

Very true. The fact remains that selling cheap stuff on the high street is unwise now we can individually buy the same stuff, from the same suppliers, at the same prices the retailers are paying.

It hasn't just gone bust. It went into administration last August. If the NI raises tipped it over the edge so quickly it was already on its arse.

GB news, another reliable source...

That is a bit patronising.

I don't think anyone who posts here on the Politics board isn't aware that May 7 will be a bloodbath for Labour. And the Tories, to a lesser extent, by the looks of things.

They will indeed, which is why the poster was correct that the business has clearly been going under for a long time and therefore the jobs simply couldn't be saved. You don't have to think this is a good thing to understand that it's true.

Obviously extra business costs make it harder to survive. There’s a lot of this from the retail sector, Labour won’t hear it.

Whatever people think of the actual items most people don’t want it to get harder for their dc to find work in the summer or permanently.

I thought the government were going to add taxes to the Chinese companies that sell the cheap tat to us for under £135. Obviously another thing they haven’t bothered to do

We are not going to be in the slightest bit surprised. We know what’s going to happen.

It’s nothing to do with the moral high ground though, is it?

It’s pointing out quite rightly the reason it failed.

that and their impossible to navigate offers such as buy 4 get 4 free

The duty exemption of <£135 is so that people don’t have to pay import duty when sending non business presents, gifts, supplies etc between families friends or even small businesses internationally.

it applies to everyone and I don’t think you’d want it removed. It would have impacts to the whole economy.

Sure, that's true but a separate point that doesn't negate the one you were disagreeing with.

On Claire's specifically, I wonder if part of their existential problem that existed long, long before Labour got in was they were neither one thing nor another. For people who want quality and care at all about the environment, obviously the fact that they primarily flog Chinese crap is unattractive. Vice were writing about this years ago.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-rise-and-fall-of-claires-accessories/

And even on the physical high street alone, Primark do the same thing much cheaper.

But obviously if the ship went down on your watch, it's more convenient to blame the government than it is to say well we flogged Temu quality shit at overly ambitious high street prices so naturally nobody wanted it.

Even more hilarious 😂😂

It won’t just be CA but generally a harder more expensive business environment will take out the more at risk first.

The alternative is to make it easier for businesses to survive and grow, for young people to get work. I don’t think anyone would care that much that it’s overpriced tat if it means their dc is sitting at home instead of working. Not just CA but any job.

Look at the threads on here, it’s hard already and stressful for young people / parents worried about them. Not listening to the retail sector is causing job losses, that doesn’t help anyone.

This thread is just about CA though, so that's what people are focusing on.

I do share your concerns about the high street, but reiterate that they're not the example we want for this argument. It would be better made without tying it to an organisation that sold a lot of unnecessary Chinese made stuff and did it much more expensively than retail with a lower emphasis on internet ordering like Primark.