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 wouldn't underestimate the issues the NI hike has had on businesses. I work for a charity and this hike has impacted us massively. We have seen over half a million pound added to our expenses because of this alone! Whilst I'm not a particular fan of Claire's , I do feel for anyone who has had to face this increase

My mother paid tax on her pensions.

Income tax, not national insurance.

Workers pay income tax and NI, pensioners pay only income tax on what may be a similar or higher gross income.

What two world wars, the Great Depression and 2008 couldn't do, Britain in 2026 is doing...

Denby Pottery (founded 1809). Production ceased after entering administration.
Russell & Bromley (founded 1879). 32 of 35 stores closing, brand sold to Next.

This year's wider casualty list:
Claire's. The Original Factory Shop. LK Bennett. Quiz. Westbridge Furniture. Petplanet. Gandys.

The wider picture...

Creditsafe data shows 3,041 UK businesses entered insolvency in March, a 30% jump in one month. The official England and Wales figure was 2,022, still up on February.

Administrations were 82% higher than a year ago.

Personal insolvencies surged 30% on the year. Debt Relief Orders hit a record high.

Britain is losing 3.4 pubs and restaurants every day.

Company registrations fell 8% in Q1. Closures are now outpacing start-ups.

This isn't a standard recession. Technically we aren't even in one. And a recession ends. This feels more like the slow unwinding of two centuries of British enterprise under the weight of energy costs, taxes, business rates, and a consumer base that has simply run out of money.

Agree.
This is nothing to do with politics or policy but piss poor retail strategy!
You could tell from the ancient branding and product offering that its days were numbered.
They lost touch with their customers; who are preteens now shopping at Sephora and Pandora. Claire’s was stuck in the 90s with too much (crap) product, horrible shopping experience in tiny jam packed stores, with average price points. They should have slashed their product range with a decent core range and beauty, and adopted a more aspirational rebrand. They’ve been lazy and this is why they’ve gone bust.

Easier to blame the politician than the boardroom!

She paid NI whilst she worked and contributed to her teacher's pension. Then paid tax post retirement.

Yes, I know.

The PP to whom you responded would like to see NI and income tax combined into income tax, thus income at a certain level is taxed at
a certain level, whether the source is salary or pension. NI isn’t ring fenced in any meaningful way, so let’s just call it a tax - an income related tax.

Sadly companies are finding every possible way to avoid corporation tax. Tax avoidance by wealthy people is achieved by moving their incomes abroad to places like Dubai.

Successive Chancellors have had to move the tax load somewhere and unfortunately its towards employment.

Ultimately the government work for us. They've squeezed public sector budgets to the point of third world services. They've got to balance the books or we'll go bankrupt like Greece nearly did, but we don't have Germany to bankroll us like Greece did.

Yes the newspapers act like Rachel Reeves is personally responsible for every poor decision that led us to this point, rather than the poor bugger trying to sort it out.

Thankless task that it is, I'd rather have someone in power with the courage to try and sort it out, than one of the populists that got us into this mess.

They say don't believe everything you read. But when it's the Executives of a failed company saying it, I'd say treble that. I don't suppose they mentioned corporation tax avoidance or Executive pay, did they?

I don't really think Claire's Accessories covered themselves in glory with their over priced, cheap tacky plastic tat.

Can't really see why they are complaining.They have had a good run and made a few bob in the process.
Time for the to go

You could get some better stuff in Poundworld..Home Bargains and Superdrug and the much maligned TEMU for a fraction of the price.

.

This isn't a standard recession. Technically we aren't even in one. And a recession ends. This feels more like the slow unwinding of two centuries of British enterprise under the weight of energy costs, taxes, business rates, and a consumer base that has simply run out of money.

Or a consumer base that prefers to shop from their own home using Amazon, Temu and Shein to name a few. Consumer habits have massively changed too. The death of the high street more than hinted at where we were going.

Yep concerning

Yes. She won't have paid NI on any of her income once at state retirement age, while people with lower incomes of working age will have had to pay it. This isn't a matter of opinion, the way NI functions is that it only applies to certain forms of income and at certain ages.

a consumer base that has simply run out of money

It is ironic reading this after the thread I have just been scrolling. There are still plenty of people with plenty of cash to spend, it seems. But they are not spending it in the likes of Claire's.

Yeah, it's terrible giving people a decent wage. Why don't you moan about overpaid bosses?

The optics don't look good, but the reality is that even if the "overpaid bosses" waived all their wages/dividends, etc., that sum spread over hundreds of workers is a trivial sum for each of them. Just work the numbers. Like I say, it never looks good for bosses to be paid hundreds of thousands, but there are so few of them and usually huge numbers of staff, so one divided by the other gives tiny numbers.

I once analysed Tesco's accounts who regularly get slated for high profits/directors wages etc. I divided the total remuneration of the Board by all the staff numbers and it came out at about a pound a week for all the staff!

So it's really not the "gotcha" that people think it is.

Looking at the data in @cricketnut77it might feel
abstract and irrelevant in numbers but it covers jobs. And at the end of that what those jobs pay for in terms of public funding.

It’s not going to go well to see that contraction outlined below. Watch stressed looking for jobs threads go up too, for dc who need work particularly.

My reply was to the point made by several people about how they think the workers could get paid a decent amount only if bosses didn't overpay themselves - I was just pointing out that the numbers don't play out like that.

It's like everyone whingeing about MPs getting subsidised lunches - 600+ MPs getting a few thousand of subsidy for their meals spread over 60+ million people in the UK ends up pennies per person. That's what I mean about the optics not looking good, but the numbers game meaning it's pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

I fully agree with you about the consequences of the lost jobs - even 1 lost job is awful, but we're seeing an epidemic of job losses at the moment which is a tragedy for those directly involved, but also for the wider picture, i.e. more unemployment means less spending in the economy and bigger benefits bill will may drive taxes even higher to pay for it. It's all a mess and nothing is being done to deal with it.

Sorry I actually meant to say I agree with you but missed that out accidentally.

Overall a contraction of businesses is going to impact everyone at some point, even if it’s not felt yet by many.

Which is why we need to grow the economy, increase efficiency, increase GDP etc. None of which looks likely until there is major change. They can't keep hitting businesses when they actually need businesses to grow and increase productivity and profitability to try to get the economy to recover after so many shocks.

The economy is growing, borrowing is down, energy supplies are more secure. Closer ties with the EU.

A King with the same sense of humour as his dear mother.

The long predicted failure of a chain store that sold tat on the high street, predominantly to tweens and early teenagers, is not the measure of a failing economy. Quite the opposite in fact.

but it depends on if that growing economy is going to be using more machines than people etc

Youth unemployment does matter, some might not have dc close to that age range, but getting a job is important.

And borrowing is very high plus debt servicing.

Labour are going to struggle as that contraction below kicks in.

Exactly parent company in the US folded.

Who is to blame for the high borrowing and debt servicing?

As I pointed out earlier, annual UK government borrowing had fallen to a three-year low in the year to March

Do the machines build themselves?