Plenty of choice, all of it dreary: Where it all went wrong for M&S As it's revealed that M&S suffered a sales slump of 3.8 per cent over the Christmas period, Lisa Armstrong examines how the high street giant got into such dire straits. The figures are disappointing, and their leaking only compounds an impression of disarray. Yet Britain's biggest clothing retailer faces a far knottier fashion problem than that prematurely revealed 3.8 per cent fall in general merchandise sales over Christmas. For increasingly, what's in fashion is to say that Marks & Spencer simply isn't. The regular in-store rushes for this season's must-have M&S have been replaced by a sense that the company's sartorial offer is aged, clumsy and well, a bit off. READ: M&S loses £270m in value after dismal Christmas In fairness to its chief executive, Marc Bolland, this is not a new problem. M&S's reputation as the nation's bulwark against tackiness and lowest common denominator taste has been in retreat since the before the start of this century. What a huge loss this is - and not only for M&S's vociferous shareholders. For most of the 20th century, M&S was an exemplar of democratic British style and an upholder of the idea that well -made, decently designed merchandise doesn't have to cost a fortune. It wasn't dirt cheap, but something ultimately much more valuable: a provider of lasting value. Throughout the 80s and a good part of the 90s it held out against the demons of Disneyfied children's wear and the tacky tastes that were rapidly being commodified from the C-list end of the red carpet. But as competition from the rest of the high street grew tougher with bargain basement Primark entering the scene, and those pesky foreign brands such as Zara invaded these shores, M&S lost its nerve, slashing prices (and quality) and dishing out vast quantities of unsophisticated dreck . The dreaded Per Una stands out as the most egregious offender, but in truth the virus spread to all its lines. In fairness, Per Una brought instant salve to its bottom line but did untold harm to its long term credibility as a bastion of understated taste. Even now, there are still beacons of excellence in store. The underwear is hard to beat on the high street for price and innovation and every winter throws up two or three fantastic coats and some of the menswear tailoring and cashmere is good too. But these oases are increasingly isolated in a morass of inferior stock that you can't imagine anyone buying as a first option. As for the many branches that aren't flagships: there is only morass, no beacons. And what's going on with their website? This should be the jewel in their crown. Instead it's a dispiritingly unwieldy clod-hopper; a 21st century, capitalist , virtual version of old Russian department store GUM: plenty of choice, all of it dreary looking. Paradoxically, there's more of a place for M&S in the UK than there ever has been: a store that has the confidence to edit, innovate, isn't afraid to raise the taste bar instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator - and one that champions British manufacturing. It does it with food. So why can't it have the courage to do it with clothes? Surely it doesn't want to hand its entire raison d'etre over to the John Lewis partnership?