@dsquareddigest.bsky.social Just been enjoying your two-parter on regulatory culture. I wonder however if there is an alternative to what you describe - some of what you have been talking about brings to mind some thoughts I’ve had on what I’d call the UK’s “secret superpower”. - ThreadSky

backseatpolicy.bsky.social • 90 days ago

@dsquareddigest.bsky.social Just been enjoying your two-parter on regulatory culture. I wonder however if there is an alternative to what you describe - some of what you have been talking about brings to mind some thoughts I’ve had on what I’d call the UK’s “secret superpower”.

Comments

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

One thing that often stands out about the UK is the extent to which it relies on conventions, be it the unwritten constitution or the system of common law. Many commentators present this as a flaw that needs to be rectified, but I’d argue that it instead acts as the ultimate variety amplifier.

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

The key problem you seem to be orbiting around is that it is almost impossible to precisely articulate what is or isn’t okay without either creating holes in the regulation or inflicting undue burdens on the regulated. However, the joy of the traditional UK system is that it doesn’t need to do this.

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

Rather than sitting and going through a checklist and b*llocking people for doing x, it instead settles on a broad principle (eg money laundering is bad), and then sits down, has an honest conversation between parties, and decides from there what was actually reasonable.

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

Thus, rather than trying to create some explicit regulatory bridge between the two, it instead relies on the fact that (as you say) most of the time both of them have the same purpose, and uses that as the engine for resolving the differences between compliance and enforcement.

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

It can then use the results of this to feed back into strongly advisory, but non-absolute forms of guidance (eg precedents in common law). That way you organically build up your systems in response to the environment and feedback loops, rather than rigid rulebooks.

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

Thus, you get a middle ground between the demands of the regulator (ability to crack down on bad behaviour freely), and the regulated (a decent set of guidelines on how to behave and the knowledge that you will be treated fairly when the rigid system is inevitably flawed).

dsquareddigest.bsky.social•90 days ago

principles based regulation is great when it works, but it needs decent resources and a lot of trust on the industry side, good points

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

I’d argue it also plays into a wider attitude of “focus on what it is you are actually trying to do, rather than fixating on too much on specifics of form (or on the flip side, excessively vague principles that you then debate the ‘true meaning of)”.

backseatpolicy.bsky.social•90 days ago

Certainly that’s always been my read on what POSIWID is meant to communicate at least.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply