“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less”
and so on…
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less” >
“Something must be done” >
“We need to regulate less”
and so on…
Comments
The high value rail lines are "high value" precisely because they go straight through protected habitats.
If they routed round the protected habitats then they wouldn't be high value.
Both "too much" and "too little" regulation camps miss the point.
Regulations can be good or bad or neither - key question is whether they serve a useful purpose without undue consequences.
Regulatory change always needs a case-by-case approach.
And another recurring feature is the lack of any concrete detail.
Eternal shadow boxing.
Sometimes this can mean regulating less; other times it means regulating *more*.
Unfortunately, the latter leads to inevitable howls of ‘red tape!’ from the usual quarters, who like to imply all regulation is somehow wrong.
"Oh no! some awful abuse/scandal/accident has occurred and something else must be done" >
"we must regulate to prevent it and never be so foolish again..." >
Not because we have not funded or given enough powers to existing regulatory bodies
"Where was the regulator?"
"All the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much'. And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should /
"So I've learnt from that. So you don't listen to the industry when they say, 'This is good for us'. You've got to talk about the whole public interest."
That's what is happening (mostly) when people say "We need to regulate less".
"Efficiency! through technology!" >
Project to make things more efficient which overruns, overspends, fails to deliver promised benefits >
"Efficiency! through technology!" >
etc.
IT procurement fiasco >
"Efficiency! through technology!" >
IT procurement fiasco >
"Efficiency! through technology!" >
IT procurement fiasco >
"Efficiency! through technology!" >
IT procurement fiasco >
"Efficiency! through technology!" >
IT procurement fiasco >
https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-media/independent-review-of-data-futures-programme-published/
20 GOTO 10
RUN
Too big to fail.
Too big to fail.
Etc.