I’m getting really fed up of these abstract attacks on ‘regulation’ - why is Andy Haldane advocating the Doge approach for UK - blanket halving the number of regulators and their budgets? https://on.ft.com/416pqlx 1/2
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Just taking one example, the quality of new build houses at the moment is terrible. This coincides with a lack of inspection for compliance with building regulations. Maybe there’s a link?
I completely missed what point he was trying to make? IMO regulation plays an important role in effective markets that promote growth. There are far too many monopolies both at home and abroad that stifle competition & innovation, from buses to AI! We need more good regulation (and maybe less orgs)
A lot of these articles seem to think deregulation is a means in itself rather than a means to an end. For instance, this seems like a sensible first step towards eliminating unnecessary or duplicate regulations. I wonder who Andy thinks would use the AI tool he mentions?
What a ton of "bonfire of red tape" types miss is that too little regulation can be *more* damaging to an industry (to say nothing of society) than too much.
Without regulation and standards would the restaurant and takeaway industry be as big?
Anyone want to ride in a lift with no regulations?
For sure there are daft regulations but eg AI companies in UK are being held back by a lack of clear regulation - and by big tech dominance of the markets they need to grow into. 2/2
Absolutely agree, we're already seeing the consequences of big tech dominance. What they want is to capitalise on their dominance and squeeze others out. It's critical for the future that we resist that whole agenda and don't let that become the prevailing view.
Don’t think journalists (Haldane no excuse) can distinguish in their minds between regulation provides certainty/stable investment environment and bat tunnels. Leaving EU single market was start of instability for UK. Data regulation is a great example called bureaucracy until your data misused
Hmm... Not sure about this as someone who works with personal data in the third sector all day. We spend a fair bit of t of effort on compliance rather than best practice whilst the regulation wasn't really targeted at us it most assuredly has an impact. I would combat this with MORE regs mind.
Stupid poorly designed and burdensome bureaucracy is bad. Regulation of free market capitalism so it works better for the people is good.
It's not that complicated,
right?
for weeks I’ve been asking everyone British connected to government I know what’s going on and how labour could be doing what looks like so badly with such a mandate. Now I’m wondering whether they’re honouring an agreement between Sunak and Musk from the #aiSafetySummit.
I don't know about any such deal, I just know Sunak acted like a puppy in front of Musk, and that now given also the Apple thing it seems like the UK is pre-DOGEd.
it’s a symptom of the pathologically shallow analytical ability of authoritarian minds. They don’t read far enough to know that good regulation, a predictable legal system, and transparency create trust .. which in the long run accounts for about 75% of wealth generated by a nation.
We must be due another 'bonfire of the quangos'. But what they hope to achieve is a mystery as most public services have been cut to the quick by the Tories already.
It's definitely not "I have this GREAT idea that would bring me immense profit, but it's been pointlessly* banned since 1890s, time to change that (*it just so happened that hundreds of people died in proximity to that same idea, but that's not MY problem, right?)."
There's regulation and there's enforcement. In two sectors being discussed here, finance and construction, enforcement has been feeble. Fines just the cost of doing business and zero personal accountability. GFC being a stark example. Simplify regulation maybe but only with rigorous enforcement.
Then there's ethics; there are sectors where you hear little complaint about regulation. Put crudely, reputation matters - they do not want to cheat or hurt their customers.
Where ethical standards are low, regulations are there just to be gamed. Finance a stark example, compounded by high rewards
Meanwhile Lord Dominic Johnson is getting ready to answer the question 'Can DOGE Reduce Government Regulation? Lessons from the U.K.' The moderator is the current chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee. If you can't make it to Harvard, catch it live on yt. https://iop.harvard.edu/events/can-doge-reduce-government-regulation-lessons-uk
Worth noting that some construction firms were well aware of the fire regulations and asked questions about them - Bowmer and Kirkland's doubts were raised in the Grenfell Inquiry. Non so blind as those that won't look
Many problems in Britain - from over exposure on subprime junk in 2008 to utilities inflation today - is the result of a timidity of government to support regulation for the general good. Stripping away regulation to 'let the economy rip' generally does just that - i.e. rips apart the economy.
Pure ignorance. Regulation exists for a good reason. Every time a government tries yet another bonfire of regulations it turns out that existing regulations are essential so they end up keeping most of them.
I'd be interested in knowing more about the specific examples of tradeoffs here (eg cheaper buildings vs increased risk of flooding/fires). Politicians may be making choices but the public need to be informed
this was how brexit started. "We need a bonfire of those crazy EU rules!" A several-year assessment of those rules, under Cameron, found they were generally proportionate and useful. But that was buried under the rhetoric. This is the next step.
Everything he writes as chief exec of the Royal Society of Arts utterly at odds with this garbage. But then, his treatment of the society’s workers has often seemed at odds with what he says and writes too, so 🤷♂️.
"A brick-by-brick dismantling of a high-rise tower cannot shift regulatory cultures and practices." A bit of an unfortunate metaphor, given the effects of loosening of building regulation #grenfell
Genuine question here - what regs were loosened that led to Grenfell and when?
I had thought it was people hiding that the material failed a burn test. And that maybe the regs were just never tight enough for the new materials - so lack of/out of date regs?
OK, thanks, I’ve read through that now.
So it seems there was not any specific regulation loosened, but a deregulatory ‘environment’ that didn’t apply any rigour to updating regs for ‘new’ materials - over a very long time.
Shows *more* resources needed for specific, detailed work to update regs.
I think more complex than that. Fundamental misunderstanding in industry about the regulatory environment. Relating to guidance (as opposed to the functional requirements) as regulations and then poor (and known to be poor) guidance.
And then poor competence and capture with testing and regulatory bodies creating the environment in which the ‘systemic dishonesty’ of the product manufacturers could thrive. Deregulatory agenda needs to look at the system in which it’s implemented.
I’m surprised there haven’t been prosecutions.
From my knowledge of safety regulations (electrical), meeting a recognised standard is accepted as meeting requirements for safety/liability *so long as you don’t otherwise know* that the regulation is insufficient to prevent harm.
Which people did.
I have read the Unaccountability Machine twice and his book on the Brompton bicycle and this little magazine is doing the work of an accountability machine. The people who make it are connected to groups of trades people, inspectors, contractors, architects, throughout the eastern US
They have a great podcast. People can write in and ask questions. They talk to manufacturers of building products and report on how products and methods perform in the long run. Every time I listen, and it’s a lot of fun I think this is what really makes America great
There is a US magazine called Fine Home Building. It is aimed at trades people, contractors and homeowners. It’s all about building homes, not just single family, and maintaining homes. They have installation guides, test and report on new products, discuss building science.
Blanket cuts are always a sign of intellectual laziness- it means that you can't think of what to cut but think cuts should happen. If you want to cut regulation that's fine- but it should as you argue be specific regulations.
Andy loves his big ideas, but the one time he had any actual responsibility for regulation (DG for financial stability at the Bank of England) it was an absolute fiasco.
I thought Andy Haldane was smarter than that. Regulation allows fair competition and minimises negative externalities, something we are desperately short of. We need more and better regulation, not less. Hopefully someone will listen to you, Diane
Seeking to consolidate the number of regulatory authorities might lead to better coordination and economies of scale but could also lead to bureaucracy and loss of agility. Needs to be case by case. Slashing the budgets of regulators would be actively and catastrophically detrimental to growth.
An article that asked, "what would a better regulatory architecture™️ look like? How would it help?" would be much more interesting than this vague thermodynamics-meets-Musk busking
I have the maybe optimistic hope that, like with Brexit, what will go on with the US in the next few years will be a cautionary tale for other countries - in this case about deregulation and demolishing the civil service. And that maybe that's why more push to deregulate now as it's now or never.
the central idea is quite decent - make the CEOs actually responsible for their decisions; but the piece as a whole reads as if the 2008 meltdown never actually happened.
They've all been reprogrammed in the last 3 weeks - the free trade guys now believe in tariffs, the free speechers have time for censorship, the freedom lovers, well they never really believed in it anyway.
Yes.
Who is he working for now?
Apparently he said the 2007 financial crisis did as much damage as a world war.
Does he think deregulation is going to help prevent another one?
Regulations are rarely dreamt up. They're our protections, including from the unscrupulous, of which there seem to be an increasing number waiting their oportunity to shaft everyone
Ok, let’s deregulate. Society accepts more risk will businesses accept they will be financially liable for the inevitable tragedies? Or maybe they are simply keen for easier regulation to pass that liability to the state and taxpayers.
Between 2009 and 2017, Trading Standards budgets were halved. Then they were cut again (by about half). 80% of TS budgets are staffing. This has already happened.
Billionaires coördinate plans together. There aren't many of them so they're a culture of themselves, apart – who else are they gonna hang with? So they have a few drinks together and the next thing you know it's "Hey! We've got ALL the money – you know what might be fun? Let's buy the WHOLE WORLD!"
Yes! Take the hypothetical case that we value our regulations because they keep us safe. I always remember the little girl on the old BBC Nationwide tea time current affairs programme who had a prosthetic eye because there'd been a pin in her teddy bear sourced from overseas. Then there's Grenfell.
He did an interview with @sophyridge.bsky.social a week or two ago and was commenting on things that were well off his bailiwick (Stockport I think?) that I was bit 👀
The very same Haldane who has done his best to ruin the RSA .. Many RSA Fellows are dismayed and loads have left. A 82% staff turnover since April 2022 and RSA workers have taken strike action for the first time in history under his tenure. Capitulation Kool Aid imbiber. The hypocrisy & hubris !!
From past experience, I’m inclined to see Andy Haldane as an outrider for the Blair-Hague project. Maybe that’s also true of the other articles. In other words, it actually is a coordinated effort that has its origins in Silicon Valley. Kyle has the Regulatory Innovation Office.
Deregulation or lack of adequate regulation has been the cause of every major financial crash. Regulated markets may be a pain, but they don't seem to be the problem.
The more vicious ideologues and business perverts want a government they can overwhelm and bully at will, whose restrictions only exist for everyone too poor to afford otherwise.
I agree but better approach is to make them more effective at enforcement, rather than scrapping both regulator & regulations. Wherever there are companies with market power & more info than their regulator & who lobby government, good outcomes need forceful regulators.
Why do Labour seem to think the regulators are holding back "growth" whist wilfully ignoring the benefit of EU SM+CU to SMEs who want to get exporting to the EU again?
Given SMEs employ 61% of the UK workforce it is an obvious solution to "growth" rather than slashing regulation.
Arguably, the last 14 years we've had 'lazy regulation' - adding new layers of regs reacting to a specific issue without looking at what already exists and refining that. Simplifying is harder because you have to step back and tackle the whole bowl of spaghetti. Halving budgets won't achieve that.
I can only speak for Trading Standards, but since 2009, budgets have been cut by around 80% there is virtually no enforcement happening in comparison to say 20 years ago. Everything is reactive, and hidden crime isn't tackled.
Errrrrr…… rejoin the European Union and we regain single standardised set of regulation….. but at least we can now have bendy bananas, thanks The Sun……..
Comments
Happy to see increases in workplace injuries/disease, people ripped off even more by big business/banks.
Wanker.
Without regulation and standards would the restaurant and takeaway industry be as big?
Anyone want to ride in a lift with no regulations?
Yesterday’s FT piece on why the Welsh language is to blame for the high cost of nuclear reactors being a particularly stupid one.
It’s not regulation holding the UK back.
A very odd take from an economist
From a technical perspective it is not a big deal at all.
It's not that complicated,
right?
@ianbrown.tech
Also fyi article
https://mastodon.social/@j2bryson/113964831234489930
Done well regulation strikes a sensible balance between competing interests. But it takes concerted effort that few politicians want to give it.
**Part 2** (Chapters 3–6)
**Part 8** (Chapters 68–71)
One of the first reasons for the existence of a government was to control weights and measures.
Where ethical standards are low, regulations are there just to be gamed. Finance a stark example, compounded by high rewards
https://iop.harvard.edu/events/can-doge-reduce-government-regulation-lessons-uk
Musk's government is introducing regulation to control while trashing regulation to protect.
Do not want.
Paywalled clickbait
Countries aren't little start-ups, they often serve the most vulnerable.
I had thought it was people hiding that the material failed a burn test. And that maybe the regs were just never tight enough for the new materials - so lack of/out of date regs?
So it seems there was not any specific regulation loosened, but a deregulatory ‘environment’ that didn’t apply any rigour to updating regs for ‘new’ materials - over a very long time.
Shows *more* resources needed for specific, detailed work to update regs.
From my knowledge of safety regulations (electrical), meeting a recognised standard is accepted as meeting requirements for safety/liability *so long as you don’t otherwise know* that the regulation is insufficient to prevent harm.
Which people did.
Hiding that the fire test had failed was only possible because the regulations failed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m00201xv
https://novaramedia.com/2024/02/22/the-rsa-boss-is-concerned-about-squeezed-pay-so-why-cant-he-give-his-staff-a-decent-pay-rise/
Politicians five years later... "What a horrendous tragedy! How could such unsafe practices be allowed?! Someone must be to blame!"
Repeat.....
Who is he working for now?
Apparently he said the 2007 financial crisis did as much damage as a world war.
Does he think deregulation is going to help prevent another one?
The Government surveys UK business every 2 years on their perceptions of regulation. Most recent results are for 2022 ⬇️
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/businesses-perception-of-regulation-in-the-uk
Would anyone say Ofcom have been successful in regulating GB News?
When the regulators are so ineffective it's easy to see how someone could create a story to scrap them.
Why do Labour seem to think the regulators are holding back "growth" whist wilfully ignoring the benefit of EU SM+CU to SMEs who want to get exporting to the EU again?
Given SMEs employ 61% of the UK workforce it is an obvious solution to "growth" rather than slashing regulation.
Sounds like "Two legs bad; four legs good".
Populist simplistic bollocks.
They don't do detail, do they?
A recent Which? article highlighted it.
It’s .. pathetic.
For the most part, "regulation" = "rules making capitalism good instead of bad".