I thought this was a terrific piece which got to the heart of the problem that I - at least - have with the current government. There’s a disturbing lack of coherence, so sometimes they talk about slashing red tape and in others increasing regulation. Now that can be justified on the basis of “what works” until you consider the recent announcement of five further freeports for which there is no evidence that they do other than shift jobs around, or the PM’s inclusion of competition policy as a barrier to growth, when all the evidence suggests that a vigorous pro competition policy is one of the strongest drivers of growth.
Thanks! It's all a bit of a lonely, thankless task, so encouragement is always welcome.
On competition policy, what exactly are you referring to? My understanding is that regulators generally have been loaded with ever-longer lists of objectives that get in the way of a speedy prosecution of their core goals. So I'd expect competition policy to end up more clearly and simply promoting competition, and hence growth.
Not clear what competition regulators supporting growth means. Does it mean permitting, or blocking, mergers? UK competition regulator to probe investment barriershttps://on.ft.com/4dUBqtf
Yes, looking at that FT article, that does seem unresolved. Presumably, the easiest way to get investment per se is to promise a captive market with no competition.
Precisely. I think this is what the CMA is trying to point out. There’s a strong streak of protectionism in the Labour Party which talk of securonomics plays into. After all that’s what Bidenomics is all about.
I assume most of the priority areas of the government will be identified tomorrow in the budget but, in the meantime, let us discuss the so called bread and butter issues that need fixing. The 9.5 million of working age that are not working. The breakdown in child care, Sure Start, mental and physical problems of children and young adults that have been ignored by the Tories over the last 14 years. Then there are thousands of food banks catering for people in work. The energy companies and their ability to force people onto prepayment meters, which cost more than normal tariffs. I would advise Starmer to appoint someone like Peter Mandelson to coordinate the efforts of the various departments that directly interface with people to ensure that Peter is not robbing Paul. It is inevitable that senior cabinet ministers are captured by their departments so care should be taken to prevent waste in large departments caused by grandstanding by senior ministers. The Blair administration was blighted by this failure to avoid favouritism.
I don't have any problem with a lack "overarching principles", or "purpose" or "direction" other than doing the "right thing". And maybe being "soft left" or "Bevinite" or whatever you want to call it, more or less by necessity. I mean "hard left" clearly isn't an option for staying in power, and Blairism is too free market for most, so Labour has to be (or at least portray itself as) soft left.
It seems to me that no one faction (or party) has the monopoly on best policies, so choosing the best one on each issue is the correct (and obvious) approach. What we need is a competent government. One that spends money where it's needed, and doesn't p!ss money away on pointless or crazily expensive things. One that patches up short term issues speedily, but also has an eye on longer term issues, preferably heading them off early, or at least defusing them a bit.
On regulation, that is perhaps one of *the* important issues for the gov. What with no regulation, "self regulation", "regulatory capture", regulators that allow crazy corporate structures and tax-haven based ultimate owners ... there's plenty to fix.
I thought this was a terrific piece which got to the heart of the problem that I - at least - have with the current government. There’s a disturbing lack of coherence, so sometimes they talk about slashing red tape and in others increasing regulation. Now that can be justified on the basis of “what works” until you consider the recent announcement of five further freeports for which there is no evidence that they do other than shift jobs around, or the PM’s inclusion of competition policy as a barrier to growth, when all the evidence suggests that a vigorous pro competition policy is one of the strongest drivers of growth.
Thanks! It's all a bit of a lonely, thankless task, so encouragement is always welcome.
On competition policy, what exactly are you referring to? My understanding is that regulators generally have been loaded with ever-longer lists of objectives that get in the way of a speedy prosecution of their core goals. So I'd expect competition policy to end up more clearly and simply promoting competition, and hence growth.
His comments at the investment summit
“we will make sure that every regulator in this country…
Especially our economic and competition regulators…
Takes growth as seriously as this room does.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-international-investment-summit-speech-14-october-2024
Maybe I am missing something.
Not clear what competition regulators supporting growth means. Does it mean permitting, or blocking, mergers? UK competition regulator to probe investment barriershttps://on.ft.com/4dUBqtf
Yes, looking at that FT article, that does seem unresolved. Presumably, the easiest way to get investment per se is to promise a captive market with no competition.
Precisely. I think this is what the CMA is trying to point out. There’s a strong streak of protectionism in the Labour Party which talk of securonomics plays into. After all that’s what Bidenomics is all about.
Maybe he didn't mean it.
"Watch what they do, not what they say" ??
I assume most of the priority areas of the government will be identified tomorrow in the budget but, in the meantime, let us discuss the so called bread and butter issues that need fixing. The 9.5 million of working age that are not working. The breakdown in child care, Sure Start, mental and physical problems of children and young adults that have been ignored by the Tories over the last 14 years. Then there are thousands of food banks catering for people in work. The energy companies and their ability to force people onto prepayment meters, which cost more than normal tariffs. I would advise Starmer to appoint someone like Peter Mandelson to coordinate the efforts of the various departments that directly interface with people to ensure that Peter is not robbing Paul. It is inevitable that senior cabinet ministers are captured by their departments so care should be taken to prevent waste in large departments caused by grandstanding by senior ministers. The Blair administration was blighted by this failure to avoid favouritism.
I don't have any problem with a lack "overarching principles", or "purpose" or "direction" other than doing the "right thing". And maybe being "soft left" or "Bevinite" or whatever you want to call it, more or less by necessity. I mean "hard left" clearly isn't an option for staying in power, and Blairism is too free market for most, so Labour has to be (or at least portray itself as) soft left.
It seems to me that no one faction (or party) has the monopoly on best policies, so choosing the best one on each issue is the correct (and obvious) approach. What we need is a competent government. One that spends money where it's needed, and doesn't p!ss money away on pointless or crazily expensive things. One that patches up short term issues speedily, but also has an eye on longer term issues, preferably heading them off early, or at least defusing them a bit.
On regulation, that is perhaps one of *the* important issues for the gov. What with no regulation, "self regulation", "regulatory capture", regulators that allow crazy corporate structures and tax-haven based ultimate owners ... there's plenty to fix.