Government must resist the urge to interfere
Free Open EDITOR’S DIGEST
FT editor Rulla Khalaf chooses his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Rachel Rivies demand that regulatory bodies should do more to support the economy, noise of anger has begun. Consumer groups are afraid to lose defense. Anti-monopoly lawyers murmur about monopolies. Government agencies are maneuvering to avoid reductions of their sponsored bodies. At the same time, others have used the opportunity to remove the dark warnings about the settlement of a light touch, which inflame the 2008 crash fire.
Chancellor says correctly. The light touch setting is not Britain’s current problem. In fact, the settlement was one of our few stable growing branches. There is no typical tension between the economy and smart settlement, which prevents monopolies, maintains markets competitive and contribute to the formation of capital. But in too many cases, we have something else. Constantly changing rules, from which businesses are struggling to follow. The complexity of lobbyists’ oiling. and a landslide of an inherent mission.
At the moment, hundreds of places are empty with the permission of high-rise apartments, as the new safety regulator of buildings is struggling to develop them, eight years after the tragic fire of Gregel Town. The body of the financial behavior that failed to notice Woodford scandal, despite the former urban Minister Paul Mayner warnings, as if forcing companies, trying to prevent “group thinking”. No matter what you thought about assuming a game about Microsoft’s decision on Microsoft’s application, the long months he had on disagreements were not impressive.
There is a lot of place to improve. But although one president (former Boston Advisory Group) to another (former Amazon, former McKinsey) can bring another culture to CMA, it is not a stable solution. Although some of these bodies obviously fail, many of them are as good as their given powers by politicians. The reason is that the UK has the highest electricity prices in Europe, which makes the manufacturers disabled the manufacturers for a long time to advance their own environmental goals.
Rivise instincts is that “the balance has gone too far to the risk settlement.” This is partly due to the fact that Whitehall himself is risky. Officials who want to jeopardize decisions tend to push too many to the westminster’s large-scale landscape, which is made up of arms with extensions. Sponsored units, in turn, often have a reluctance to look at how they work. But the ministers are also risky. And especially tends to “something must be done” – ery. The classic example was in 2000, when the terrible railway accident in Hetfield was the import of safety rules, which were caused by chaos and so expensive that the life of the train was more than a hundred times more than one in the car. .
In 2015, when I worked in Downing Street, I was surprised when I discovered that Whitehole’s department did not even have a list of regulations that was responsible for. I asked the senior adviser to what happened to Kuango’s campfire, which George Osborn had fired five years ago. From the very beginning, from my skepticism, he finally admitted that although some intruders were made, the system was pushed, and the result was a less bonfire than a small spark. In 2021, the Public Account Committee found that the expenses were tripled by those bodies. And the Chairman of the Labor Labor Party Meg Hill challenged the time to explain why they were created from the beginning.
In the past, Britain was really good for a smart settlement. The creation of regulatory sandboxes and the rapid introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine shows that we can still be. But the government must also ask itself some difficult questions about what the state is for, and why we need a confusing bodies with a confusing level. Do we really need both the OFGEM and the operator of the national energy system? Environmental Agency and Natural England. When the British railways will be launched, what will be the meaning of the railway and road office?
Oxford University Economic Policy Professor Diter Helm claims that energy and water settlement has become very difficult. He suggested that they be settled as networks through one regulator. It would be a much more effective approach. And if we fail to flex our regulatory systems to better perform their goals, how Britain will ever be enough to overcome the progress of artificial intellect or synthetic drugs.
You don’t have to be a deliric freedom fighter to feel that Reeves is on the right track. The problem, of course, is Disonysis from the words of the Chancellor and the Business Secretary, and in reality between the government. It creates a large number of new arms in length. And it is on the verge of unleashing the unprecedented package of new employment regulations, many of which will be incapable. Only one point of this package will be subject to judgment by both their crew and customers, as employers’ claim that employers protect their employees will be directly clear with the right to free speech of customers.
There is still time to get this right. But politicians who want regulators to intervene should be restrained to interfere with their own instincts. It’s not easy.
English