You've reminded me of a story an ex-work colleague told me about when he was growing up in the Midlands in the mid-1980s. He'd set himself up with two options at 18, namely going to uni and joining the West Mids police.
He went to his police job interview and was asked at the end...have you any questions for us?
He shot back...yeah, are you lot as bent as I've heard you are?!!
This was around the time several West Mids 'convictions' were being overturned in the courts due to persistent police brutality and the fabrication of evidence.
He ended up going to uni by the way, in case you were curious.
I wonder how many people *inside* the government know how things work. We can all see that the Slopulist Right might not have the wit or the gumption to study these things.
But it would be an interesting exercise to find out, for example, if ANYBODY who works for HMRC, knows ALL the tax 'code' regulations.
My point is that somebody *should*. Just to ensure that legislators and others are not overly complicating something that doesn't need to be complicated.
Like you alluded to for the right-wing parties seeking to change everything, government itself (civil servants, permanent secretaries, etc) should know where a tangle has occurred, and then simplify it without the need to burn it all down and start from the scorched rubble.
It would serve as a counter to those who think whole government functions should be discarded.
And perhaps it would only need a 'jury' of 12 Overseers - 6 senior (or not senior, but experienced) civil servants, plus 6 'outsiders' from the same industry that is served by the particular department (eg professional tax advisors to help oversee HMRC rule simplification).
Just having a small cadre of people who have the so-called God's-eye-view of the whole system would be beneficial. Unintended conflicts (and the attendant bolt-on solutions to them) and duplications could then be eradicated without deleting entire critical chunks.
This would need to be done for ALL major govt depts.
The Blair era - with Gordon Brown as chancellor - saw this guide balloon exponentially in size. And introduce many loopholes favourable to those in the know, or those who'd benefit from hiring the best (and sleaziest) accountants. Remember around 2010, when dozens of MPs of all persuasions were exposed for abusing expense accounts and redefining entries in their property portfolios as their primary residence in order to avoid paying tax?
To think that, back in the 1980s, the general public looked sniffily at the Italian government as the epitome of corrupt officials, where bribery was routine. Such naivety! 😂
Yes. True. I remember the tax code exploding. I think I saw a video where somebody showed the size of it using stacks of paper, showing what it was in (presumably) a carefully chosen year, when it was the equivalent of 2-3 book volumes. Then, as you said, ballooning to a stack of paper reaching almost to the ceiling.
Who knows whether that was exaggerated for effect. I'm sure clickbaity videos were around back then, to make the problem appear bigger than reality. But there's also no doubt it ballooned back then.
I guess there's no hope of rationalization - or appetite for it - if the whole reason to turn it into a Gordian knot in the first place, was to introduce a complex scheme of "mate's rates" and other convenient loopholes.
I lived through the eighties and remember them well. Let’s try some balance shall we.
Wanted a GP appointment? Go to the surgery, sit down in the waiting room and you’d be seen.
Yes there were bent cops who lied to jail criminals and occasionally folk that weren’t. Now we have woke cops who aren’t interested in catching criminals but are perfectly happy to nick you for hurty words on social media.
Yes, some workplaces weren’t safe. Now firms are shutting because of the ridiculous burdens of health and safety.
In the 80s you could speak freely. Now you can’t.
In the 80s town centres could be risky places to walk on a Friday and Saturday. They are now unsafe in daytime. Ditto public transport. Everywhere was safer for women in the 80s when it came to being sexually assaulted.
You’re talking shit. Complete and utter shit. The 80s were not perfect but I’d go back to them tomorrow because they were infinitely fucking better than what we’ve got now.
The freedom to cut corners has certainly been straitened, but plenty of scope remains: the watercos are still getting away with it, and the growth of fly-tipping is an economic wonder
I remember the 90's to. When common sense got legislated for and all the jobs I used to do became either ridiculously difficult or impossible because I was no longer allowed to trust my own abilities & skills and instead was forced to follow the guidelines of some pen pusher who'd never actually done or understood the job. Another fine example of driving down to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, there were ambulance chasing lawyers but these only came about because of Blairite legislation changes and again, as far as I can tell this was mostly not to punish dangerous employers but to use legislation to destroy personal sovereignty and breed out common sense.
I'll admit Blair was just a continuation of Thatcher, and no I don't understand the 80's restorationalism either. The destruction of our industrial revolution history by Thatcher, was the perfect community destroying policy to usher in Blair and his nation killing multi culturalism.
However, I will always see the Blairite push for "health and safety" legislation as nothing more than a push to legislate and ultimately destroy innate common sense and make people more compliant
The Internet has changed people's awareness of company and public service actions. To what extent do we need to regulate, which hinders small companies and sole traders, when larger companies may self regulate as public image of any misdemeanor could be disastrous? Should we be more American and litigate/prosecute on wrong doings rather than precautionary principle attempts to remove all risk? What cost is a lower GDP because of legislation vs workplace loss of life? Individually we seem to have lost the ability to balance risk assessment against rewards and so has the state, which is why we end up with delayed, over budget nuclear where it costs millions to save a few dozen fish. Decisions very much decided based on the power of the lobbyist. I can see the appeal of turning back the clock, as red tape has made work more complex, but so as privatisation, life was easier with only a single supplier of natural monopolies. I've got lots of questions, but not that many answers!
Burn it all. What gets rebuilt has value. What doesn't, doesn't.
Counseling caution after a century of radicalism (including neoliberal radicalism under Thatcher) sounds like you're trying to save the bathwater after the baby has already drowned.
Amazing how you can change laws, but the police and judiciary still end up in the same place they were - before the laws were changed.
The Sikh who just got arrested was told by the copper arresting him apparently he didn’t want to arrest him, but was told by higher ups he had to do it?
Who ordered the copper to arrest him?
What was the reason?
Why did he arrest him when he didn’t want to (presumably he had not committed an offence in his view)?
Why can’t the Sikh get the name of the senior officer, who directed the copper to arrest him, so he can sue him (and those further up the line who directed HiIM).
Why can’t the legal system pay for the court action (there’s no problem for migrant legal costs).
Unless laws are modified to make those responsible for their actions liable to repercussions there is no change.
I come across many older folk with this return to the good old days mentality - the village bobby, the Captain Mainwaring of Warmington on Sea braced to fend off the Hun.
Sieve like memories; they want the handy things like ATMs, penicillin, Facetime to the grandkids in Oz. The good old days when a crazy right winger could assemble a 3 million strong Army, fleets of bombers crossing the Channel, Polio, rickets, ink quills. They sit in front of or carry a tablet / phone screen keyboard and, thanks to clever modern people, can complain bitterly in an instant. Pathetic. Does rationale fade with the onset of a pension?
One old boy yearned for the 1930s, punting down the Cam with a straw boater and a picnic. Tiger Moths puttering across the summer sky. Daft old fool was in the 60s rag trade, he should have looked back on Carnaby St, the swinging 60s but no.
Fair points and a neat correction to the simplistic cry of ‘deregulate’ as a universal remedy that will make us rich and prosperous again. I recall the Police and Criminal Act coming in for good reason. The problem perhaps is that we have gone too far and forgotten what regulations are for. Police, doctors, lawyers spend more and time filling in forms which make it harder and more time consuming to catch criminals, fix limbs or draft a simple legal contract. To fix things we need to simplify our regulations, but that takes wisdom and patience. On the part of regulators and the regulated - which is a tall order.
My mum (now deceased so beyond the law) worked in a local suburban police station in a rough part of Leeds in the 1970/80s running the canteen. Once she accidentally destroyed some “evidence” that had been stored in the canteen fridge (don’t worry, we can make some more). Take this lad a cup of tea in his cell and nicely ask him this and that. We had the biggest video collection (a real status symbol at the time) in the street as stolen goods were distributed across the staff. Many of the individuals were eventually dismissed for corruption, but it was rife. Like a protection racket.
You've reminded me of a story an ex-work colleague told me about when he was growing up in the Midlands in the mid-1980s. He'd set himself up with two options at 18, namely going to uni and joining the West Mids police.
He went to his police job interview and was asked at the end...have you any questions for us?
He shot back...yeah, are you lot as bent as I've heard you are?!!
This was around the time several West Mids 'convictions' were being overturned in the courts due to persistent police brutality and the fabrication of evidence.
He ended up going to uni by the way, in case you were curious.
I wonder how many people *inside* the government know how things work. We can all see that the Slopulist Right might not have the wit or the gumption to study these things.
But it would be an interesting exercise to find out, for example, if ANYBODY who works for HMRC, knows ALL the tax 'code' regulations.
My point is that somebody *should*. Just to ensure that legislators and others are not overly complicating something that doesn't need to be complicated.
Like you alluded to for the right-wing parties seeking to change everything, government itself (civil servants, permanent secretaries, etc) should know where a tangle has occurred, and then simplify it without the need to burn it all down and start from the scorched rubble.
It would serve as a counter to those who think whole government functions should be discarded.
And perhaps it would only need a 'jury' of 12 Overseers - 6 senior (or not senior, but experienced) civil servants, plus 6 'outsiders' from the same industry that is served by the particular department (eg professional tax advisors to help oversee HMRC rule simplification).
Just having a small cadre of people who have the so-called God's-eye-view of the whole system would be beneficial. Unintended conflicts (and the attendant bolt-on solutions to them) and duplications could then be eradicated without deleting entire critical chunks.
This would need to be done for ALL major govt depts.
Tolley's tax guide is the gold standard for the documented tax code.
https://www.tolley.co.uk/products/tolleys-tax-guide
The Blair era - with Gordon Brown as chancellor - saw this guide balloon exponentially in size. And introduce many loopholes favourable to those in the know, or those who'd benefit from hiring the best (and sleaziest) accountants. Remember around 2010, when dozens of MPs of all persuasions were exposed for abusing expense accounts and redefining entries in their property portfolios as their primary residence in order to avoid paying tax?
To think that, back in the 1980s, the general public looked sniffily at the Italian government as the epitome of corrupt officials, where bribery was routine. Such naivety! 😂
Yes. True. I remember the tax code exploding. I think I saw a video where somebody showed the size of it using stacks of paper, showing what it was in (presumably) a carefully chosen year, when it was the equivalent of 2-3 book volumes. Then, as you said, ballooning to a stack of paper reaching almost to the ceiling.
Who knows whether that was exaggerated for effect. I'm sure clickbaity videos were around back then, to make the problem appear bigger than reality. But there's also no doubt it ballooned back then.
I guess there's no hope of rationalization - or appetite for it - if the whole reason to turn it into a Gordian knot in the first place, was to introduce a complex scheme of "mate's rates" and other convenient loopholes.
I lived through the eighties and remember them well. Let’s try some balance shall we.
Wanted a GP appointment? Go to the surgery, sit down in the waiting room and you’d be seen.
Yes there were bent cops who lied to jail criminals and occasionally folk that weren’t. Now we have woke cops who aren’t interested in catching criminals but are perfectly happy to nick you for hurty words on social media.
Yes, some workplaces weren’t safe. Now firms are shutting because of the ridiculous burdens of health and safety.
In the 80s you could speak freely. Now you can’t.
In the 80s town centres could be risky places to walk on a Friday and Saturday. They are now unsafe in daytime. Ditto public transport. Everywhere was safer for women in the 80s when it came to being sexually assaulted.
You’re talking shit. Complete and utter shit. The 80s were not perfect but I’d go back to them tomorrow because they were infinitely fucking better than what we’ve got now.
The freedom to cut corners has certainly been straitened, but plenty of scope remains: the watercos are still getting away with it, and the growth of fly-tipping is an economic wonder
I remember the 90's to. When common sense got legislated for and all the jobs I used to do became either ridiculously difficult or impossible because I was no longer allowed to trust my own abilities & skills and instead was forced to follow the guidelines of some pen pusher who'd never actually done or understood the job. Another fine example of driving down to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, there were ambulance chasing lawyers but these only came about because of Blairite legislation changes and again, as far as I can tell this was mostly not to punish dangerous employers but to use legislation to destroy personal sovereignty and breed out common sense.
I'll admit Blair was just a continuation of Thatcher, and no I don't understand the 80's restorationalism either. The destruction of our industrial revolution history by Thatcher, was the perfect community destroying policy to usher in Blair and his nation killing multi culturalism.
However, I will always see the Blairite push for "health and safety" legislation as nothing more than a push to legislate and ultimately destroy innate common sense and make people more compliant
The Internet has changed people's awareness of company and public service actions. To what extent do we need to regulate, which hinders small companies and sole traders, when larger companies may self regulate as public image of any misdemeanor could be disastrous? Should we be more American and litigate/prosecute on wrong doings rather than precautionary principle attempts to remove all risk? What cost is a lower GDP because of legislation vs workplace loss of life? Individually we seem to have lost the ability to balance risk assessment against rewards and so has the state, which is why we end up with delayed, over budget nuclear where it costs millions to save a few dozen fish. Decisions very much decided based on the power of the lobbyist. I can see the appeal of turning back the clock, as red tape has made work more complex, but so as privatisation, life was easier with only a single supplier of natural monopolies. I've got lots of questions, but not that many answers!
If Peter Hitchens says we live in an ambulance chasing society he has a fundamental problem. There are no ambulances to chase.
Either they’ve been burnt out because they have a Jewish genre or they’ve been acquisitions by benefit tourists as a taxi service.
Maggie was loved by Blair Brown and the Tory party (apart from Geoffrey Howe).
Now Labour hate her again.
For me, everything she did turned to poo. I know some loved her for reigning in the unions - and they needed it.
But she was not a uniting figure and her policies had negative consequences.
Water, train and power fiascos originate with her.
The biggest problem is banks, they are leeches, corrupt and out of control, yet regarded as the power house of the economy.
Is there any wonder the country is collapsing?
And now the only textile factories in the UK are illegal ones, run with slave labour. So all that Health and Safety worked a treat. Nice one.
Burn it all. What gets rebuilt has value. What doesn't, doesn't.
Counseling caution after a century of radicalism (including neoliberal radicalism under Thatcher) sounds like you're trying to save the bathwater after the baby has already drowned.
Amazing how you can change laws, but the police and judiciary still end up in the same place they were - before the laws were changed.
The Sikh who just got arrested was told by the copper arresting him apparently he didn’t want to arrest him, but was told by higher ups he had to do it?
Who ordered the copper to arrest him?
What was the reason?
Why did he arrest him when he didn’t want to (presumably he had not committed an offence in his view)?
Why can’t the Sikh get the name of the senior officer, who directed the copper to arrest him, so he can sue him (and those further up the line who directed HiIM).
Why can’t the legal system pay for the court action (there’s no problem for migrant legal costs).
Unless laws are modified to make those responsible for their actions liable to repercussions there is no change.
I come across many older folk with this return to the good old days mentality - the village bobby, the Captain Mainwaring of Warmington on Sea braced to fend off the Hun.
Sieve like memories; they want the handy things like ATMs, penicillin, Facetime to the grandkids in Oz. The good old days when a crazy right winger could assemble a 3 million strong Army, fleets of bombers crossing the Channel, Polio, rickets, ink quills. They sit in front of or carry a tablet / phone screen keyboard and, thanks to clever modern people, can complain bitterly in an instant. Pathetic. Does rationale fade with the onset of a pension?
One old boy yearned for the 1930s, punting down the Cam with a straw boater and a picnic. Tiger Moths puttering across the summer sky. Daft old fool was in the 60s rag trade, he should have looked back on Carnaby St, the swinging 60s but no.
Fair points and a neat correction to the simplistic cry of ‘deregulate’ as a universal remedy that will make us rich and prosperous again. I recall the Police and Criminal Act coming in for good reason. The problem perhaps is that we have gone too far and forgotten what regulations are for. Police, doctors, lawyers spend more and time filling in forms which make it harder and more time consuming to catch criminals, fix limbs or draft a simple legal contract. To fix things we need to simplify our regulations, but that takes wisdom and patience. On the part of regulators and the regulated - which is a tall order.
My mum (now deceased so beyond the law) worked in a local suburban police station in a rough part of Leeds in the 1970/80s running the canteen. Once she accidentally destroyed some “evidence” that had been stored in the canteen fridge (don’t worry, we can make some more). Take this lad a cup of tea in his cell and nicely ask him this and that. We had the biggest video collection (a real status symbol at the time) in the street as stolen goods were distributed across the staff. Many of the individuals were eventually dismissed for corruption, but it was rife. Like a protection racket.