Deregulation was extremely fashionable is the 90s when Booker and I spent a great deal of time and effort in pursuing that agenda.
Among the many things we found was that the utility of regulation often depends on the quality of enforcement. Poor regulation can be made to work by skilled and experienced enforcers but even good regulation can fail if poorly enforced. Thus, in many areas, the onerous impact of the state can be mitigated not by cutting back regulation but by improving enforcement.
But our most startling finding was that - as we reviewed the waves of deregulation since the war, here and in other developed countries - rapid deregulation was always a precursor to more regulation.
The explanation for this was that most regulation had been enacted for a purpose and even if the original purpose had been forgotten, it still served a function. Thus, when the regulations were cut, all sorts of problems occurred which gave rise to public calls for remedial action. The net effect over the years was to end up with more regulation than we started with.
There has in fact been a great deal of academic and practical work done on the nature of regulation, and the mechanisms for improving it. A reasonable conclusions from this is that sweeping gestures do not work. Re-regulation rather than deregulation is the most effective strategy, using a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.
To Lowe, therefore, I would respond that "we've been there before and what you want will not only not work, it will be positively harmful".
Over the years, having put such a great deal of work into this issue, I tire of Johnny-come-lately Messiahs who think they have suddenly discovered the answer to life and everything, when all they are doing is rehashing the same failed nostrums that have previously been tried and failed many times.
The trouble is that these nostrums look attractive at a superficial level and attract the support of people who have given them as little thought as their authors. This creates a wearing, sterile cycle where every decade or so, the same empty ideas are floated which run their course and disappear. Rarely is there any progress.
And before leaving the subject, it is worth thinking what a developed, organised society really it. When it comes down to it, the society is its book of rules, which work because people subscribe to it. You meddle with this at your peril.
Like you, I'm growing weary of Rupert's simplistic crowd-pleasing announcements on X. I wont take any of them seriously until they start to address root causes, rather than symptoms, but there's precious little sign of that.
Clearly you now have a new keyboard after the other melted!
Once again you hit the nail on the head - one man working from home in Yorkshire - makes more sense than Reform, Restore and for that matter all the political parties in Westminster.
I don't know where the next competent breed of politicians will come form but implementing the second demand of The Harrogate Agenda, ' Real Local Democracy', will decentralise power and leave a reduced number of national MPs at Westminster to concentrate on the mains departments of state namely The Treasury including HMRC, Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Department of Work and Pensions,, MOD and Foreign Office.
The Department of Health would become a decentralised mainly county function and better off each hospital would be with out central government interference.
I'm glad I have been pondering leaders and leadership, like you have mentioned in this article. My usual opinion is for a kind of 'standard operating procedure' (aka policies) so that the leader must be less important than the party and its policies.
It makes sense in today's fractious political landscape, where ad hominem attacks, character assassinations and judging politicians by the company they keep, rather than their own characteristics, seems to be the norm. Because it would make political decapitation strategies less able to bring down the entire party.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine with the characters leading these right-wing parties, any of them would be happy to step back and let policy be the granite foundation rather than themselves.
I guess the ideal scenario would be some kind of 'Nexus Party' (or 'Legion Party' - after the Red Dwarf character, embodying more than the sum of the parts) including Restore and Reform, plus others, possibly even including the Tories. (The old 'Unite The Right' thing.)
But there would need to be a 'Council of Experts', perhaps 2 or more for each of your Manifesto Project policy areas (and some you haven't included). They would have to be experts with different viewpoints, so they don't just spend their time nodding at each other and stroking their beards.
And once they've wrestled between themselves to rustle up some sensible fleshed out policy (including any inevitable compromises), there needs to be a separate Red Team to start tugging on any loose ends. Or taking the "God POV" scrutinizing these policies as a whole, to see if they actually fit together coherently.
Maybe between the lot of them, they can entice a broad range of experts like this. But not if they are clawing each other to bits, or competing to be the most obnoxious. It has to be 'Fix the UK first' rather than 'can I get a knighthood or appointment to the Lords first'.
Not really going to hold my breath on this one, though, sadly.
I am desperate, Claudia. I haven’t got time to worry about minutiae of policy. I’m going with the majority, I can’t afford to lose it all in an ethnic war. I just want the gone.
Deregulation was extremely fashionable is the 90s when Booker and I spent a great deal of time and effort in pursuing that agenda.
Among the many things we found was that the utility of regulation often depends on the quality of enforcement. Poor regulation can be made to work by skilled and experienced enforcers but even good regulation can fail if poorly enforced. Thus, in many areas, the onerous impact of the state can be mitigated not by cutting back regulation but by improving enforcement.
But our most startling finding was that - as we reviewed the waves of deregulation since the war, here and in other developed countries - rapid deregulation was always a precursor to more regulation.
The explanation for this was that most regulation had been enacted for a purpose and even if the original purpose had been forgotten, it still served a function. Thus, when the regulations were cut, all sorts of problems occurred which gave rise to public calls for remedial action. The net effect over the years was to end up with more regulation than we started with.
There has in fact been a great deal of academic and practical work done on the nature of regulation, and the mechanisms for improving it. A reasonable conclusions from this is that sweeping gestures do not work. Re-regulation rather than deregulation is the most effective strategy, using a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.
To Lowe, therefore, I would respond that "we've been there before and what you want will not only not work, it will be positively harmful".
Over the years, having put such a great deal of work into this issue, I tire of Johnny-come-lately Messiahs who think they have suddenly discovered the answer to life and everything, when all they are doing is rehashing the same failed nostrums that have previously been tried and failed many times.
The trouble is that these nostrums look attractive at a superficial level and attract the support of people who have given them as little thought as their authors. This creates a wearing, sterile cycle where every decade or so, the same empty ideas are floated which run their course and disappear. Rarely is there any progress.
And before leaving the subject, it is worth thinking what a developed, organised society really it. When it comes down to it, the society is its book of rules, which work because people subscribe to it. You meddle with this at your peril.
Like you, I'm growing weary of Rupert's simplistic crowd-pleasing announcements on X. I wont take any of them seriously until they start to address root causes, rather than symptoms, but there's precious little sign of that.
I feel this is a trend with all Parties. They all can talk the talk but a can't walk the walk. We are alll making it up as we go along.
"This needs to be done!"
"How?!"
"I don't know! We'll have to through some shit together when the time comes"
Clearly you now have a new keyboard after the other melted!
Once again you hit the nail on the head - one man working from home in Yorkshire - makes more sense than Reform, Restore and for that matter all the political parties in Westminster.
I don't know where the next competent breed of politicians will come form but implementing the second demand of The Harrogate Agenda, ' Real Local Democracy', will decentralise power and leave a reduced number of national MPs at Westminster to concentrate on the mains departments of state namely The Treasury including HMRC, Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Department of Work and Pensions,, MOD and Foreign Office.
The Department of Health would become a decentralised mainly county function and better off each hospital would be with out central government interference.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
"we need to "Hack down the size of the state, and drastically reduce tax."
Hmmm, "Bonfire of the Quangos", anyone?
While I'm about it how about joining my "Reorganise" Party alias "The Deck Chair" Party?
I'm glad I have been pondering leaders and leadership, like you have mentioned in this article. My usual opinion is for a kind of 'standard operating procedure' (aka policies) so that the leader must be less important than the party and its policies.
It makes sense in today's fractious political landscape, where ad hominem attacks, character assassinations and judging politicians by the company they keep, rather than their own characteristics, seems to be the norm. Because it would make political decapitation strategies less able to bring down the entire party.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine with the characters leading these right-wing parties, any of them would be happy to step back and let policy be the granite foundation rather than themselves.
I guess the ideal scenario would be some kind of 'Nexus Party' (or 'Legion Party' - after the Red Dwarf character, embodying more than the sum of the parts) including Restore and Reform, plus others, possibly even including the Tories. (The old 'Unite The Right' thing.)
But there would need to be a 'Council of Experts', perhaps 2 or more for each of your Manifesto Project policy areas (and some you haven't included). They would have to be experts with different viewpoints, so they don't just spend their time nodding at each other and stroking their beards.
And once they've wrestled between themselves to rustle up some sensible fleshed out policy (including any inevitable compromises), there needs to be a separate Red Team to start tugging on any loose ends. Or taking the "God POV" scrutinizing these policies as a whole, to see if they actually fit together coherently.
Maybe between the lot of them, they can entice a broad range of experts like this. But not if they are clawing each other to bits, or competing to be the most obnoxious. It has to be 'Fix the UK first' rather than 'can I get a knighthood or appointment to the Lords first'.
Not really going to hold my breath on this one, though, sadly.
Are you going to be a part of this?
Shite or get off the pot, Pete. Get in touch with Uncle.
It's too late. Restore has already shit the bed.
Too late for you, or them?
Whither Pete?
Pete just said Restore has shat the bed not him. Would you want to be a part of that?
Ben wanhopig, Claudia.
I am desperate, Claudia. I haven’t got time to worry about minutiae of policy. I’m going with the majority, I can’t afford to lose it all in an ethnic war. I just want the gone.
Why are you desperate? In my experience I have learned not to trust fear, desperation and panic. It has always lead me into regret.
Ben wanhopig, Claudia.
What?!