Colaition Regulation Policy – The Insanity of the Ostensibly Reasonable
By Emma.
Following discussion with Mark on this post I was reminded of the section in the coalition agreement covering “red tape”.
We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount.
Sounds reasonable on the surface doesn’t it? No one wants too much regulation. We all want organisations to be able to focus on their primary purpose and not take more time than is necessary over paperwork.
But the key point there is “necessary”. Because if the coalition believe there is any regulation that is unnecessary why aren’t they abolishing it immediately. I may disagree with them over it’s necessity (I suspect that half the things they will abolish around health and safety will lead to a far greater threat to workforces and so would fight them on the abolition) but that’s not the point. I’m not in Government, and sadly don’t get to set the agenda. They do.
So , will we see an immediate abolition of all “unnecessary” regulation? Or will this wait until other regulation is introduced? If all the “unnecessary” regulation is abolished, what then will be abolished when new regulation is brought in?
This kind of political rhetoric is the kind of thing that looks sensible on the surface, but just completely falls apart under any reasonable scrutiny. Sadly, too much of our politics is now about crowd pleasing rhetoric, and not about having policies that will stick once the more difficult job of governing takes over.
Tags: coalition agreement, regulation
