On paper the Starmer government wants to be quite radical. Sweep aside planning laws; aiming for impossible energy and housing targets, etc etc etc. So there will be a load of Consultations coming down the pike - indeed, there are already. And often very rushed, which isn't just a tactic, it's their mantra right now.
So: who responds for the ordinary punter? In theory of course, absolutely anyone can respond. But Joe Public ain't gonna find his hand-written views reflected in the Conclusion of the exercise. And lobby groups don't always fare much better, although the smarter ones pick their fights and sometimes do OK.
All the Regulators have some kind of very promising-looking "we are here to protect the public" statement on their "About" page, but again, that's in theory. In practice, (a) it's often the Regulator itself that is doing the consultation; (b) they are all as political as Hell, and if they are responding to a Government department's consultation exercise, they are hand-in-glove (or indeed hand-in-puppet) and not to be expected to be independent or neutral in any way, shape or form[1]; (c) right now, the Starmer government has given all Regulators etc an extra formal mandate, which is to Promote Growth. And they immediately fired the bloke at the CMA who didn't seem enthusiastic enough on this score, pour encourager les autres.[2]
Where, then, do we look for our defence? There's only one answer: it is the venerable Citizens' Advice, which is a Statutory Consultee in many consultation exercises. Not the organisation with the most prestige or biggest, best-paid professional HQ staffing, but in my experience (energy, of course) they do an heroic job. Only they have consistently called out the nuclear power nonsenses. It was they who absolutely, forensically skewered the outrageous Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon scam. Etc.
Can they keep their heads above water during Starmer's radical deluge? It'll be a tall order - and if they start looking like the resistance, they stand to get bulldozed themsleves. Good luck to them - they may need it, just as we all need them.
ND
____________________
[1] This isn't just cynicism and supposition, it's a copper-bottomed fact, amply illustrated by FOI docs
[2] Maybe he was genuinely useless, I don't know. He was certainly the one they made an example of
4 comments:
To use a broad brush: what's needed above all is some way of changing the incentives for our ruling class. I can't help but feel that a principal role will need to be accorded to a public hangman.
Strangely I can picture Boris doing that, if only because it might be the only way he'd escape hanging. Though perhaps he'd rather wield an axe.
Or maybe have a two-tier punishment programme: the more merciful axe for nearly everyone but the rope for 2TK.
In case of doubt, such rebalancing of incentives should occur only following arrest, charge, trial, conviction, and sentencing.
We don't want the sort of kangaroo "justice" favoured by, for instance, 2TK. The irony would be delicious but that's not justification enough.
As an example of the wokery involved in "consultations" let me provide a few examples from https://energygovuk.citizenspace.com/energy-security/north-sea-energy-future/:
6 How can we enhance diversity within the sector? In your response, please consider the role of external organisations (such as employers and trade unions), and detail which group or persons this intervention would benefit.
11a To what extent do you agree or disagree that this position on new licenses will support the UK to set a globally leading example in
tackling climate change?
12b What, if any, impact do you think these policy considerations could have for individuals with protected characteristics? If there are
negative impacts, what potential mitigations could be explored?
I filled it out. Told them the whole thing was a crock of shite - I don't expect they'll take any notice.
"the Starmer government has given all Regulators etc an extra formal mandate, which is to Promote Growth"
Ha! Notable that within a very short time, the growth Reeves promised was not taking place (as any junior economist could have told them) but more excruciatingly, the response was not - we'll talk to business leaders to see that they reckon, rather they went to the regulators to see how they could promote growth. Cue Fawlty type banging of head on table...
We are SO beyond FUBAR in such a short time. Never mind Starmer pretending to be Churchill 2.0. God help us. Or Trump. Either or both, please.
Post a Comment