Starmer vows to clear ‘regulatory weeds’ ahead of Reeves growth speech

[Nearly Sane]

“In the 1980s, the Thatcher government deregulated finance capital" - yes that's been an unmitigated success. Starmer having got rid of the portrait of Thatcher shows off his I love Maggie tattoo.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/starmer-vows-to-clear-regulatory-weeds-ahead-of-reeves-growth-speech/ar-AA1y1RlQ

[jeremyp]

“In the 1980s, the Thatcher government deregulated finance capital" - yes that's been an unmitigated success.

Yes, by and large it was.

Starmer having got rid of the portrait of Thatcher shows off his I love Maggie tattoo.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/starmer-vows-to-clear-regulatory-weeds-ahead-of-reeves-growth-speech/ar-AA1y1RlQ

The problem is that regulations don't appear without a reason. It might not be a good reason or things might have changed to make it no longer relevant, but you need to understand why there are regulations before you get rid of them. This is why government initiatives to get rid of regulations and red tape often fail. Usually, it turns out when you examine them, they really are needed.

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

~~ GK Chesterton

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, by and large it was.
The problem is that regulations don't appear without a reason. It might not be a good reason or things might have changed to make it no longer relevant, but you need to understand why there are regulations before you get rid of them. This is why government initiatives to get rid of regulations and red tape often fail. Usually, it turns out when you examine them, they really are needed.

~~ GK Chesterton

Or they are merely there through inertia and tradition. I'm not taken with your Chesterton quote as it seems to be an appeal to tradition and also seems to imply that the person against change should always be the one who dictates whether or not change is allowed. It is a NIMBY charter.

To my mind there are far too many things about the UK which effectively exist for no other reason than they've existed for a long time. If those things have no negative impact, fine let's keep them. But when retaining things holds back the country and the justification is merely appeal to tradition, then we should be prepared to move forward by enacting change.

[jeremyp]

Or they are merely there through inertia and tradition.

Well that's fine if they are, they can go. But you have to know that's what they are there for.

I'm not taken with your Chesterton quote as it seems to be an appeal to tradition and also seems to imply that the person against change should always be the one who dictates whether or not change is allowed. It is a NIMBY charter.

You have missed the point of the quote completely.

To my mind there are far too many things about the UK which effectively exist for no other reason than they've existed for a long time. If those things have no negative impact, fine let's keep them.

We re talking about regulations, not traditions. They wrestle almost all put in place for good reasons. If you can show why a regulation was put in place and it is no longer relevant, by all means dispose of it. However, if you don't know why it is in place, you will not get me to agree to get rid of it.

But when retaining things holds back the country and the justification is merely appeal to tradition, then we should be prepared to move forward by enacting change.

Yes, fine, as long as you are sure "that's the way it's always been done" is the only reason it's still there.