What could be wrong with having a thorough look at the overgrown regulatory forest and hacking back a few trees?
In the past, even Conservative governments have tended to see most regulatory frameworks as an accumulation of rules and sectoral improvements in which an occasional winnowing is necessary. This government turns that on its head. Its explicit default presumption is that regulations will go unless they can be justified. \”If ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay,\” says the site.
Here is where we can glimpse, even if it\’s not well explained as yet, the ideological divide.
Let\’s agree that we all do indeed agree that we\’ve got to do the winnowing. Without such we\’d still have the law that you can kill a Welshman inside the walls of Chester after nightfall.
Now, here comes the ideology: why do we have regulation (or legislation, for that matter). Two conceptual positions:
1) There\’s got to be a law about it otherwise how will people know what they\’re allowed to do?
2) Where\’s there\’s a specific problem that is solvable by law or regulation let\’s solve it. Otherwise, no law or regulation. And what exactly is the problem this regulation is trying to solve, is it important enough to involve the State and does it solve the problem?
Yes, they\’re broad brush caricatures and as all such contain a germ of truth.
Position 2) is the traditional English response. 1) is the more \”Roman Law\”, continental, perhaps we might even say social democratic response.
We are English and I\’ve no problem with the idea that we might trawl through that thicket and lay flat many of the laws, saving only those we can hide behind when the Devil turns on us.
I also agree that there are others who insist that no, there needs to be rules \’n\’ regs about everything for how otherwise will the poor lambs know what the beneficient rulers have allowed them to do?
But then again we\’re English so fuck those prodnose bastards.
There are things that have to be done and that can only be done by government. This is why we do in fact need to have a government. There are also problems that must be solved and which can only be solved by the law and regulation. So let us have those laws and regulations. But anything which does not solve a problem, does not solve a problem which can only be solved that way and also that actually needs solving, get rid of it.
So that\’s about 90% of the rules \’n\’ regs for the bonfire then, eh?