14th April 2022
On theme of this blog is the relationship between political discourse and underlying law and policy.
A contrast, of course, which is very telling this week as the leader of the party of “Law and Order!” conceded he had broken the criminal law on government property, and only one minister resigned.
Law and order is for other people.
*
Other phrases – again complete with capital letters and exclamation marks, are “Health and Safety!” and “Red Tape!”.
And here too the political vocabulary plays strange things with reality.
Over at the Guardian, there is a fascinating and informative article by the deputy news editor of Inside Housing on the Grenfell inquiry, Lucie Heath.
Heath says:
“the inquiry has consistently painted a damning picture of the deregulation drive that was a key focus during Cameron’s time as prime minister.
“The obsession with abolishing red tape saw ministers at that time ignoring warning signs about a growing building safety crisis, and civil servants too disaffected to speak up.”
*
Rarely a month goes by without some minister getting easy applause for saying that we should get rid of “Red Tape!”
Dynamic words are often used, such as “unleash” or “unshackle”.
But such words are not an articulation of a policy, but a substitute for one.
And usually those who speak generally about cutting “Red Tape!” are unable to provide particularised examples.
Of course, some rules and regulations need to be revisited – especially those that have been put in place because of that other political phrase “Something Must Be Done!” – but this should be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
Regulations – in and of themselves – are neither inherently bad nor inherently good.
And getting rid of regulations – or not taking regulations seriously – for the sake of it is just as misconceived as putting in regulations for the sake of it.
Sometimes – as is being uncovered by this inquiry – what seems like mere “Red Tape!” can be very important indeed.
And so just as we would have better politics if politicians and the media did not confuse “Law and Order!” with law and order, we would also benefit if we did not clap and cheer on attacks on “Red Tape!” but looked at each case to see if regulations were needed or not.
If so, we would be “unleashing” or “unshackling” sensible political discourse.
And wouldn’t that be a thing?
**
Thank you for reading – and please support this blog.
These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
A rather unfortunate slogan re deregulation, in light of Grenfell, is making a “bonfire” of red tape.
Astonishingly Lord Pickles did not apoarently realise that ‘Red Tape!’ included Building Regulations. This means that he was certainly asleep on the job, which maybe should have been covered by ‘Health and Safety!’ regulations.
The irony is that successful regulation will make you think that you do not need regulation.
If it prevents some disaster from happening, you will not know that it was prevented – how do you know the counterfactual of not having the regulation would have been – and therefore that the regulation was successful? If it does not stop what it was meant to stop, then it is not successful regulation.
Very thought provoking point. The fact is that Grenfell is a good example of the need for proper regulation, and the fact that a number of TORY Governments have claimed the benefit of a “bonfire” of regulations – this is no cause for celebration, since usually such a move is a prelude to a later disaster. There is usually a reason for regulations.
Invariably when there is a disaster there will be a regulation, guidance advice, inspection requirement, failure to act on a report or similar event that will be part of the disaster.
Knowing where the danger lies is revealed too late. Better to stick with the status quo and if events prove that there is a need for action then act.
The culture in an industry – unions demanding the presence of guards on a train for example – is just another example of a disaster that may be waiting to happen?
Abolishing red tape was a theme throughout the Brexit debate. I found myself regulary re-assembling the TV set after interviewees calling for it were left unchallenged to give an example by the man/woman with the microphone, on whatever channel. It was so simple and obvious a question that the fact it wasn’t asked suggests it was policy.
Exactly. It would actually be interesting if those who railed against ‘Brussels bureaucracy’ could have given a single example. Because that would have helped people discuss and maybe even understand each other.
The same could be said of ‘Sovereignty!’…
Thank you DAG for this. I can imagine many of your other readers, like me, are incandescent with rage at Johnson, Sunak and Patel at their despicable behaviour and these subject are at least marginally less vein throbbing.
“Red tape” has an interesting etymology. It is believed to have originated at the Court of Charles V of Spain (and Holy Roman Emperor etc), to distinguish dossiers on matters of priority that needed urgent attention from those that did not which were bound with ordinary string. And the bureaucratic slowness of Charles V’s empire was legendary. The Venetian Ambassador to Charles V’s Spanish Court wryly reported back to his superiors at La Serenissima that “if death comes from Spain we shall all be immortal”.
But back to the subject. Brexit has meant that this woeful administration (government is too strong a term) has increased “Red tape” by some orders of magnitude, hence the huge fall off in exports, particularly of food and drink. I believe Brexit demands 50,000 new customs officials who will add nothing positive to the economy but instead act as a brake and additional burden to the taxpayer. “Law and Order” is, of course, for the little people, particularly those laws that include incarceration are targeted at the poorest in society, for the undeserving poor deserve to be punished. “White collar crime” on the other hand goes mostly unpunished, some of it believed to be “victimless” unless you are indeed a victim of mushrooming fraud. Otherwise there are fines, which rich people can pay, but which may be a strong and therefore desirable deterrent for the poor.
The accelerating descent to global ignominy by this administration is cause for no little shame for many of us in the pursuit of slogans that are not only vacuous and meaningless but in fact result in the very opposite. How long, Lord, how long?
May I wish you and all your commenters and readers a splendid Easter weekend.
I don’t know how punctilious people are nowadays – I expect they are often sent by email – but I understand that Crown briefs (such as prosecutions) should properly be tied up with white tape, with green tape for other central or local government briefs, and black tape may be used for probate matters.
But the idiom of “red tape” meaning “bad rules” remains. I’ve seen the opposite – “green tape” – used for “good rules” (like everyone must drive on the left, or wear a seatbelt), or for environmental regulations.
On the wider point, the Conservative Party cannot realistically hold itself out as a party of law and order while its members condone the criminality and corruption of its leaders. How can anyone believe a word they say, when so much is lies?
Very well said..
Even if the ‘red tape’ remains in place there has to be someone to enforce it. Austerity has decimated public services to the extent that in local government and other agencies there are very few enforcers left. My own former profession, Trading Standards (which includes amongst many other responsibilities weights and measures and construction products regulations) is now virtually non existent. An alternative way of reducing red tape perhaps?
In the context of the Environment Agency, I calculated that cutting a budget by 10% each year leaves you with just 34.8% of the original budget after 10 years. (0.9 multiplied by itself, 10 times.) And of course that does not allow for the effects of inflation.
What you are discussing here is what Steven Poole in his book of the same name describes as “unspeak”, which consists of words and short phrases which carry with them a whole unspoken argument – “an attempt to say something without saying it, without getting into an argument and so having to justify itself”. One of the examples which Poole gives is “pro-life”, when used in debates about abortion, but I would also cite “tax burden”.
Another phrase without any real meaning is the oft-quoted “lessons to be learned”. They never are. Similarly, an example of “unspeak” heard in discussion – often heated – is “you mark my words”, htis usually implies that the speaker has run out of arguments to bolster his case.
The discarding of building regulations and the means (via local authorities) for their enforcement has left leaseholders and tenants with inadequate and often unsafe homes. This was deliberate policy by governments. The sight of ex-ministers pompously claiming that the Grenfell tragedy was not their responsibility has been sickening. This approach, and its bigger brother Brexit, has been toxic, debilitating and for many, deadly.
A few years back in England there was a public celebration resulting in the pubs being open all day.
I was taken aback by a barman proceeding to pull me a pint of bitter into a plastic container which was shaped to resemble a beer glass.
When I queried this with him he assured me that it was all to do with « Health and Safety « and proceeded to charge me an extra 10p for the plastic container.
Later needing a refill I returned to the bar holding my plastic container only to be told by the barman that to comply with « Health and Safety « he could not use my plastic container again and proceeded to pour a second pint into another plastic container for which he charged me another 10p.
Within this true story are hidden so many messages about « Health and Safety ».
Fascinating to compare the recent evidence from politicians compared to that of other witnesseses at the Grenfell Inquiry. When asked a question they didn’t want to answer they (particularly Pickles) adopted the usual tactic of bluster or talking about something else. However, Richard Millett Q.C. had more time and skill than the average media interviewer and humiliation ensued.
Forgive me for bringing Brexit into this debate, but it does have some relevance concerning the UK’s capacity for enacting good standards and regulation and also the attitude of the executive to standards and regulation.
It was fun for Leave campaigners to pour scorn on “Brussels bureaucrats” and for others to severely criticise “EU Red Tape”.What was ignored was that the vast bulk of that red tape and the legislation that went with it applied to things that made a modern state work efficiently and safely for its businesses and citizens. Basically it was “red tape” that an independent European non-member state would be doing for itself if it intended to work on a par with its neighbours and trading partners.
Rather than a source of inefficency, as accused by Leave campaigners, the opposite is mostly true. That work of creating, reviewing and updating essential standards and regulatory law is really quite efficient. It appears to be cumbersome but that is because it is working for 27 independent countries, and needs to ensure buy-in. That buy-in is essential for the Single Market to work, and we have recently found that being outside it has no trading advantages. Going back to 27 different sets of standards and regulations is patently absurd and so the downside of the cumbersome process is outweighed by the unified results.
The Brussels bureaucracy is actually relatively small. But it is expert and in carrying out its work for 27 nations it was good value for money. In sharing the costs, the members of the EU get a very good deal.
I fear that the UK government has not realised what is needed in terms of resources to maintain a similar level of regulatory activity now that we can no longer rely on Brussels to do the work for us. It’s not a glamorous activity for a politician to budget for, so inevitably it will be under-resourced. The danger is that our standards will steadily degrade, potentially without us noticing until a crisis draws our attention to it.
Add to that the metaphorical chest-beating about “Red Tape” which you allude to in your post. That will deter public servants from addressing the issue seriously. Rather than be a boring process going on in the background we run a serious risk of staggering from crisis to crisis, throwing resources at subjects only when they hit the headlines.
I couldn’t agree more.