Imagine this: in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, squeezed households, and businesses teetering on the edge, the government’s solution is not to bolster protections, but to dismantle them. Enter Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, who recently rallied regulators to “tear down” barriers—but not the kind that keep the fat cats from raiding the pantry. No, these barriers, apparently, are the ones holding back economic growth.
At a Treasury-hosted summit, Reeves, joined by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, implored industry watchdogs to embrace a “mindset shift.” Translation? Stop focusing so much on risk and start helping big players innovate, invest, and thrive. Because, naturally, when you make it easier to mis-sell mortgages or slash data requirements, prosperity will surely trickle down to the little people. Won’t it?
Regulatory Creativity or Deregulatory Chaos?
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), among others, was quick to throw ideas into the ring. They proposed:
Reviewing capital requirements for specialised trading firms: Improving liquidity sounds fancy, but doesn’t this just mean more room to gamble with other people’s money?
Simplifying responsible lending and advice rules for mortgages: Because what could go wrong when lenders are encouraged to take their hands off the wheel?
Reducing data burdens: Less paperwork for firms might sound good on paper, but less scrutiny means more loopholes for exploitation.
Dedicated case officers for start-ups: A helping hand for those playing regulatory hopscotch. But where’s the same support for consumers left to navigate the murky waters of financial products?
The FCA’s approach, if you squint hard enough, might resemble progress. But peel back the curtain, and it’s not hard to see the beneficiaries: City coffers, bulked up by easier inflows from businesses, many of which are likely to be less encumbered by pesky rules protecting you, me, or anyone without a vested interest in quarterly profits.
Jobs for All? Or Just More for the Few?
Reeves’ rallying cry for growth hinges on the premise that easing regulatory constraints will create jobs and put money in pockets. But whose jobs, and whose pockets? This deregulation hymn echoes the same old tune of trickle-down economics: let the big fish swim freely, and surely the little fish will thrive in their wake.
Except, history suggests otherwise. Remember the financial crisis? That was a masterclass in what happens when regulators decide to play nice with innovation and investment. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t the bankers or trading firms left queuing at food banks.
Cultural Shift or Systemic Shrinking?
The Chancellor’s call for a “cultural shift” from regulators to focus on growth rather than risk management isn’t just ambitious—it’s dangerous. Stripping away accumulated responsibilities might streamline processes, but it also waters down the very safeguards designed to prevent exploitation.
Regulators have warned about balancing growth with other legal responsibilities. Translation? If we’re too busy helping businesses thrive, who’s looking out for the public interest? The same public, mind you, already grappling with stagnant wages and rising costs.
Fresh Ideas or Same Old Rhetoric?
Reeves has called for “fresh ideas” and “greater ambition.” And why not? After all, it’s much easier to point the finger at bureaucratic hurdles than to admit that systemic issues—like inequality and lack of robust consumer protections—require more than a light-touch regulatory environment.
As the government gears up to scrutinise reform proposals from 17 regulators, we’re left to wonder: who’s scrutinising the government’s own motivations?
Growth at What Cost?
Reeves assures us there’s “no substitute for growth,” which is all very well until you realise this brand of growth might come at the cost of ordinary people’s stability. When watchdogs are nudged to let go of the leash, it’s rarely the public who benefit. Instead, the beneficiaries are often those already sitting pretty at the top—the fat cats, whose pockets are anything but empty.
So, the next time someone tells you that tearing down regulatory barriers is a win for everyone, ask them this: if squeezing Britain’s already empty pockets fills City coffers, who’s really winning? Spoiler: it’s not the little people.
Commenti