Reactions from Westminster’s wonks are in. Free market think tanks view the whopping 40 bills as a mixed bag…
The Adam Smith Institute’s Maxwell Marlow calls it “a case of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Planning reforms “if executed properly” could get Britain building alongside “welcome relief” of leasehold and commonhold reform, and the legalisation of the sale of lab grown meat. The ASI criticises the smoking ban, dubbed a “black market charter“, and decries the VAT on private schools for “actually costing taxpayers and causing chaos as pupils leave their independent schools“. Employment rights changes will add “constraints” on businesses, while tinkering around venue and regulatory changes are “further worrying signs that this is a government that will expand the size and scope of the regulatory state.” Bureaucratic creep will ensue…
John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, says “taxpayers will be deeply disappointed by a legislative programme that fiddles with everything while fixing nothing… the agenda is dominated by low-priority issues and nakedly disastrous proposals, from a race equality bill to banning smoking, a football regulator and VAT on private schools.” Cutting…
The Centre for Policy Studies focuses on planning. Its Head of Housing, Samuel Hughes, says it is “welcome to see the Government being ambitious in its proposals, but these are only first steps. Only a full suite of reforms across policy and guidance will give the country any chance of seeing a housebuilding boom on the scale we so desperately need.” YIMBY appetites have been whetted…
Institute of Economic Affairs Executive Director Tom Clougherty welcomes planning changes but warns “pro-growth measures risk being held back by new red tape and risky ‘mission-led’ central planning.” He targets the North Sea oil and gas ban and a stack of new regulations, which will “reduce flexibility and increase structural unemployment” while nationalisations are “fraught with the risks of wasted taxpayer money, trade union dominance, and cronyism.”
Now the UK is well and truly state-led again, the outcomes of these projects rely on the actions of the government and its managers. It will go the same as always.
Rachel Reeves targeted planning in her first speech as Chancellor, and the reaction from the free-market think tanks has been unusually positive. The theme amongst the wonks is “we welcome the plans”. Cosying up to the new leading party…
The Institute of Economic Affairs spokesman hails the plans: “Rachel Reeves is right to emphasise the importance of growth in tackling Britain’s challenges…Undoubtedly, the most exciting part of the agenda is the government’s immediate plans to reform the planning system”. Labour pleasing the YIMBYs…
The Adam Smith Institute‘s Maxwell Marlow said: “We welcome the Chancellor’s plans to introduce supply-side reforms…Overall, this indicates a seriousness of purpose in fixing one of the greatest drags on Britain’s prosperity.” Though it’s correctly pointed out “plans must be based on results rather than intentions”…
The Taxpayers’ Alliance‘s CEO John O’Connell writes: “Taxpayers will welcome the chancellor’s commitment to delivering growth and her genuine grasp of the problems with the planning system”. They don’t point out that Reeves’ plan to hire 300 new planning officers will cost £20 million a year alone, which ultimately falls on…the taxpayer…
As Guido noted earlier, these promises have been made before. Actions speak louder than words…
Speaking at his speech on how to achieve “progressive capitalism” Wes Streeting fired a dig and Andy Burnham:
“Bond markets are not bond villains and fiscal rules matter.”