I was surprised, bordering on appalled, to hear that the government had sacked Marcus Bokkerink, the Chair of the Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA).
"Governments and policymakers are recognising that it is no longer enough, if it ever was, for the state to simply get out of the way, to leave markets to their own devices and correct the occasional negative externality."
Excellent piece. Thank you. I'd note two further features of this case, that add to your concern about the integrity of the public appointments.
1. by appointing Doug Gurr on a so-called "interim" basis, the govt has avoided the normal public appointments process, and in particular the pre-appointment scrutiny that a prospective CMA Chair would usually face before the Business and Trade Select Committee. Gurr is being appointed for 18 months, on a presumed mandate to make major changes to the CMA's strategy and priorities, with serious questions about his independence, both from Ministers and other interests. The testing of his personal independence, professional competence and priorities in role - in a public forum, prior to taking up his position - is especially important in this context.
2. the outgoing Chair's pragmatic tone is no doubt influenced by the promise in the accompanying gov.uk press notice that he will "continue to make a contribution to public life in a new leadership role, the details of which will be announced in due course". It is deeply troubling that the party that promised to "fix the foundations" seems to be turning the public sector appointments process into gravy train for compliant stooges.
Well said. It’s extremely worrying that someone is briefing the press that this is a warning to other regulators. Here’s the classic paper by the leading economic historian, Nick Crafts, arguing that weak competition sustained poor corporate governance and industrial relations problems in British industry https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498311000295
It's a great shame that papers like this one are behind a permanent paywall so I can't read it, nor can I add it to my regulation website. That's academic publishing for you!
Sadly this decision seems to be driven by the classic wrong-headed attitude that what is good for (incumbent) businesses is good for the economy and for growth. I find that conceptual error more concerning than the interference with regulators (all of which bend amply to the political winds).
"Governments and policymakers are recognising that it is no longer enough, if it ever was, for the state to simply get out of the way, to leave markets to their own devices and correct the occasional negative externality."
Rachel Reeves, Mais Lecture, March 2024.
Excellent piece. Thank you. I'd note two further features of this case, that add to your concern about the integrity of the public appointments.
1. by appointing Doug Gurr on a so-called "interim" basis, the govt has avoided the normal public appointments process, and in particular the pre-appointment scrutiny that a prospective CMA Chair would usually face before the Business and Trade Select Committee. Gurr is being appointed for 18 months, on a presumed mandate to make major changes to the CMA's strategy and priorities, with serious questions about his independence, both from Ministers and other interests. The testing of his personal independence, professional competence and priorities in role - in a public forum, prior to taking up his position - is especially important in this context.
2. the outgoing Chair's pragmatic tone is no doubt influenced by the promise in the accompanying gov.uk press notice that he will "continue to make a contribution to public life in a new leadership role, the details of which will be announced in due course". It is deeply troubling that the party that promised to "fix the foundations" seems to be turning the public sector appointments process into gravy train for compliant stooges.
Thanks Oliver.
I agree, obviously! - and drew attention to your comment in my subsequent LinkedIn post.
Well said. It’s extremely worrying that someone is briefing the press that this is a warning to other regulators. Here’s the classic paper by the leading economic historian, Nick Crafts, arguing that weak competition sustained poor corporate governance and industrial relations problems in British industry https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498311000295
Thanks David
It's a great shame that papers like this one are behind a permanent paywall so I can't read it, nor can I add it to my regulation website. That's academic publishing for you!
Sadly this decision seems to be driven by the classic wrong-headed attitude that what is good for (incumbent) businesses is good for the economy and for growth. I find that conceptual error more concerning than the interference with regulators (all of which bend amply to the political winds).