Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free

Your guide to what the American elections mean 2024 for Washington and the world

I was hoping that after a few weeks of watching successful Elon Musk teams via the American federal bureaucracy, people may have reported that his “efficiency” engine is not fully announced.

However, instead of the Trump administration is a warning story, the worship of standard cancellation was necessarily a good thing that has gained a disturbing number of global followers. When France suddenly pays the European Union “A huge organizational pause” You know that things are not normal. But in the UK, where the usual Geneflection continued towards the United States despite the various political cultures and administrative systems, where true believers are found.

Kimi Badnoush, the leader of the Conservative Party, said strangely this week that the government’s ministry is musk He didn’t go away enough. At the end of Trump’s first week, Simon Kis, former head of civil service in the United Kingdom, Blessed It is a “intense transparency” in the American competence campaign and said it may provide a global model for the government’s re -invention. Looking at the damage to the musk by today, this argument is already very bad.

Prime Minister Sir Kerr Starmer is completely less extremist and did not fortunately cite Trump as an inspiration, although he did so Bring cancel the restrictions During his first invitation with the American president. But his government still shows some annoying tendencies in this direction. The Labor Labor’s long -term commitment exceeds and praises to reduce construction, infrastructure, and ministers ’speeches Writings It is now routinely feeding with public calls against excessive rules.

All of this may be considered an empty standard rhetoric, but it seems dangerous at a time of this imperfect destruction to give the space of worship to enjoy. You can make sure it was not in Action elections statementWhich was regardless Retrieve.

If the government appears to be desperate to change the political narration, it will kidnap any idea that has been classified as canceling regulatory restrictions, it may cause some grave damage. It seems that the Chancellor Rachel Reeves last month required that economic work did not come to himself when he was in the opposition, in the opposition, last month, and asked them to grow on growth. The government is then eviction The Chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for being sufficiently keen to agree to mergers.

CMA has long been criticized by major companies, especially in technology, to prohibit acquisitions and enjoy a long time to make decisions. Now, you can discuss the operation of the competition policy in the UK, whether in the process or the result. But it is worrying that the government determines the interests of large companies as identical to enhancing growth.

Unlike the criteria of the product or green regulations, the competition policy is not just a matter of protecting consumer interests or interests for the environment in exchange for the interests of companies. Unorganized monopoly results in great profits for monopolies, but they do not traditionally produce growth or innovation.

If the technology industry economies mean that the comparison between restricting market dominance and growth is now outdated, then we must hear the reasons behind this. If your ready -made meals from American economic history are to consider positively in a few weeks of canceling the restrictions in Trump while ignoring more than a century of anti -monopoly, you are doing it wrongly.

There is, of course, an enormous paradox here for the United Kingdom. The rules that affect companies are not written in the whims of the malicious organizers. Many make it easier to grow and create with the companies themselves and sometimes. For example, the use of 20 -foot charging container that has revolutionized the trade of global commodities dramatically after the officially adopted international size standards.

As it happens, the United Kingdom has begun an experience in removing radical organization during the past five years, eroding the official rules system that was mainly developed in cooperation with companies. The regime was the unified market for the European Union and the Customs Union and the experiment was called Britain’s exit from the European Union. It was based on an explicit manufacturing on the European Union regulations on Banana Girl and the like, which is a failure, Cost maybe 5 percent of GDP. If the government wants a growth model, it is irony that joining the European Union’s organizational myths is there, and I have not yet seen any convincing argument that the presence of the European Union’s organizational framework will exceed the benefits. The government’s refusal to discuss the case correctly shows that it is not serious about growth.

There is a size discussion about good and bad organization. Inspired by Musk, the way to simplify it Literally to a large extent “Ctrl-F [thing I don’t like]- Determine the deletion, “not conclusively. Doing everything that major companies tell you, right. The inconvenient cruciate wars against the organization- the use of outdated metaphors like” red tape “and” BluePrint “is a always a warning sign- always- Huge damage can occur, and to develop rules or unwanted in the impulsion of political necessity.

Alan.beattie@ft.com