John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.
The furore about the pricing of concert tickets over the weekend has again revealed an unfortunate truth for those on the right in British politics: while we often assume people resent an overbearing state, most regulation is the result of the sort of things voters ask for and even demand.
Even those who agree in the abstract about the need for a smaller state often call for the government to step in when there is an error or failure. If the Conservatives are going to make the case for leaner government, they are going to have to manage this aspect of public opinion.
The Oasis ticket highlighted two issues with the ticketing market. The first is that of touting, where third-party sellers buy tickets and sell them at inflated margins. The second is dynamic pricing, where the original retailers respond to heavy demand by ramping up prices.
Instinctively, neither feels particularly fair; but it is a function of a market where demand massively outstrips supply. This unfairness has caused an outcry, with the new government set to investigate, and potentially regulate these aspects of the concert business.
It is a typical bit of government overreach. The sale of gig tickets is not an essential service. There is little real harm done by overpaying or being priced out. If concertgoers are really bothered by the practice, a well-aimed boycott or social media campaign could show promoters, venues, and bands that there is a market incentive not to fleece consumers.
Yet the call for the heavy hand of regulation is an instant and broadly popular one. Rather than being John Bull freedom-lovers, the median Brit tends to yearn for a rule.
The response to rumours of the extension of the smoking ban confirms this. While commentators and politicians on the right were largely outraged, the public was not. Voters were enthused by a possible crackdown on vapes and smoking in shared outdoor spaces. Rishi Sunak’s own plans to create smoke-free generations were perhaps the most popular thing his government proposed.
There is, it seems, little the voters want more than a ban – and few prohibitions politicians aren’t willing to indulge.
Increased regulation has an easy appeal. Whenever there is some issue, big or small, there is a natural inclination to want to stop it. A quick rule or regulation seems like an easy and popular fix.
But it too often ignores the broader consequences. Each change can distort a market, add adverse costs and consequences, or just add to the burden that companies and individuals have to comply with. En masse, this can be wholly disproportionate to the harm prevented.
A good example is Brighton council’s mandate, passed in 2020, that new apartment buildings must have “bee bricks” included. It sounds great at first, compelling builders to do something to help a much beloved endangered insect.
Yet, of course, it adds cost and complexity to the building process – not just the higher price of the bricks themselves, but also all the admin of making sure they are included. Worse than that, there is no scientific consensus that bricks actually help the bees, making a simple idea both costly and counterproductive.
Through fourteen years in power, the Conservatives may have talked about reducing the state but were often convinced by these pulls towards new rules and regulations.
Laws around animal theft and assaults on emergency workers were introduced after public pressure, even though those things were already illegal; the party pressed ahead with rules suggested after the Manchester bombing, which would have burdened small venues with coming up with anti-terror plans and training; it passed the sprawling and controversial Online Safety Act.
Even exiting the EU was seen as a chance to expand, rather than contract, rules such as the proposed ban on foie gras and fur imports.
It is not enough to simply state a desire for a smaller state. A party looking to reduce regulation must convince the public and itself not to take the easy route whenever there is an issue. The party should be clearer about where regulations can work and where they are more trouble than they are worth.
It should also make clear that some things, like perhaps concert pricing, are just beyond the areas that the government should be thinking about.
Equally, the party needs to hold its own discipline when these outcries occur. For ministers and MPs, lining up behind a campaign for a new piece of regulation is often seen as a shortcut to popularity.
Issue polling and focus groups suggest widespread support, and lobbying campaigns target politicians with the most sympathetic arguments; legislators need to be better at standing up to the pressure and saying “no” to new rules as an answer to every ill.
There has been a lot of discussion this summer about the principles of the Tory Party. Some wish to define them more concretely and recentre the Conservatives around historic values.
Perhaps more important than this is understanding that principles and values only matter if you stick to them when it is hard and unpopular to do so. That’s what makes them worthwhile. In politics, that means things like this telling the public that you are not going to act without a real need, even if there is support for meddling.
Yesterday’s report on the Grenfell disaster shows us what regulation is really for – stopping the sharp practice, negligence, and dishonesty that costs lives. The state needs to do that stuff well, with well-resourced bodies enforcing properly drafted rules.
An unthinking creed of deregulation is dangerous. The government should not abrogate its responsibility of keeping us safe, and it is important to learn from the failures of rule-making and monitoring that led to the disaster.
On less critical matters, however, the Conservative Party needs to make the case for standing back. If the party is to be one of a small government with less interference in people’s lives, it needs to convince the public of the case for that.
It also needs the discipline to remember how bad rules linger long after good headlines have dissipated – the quick call for intervention on Oasis tickets shows that over-regulation is a cultural problem and one those who want a smaller state must resist.
It is right to want the government to keep people safe from danger, but it is unnecessary to protect them from even mild unfairness.
