In response to Peter Hamilton’s column, MM 25/07/2013.
While I agree with much of what you say about a lack of transparency in recruiting and “jobs for the boys” (and girls), I feel the need to raise a recurring issue concerning the overlap within the legal profession and party politics.
As you will know, a certain Harriet Harman; once solicitor general and I believe a QC has much to say on matters regulatory. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the words “we need a completely independent regulator” come from her lips. Freedom of the press, financial services, you name it – it needs an independent regulator.
As a legal mind and a politician, she clearly feels that we cannot trust our elected officials not to unduly influence Government departments charged with regulatory matters, and at the same time feels unelected ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ drawn almost exclusively from her own profession, should rule over our lives.
Is our elected parliament so despicable that we cannot trust them to regulate? If so, we can always vote them out. We do not have that luxury with an ‘independent regulator’.
I became a financial adviser in 1985 and since that time my profession seems to have attracted a huge regulatory leach, which spends a great deal of time richly feathering the nests of ex-city lawyers and accountants. These costs are passed on to the public as a hidden tax. Clearly they know a good thing when they see it! What about those they are meant to protect, but form whose ranks they never recruit and whom cannot get shot of them at the ballot box. The whole thing stinks.
Professional Solutions Group