Competition and Markets Authority, Business, Regulators, Rachel Reeves, Economic policy, Politics, UK news Business | The Guardian
Is the chancellor just tweaking, or is she rewriting the definition of ‘anti-competitive’ under consumer’s noses?Another day, another trip to Downing Street for the nation’s regulatory chiefs as the chancellor attempts (again) to “kickstart” growth and chop back red tape. A novelty this time was the suggestion that the Competition and Markets Authority would be told to restrict the number, or at least the type, of deals it investigates. There could be changes to the “share of supply” and “material influence” tests that determine whether the watchdog barks.What does that mean in practice? Is it merely a tweak that removes a few administrative blurs in the current set-up? Or is the definition of “anti-competitive” being quietly rewritten under consumers’ noses? There is a very big difference between the two visions. Unfortunately, no one seems keen to offer clarity. Continue reading…
Is the chancellor just tweaking, or is she rewriting the definition of ‘anti-competitive’ under consumer’s noses?
Another day, another trip to Downing Street for the nation’s regulatory chiefs as the chancellor attempts (again) to “kickstart” growth and chop back red tape. A novelty this time was the suggestion that the Competition and Markets Authority would be told to restrict the number, or at least the type, of deals it investigates. There could be changes to the “share of supply” and “material influence” tests that determine whether the watchdog barks.
What does that mean in practice? Is it merely a tweak that removes a few administrative blurs in the current set-up? Or is the definition of “anti-competitive” being quietly rewritten under consumers’ noses? There is a very big difference between the two visions. Unfortunately, no one seems keen to offer clarity.
