Report comment

In this neo-liberal world where market forces are king, what is the problem with McKenzie friends?
If you want a cheap as chips light touch regulation then surely it is a case of caveat emptor- if the ‘consumer’ chooses to instruct an uninsured and unregulated representative, it doesn’t mean they won’t be competent but the consumer will take a massive risk if they are not.- presumably they should be able to buy insurance against such a risk
If that is the overriding policy (and I don’t see any alternative arguments being proposed by the mainstream political parties) this is the natural end result
As a by-product it means the poor and the vulnerable will be left to the mercy of the market and the lip service protection of ineffectual and worthless regulators who do little to provide any protection or guidance (see the Wonga letters as an example)
It will be highly muddled administration that preaches the free market on one hand, and yet provides anything other than lip service of a commitment to legal aid
In this landscape of all cost and no value and devil take the hindmost, I don’t expect any changes to the policy

‘We’ lawyers have allowed the Govt to dictate the terms of the debate and whenever this issue comes up, it is reported in the face of ‘you lawyers are speaking from a position of self-interest’
‘We’ should be highlighting all the examples of miscarriages of justice or the tangles that people get themselves into without proper representation- yet where is such a campaign?

As a body we could have mounted a professional PR campaign to fight this fight headed by a professional spokesmen/ figurehead –instead we stand back and wait for the politicos to do the ‘decent and reasonable thing’- it isn’t going to happen
As a profession we are and have been represented by anonymous people mumbling their messages into a headwind