I agree that Consumer Focus should be retained, but it does need to be pruned as it is too big and does too much. However, on Which? I think you should do a more research before stating your opinion. Until recently I used to work for them and they are not member-led on their campaigns as they actively campaign for ALL consumers.

No – Consumers do not need organisations which claim to be representing the consumer, but actually turn out to be mouthpieces for the government. These outfits were always constructed on a lie. They should go and the sooner the better.

Hi there,

I don’t wish to malign the work of Which? so my apologies if what I said was too strong. As for Consumer Focus being a “mouthpiece for government” – that is very odd. How does that square with their active opposition to the Digital Economy Act, for instance?

The problem here is the confusion of function and the organisation currently delivering said function. Why one particular way of delivering say consumer protection than another is valid is a case that needs to be made – just saying the current organisation does a good job is not case enough. Nowhere in the original post do I see reasons why Consumer Focus should exist, even if there is clearly functions that need to be exercised by statute or by common sense. It is inertia that assumes that not changing things is the best option – the case has to be made.

Incidentally, am I alone in expecting something a bit more radical and outspoken from the title “Consumer protection is being cut, but we need it more than ever’? The actual article was against the cutting of Consumer Focus (sounds more like a magazine title than Which…) rather than accusing anyone of cutting consumer protection, never mind proving it is needed now more than say the 1920s.

A spivs charter. This is what all those corporations bought when they handed over their cash to the tories. No more whining about trade unions please trolls.

We see who owns the tory party. They don’t want regulators helping consumers get the best deals and they want the power to rip them off. No more money back for power customers in the future.

Nice and sleazy does it when the tories have favours to pay back to their corporate masters.

sally,

If I was a supermarket say, interested in market domination which of the following would I prefer.

A. A consumer champion which was controlled and funded by government, which might happen to be a party of which one member of the owning family was a senior member and which happened to receive gifts from my supermarket chain. A champion, moreover, which has acquiesed already in the increasing oligarchy in the markets of a small number of supermarkets and large retailers.

B. Consumer organisations which owed no links to government, could have responsibilities taken away if any inpropriety was discovered and which are independent. Organisations, moreover, which have a track record of taking on vested interests and pointing out when abuse is taking place.

The assumption that government agencies are best for the consumer assumes also that government is not in league with the corporations against the consumer. I would never assume this personally – would you?

Hey Watchman, don’t be tough on Sally, she’s been struggling with herself very hard to avoid using the brownShirt word – so full credit to her.

But your criticism of the Article seemed spot on to me when you said:

> It is inertia that assumes that not changing things is the best option – the case has to be made.

Watchman, you say

> It is inertia that assumes that not changing things is the best option – the case has to be made.

Let me say: no, the government *should* make a case for why it’s going to *change* things and why, rather than simply cutting. This is what BIS was in the middle of doing: reviewing the whole consumer protection area, with likely rationalisations. The review was apparently abandoned when Francis Maude’s team stepped in to say the Treasury had decided it had to go.

The phrase “evidence-based policy making” springs to mind.

“The assumption that government agencies are best for the consumer assumes also that government is not in league with the corporations against the consumer. I would never assume this personally – would you?”

You are likewise assuming that the private agencies are above corruption. I wouldn’t level such an accusation at Which?, but there’s many a newspaper that will run ‘reviews’ on consumer products that turn out to be poorly (and perhaps some not so poorly) veiled adverts. What’s more, this isn’t illegal, so catching them doesn’t count for much, whereas if a member of Consumer Focus was discovered to be profiteering by promoting unsafe products there’d be hell to pay.

Also, as has already been mentioned, Which? has little interest in covering any goods or services that its readers are unlikely to use. Leaving great swathes of products with minimal supervision.