FOR impatient souls, the government's attempts to cut red tape exemplify its lack of grip. The coalition agreement of 2010 trumpeted a plan "to completely recast the relationship between people and the state." Out with nannyish health and safety. Out with humiliating criminal-records checks. Out with ambulance-chasing lawyers who chill the spirits of the public-spirited and entrepreneurial. Common sense would replace clipboards. A report on health and safety by Lord Young, part-written when the Tories were still in opposition and published in October 2010, smacks of the admirable spirit of that age. "Common Sense, Common Safety" began with a foreword from David Cameron, blasting the "compensation culture" and promising to end the "unnecessary bureaucracy that drains creativity and innovation" and "senseless rules" that curb volunteering. Lord Young decried a "climate of fear" affecting every aspect of life; he portrayed a world where unqualified consultants issued Utopian recommendations to eliminate risk that choked enterprise but boosted their own fees. A report on volunteering called "Unshackling Good Neighbours" was similarly apocalyptic. It said a "suffocating blanket of red tape and an insidious mythology about being sued are deterring millions of Britons, volunteer organisations and charities." Polemicising is easy. So is setting up a Twitter-friendly website and inviting public comments (the government's Red Tape Challenge site drew 28,800). Actually changing the way the country works is much harder. Josie Appleton of the Manifesto Club, which campaigns for "freedom in everyday life," says that the government has proved simply too weak to reverse the trend of the past decade. Laura Sandys, a Conservative MP who is trying to boost voluntary activity in her South Thanet seat, says "therapy, not legislation" is needed to change a mindset shaped by a deluge of scare stories and tight regulation. Obstacles abound. Many new rules and laws have come into existence to assuage fears about paedophiles, terrorists or hooligans. Trimming even the silliest of these measures (such as those preventing public photography of children) risks the wrath of the same tabloids who also fulminate about red tape. Big firms are lukewarm allies: they deal with rules more easily than small ones and may even like measures that deter disruptive competition. Formidable institutional difficulties exist too. Bureaucrats preserve their prerogatives against evanescent political pressure (Lord Young has long since departed the government). "Thousands of people have thousands of reasons why nothing should change," notes a red-tape slasher. Localism necessarily gives councils the right to make mistakes. The European Commission continues to spew out regulations, despite British efforts to team up with like-minded countries to curb it. Britain's unwritten constitution gives people far less legal redress against bad decisions by bureaucrats than in France or Germany, notes Ms Appleton. Judicial review is a big gun, but only for the rich. Any restrictions on the cost or quantity of litigation mean dealing with lawyers, one of Britain's most effective cartels, who have an uncanny ability to spike or blunt changes that hurt their business model. Indeed, on some fronts things are still getting worse not better. Public leafleting, for example, is increasingly criminalised: councils think it is messy and potentially offensive. The clearest victory is at the centre. A "one in, one out" rule has curbed Whitehall's penchant for new regulations. In a big survey of business perceptions this year the number of firms that reckoned over-regulation was an obstacle to success fell from 62% in 2009 to a (still high) level of 55% in 2012. The share of those who minded most strongly about the issue fell from 35% to 24%. But even here the picture is mixed. Small firms said compliance was consuming more time and money, not less. The Forum of Private Business, a lobby group, says 84% of its members spent more time dealing with regulation than in 2009. Getting rid of one rule may highlight problems with another. Chris Gittins of Streets Alive, a charity that promotes street parties, says the government "nailed" the main obstacle by removing some guidance from a ministry website that told local councils to advertise even minor road closures, causing cost and delay. But he still wants councils to stop demanding that organisers have public-liability insurance even for small events. For little platoons, the £50 ($81) and form-filling involved is prohibitive. The advances can seem footling. The "Modernisation of the Electricity (Compulsory Wayleaves) (Hearings Procedure) Rules 1967," a highlight of the Red Tape Challenge website last month, eases life for landowners dealing with overhead power lines, but even fans would not call it revolutionary. Many of the most radical ideas are still on paper, such as the right of automatic appeal to an ombudsman against local government rulings on health and safety. Abolishing agencies is especially hard: the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority - seen as a killjoy by those trying to bring fun to the young - remains stubbornly in existence. The fire next time Now the government is trying to rekindle the spirit of 2010. On September 10th it said it was scrapping more than 3,000 rules, including routine health and safety inspections for low-risk workplaces such as shops and offices. Next month it will deregulate most live music performances. It will simplify criminal-records checks, making a single clearance portable between jobs or activities (so a teacher can, say, also work at a youth club), and end "strict liability" where even the prudent can be sued for damages. Next year will be the best year so far, says a scourge of red tape. But it all seems haphazard and achingly slow. Though Britons may not truly live in fear, the climate of timidity is all too real.