Since many owners look carefully at the potential savings to be made in maintenance costs by moving to N reg, including reduced propellor inspections amongst others, it does not follow that N reg are better maintained in the UK than G reg.
Neither does it follow that because something is inspected more frequently, it fails less. Indeed many failures occur to aircraft of all nationalities shortly after a visit to the maintenance shop.
This thread seems to have lost its way though focusing on personal digs rather than the larger picture.
Various unsubstantiated rumours are always popping up on these forums and others. The instigators are never authoritative themselves but invariably have "a friend" who is "well placed" to know what is going on. This thread is a fine example, and you only have to look back two weeks or so, when it was Cathar who had "good information" that the DfT were going to be dealing with this "problem".
Some things are certain. The FAA is concerned about the volume of work being generated by (in particular) its large overseas fleet of light aircraft. It must be true, although I don't have a friend "in the know", that the CAA is concerned by the number of pilots who are electing to take themselves out of the system. The IR is the tip of the iceberg. Nobody who has thought hard about the NPPL would actually follow that route if they were aware that for similar money and similar effort, they can obtain an ICAO recognised FAA PPL which permits unrestricted flying in G-reg aircraft. FAA Medicals meet ICAO standards (with a couple of small caveats that are easily avoided), and will often certifcate somebody who by reason of medical history may feel more inclined towards the HGV style approach adopted by the NPPL.
The answer is to sort out the mess that is JAA FCL - not to hamper the international recognition of another country's ICAO-compliant licences and the free operation of another state's aircraft.
IMHO of course
