UKC

Should central government be allowed to outlaw boycotts by councils or other organisations? Aren't the conservatives all for devolved power? Or is this another attack on freedom of speech?

In reply to krikoman:

No they shouldn't.

In reply to krikoman:

Absolutely, Geoffrey's Jeffry's cricket commentary gets on my wicket. Time to get some new blood in

In reply to Loughan:
Damn, got there before me...

In reply to krikoman:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=634685

In reply to EddInaBox:


Cheers, didn't see it.

In reply to Loughan:


But isn't outlawing him a little excessive?

In reply to MusicalMountaineer:

yes but at what cost? My spelling mistake is there for all to see

In reply to krikoman:


I think I'd prefer my local council to focus on providing a good level of services to the local community rather than fannying about trying to influence international politics.

Has a local councillor ever been elected based on their views on events in other countries?

In reply to krikoman:

They're boycotting boycotts. The whole idea should be boycotted!

In reply to timjones:


If you think that you have no role to play in the world then that's fine, if you'd like to see a change or even just have the opportunity to voice your opinion then why not?


Maybe, maybe not, but there are some who've been elected on there general stance on world politics, Gorgeous George for one. Surely that's a question for the electorate rather than the politician.

In reply to krikoman:

Surely what really happens is;
1) Local politico gets in with the local party.
2) Politico gets put up for office by local party.
3) Party (rarely individual) gets elected by usual sheep.
4) Party Politicos then vent their spleen regarding a subject they neither mentioned in their manifesto nor have any influence upon.
5) Party Politicos spend the money gained to clean the streets/empty the bins/etc. on item in 4.
6) Party Politicos finally complain that they haven't got the money to clean the streets/empty the bins/etc. and blame the other party in power at Westminster for it.

Net influence on who is put up for election/actually elected/what they do when elected = zero.

In reply to krikoman:

Outlawing boycotts.......pshh....I'm boycotting outlaws!

In reply to fred99:


A somewhat jaded view, and yes sometimes I suppose it's like that.
Isn't local government, supposed to be local, that's what the lovely David keeps telling us. Obviously, the fact that local people might what to boycott something or other doesn't fall into local decisions though.

If there's no influence or effect, then why are they trying to stop it?

In reply to krikoman:

Political animals (of all persuasions) like to rant on about how they would put the world to rights at a stroke - when they're either in opposition or in a position with no real influence.
Once (or if) these persons attain power the matter suddenly becomes "more complicated" or "unable to alter due to the previous administration" or else is quietly forgotten.

However, during the time that they have no worries about actually being responsible, they like to shout their mouths off to try and con us all that they actually have a both social responsibility and the ability to change things for the better.
The truth is that they are mostly in it for power, prestige and the troughs into which they plunge their snouts.

And yes, I am a confirmed cynic - the first politico I ranted against was Nixon.
My father told me I didn't know what I was talking about - 6 months later: Watergate.

In reply to krikoman:

So decisions reached by a democratically elected government are bad, and decisions taken unilaterally by organisations that go against free trade within democratically decided bounds are good.

At least when it alignes with your personal views, ey?

Even if you believe the cause to be good, slapping a band aid on through individual boycotts is no substitute to a democratic redress. Indeed it just opens up all sorts of other unpleasant possibilities.