Introduction
The name “Boycott” is taken from Captain Charles C. Boycott (1832-97), who was a despised land agent and a key figure in the Irish Land War in the 1880s.
Boycotting the products and/or services of a company can be a good way to fight it legally by refusing to contribute to its earnings.
There are many multinationals that support globalisation as a means of easing access to markets, influencing regulations and removing competition. We may presume that corrupt politicians have their part to play too. The tactic of operating using subsidiary companies with names not readily associated with the multinational is common and their activities may cover many different markets.
Some such companies might have cronies in or able to influence government; others without such beneficial contacts might choose to lobby governments or employ specialist lobbying companies.
The Lobbyists
Of course it would not be reasonable to expect UKIP Daily to publish a list of the guilty but most may be found through a few internet searches. For a start a list of multinationals may be found here.
Many such companies employ lobbyists; that fact alone might be sufficient reason to boycott them. There are said to be 30,000 lobbyists based around the EU Parliament building in Brussels. Lobbying has become a key tactic in gaining market advantage for those corporations who can afford to participate. Many do not participate directly but employ lobbying companies to do the dirty work. The largest ones in terms of spend are listed at ‘LobbyFacts’.
Since much of the lobbying activity is subcontracted to such companies it is difficult to find out exactly who the main culprits are. However, it is very probable that every multinational is involved; why would they not seek such an advantage?
On Sunday (Feb 12th), three of them (Shell, Unilever and Phillips) are reported on Breitbart as having joined forces to mount a campaign against “populism” (whatever that means), the report suggesting that their effort is aimed at influencing the elections in the Netherlands, especially Geert Wilders. We can be sure that this initiative is not for our benefit; indeed the wording suggests sinister intent when they talk about
“enhancing farm yields and water management, coping with demographic ageing, the demands of urbanisation and the switch to renewable energy”.
That is another reason to boycott them.
The Cronies
A similar, if more direct, approach involves contracts being awarded to cronies. The illusion of fair competition may be provided through competitive tendering but it is very easy to select the tender list on some qualification designed to suit a crony (especially if one involves him in writing the contract). We seem to see this all too often in government, the same providers cropping up time and again despite previous failures to deliver on time, cost or functionality.
I was told of an incident by a software developer friend from the US regarding the Presidential campaign a few years ago which illustrates what might happen. The candidate in question had his campaign funded by a particular (crony, I assume) software provider among others. The guy was elected and implemented some healthcare changes which required software for people to access the new system. Of course the crony was given the job but failed miserably to produce a working system, despite a cost running into many millions of dollars. Without going into technical details the methodology proposed was certain to fail and it did, on an elementary mistake which was fundamental to the design. That company obviously did not have the experience to do the job.
We hear of too many such “mistakes”, the common factor being that the taxpayer is left to foot the bill.
Why should we oppose such arrangements?
The whole purpose of lobbying is to distort the market in favour of the lobbyist’s client, who will attempt to:
- influence specifications to favour his product and manufacturing methods
- influence on taxes pertaining to his products
- influence on import duties to favour the countries of his manufacturing plants
- promotion of his services to government and consumers
- removal of regulations forcing competition in procurement
- negative effect of the above on his competitors
It is not unknown for companies to actually write specifications for their customers who might not have the expertise in house to write their own.
The benefits of effective lobbying can bring substantial and sustained benefits to a company. It is hard to believe that such intensive lobbying goes on without some level of corruption. The rewards for corruption can take many forms as well as the traditional “brown envelope”.
What we should be opposed to is it costing us money and imposing more unnecessary legislation.
Cronyism too often has a similar effect which might affect both cost and the form of legislation.
Conclusion
Lobbying costs us money in direct product prices, inadequate functionality and/or safety of products, and through excessive taxation when the market for government services is distorted in favour of the supplier. It restricts the ability of smaller or newer companies to enter that market so limiting our choices.
Cronyism can have the same effects but is more difficult to oppose as we are not involved directly in the purchase of defence equipment or NHS supplies.
Boycotting need not cost us money, only a little time to seek out alternative suppliers, and might save us money in the longer term. Pressurising our MPs to object to the same list of government suppliers being used time and again can reduce project costs so reducing pressure to increase taxes and root out corruption.
What boycotting does need to succeed is participation by a large number of consumers. Such a campaign should not be party political; lobbying affects us all.
The UK Bribery and Corruption Act was revised a few years ago. It applies to any UK citizen doing business anywhere in the world (I won’t say how I know of this except to say that I wasn’t involved!). In principle lobbying, cronyism and corruption are similar; both seek to gain advantage through “favours”.
That might make the opposition to lobbying or cronyism with the backing of an updated Bribery and Corruption Act a useful policy for UKIP to implement.
I see today that we have the opportunity to put a boycott into practice; the target is Debenhams:
“http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/766870/Debenhams-hijabs-Muslim-clothes-sale-UK-Department-store”
This would be a useful exercise in other ways as it might be an indicator of the extent of support for policies that oppose Islam.
She’ll, Unilever and Phillips – the exert you quote sounds suspiciously like Agenda 21 to me, unless I have misunderstood.
Dee, Indeed, it crops up everywhere when one is aware of it, always disguised as something with a hint of being beneficial.
Gordon Brown was of course wrong in thinking that by setting the Bank of England free and independent of the Treasury he’d abolished boom and bust. Instead, coupled with de-regulation, free market fundamentalism led to the City having to be ‘bailed out’ – in the form of Lloyds TSB, RBS and HBOS and not least, quantitative easing (QE).
In other words, the error of New Labour was to rack up the deficit (govt spending) in the wrong way ….
Whilst at the same time depend on an unsustainable private ector spending based on household debt …..
And then when the financial crisis came, it was up to the Tory-led Coalition govt to then cut back on the govt spending itself when it’s only thing that could fill the spending gap in the first place!
You couldn’t make it up!
Jason, We often perceive gross errors of government as exactly that; however if one were to consider that they have a different, wholly unreasonable, agenda then they might not be errors but intent.
Yes, your point is well taken, Jack. Indeed, who benefits at the end of the day?
Forgot to mention the wretched PFI too ….. we have heard about it … the case where it costed £333 to have a new light bulb installed at one hospital ….. and of course there was the botched NHS IT system at £12 billion — all under Labour (Blair-Brown era) …..
The problem with Gordon Brown was that the fiscal deficit was used to expand the ‘clientele’ state (in the form of a bloated bureaucracy) where, for example, pen-pushers outnumbered frontliners by a ratio of 5 to 1.
All the while the City as the very epitome of the private sector as the engine of growth and a main contributor of tax receipts were left free to ‘go its own way’: Labour in thrall to free-market fundamentalism …..
So there we are … the public and private sectors went separate ways with the only link between them the tax of the latter to fund the profligate ways of the former …..
So, instead of allowing(!) the fiscal deficit to be determined by market forces, i.e. the size of the defict to be responsive (and therefore responsible to the people) to the level of unemployment, Gordon Brown embarked on entrenching a culture of dependency on public sector employment.
This of course parallels the culture of dependency on benefits.
Now that we are in the post-Farage era, UKIP needs to be more socialist than the socialist in terms of outlook and ethos ….. austere and untainted ….. when in government, the rule of thumb is: austerity applies to the government ….. frugality and careful spending in the public sector – from the PM and Minister of Civil Service down to the rank and file civil servants …. fiscal deficit applies only to the private sector and households …. more socialist than the socialist and more capitalist than the capitalist ….
Good stuff Jack.
I hope you read my Mini-Manifesto for 100 Seats of 27 January. UKIP should ban all commercial lobbying of Westminster – an easy call you might think, but don’t hold your breath.
Q,
I agree but certainly won’t hold my breath.