As I’ve engaged with policy discussions on this forum, a thought has emerged that I’d like to share for consideration and debate. It’s not a fully formed idea, but I hope it sparks constructive dialogue.
It strikes me that there may be a case for embracing a quality our political adversaries have wielded with intent for some time: ruthlessness.
From my observations, there are opportunities to apply strategic political ruthlessness through policy to counter our opponents effectively. Many of the policies proposed here are thoughtfully crafted and deeply principled. Yet, in adhering strictly to principle, we may overlook chances to decisively challenge our political foes. I won’t list specific examples, as my aim is not to critique individual policies but to encourage readers to evaluate proposals with both their usual critical and principled perspective and an eye for ruthless strategic advantage.
Not to be self promoting, but as examples - here are two policy proposals that came to my mind with an element of ruthlessness, however not exclusively for ruthless ends:
Naturally, we are driven to address the challenges we see, which is both honourable and necessary. However, our political opponents share this aim, often pursuing it in ways that ruthlessly undermine us in the process.
I propose we consider adopting a measure of this approach ourselves.
I acknowledge this idea is somewhat abstract and may be contentious. It’s possible that remaining steadfastly principled and taking the high road is the better path.
I understand the thinking behind these ideas, and in all honesty, it might be the “right” thing to do. However, I feel that one of our biggest complaints is that our political opponents, for far too long, have been doing the politically expedient, but immoral thing when they attain power, and for us to join them in that mud might only weaken our position. This is especially true if we are not acting out of well-reasoned principles but instead general spite and animosity. In such cases, I would not be surprised if the law of unintended consequences came and bit our posteriors as it so often is wont to do.
If you skirt around the edges you make them legitimate. You should go straight for the party.
i think we are far beyond funding restrictions they should be forced to answer why they allowed the rape and mutilation of children for votes while pursing policies aimed at ethnically displacing populations to gain a larger powerbase.
The left wing is an ideology of revolution, it’s inherently anti-british and shouldn’t be treated as an equivalent. This isn’t a statement on all voters but it’s just the appreciation that as a party, they purposely misrepresent their objectives to fulfil ideological goals. It’s no surprise that both Blair and Starmer were members of the Fabián society ( a labour affiliated thinktank) which literally had the emblem of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
All parties need to be loyal to the crown and by extension the people and country, by definition the left cannot
Socialist, communist, marxist, it all spawns from these cesspits, and I am truly against them with every fiber of my being.
Were we not told to reject the red menace? It was in the Americans breath for quite a while and we saw so many films that sees the West angry at “The commies”, which is definitely warranted.
We are in an age of the red scare again, and it needs to be opposed and ruthlessly crushed and removed from positions of power.
In short yes, with caveats, but perhaps not in the precise ways you’ve proposed.
Without getting into merits of the two proposals you cite, a key issue is that both would require being in government (and with a sizeable majority) to implement. They can’t help us address the immediate challenge of having such power.
That aside, I’m not sure it’s ruthlessness so much as shrewd strategy, smart marketing, and a culture of activism that is required. The left have done very well by embedding their views into the entire fabric of society (the so called “long march”), and I suspect that has been achieved in large part with simplistic, feel-good messaging that drives social prestige.
The immense progress made by Reform is evidence of the marketing power of simple messaging, even despite the lack of coherent policy and strategy behind it. Alongside that, we should encourage and enable more people on the right to actively influence the political climate in every way they can.
Yes, all of the policies I have written depend on a willing government with a functional whip. As all policies do, to become law.
I believe, unfortunately we do not have enough time for a counter long march. So I believe we may need to be inventive, when in government - such as enacting legislation which may have secondary or tertiary effects of damaging the funding/functions/electoral pull of political opponents.
It would seem that we could be a great deal more ruthless without crossing any boundaries of principle. We British, as opposed to those born in this country of British stock who hate the place, tend to be overly polite. That is no bad thing, except perhaps when it comes to politics when we could start being a great deal more ruthless and yet still maintain our principles. The far left who seem to have no principles at all and are intent on destroying this country, could be challenged a great deal more aggressively. Calling the Labour Party the party of paedophiles is not beyond our basic principles of honesty and truth, because they are on every level. But we seem to believe that saying so is not quite the done thing.
I do not wish to be impolite, however the entire purpose of this place is to suggest policy for when we gain power.
If my proposals are irrelevant, then presumably you are also saying all policy proposals here are irrelevant?
There is no point in winning for winnings sake. Winning is the mechanism, governing is the work, change is the goal. Which is done through policy proposals, then bills, then law.
Yes we need to be smarter now, and even smarter when in government. That is what we are preparing for now, the ‘in government’ part. What we believe, what we want to change, what we want to work better.
These are all good arguments. Disraeli and Gladstone could both be extremely ruthless in their attacks, while, I think, respecting our traditions of integrity. There is the game of politics (can one call it that, to highlight the dramatic in getting a message across?) as opposed to the ethics of life. Both can live together, and part of a politician’s role is to use the art of the orator to dramatise a point that needs to be made. Not sure I am being clear here
