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.
