Picking battles wisely

Pete continues his series of posts trying to tell the numbskulls of the ragged right how to smarten up and get on parade with a chance of marching in step.  He observes many aspects of the modern political battlefield and draws conclusions that ought to have been self-evident ...but evidently are not...

All human organisations essentially work the same way.

An effective organisation is one where the people of the front lines know what they are doing and why - are properly equipped  - and are respected by their leaders.

Take the US Army, for instance. During WW2, they knew what they were doing and why they were fighting. Fast-forward to Vietnam, where there was no clear basis for the war, no coherence to operations, no discernible plan, and their lives were being wasted. Moreover, they didn't have the backing of the American people.

Consequently, discipline collapsed, drug taking was rife, soldiers wouldn't take any risks, and saw their main mission just to stay alive long enough to get home. When there was so little hope of achieving anything, it was not unknown for soldiers to murder their officers. 

There are parallels with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody could say what victory looked like, and the people doing the fighting could scarcely see the point. This is the difference between winning and losing.

Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery always understood this dynamic. He understood that times had changed, and you couldn't treat fighting men as cannon fodder. They were increasingly educated men who would not fight without a reason. You could no longer take their loyalty for granted, nor could loyalty be achieved with hard discipline. Moreover, men won't fight unless there's hope they can win. This is why leadership is so important. Generals have to lead from the front. Good commanders are always visible. 

The same is true of political parties.

You cannot expect activists to go out into the street to a sell a party that doesn't have a coherent purpose or policies to speak of.

You can't motivate or inspire people without a vision of what victory looks like.

Where you get total collapse is when the leadership takes loyalty for granted, treats the foot soldiers with contempt, insults their intelligence, and isn't committed to the fight. Pretty soon, you have a mutiny. Neither activists nor voters will go out of their way for you. 

This, ultimately, is why the Tories and Reform are defunct parties. Nobody is able to say what the Tory party is for, nobody understands it, and nobody wants to fight for it. Its leader doesn't even realise there's a war on. Meanwhile, Reform, a new army, has a command structure, plenty of generals but no definition that gives it purpose.

It's attracting disillusioned foot soldiers who are desperate for any leadership, but veterans are now starting to see the same patterns emerging. They have plenty of generals but none who actually want to go to war. In place of policies, they have slogans, which is akin with sending troops into battle without rifles.

As such, neither party is capable of taking on the fight and winning.

Here's an another  AI Audio debate based on this page .

From Twitter - go here to comment
11FEB26 0V2

And here's an interesting AI analysis for further study...

Here's a briefing document analysing the provided excerpt from "Picking battles wisely" from the WOTE.uk federation blog.

Briefing Document: Analysis of "Picking battles wisely" (WOTE.uk)

Source: Excerpt from "Picking battles wisely," WOTE.uk Blog, dated February 11, 2025. Authors: PN & WP (Pete & WP assumed) Subject: Analysis of political organisation effectiveness through a military analogy, with specific critique of the Conservative and Reform parties.

Executive Summary:

The blog post "Picking battles wisely" argues that successful organisations, whether military or political, require a clear purpose, effective leadership that respects and understands its "frontline" members (activists/soldiers), and a demonstrable path to victory. The authors use the analogy of the US Army's contrasting experiences in WWII and Vietnam, highlighting the detrimental effects of a lack of clear objectives and leadership disconnect. The piece then applies this framework to critique the current state of the Conservative ("Tory") and Reform parties in the UK, suggesting they are failing due to a lack of coherent purpose, ineffective leadership, and an inability to inspire or motivate their supporters. WOTE.uk positions itself as a necessary alternative that can provide efficient, common sense government, without the disadvantages of dogma.

Key Themes and Ideas:

The Importance of Clear Purpose and Objectives: The central argument revolves around the necessity of a well-defined purpose for any organisation to succeed. The authors illustrate this with the military example: "During WW2, they knew what they were doing and why they were fighting. Fast-forward to Vietnam, where there was no clear basis for the war, no coherence to operations, no discernible plan, and their lives were being wasted." The lack of clarity led to a breakdown in morale and effectiveness.
Effective Leadership and Respect for "Frontline" Members: The piece emphasises that effective leadership requires respect for and understanding of the people on the "front lines." "An effective organisation is one where the people of the front lines know what they are doing and why - are properly equipped - and are respected by their leaders."

The analogy uses Field Marshall Montgomery as an example of a leader who understood the need to motivate and respect his troops, as opposed to treating them as "cannon fodder".

The Peril of Disconnect and Contempt: The blog argues that when leadership takes loyalty for granted, treats its members with contempt, and fails to commit to the fight, the organisation will inevitably collapse. "Where you get total collapse is when the leadership takes loyalty for granted, treats the foot soldiers with contempt, insults their intelligence, and isn't committed to the fight. Pretty soon, you have a mutiny."
Critique of the Conservative and Reform Parties: The authors apply the above principles to critique the contemporary political landscape. The Conservative party is portrayed as lacking a defined purpose or identity, leading to apathy and disengagement among its supporters. "This, ultimately, is why the Tories and Reform are defunct parties. Nobody is able to say what the Tory party is for, nobody understands it, and nobody wants to fight for it. Its leader doesn't even realise there's a war on." Reform is seen as having a command structure but lacking substance, policies, and generals who are not actually committed to pursuing any policies, just slogans.
WOTE.uk as an Alternative: While not explicitly stated as the primary focus, the piece implicitly positions WOTE.uk as a viable alternative, offering "efficient and common sense government without the millstone of dogmatic politics." This can be interpreted as WOTE.uk is clear on its purpose and not taking activists for granted.
Key Quotes:

"An effective organisation is one where the people of the front lines know what they are doing and why - are properly equipped - and are respected by their leaders."
"During WW2, they knew what they were doing and why they were fighting. Fast-forward to Vietnam, where there was no clear basis for the war, no coherence to operations, no discernible plan, and their lives were being wasted."
"When there was so little hope of achieving anything, it was not unknown for soldiers to murder their officers."
"You cannot expect activists to go out into the street to a sell a party that doesn't have a coherent purpose or policies to speak of."
"This, ultimately, is why the Tories and Reform are defunct parties. Nobody is able to say what the Tory party is for, nobody understands it, and nobody wants to fight for it. Its leader doesn't even realise there's a war on."
"It's attracting disillusioned foot soldiers who are desperate for any leadership."
"WOTE.uk aims to provide efficient and common sense government without the millstone of dogmatic politics."

Implications:

The piece suggests a potential vulnerability for established political parties, particularly among disillusioned voters and activists.
It highlights the importance of clear communication, strong leadership, and a well-defined purpose in attracting and retaining support.
It serves as a promotional piece for WOTE.uk, implicitly positioning it as an alternative for those dissatisfied with the status quo.

Potential Questions for Further Investigation:

What are the specific policies and objectives of WOTE.uk that address the perceived shortcomings of the Conservative and Reform parties?
How does WOTE.uk plan to engage and motivate its members, and how does it differ from the perceived failures of the established parties?
What is the membership and support base of WOTE.uk, and what are its prospects for future growth and influence?