IN PLAIN SIGHT

 

Political parties on the far left, such as the Socialist Workers Party in Britain, have long pushed ideas that sit well outside the bounds of ordinary reform. They call for tearing down the structures that have held society together for generations. Their positions on Middle East politics, for instance, go beyond criticism of policy and instead demand the complete eradication of the region's only functioning democracy, which they would like to see replaced with a single state while offering unqualified backing to groups engaged in armed resistance. These stances frame such murderous actions as necessary blows against an unjust 'apartheid' system, yet they overlook the utter paucity of credibility in even their interpretation of the way things really are, or the human cost and the complexities that thoughtful diplomacy must navigate.

On matters closer to home, the same groups of people advocate scrapping the police and prisons altogether. They see these institutions not as guardians of public safety but as tools designed to prop up inequality and guard the possessions of the wealthy. This outlook has found echoes in real-world decisions. In London, where it appears the Mayoral authorities are well on their way to eradicating what they view as the prosecution of petty crime. This approach has seen crimes like shoplifting soar under the watch of the current mayor, with cases trebling in recent years and the charge rate from the Metropolitan Police falling to a dismal low. At the same time, plans to close nearly half the remaining police station front counters have raised serious concerns about everyday security being quietly sidelined in favour of other priorities. What began as ideological theory is now leaving ordinary people less safe in their own homes, streets and shops.

Immigration policy reveals another sharp divide. Far-left voices demand open borders for everyone and the complete removal of enforcement mechanisms, denouncing even modest reforms as cruel or that old favourite watch-word of the far-Left: racist. They have fiercely opposed recent changes by the Labour government, including adjustments to visa rules and the length of so-called 'refugee' protections. Strong borders have long served as a practical way to manage our own resources, preserve social cohesion, and ensure that public services can meet the needs of the people who live here and are paying for it. Dismantling them risks straining communities that have worked hard to maintain the sort of free and civilised society generations of like minded people have created here and handed down to their children.

In the economic sphere, these radicals push for the swift nationalisation of major industries, from banks to supermarkets, placing them under what they term democratic workers control. This goes far beyond the selective public ownership once debated in milder terms. Across the Atlantic, one sees similar instincts at work. In New York City, proposals for municipally run grocery stores in every borough aim to challenge private enterprise directly with taxpayer-funded alternatives. Such moves may sound compassionate on the surface, but they risk crowding out the innovation and choice that competitive markets have delivered for ordinary families. If anyone connected to successful businesses can be identified and held up as having done a little "too well" out of what they created, then that should be justification enough for overbearing authorities to shut the whole show down and assume control for themselves. People really have no idea the kind of monstrously backward reality they're flirting with here. This sort of approach has NEVER succeeded anywhere else in the world. Each and every one of them have been heard to say: “Yes, but we're going to do it right, this time” immediately before face-panting into a heap of crap of their own making. How do they propose stopping the inevitable flight of personal wealth and brainpower from escaping this mad neo-communist project? Make it illegal for them to leave the country, effectively holding them hostage? Bet you never thought you'd have seen people in this country arrive at a juncture that sees them wrestle with issues like this, did you? Even these words, or others more eloquently put will not reach those determined to push this stuff, so blinkered are they that they see this and every other clarion call urging caution as some sort of competitive hurdle to be overcome and defeated. 

On climate change too, the message is one of wholesale revolution rather than practical improvement. Market-led efforts to reach net zero are dismissed as insufficient, with calls instead for upending the entire profit-driven economy. While environmental care matters deeply, approaches that ignore human incentives and technological progress only stand to create more hardship than they solve, as is already being widely experienced, burdening working people with higher costs and fewer opportunities.

What should concern us most is how these once-fringe notions have now been transmitted into the mainstream under gentler guises. Policies that soften policing, experiment with state-run shops, or chip away at border controls now appear in the platforms of parties that had hitherto been long seen as moderate. They arrive dressed in the language of fairness and progress, but they steadily erode the foundations of ordered liberty, personal responsibility, and secure communities. 

The shift has happened gradually, almost without notice, much like the sleekit Fabians who have long played down their own importance, even their own existence in some cases. What was once shouted from the margins with a side of cringe now speaks through official channels with a quiet confidence, reshaping institutions from within. Ordinary citizens sense the change in rising theft, stretched services, and a growing feeling that the rules no longer apply equally; with two tier policing and two tier justice now a lot more visible. Recognising this pattern is the first step towards defending the practical, time-tested values that allow societies to flourish without the need for constant upheaval. This radicalism is no longer skulking in the shadows. It stands in plain sight, wearing a more respectable face.