But "relentless" has the same problem; it means "abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment." In my experience, it is (mis-)used as a substitute for "continuous" or possibly "dogged", as in "relentless pursuit of excellence" (an actual corporate slogan.)
This makes me think of politicians in the US, who are always fluffing themselves for "fighting for" or "fighting against" whatever issue(s) happen to be hot-button at the moment. As you suggest, it's mostly a case of empty suits and expensive haircuts trying to sound tough.
Often instructive to consider the antonyms of slogans. Do we want ruthless policy, or do we want considerate and compassionate policy? Do we want to cruelly disregard the pain and suffering caused by our choices (which are of course hard choices, difficult choices), or do we want to take it in to account?
«Corbyn told me a story about having tea with Joan Maynard, former MP for Sheffield Brightside, and Harry Cohen, former MP for Leyton, shortly after the two were elected. Joan sat the two of them down and said: "If both front benches are agreed, it’s probably bad news for the workers. And if a minister ever gets up and says ‘we’re going to have to take some tough choices and some tough decisions,’ it’s a disaster for the working class. Just bear that in mind and you’ll not go far wrong."»
Peter Mandelson, 2002-06-10: «in the urgent need to remove rigidities and incorporate flexibility in capital, product and labour markets, we are all Thatcherites now»
Toughness is a post-Blairite (McSweeney?) obsession. I find it interesting that there’s a great deal of think-tank (esp those from the right, trying to assert relevance) about being tough on Nimbys for growth whilst simultaneously cowering abjectly before the 30% left who don’t think it was a mistake to blow up our trade relations with Europe. As to groundnuts, apparently being tough enough to take a VC approach to risks is only for the private sector.
«there’s a great deal of think-tank (esp those from the right, trying to assert relevance) about being tough on Nimbys»
My guess it is meant to not be taken seriously just cant to burnish libertarian credentials because the large block of petty property rentier NIMBYs ("Middle England") are the core consituency of Conservatives, Starmer, LibDems and nobody wants to lose their votes.
The difference I see between victorian liberalism and neoliberalism is that the latter is a compromise between the liberalism of global big finance and the toryism of petty property owners, between globalist thatcherism and rentier thatcherism.
Victorian liberals were against landowner rentierism (against the Corn Laws and for lower working class liviing costs), but today's neoliberals whatever they say are actually in favour of landowner rentierism (in favour of NIMBYsm and for higher working class living costs) because the latter provides the mass voter support for the whole thatcherite policy spectrum.
“Presumably nobody would be so crass as to suggest that it would be a growth strategy to identify NIMBYs, then go through their bins and social media history to find something that would discredit them (presumably?).”
Finally: someone outlines the strategy for YIMBY SWAT.
Possibly the word they are looking for a synonym for is rigorous, which can mean 'exacting and thorough' but also 'harsh and severe'. And, of course, some people use it to mean 'if you disagree I will thump you with mathematics'.
Risk is good, and we need government to be more entrepreneurial, especially in basic research. But.
There's taking risk, and there's failing to do your due diligence, listen to domain experts, or learn from your experience. The failure from an innate sense of superiority and lack of humility.
In Australia, the corresponding term is "laser focused", currently on the "cost of living". And since nothing much can be done about the cost of living (apart from increasing wages, which is not on), the emphasis is on not doing the stuff that is outside the focus
It seems to me that this use of "ruthless" means refusing to acknowledge bad decisions - exactly what the Groundnut Scheme proved to be a mistake.
Not sure about how it's been used in the UK, but I suspect it might be a substitute for "relentless."
Similar to the switch from "heart-rending" to "heart-wrenching."
But "relentless" has the same problem; it means "abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment." In my experience, it is (mis-)used as a substitute for "continuous" or possibly "dogged", as in "relentless pursuit of excellence" (an actual corporate slogan.)
This makes me think of politicians in the US, who are always fluffing themselves for "fighting for" or "fighting against" whatever issue(s) happen to be hot-button at the moment. As you suggest, it's mostly a case of empty suits and expensive haircuts trying to sound tough.
Often instructive to consider the antonyms of slogans. Do we want ruthless policy, or do we want considerate and compassionate policy? Do we want to cruelly disregard the pain and suffering caused by our choices (which are of course hard choices, difficult choices), or do we want to take it in to account?
"Do we want to cruelly disregard the pain and suffering caused by our choices (which are of course hard choices, difficult choices)"
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/08/what-i-learned-from-jeremy-corbyn/
«Corbyn told me a story about having tea with Joan Maynard, former MP for Sheffield Brightside, and Harry Cohen, former MP for Leyton, shortly after the two were elected. Joan sat the two of them down and said: "If both front benches are agreed, it’s probably bad news for the workers. And if a minister ever gets up and says ‘we’re going to have to take some tough choices and some tough decisions,’ it’s a disaster for the working class. Just bear that in mind and you’ll not go far wrong."»
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk$
Peter Mandelson, 2002-06-10: «in the urgent need to remove rigidities and incorporate flexibility in capital, product and labour markets, we are all Thatcherites now»
Toughness is a post-Blairite (McSweeney?) obsession. I find it interesting that there’s a great deal of think-tank (esp those from the right, trying to assert relevance) about being tough on Nimbys for growth whilst simultaneously cowering abjectly before the 30% left who don’t think it was a mistake to blow up our trade relations with Europe. As to groundnuts, apparently being tough enough to take a VC approach to risks is only for the private sector.
«there’s a great deal of think-tank (esp those from the right, trying to assert relevance) about being tough on Nimbys»
My guess it is meant to not be taken seriously just cant to burnish libertarian credentials because the large block of petty property rentier NIMBYs ("Middle England") are the core consituency of Conservatives, Starmer, LibDems and nobody wants to lose their votes.
The difference I see between victorian liberalism and neoliberalism is that the latter is a compromise between the liberalism of global big finance and the toryism of petty property owners, between globalist thatcherism and rentier thatcherism.
Victorian liberals were against landowner rentierism (against the Corn Laws and for lower working class liviing costs), but today's neoliberals whatever they say are actually in favour of landowner rentierism (in favour of NIMBYsm and for higher working class living costs) because the latter provides the mass voter support for the whole thatcherite policy spectrum.
“Presumably nobody would be so crass as to suggest that it would be a growth strategy to identify NIMBYs, then go through their bins and social media history to find something that would discredit them (presumably?).”
Finally: someone outlines the strategy for YIMBY SWAT.
Possibly the word they are looking for a synonym for is rigorous, which can mean 'exacting and thorough' but also 'harsh and severe'. And, of course, some people use it to mean 'if you disagree I will thump you with mathematics'.
Risk is good, and we need government to be more entrepreneurial, especially in basic research. But.
There's taking risk, and there's failing to do your due diligence, listen to domain experts, or learn from your experience. The failure from an innate sense of superiority and lack of humility.
In Australia, the corresponding term is "laser focused", currently on the "cost of living". And since nothing much can be done about the cost of living (apart from increasing wages, which is not on), the emphasis is on not doing the stuff that is outside the focus
Ruthless efficiency? Nice red uniforms!
EL Jones's growth recurring is probably the first statement on growth being a natural outcome of human activity unless otherwise frustrated, think he does a good job on it. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Growth-Recurring-Economic-Economics-Cognition/dp/0472067281