Reform & Tories Don't Like Rows

 

Reform and the Conservatives aren't natural fighters — and that's exactly why they're needed now more than ever.

 These parties tend to attract the sensible majority: people who value stability, accountability, and reasoned debate. They're not interested in theatrical outrage or ideological purity — and they shouldn’t have to be.

But modern politics makes it difficult. Sensible voices are shouted down by a loud minority — often the same “scary, hairy, arrogant lefties” who believe they've got a monopoly on compassion and knowledge. In reality, their policies are frequently built on emotionalism and outdated utopian ideals. Tories and Reformers, often better read and more pragmatic, can see where this leads — and want none of it.

Without strong economic policy, there's no way to fund the public services many leftists claim to care about. As Milton Friedman warned, you can’t have government programs without first producing the wealth to fund them.

Let’s stop pretending Sweden is a socialist utopia.

• Sweden has a foreign-born population of 2.7 million (Statista, 2024).

• The UK’s is 10.7 million — nearly four times higher, despite having only about 6 times Sweden’s population.

That kind of imbalance makes a direct comparison absurd.

Crucially, Sweden promotes integration! Newcomers are taught Swedish culture, language, and values. There’s a cultural cohesion — even in their progressive model — that is lacking in Britain. As researchers like Paul Collier (Oxford economist) and Douglas Murray have noted, the erosion of national identity weakens defence, economic unity, and social trust.

And taxing the wealthy?

Repeatedly proven ineffective when taken too far.

• France's “super tax” led to an exodus of high earners.

• Sweden themselves rolled back many high-tax policies in the 1990s because of stagnation.

• Even Thomas Piketty, darling of the redistributionist crowd, has admitted wealth taxes are nearly impossible to enforce in a globalised world.

Kindness without boundaries becomes exploitation.

Compassion without realism becomes collapse.

And left-leaning ideologues are very good at manipulating both.

Liz Lucy Robillard 29/06/25

Blame Social Work for Child Abuse

 Social Work Is to Blame for Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK

Social work is to blame for child abuse and neglect due to the promotion of victimhood, dependence on mental health and big government, benefits and welfare, which keeps people trapped in a victim-dependent state encouraged by left-wing politics. 

Too many authentically vulnerable suffer as a consequence.

This isn’t just opinion—it’s observation from the ground. The UK social care system no longer uplifts or empowers.

 Instead, it disempowers. It labels people as broken, mentally ill, unstable, and in need of endless intervention.

 It encourages the idea that individuals cannot cope without state control. And this ideology is not neutral. It stems from decades of socialist thinking embedded in policy and practice.

The system thrives on helplessness. The more dependent a person becomes on welfare, mental health diagnoses, and services, the more they are rewarded—with housing, benefits, and pity. Those who resist these labels, who try to rise above trauma without becoming a 'case', are often ignored or punished.

In practical terms, this means that vulnerable parents—especially mothers—are subjected to intrusive assessments, often based on subjective interpretations.

 Real, severe abuse is often overlooked due to systemic incompetence or ideological bias.

Victimhood is rewarded. Resilience is pathologised. The message is clear: submit to the system, accept the diagnosis, follow the plan, or risk losing your children.

Socialism in the UK disempowers people and promotes anger and poor education. This is key.

The education system no longer teaches strength, logic, or responsibility—it teaches grievance, obedience, and dependence.

 Emotional literacy and critical thinking have been replaced with scripted slogans and vague mental health advice that encourages lifelong identification with being a victim.

The betrayal is real. What should be a service of last resort—called upon in rare, extreme cases—has become a surveillance and control tool embedded in everyday life. 

Communities are torn apart, parents are smeared, and children are removed not for clear-cut abuse, but for not conforming to the system’s narrow view of acceptable struggle.

The net result? The state grows stronger while the people grow weaker. The very people they scream to care about!

 Generational trauma is recycled, not healed - they need focus on this. And the professions tasked with protecting children have become one of the main sources of fear, injustice, and deep, silent harm.

Support people who truly need it. 

see

• James Bartholomew – The Welfare State We're In

• Peter Hitchens – The Abolition of Britain

• Johann Hari – Lost Connections

• Tana Dineen – Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People

• Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff – The Coddling of the American Mind

• Parliament Reports on Baby P and Rotherham Scandals

• Theodore Dalrymple – various essays on British underclass culture

• Christopher Lasch – The Culture of Narcissism

liz lucy robillard 

Free Quote Book- Liz Lucy Robillard

 Free quote book original quotes by me

𝐄𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐲 𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐐𝐮𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬

Free Copy of Quote Book below!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hKb75DSCoboIAOeCAG7WfAVwnClm70xQ/view?usp=drivesdk

Liz Lucy Robillard Free Quote Book

Elon Musk isn't mad- oil

Why Oil Should Be Confined—and Why Musk Isn’t Mad

Less oil= less dependence on the Middle East

By any reckoning, oil is the black blood of the twentieth century. It coursed through our veins in the form of plastic, polyester, and petrol, infiltrating not only our homes but our wombs, our oceans, and our atmosphere. It has dictated wars, marriages of convenience between dictators and democracies, and the desecration of entire cultures. And like the worst sort of addiction, it leaves us numb, bloated, and belligerent, all while the planet withers under its chokehold.

It is time we treated oil for what it is: a resource too potent, too dirty, and too politically entangling to be left in the hands of ordinary people. A resource so ruinous in its ubiquity that its usage should be as tightly regulated as plutonium. Let Formula One have it—let them roar in their absurd metal missiles for the sake of sport, spectacle, and the testing of engineering limits. Confine it to race tracks, and to industries where no real alternative exists—aircraft manufacture, heavy shipping, specialist medical equipment. But commuting to the shops in a three-tonne SUV is not one of them. That’s just fetishism with a fuel tank.

And now enters Elon Musk—a man loathed by many feminists for his bombast, his cult of personality, and his techno-libertarian leanings. But let us, for once, look beyond the man and into the ideas. Musk has done more to disrupt the oil industry than a thousand protest marches. He understood that the only way to unshackle people from petrol was to make electric sexy, fast, and status-laden. He gave the capitalist male an excuse to abandon fossil fuels without having to abandon his toys.

His detractors will tell you he is self-serving. Of course he is. But so was Edison. So was Marie Curie, in her way. What matters is that the cultural tectonic plates are moving. Musk’s vision—electric cars, solar roofing, Mars dreams aside—is rooted in the correct assumption: we do not need oil to thrive. We have needed it to profit, to dominate, to indulge. But thriving is another matter.

So let oil be a tool of last resort. Confine its use to the industrial margins and let the rest of us detox. We cannot continue to suck on the teat of the Earth as though she is our endless wet nurse. That’s not progress—it’s infantilism with a carbon footprint.

And if Musk’s ideas get us weaned faster than policy or guilt-trips can, then by all means, let the man have his moment. Just don’t ask us to clap him into sainthood while we do it.

Ai and liz

Who creates online law? Imran does!

 This post is being throttled by facebook so here is a repost of the original at Medium:

Why We Need a Better Alternative to the CCDH

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) was founded with the noble aim of tackling online hate, disinformation, and extremism. But over time, its methods, motives, and transparency have drawn serious concern. Critics from across the political spectrum have questioned the organisation’s opaque funding, ties to partisan politics, and lack of accountability. When any body—however well-intentioned—gains influence without public scrutiny, the result can be dangerous: censorship, bias, and erosion of trust.

What’s needed is not just a watchdog, but a secular, transparent, democratic, and independently audited organisation to monitor online harms. This replacement body should not be built by a political faction or driven by ideology. Instead, it must include diverse voices: ethicists, technologists, free speech advocates, psychologists, minority representatives, and civil society leaders. Its decisions should be reviewable, its data open-source, and its reports peer-reviewed.

Unlike CCDH, which has been criticised for black-box research and selectively naming targets, a new body must offer clarity—clearly stating how it defines “hate,” how it quantifies harm, and how it guards against partisan misuse. Algorithms and social media dynamics are complex. Combatting toxic content without silencing dissent requires both skill and humility.

The replacement should focus on digital education, platform transparency, and structural solutions—not just naming and shaming individuals or calling for bans. It must operate outside government and industry influence but in consultation with both. Above all, it must uphold the principle that truth is strengthened, not silenced, by openness.

Imran Ahmed and the CCDH helped spark a crucial conversation about online harms. But now it's time to evolve. The stakes are too high to leave in the hands of any one unelected group. We need an accountable, impartial institution that defends both digital safety and freedom of expression. The internet deserves no less.

Who or What Should Replace CCDH?

1. Academic Institutions with Interdisciplinary Digital Ethics Programs

Examples include:

– Oxford Internet Institute (UK)

– MIT Media Lab (US)

– Berkman Klein Center at Harvard (US)

– Digital Methods Initiative, University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)

These institutions offer peer-reviewed research and high ethical standards, far from activist capture.

2. Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Organizations (Balanced Input)

Left-leaning: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Access Now, Article 19

Right-leaning: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Free Speech Union (UK)

This creates ideological balance and avoids partisanship.

3. Psychologists and Neuroscientists Specializing in Online Behaviour

– Dr. Jonathan Haidt (NYU)

– Dr. Jean Twenge (San Diego State University)

– Dr. Tania Singer (Max Planck Institute)

– Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer (risk perception expert)

These experts offer science-based insight into why people believe and share misinformation.

4. Whistleblower-Backed Transparency Advocates

– Frances Haugen (Facebook whistleblower)

– Dr. Tristan Harris (Center for Humane Technology)

– Dr. Shoshana Zuboff (surveillance capitalism theorist)

They offer insider understanding of tech system failures and advocate for accountability.

5. A Publicly Mandated, Multi-Stakeholder Body

Modelled after institutions like ICANN or W3C. It would include:

– Tech platforms (limited voting rights)

– Academic and legal observers

– Citizen assemblies

– Human rights advocates

This ensures decentralised governance and rotating, transparent leadership.

6. Decentralised, Peer-Reviewed Knowledge Commons

Using tools like:

– Pol.is (for democratic debate)

– Metagov (online governance infrastructure)

– GitHub-style public review of data

This open science model ensures that research is visible, auditable, and collaborative.

7. Ethical Frameworks for Governance

Draw on:

– UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

– OECD’s AI Principles

– The UN’s proposed “Global Digital Compact”

– Rawlsian ethics (veil of ignorance)

These provide a principled, rights-based basis for decision-making.

8. Independent Legal Experts from Varied Traditions

Suggested voices:

– Lord Jonathan Sumption (UK)

– Nadine Strossen (US, former ACLU)

– Amal Clooney (international law)

– Alan Dershowitz (US constitutional law)

Legal expertise ensures moderation frameworks are lawful, proportionate, and appealable.

9. Consulted Communities, Not Just Activists

Include:

Free Speech Union

Ex-Muslim and reformist groups

Feminist and LGBT+ civil rights coalitions

National Secular Society 

A secular, pluralistic approach prevents monopolised representation and respects complexity within communities.

In summary, any replacement for CCDH should: – Be politically and financially independent

– Use transparent, peer-reviewed research methods

– Include a balance of perspectives from both left and right

– Involve experts in psychology, ethics, law, and tech

– Defend free speech and minority rights equally

– Be built with democratic legitimacy and public trust

This isn’t just about countering digital hate—it’s about preserving reasoned discourse in the digital age.

Ai & liz lucy robillard

The Legacy Act

---

Protecting Our Veterans Isn’t Rewriting History — It’s A Moral Duty

The Legacy Act, introduced by the last government, was a bold if flawed attempt to bring closure to the long, painful chapter of the Troubles. Its aim—to draw a line under endless investigations—was not about forgetting, but about protecting. Specifically, protecting those who served in uniform, under extraordinary pressure, in one of the most complex conflicts in British history.

Our soldiers were not terrorists. They did not seek out violence or plant bombs. They were deployed by the state to keep order during a deeply fractured period. Many were teenagers. Many made split-second decisions in fear for their lives. Some showed astonishing restraint. All bore witness to scenes that would leave lasting trauma.

It’s true the Legacy Act offered conditional immunity to all sides, and that’s where it stumbled—because the law made no moral distinction between state forces and illegal paramilitaries. In seeking a legal closure, it risked an ethical one. That’s why the courts ruled parts of it unlawful, and why it lacked full public backing.

But rejecting the Legacy Act must not mean rejecting veterans. Repeal should not become scapegoating. The current government now has a chance to get this right—by crafting new legislation that both honours the rights of victims and protects those who served with integrity under Operation Banner.

This isn’t about rewriting history. It’s about resisting the temptation to view history through a lens of easy blame. It’s about recognising that soldiers were not aggressors but instruments of a difficult peace. And it’s about ensuring that in seeking justice, we do not perpetrate new injustices—against those who already sacrificed so much.

The debt we owe our veterans is real. Their legacy deserves protection—not prosecution.

---

Ai article prompted by liz lucy robillard, 5/06/25