Reason Reform Will Probably Fail

 Why Reform Will Fail If It Clings to Non-Libertarian Values and Zia Yusuf’s Influence

Reform UK was built on the back of British disillusionment—with bureaucracy, with EU overreach, and with a political class that seems more obsessed with appearances than results. But in its attempt to expand appeal, Reform risks becoming yet another confused, culturally incoherent party.

 The root of this danger lies in its departure from classical libertarian values—and most visibly, in its entanglement with Zia Yusuf.

This piece outlines why non-libertarian, technocratic motives are fundamentally at odds with the interests of the British public, and how Yusuf’s continued influence risks destroying Reform UK from within.

I. Libertarianism: The Core Reform Promise

Reform’s appeal always stemmed from something simple: freedom from overreach. Freedom from:

• Surveillance

• Excessive taxation

• Bureaucratic red tape

• Cultural censorship

• Medical and psychological coercion

These are classic libertarian concerns—ones that resonate deeply with millions of ordinary people who feel stifled, gaslit, and overgoverned.

Libertarianism, especially of the “minarchist” kind, focuses on personal responsibility, low government interference, and the right to privacy.

 In the UK, these values are not just ideological—they are historically British. Magna Carta. Common law. The right to say “sod off” to the state.

II. What Happens When You Abandon That?

When a party starts to entertain authoritarianism masked as efficiency, it loses both its roots and its soul.

 Reform’s embrace of internal policing—evident in Zia Yusuf’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—smacks of corporate technocracy, not grassroots liberty.

Even if well-intentioned, it has all the hallmarks of:

• Data overreach (potential GDPR violations)

• Unelected oversight

• Top-down managerialism

• Centralised, opaque operations

That’s not “reform.” That’s just a shinier, tighter version of what we already have.

III. Zia Yusuf: A Case Study in Contradiction

Zia Yusuf may be smart, but he is not libertarian.

His background is in data, finance, and technocratic “solutions.” 

He reportedly became Reform’s biggest donor and briefly its chairman—not because of deep ideological belief, but because he saw it as a “patriotic duty.” That’s fine rhetoric.

 But leadership isn’t about money or sentiment. It’s about alignment.

Yusuf’s DOGE task force now audits local councils using a Silicon Valley-esque “efficiency model.” But this approach—centralised, audit-driven, focused on optics—reeks of Blairite logic. 

See my article on Blairs' legacy on Medium. "Labour Allergic To Thought"

It’s managerial, not moral. Reform should be asking: Is this man really fighting for liberty—or just repackaging authority under a new (or very ancient) brand?

IV. Why This Alienates Reform’s Base

The British people aren’t asking for more apps and efficiency teams. They want:

• The freedom to refuse untested medications

• The right to challenge psychological or social diagnoses

• Free speech, even when offensive

• Local decision-making, not distant executive panels

Yusuf’s continued presence and influence signal the opposite. And the public notices. Reform risks alienating:

• Libertarian conservatives

• Free speech advocates

• Vaccine freedom campaigners

• Disillusioned centrists who fled Labour or Tory betrayals

V. Reform’s Existential Fork in the Road

If Reform wants to survive—let alone succeed—it must:

• Return to a clear libertarian identity.

• Purge technocratic, globalist-aligned influence.

• Focus on agency, autonomy, and minimal government—not metrics, dashboards, or press stunts.

If not, it will become a hollow echo of the parties it once opposed. That includes losing people like me—voters who were all in, until the mask slipped.

Read

• Classic libertarian values (Mises Institute): https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto

Final Word

Libertarianism is not about efficiency. It’s about dignity. It’s about saying no—to forced ideology, to surveillance, and to the soft authoritarianism that now wears a Reform rosette.

 Zia Yusuf may be useful in business—but he is not the man to lead a liberty movement.

If Reform won’t see that, the people will.

liz lucy robillard

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Is Boris a Secret Lefty & Dickens Opinion

Carrie Johnson (née Symonds), wife of former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has been actively involved in animal welfare, environmental causes which is certainly very impressive and commendable- she has also been socially active- her motivation must be partly due to her father- founder of The Independent newspaper- and a tad at least from grandad-Labour MEP John Beavan.

 She has also been credited (or blamed) with influencing the political direction of her husband’s policies—particularly pushing for more progressive stances on the environment and LGBTQ+ rights, can't be bad?...

In media circles, she’s occasionally framed as a behind-the-scenes force for “political correctness” though- especially in the Tory party, with some critics accusing her of softening or sanitising Boris's previouslybrash libertarian tone. Which is a deep shame for British (and other countries) libertarians. 

From a classical libertarian viewpoint, which values individual freedom, minimal state interference, and resistance to enforced moral orthodoxy, Carrie Johnson's influence might be seen as emblematic of soft authoritarianism cloaked in compassionate causes. Cruel but true? No matter how well intentioned- is she thinking right?

 You can still be kind to animals without directing strong narratives that may be unsuitable for resilient free thinkers.

Her brand of elite activism—often delivered from an unelected and unofficial platform—feeds into a technocratic culture where moral mandates override democratic debate. Don't push the socialism doll. Not if you know what's good for our country - other democracy loving cultures and countries don't need it either. 

Now, to view this through the lens of Charles Dickens, who championed the plight of the poor and was deeply suspicious of both entrenched aristocracy and self-righteous reformers: Virtue signallers take note! 

Dickensian Critique:

If Dickens were alive today, he might portray Carrie Johnson as a kind of modern-day Mrs. Jellyby (from Bleak House), the well-meaning but blinkered philanthropist whose grand causes abroad (or today, animal rights and climate virtue) distract her from more urgent, gritty injustices at home- Child protection? Disability Discrimination? Farmers issues? Bullied policemen due to endemic poor, 2nd rate training? PTSD treatments, especially for our service people? The mental health industry pathologising breathing as a disorder? (and the cost of that!) etc- not much to celebrate from the Boris term. 

Dickens might say:

“There is no shortage of noble causes in Mrs. Johnson’s parlour, but precious little bread in the scullery.”

Dickens distrusted performative piety and "telescopic philanthropy"—campaigns that looked righteous from afar while ignoring the suffering next door.

He’d likely recoil from her style of moralising without mandate, a new kind of nobility unmoored from responsibility to the poor.

And as for Labour (especially the Blairite-legacy version), Dickens might equally condemn their bureaucratic dehumanisation and fetish for systems over souls.

 He would find today's Labour anti-libertarian tendencies—such as speech codes, surveillance tolerance, and nanny-statism—eerily akin to Mr. Gradgrind’s utilitarian nightmare, where nuance, joy, and eccentricity are flattened and medicalised in favour of state-sanctioned correctness.

Synthesis:

So from a Dickensian angle:

• Carrie Johnson embodies well-fed, well-intentioned aristocratic meddling.

• Labour’s technocracy embodies cold industrial tyranny masquerading as benevolence.

• And liberty, in all its messy glory, is what’s trampled by both.

In a world increasingly divided between myopic control freaks and moral busybodies, Dickens would cry:

“It is not benevolence, nor progress, nor cleanliness of speech that makes a society just—but the presence of imagination, of kindness without coercion, and freedom to speak with our own tongues, even if they wag foolishly.”

Liz Lucy Robillard avec llm

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