Category: Blogs

The Free Market Myth

For decades, the idea of free trade has been sold as a universal good – a rising tide that lifts all boats. It’s a comforting story: remove barriers, unleash competition, and watch innovation flourish while consumers enjoy lower prices.

But like many economic myths, it’s built on a partial truth. And when you look closely at what “free trade” actually produces, the picture becomes far less idyllic.

The Popular Illusion: Freedom for All Businesses

Ask most people what free trade means, and you’ll hear a version of the same belief: businesses are free to do what they want. No red tape. No meddling. Just pure competition.

But that’s not how free trade works in practice. The “freedom” it promises is selective – and it rarely benefits the small, local, or community‑focused businesses that form the backbone of healthy economies.

What Free Trade Really Removes: Protections That Serve the Public

Before the era of deregulation and globalisation, many rules existed not to stifle business, but to protect essential services and ensure broad access. These protections supported:

• Local availability of goods and services, even in less profitable regions

• High quality standards that weren’t optional

• Customer service expectations that required real human labour

• Small‑scale enterprises that employed more people and reinvested in their communities

Free trade reframes these protections as “barriers.” Once removed, the businesses that relied on them – often the ones most embedded in local life – are left exposed to global giants with entirely different priorities.

The Hidden Costs: Jobs, Communities, and Self‑Sufficiency

The promise of cheaper goods has come with a steep price. As protections fall and markets open, small businesses struggle to compete with multinational corporations that can undercut them on cost alone. The result is a slow erosion of:

• Local jobs, replaced by distant supply chains

• Community cohesion, as local shops and services disappear

• National self‑sufficiency, as essential industries move offshore

The economic landscape becomes more efficient on paper, but far more fragile in reality.

The Rise of Monopolies Disguised as “Efficiency”

Free trade champions often point to economies of scale as the ultimate justification: bigger companies can produce goods more cheaply, so everyone wins.

But this logic ignores what happens next.

Large corporations use their size to squeeze out smaller competitors, often selling goods at unsustainably low prices until the competition collapses. Once they dominate the market, prices rise – sometimes repeatedly – because there’s no one left to challenge them.

What began as “competition” ends as consolidation.

Power Begets Power: How Big Business Shapes the Rules

As markets consolidate, the largest players gain not just economic power but political influence. They use it to:

• Lobby for legislation that cements their dominance

• Rewrite rules to disadvantage smaller rivals

• Deploy legal teams to intimidate or exhaust independent businesses through civil courts

The free-market myth suggests that the best business wins. In reality, the biggest business wins – often by shaping the playing field itself.

The Myth Exposed

Free trade is not a neutral force. It is a deliberate restructuring of the economy that privileges scale over community, efficiency over resilience, and corporate power over democratic control.

The partial truth – that removing barriers can increase competition – obscures the deeper reality: without protections, the market doesn’t become freer. It becomes captured.

And once captured, it serves the interests of the few, not the many.

The Free Market Myth PDF_Vers1_20Jan26Download

As AI Ends Work: Waking Up to the Illusion of UBI – and the Need for a New System

How the End of Work Exposes the Crisis of a Broken System

The Collapse of the Money-centric System

Value is the foundation of human life. It shapes how we live, how we relate to one another, and what we believe matters. Wherever we place value – and whatever we collectively agree has value – becomes the organising principle of our behaviour, our systems, and ultimately our civilisation. The value set we adopt determines not only how we live today, but the consequences that unfold tomorrow.

For most of human history, and certainly in the world we share today, the dominant value set is built around money. Not human experience. Not community. Not contribution. Not wellbeing. Money.

Our governments, institutions, systems of governance, economies, and the very fabric of daily life all orbit this single construct. Everything has become transactional because the value of money – what it costs, what we earn, what we accumulate, what we attract, what we are given – has become the lens through which we make decisions about the present and the future. Our interpretation of how money works, or how it has worked in the past, has become the compass by which we navigate life.

But the problem with money is not new. It began the moment money stopped being a simple medium of exchange – a tool to facilitate trade – and instead became the store of value itself, the point and purpose of value, the thing we pursued for its own sake.

This shift was accepted because it appeared logical, even sensible. It seemed like common sense. Yet in reality, it was the easy option – the lazy option – and it became the pivot point that set humanity on a path that would eventually lead us away from ourselves.

What few people have ever recognised – and fewer still have been willing to challenge – is that once money became the centre of value, our focus shifted away from people and the human experience. Instead, we became fixated on money itself, and then on the power, position, control, and influence that money could buy.

Human life became stratified by how much or how little of it we possessed. Success became synonymous with wealth. Poverty became synonymous with failure. And the human experience was reduced to a spectrum between rich and poor.

Over time, this became normalised. Wealth and poverty have existed for so long, in so many forms and nuances, that most people accept the wealth divide as a natural feature of life. Many even believe it is acceptable – that some should thrive while others go without, that some should have more than they could ever need while others struggle to meet the basics of life.

The dynamic has only worsened. The transition from feudalism to industrialisation was celebrated as progress, but the underlying imbalance remained. The gap between those who have and those who have not continued to widen. Eventually, it reached a point where no rule, regulation, or law could meaningfully correct it. The imbalance had become embedded in the system itself.

And as always, more wants more. The existence of social classes, and the aspiration to climb them, was never enough.

A point came when the elites – those who already held power – realised that if they wanted to accumulate even more, they would have to change the rules of the game. And who was there to stop them? They already controlled everything.

People talk endlessly about new world orders, Fabianism, the WEF, and other groups. But regardless of the motivations or the plans behind these movements and those who run and influence any government, the reality is simple: any value system has a finite total value within it, even if it grows. That value moves depending on the actions – whatever the motivation and whether conscious or unconscious – of those who control the system.

Under a ring‑fenced money system, such as the gold standard, no new money can be created. The total value is fixed. Even if the scales of wealth are pushed to their limits, the wealthy cannot accumulate beyond the system’s natural ceiling. They can own a lot, but they cannot conjure the value out of thin air that would enable the few to own and control everything.

This system – flawed as it most certainly was – remained in place until 1971. And only when we understand what changed in that moment can we understand what has happened to us since.

The creation of the fiat money system, which allowed those in control to create money at will, enabled the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. It allowed the already wealthy to become unimaginably wealthier by creating money that could then be used to buy everything of real value – businesses, infrastructure, land, resources, and the essentials of community life.

Ownership and power were transferred to people who could never have acquired them under a value system grounded in reality. The new system was built on methods that were dishonest and fundamentally false.

Ordinary people didn’t question it. Why would they? Their value system – money – still looked the same. A pound was still a pound. A dollar was still a dollar. But the reality had changed completely.

This is why life today looks so different from life 60 or 70 years ago. There are anomalies everywhere. A single average wage once supported a family, bought a home, and provided security. Today, even the national minimum wage is not enough for one person to survive without benefits, charity, or debt.

Because money is the centre of value, people have been conditioned to believe that if they have what they want, everything is fine. So the consequences of the fiat system – what it has done to people, communities, and the environment – have not been treated as the priority they should have been.

The West has been told that the last 80 years have been peaceful, that there are no real problems ahead, and that nothing fundamental could ever change. Meanwhile, laws, working practices, and – most importantly – technology have changed at an accelerating pace. Everything has changed while we believed we were standing still.

We can see clearly what the Industrial Revolution did. We understand why the labour movement emerged. Industrialisation devalued human effort by replacing or reducing the need for human labour with machines wherever it could be done.

Yet we have failed to notice the evolution happening beneath our feet today. People believe the world still works as it did after the Second World War. Very few see the catastrophe unfolding around us: the next great technological shift – the rise and takeover of AI.

Just as people once accepted that machines would replace or reduce the need for manual labour, many now accept that AI will replace cognitive labour. And they assume this means nobody will have to work.

There is a dangerous collective assumption that technology has been created for the betterment of humanity. But the reality is that modern technology – especially AI – has been developed for profit and control, not for helping and supporting humanity.

If it had been created to improve life, we would already be living in a world where even the poorest had enough, where jobs were secure, and where technology enhanced life rather than replacing it.

Instead, we are living through a neoliberal, globalist model powered by fiat money – a model that extracts value from people and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

Even the architects of this system know it cannot work. That is why figures like Sam Altman now promote UBI – Universal Basic Income – as the supposed solution, for the fast-approaching time when for growing numbers, there will no longer be any kind of work.

The Fiat Era, AI, and the False Promise of UBI

UBI has been tested in small‑scale trials around the world. The idea is simple: everyone receives a set amount of income, regardless of what they do. It is appealing because it promises security in a world where jobs are disappearing. It reassures people that even if AI replaces their work, they will still be able to live the life they know today.

But this belief rests on a dangerous misunderstanding.

People assume UBI means they will continue to live as they do now – with the same homes, the same comforts, the same access to goods and services – simply without needing to work. They imagine a world where machines do everything, and humans simply enjoy the benefits.

This is fantasy.

UBI, in the context of the system we have today, is idealism built on a lie. It assumes that money can be endlessly created to pay off debts that already represent money that does not exist. It assumes that the system can continue functioning even as the economic role of billions of people disappears. It assumes that those who own everything will willingly fund the lives of those who own nothing.

The technological revolution – and the speed at which it has unfolded – was only possible because of the fiat money system. A system that survives only because enough people still believe in it. A system where most people already own nothing, and where the underlying structure is already broken.

The people who own everything – the corporations, the financial institutions, the elites who control the levers of power – cannot run a world where machines do all the work and billions of people contribute nothing.

The equation does not balance.

A system where everyone takes but no one contributes cannot function.

UBI is simply a tool to maintain the illusion that money still matters, that the system still works, and that people still need the very system that is failing them.

If we continue removing jobs at the current rate, a point will come – soon – when people outside the protected classes will have no means to survive. Not because they lack ability. Not because they lack willingness. But because the system will no longer have a place for them.

The question is not whether technology is good or bad. Technology can be used to advance humanity. But the reality we face is that AI has been developed to remove human involvement, not to improve human life. It has been built to maximise profit, minimise cost, and eliminate the “problem” of human labour.

And this is where the truth becomes unavoidable:

UBI will not save us.
It cannot save us.
It was never designed to.

UBI is the last tool of a dying system – a sticking plaster on a wound that requires surgery. It is the final illusion offered by a worldview that has already collapsed under its own contradictions.

The dam is cracking.
The pressure is rising.
And UBI cannot hold it back.

There is another way – a way of living that embraces technology without using it to replace or devalue people. A way built on local economies and local governance, with the Basic Living Standard at its heart. A way that restores human value, dignity, and sovereignty.

A time is approaching – sooner than most realise – when we will have to choose. We can continue sleepwalking down the path we are on, a path controlled by a few, where most will find neither benefit nor happiness. Or we can choose to walk a different way – a way where each of us contributes, participates, and lives with genuine freedom and sovereignty.

The alternative may flatten hierarchies, decentralise power, and remove the obscene concentrations of wealth that exist today. But it will also create lives worth living – lives grounded in peace, purpose, and the true human value that comes from within us, not from the money system that has defined us for far too long.

The Turning Point: Why UBI Cannot Save a Collapsing System

UBI is being sold as a compassionate solution, a stabiliser, a safety net for a world without work. But the truth is far more uncomfortable:

UBI is the final illusion of a system that has already collapsed in every meaningful way.

It is the last tool available to a worldview that cannot admit its own failure. It is the final attempt to preserve a structure that has been unravelling for decades – a structure built on false value, false scarcity, false growth, and false promises.

The destruction of jobs was not an accident.
It was not an unfortunate by‑product of progress.
It was a deliberate choice – a choice made by those who benefit from a world where human beings are no longer required.

The system has been moving toward this point for generations:

  • first by replacing physical labour with machines
  • then by replacing skilled labour with automation
  • now by replacing cognitive labour with AI

At each stage, the justification was the same: progress.

At each stage, the consequences were the same: displacement.

At each stage, the winners were the same: those who already held power.

And now, as the final stage unfolds, the system has run out of excuses – and out of time.

The truth is simple:

A society built on money cannot survive when people no longer earn it.

A society built on work cannot survive when people no longer have it.

A society built on consumption cannot survive when people cannot afford to consume.

UBI does not solve this.
It cannot solve this.
It was never designed to solve this.

UBI is a sedative – a way to keep people calm while the system collapses around them. It is a way to delay the moment when the public realises that the world they were promised no longer exists.

But the dam is cracking.
The pressure is rising.
And UBI cannot hold it back.

A world where billions of people have no economic role is not a world that can be stabilised with monthly payments.

It is a world that requires a complete rethinking of value, contribution, governance, and the purpose of human life.

And that is where the real alternative begins.

The Alternative: A System That Solves the Root Causes

If UBI is the last illusion of a dying system, then the question becomes unavoidable:

What replaces it?

Not a reform.
Not a patch.
Not a new policy within the old worldview.

What replaces it must be a new operating system for society – one that addresses the root causes of the crisis, not the symptoms. One that works with human nature, not against it. One that restores dignity, purpose, and sovereignty to every person.

That system exists.

It is called the Local Economy & Governance System (LEGS), and it is built on four pillars:

  • The Revaluation
  • The Basic Living Standard
  • The Contribution Culture
  • Personal Sovereignty

Together, they form a coherent, humane, practical alternative to the collapsing money-centric world.

1. The Revaluation: Changing What We Value

The crisis we face did not begin with fiat money.
It did not begin with globalisation.
It did not begin with AI.

It began with a value system that placed money above people.

The Revaluation is the shift from:

Money-centric value → human centric value

It is the moment we stop measuring life through:

  • price
  • profit
  • productivity
  • accumulation

and begin measuring it through:

  • wellbeing
  • contribution
  • community
  • dignity
  • sustainability
  • fairness

Without this shift, nothing else can work.

With it, everything else becomes possible.

2. The Basic Living Standard: Security as a Universal Right

The Basic Living Standard (BLS) is not UBI.
It is not a handout.
It is not dependency.

It is a guarantee that every person can meet their essential needs – food, shelter, energy, water, healthcare, and participation – from a normal week’s contribution.

It breaks the link between survival and employment.
It removes fear, insecurity, and dependency.
It ensures that no one can fall below the basics of life.

And unlike UBI, it is not funded by printing money or taxing a collapsing economy.
It is built into the structure of the local economy itself.

The BLS is the economic foundation of a people‑first society.

3. The Contribution Culture: Work as Meaning, Not Survival

The Contribution Culture replaces the toxic idea that:

“If you don’t work, you don’t deserve to live.”

with:

“Everyone who can contribute, contributes – because contribution is meaningful, valued, and secure.”

In a Contribution Culture:

  • work is not coerced
  • work is not a punishment
  • work is not a transaction
  • work is not a competition
  • work is not a fight for survival

Work becomes:

  • participation
  • purpose
  • community
  • shared responsibility
  • a source of dignity

This is the cultural foundation of the alternative – and the antidote to the crisis of work in an AI‑dominated world.

4. LEGS: The Local Economy & Governance System

LEGS is the structural foundation – the practical framework that makes the Revaluation, the BLS, and the Contribution Culture real.

It is built on:

  • local economies
  • local food systems
  • local governance
  • participatory democracy
  • shared responsibility
  • transparency
  • decentralisation

LEGS solves the problems that have existed since long before fiat:

  • centralised power
  • hierarchical control
  • distance between decision‑makers and consequences
  • systems that cannot see the ground
  • economies that treat people as units
  • governance that manages people instead of serving them

And it solves the problems that fiat accelerated:

  • extraction
  • inequality
  • speculation
  • debt dependency
  • the illusion of infinite value

And it solves the problems that AI will make catastrophic:

  • the removal of jobs
  • the collapse of income
  • the loss of agency
  • the erosion of sovereignty
  • the concentration of power in the hands of a few

LEGS is not a policy.

It is a new operating system for society.

5. Personal Sovereignty: The Human Foundation

Personal sovereignty is the right – and responsibility – of every individual to live as a free, ethical, self‑directed human being.

It is protected through:

  • security
  • transparency
  • locality
  • shared responsibility
  • meaningful contribution

The money-centric system destroys sovereignty by creating dependency through UBI.

LEGS restores sovereignty by creating participation.

Why LEGS Works Where UBI Cannot

UBI tries to preserve the old system.
LEGS replaces it.

UBI depends on money.
LEGS depends on contribution.

UBI centralises power.
LEGS decentralises it.

UBI treats people as passive recipients.
LEGS treats people as active participants.

UBI assumes scarcity.
LEGS builds natural abundance.

UBI keeps people dependent.
LEGS restores personal sovereignty.

UBI is temporary.
LEGS is sustainable.

UBI is the illusion of security.
LEGS is the reality of it.

The Choice Ahead

Humanity is approaching a moment where the old system will no longer function – not because of fiat, not because of politics, but because AI will remove the economic role of billions of people.

UBI cannot solve this.

It was never meant to.

The only real alternative is a system that:

  • restores human value
  • guarantees security
  • redefines work
  • decentralises power
  • rebuilds community
  • and places people first in every sense

That system exists.

It is coherent.
It is humane.
It is practical.
It is necessary.

It is the Local Economy & Governance System, built on the Basic Living Standard, the Contribution Culture, and the Revaluation.

This is not a dream.
It is not a theory.
It is not a utopia.

It is the only path that deals with the root causes – not just the symptoms – of the unravelling we are living through.

And the time to choose it is now.

Further Reading:

1. An Overview of a People-First Society

https://adamtugwell.blog/2026/01/03/an-overview-of-a-people-first-society/
Why it’s critical: This article lays out the philosophical foundation for a people-centric society, directly addressing the shift away from money-centric values. It’s essential for grasping the big-picture vision that underpins all other proposals in this document.

2. The Local Economy & Governance System (LEGS): Online Text

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/11/21/the-local-economy-governance-system-online-text/
Why it’s critical: This is the definitive resource on LEGS, the proposed alternative to the money-centric system that may soon look to UBI. It explains the system’s structure, principles, and practical mechanisms for replacing the current economic model. If you want to understand the practical solution, start here.

3. The Basic Living Standard: Explained

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/10/24/the-basic-living-standard-explained/
Why it’s critical: This article clarifies the concept of the Basic Living Standard (BLS), a cornerstone of the LEGS system. It distinguishes BLS from UBI and explains why it’s a more sustainable and empowering approach.

4. The Contribution Culture: Transforming Work, Business, and Governance for Our Local Future with LEGS

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/30/the-contribution-culture-transforming-work-business-and-governance-for-our-local-future-with-legs/
Why it’s critical: This article explores how LEGS redefines work and contribution, moving away from survival-based employment to meaningful participation. It’s vital for understanding the cultural transformation needed for the new system to succeed.

5. The Local Economy Governance System (LEGS): Escaping the AI Takeover and Building a Human Future

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/04/the-local-economy-governance-system-legs-escaping-the-ai-takeover-and-building-a-human-future/
Why it’s critical: This piece directly addresses the impact of AI on work and society, and how LEGS offers a human-centred response to technological disruption. It’s especially relevant for readers concerned about the future of employment.

Why These Are Critical

These articles collectively provide:

  • The philosophical rationale for change.
  • A detailed blueprint for the proposed alternative system.
  • Clear explanations of the foundational concepts (BLS and Contribution Culture).
  • Direct responses to the challenges posed by AI and the collapse of traditional work.
As AI Ends Work PDF_Vers1_20Jan26Download

When you can see that rules and laws prevent basic survival, you will understand that centralised governance has gone too far

A question that more and more people have begun to ask is: who does government really work for?

For some, that question comes from living at the sharpest edge of society’s problems – for example, those who can no longer afford to feed themselves properly. But the truth is that across every part of society – our communities, small businesses, clubs, pubs, and the countless organisations that sit outside the government or public‑sector bubble – rules, regulations and requirements are appearing everywhere. And when you look at what these rules actually do, many no longer make any sense at all in terms of allowing people to continue doing what they have always done.

Look more closely and the picture darkens further. Through licences, taxation, penalty notices, workplace directives and endless compliance demands, the ability of anything small, people‑centred, cost‑effective or community‑driven to function is being slowly strangled.

The cumulative effect is suffocating. Many businesses have already gone to the wall because of red tape alone – and that’s before we even consider the wider impact of a money‑centric system and a government culture obsessed with growth, targets and perpetual money creation.

Very few have questioned any of this. Not because people haven’t sensed something was wrong, or felt that the direction of travel jarred with the common sense of real life. But because every change introduced over decades has been sold as “progress”.

Each new rule has been framed as something that improves life, modernises society, or makes everything better for us all – as if the past was universally terrible and the only possible path was the one we’re on.

Yet the freedom we believe we have today is already hollow. With every new move the machinery of government makes, that freedom becomes more restricted.

At some point, we must confront the uncomfortable truth: what is being presented as freedom is increasingly just conformity to a narrative – a form of oppression wearing a very misleading name.

And all of this is happening at a time when global tensions are escalating. With our traditional allies across the Atlantic now posturing over who “owns” Greenland, and European elites openly entertaining the idea of war with Russia and the East, the systems we rely on are heading toward collapse – potentially in a matter of months. That’s before we even consider the other crises and issues lining up behind them.

Without meaningful change – and without a wholesale rejection of the rule‑based system that is already choking every part of life – we face a future where people simply cannot help themselves when they most need to.

Whether it’s farms being unable to grow food, pubs being unable to operate as social spaces, or low‑paid workers being unable to earn enough to live, the dark clouds gathering ahead point to a moment where survival becomes impossible. Not because people lack the will or ability, but because someone in an office miles away decided to make normal life illegal.

Yes, governments talk about “emergency powers” – the idea that in a crisis, the state will temporarily turn a blind eye to rules that would otherwise be enforced. But that raises a very telling question: if these rules can be suspended when reality demands it, who were they ever really serving in the first place?

The time is fast approaching when people may have no choice but to ignore rules and regulations that were created solely because they suited someone else’s interests, rather than being developed to help people live. Frameworks that should never have existed in a genuinely free society, that are now the very things preventing society from functioning.

Of course, we will always need accepted and shared ways of doing things. But those ways should be created, maintained and managed by the people actually involved and the communities they will affect. Not by distant agendas and idealistic theories detached from basic human values.

Systems should reflect how life really works for everyone, not how it might look in the imagination of those who believe people must be forced to behave as they are told.

Dark as the future may appear, there is an opportunity emerging. People and Communities can take back our power and build a system centred on people, community and the environment – one that genuinely puts human beings first.

This alternative already exists in outline. It’s called the Local Economy & Governance System. Built on the foundation of The Basic Living Standard, and shaped by principles such as participatory democracy and the contribution culture.

It offers a complete shift away from the money‑centric disaster path we are currently on. It creates a world where accountability is shared, where frameworks support life rather than restrict it, and where everyone is involved in shaping the society they live in.

Further Reading: Building a People-First Society

To deepen your understanding of the ideas discussed in this work – especially the critique of centralised governance and the vision for a people-centred alternative – these readings from Adam’s Archive provide a logical pathway.

They move from foundational principles, through practical frameworks, to real-world applications and philosophical context. Each resource is accompanied by a brief description to help you navigate the journey.

1. The Basic Living Standard Explained

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/10/24/the-basic-living-standard-explained/
Start here to understand the foundational principle underpinning the proposed alternative system. This article explains what the Basic Living Standard is, why it matters, and how it serves as the bedrock for a fairer, more resilient society.

2. The Local Economy & Governance System (Online Text)

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/11/21/the-local-economy-governance-system-online-text/
This resource introduces the Local Economy & Governance System, outlining its structure and how it departs from traditional, money-centric models. It’s a practical overview of how communities can reclaim agency and build systems that genuinely serve people.

3. From Principle to Practice: Bringing the Local Economy & Governance System to Life (Full Text)

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/27/from-principle-to-practice-bringing-the-local-economy-governance-system-to-life-full-text/
Building on the previous readings, this article explores how the Local Economy & Governance System can be implemented in real communities. It bridges the gap between theory and action, offering concrete steps and examples.

4. The Contribution Culture: Transforming Work, Business, and Governance for Our Local Future (With Legs)

https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/30/the-contribution-culture-transforming-work-business-and-governance-for-our-local-future-with-legs/
This piece delves into the “contribution culture”- a key principle of the new system. It explains how shifting focus from profit to meaningful participation can transform work, business, and governance at the local level.

5. A Deep Dive Guide to the Philosophy of a People-First Society

https://adamtugwell.blog/2026/01/03/a-deep-dive-guide-to-the-philosophy-of-a-people-first-society/
Conclude your exploration with this philosophical guide, which ties together the practical and ethical dimensions of a people-first society. It offers a reflective look at the values and vision driving the movement for systemic change.

Too Many Rules PDF_Vers1_19Jan26Download

You cannot Build the Future with the Architects of the Past

It’s been quite a week for Reform, and without the current political backdrop, the events unfolding could have been enough to suggest that the evolution of the Reform project would grind to a halt – no matter what came next.

Until now, the party – new in name only – has been riding high in the polls, cultivating the appearance of a government‑in‑waiting that could do no wrong. Their greatest advantage has been simple: unlike Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, Reform has not yet been involved in creating the problems that have brought the country to its knees.

For many voters, that alone has been enough. It’s why so many have been willing to overlook the party’s patchy record in local government since taking over a number of councils last May.

But for others, things have never been so straightforward. A growing list of unsettling questions has followed the current party of Nigel Farage, particularly around its fixation on grand, US‑style DOGE ‘solutions’ and other plans for the future such as parachuting in business‑world advisers to take charge where they already recognise that inexperienced politicians cannot.

These announcements may sound impressive to a disillusioned electorate, but – like the words and policies of every government in recent living memory – they tend to obscure reality rather than confront it head on.

The name “Reform” has always been a question in itself. But its evolution is even more important to consider now, given its position on the political right.

Reform was born of the Brexit Party, which was itself born of UKIP (the pre‑2016, EU Referendum version), which itself emerged from the often‑forgotten Anti‑Federalist League.

Many of the same people have moved through each iteration. And while today’s Reform claims to draw support from across the political spectrum, its origins lie firmly in the fissures of the Conservative Party. Cracks visible since the time of Heath, that widened after Thatcher’s departure and during Major’s distinctly EU-phile premiership.

What began as an anti‑EU movement became a home for many disenfranchised Conservatives – including Farage himself. However, beyond the anti‑EU narrative that he and others have pushed so effectively, there has never been much inclination to challenge how the system itself works when you get into the mechanics of how everything really functions and who it all serves.

Those who have watched closely – the language, the policies, the motivations, the hands being shaken – could always see that “Reform” risked being a deeply misleading name.

Instead of providing inspiration and genuine reason for hope, each new development has instead reinforced the fear that this movement is less about genuine reform and more about resetting the same establishment machinery under a different banner – essentially being about preserving everything in our system of economics and governance that is fundamentally wrong and doing the most harm.

So, when Laila Cunningham was announced as the London mayoral candidate a few days ago, there was reason to wonder if this might be the moment something changed – and be a sign that Reform could still recalibrate and chart a different course. However, within days, the party took a massive and arguably defining leap backwards, confirming once again that any hopes for the moment were misplaced and those ongoing concerns have been right all along.

Nadhim Zahawi’s defection from the Conservatives – bringing with him a pile of political baggage symbolising everything wrong with not just the Tories but the entire political class – was the moment any germinating bubble burst.

The shift in messaging across the media landscape was also immediate. And anyone at Reform HQ would have done well to heed the sudden change in tone emerging from sources that had previously been supportive to them that sat outside the echo chamber of dedicated ‘reformists’ who still believe that Farage’s machine is capable of doing no wrong.

Then came Robert Jenrick. His “sacking” and expulsion from the Conservatives morphed into a full Reform defection in under six hours yesterday.

Like Zahawi, Jenrick was deeply embedded in everything the Johnson and Sunak governments were about. And the circumstances and emerging detail of his departure suggest a politician looking backwards to more of where we have already been; not forwards, as few outside politics really doubt will need to be the direction of travel – built on a definable break with and departure from the past.

Reform now faces a critical question: with its growing (re)alignment to establishment figures and money‑centric politics, is it just becoming a reformed version of the very party that it was ostensibly re-formed to replace?

The identity crisis within conservatism and the political right that has existed since the days of the Common Market – now seems to be reappearing within Reform. And with each defection eagerly embraced by Farage, and in ways that suggest they were always part of the very same machine, just with different interpretations of how it should work, the chance of a genuinely different future emerging from the right appears to be quickly slipping away.

In the end, it all comes back to the same unavoidable truth:

You cannot build the future with the architects of the past.

Reform’s recruitment strategy signals a retreat into old habits, and their words and policies suggest they will either fall into line with the current establishment trajectory or simply trash whatever remains after Labour has finished with it – IF they take power after the General Election takes place – as many people desperate for change still hope they will do.

Regrettably, those tired and bewildered people who believe they are the answer may not see it or wish to accept it, but Reform, Reconservatives, Reformatives, ReCons, Conservatives 2.0, or whatever they really are in their current form isn’t what the UK or anyone genuinely need.

There is nothing about them that suggests that they are willing, able or indeed ready to deliver on behalf of us all.

Boldness and clarity are essential for building a better future. Not a thickening cloud of uncertainty, pinned by figures from the past that people looking forward know it would be much healthier to leave behind.

Reform and the Architects of the Past PDF_Vers3_19Jan26Download

Strategy or Happenstance? Reform UKs London Mayoral Choice and the Dynamics Left Unspoken

Reform UK’s decision to put forward Laila Cunningham as its candidate for London Mayor marks an unexpected turn in the capital’s political landscape. The announcement immediately drew attention – not only because Cunningham is a relatively new figure in frontline politics, but because her selection comes at a time when both major parties have struggled to understand the unique dynamics of London’s electorate.

For years, the Conservatives have attempted to unseat Sadiq Khan with candidates who, regardless of their individual strengths, were never positioned to succeed. London’s mayoral race is shaped by a distinctive blend of demographics, political culture, and electoral behaviour that the party has repeatedly misread. The result has been a series of campaigns that failed to resonate with the city’s diverse and often unpredictable voter base.

Against this backdrop, Reform UK’s choice of Cunningham raises questions. Ant Middleton, who had openly expressed interest in the role, had long understood that the decision would not fall in his favour. Cunningham’s media visibility may have played a part, but Reform’s leadership appears to believe her candidacy offers something more -perhaps a chance to broaden the party’s appeal or to challenge assumptions about who speaks for London. This is a bold calculation, especially with polling currently placing Reform at 19%, well behind Labour’s 32%.

The reaction to Cunningham’s Muslim background was swift and, in many quarters, hostile. It reflects a broader climate of suspicion that has grown around anything involving Muslims in public life. A counter‑establishment narrative has taken hold in parts of the electorate, one that frames Muslims as central to every perceived societal problem and warns of an imminent cultural takeover. These fears, though unfounded, have become politically potent.

Compounding the issue is the behaviour of public institutions. Across the UK, officials have often responded to sensitive cultural or religious matters with caution bordering on paralysis. This has created the impression – fair or not – that Muslims receive special treatment or are shielded from scrutiny. In such an environment, the emergence of a Muslim woman as a high‑profile political candidate becomes, for some, a symbol of the very anxieties they already hold.

Yet this interpretation overlooks a more grounded reality: many Muslims in Britain want to contribute to a future rooted in the country’s historic values and civic culture.

Cunningham’s candidacy could, if handled well, offer an opportunity to rethink the role of Muslims in public life and to challenge the simplistic narratives that have dominated recent debate.

Understanding the tension between perception and reality requires examining how Britain’s current image of Islam was formed. Over decades, geopolitical events, media coverage, and political rhetoric have shaped a picture that often bears little resemblance to the lived experiences of most Muslims.

The same system that has left many British citizens feeling ignored or exploited has also inflicted deep harm on communities abroad, pushing some toward ideologies that would otherwise hold little appeal.

Commentators such as Douglas Murray have highlighted a central challenge within Islam: its foundational texts were written for a world vastly different from today, and some interpretations insist these texts are immutable.

This creates a tension between traditionalist readings and the expectations of a modern, pluralistic society.

But this challenge is not unique to Islam; all religions grapple with the task of reconciling ancient teachings with contemporary realities.

Historically, religions have served as social frameworks – systems that guide behaviour, shape norms, and maintain order. They have been used to protect communities, but also to control them.

When people look back at periods in which Islamic empires flourished, they often point to eras when religious teachings were applied most literally. For some Muslims, this reinforces the belief that returning to those values is the path to renewal.

However, the rise of Islamic militancy cannot be understood without acknowledging the role of Western intervention. Wars, regime changes, resource extraction, and the installation of compliant leaders have destabilised regions and eroded local cultures.

While Western societies were encouraged to embrace consumerism and individualism, other nations experienced upheaval, corruption, and violence – often with Western support or involvement.

In this context, strict religious frameworks can become appealing to those who feel their societies have been dismantled.

This dynamic has fuelled a misconception in the West: that the conflict is between Muslims and non‑Muslims.

In reality, the tension lies between militant interpretations of Islam and the global systems – economic, political, and military – that have shaped the modern world.

Yet many people struggle to distinguish between extremists and ordinary Muslims, just as they struggle to see how Western policies have contributed to the anger and disillusionment that some now express.

The absence of political leadership on these issues has only deepened the divide. Few leaders are willing to speak openly about the historical and structural forces at play.

Silence has become the norm, not because the issues are too complex, but because acknowledging them would challenge the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.

Meanwhile, the system that created these tensions is showing signs of strain. Economic instability, cultural fragmentation, and declining trust in institutions suggest that a new approach is needed – one rooted in community, shared values, and a commitment to the common good.

Such a future must include Muslims who are willing to reinterpret their faith in ways that align with a modern, secular society.

In this context, Reform UK’s selection of Laila Cunningham may prove more significant than it first appears.

Whether by strategic design or political opportunism, the party has taken a step that could reshape public debate. Whether they are ready for the responsibility – or whether they will ever win the chance to exercise it – is another question entirely.

Strategy or Happenstance PDF_Vers1_8Jan26Download