UK Lowers Voting Age TO 16 In LEFTIST Bid For Power, This WILL BACKFIRE ft. Connor Tomlinson
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrea.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL UK Lowers Voting Age TO 16 In LEFTIST Bid For Power, This WILL BACKFIRE ft. Connor Tomlinson
You mentioned that you've got this right-wing electorate that needs to be activated, but again, I'm not super familiar with how your system of governance works, but it does seem like it ain't happening.
I mean, how do you actually make it this is the time they're going to activate after all of these failings?
Well, it has to be the time because at the moment, Muhammad is the number one baby name in the UK.
Here's the story from the New York Times.
The UK plans to lower the voting age to 16.
Here's what we know.
The plan has been described as the largest expansion of voting rights in Britain in decades.
I think this is a terrible idea.
I can't really speak for the UK because honestly, I don't live there and I don't know.
So here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to pull in someone who does know, an actual Brit.
Connor Tomlinson, who's actually just here.
Let's pull him in.
Connor, can you hear me?
I can hear you, Tim.
Finally, the gremlins are out of the way, I hope.
All right.
So technical difficulty, but Connor Tomlinson, you're a British guy.
Hey, they're lowering the voting age to 16 in your country.
Why?
So I think the Labour Party are trying to increase their marginal gains in the vote chair because in the last election, they won what is called a land slip.
So they got fewer votes than they did in 2019, but they got an overwhelming parliamentary majority.
And that's because the previous Conservative government, after 14 years of very unpopular governing, for example, letting in thousands of Afghan so-called asylum seekers in the country, as we found out yesterday, that they didn't include in the population statistics costing the taxpayer £7 billion and all other such acts of treachery.
Well, the public really wanted to punish that government.
So they let Labour in, even though they weren't very popular.
And ever since Kier Starmer has got in, as his name has become synonymous around the world with incompetence and treachery, he has become the single most unpopular prime minister in opinion polling on record.
And so what they thought is, well, young people are kind of naive and gullible, and we own pretty much all of the teachers' unions and the universities in the UK.
So why don't we just indoctrinate them from birth to grow up and vote Labour?
The reason this isn't going to work, though, Tim, as we have seen throughout Europe, as we have seen with Gen Z in America, is that they are rapidly radicalizing in multiple different directions.
Young women are voting overwhelmingly for communist parties in Germany.
In their last federal election in February, young women voted 25 points in favor of Delinka, the Communist Party, whereas young men only voted four points in favor for the AFD.
In the previous federal election in Germany, in the year before, so the EU election, where 16-year-olds can vote, they had an 11-point vote share increase among the AFD.
So they're voting for right-wing parties.
As we saw in America, we saw young men swing towards Trump, away from Biden in 2020, if all of those numbers are to be believed.
And young women did not break for Harris as much was feared by the likes of the New York Times that forecast a massive gender split.
But the most important thing about the UK that isn't being counted is the Muslim vote.
Now, Muslim diasporas in the UK are significantly younger than white Brits.
The average share of Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities that are under 24 is about 44%, whereas for white Brits, it's about 20%.
We're an aging population.
And so all Labor are doing is opening up themselves to more young Muslim voters.
Traditionally, they've harvested their ballots as a kind of client block, especially through postal voting, where they can rely on the husband of the household and however many wives and cousins he has, often the same thing.
Of course, getting his family to vote entirely for the same candidate.
But what's happened this time around at the last election is a number of sectarian, independent, Gaza-obsessed Muslim MPs were elected not as Labour candidates, but as independents by the Muslim vote.
And they're now forming a new party under former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who Keir Starmer kicked out the party for anti-Semitism a few years ago, and a few Labour MPs that have been kicked out.
They're jokingly calling it Jezboller, because, of course, Jeremy Corbyn has supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and pretty much all of Britain's enemies.
And so what you're going to see is actually this massively backfire for the Labour government, because you're going to see young white British men vote right-wing if they're given a right-wing party, young women vote for Green and Communist parties, and young Muslims vote for the Muslim party.
And Labour are going to end up capsizing by 2029.
Okay, so here's my question, though.
How do you just lower the voting edge?
I mean, we can't do that here.
Oh, Parliament is almost entirely sovereign.
I mean, it was first lowered to 18.
I think it was in 1969 from 21.
And they're passing a new elections reform bill.
And because of the size of their majority, Parliament could just do basically as they like.
We don't have the system of, let's say, checks and balances that the US built into its constitution.
We ostensibly have that a little bit because Tony Blair introduced the Supreme Court in 2009.
But as we know, there's no such thing as a neutral institution.
And so the Supreme Court only ever steps in to block things like Brexit.
So the Supreme Court probably won't end up challenging this.
The other things that are included in this election bill is accepting bank cards as a form of voter ID now.
What?
Yeah, I know, exactly.
So it's going to open up the election to even more fraud.
And automatic voter enrollment.
So they're not doing away with postal votes.
They're allowing you to have even more loose forms of voter verification.
And they're automatically adding you as an eligible voter to the voter role.
So they're trying to gerrymander ethnically and via age demographics the vote in their favor.
But I think ultimately it's going to be their undoing.
What has happened to your country?
Let me just ask a serious version of that.
Based on everything that I've heard, I think many people have heard about what's going on in the UK, is it possible to save your country?
Turning this around?
So we are still, as, well, we need an emergency census to find out the exact numbers, but as of 2021, we are still 70% white British.
And the British public on the whole are generally quite right-wing.
Like they support the return of the death penalty.
Nine in 10 constituencies want immigration lowered to the tens of thousands.
And that's when they think that immigration is actually 70,000 rather than at least 700,000 every year.
So they're underestimating it by a factor of 10 and they still want immigration restrictions.
There are actually a sizable amount of Gen Zers who would sooner vote for Donald Trump than they would for any other British politician.
So that shows that there is a latent right-wing electorate that needs to be spoken to on behalf of and tapped into.
But the things that we lack are key representation.
So for years, we've had Conservative Party politicians talking right and governing very far left.
Even Keir Starmer attempted to do that recently with his Island of Strangers speech, which he's since denounced.
And also we have a civil service that runs this country.
So no matter who the politicians of the day are elected, they can't ever fire the permanent bureaucrats that run the country.
I know America has a real problem with its deep state ever since FDR and LBJ and even the Obama administration, but at least you can hire and fire about 20,000 federal employees.
And the Trump administration is in the process of still making appointments.
In our country, you can't even do that.
The prime minister can appoint a few of his cabinet ministers, of course.
He can appoint a few advisors in Downing Street.
The rest of the country is run by permanent secretaries because Tony Blair, who's kind of like the dark lord of all British politics, in 2010, he and his successor Gordon Brown just vandalized the British Constitution and made parliament no longer sovereign.
They made it subordinate to the permanent deep state government of the civil service.
A civil service, by the way, which is larger per capita than communist China.
So how we can get control of it, I mean, have a politician, a political party brave enough to actually speak to the values that the British public already hold and not be afraid of being called racist by the media who would rather see you fail than succeed.
Identify and be willing to repeal on day one all of those laws that are getting your way, fire the bureaucrats, scrap the DEI patronage schemes baked into the civil service, and then just begin mass deporting the millions of illegal migrants that we know are here and stop importing over a million people every single year,
95% of which we have to pay taxes for to subsidize their lifestyles, and are coming from cultures that are nowhere near proximate to us and are establishing Islamic sectarian ethnic enclaves and electing politicians that care more about Gaza than Great Britain.
You know what I think?
Give us a history lesson.
Isn't the House of Commons relatively new?
I mean, relatively a couple hundred years?
No, no.
I mean, it's been around far longer than your country.
Probably.
We've got pubs older than America.
God bless you guys.
I've been to one.
I think the best reference point for this is probably using the Bill of Rights of 1689.
So after Oliver Cromwell won the English Civil War, decapitated Charles I, deposed the monarchy, and appointed himself Lord Protector, Parliament essentially ended up writing up a Bill of Rights based on the original principles of the Magna Carta and which served as the eventual inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.
And the idea was that these are the liberties that Englishmen themselves feel they are entitled to based on history and based on tradition.
And this held up for years until about the 20th century.
And we had our own version of FDR with the post-war government with Clement Attlee's government.
What he did was he, like FDR, introduced Social Security.
Clement Attlee introduced the National Health Service.
Like FDR and his successors, LBJ, introduced the Civil Rights Act.
We introduced the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to have inequalities between ethnic groups and created the speech offense of inciting racial hatred, which has now been used to lock up people for saying things that the government doesn't like, either online or in person.
And they also completely reconfigured the civil service after the Second World War to be quote-unquote neutral.
So that meant that it wasn't subject to any political party.
But of course, if you're going to go into government, you're going to work for the state, of course, you have values that you're going to bring to bear.
So all that meant was that the civil service was put outside the scope of criticism by ministers, because if you were seen to be criticizing the civil service, you were seen to be politicizing it.
When we all knew it was politicized anyway.
So what would be best is if we repeal all of those laws from the 20th century and the 21st century that have distanced us from our ancient rights and liberties as recognized by Magna Carta and as recognized by the Bill of Rights of 1689.
And, you know, personally, I would be a fan of repealing also the law that came in shortly after the Bill of 1689, which barred Catholics from ever sitting as monarchs, considering the established Church of England doesn't really know that it's a church these days.
And our king, who could solve this problem but refuses not to, is more interested in hosting Ramadan events on palace property than saving his people from the replacement of their own culture.
When did it stop that the king was the absolute?
Was that never the case?
So Britain is not like continental Europe.
We've never really had absolute monarchs.
The closest thing we could have had, I think, is Charles I, which is why not just for religious disputes between Charles, possibly marrying a Catholic versus the Puritans in Parliament, but also because of the perception that Charles was impeding on parliamentary sovereignty.
That's why the Civil War started.
But we've always had a culture of the king having to abide by the laws he sets.
Our mutual friend Carl Benjamin has spoken about this example many a time.
In the old stories of Robin Hood, when the king, the legitimate king, returns to England and disguises himself as one of Robin's band of merry men, when he misses the shot on a hunt, Robin wraps him over the head with his bow.
And the king doesn't get uppity about this.
He doesn't reprimand Robin despite being a bandit for this.
He abides by the laws that he himself has set.
This was the point of Magna Carta.
It was the barons getting together and saying, King John, you're going outside the remit of a legitimate monarch.
We're going to constrain your rule by popular consent.
And so we've always had this tradition that the king is meant to abide by the rules he sets, But he does have the power to disband parliament.
And so, hypothetically, and Ian is somewhere sort of shaking at the prospect, I'm sure, but hypothetically, King Charles could march the army down to Parliament and say, You are not serving the British people, you are betraying my subjects, and I'm going to dissolve Parliament until further notice, till we get a handle on these things.
But he won't, because King Charles, unfortunately, has been very influential in co-founding the World Economic Forum.
He is obsessed with the sun-worshipping climate cult of thinking the atmosphere is going to collapse on us and usher in a brand, just turn the world into a big fireball.
And he is obsessed with fostering what he calls interfaith dialogue, which basically means pushing Christianity out of the public square and amplifying other faiths, particularly Islam.
When he obviously was coronated, he was meant to take a vow to be the defender of the faith, the established church of England.
And instead, he said he wanted to be defender of the faiths, cementing this post-war modern mythology, the diversity-built Britain.
We've always been a pluralistic nation.
That's not the case.
And so I wouldn't rely on the king, unfortunately, to defend our ancient rights and liberties any more than I would Parliament.
You mentioned these permanent secretaries.
And the reason I was asking these questions is Americans make a lot of assumptions about how your country operates.
And to be honest, a lot of people don't even know the distinction between Great Britain, the UK, and England.
Americans are not very familiar.
But when you mention these permanent secretaries, much like our deep state, it sounds like at some point in the past couple of decades, there's been an effort to consolidate power under a bureaucratic establishment that is unelected and will operate with impunity.
And then our electoral system becomes much more of a facade.
Quite.
So we can name the bits of legislation that did this.
It was the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act of 2010, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, the Human Rights Act of 1998, which meant that written into UK law is now the European Court on Human Rights.
So even though we've had Brexit, which means that we're not meant to be beholden to the European Union anymore, even though Kier Starmer, who campaigned to undo Brexit, has now just restarted payments to the EU and following their laws again.
The European Court on Human Rights was separate to that.
I think it was ratified in 1952, originally to ensure that things like the Holocaust never happened again.
And is now, rather than preventing Dutch Jews from fleeing the Holocaust from being turned away from asylum, is now ensuring that Albanian criminals are kept in the country because, and this is a real case, his son doesn't like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets, therefore he can't live anywhere but Britain.
Yeah, I know.
There's a list of these, man.
One of the worst examples is a Pakistani pedophile who said he couldn't be deported from the country because he wouldn't be able to see his kids.
It's just depressing.
But then there's this NGO industrial complex, which you absolutely have in America.
I mean, there's a real patronage scheme that the USAID and the State Department have been running for years to ensure that leftist activists are always comfortably funded and can manufacture consent for leftist causes by being the foot soldiers in the streets that the permanent bureaucracy and the permanent politicians with no termlets can point to and say, see, we're enacting the will of the people.
Here's gay race communism.
And in the UK, we've got things like the Charities Act passed in 2011 under a Conservative government, the Equalities Act, which insists DEI is written into the law of every public sector body.
So you have to hire along racial, gendered, and religious lines, but obviously not straight white men.
And we've got this sort of monolithic body of civil servants that are trained by something called the Tony Blair Institute.
And Keir Starmer's government have had a vast amount of employees and even cabinet ministers be former members of the Tony Blair Institute.
So we've got this giant patronage network to unpick.
A lot of this was started by Tony Blair.
A lot of it's traced all the way back to the post-war governments as well.
We've got a hell of a hill to climb.
It's just difficult finding many politicians that are willing to do this.
I can genuinely count them on one hand out of 650 sat in parliament right now.
We've had a ton of stories going back, I don't know how many years, like especially with Brexit, where there have been these movements.
I remember you, Kip, and obviously Dank and Carl's efforts.
You mentioned that you've got this right-wing electorate that needs to be activated, but again, I'm not super familiar with how your system of governance works, but it does seem like it ain't happening.
I mean, how do you actually make it this is the time they're going to activate after all of these failings?
Well, it has to be the time because at the moment, Muhammad is the number one baby name in the UK.
In all of the UK?
In England specifically, and it's been in the top 10 in the other regions for a number of years now.
But yeah, it's number one now.
And I know they're not very creative with their spelling over there, so there's a reason.
But still, it speaks to a demographic volume that we can't ignore.
And we don't have longer than five years to fix.
So hey, look, real-time fact check, because I hear this a lot.
There was a viral video out of, I think it was like Dairy, Ireland, where someone asks, what do you think is the most popular name?
And they're like, Michael or Gregory.
And he's like, it's Muhammad.
And they're like, what?
And they're all mad.
I just did a quick fact check.
Among girls, the top name is either Olivia or Amelia.
Among boys, it's Muhammad.
Really?
It really is.
It is in 2023 surpassed Noah and Oliver.
Wow.
That is a culture shift, man.
It's really dire.
And looking at, I think it was the ONS data that came out in the last couple of weeks now, the share of babies born to at least the mother being of immigrant heritage is between a third and 40%.
So, you know, we're not quite Canada levels, but we're getting there.
As far as the reason why right-wing parties haven't grown up, luxury beliefs and instinctive liberalism strangle the established right-wing, like Japanese knotweed.
Like getting these people to even identify the English as a distinct ethnic and cultural group to whom the state should owe allegiance above all others is impossible.
But there is a growing influential online right wing that have A lot of credible faces, and some politicians in the Conservative Party, which should be getting desperate enough now to realize that their strategy hasn't worked for many years and they are just cratering into obsolescence, have started to pay attention.
Robert Generic, Nick Timothy, Katie Lamb, but again, there are only three or four, and they're not anywhere near power because the current head of the Conservative Party, nice woman that I'm sure she is, is very unpopular and is a first-generation immigrant who, in her first speech in Parliament, campaigned to lift visa caps on students and workers.
So she is partially responsible for this situation.
As far as the leading party in the polls go, Reform UK at the moment.
So yesterday, Nigel Farage, who in recent months, ever since the election, has said mass deportations are a political impossibility and it's not his ambition, has said that if we politically alienate Islam by 2050, we will lose, and has said he is to the left of the country and Robert Jenrick of the Conservatives on migration.
Yesterday, I think he's understood possibly that this is a really bad strategy and came out and said, we are now committing to deporting every illegal immigrant in Britain.
We are now a net negative migration party.
And also, we are going to ban foreign nationals from receiving benefits.
Now, that's the thinnest possible end of the wedge.
It's encouraging messaging, but they've still got no policies to this.
But promises are not worth much in politics.
I'm happy to hear their Gamesene conversion, but I need to know how they're going to do it before I invest in them.
The last person to mention is Rupert Lowe, who is the former MP of Reform, one of their first five, who was kicked out by Reform's Muslim chairman, who he falsely accused Rupert Lowe of making death threats against him.
And the police raided Lowe's house, took all his guns.
This guy's a 67-year-old granddad with a spotless record.
It's utterly inexcusable.
And now he is an independent MP.
He's not got a party, but he's launched a movement called Restore Britain, which is a sort of a PAC or a pressure group.
It's probably the closest analogy for America.
And they're already promising to bring back the death penalty, to repeal all the speech laws, to conduct mass deportations and to be net negative on migration.
And even if he's not in a party, if he can force the other parties to catch up to him, Britain will be in a much healthier place come 2029.
It's wishful thinking, man.
I mean, I certainly hope so.
But we've seen these videos, right?
There was a lady who closed her eyes outside of an abortion clinic and she got arrested.
The speech laws in the UK seem, this has been going on for how long now?
I mean, at least a decade or longer, right?
It's been going on quite a bit longer than that.
You're referring to Isabel Vaughan Spruce, who, alongside Adam Smith-Connor, are clients of ADF, a law firm that I've spoken with and gone to their conferences.
They're doing great work.
I'm glad, so grateful that Vice President Vance is drawing attention to this.
And your State Department, I mean, I've shown them some of the heinous things that have gone on in the UK, and they've been very quick to condemn it.
So who would have knew that the American State Department would be doing more to defend British English liberties than our own governments?
But funny times we live in.
As far as it goes with those speech laws, I mean, they go all the way back to the late 60s, early 70s with the Race Relations Act.
They go back to the 80s under Margaret Thatcher with the Public Order Act and the Malicious Communications Act.
They go back to Tony Blair with the Communications Act 2003.
They were passed under the recent Conservative government.
They're the ones that put in those buffer zones, which make it illegal to stand outside an abortion clinic praying silently in your head because it is determined as intimidation, which as someone actually joked the other day to me, it turns out the British police actually believe in the power of prayer more than Christians.
The prayer themselves can stop the abortions, right?
We just need to get rid of all of it.
We should not be prosecuting people for something that would not fall afoul of the American First Amendment.
The last example I'll give, if I may, Tim, is Lucy Connolly.
This is a mother, a childminder, who lost her child due to medical malpractice and then has now got a baby girl.
Her husband is a conservative counselor and he's rather unwell.
Last summer, when Axel Ruda Cabana, the second generation Rwandan migrant, murdered three girls and stabbed 10 others at a Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, and the country, mainly in labor area, spontaneously erupted into protests, Lucy Connolly tweeted something to the effect of mass deportations now.
If the hotels burn down, for all I care, I don't care.
And then she deleted the tweet.
Now, one might say it's unwise to tweet that if the government are looking for an excuse to lock you up, but it certainly wouldn't fall the foul of the Brandenburg test in the US.
Lucy Connolly is now sat in prison for 32 months while sex offenders get a shorter sentence.
And she is only one of 12,000 people every year who are arrested in the UK for social media posts.
Jeez, man.
Last question, quick one.
Do you think with the gutting of USAID in the States, this will have an impact on your government through this NGO complex?
I would hope it would dry up some of the slush fund for the leftist industrial complex, but it's our own government funding it.
Like the Home Office of funding a communist group called Hope Not Hate who doxxed Lomaz, helped dox Lomaz, doxed my friend Charles Cornish Dale.
They've gone after me, calling me an anti-Semite, and they've gone after Carl repeatedly and all of our friends.
They are a communist group who, now the Attorney General who sits in government, the lead lawyer in the land, used to work for, and they've broken the law, seeming to break the law multiple times and they've never been prosecuted.
And it's written into the law that basically they get funding until we repeal that law and until we ban them as a group.
So I think USAID might have dried up some of the funds, but the funds are still coming from my own pocketbook.
And until 2029, we can't stop that.
Connor, thanks so much for being able to call in.
We figured it out.
Where can people find you?
Thank you very much for inviting me back on Tim.
Always love doing your show.
They can find me on Connor Tomlinson on YouTube.
I have a weekly podcast called Thomson Talks, and they can find my writing on Courage Media.
And I tweet about the fall of my country in real time at Con underscore Tomlinson.
Ron, man, thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you next time.
Thank you.
That's right on.
Hey, we figured it out, guys.
See?
You know, we're not like those big fancy TV studios where they have backups upon backups and they just, you know, if the call didn't work on the other person's end, they go, I guess we lost them.
And then what they would do is they'd have a backup story.
I don't have a backup story.
We plan for the interviews or, you know what, I did like either I'm going to do an hour-long monologue, like just talking, or we plan for the guests.
So when we can't get Connor, what do we do?
We call him on the phone and hold the phone to the microphone because whatever works.
I mean, to be honest, as long as you guys can hear the perspective of somebody who's deeply involved in the politics and understands what's going on and what this means, I think it's beneficial.
But we're going to wrap it up there, my friends.
So smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone you know, literally everyone you know.
Your grandma, your grandpa, nieces, nephews, so long as they're old enough.
We're getting ready to raid our friend.
I believe Russell Brand is getting ready to go.
He is upcoming and should be live at any moment.
So we'll get that raid for you guys.
Hey, make sure you check out the DC Comedy Loft event in the description below.
We want to see you there in DC.
Tickets are going fast since we announced Kevin McInnis and Matan Even.
We've been selling a lot more.
Obviously, people were like, how am I going to buy a ticket if I know I was going to be there?
But hey, I'll be there.
Alex Stein will be there.
And we're actually hoping a bunch of liberals show up because we want this to be, you guys can come up on stage and debate.
So we're actually going to be, we've got a trailer, we've got little commercials we're going to be doing, and we're going to do some billboard heads, hopefully to attract a general audience.
The idea is to have this debate be a little contentious, but to be laughable, enjoyable, and fun.
I want the liberals who show up to be laughing and having a good time despite the disagreements and the arguments, the same as the conservatives, and then try and, you know, just bring people together, help them understand each other.
Let's get you guys ready to head over to Russell Brand.
