All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:34:07
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #651
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the podcast, The Lotus Eaters for the 11th of May, 2023.
I'm joined by Heritage Party leader David Curtin.
And today we're going to be talking about how I think Biden is going to lose in 2024, because as with 2020, all the signs are there.
How Canada is a mental place and how I think that the UK right wing actually needs to coalesce around at least one party because at the moment it's fractured and divided and we're getting nowhere.
So let's, oh before we begin in fact, I have an announcement to make.
Tomorrow afternoon, Beau and I will be doing a Rumble Live exclusive stream about how the media is getting hammered.
We wanted to do something that was exclusive to Rumble, because Rumble have been pretty good to us, and so we want to be good to them back.
So come and join us for that tomorrow afternoon, 3.30 UK time, which I have no idea is in any other time zone, but you can figure it out, I'm sure.
Anyway, let's find out how Biden is going to lose in 2024, because, I mean, David, looking across the pond to our American cousins, how do you feel things are going in America?
It's terrible, isn't it?
I mean, you just look at the news coming from America almost every single day.
There's riots, there's the immigration crisis in the southern border, which is just pushing more and more people into the USA, who are not genuinely wanting to start businesses or take up jobs in the United States.
They're not doctors and scientists and lawyers and...
Yeah.
Funny doctors, yeah.
The country's in chaos, isn't it?
And the culture war, obviously, has just accelerated and accelerated, and you've got people on the far left, the hard left, who just want to silence and cancel anybody who has just one line of an opinion that they don't agree with, for example.
Yeah, you can't have a society that is functioning, continuing along those lines and going in that direction.
And, you know, it started with Obama.
Trump put a lid on it for a few years and, you know, good that he did, but now it's just been released again.
You know, Biden's taken the lid off the box, Pandora's box again, and it's just getting worse and worse.
Yeah, he's totally empowered these people.
It's insufferable.
Anyway, before we go on to how I think that all the signs are coming together, if you want to support us, go to loadseaters.com, sign up for £5 a month, and go check out this very cheeky episode of Epochs that we did.
We snuck around the British Museum with cameras.
You're not supposed to do that, but the British Museum is publicly funded, so I don't feel bad about it.
Like, uh, pirating something from the BBC.
I pay for that, actually, so shut up.
Um, but this was a really, really good episode because, of course, we got to go and see all of the Assyrian reliefs and all the collection they have there.
And it's amazing.
And we've got, uh, we've got some good expertise to provide commentary on it.
So, well worth your time.
Anyway, so, um, before we talk about Biden, let's talk about DeSantis and Trump.
Because at the moment on the internet, there is...
Conflict, shall we say, in the right wing of whether DeSantis or Trump would be a better 2024 nomination.
Now, I personally like both of these candidates.
I like both people.
I think they're both very good at what they do and I'm very happy with the agenda that they're putting forward.
Have you seen the DeSantis and Trump people going at each other?
Yeah they have and it's it's quite it's sad really in a way that they can't sort of coalesce around one candidate and maybe say you know come to some kind of agreement well why doesn't Trump go for it and make DeSantis his Vice President you know running mate that would be a great great solution wouldn't it and then everyone could come together rather than having this division within the same party you know obviously where one you know big beast is fighting another big beast you know that that's got to come to an end soon but
It's part of the process in America, isn't it, with the primaries and so on.
There's always a little bit of this argy-bargy with the top candidates, and then hopefully they settle down when it comes nearer the time.
There is, but there's been something a bit about this that I found very unpalatable, though, because, I mean, Trump attacking DeSantis on Truth Social has not been a move of strength, in my opinion, because DeSantis hasn't been taking the bait, really.
And he's just been like, look, I'm just racking up wins for the Republicans in Florida and the MAGA movement, if that's what we want to call it, in Florida.
And so DeSantis has been racking up these wins.
And Trump has obviously been feeling insecure about this.
It's like, no, look, DeSantis hasn't even declared himself for 2024.
And it's likely, I mean, he's young enough.
He's in his 40s.
So he's young enough to like, no, I'll just let this one go by.
And then I'll be the guy after Donald Trump, which I think would actually be a much more sensible way of doing things.
But of course DeSantis has a lot of people who like him.
But anyway, so this is from April, in which DeSantis was apparently closing the gap in polling between himself and Trump, and so this is what was stoking the argument.
But the latest polls from morning consult survey, if you go to the next one, John.
Trump has 60% of the potential Republican primary voters with DeSantis only on 19%.
So it seems that Trump has significantly retaken the first position by a large margin.
And again, it's just not worth it.
And all of the other Republican candidates are very, very weak.
You've got an entrepreneur called Vivek Ramaswamy with 5% of the votes Mike Pence on 5%, Nikki Haley on 3%, and then Liz Cheney on 2%.
So at least the rhinos are totally marginalised here.
Because, I mean, at least, you know, with DeSantis and Trump, you can't call them rhinos, right?
Right.
It is nice to see that at least somewhere in the West, the conservative movement has actual conservatives at the helm.
Yeah, that's a good thing, isn't it?
That is one good thing.
So, you know, it's almost certain that you're going to get someone who is going to, like, turn the country around, you know, in the right direction, to some extent, if they get the nomination and then they win.
So that's good news.
Yeah.
And I'll cover the Trump Town Hall tomorrow, in fact, because, honestly, it came out yesterday, so I didn't have time.
To prepare in advance for this particular podcast, but we'll cover it tomorrow.
But of course, recently Trump was found liable in a civil suit for sexual harassment after being apparently falsely accused of rape because that charge got downgraded.
And so the New York Times is wondering, well, why isn't this going to affect Trump's polls?
It's not going to affect Trump's polls.
Not at all.
I mean, he's been attacked by various things for the last, what, eight years, something like that, since he first put his hat in the ring before 2016.
And this is just boring now.
I think people are looking at this and going, this is just the left, you know, just throwing another false accusation against him.
It's obviously the accusation, allegation of rape was found not to be true.
It's downgraded.
He says he never even knows the woman.
You know, it was apparently 30 years ago.
So who can actually, you know, discern whether it's true or not.
And it was done in a heavily politicised New York district, under a New York court that was apparently a Soros judge.
And it's just like, everyone knows this is political.
Everyone knows.
And that's the only reason you're doing it.
Well, this is disturbing when you have a Soros judge, isn't it?
You've got these activist judges who are not partial.
They are completely impartial and political.
Who are partial, you mean.
Not impartial.
They're openly paid and sponsored by George Soros.
How is this allowed?
How is that allowed?
But anyway, the point is, the reason that's not going to affect anything is so everyone can see for the transparent political attack that it is.
Anyway, moving on, let's have a look at America under Biden.
Well, the Bank of America CEO is like, well, there's going to be a slight recession this year.
It's like, really?
Are we using the word recession now?
Well, I think for normal people they've spelt the recession and the economic impacts of all the crazy decisions that have been going on for years now.
I mean, you know, it might be technically there's a recession in terms of what, what is it, the GDP recedes for three months or something, but in everyday life Businesses are going under all over the place.
Neighborhoods are in chaos.
Inflation is through the roof.
Real inflation is more than even the government says inflation is.
Now you've got them pumping up interest rates after keeping them artificially low for 15 years or so, and that is really going to cause real problems.
When that starts to feed through into reality, you haven't seen the beginning of this yet.
I mean, the classic one for me was the petrol prices and the meme of the petrol prices.
Just everyone remembers.
Like, if you see a photo of just, like, an American street in, say, 2018, and there's a petrol station in the background, you can see the price of the petrol, and people are just like, ah.
You know, because now they're, like, literally triple or quadruple the price of what it used to be.
And everyone remembers just how well everything was going under Trump.
You know, you can say what you like about him, but everyone was doing good, you know?
He was actually using American oil and gas to bring to the petrol pumps in America and Biden is like, oh we've got all this oil and gas but we're not going to use it.
Yeah, well, it's ideological.
It's completely ideological.
Anyway, yeah, as you were saying, small business is going under.
Well, so are the small banks.
Massive banking crisis, like half a dozen banks have now collapsed.
That can't be good.
That didn't happen under Trump, did it?
No.
Of course, you've got the war in Ukraine, which, I hate to point out, didn't happen under Trump.
And I would suggest that this is possibly a result of Biden's catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
As in, Vladimir Putin has probably been planning an invasion of Ukraine for decades, right?
He's probably been teeing this up for quite some time, but he was thinking, hmm, I'm not going to do it under Trump because Trump successfully and adroitly intervened in Syria and that calmed all of the problems down because it showed that he was prepared to use military force.
Biden, leaving $65 billion worth of equipment to the Taliban in a chaotic withdrawal that got people killed and left that country to what was formerly known as a terrorist group, Possibly not the most competent.
No, that's unheard of, isn't it, really?
I mean, there was the situation with ISIS, obviously, coming up in 2014.
So they took a lot of American weapons that were left in northern Iraq.
But then what's happened in Afghanistan is the same thing, but on a whole other scale.
You know, it's on a whole order of magnitude worse than what happened with ISIS.
So, you know, that's Obama, Trump, obviously, and interlude, and then Biden again with the disaster in Afghanistan.
I mean, I think Ukraine is a different situation.
Obviously, Trump is very, very astute.
He's very, you know, knows what's going on internationally.
He says, look, he knows Putin, he knows Zelensky.
You know, he did this interview recently.
He said he could stop the war in 24 hours.
I do believe he could.
Yeah, I think so.
If he came back as President of the US.
But the Biden family obviously have got lots of financial interests in Ukraine.
We know they do.
And going back many years.
So, you know, they may be benefiting financially from this.
I don't know.
But certainly they were before this happened with Hunter Biden had this contract with Burisma.
He was on the board of Burisma, yeah.
As an advisor, despite having no expertise in the subject, I wonder why.
Anyway, moving on, it's not just the war in Ukraine, it's everything going on in Democrat cities.
I mean, crime.
Stephen Edgington did a report here for The Telegraph, which is a brilliant report, and it just explores just why a Democrat city is just experiencing massive spikes in crime.
And of course, it comes down to the governing philosophy of the Democrat party, and Biden embodies this.
To protect America's interests and act in the interests of law, order and justice are in some way racist.
They are in some way oppressive to those people who you are frankly preventing from terrorising others and this is somehow an injustice and so they are a light touch on all of these things and this is the consequence that you get.
It's nonsense though, isn't it?
Because black businesses are just as much harmed as white businesses.
Black households are just as much harmed as white households when they get burgled.
There's no distinction and discrimination in the crime that goes on.
But this idea that, you know, you have to stop law enforcement because it's racist is just a recipe for totally ruining your nation or your city or your state.
If anything, I actually think it is discriminatory towards black neighborhoods because this creates a particular spike in crime in those neighborhoods that already have a high crime problem.
And so that, you know, I'm not making judgments, but the facts of the matter is it's in those neighborhoods That you're getting, you're not getting a spike in crime in a white middle-class suburb.
No.
You know, everyone knows this and it's, you know, like I said, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to be judgmental about it, but, and ironically, when you poll black people in these suburbs, in these neighborhoods, when, when you ask them, do you want to have a reduction in police?
They say, no, I would like more police because I don't want crime.
The tragedy of this, you're seeing all these shops, you know, pictures on social media of Walmart and, you know, getting looted.
They're all going to close.
So this means that black neighborhoods are not going to have shops.
They're not going to have a pharmacy.
They're not going to have places where they can go and buy clothes because who would keep their shops open if you know you're going to get looted and the law enforcement is saying we're not going to touch them because it's racist to do anything about the criminals.
We've covered this quite extensively, actually.
In California, Portland, and New York, as in the three bluest areas of the United States, this is already happening.
We've got, like, Target and Walmart, and they're just like, no, we're just pulling out.
And honestly, it's not even necessarily because of the concern about the criminality.
It's the way that the criminality impacts profitability.
Right.
And it's not necessarily that they have a moral objection to the crime.
I'm sure they do.
But it's the fact that they're just like, look, it's just not profitable.
We can't afford to run here.
Yeah, it's not good business sense.
Even the big globalist companies that are, you know, pushing these Black Lives Matter narrative and closing up shop because it's bad for their bottom line.
Exactly, and it just is, and it's just openly immoral as well.
I really hate the fact that, you know, to permit rampant criminality is such an obvious, immoral thing to do.
I don't even know why I have to explain why that's immoral.
You know, you're incentivising crime.
Like, that is an injustice against the law abiding by its very nature.
The rationale for this is some kind of, like, there's some systemic racial injustice, isn't there?
So they need to make, everyone needs to make reparations, so to make reparations, the people from oppressed groups can go and commit crime.
I mean, that's the rationale, but I mean, it's just insane.
It's mental.
The Polish immigrant whose family came over in 1960, who escaped the Soviet Union, he needs reparations for slavery.
What are you talking about?
I should go to California and get my 1.2 million.
Oh, that is another...
And what I love about this is like, what I love about that in particular, it's like, look, all you're doing is making sure that the massive international companies that sell, you know, like Nike, like BMW, all of the car manufacturers, you know, the people who make high-end luxury goods are the people who make high-end luxury goods are just going to be raking all of that money in.
Right, okay.
They are just going to be raking it in, and it's just like, why not just give it to them directly?
It's mental, because these people are not going to be setting up businesses, because they're not inclined that way.
They don't have the life experience to know how to set up a business or manage a business.
Well, even if they did, it would get looted, so there's no point in it.
Anyway, another thing that has been a massive weakness under Biden is, of course, immigration.
As Jake's posted here, Biden's decided, after repealing Trump's Title 42, closing the southern border, he's decided, nah, we need that back, actually, because literally millions of illegal immigrants from South America came across, and this is a massive burden.
I mean, one might say this is something of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, but at least it's something.
It's something.
It's a surprise, isn't it?
Because he seems ideologically wedded to bringing in as many illegal migrants as possible.
So for him suddenly to do an about-turn on this, just at the point where it was going to be repealed, it's a good thing.
But maybe even Biden has realised that this is too much to cope with.
I mean, I wonder how much... I think it was DeSantis' policy of sending them to Martha's Vineyard.
Right.
Like, you know, they got deported in the day.
The same day.
It wasn't happening.
That was genius, wasn't it, of DeSantis.
All I want is the border policy of Martha's Vineyard, okay?
Is it too much to ask?
They're very good, yeah.
They control their borders.
Exactly.
It's not unjust when they do it, right?
Anyway, so when asked, most Biden voters do not want him to run again.
Democrats are like, No, actually.
This has been a catastrophe.
It's ruining our country.
There was a poll conducted in the middle of April and found only 26% of respondents would like to see Biden run again in 2024 versus 73% who said he shouldn't, with like 1% saying I don't know.
Well, that's encouraging as a poll, you know, hopefully he won't run again because he's been a disaster.
But then, you know, if they put someone else in for the Democrats, then you've got the possibility of the Democrats getting in again and having another term and just the chaos continuing.
So, you know, it might be better actually for him to run and lose to Trump or DeSantis.
No, no, I agree with you.
Because Biden has said that he is going to run in 2024.
He has declared himself, what is he, 80 years old now?
Yeah.
He is the candidate for the Democratic Party.
It's like, this is mad.
I mean, Trump's 78, so he's no spring chicken.
But at least Trump still has some vitality about him.
He's got so much more energy, hasn't he?
He does, doesn't he?
He's so weird.
He wows the crowds.
You still get football stadia full of people going to see Trump.
And he talks for an hour or two and just keeps going.
Biden is just hopeless.
Man, I tell you what, his campaign in 2019 was just amazing.
I loved it.
Just the fact that he just sits there riffing on current events in the stadiums is just so much fun to watch.
Anyway, so, yeah, 47% of Democrats, 52...
Sorry, 52% of Democrats did not want him to run.
But Trump, according to this poll, was similarly unpopular, with 30% of respondents saying they don't want him to run again.
But the thing is, if it's 30% of respondents in this poll saying, I don't want Donald Trump, but 73% saying, I don't want Joe Biden, the 30% may well be accounted for by mostly Democrats, who obviously aren't going to vote for Donald Trump.
But yes, this is not good.
And one of the funniest bits about this, for me, is watching the media have to report it because the facts are just as bad.
So let's watch this clip of NBC News just coping and seething.
You talked earlier about that record low approval rating for President Biden.
It's actually six points down just since February.
And the skepticism over his leadership extends deep inside his own party.
Only 36% of Democrats think that their party should nominate Joe Biden for a second term.
58% say they would...
Support someone else or prefer someone else.
That's despite the fact that the entire DNC, mostly Democratic establishment, has rallied behind President Biden.
And you're seeing real weaknesses in the coalition that powered Joe Biden to the presidency back in 2020.
Biden carried independence by 13 points.
against Donald Trump.
He is now trailing Trump by nine points among those same voters.
He carried black voters by 75 points in 2020.
Now he is up just 35.
That may sound like a lot, but the fact of the matter is in modern politics, that is not the kind of number that a Democrat needs.
to be victorious.
And then, of course, that does spill over into the head-to-head matchup, the hypothetical rematch, Trump versus Biden.
Right now, a seven-point edge in our poll in Trump leading Biden.
And, in fact, it's an identical number with Ron DeSantis in a head-to-head that might happen next November.
That tells us, at this very early stage, George, that this race is shaping up a lot more about the incumbent president, Joe Biden, than it is about any of his challengers.
So what's interesting about that, that's a different poll as well.
That was a Washington Post poll from the end of April to the beginning of May.
So in multiple polls, Biden is tanking.
As he says, record low approval rating and why.
And the New York Times, man, they have to admit this through clenched teeth, because these are some of Biden's biggest cheerleaders, obviously.
But Biden casts himself as the Trump beater.
Polls suggest that's no sure thing.
Yeah, it does, doesn't it?
It does.
It's what I like to see.
What I like about Biden and the power structure in the Democratic Party that supports him is that it's totally incapable of admitting a mistake.
And so now that Biden... I'm guessing it's because they think if they fall from power that a lot of their corruption will be released and a lot of people's heads will roll.
Well they'll have a lot of egg on their face as well won't they because they supported him and backed him to the hilt even though he's obviously a disaster and obviously it's not up to the job they've still carried on supporting him for over two years and now it's blatantly obvious to everyone in the wider population that he's just dreadful he's losing in the polls and you know so yeah they're gonna have to ditch him or or just pretend to try to carry on They might not have time to actually ditch him and find someone new.
That's the thing.
It's either enormous arrogance or a fear of losing grip of the control of the party which will allow corruption to leak out and to be exposed.
So people have to be held to account.
So it's either one of these two, maybe it's a combination of both.
But the point is they can't bear to let their boy, let him go.
And it's like, well, that's really foolish.
Because as far as we can tell, all the indications are that Biden's going to get thrashed by Trump.
Yeah.
Which I'm here for.
I don't care what people online are saying about the Trump-DeSantis war and stuff like that.
If Trump runs, I want him to win.
I want him to come back and absolutely thrash them, absolutely hammer them, because I think he deserves it.
And I think he did a great job anyway.
But there's a lot of coping and seething in this article, which I will Well, maybe I won't spare you some of it.
Quote, the poll is really trash.
I don't say that lightly, because I've had respect for their polling in the past, says Cornell Belcher, who is Obama's pollster.
But it's not just one poll, is it?
It's not just this poll.
There are lots of polls.
And everyone can feel it, right?
It's in the air.
It's what people are saying.
Everyone can tell nobody likes Biden because Biden seems to be actively against the concept of America.
He seems to be trying to destroy the country.
And we as foreigners, to you, can see this.
Like these people are not operating in your interests.
They're operating in some wild ideological sphere of fixing the entire planet for everyone all over the place ever.
And that's not going to work.
Well every kind of ideology that goes against common sense or against the nation, whether it's globally or in the United States, is being pushed by Biden.
The net zero ideology, the trans ideology, the obviously the climate alarmism, the warmongering, the mass immigration, and that's just to name a few.
He's against the Constitution, he wants to You know, he's a tax on free speech on the First Amendment, he's a tax on the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment.
So, you know, he's actually against, you know, the fundamental document of the American nation, really, in a way that no one's ever been before.
Not even Democrats before him have been against that.
America and American culture and the American Constitution in the way that Biden has.
But you know, the thing in politics is that you can support him.
When something goes wrong, the instinct is to double down, you know, you mustn't lose face.
And then something else comes up that is obvious that your guy is wrong, or you've made a mistake.
And then you double down again, and you keep doubling down until you just can't double down anymore.
And that's the danger, it would be far better for people to admit, okay, I made a mistake, let's row back and put things right.
But it's never done that.
It's like, go forward, double down, go forward, double down.
And you make 10 times the damage that you would, if you just had the courage to say, hold your hands up and say I was wrong.
And the interesting thing about that as well is, such as with the border policy U-turn, he can't make that a strength now as well, because he declared himself, no, we're essentially an open borders country, Trump's racist border policy was racist and I condemn it, and now he's had to silently try and sneak that back in and be like, well, I mean, It might be racist, but I still need it.
And so now he's essentially committing to a racist policy.
So he can't even stand on what is actually the popular position on this, the correct position, which is it's right for America to have borders and police them.
And he's admitting this through his revealed preferences.
And yet, It shows the sort of duplicity and weakness of his administration in that way.
And so it's total, total fantasy.
And speaking of total fantasy, this is Joe Biden's campaign website, and it's like, okay, it's hard to believe he's really campaigning.
Just scroll down on this, John.
Just scroll down, right?
So this is the cheesy graphics, but okay, sign up so they can send you an email.
Scroll down, scroll down.
America is back, yep.
Our first campaign, this is all they have.
This is literally all they have, is just this one propaganda video.
There's no manifesto.
There's no, you know, this is JoeBiden.com, there's no manifesto.
It's all going to be fluff, isn't it?
Like, images without any kind of substance.
Well, a lot of it's fear-mongering.
Do you remember how evil and racist America was under Donald Trump?
I mean, I know you could afford things.
Then you were safe.
The crime rate was lower and things were affordable.
The economy was going well.
Yeah, you were having nice barbecues with your friends and family.
But it'll be brilliant when Joe Biden is president again, even though things are terrible now with Joe Biden as president.
It's mental.
I'll spare you it.
But I think all the signs are pointing to Biden going to lose.
And he would be justified in losing.
And If someone, say, you know, shortly after the election in 2024 throws this video back in my face, I'm just saying, all the signs were there, like they were in 2020.
Anyway, let's move on.
What do you know about Canada?
Canada was a lovely place, wasn't it, back in the day?
It was actually the first country I ever travelled to outside the UK.
Before I was born, my mother used to work in the Bank of Montreal.
She lived in Montreal for 20 years, for a very long time.
She was the editor of their magazine in the 60s, the Bank of Montreal magazine.
And so she had a very good job in Canada.
So yeah, when I was only one year old, I don't remember it.
That was the first country I ever flew to.
And she was looking at, you know, going and locating there.
She didn't.
So that's why I'm here still.
But you know, I always thought, you know, Canada was a very conservative, sensible, a well level headed place.
And maybe in the 60s it was.
Maybe even up to the last decade it was, in the 2000s.
It's just very, very sad to see how it's gone down the tubes like a lot of other nations.
Canada has decided to go full speed on progress.
Man, progress is mental.
Canada is looking, and I say this as someone who doesn't live in Canada, Canada is looking insane from the outside.
But before we go on and explore that, we've got a new feature on the website.
We've had a lot of requests saying, look, we can sign up, but we can't actually just donate you some money, and I never really thought about that, and now we have been demonetized on YouTube, it became suddenly something I had to consider.
So, if you would like to support us, you can go over and click donate if you don't want to sign up, and send us a fiver or something, just say thank you for all the hard work we're doing, because we are, I think, doing a lot of hard work, and we'd really appreciate it, because, of course, we've got to keep the lights on, and YouTube doesn't like that.
Anyway, you may remember in 2013 that Trudeau hit the headlines, before he was Prime Minister of Canada, for saying that he admired China's basic dictatorship, How can anyone admire a dictatorship if they're the leader of a democracy?
That doesn't make any sense, does it, at all?
What a thing to say!
Would you like the quote?
Yes, please.
He says, there's a level of admiration I actually have for China.
Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime and say, we need to go green, we need to start investing in solar.
They're not actually investing in solar, are they?
They're actually building coal power stations, which actually is quite sensible.
Canada would do the same.
They might have cheaper energy.
It's a remarkable statement, because as you say, China's the leading source of carbon emissions.
And I personally don't know what that means, but Trudeau, having a particular green agenda, should surely see that as being A monumental evil.
But the point he's making is he respects the fact that it's a totalitarian country because the person at the top can just realign the entire civilization in a different direction.
They can do what they want without this pesky democracy or freedom or liberty or free speech or personal opinions getting in the way.
They can just ride roughshod over all the people and do what they like.
It really tells you a lot about Justin Trudeau, doesn't it?
And so this particular line, the reason I bring it up is because he seems to have a very strange relationship to China, actually.
weirdly permissive of China, which I think is, and it's the same with New Zealand as well, actually.
They have a weirdly permissive relationship with China, which is weird because it's like, you understand these people are obviously wolves, right?
They're obviously out for themselves and to improve their standing in the world.
And I don't even blame China for doing that.
Obviously they're gonna do that.
But then we need to have a particular understanding that that's the agenda that they're following and act appropriately.
And China has not been acting appropriately in this regard.
And like I said, this particular quote has come up a lot in the Canadian media.
This is only from 2021.
This is still going.
You know, this is just one example of this.
I searched this quote and then pulled out just the first things that I found because you can see this is something that people are not letting go.
And that's good because, like I said, Canada has a strange relationship to China, right?
So this is in 2021.
Where they were having joint military exercises with the People's Liberation Army.
It's like, why?
It's very strange, isn't it?
For a country that's in NATO, I mean, I'm not a fan of some of the things that NATO are doing at the moment.
Obviously, for a country that actually is in NATO to be having military exercises with China is beyond belief, isn't it?
I mean, what other NATO countries are having military exercises with China?
I don't think any.
Yeah, it's really, really bizarre, but it gets weirder, right?
So this is from the Canadian government's own website, right?
They've got a couple of Q&As on here.
Why is the Canadian Armed Forces engaging in military exercises and defence activities with the People's Liberation Army?
I mean, that's a great question because You would think that the People's Liberation Army would be the thing you would be expecting to defend against if you were Canadian.
So why are you engaging in these joint activities?
And their answer is, we're committed to remaining a reliable player in the Asia-Pacific region through consistent engagement and strong partnerships.
Okay, but surely you'd be a consistent, reliable player with Japan, or any other... Australia.
Yeah, New Zealand.
Well, no, not New Zealand.
In an ideal world, New Zealand.
The Western-aligned countries, and not the China-aligned countries, and especially not China itself.
But they say the Canadian Armed Forces have not engaged in bilateral training exercises with China in 2019 and 2020.
Well, obviously because of the coup.
In parallel with the whole of government reviews of Canada's approach to China, National Defence is currently reviewing its engagements with the Chinese military.
Canada would like to continue the Asia-Pacific region in a manner that promotes peace and security around the world.
Right, but inviting the Chinese in and giving them a seat at the table, is that promoting peace or is that allowing them to have access to what you know when they shouldn't, right?
Well, we have the United Nations Security Council with five members.
Surely that's the forum to actually try to promote and maintain peace and security.
And I think we do have to do that actively because we could get into a third world war and we want to avoid that.
That's got to be the number one priority for all Prime Ministers, Presidents and kings and whatever around the world to avoid a world war three so you know we obviously do need to engage with china and you know with a lot of wisdom and tact and diplomacy and that doesn't mean you will lie your armed forces with them yeah you don't you don't invite the chinese military to say attend a military science conference in canada which is what happened last year so i think they probably know what was going on anyway
but you don't need to openly uh flaunt it Quite possibly, but this was weird.
So, a few Canadians were detained in China, and in fact, in the previous one they say, if pressed about Canadian citizens detained in China, Canada remains deeply concerned about China's actions.
It's like, okay, so they're detaining your citizens, and you're like, yeah, so just keep coming on to our military conferences, right?
Three days after Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were freed from a prison ordeal in China, the Chinese military made a surprising request to Canada's largest defence university.
It asked if some of its personnel could attend international military sciences conferences at the Royal Military College.
The theme of the academic meeting was resilience and cohesion in the face of new forms of disruption and one of the sessions dealt with China and Russia's information space attacks on democracy.
You're inviting China to a session where people are discussing the threat from China.
Yes.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, the Chinese said, could we attend?
And the request rose up to the Department of National Defense ranks to the deputy minister who allowed it.
And so the Chinese got to Zoom call in to this session of how to defend against Chinese attacks on democracy.
Kind of defeats the object, doesn't it?
That's absolutely crazy.
I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.
And so it was kind of redundant when the Canadian government was like, yeah, maybe we're going to have to start clamping down on these Chinese spies.
It's like, why not?
Why?
Why bother?
You just literally invite them into the Zoom meeting.
Yeah, why not just put Chinese cameras everywhere so they can watch everything that goes on?
Why not, right?
So Trudeau's government will stop funding projects affiliated with universities, institutes and labs connected to foreign military, national defence or state security entities.
That's all well and good, but China is a totalitarian state.
And a totalitarian state means there is nothing outside of the purview of the government.
So anything Chinese that the Canadian government engages with is ultimately at the discretion of the Chinese government.
You remember when the Chinese government just started confiscating the wealth of billionaires?
They allowed these capitalist enterprises to spring up and they were just like, right now you're gone.
And it's like, why?
Because they can do that.
Because they're a tyrannical communist regime.
That's what they do.
And so Trudeau, it started becoming obvious that the Canadians were acting as kind of a siphon for Chinese spies to send information and technology back to China, which is what has been happening in American universities as well, constantly.
Chinese spies are constantly getting caught.
Sometimes they sleep with American senators and nothing happens.
It's like, okay, this is so weird.
It's like a totally open funnel going into China.
So what are you doing?
There's so many Chinese students in universities all over the West.
I mean, in the UK, in the USA, all over.
So you have no idea which of them are actually independent and there for their own benefit to learn maths or who is there on behalf of the state feeding back information to the Chinese Communist Party.
I mean, probably a lot of them.
Would only get permission to leave if they were members of the party, I imagine.
Well, this is precisely the problem that Trudeau's government encountered, actually.
The Global Mail reported that 50 Canadian universities had extensive research collaborations with the Chinese military, and this means that a lot of people who are literally in the Chinese military are involved with Canadian universities.
It's like, look, you can't, that's such a wild risk to take.
You know, let's assume nothing bad happened.
Just having that door wide open is crazy.
But this infiltration, it's too late to stop now.
I mean, you hear it says in the Canadian universities since 2005, I mean, here in the UK, we've got Huawei, and there was a lot of sort of worry about what those Huawei systems would do if they were integrated into our mobile phone systems.
Well, that was the thing.
They were thinking about allowing a Chinese company – again, there's no such thing as an independent Chinese company, they're all in some way organs of the government – to control the telecommunications infrastructure for the United Kingdom.
Are we mad?
What are we doing?
Right?
But anyway, Canada's still in this position.
And another thing that is interesting that happened in Canada, I hadn't heard of this until the other day.
Apparently there are Chinese police stations in Canada, in places like Quebec and Montreal, where these are undeclared.
Police stations where the Chinese state is funding what appears to be kind of like a Chinese colony to police their own citizens overseas.
And so they pick these people up off the street.
And speaking to the media on Thursday, Justin Trudeau said they are an issue his government are very concerned about.
How do they exist?
I've heard of them in London.
Yeah.
But I haven't heard of them in Canada until now.
So, I mean, this obviously is going on everywhere.
And the question is, how long have these been in existence?
Well, that's a great question.
It wasn't just Quebec.
It was also Montreal and a few others as well, if you go to the next one.
But this is not just in Canada, of course.
Apparently, there are 100 of these around the world, according to CNN.
If you go to the next one, there are over 100 of these across the world.
Some of them with the corporation of the nations that they're in.
Which is weird.
But anyway, carrying on on Canada's strange relationship with China.
I know I'm doing a lot on China and Canada.
I have more.
It's just there was a lot of this to go through.
The Chinese decided to intimidate, shall we say, Canadian officials.
And so the Canadians said, oh, we're not going to be intimidated by this.
And so they kicked out a Chinese diplomat.
And so the Chinese decided to kick out Canadian diplomats because, of course, they have a position of honor to maintain.
What's interesting is that the Chinese state issued a response that was essentially like, how dare you, sir?
And it's like, Everyone can see what you're doing.
Everyone can see that China is taking predatory actions to infiltrate and steal and undermine.
This is not a friendly country.
This is a country that will pretend to be friendly while stabbing you in the back.
But they've got a hundred-year program, haven't they?
They do.
Started by Deng Xiaoping with their Belt and Road Initiative.
They want to... I don't blame them.
They're doing the best for themselves.
This is an entity, the Chinese Communist Party, that wants to be the number one government and control everything in the whole world.
They want to be the prime nation, as stated.
So they're telling you exactly what they want to do.
But you're silly if you open the door to let that happen in your own country.
So they should have seen that coming, but so he obviously didn't see it coming and then it's happened for a little bit for a number of years or decades and then he's like, oh, whoa, this is happening.
I didn't see it.
Oh, I've got to do something about it.
But it's just expelling one diplomat.
It's too little too late.
It really is.
But at least it shows that the Canadian government's like, OK, maybe we shouldn't actually be sitting down with the wolves and asking them what they'd like for dinner.
Yeah, the lambs that they are.
Anyway, there are other insane things.
There's a bill called C-18 that I think was called Bill C-11 but has been renamed C-18.
Honestly, it was unclear from BBC reporting what the deal was with this.
But this is a new law that makes tech giants like YouTube and TikTok support Canadian cultural content.
It's a compelled speech, isn't it?
It is compelled speech.
Yeah, like you must say this 30% of the time.
You must have an algorithm that promotes certain things, right?
If only there was a certain Canadian professor who warned about the sort of compelled speech.
If only.
I wonder where you might find one of those.
Yes.
In exile, actually, at this point is basically where you'd have to find him.
But the thing is, the final regulations are actually still unclear.
But the issue seems to be that the Canadian government wants to promote...
Particular Canadian content creators like Lauren Southern probably isn't getting on this program.
No.
But there will be left-wing content creators and indigenous Canadian content creators and things like this.
YouTube, of course, have been opposed to this saying, look, we want to run an open algorithm where essentially the algorithm is customized to the tastes of the user rather than the decisions of the government.
And one of the rare occasions I have to stay in YouTube's corner and say, no, that is actually the way that things are.
There are a bunch of even Canadian influencers who are just like, no, I don't want them to start essentially hamstringing me and promoting government approved creators on the platform.
But that is what will happen.
As much as I hate globalism, YouTube is a global service, if you like.
It's a global platform, and I don't like some of the things that they do and the way they operate.
But, like I was saying with you, I would, in this specific instance, say, well, it should be left to the market to decide what people engaging in that market want to listen to, rather than forcing certain things at them.
And it's not like YouTube doesn't do enough algorithmic manipulation anyway.
But forcing... I mean, there's one thing like YouTube doing their own algorithmic manipulation, which at least on a sort of, you know, on a free market level, I can be like, well, you know, they are a private company, they get to have the algorithm they want.
But now if it's... But the thing is, there is another argument saying, well, you know, this is actually somewhat of a problem, the fact that they don't have any kind of government constraint.
So...
Difficult on both sides, but the thing is, I really wouldn't trust the Canadian government.
I mean, they literally say they want to clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming in official languages as well as indigenous languages.
So it's going to be woke trash that nobody wants to watch, that has to be force-fed.
But on the other hand as well, you know, they're doing this with one hand and on the other hand they're bringing in sort of hate speech regulations.
So, you know, you can have this kind of content, but certain Canadian content creators They get no platforms completely, so they're not going to get on this algorithm, like you say.
It's not going to be Rebel News who gets banned.
That's true, that's a very good Canadian media company.
Exactly, the Ur Example, I would say.
This also applies to Facebook, otherwise known as Meta, and Facebook are just threatening to remove their content from Canada if this comes through, which honestly would be probably a benefit to the Canadian public.
Which, ironically though, puts Nick Clegg in conflict with the Canadian government.
That's a... I never saw that coming.
I've lost touch with him, hasn't he?
He's just gone to ground, hasn't he?
But he's still there!
He's the content manager for... Yeah, he's the manager for Facebook.
So now Nick Clegg is against Justin Trudeau.
When on every other thing they would have completely agreed.
Two liberals having a liberal fight.
Exactly.
Yeah, who's more liberal?
But yeah, anyway...
So then let's move on very quickly to Canada's population.
So Canada has a population in total of 38.25 million.
And in the last few years, they have, of course, like everywhere else, been inflicted, had inflicted upon them, mass immigration.
So now, 22%, 23% of Canada's population is of immigrant, is first generation immigrant.
That's wild.
23% likes first-generation, so have moved to Canada from somewhere else, so that's... Oh, sorry, let me correct.
They belong to, quote, visible minorities, according to that, so they may well be second or third.
But only three in ten of them are born in Canada, so of that 22%, 70%, so about 18% of Canada is first-generation immigrant.
That's huge, isn't it?
That's massive.
That's huge.
Millions, five, six million people have migrated to Canada.
Yes.
Yeah, obviously this has massive demographic change and massive implications on the social cohesion of a society, doesn't it?
Yeah.
And also politically, because a lot of people coming in are more likely to vote for certain political parties that are pro-immigration.
This is why they do it and it feeds back and then if you don't cut that loop, then it will just go on forever.
There'll be no way of stopping it because they bring people in, they vote for the party that brings them in, then they bring more in.
You get chain migration and so on.
Yeah.
For a country with only less than 40 million people as well, Canada has a staggeringly high per capita rate of immigration.
In 2021 and 2022, they got 400,000 people in, which is enormous for a country of that size, that population.
And they're planning to increase that to 500,000 people per year.
Like it's a target.
Yeah, it's a target.
That's exactly right.
It's a target.
That puts the immigration levels to Canada at 0.7% per year compared to, say, the United States, which has massive immigration anyway, at 0.3%.
So it's a huge increase in the number of people coming in.
And then you have people in Canada whining about the coronation of King Charles.
Why?
Well, oh, it costs us money!
And this article makes an argument that one day the monarchy might start controlling Canadian politics.
It's not going to happen.
Doubt it very much.
It doesn't even control British politics!
It's not going to control Canadian politics.
But the complaint here was really based around the cost.
Oh, this cost $100 million, which is something in American dollars, which is something like $167 million Canadian dollars, which was five hours of NHS spending.
Just in case you were wondering.
The entire coronation would have funded the NHS for five hours.
I don't know why Canadians are complaining, because they didn't have to pay for it anyway, did they?
It was the British tax payers.
Oh yeah, we paid for it.
I don't know what the problem is.
Yeah, how much in the way of Canadian taxes paid for this?
But the thing is, interestingly, Canada spends $300 billion annually on their health care.
That's a lot of money for such a small country.
And so what they're complaining about is the King's Coronation was 0.06% of Canada's euthanasia budget.
And I say euthanasia budget for a reason, because Canada has a very strange relationship to the concept of the right to life, in my opinion.
We go to the next one, John.
They want to extend euthanasia laws to include people with mental illnesses.
I mean, they didn't have euthanasia until very, very recently, did they?
That's right.
The last decade.
I'm not sure the exact year that it was brought in, but this would have been unthinkable 20 years ago that you would have even had any euthanasia, would you?
Now it's the sixth leading cause of death in Canada.
That's dreadful, isn't it?
10,000 people a year.
They say, oh, it's only going to be for a few people who are in severe pain, and then they expand it and expand it and expand it, and now it's like, oh, people who are mentally ill, maybe people who are poor, maybe... Let me get you on that one.
No, no, you're exactly right.
So yeah, I mean...
The way this is framed, and we'll get to the poverty in a second actually, but the way this is framed is to say, like, people who are physically suffering, right, if you're in constant pain all day every day, I can see actually a valid argument saying, look, I would like to die, because it's never going to get any better, I'm just waiting six months until I die, or you could just have a nice ceremony for me and then I could go now.
I probably would disagree with you on that.
I can see that point of view.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of it.
But I can see that as being quite a strong argument, right?
And, you know, it could go either way for me personally on that particular case, right?
But that is because the person is in a position where they can never recover.
It's just constant suffering.
And they are conscious and are able to fully articulate what's going on, right?
They're very aware of what's happening.
They're not mentally ill.
And the thing about mental illnesses is usually an exculpatory excuse for if you have committed a crime, for example.
I wasn't fully in control of my actions.
So how can a mentally ill person ever really make an informed decision on the consent to kill themselves?
Well, that would be something I would have thought, but...
The problem with public health care is those mentally ill people are holding up the balance sheet.
The courts would decide, wouldn't they?
This is what the very dangerous and disturbing thing is.
People who are mentally ill usually often get made wards of court.
So the court becomes the person who makes decisions on their behalf.
And they can decide, oh well, this person, yeah, they need to die.
They're clearly suffering from extreme depression.
Maybe they should just kill themselves, says Canada's official position on this, which is mental.
But going on to euthanasia, what does the Canadian public think of euthanasia?
Well, when polled, 27% of people think that people should have access to euthanasia because of poverty, which rises to 41% between the 18-34 demographic My goodness.
Poor?
Don't you just kill yourself?
I thought, you know, younger people who are more socialist, if you like, on that way of thinking, would be more in favour of helping people who are poor.
Not bumping them off.
Not killing them!
Homeless?
Well, 28% of Canadians think you should just kill yourself as well.
Yeah, you need access to euthanasia.
Why?
Because you don't have a home.
Why not?
Can't I be given some sort of charity?
Well, if you come as a migrant, you're probably given a home straight away, aren't you?
Or you're shuffled straight into the hospital.
Not got a home.
43% believe for mental illness, which seems mental to me.
But what's crazy is 50% of Canadians think being disabled should qualify you for euthanasia.
So that's the next one along, isn't it?
From like, okay, someone who is in severe pain, and then it's disability, and then it's mental illness.
But you see, this is a progression.
You introduce it once for one small category, and then they use the wedge to bring it in.
Oh, it's only going to be for a very, very tiny number of people.
But then that expands and expands and expands.
To save all, you know?
Homeless.
Well, these categories, yeah.
People who are poor, people who are homeless.
Earning less than 20 grand a year!
Half the country would be up for euthanasia.
Yeah, yeah, no, that's exactly right.
And that rises to 60% amongst the 1834.
But the thing is, what this is doing, really, is mainstreaming the conversation on eugenics again.
Because this is a eugenicist program.
If you're mentally ill, if you're disabled, or you're poor, then maybe you should just be killed because you're an inferior kind of human being.
Goodness me.
It's just incredible how Canada has progressed so very much.
This has happened very quickly, hasn't it?
I mean, this sort of inversion of values.
I mean, the groundwork has been laid for many, many decades, but it's just since about 2015, things have just flipped and in a way that is quite frightening.
And when surveyed, 73% of Canadians are in favor of this practice under the current guidelines, which are, I mean, not great, but you've got to be at least 18 years old and mentally competent, so the mental illness aspect has to be taken out of that, and have a grievous and irredeemable medical condition, and then make a voluntary request for this.
But the thing is, I've seen reports of people saying, well, I got an email or a letter from the Canadian government There was one he was disabled needed a stairlift and instead he got offered made and it's like no I want a stairlift.
I don't want to be killed you lunatics That's not a voluntary request is it that sort of putting it on that's some level of coercion or yes suggestion Yeah, exactly shouldn't be allowed in that case Yeah, the charisma of government offices definitely informs the way that people think about how things should be, and to have that as the case is just mental.
So anyway, Canada is a mad place and it seems to be getting madder by the day.
If you're Canadian and I'm wrong about any of this, let me know.
If you're Canadian and I'm right about all of this, well, I'm so sorry.
Anyway, let's move on to talking about how the UK needs a united right-wing party.
This is something that's been bothering me for some time and I'm not blaming you because you are an alternative right-wing party, a part of one, but there are lots of these around and this is a subject that I just think needs to really be brought to the table and the reasons that are holding back the uniting of the political right in the United Kingdom need to be hammered out, gotten past, so we can actually have some conservative opposition.
Well, I mean, what I would say about that, I mean, to be honest, is when I started the Heritage Party, there was nothing going on.
There was UKIP had, you know, they collapsed, they weren't doing anything.
The Brexit Party had deactivated.
So I was still an elected member of the London Assembly at that time.
So I thought, well, I'm in a position to do something.
So I started the Heritage Party and I was like, I made, you know, I created the Heritage Party to fill that space.
But it was very disappointing that instead of everyone coming to join me, within a couple of days, there was this reclaim party launched and said, oh, we're going to compete against what you're doing.
And then a few weeks later, the reform party was launched and they were like, we're going to compete against what you're both doing.
And then you kept sort of reactivated as well.
And then there was another couple of parties activated and just set up.
Yeah.
So why didn't you come and join me?
I was in a position To actually build a right-wing movement in this space that, you know, that you couldn't fill anymore because it's day is done.
And we could all be united.
But, you know, different people set up different things and now there is the case where some of them are saying, well, we are not going to work with any of you.
We are going to be the dominant brand.
We're going to squash everybody else.
And they need to, well, we wouldn't have a place with them, you know.
So that is the situation, unfortunately.
Well, we'll go through some events that have happened recently that have really provoked me to want to say this.
But before we do, if you want to support us, go to our merch store, which is merch.lotuses.com, and check out our merch.
We've got loads of t-shirts.
Sweaters and various other things.
And, of course, this is because we are otherwise demonetised and it helps us keep the lights on.
Much appreciated.
So, I think it's interesting that reform did poorly in the local elections recently.
Which is really disappointing, because the overall turnout for the local elections was very low, wasn't it?
It was about 32% overall, I think.
So, very low.
Less than a third.
Two in three people didn't bother to vote.
And this allowed the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party to absolutely smash the Conservatives in the local elections.
And I went through a bunch of the results in Swindon, actually, because they got Labour councillors in the major seats.
And it was literally just hundreds of votes.
Just a couple of hundred votes.
And it was because, I think, that the Conservative voters just didn't want to turn up.
That's exactly what happened, isn't it?
It was not that Labour and the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems may have got a few more in some places, but Labour, they didn't get any more votes, just the Conservative vote dropped precipitously, because they're so appalling that their own voters don't want to vote for them, because they're not a Conservative party anymore.
They've got the name, but they're fake Conservatives.
That's exactly the point and I mean I literally I went through a bunch of the stats and some of them were winning on like a thousand six hundred votes and it's like in a ten thousand twelve thousand constituency voting constituency and it's like how is this possible you know and it's possible because literally the conservatives just didn't bother turning up exactly as you were saying right but the thing that I think is most disappointing is in parties like the Reform Party where they are failing to capitalize
on the conservatives' phenomenal weakness here, right?
There is actually a massive conservative constituency that is simply disengaging from the political process because they don't feel represented.
And the Reform Party and, honestly, all the other parties are failing to take up the standard, you know, raise the banner and say, no, no, look, this is our, hour, these are the people you need to vote for to get into office, to start having pro-patriotic messaging and actions taken in your area.
I mean, I couldn't really just speak for the Heritage Party.
We had 65 candidates standing, which for our third year is a really good number of people, you know, all over the country from Devon to Kent.
to Lancashire and North Lincolnshire.
We had people all over the country.
And where people heard about us, they loved our message.
They loved our manifesto.
We've still got the issue of trying to get known because we're a very new party.
We only launched just under three years ago, as I said.
So with very little money, with very little publicity from the mainstream, deliberately, of course, whereas they are pushing reform all the time.
You're showing something from the Telegraph there.
They have a PR agency and they can get things placed in the national media.
So people see them more.
But they didn't do any better than the Heritage Party did in terms of their vote share.
They did very poorly, actually.
They were expecting, I think, to do quite well, and they only got six councillors, despite fielding candidates in 500 seats, and of course, despite the profound Conservative weakness.
And I must say, sorry to interrupt, those six councillors used to be UKIP councillors back in the day, Alan Graves and so on, in two seats in South West Derby.
Yeah, so it's not a new party that's come up, it's the existing goodwill that's been built up from those councillors.
They've got a personal vote in that area.
They were UKIP councillors, then Brexit Party councillors, now reform councillors, who have been known in those two wards in Alverston and Derby for over ten years.
So that's not the work of reform that's got those six councillors, it's their own personal standing among their neighbourhoods.
And that I think is fundamentally the problem with parties like Reform and Reclaim.
And I say this as supporters of all of these things.
Like with the Trump and DeSantis scuffle, I literally don't care which one I support.
I'm going to support them all because they're all, as far as I can tell, alternatives to the Lib-Labe-Con three-cheeked arse that's controlling this country.
I might add the Green Party to that as well.
They've only got one MP, so I don't really consider them important enough to mention.
And then some Bryson of all places.
But yeah, this wasn't a great result, which is disappointing.
Then you have another party called the SDP, the Social Democratic Party, who they have two councillors now, which And they have quite an interesting manifesto, a bunch of, again, honestly, right, this is the thing about the plurality of right-wing parties is that they're essentially all with the same message, right?
It's like a more sort of protectionist economic message, a more socially conservative economic message, We need to reduce immigration.
We need to make sure that the country is run in the interests of the people in the country and not for foreign interests or global interests or whatever it is.
And these are all very similar messages that we can all get behind.
And so that's what makes the fractured nature of the right-wing political scene in Britain so damn frustrating.
It is, like I was saying, you know, why didn't everyone come and join what I was doing, you know?
Why did people set up their own things and then people are still talking about setting up new parties to compete with what's already there?
But one of them's folded, they had Four Britain run by Anne-Marie Waters and she tried to do her thing and she's you know, wound that up now and then she's joined UKIP.
So there's one fewer there.
So, you know, that's one thing which is interesting to note.
But yeah, I mean, all I can say is, yeah, in a way I would agree with you.
Why didn't people come and join what I'm doing?
And I was there when no one else was doing it, but... Well, the next interesting thing in this regard is Andrew Bridgen joining the Reclaim Party.
Because, of course, he was expelled by the Conservatives under very suspicious pretenses, shall we say, comparing the Covid vaccinations to the Holocaust, which I'm not, for YouTube's sake, saying I endorse.
But it is not an anti-Semitic statement, obviously.
And we'll get into his lawsuit in a minute.
But so yeah, if you go to the next one, he joined, he did a press conference with Lawrence Fox, which I watched, which I thought was very good.
And I agree.
And so now Reclaim has as many MPs as the Green Party.
But the problem, again, with this is a why the Reclaim Party, one of the Reform Party and Richard Tice at event initially, essentially rejected Andrew Bridgen, because he was controversial on the subject of the vaccines.
It's like, okay, but I mean, you know, I'm not going to go into the subject now, but like... I totally supported what he's been saying for the last few months.
But for YouTube's sake, we're not going to go into it.
Just because the rules are as the rules are.
The problem, though, is now we have the Reform Party, which is Thijs and has the looming spectre of the political superstar that is Nigel Farage somewhere just in the shadow of him.
He's the major shareholder of the Reform UK DLC, isn't he?
Yeah, exactly.
And if he's not directly involved, it's still his brand.
Everyone still knows it.
It's still got the logo from the Brexit party.
But now you have Reclaim who have an actual MP.
And so you've got these two centers of power that are now just competing with each other that should be competing with the Conservative Party.
But instead, they've split their energies and now they're against each other.
And this, again, they've got no ground game.
And so the places, people like the ASDP, who do have a ground game, and that's how they've been getting their ground, and UKIP probably still have something of a ground game, there's this scattering of all of the necessary components.
So you've got Lawrence Fox and Richard Tice who have the Westminster game, but you've got nothing in the Shires.
You know, those things are separate to the political entity that should be all connected and joined up with ligaments, as it were.
And so this is why I think the right is getting absolutely nowhere, because they haven't got one consistent brand, they haven't got one consistent message, and there's no support from the other parts that should be necessarily supporting and amplifying.
There should be word of mouth on the ground.
doing the local thing and then there should be the centralised thing in Westminster with an MP doing the public facing national thing.
And it's not happening.
And so the Labour Party aren't gaining any ground.
That's the thing.
It's the Conservative Party have just lost a massive share of votes that isn't being picked up by a single united Conservative Party that is not the capital C Conservative Party.
Well, you see, you've got reform here, as you mentioned quite a lot with the sort of newspaper pieces.
They think that they are the natural heir to that side of the politics, you know, what I would call the true conservative right, whatever.
But they're not gaining anything.
No.
particularly Richard Tice has got quite an arrogant attitude of not wanting to work with other people.
But this is clearly a kind of rake that he's standing on that's smacking him in the face.
Because for all of the media attention that you can gain, and for all of the connections you may have in Westminster, or the reputational legacy of Nigel Farage, it's clear that you need a local ground game.
And if you say that you're above this and you intend to come from the top down, well, as you can see, unless you have like an amazingly persuasive message, which reform aren't articulating, then it doesn't work.
But they don't have a full manifesto and neither does Reclaim.
No, no, that's true.
They've got a couple of bullet points.
We do in the Heritage Party.
I know when I was on with you a few months ago, we went through the full manifesto, which is 30 pages long.
It's got sections on, you know, all areas of policy from, you know, national sovereignty to transport to the environment to energy.
And it's very well thought out.
So I think we've got the manifesto, which, you know, these other people, they copy what we say.
They copy it word for word sometimes and tweet it out, which is very frustrating.
But this is precisely my point.
It's like all of you should be in the same party because you're fulfilling different functions of a political party.
Like the Heritage Party, and the thing is, of the branding, I like the Heritage Party the most, right?
Because it's not, it speaks in and of itself, the word speaks to richness and depth and feeling, right?
You know, it's really about I want a party of the shyers, that recognises old England, old Britain, that appreciates the warmth and depth of this country, whereas Reform is a very thin name, Reclaim is a very thin name, and it's got this shiny corporate logo, and it's like, that turns me off instantly.
But the people in it, I think, probably are good people and are doing good things.
I know Lawrence and Andrew.
They're good people.
They're doing good things.
I don't know Richard Tice or Nigel Farage, but I'm sure they're decent people and they're doing good things.
Ben Habib is a good man.
I like Ben Habib.
Really good.
I was able to promote him on Twitter the other day because he came out on GB News, I think, having a smashing.
A little speech on GB News.
But all of these things should be integrated, you know.
I want the Heritage Party Manifesto.
I want, you know, Andrew Bridgen and Lawrence Fox and Nigel Farage and Richard Tyson.
I want the ground game of all of them.
I want them to be together under a nicely, a rich name, a rich brand that I can really just go out and hammer every damn day, you know, to 300,000 people on Twitter, to the six, seven million people we get watching on YouTube.
God knows how many hundreds of thousands on Rumble we get.
We've got a large audience, and I really want to be able to say, no, these are our guys.
They're our guys working in our interest.
But it seems this ego that's stopping this from coming together, like some sort of robot constructing itself.
And it's insufferable to watch.
As someone who's not involved, you know, manually in any of these.
Partly politically, I guess.
As a commentator who just wants the best for everyone.
I haven't got a personal prejudice against any of these people.
It's insufferable watching the egos stopping it from coming together.
Because like you say, you've got a good manifesto and I like your manifesto.
You know, Lawrence Fox has got access to finance and he has an MP.
Richard Tice has access to the Westminster media apparatus.
And the SDP and other local parties have got a ground game.
What are we doing?
They do in the north, particularly Yorkshire, but they're not around the rest of the country.
Sure, but that's still – it's something that we could – if we had a united front here, we could say, look, just get a couple of their guys to advise us in the south how to set up those things.
And we could set those up, we could organize it, we could get it done.
But while everything is so shattered and disparate, none of this is going on.
You know, the ideas, the people, the goodwill, it's all here.
It's just, it seems there are a few egos at the top that we just need to have broken through and just be like, look, you've just got to deal with it, you know?
Yeah, people come… you're not the first person to say that to me!
I'm not thinking of you, I don't think it's your fault!
You seem to be open, completely open to some sort of confederation of parties, shall we call it?
Yeah, the thing is, how do you get people to work together?
It's like, you know, If we could all come together and agree, you know, I will stand in these seats, they will stand in those seats, they will stand in those seats, and sort of, you know, giving up the seats so we don't stand against each other, that might be a way of working together.
I can't see everybody coming together as one party, you know, with some of the people you've got in some of the other parties at the moment, you know.
Someone like, you know, Ben Habib, Maybe.
There's a possibility of working with him because he's much more amenable.
I think he's far more intelligent and politically switched on.
He's very, very good politically.
And I don't think he's in it for his own selfish personal ambition.
I think he's in it because he cares genuinely about the country.
So he's like a whole level above some of the other people who are leaders in these parties at the moment.
So I think you're being diplomatic, and I've heard from many people it's the Reform Party themselves who are unprepared to sit around and negotiate and coalesce with other parties, it seems, right?
And I'm not going to make you commit to that or anything like that, but that's what I've heard.
And again, I'm not casting any shade, but would it be worth then ignoring them?
And then, okay, talking to Lawrence Fox, talking to the SDP, talking to English Democrats or any, any of the other smaller parties, having some sort of, cause I mean, you had a conversation about this on GB News, didn't you?
There was a conversation I think when Calvin Robinson tried to get everybody together in the studio.
It didn't really work.
It was a bit chaotic and I didn't want to do that publicly.
I mean I have spoken to people.
behind the scenes about certain things.
I'm not going to, you know, divulge what I've said publicly, but this is also a problem.
There's conversations going on, and then some people are blabbermouths, and then they put it all over social media.
Oh, I spoke to this person.
Oh, I didn't speak to that person.
They wouldn't speak to me.
They said this, but then they did that.
And it's like, you know, some of those people, you can't trust them, because you don't know what they're going to divulge that's private in the public sphere.
So you have to have that level of trust with people to be able to engage with them.
So this also is a problem.
But all I'm saying, and I'm going to keep hammering it, is that there needs to be the beginning of a knitting together of these different strata of politics in this country, so we can have A genuine right-wing party that we can genuinely commit to.
I can commit to the Heritage Party.
But that's because you're the leader of the Heritage Party.
And we have a fantastic manifesto.
You do, and you are right.
Your manifesto is definitely superior to the manifesto of Reform and Reclaim, but they have direct mainstream media access and an MP.
Right?
And so, again, it's all well and good having these separate parts, but the thing becomes more than the sum of its parts once it's put together, and until that happens, I honestly think it'll just be Labour and the Conservatives ruining this country forever.
So, as a quick end point on that, sorry, I just want to say, Andrew Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock for calling him an anti-Semite, which I completely agree with.
You should definitely sue Matt Hancock.
and he's running a crowdfunding campaign.
He's already got 45,000 out of 250,000 gold, which is fantastic.
But if you want, it's on democracy3.org, but I'm sure if you just Google "Andrew Bridgen crowdfunder", you'll be able to find it.
Do go and throw him a fiver, frankly.
You know, it's not a huge amount of money, and it will be important if he wins because it will stop these kind of slanderous and libelous allegations from ruining people's careers.
And that's really what we need, especially when it's a good bloke like Andrew Bridgen, who has stepped out of the mainstream orthodoxy to die on a point of principle, right?
Even if you don't agree with him, it's right for him to have done this, and he shouldn't have been treated the way he's been treated.
Anyway, I'll leave my ranting and raving there.
Let's go to the video comments.
The claim is that free speech does not cover saying fire in a crowded theatre.
Well, it's not true, but if saying it leads to a stampede in which people are killed, then one is open to prosecution.
More properly, the scenario is someone commenting, I wonder how we'd all get out of here if there were a fire.
The media then amplify that question with statements like claim of possible fire could lead to calamity and increasing concerns of fire, here are the signs to look for, and safety fears due to threat of fire.
Ultimately, the stampede happens and people are killed.
The public in the aftermath look at the media, who claim they did nothing wrong, and turn on the hapless individual with the innocent question.
Good point, I don't really have anything to add to that.
Anyway, Russian Garbage Human says, Looks like a fantastic podcast today.
Shame I can't watch live this time.
Pass on my huge thanks to David for the absolutely brilliant work he is doing.
Pure joy to see him back on the podcast.
His aura of genuine positivity is infectious, as well as a breath of fresh air compared to the fakery put up by most of the other party leaders.
You can tell it's a mask for them.
It looks and feels incredibly artificial.
David, please do something in Manchester.
I feel like I'm drowning in Labour-supporting commies and it's terrifying.
They either vote along ethnic-slash-religious lines or they vote for more Gibbs.
Marxist policy and wealth transfer absolute madness.
Thank you.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, we had a candidate for the first time in Greater Manchester, stood in Wigan, Wigan Borough, and hopefully we'll have more next year in the locals.
We've got a few more lined up to stand next year in May 2024, and then hopefully we'll have more in the general election.
So yeah, we certainly have got a branch ready to go and expand in Manchester.
Excellent.
Baron Von Warhawk says, Honestly, I would rather see Ron as president than Trump, for the sole reason that the Deep State would lose its greatest weapon, as the Never Trumpers won't have the orange meanie to rally against.
Over the past years, Ron has actually gotten things done, while Trump seems to have done nothing of real importance over his four years pushing back against the work agenda.
That is a fair critique, actually.
I think that Trump came into the White House being rather naive, thinking that he would be able to get the Deep State on side, which Didn't happen, obviously.
But the media will stigmatise Ron DeSantis in the same way they stigmatised Trump.
I mean, Trump was probably easier to stigmatise than DeSantis, but they'll still turn him into the Great Satan.
So, I don't think that matters.
Just watch.
I bet Ron DeSantis doesn't run in 2024, and I bet he waits till 2028.
And in 2028, DeSantis will be the Great Satan.
Just, honestly.
Quote me on it.
Severian Knox says, I mean, I agree with you, but that's a right-wing position.
party this country needs a patriotic party composed of people who actually care about the country restore it and preserve future generations of brits and migrants who like this country enough to become mentally brits i mean i agree with you but that's a right-wing position that's that's what we mean when we say the right um common sense I mean, I describe ourselves as a socially conservative party.
Sure.
And, you know, people can sort of see what that means.
I mean, you sort of get a general feel for what that means with our strapline freedom family nation, these common sense things.
Yeah.
So, but then, you know, that gets described as right because left is what is what is the left itself?
Well, the left is the opposite of common sense.
- What?
- Yeah.
- Well, they literally-- - Insane.
- Common sense, I mean, you can see by the very nature of the words that make it up, right?
It's common because it applies to everyone, and it's sense because it's done through the information you get through your senses.
Now, that makes it very modest, right, in the way of approaching things.
I'm not I don't have a revolutionary ideology I'm actually acting in the best interest of what I can see going on But that's not how the left works the left works in grand ideological schemes So these things are formulated before any interaction with the world occurs and so they've created a grand plan and now they need to reformat all of humanity and I hate it.
Honestly, the left is the worst.
I'm just happy with how things are or how things were 20 years ago.
I don't want to change anything.
I'd like to keep it.
Let government be small.
Governments, don't do anything.
We've got to put things the right way up again.
But then once we have, just don't do anything.
Don't come up with these new grand schemes.
Tony Blair had a media board.
He had to make an announcement every day.
to keep in the press and keep showing that they're doing something.
No, no, it's exactly right.
I mean, like, just do things that are sensible.
Don't do things that are going to save the world.
You know, do things that are just going to improve things, small parts, as things have always been done.
But anyway, Crash says, even if Trump won 100% of the vote, Joe Biden would still be the next president.
Well, we're not on YouTube now, so yeah, I think you're probably true.
I think you're probably right, which is why I think Joe Biden's campaigning website contains absolutely nothing, because he doesn't need to campaign.
How do you feel about the 2020 election?
Well, Trump won, obviously.
Yeah, obviously.
Clearly, manipulated.
You got the film, wasn't it?
2000 Mules?
I got a strike for, no, I think I got a strike for putting that up.
I made it.
So I thought, okay, I won't talk about that on certain platforms.
But yeah, that showed you how it was done.
Yeah.
So yeah, clearly, obviously Trump won.
And what was interesting to me is the sheer number of votes that Biden was getting in a limited number of constituencies.
There's like four or five, like, you know, small constituencies that Biden was just getting stacks of votes and it's like, come on, come on, come on.
I think someone said that he'd won the fewest number of counties ever in a presidential election.
Something like 15% of counties.
It's crazy.
With 81 million votes.
Anyway, Gio Carrera says, uh, Vivek Ramaswamy is a great pick for Republicans too.
I recommend everyone listen to his recent interviews by Tim Pool and Jordan Peterson.
No chance in hell he'd win next to Trump or DeSantis, but he's certainly an interesting chap.
Well, that's good, because we need, um, good, well-minded, you know, good intentioned people around, frankly.
The more of them, the better.
I've never heard of him, but I'll look him up.
He's new to the game, I imagine, so maybe he'll come through over the years.
Like Ben Habib.
He's just a sensible voice to have in the discourse.
You know, that's what the impression I'm getting there.
SH Silver says, slightly wrong, Carl.
DeSantis has made several neocon moves.
So this is this, right.
With actions like Ukraine and TPP in Congress or the recent hate speech law.
Yes, I'm not saying DeSantis is perfect, right?
But he does have a very solid track record.
And I appreciate there is a theory that DeSantis is a sort of neocon containment.
I don't personally buy into it.
I think that people can make various kinds of moves for various different reasons.
I think what DeSantis is good at doing is maintaining a credible front, if nothing else.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I'm not saying you're wrong either.
I'm just saying I'm not fully on board with that theory yet.
I think there are some things that I certainly wouldn't agree with.
The hate speech law that he's just brought in, and he went over to Israel to sign that.
So I'm not a big fan of that particular thing he's done.
But he was for the freedoms, I think.
When the injections are being rolled out.
Yeah, yeah, totally anti-lockdown state, wasn't it?
Coerced injections.
He's against the whole transgender agenda and sort of wanting to, you know, have kids free from that, you know, so they can just grow up as boys and girls.
Can you even imagine?
Without this ideological nonsense confusing them.
Yeah, he's legislated very effectively in areas I do think genuinely matter.
So, you know, even if he is slightly neocon on some things, I would still forgive it, to be honest.
But anyway, at the end of the day, we haven't got the most blooming pick of flowers when it comes to who we want to support, right?
Kevin says, Governor Abbott has called out the National Guard and riot gear to Texas.
Meanwhile, Sleepy Joe has sent 1,500 soldiers to the border to speed up the paperwork to let the arrivals in quicker.
All this with the news that there are 700,000 on their way to the border.
Yeah, and a lot of these are being shifted by Soros-funded caravans.
There is an organisation called, I think it's Towns Without Frontiers, I can't remember how it's pronounced in Spanish, but it's actually a Soros-funded organisation where they just go down to Central America, load up caravans of people and then drive them to the American border.
Wow.
It's mental.
They're not walking then.
John, can you do us a favour and search for Pueblos Sans Frontieres?
Or something like that.
No, they're not walking, they're literally driving them in buses.
Okay.
And it's just, it's absolutely mad that they're doing this, and this is allowed.
This is just George Soros, and he's genuinely, you know, the one funding this.
And it's like, he's allowed to do this.
It's like, okay, crazy.
Henry says, I feel like Trump-DeSantis beef is largely off the back of the media pushing it.
Trump's ego won't take kindly to mainstream media bigging up DeSantis instead of him.
It's calculated as it draws the eye of Sauron onto DeSantis early on and firing up Trump and him to tear each other apart.
Or am I giving the fortifiers too much credit?
Yeah, that is it.
Yeah.
Yeah, that is it.
As you can see, they probably, did they mention the Open Society in there?
I bet they do.
But I looked into this a while ago, and they were funded by George Forrest, and I was like, right, okay, never mind.
Right, moving on to Canada.
AlphaOfTheBeta says, Canada is brainwashing kids into gender ideology at school, jamming pastors for opening churches, stealing bank accounts for political distance.
Yeah, I forgot all about that.
Banning guns, ignoring 180 church arsons, funding a foreign war to the point of already gutting a threadbare military, censoring the internet, expanding hate speech to include disagreeing with the government, de-licensing doctors who oppose COVID-19 restrictions, or disbarring lawyers who sue the government because their licensing boards are ideologically captured.
Where are the Conservatives and all this?
They're complaining about the price of milk.
It's mad, isn't it?
They're silent, aren't they?
They've got a fake Conservative Party as well, but...
Well, I've got a Canadian friend who loves Pierre Bolivar and thinks that he's the guy who's going to do it, and it's like, no, he's... They have Maxime Bernier, don't they?
I know.
He was the guy.
He's very good.
He's like the Heritage Party in Canada.
Yeah, yeah.
Loathe as I am to endorse a Frenchman, Maxime Bernier is excellent.
Everything he's said, I've totally endorsed.
You can say he's a Quebecois or whatever.
Yeah, they're French.
But no, Max seems fantastic.
My Canadian friend says that he shouldn't have left the Conservative Party, actually, to form his own, because had he not, he'd probably be in charge of the Conservative Party in Canada now, which is annoying, to be honest.
But also it's just annoying that there's not more flexibility in politics.
If everyone would have had him as the leader of the Conservative Party, just join his new party then.
Yeah.
Like, what are you doing?
You know, he's the leader of a party that's getting, like, 10% of the polls right now.
See, that kind of goes back to our conversation before, isn't it?
We're creating these new, wonderful things with a manifesto that is truly conservative, but there's not yet the massive move away from the old party that's got the branding and name.
It's insufferable.
People need to, like, cut themselves off from that.
Just accept that it's okay to be a bit more flexible in your politics.
Like, if someone else is the guy that you would like to have as the leader of the Conservative Party and he's set up his own party, what are you doing?
To the MPs, to the activists, you know, what are you doing?
Anyway.
Baron Von Warhawk says, if I'm being charitable, the Canadian government is the white female backpacker travelling to Afghanistan to disprove racism.
Less charitably, Biden isn't the only world leader in China's pocket while holding complete and utter contempt for their citizenry.
Yeah, I suspect that's probably the case.
As Desert Rat says, Trudeau isn't a lamb, he's a snake.
Yeah, well, I mean, he's literally the WEF stooge who's penetrated the Canadian cabinet, as Klaus Schwab told everyone.
I mean, he literally started saying it in front of cameras.
Mental.
He's a young global leader, isn't he?
Yeah, he's 50, he's not anything.
He's 50.
He's not that young.
That's 52, I think.
Um, but yeah, so anyway, insufferable.
Kevin Fox says, Trudeau might like the way that Canada is run, but fails to realize that you cannot use the same system in Canada for one simple reason.
In Canada, people can buy land freehold.
In China, every inch of land is owned by the state.
Hence, and I've seen this in action, Kevin is in Vietnam.
I think it was, no.
Is it Thailand?
I think it's in Thailand, actually.
But he says, I've seen this in action, they can evict whole communities on a whim or thanks to a big enough bribe to the right official.
Yeah, and that's the system that Trudeau would have everyone living under.
So, we're coming to the end.
So before we end, one thing I wanted to touch on is I mean, you really think there's nothing that can be done to stitch together a sort of right-wing movement?
I think it will be difficult as it is at the moment.
So I mean all I can talk about is what I'm doing and hopefully we're attractive enough to grow as a genuine strong party because we're growing slowly but I think our foundations are much stronger because we are building up in the grassroots all over the country and building a genuinely socially conservative party rather than parties that are Libertarian or classic liberal as their foundation.
So we are slightly different.
So tell me how you did in the local elections recently.
Well we had, as I say, 65 candidates.
One of them was a mayoral candidate in Bedford.
But we increased our vote share by about 80 percent.
So from about two and a half percent last year is what we got on average.
This year we got about four and a half percent on average.
And you know a lot of people were getting Over 100, some over 200 votes in small wards.
I actually got more votes in my ward than I did in the whole constituency last time I stood in Parliament.
I stood for old Bexley and Sidcup back in October 2021, I think.
Yeah, I got 112 votes there, so I was very happy.
Myself, I got about 8% of the vote, but one person got 15% of the vote in Kent, a couple of others got 12% of the vote where they were in Hampshire and Staffordshire.
So, you know, different areas of the country, we are making great progress, you know, people hear about us, we're doing well.
How often are these local elections held?
Every year.
I thought it was every year, but I didn't want to say it in case that was a stupid thing to say.
They're not everywhere every year, but there were more this year because there were 8,000 seats up for grabs.
I think next year there's 2,500, so it's fewer seats in fewer places, but there will be a lot next year as well.
Okay, well that's good.
It's good to see that at least you're gaining some ground because, like I said, at the moment it's just insufferable to watch how the Labour and Liberal Democrats are the only ones with a ground game, really.
Even the Greens' ground game isn't fantastic, although they did have quite a lot of success in these local elections.
So it's just insufferable to watch that the Conservative wing of politics is just not represented and we're failing everyone.
It's annoying me.
Just a quick comment from Bleach Demon.
David, one of the greatest problems I see with new parties is far too many aim primarily at national elections, where I'm happy to see your heritage parties focusing on local and council elections.
Do you and the rest of the heritage party aim to take over a specific region and show your policy and manifesto in action?
How do you plan on bringing more colourful voices into the party?
Godspeed building your movement.
Well, we're getting spokesmen now.
We had a great conference, actually, last September.
It wasn't widely covered, but you can see it on our YouTube channel, on our Rumble channel.
We had a full day of speakers.
We had Belinda Brown, who's done some TV work before.
She's our children and family spokesman.
Richard Brain was there.
He gave a speech, as some of you might know.
He's in the Heritage Party now.
Other people from various organizations and members.
We're getting more spokesmen too.
I'm appointing them.
So we're going to have another conference in September where we'll have a whole range of people speaking about different policy areas, different topics and so on.
But you know, we're everywhere.
We've got thriving, growing branches in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales as well.
So the Wales branch is going to be doing a lot of shows over the summer, a lot of street work and stuff over the summer.
So, yeah, we'll have target seats when we come to the general election, I'm sure, you know, where we'll put more effort into certain seats.
Everyone's got target seats.
That's how political parties work.
But, you know, what I would like to do ultimately is have 650 people standing as candidates everywhere, so everyone's got an opportunity to vote for us.
Everyone will get a leaflet.
Every house in the country will get a Heritage Party leaflet, which will improve our recognition.
Because it is hard to get brand recognition, name recognition.
It's impossible in this country.
Even reform, I don't think, has got universal name recognition.
I mean, it took UKIP 25 years.
Yeah.
And then that was ruined, you know, very sadly.
They could have gone all the way.
I was hoping, you know, 2020 election, when that happened, that UKIP would take power in Parliament, you know, back in the day, but it just collapsed after the referendum, which is very, very sad.
I mean, to me, you can kind of understand it, though, because if your sole mission is get out of the European Union and that happens, then your mandate is kind of undermined and you kind of expect them to But there were a lot of people in there who were thinking, well, what next?
We've got this party.
I wanted to change it into a socially conservative party to challenge, which it should, the fake conservatives who are now basically a hard left party.
And the vehicle was there, but then there were too many people fighting, you know, Farage left and it kind of turned into Yugoslavia and everyone was fighting each other.
And I think they're still fighting each other now.
So, you know, it's, uh, Anyway, unfortunately, we're out of time there.
So, David, where can people find you?
Well, they can look up the Heritage Party at heritageparty.org.
We're also on Twitter, Heritage Party UK on Twitter.
And I'm on Twitter, David Curtin, at David Curtin.
115,000 followers.
Yeah, dude, doing well.
It's not bad.
It's coming on.
Thank you, Elon.
Yeah, absolutely.
And everyone who follows me as well.
Great.
▲
Export Selection