Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 21, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:59

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #942

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Conservative Party's unending desire for treason has led to your people's future being shrouded in darkness.
	With nothing left to satiate its hunger for treachery, it has turned to the one thing it has yet to destroy.
	The Conservative Party itself.
	Many thought it impossible.
	After persisting through so much deceit and duplicity, it seemed like nothing could bring about its demise.
	But now, with the support of so many, the Conservative Party brand is broken, reduced to a runaway train, with no brakes and zero seats.
	After nearly 200 years, when the clock strikes 10 on Thursday the 4th of July, the traitorous project known as the Conservative and Unionist Party of the United Kingdom will finally come to an end.
	The greatest enemy of your people will be vanquished forever.
	And the best place to watch this truly historic moment unfold is on lotuseaters.com.
	For legal reasons, that was an AI voice.
	And all of the tech issues beforehand are probably going to get clipped off.
	But hello, everyone!
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotuses.
	It's Friday the 21st of June, 2024.
	I'm your host, Connor, joined by Josh and Harrison.
	Harrison being the Senior Editor at the European Conservative, my co-host on New Culture Forum, and regular face around here now, which is always fun.
	And today we're going to be discussing how the grave has been dug for the Conservative Party, very timely considering that little advert that we had, how the US terror threat is rising because of its poorer southern border, and how the worst is yet to come regarding Keir Starmer's constitutional revolution planned for when Labour win the election.
	Before we start on today's news, at 3 o'clock today, it is Friday, and we have Lads Hour.
	We're going to be discussing how you would retake the Empire.
	I believe that's with myself, Carl, Harry, Josh, and Harrison for a short while before you have to dip out for other commitments.
	We've only got him on loan, so enjoy him while he's here.
	But without further ado, let's jump straight into today's stories.
	Right, so!
	There's been a betting scandal within the Conservative Party that has blighted them for the last few days and I think it's worth looking at because it really shows just how unrecoverable the Conservative Party's campaign is to the extent where now the very campaign manager two weeks out from the election has taken a leave of absence.
	So they're all waving the white flag over at CCHQ and I don't really blame them.
	They're all going to be out of a job.
	So Politico, I've got the coverage but I'll give you the breakdown.
	Basically, Craig Williams, he's a candidate and he was the parliamentary aide to Rishi Sunak while he was still serving as Prime Minister.
	Obviously everything's been put on hold at the moment while the election's running.
	And he placed a £100 bet on the timing of the poll for the general election just days before Sunak went public and actually called the vote.
	So it's essentially insider trading.
	Risking your entire reputation and your party's for a hundred quid?
	You'd at least put a little bit more on it than that, wouldn't you?
	Well, the odds might have been a bit better.
	Dunno.
	Strange price for your integrity, but I suppose that's the Conservative Party for you.
	And then the BBC decided to reveal, and this was Wednesday, so two days ago now, a Tory candidate, Laundra Sanders, who recently worked in Conservative HQ, was also being looked at by the Watchdog, and I believe that she's going to be suspended as a candidate as well.
	She's the wife of Lee, Who, turns out, is the Conservatives' director of campaigning.
	So he's the actual campaign director, who has now taken leave of absence, again, two weeks out from the campaign.
	So that's two candidates, the director of campaigning, and it turns out as well, that a Met Police officer, who's part of Soonex Security Detail, also decided to put a bet in, because he'd been hearing things from within Downing Street.
	What's quite hilarious, is that on the same day, the Conservatives put out a meme, saying, if you bet on Labour, you can never win.
	That has since been deleted.
	I didn't know about that but that's wonderful.
	Everything has aligned to make this one of the worst Conservative campaigns I've ever seen by a significant margin.
	This is sort of the icing on the cake, this whole betting scandal, because it does epitomise what the Conservative Party have sort of gained a reputation for, very justifiably so, that they are corrupt and they're so incompetent at it that they always get found out in the end.
	Well I would want to put a warning in here as well though because I think one of the problems with what happened with the John Major episodes in the 1990s is that when the Tories lost that election in 1997 it was pinned on precisely these sorts of scandals that's slightly akin to this sort of Tory sleaze all that sort of thing and that allowed an attitude to
	To gain a foothold in the Conservative Party corridors of power, that the election wasn't lost for political reasons, it was lost because of these more sort of human frailty reasons.
	And the more that we focus on pinning the Tories' defeat on these kinds of corruption scandals, important though they are and illustrative of the Of the, you know, fundamental vacancy at the heart of the Conservative Party mentality.
	I mean, they don't really believe in anything.
	They are just these people who, I think as Pete Hitchens likes to put it, sort of, their whole, their sole function is seeking office for the Sons of Gentlemen, that sort of thing.
	It's important as well that we emphasize the political reasons for their loss rather than the corruption-based reasons for their loss.
	Yeah, it's not just purely that they're sex pests and addicts and constantly falling over themselves to make prats of themselves on Twitter, it's that they've betrayed their electorate, their mandate, particularly since 2010, particularly on the issue of migration.
	And this is the fruits of that, because they decided to coup out two prime ministers who were at least chosen by the voting public on the membership, and then anyone associated with them which helps them win with successful campaigns was then removed, and then the unpopular, unelected prime minister Backed up by the Cameron establishment, which then lost on the issue of Brexit, are the only people allowed in to then run the campaign which is running the Conservative Party into the ground.
	And then the few remaining Zoomers that are sort of excited that since that energy has drifted over to Farage's camp, as we recently discussed on NCF, when they were in CCHQ, I've got friends who are friends inside CCHQ and said, yeah, they were all on board with at least helping Rishi win.
	And once he announced the National Service and Triple Doc Plus policies, they've given up.
	They're quiet quitting.
	So that's why you're getting terrible memes like this, which are both optically poisonous and badly timed.
	So just crashing and burning.
	The other interesting thing is as well that the journalists that have been reporting on the betting scandal themselves also use insider information to place bets.
	So the entire Westminster lobby bubble are themselves incredibly corrupt.
	So that's very interesting because of course it suggests that they've got inside information directly from the Conservative Party doesn't it?
	Which is unsurprising but it's a very obvious example of it.
	It's very leaky.
	It's the exact same thing as all the journalists that were lambasting Boris Johnson over Partygate and again totally deservedly were also guilty.
	Was it Beth Rigby that violated lockdown as well after she was complaining about Dominic Cummings?
	Kay Burley?
	I can't remember.
	One of those horrible lying hacks on Sky which we've had many run-ins with.
	They're all distinguishable at this point.
	It's wonderful, it's sort of a memetic magic that Rishi Sunak delivered a speech outside where they built the Titanic for such a leaky campaign, isn't it?
	Yes, quite, quite.
	There we go.
	All of this sort of stuff has coalesced in what seems like God himself trying to deliver the Conservative Party zero seats.
	So let's go through some of the polls.
	There's a new Telegraph one that says that the Tories are set to just slump to 53 seats.
	So about three weeks ago it was 100.
	Now the Telegraph, often dubbed the Torygraph because they're very sympathetic to the party, are saying 53.
	That's pretty brutal.
	And that's three quarters of the sitting cabinet voted out, including Rishi Sunak as the sitting Prime Minister losing his own seat, which I think is the first time it's ever happened.
	So he'll be standing next to Count Binface, being told that he's going to have to go back to California post-haste.
	This is the polling from Savanta, and there was about 18,000 people between June 7th and June 18th.
	Now, the worst defeat the Conservative Party have ever suffered, this is the modern Conservatives before they were the Tory Party, was 131 seats in 1906.
	The worst of their predecessors, which is the Tories, hence the interchangeable name, was in 1754 when they won 106.
	So that's half of that.
	So that would actually pretty much annihilate the party down to its One Nation caucus members who I mean they'll have less seats than the Lib Dems, they'll be a completely irrelevant political force.
	I was about to say, the Lib Dems have, you know, Ed Davey who's been on rubber rings and not really taking it very seriously.
	Robert E Rapids politics, yes.
	Yes, and even he's putting up a better campaign than the Tories of course, you know, they haven't been in charge but still.
	Yeah he's going to get 50 at least so and that's still two weeks out so a little bit of tactical voting and the Lib Dems as in many other polls could get more than the Tories.
	Labour are meant to get 516 according to this and that's very high.
	I think that might be a bit of an overestimation.
	Just to intensify the scale of those defeats if they come true whether it's 53 or 80 or 100 in either case lower than the 1906 and 1754 record lows.
	lower than the 1906 and 1754 record lows.
	Both of those losses, 1754 and 1906, took place at a time when on the other side there were political titans.
	In 1906 you had the upcoming liberal generation, people like David Lloyd George and Asquith and likewise in 1754 they were up against William Pitt the Elder, the Earl of Chatham, who was one of the most celebrated heroes in the nation.
	These people are up against Keir Starmer.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It shows the embarrassing depths to which they have sunk.
	Very, very Titanic-like.
	The only political force they are facing down, which is slowly siphoning votes away, is of course Nigel Farage.
	But even, look, Nigel's a fantastic figure, but he's as yet to be a pit the elder.
	Let's put it that way.
	Reform, apparently according to this, are going to get zero.
	So that's why I'm actually very questionable about this poll.
	Because I don't think reform are going to get zero.
	So even the Farage seat, Exactly.
	I think there's something dodgy with the methodology going on here, frankly.
	But it is interesting to see the Tories just keep getting chunked down.
	And the SNP are going to go down to 8 from 48.
	And I think that's a lot of the bulk of what they're predicting Labour to make gains on, is specifically up in Scotland.
	Because the SNP, much like the Tories, have traded out three different leaders In the last 18 months.
	And John Swinney is not particularly good.
	I mean, see the dreadful question time thing last night?
	So what the Telegraph are reporting, and I think this is why they're hoping reform are going to get zero, is the Telegraph are saying Kemi Badenoch is going to be the only one left.
	And so I think that might be the reason that this reporting has been done the way it has, because there are certain factions of the Conservative Party, particularly the One Nation caucus, who would love Kemi Badenoch to remain as leader.
	And Kemi's seat is on a coin flip as to whether or not it's going to be taken, but I think her seat's under threat from the Lib Dems.
	And apparently the cabinet members that are going to be taken out I mean there's a there's a there's a diagram in here that just shows that's just brutal that's almost all of them and the only two remaining leadership candidates would be Tom Tugendhat who's the sort of five eyes Bilderberg group favourite candidate and Kemi who would be the establishment pick with R-based black woman TM except she you know she's obsessed with ESG and all that sort of stuff.
	Also particularly insidious in light of the fact that there is in the way that there isn't with Tom Tugendhat there is a there is a kind of naive enthusiasm particularly among boomers people who read the Telegraph and people who read Conservative Home that sort of thing like good good people but not you know completely clued in.
	No one really views Tugendhat as a potential right-wing warrior in the making whereas there is this perception of Kemi as a right-wing warrior in the making and firstly I just think it's very unhealthy this this tendency that we have in order to fight an increasingly racialized politics in this country to hide behind minorities in doing so as if we don't have a right To object to CRT regardless of whether we have a black woman in tow and an Indian in tow and all that sort of thing.
	But also another particularly insidious thing I don't like about Camille Badenoch is that very often when she's on the back foot and being pushed by sort of white woke liberal Sky presenters or BBC presenters about Britain being systemically racist She has the decency to deny that we're systemically racist which I suppose is something but she'll often say if we were systemically racist I wouldn't be in my position as though the proof of us not being systemically racist is that a woman born in Nigeria can rise to such heights in Britain.
	Now obviously on one level that is proof but I don't think we need to supply that kind of proof in order to demonstrate our anti-racist credentials and so there's always a tendency on the part of Kemi To defeat our enemies, so to speak, our opponents, so to speak, but always on terms highly favourable to their own ideological hobby horses, and that's a very dangerous long-term strategy.
	Yeah, we don't need to filter our legitimacy through her success quite, but the people that are going to get wiped out include Rishi, Jeremy Hunt, James Not-So-Cleverly, Penny Morden, Suella Braverman in this.
	Now that's also another one where I'm a bit like I don't know if this poll's exactly correct because Suella's got a pretty comfortable lead.
	It's down in the south and there's a lot of energy being put in to keep Suella in place because that's people that are sort of closer to our way of thinking's preferred continuity candidate because they at least think that she'll ally with slash fold herself into Farage.
	So I think Suella remains.
	I would be surprised if she did get wiped out.
	Footage of her dancing with Farage at the Tory party conference would probably help that, wouldn't it?
	Well, she's at NatCon with him in a couple of weeks when Karl and I are going.
	She's at every NatCon with Farage.
	They're quite friendly.
	I mean, she did just say in the Times last week saying we need to embrace Farage.
	Whether or not the car's light blue or dark blue, she doesn't really care at this point.
	The other people that are going to get wiped out, though, is quite interesting, is Priti Patel, Liz Truss.
	Again, why I don't really trust this poll, because she's got quite a commanding lead.
	And Rhys Mogg.
	Rhys Mogg is pretty much going to get annihilated by redistricting.
	So, interesting times.
	I mean, they only have themselves to blame.
	You can check if your MP, particularly, is going to be wiped out by this with the link down in the description.
	Telegraph has a handy tool.
	There's some other polls as well that are suggesting the same sort of thing.
	Now, YouGov has one.
	This is one that you sent me the link to.
	So Labour, it says, is going to be on 425 seats, so that's up 233 from 2019.
	Conservatives down to 108, so that's down 257 from 2019.
	133 from 2019.
	Conservatives down to 108, so that's down 257 from 2019.
	Lebdem's at 67, so they would be the official, well, no, hang on a minute, they wouldn't be the official opposition, but they're much higher than they were in the Telegraph one, rather, so they're up by 56.
	S&P at 20.
	Reform on five.
	And what I find quite interesting is they've mapped the ones that Reform are going to win out.
	As Clacton, so that's obviously Nigel.
	Ashfield, so that's Lee Anderson.
	Azzeldon and Bickarelli.
	Now, the reason they're going to win that one in Essex isn't just because of all the East End exiles, but that's because Richard Holden, the disastrous Tory party chairman, tried to parachute himself into that seat as a safe seat, kicking the original candidate out, and it seems like there might be an on-the-ground rebellion saying, well, you think you can just take us for granted?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, thank you, no, thank you.
	And then the other ones are Great Yarmouth and Luth and Horncastle.
	And I would probably add Tice to that one, because it seems that Boston and Skegness are pretty reliable.
	So it looks like Reform, let's say about seven, seven seats at this point.
	There was another one as well yesterday.
	So this is Redfield and Wilton Strategies and it's putting Reform at 19 and Conservatives at 18.
	So they're maintaining that sort of one point within the margin of error but lead over the Conservative Party in terms of the popular vote.
	So you're seeing a repeated pattern in that the Conservatives have burned all their credibility, they've torpedoed their base and that Reform are rising up as the Opposition with popular consent among the right, which is encouraging.
	Now, the most encouraging poll, which must be taken with a pinch of salt, and I think we all want to believe it, and it's by a friend of the show, Matt Goodwin, and his People's Polling Company, he rather boldly suggests that reform are on 24 to the Conservatives 15.
	Now, Bear in mind, this is a poll of I think about a thousand odd people, so the sample size is pretty small.
	1200, there it is.
	There we go.
	So, it's not spread as much across constituencies as something like electoral calculus, or that is.
	I do want to believe it.
	I think, from my knowledge of sample sizes, 1,200 or so is still enough to draw inference from, right?
	It's not too small.
	I think when you get into the realm of too small, it's like under 200, perhaps.
	But obviously, when it comes to polling, bigger is better for sample size.
	And particularly with who he's sampling as well, who he's directed towards this poll, it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
	Yeah, I think the sample size is only notable because this is such an outlier in favour of reform, so it might be over-biasing or over-sampling, rather, reform voters.
	But it's not that this couldn't be the case in a week or so, because so much has changed.
	And many of the other polls, there was one that came out the other day that had taken polling from before the start of June, so it was taking its results from before the referendum even got into the race.
	So that's a completely useless projection at that point.
	An interesting quirk about the first-past-the-post system as well.
	is that not only do polls under such a system reflect or seek to reflect public opinion they also create it in important ways as well they shape it in important ways because as soon as you reform is
	Perceived in the public mind as a credible party of government and that's likely to happen the more we see polls like this in which they're say 10 points ahead of the conservatives or even just ahead of the conservatives at all then the conservative strategy of saying a vote for reform is a vote for labor it can be completely inverted and you can get a preference cascade in all sorts of constituencies which you know in a PR system wouldn't amount to much.
	Not at all, but under a first-past-the-post system, those sorts of perceptions about likelihood of victory at a national scale will all of a sudden affect the arithmetic on the ground and the psychology of voters on the ground, in particular constituencies, and so there is that consideration as well.
	It is also worth bearing in mind as well that reform may well poll above the Liberal Democrats but the Liberal Democrats have also got large concentrations of historic voters.
	I know that in North Devon for example, an area I'm very familiar with, they have a bit of a stronghold there and that concentration will actually allow them to get more parliamentary seats than their percentage might lead you to believe.
	Yeah, it's all the NIMBYs that want to swim in the Thames or in places like Bath that want to conserve the historic character of the place and are really happy with refugees and people sleeping rough.
	Just not there.
	Just not particularly there.
	Don't be silly.
	But the interesting thing to back up your point about how proportional representation interplays with the popular vote, just to illustrate for our American viewers, right, so before, when Reform were on about 18% in that Telegraph poll, they said zero seats, right?
	When they're on about 19-20% in the YouGov poll, they're saying five.
	Matt Goodwin here is saying if Reform polled 20%, he's saying that the Tories would get 45 seats and Reform would get 50.
	So we do have a very strange system.
	And I think this is the sort of incentive for, at least beforehand, Farage to mould himself into the Tory party because you have that ground game.
	Now I think whatever existing apparatus the Tories have, if you get a result like this, and it's not impossible to get on election night and we will be calling it in live so you'll be able to see to cannibalize that and make them bend towards reform seems to be the modus operandi of Nigel Farage at the moment and that's that's fun i like that to sort of summarize it in a sort of nutshell if you will um the more they start getting into the 20 percent um you know polling nationally the more they're going to get exponential gains in seats
	Yeah, spot on.
	Thank you very much.
	So the Tories have obviously entered panic mode seeing all of this crossing their desk every day and now they're withdrawing support from other seats and going back to what they previously thought were super safe seats.
	I mean Rishi Sunak has been campaigning in towns in like Devonshire that have 20,000 majority at 2019 because he's trying to cling on to it as much as possible.
	This is a Bloomberg piece of some inside information.
	So he went to two districts in Devon, both with majorities over 14,000.
	This is because, apparently, this is a quote, Conservative campaign headquarters on Wednesday told Tory candidates in several constituencies who were defending majorities of over 10,000 votes that their funds and favourable access to party activists was being withdrawn.
	So if you have a 10,000 majority, you're not getting any assistance from CCHQ whatsoever.
	That's ridiculous.
	According to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity, of course, Sunak will get additional resources in his own constituency of Richmond and North Allerton, and they said this was after the Savanta poll that came out in the Telegraph saying he would be the first Prime Minister to lose his seat.
	So he's trying to save face and his own career at this point, but Personally, I think he doesn't really care.
	He wants to go back to California anyway.
	Other activists in different parts of Britain have been told to head to the constituencies of cabinet ministers seen as under threat.
	They've been told to abandon their own home seats and their own home MPs to go and save the careers of cabinet ministers who have steered the Tory party into oblivion.
	Now, The Telegraph put out a piece shortly after that.
	They've said that Tory's trying to win seats which have Conservative majorities of up to 7,000.
	So they're just clocking off the amount that they're going.
	So it's 7 and also 10.
	Those are significant margins of victory in any other election.
	And now they're saying, even in seats we've got 20k, rush down and put all your resources just so we can hold on to at least 50, which is pretty terrifying.
	This came directly from an email from Tory Head of Field Operations.
	And it was sent last weekend with the subject, campaign support, not in the North.
	Well that's pretty blatant, isn't it?
	They just think that's a total loss for us.
	To put it into perspective, South West Devon, which is the constituency I actually grew up in, would usually, the Conservatives would win by a majority of about 30,000 votes.
	They'd have over half of all votes would be in their favour.
	Now they're potentially struggling to even keep the seat itself.
	I think the same is going to happen in Old Bexley and Sidcub as well.
	It's been a consistently Conservative seat, I think, since it was created.
	It didn't even lose in 1997, as far as I'm aware, and it was held by James Brokenchild until he died of cancer, who was a Remainer, even though I think the seat itself voted Brexit.
	And when he passed away, Louis French, who's a sort of just perfectly nice but boring chap, came in and his vote share collapsed, not because people were necessarily breaking for reform in high numbers, even though Tice himself was standing at the time, it's just because all the Tories stayed at home and they weren't bothered.
	And I wouldn't be surprised this time if we get it on a knife's edge between Tory and Labour, just because of the amount of people that go for reform.
	You're in Brighton, so it doesn't really matter to you, does it?
	No, it's totally irrelevant, yeah.
	My only influence is on NCF and Lotus Eaters, which are probably more marked than the kind that you get with just having one voter in a constituency, so that's my saving grace.
	Well, we've got lots of reform candidates watching, so I do wish all of you the best of luck, and if you do happen to win, you're more than welcome to dial in on the election night livestream to have a little bit of a glow.
	So, the email read, as much as I would like to see you helping a target seat in the North, taking a pragmatic approach, I am sure there is much one closer to home or work.
	If you feel the need to pop up and shoot a couple of videos, great.
	But there is no pressure from me.
	Time is valuable and hours in a car isn't gaining votes.
	Thanks.
	So that's all the people that won in 2019 in the Red Wall, like Miriam Cates and Nick Fletcher, just chucked under the bus.
	And actually much better MPs than all of the cabinet put together.
	So it's pretty disappointing, but maybe should have defected beforehand, lads, it turns out.
	So, obviously, the blame game started.
	The knives are already out, but now it's the monkey fight on the deck in the Simpsons.
	Gove's the first one to pin blame on anyone except himself.
	Michael Gove at a closed-door event.
	It was a building site in West London, actually.
	He said, one of the challenges in particular that we face is the reputation for sound economic management, which is essential to conservative success.
	It took a bit of a knock in the period between Boris and Rishi.
	Oh, it just so happens that was the period when your protégé decided that you had ruined everything, kicked you out of the cabinet, decided to do something slightly different, and then you helped coo her out, wasn't it, Michael?
	Do you think that 14 years of unpopular governance might be blamed on you and your cronies, rather than a woman that was in for about 40 days, who couldn't have really done much?
	No?
	Okay, well this is why you're absolutely going to lose, and your arrogance deserves it.
	But it's also stuff like this, and this is a couple of stories that caught my eye.
	So last night, did either of you gents watch the election special on Question Time?
	Certainly not.
	Nope.
	Okay.
	Brilliant.
	So everyone else who had more fun things to do like watch paint dry, wrap their testicles in barbed wire.
	I was asleep, yeah.
	I don't blame you.
	Yeah, so half the audience.
	Well, this was a clip that was circulating from it.
	So Rishi Sunak was asked, and I won't play the clip, I'll just summarise, was asked about his national service policy.
	What happens if all those youngsters don't want to die for Ukraine and Israel, actually, because you've taken away their ability to own a home and then made their country look unrecognisable?
	And he said, well, we're exploring our options, so what we might do is something what they similar to they do in Europe.
	I think When he said Europe, he misspoke and meant the Chinese.
	Because he said, if you don't sign up for National Service, we might take away your bank account and your driving licence.
	That seems like a nice positive incentive, doesn't it?
	Yeah, your bank account, which is absolutely essential to function in an economy, especially one that he wants to transition towards cashlessness because he was spearheading the CBDC when he was head of the Treasury as the Chancellor.
	So just arbitrarily punishing teenagers for not wanting to go to war.
	Oren McIntyre, who you interviewed recently on Tomlinson Talks and who I understand is a good friend of the show and has just written a wonderful book called The Total State, how liberal democracies Go tyrannical or become tyrannical or something like that made an excellent point in response to precisely this.
	What once a kind of homogenizing liberal rampaging liberalism erases and corrodes natural bonds of loyalty you need to create highly artificial technocratic bonds of loyalty in order to hold you know the wretched tatters together that you are yourself responsible for and it's perfectly on display here where rather than just letting The kind of natural instinctive sense of friendship.
	Friendship as the basis for the polis, just being the organic glue that makes things like national service plausible and intelligible to people and indeed desirable to people.
	Once you've erased all of that, all you can do is threaten the kind of punitive pseudo-social credit system and that's just not going to work long term.
	Yeah, you've got to play teacher and make the squabbling kids play nice.
	Quick thing to the production booth, your microphone is on and we can hear you, by the way.
	You might want to turn that off, guys.
	Anyway, moving on to the next bit, there's another story here that was quite interesting, and this hasn't got airtime on GB News yet, but I have spoken to Charlie Peters about it.
	He found out that there's a bunch of Tory candidates who have signed a Hindu manifesto.
	Because that's the absolute priority, isn't it?
	So what this is, is promising to bring over more elderly Hindus and religious workers to the UK.
	So more net dependents from India, and more Hindus.
	I wonder why under a Rishi Sunak, this has been a popular policy but there you go.
	So the four candidates in question are Bob Blackman, Theresa Villers, Laura Farris.
	It shouldn't surprise anyone because in 2020 she went to a gathering to kneel for BLM.
	Apparently she used to work for the Clinton campaign as well.
	So absolutely delightful woman who shouldn't be in the Conservative Party.
	And Amit Jogia.
	They all supported the manifesto which was launched earlier this month.
	It also calls for those who commit microaggressions against Hindus to face specific prosecution as anti-Hindu hate or Hinduphobia.
	So, implementing a caste system in the UK, absolutely fantastic.
	But I mean, if you have a Labour Party which increasingly relies on a kind of clientele class of Muslim voters, and if you've pissed off the native population such that they're now migrating to reform, you need to find other clients and the Hindus, you know,
	Don't think, don't at scale think terribly highly of those Muslims and clearly this is just an entrenchment of sectarian politics, the kind of sectarian politics that becomes inevitable once you embrace diversity in a population en masse and we see it all over the world and it's readily acknowledged in other parts of the world but we somehow believe that because of our you know incredibly instinctively attractive liberal values we'll be spared it here if we have a porous border but of course it's not the case.
	Yeah, it's not magic soil that suddenly strips everyone of their cultural, civilizational and historical priors.
	Hence why you get riots in Leicester over a cricket game, which is absolutely fantastic.
	I do also want to point out that in 2014, Rishi Sunak, when he was working for Policy Exchange, developed a paper.
	It was something like The Changing Face of Britain.
	And he happened to note, and he gave an interview to Al Jazeera at the time, that Indians voted more for the Conservative Party and he said politicians might want to take note of these demographic realities when shaping migration policy.
	So basically, import loads more Indians and hopefully you import more Conservative voters than you're importing Muslims who will vote for Labour.
	And I find it very interesting that now Commonwealth students and members of the Commonwealth, 250,000 Indians who arrived here in the last year, will be able to vote in this election.
	Even though they're not British citizens.
	How fascinating is that?
	I wonder if there's some kind of plan there.
	Anyway, so all of these problems are of the Tory's own making and yet still you get Steve Baker.
	Now I won't play this clip because we're running up against time but Steve himself says that he does not want Nigel Farage in the party, in the Conservative Party, or anything to do with the Reform Party because Nigel Farage has toxified the debate by talking about broad members of the community with his remarks about Islam And he also admitted that in 2019 he helped broker the deal that convinced Nigel to stand down in Conservative seats with the Brexit Party to allow Boris to sweep to victory.
	So Steve Baker is an architect of the containment the Conservative Party have tried to conduct on Brexit, on migration, on multiculturalism, on Islam, much to his own detriment.
	Because I actually used to know a man that worked in Steve Baker's constituency office, and I can tell you he used to have a map on the wall of his constituency.
	He used to point to different areas and say, well that's a lost war because there's too many Muslims there.
	Yes.
	So, Steve Baker has been the engineer of his own defeat.
	He's going to lose, according to electoral calculus, by 22%, or by the telegraph polling we mentioned, by about 19%.
	And it's mainly in those Muslim wards which are highly diverse, non-whites, because they're not a big fan of him.
	As you would know, if you follow Steve Baker's Twitter feed, a little while ago he got accosted by a man who's a pro-Palestine activist, and he decided to press his personal safety alarm.
	Of course, Not a benefit afforded to the girls in Rochdale and Rotherham.
	Thank you very much Steve and I think you deserve absolute electoral oblivion for your betrayal.
	Also a bit inconvenient for Baker on the whole anti-Muslim narrative and I hate to do this because we just said about Kemi we don't want to shield it but there is a bloke who's just donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to reform and he is a practicing Muslim.
	So, clearly for a very slim minority of some that don't want to engage in sectarian politics, it's not exactly an issue.
	This is Zaya Yusuf, who founded Velocity Black, which is a concierge app.
	Now I think I'm more than happy that he's pledging his money to reform as long as he doesn't try and soften their opinions on legal migration because, note, he only talked about illegal there.
	channel crossings which are an affront to all hard-working British people but not least the migrants who played the roles rules and came legally having spent time with Farage it's clear that he wants the best for Britain and its people no matter their religion or skin color now I think I'm more than happy that uh he's pledging his money to reform as long as he doesn't try and soften their opinions on legal migration because note he only talked about illegal there but it seems that reform are attracting far more interest from general people in various constituencies disaffected Tory voters non-voters even donors
	at this point who are either hemorrhaging for the Labour Party or now reform than the Conservative Party is so uh they've dug their own grave I think we should help them fill it with that Yeah.
	Yes, on the topic of graves, ISIS seem to be crossing the US border and yes it's obviously very concerning and in fact it may well be creating a situation in the United States that is parallel to that leading up to the 9-11 attacks and this is not My words, these are the words of many experts in anti-terror and in fact we'll be getting to that.
	So to sort of trace the threads of this story you need to go back to this at the start of June that Joe Biden signed an order which Limited the number of migrants that can come into the country by 2,500 a day, which I ran the maths, that's almost a million migrants in a year, so that's still quite a lot.
	So it's not really limiting anything really and even so you have your usual Guardian types complaining about this being aggressive for some reason.
	It's like, oh you're only letting in a million illegal people a year, that's so aggressive.
	He's saying that it's going to put the lives of the migrants in danger.
	I would like to point out that actually the migrants are well aware of the dangers of what they're doing and they choose to do it anyway and so I feel like If you close your border you're free of any moral responsibility to help them because they have willingly made this crossing.
	They know what they're signing up for.
	They know it's dangerous because they get the equipment to do it.
	Well, sadly, these are the kinds of people that employ members of the cartels to transport their female members of family, their children over.
	And I think it's about a third of all women and girls that make the journey get raped.
	So if they're signing up for that, unfortunately, they're more than willing to put their own family members and daughters in harm's way for a few quid on the other side of the bulldog.
	Absolutely.
	That's absolutely despicable.
	Precisely because Americans ever since the Monroe Doctrine have been the most, have been the hegemon, well obviously in the world now, but since then certainly the hegemon in the Western Hemisphere.
	Whenever the US does police its border effectively there's a very rapid quick domino effect across the whole of Central and South America where the Mexicans all of a sudden realize that they're going to be on the hook for all of these people.
	So they massively shut their southern border as well.
	There's a bit of a domino effect.
	And then you're going to have fewer people making that incredibly precarious crossing across the Darien Gap in the first place.
	And so that actually is the more humane option, even considered purely in terms of the benefits to the migrant rather than the benefits to the host population in the United States. - Absolutely.
	So about this problem, in fact, it's worth pointing out earlier in the month, there were eight arrests.
	So these arrests were made in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia and these were Tajik nationals and just in case you're not familiar with Uh, Tajikistan, um, as many people might not be.
	That border's Guatemala, doesn't it?
	Uh, not quite.
	Uh, so here we are, here's Google Maps, and, uh, you may recognize a country, uh, that many Americans have been to and died in.
	And Callum.
	Yeah, well.
	No, he's still alive.
	Yeah, um, Afghanistan.
	And, uh, as we know, um, this whole area around here is a hotbed for Islamic extremism, and these people, um, are Likely members of ISIS Khorasan, I think it's pronounced, I'm not entirely sure.
	Are the successor organisation that claimed credit for the attack on the military servicemen in the US, if I'm correct?
	I think so, yes.
	Were they also, this might be, we might not know the answers, were they not also behind the recent one in Russia?
	It was attributed to them, yes.
	I believe that it's incredibly likely as well.
	And yes, so this Khorasan area, by the way, here we are, it encompasses Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well.
	So people from these countries, it might Be a good idea not to let them in your country.
	You may remember the fuss people made about Trump's Muslim ban but yes, members of ISIS coming into your country is not good.
	I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that.
	Yes, obviously you don't want this and I think also the fact that New York City has now been placed on terror alert after this has happened, because of course it's going to be one of the targets, a sort of emblem of American success and wealth, and that's why it was targeted in 2001.
	This is obviously something of concern because if you live in a major American city then you are in risk of terror attack.
	I mean they arrested them in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia.
	Those are definitely places that should be concerned because they were people on a terror watch list that Had moved there and why would they have spread out to these major cities?
	One only has to wonder.
	There are also sizable Muslim enclaves that have been exposed as hotbeds of sectarian radicalism by mutual friend Stephen Edgington for GB News in Michigan and Minnesota.
	So the problem is only getting worse in American cities and they're starting to resemble various cities in the UK now.
	So the problem is being made Even more appalling by this, and I couldn't believe this when I read it, Man on Terror Watchlist was released by Border Patrol and one would imagine that if you're working for Border Patrol, if you had one job It would probably be to stop terrorists.
	The even more insidious subtitle is, with border security funding blocked in Congress, no, the bill did not secure the border whatsoever.
	It actually set up a sort of amnesty program.
	It was the equivalent of the, oh, puppies and kittens bill, and then we decide to drone strike Iran over and over.
	So this man on the terror watch list was an Afghan migrant, so again could be in ISIS because it encompasses that area in which they operate in.
	And he was in the US for a year before he was apprehended by border patrol agents, so a lot can be done in a year if you're a terrorist.
	So this is obviously not good enough from the border, right?
	I think that's safe to say.
	Thankfully I imagine Because he was just released I don't think they could find anything to suggest he was actually planning an attack but one can't assume these days and this actually happened.
	I actually dug down and figured out what exactly went wrong here.
	So this is a quote from the article itself.
	Customs and Border Protection released him as it would any other migrant without alerting Immigration and Customs Enforcement about possible terrorism ties.
	So it's just a lack of communication.
	It's garden variety incompetence, it seems.
	And yes, it's risking American lives, which is unacceptable really, because of course this whole problem exists because people are putting the lives of economic migrants above the lives of US citizens.
	There wouldn't be anyone coming into the country if the reverse was true.
	And the problem is he is getting even worse in fact and as the New York Post reports more than 1,500 migrants from Tajikistan are known to have crossed the border between October 2020 and May 2024.
	Who's funding all their flights?
	It's curious isn't it?
	I imagine They may be getting some money from some NGO, certain organisations, something open to me, I don't know.
	I can't make allegations but so far apparently only 500 have been caught so far this year and over the past 14 years prior There were only 26 Tajik nationals crossing the border so something's going on here isn't there?
	Obviously this seems like a very deliberate thing because to go from 26 to 1,500 That's a massive, massive uptick, isn't it?
	And it seems like there's a concerted effort here to carry out a terror attack.
	I think that if things continue this way, it's somewhat inevitable, really, because the border is so porous that anyone could break in, let alone, you know, the cartels that already exist, but people flying over to Mexico from, you know, dangerous countries to carry out retributive, in their mind, attacks on the United States.
	Well, so not to scare all of you lads here, but I have a source who has spoken to someone pretty in the know in the Met Police, and they said that one of the things they're most on watch for, that they can't really control for, is if one day a hundred people in various cities just start stabbing each other at the same time because they've all texted that they're going to agree to do it.
	And the only thing binding those people together is A shared interest in Islamic radicalism.
	And so there's nothing also stopping the same thing happening in the United States, just to a greater degree.
	Because the only thing that would mean that it's more likely to be stabbings over here is the fact that you can get a gun very easily in London illegally, but apparently the ammo is the hardest thing to get a hold of because it's very difficult to import into the UK.
	But if they just buy illegal firearms in the US and they were to coordinate, I mean it would create mass chaos.
	What's most concerning of all is that there could be an attack on US soil that will dwarf 9-11.
	In terms of casualty size?
	Exactly, yes.
	Because of course, just the sheer scale of people coming in, it's not hijacking an airline anymore, it's thousands of people on the ground.
	Tantamount to a military force, one could argue, that's infiltrating the country.
	It is a national security threat.
	I think we need to mainstream the term unarmed demographic conquest.
	And I think that's a wonderful way of hammering home the way in which, because, you know, people have been conquered many times over, but very few people have welcomed their own conquest.
	And if instead of trying to, in a very overt fashion, instead of trying in a very overt fashion to exterminate the fighting male population of the people you're conquering and being outside the city gates with pitchforks and all that sort of thing, you instead psychologically demoralize the population that you're conquering, they will you instead psychologically demoralize the population that you're conquering, they will welcome their own conquest as And that's what we see and is likely to bite many people, particularly in those very liberal cities on the behind.
	Absolutely.
	So it's not just me saying this sort of thing and in fact here is Axios reporting the serious threat of terror attack and former CIA chief.
	So I'm going to go through some of the prominent people that have actually said the same thing as me.
	So Michael Morrell, former Deputy Director of the CIA has.
	Graham Allison, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plan, basically says this echoes the run-up to 9-11.
	That's specifically what they're saying.
	And also the current FBI Director Chris Wray and Army General Eric Carrillo have also warned of a similar thing.
	It would have been amazing then if you hadn't sabotaged the administration of Donald Trump who had kept the border closed and wanted to deport all of them.
	That would have been fantastic.
	It's worth mentioning as well that the weight of Graham Allison's voice should carry a particular weight because he's a very serious person.
	He's written a wonderful book called The Thucydides Trap which explores I think 14 or 15 case studies of war in the past where a rising power is in the process of potentially supplanting an existing power.
	And it's all about will China and the U.S.
	go to war.
	He was a pupil of Henry Kissinger's and unlike many of the people who come out of the Georgetown system of international relations in the U.S.
	where it's all focused on people like Samantha Power, people like Madeleine Albright, where it's all about human rights, human rights, human rights, human rights.
	And it's kind of all very abstract and it kind of post-1945 onwards.
	Graham Allison, like Henry Kissinger, has a deep sense of history.
	So that is a very concerning and sobering Signature attached to that warning.
	Also we have other experts as well and we have Fox News, I believe, report, oh no, sorry, next one, there we go, here's Fox News.
	Here's another expert here.
	And this is Paul Morrow.
	I don't know how to pronounce his name, but he is a retired NYPD inspector who worked on counterterrorism for nearly 15 years.
	And he says we are in a period where a number of factors are combining to make a terrorist attack on the homeland far more likely than it perhaps had been.
	And he blames the U.S. border.
	So everyone is saying exactly the same thing.
	And that seems to suggest that, well, they think it's a lot more likely.
	And some Republicans in Congress have been demanding an investigation because, of course, these eight Tajik nationals crossing the border is obviously very concerning.
	Because I don't think anyone wants another 9-11 in America, at least most American citizens.
	But certainly some of the people crossing the border, I imagine, are probably going to play a part in it.
	But...
	There are lots of things to bear in mind when looking at other countries' approaches to border policy, because one of the arguments is the humane argument, which I actually hear quite a lot, even from people that are pretty checked out from politics, that, well, you know, these people are fleeing war.
	Well, actually, the Western world is the exception to the rule.
	And if we look at other countries, for example, like Saudi Arabia, they just shoot people at the border.
	If you look at, say, Greece, the coast guards push them overboard and pop their dinghies and, you know, people know in other countries that these people aren't there to, you know, build their economy and be honest.
	They're breaking into their country and they mean them harm and they're treating them as such and I'm not necessarily suggesting that we should, you know, follow in those footsteps but we certainly don't need to allow them into the country.
	I don't think we have any duty of restraint Uh, when shown towards people who are actively committing crimes and want to break in, actually.
	I think you should treat them as an insurgent force.
	Absolutely.
	And you're right, in other countries, including Jordan and Egypt, recognize, for example, the threat posed by the Palestinians, which no matter what you think about the Israeli-Gaza war, that population have A grievance against, particularly Britain, and the wider West for siding with Israel, and it'd be very unwise for us to let them in, and if they're neighbouring countries who have a shared religion, and... Shared ethnicity.
	Shared ethnicity, and also a less of an attachment to human rights, therefore a more willingness to exert controls as the Saudis do, are unwilling to let them in because they think they're too much of a chaotic force, then the idea that we might import, I don't know, 200,000 on a humanitarian visa scheme under the next Labour government, really bad idea!
	Not very good.
	So, it's also worth bearing in mind, on the Polish border, one of the border guards was stabbed to death by a migrant.
	So yes, he wanted just a peaceful life, didn't he?
	That's why he stabbed that border guard to death.
	No.
	These people are dangerous, obviously.
	That's why they're breaking into the country, not taking legal means.
	Because they're willing to break the law.
	And if they're willing to break the law, who knows what they're willing to do.
	It's people buying into this narrative that we're somehow obligated to have this humanitarian approach.
	I've probably read things like this where they take a select case.
	I call it human interest stories.
	The BBC are really egregious for this and I hate it because what it's doing is it manipulates the human inability to calculate probability and scale And it just plays on your emotions.
	So it finds one example of someone who, you know, is actually coming here with their family, with their children, but it's not representative of the greater whole.
	And I'm just going to read a little bit from this, and you can sort of pick up on the propagandistic way in which it approaches it.
	So it says, Ahmed al-Hasimi stood on the beach Howling at the retreating waves, beating and clawing at his own chest, and surrendering to the grief and rage and guilt that would not go away when his, uh, I believe it was his eight-year-old daughter died in the Channel Crossing.
	He should feel guilty.
	Well...
	I thought guilt is exactly the word that I picked out there.
	Why would he feel guilty?
	Oh wait, it's because he made the choice to make that crossing.
	He wasn't fleeing war, actually, because the article goes on to say, and this is actually very revealing, although Ahmed is an Iraqi, his daughter had never visited the country, she was born in Belgium and has spent most of her short life in Sweden.
	As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been war in Belgium or Sweden for quite some time.
	There's been a lot of grenade attacks in Sweden.
	That's true, but it's people like him, obviously not him personally, that are doing that, isn't it?
	That's why.
	He made that decision, he played a role in his dead daughter, and they're trying to make you feel guilty for us not letting them cross safely, when actually it's not our responsibility in the first place.
	And if you had been in a dinghy in the English Channel as a British citizen and a parent, and you had a lapse of judgement whereby your child had died, you would be held legally responsible for that by British law.
	So we're holding a double standard towards these outsiders which is suicidal ultimately.
	And it's not even terror attacks that you just need to worry for because of course there has been the recent story about an illegal immigrant murdering Rachel Morin.
	And Trump released a statement about this but I'm short on time so I'll have to skip over that but basically this 23 year old El Salvadoran murdered a woman going out for a run I believe and he raped and murdered her and left her naked body on the ground so
	The safety of women in America is being jeopardised by this porous border and it's not just terror and, you know, mother of a woman killed similarly pointed out rightly that it's Biden's border policy that killed her daughter just as much as the man himself because that was what allowed him to get into the country and do what he did.
	There's the Lake and Riley case as well, you've got so many of these examples now.
	It's funny when they're not interested in those human interest stories.
	Yeah, quite.
	It's funny isn't it, yeah.
	But my point is that this is something that should be on everyone's lips in the upcoming US election.
	This is a matter of life and death.
	People often talk about US elections and say it's the most important one.
	In, you know, your lifetime.
	Well, if the choice is between do you have terrorists, murderers and rapists in your country or not, I think I know what most people would pick.
	Quite, yes.
	Let me relieve you of that mouse.
	I will swap you the mouse and I assume you want me to... Yes, my lack of technical proficiency makes that necessary.
	Well, there's been a lot of talk in... Sorry, just move it across to the other... No, no, wait.
	There we go.
	There we go.
	There's been a lot of talk recently and I think Dr. David Starkey, you can see on the screen at the moment, has been leading this charge.
	The fundamental thing that needs to happen in British politics is that there needs to be a wholesale reversal of Blair's revolution, Blair's silent, grinning revolution that took place in 1997.
	Much less overt and much more innocuous seeming than Cromwell's much more overtly violent, very po-faced revolution in in the 17th century and Starkey's been leading the charge on this front.
	The problem is that Blair's assault on the traditional constitution of the United Kingdom which was based as we know on parliamentary sovereignty and a tradition of representative government or at any rate maximally representative government, new social classes being admitted to that over time.
	You couldn't go mass democracy straight away but in the 19th century mass democracy kicks in, 20th century mass democracy kicks in as well broadening the franchise through which people can be This wholesale revolution by Blair, rather than being challenged by the Conservative Party in the way that Thatcher from 79 onwards challenged the post-war consensus in a very self-conscious, intellectually, in a very self-conscious fashion with a huge amount of intellectual ballast.
	People like Keith Joseph at the Centre for Policy Studies was instrumental to that.
	That sort of counter-revolution which Thatcher considered herself as engaging in.
	The conservatives have just completely accepted this new status quo and since 2010 they're hopefully going to be punished for it but the problem for us is that the worst gents seems to be yet to come because what remains of our traditional constitution, because Blair didn't kill it off altogether, May yet now be killed off altogether by an incoming Starmer government.
	So the key features of Blair's revolution, if you want to sum it up in three bullet points, would be the de facto abolition of Parliament by dispersing its powers among the faceless like-minded mandarins who fill what Michael Gove Chris and The Blob about 10 or so years ago.
	Before becoming an inextricable member of it.
	Indeed so, Connor, yes.
	And so you were thinking of things like Ofcom, things like English Nature which hamstrings sort of environmental policy, the Migration Advisory Committee which is responsible for the incredibly lax, obviously, well, Boris Johnson's responsible, you know, advisors advise and ministers decide, but Johnson, you know, the Migration Advisory Committee
	put forward that very low salary threshold which is um means that we're now seeing record high levels of uh legal immigration charity committee as well which allows the home office to funnel hundreds of thousands of pounds to hope not hate to smear people that notice problems indeed exactly so you got yes gone i was going to make the point that uh it it really reinforces what you're trying to say here by the fact that as you know technology and the ability to govern more efficiently um moves that moves ahead
	you know you've got you know computers and things one would expect that you would need fewer and fewer people fewer and fewer Government bodies because the role of government can be fulfilled with fewer and fewer people because we need fewer people to you know pass papers around and that sort of thing and it's a very sort of perfunctory point that I think often gets overlooked because
	The state has been expanding in its purview consistently and there are more and more bodies advising other bodies and it's become a sort of Cronenberg-esque monster of a bureaucracy and the reality of the situation, the reality of what tools we have available to the state to actually govern
	would suggest that it would be getting smaller not bigger yes indeed it's hilarious that their whole what they what they regard their right to rule as being legitimacy oh so it'd be being efficiency and yet the civil service for just to take one point of contact the civil service is five times larger than the indian civil service was in sort of 1910 or something like that and The Indian civil service did a much better job of it I would argue as well.
	So there's that aspect, this kind of de facto abolition of parliament, you've got the creation of a supreme court able to contradict the will of the people as expressed through their representatives, creating sort of rival sources of sovereignty in the realm of very, it makes sense to do that sort of thing when you're deliberately trying to create a new system as the Americans were doing in 1787, that they needed a constitution, that this was a new nation, separation of powers made sense in that context.
	When you're a a long established realm with a tradition of political stability why would you want to tinker with that and potentially you know cause constitutional crises which we've seen plenty of not least during Brexit, paralysis all that sort of thing and of course the most lamentable, well not probably not the most lamentable of all but one of the most predictable in advance.
	It was predictable in advance that this would go wrong just stuffing the House of Lords with political cronies.
	I believe, who was the chap who wrote the, he wrote a wonderful, wonderful biography of Disraeli?
	Yeah, Lord Blake.
	He was himself a lord and he wrote an article in I think the Times or the Telegraph warning that the abolition of the hereditary peers was going to backfire massively because unlike these political cronies,
	The hereditary peers, okay it's a little bit antiquated, I will concede that, but they actually tended to be younger and they were much more independent because they owed their position to accidents of birth and therefore often, not always, but often felt quite an instinctive sense of duty in the way that political cronies only really feel a duty to the people who planted them there and so it just becomes this sclerotic, highly politicized chamber rather than an august one where duty rather than careerism
	The Lords has somewhat become a means of political parties rewarding their most loyal devotees in a way, isn't it?
	Because you've had lots of cases whereby there have been dodgy dealings whereby large donations have been given and then a year or two later a peerage is awarded.
	Exactly, exactly.
	So it's just become an incredibly corrupt honour system Far worse than the kind of dodgy dealing switch did go on indeed it must be said in the 18th century.
	But anyway so and to go into this in more detail because this is actually not the main subject of my of my segment here but if you want a detailed tour de force on Blair's revolution and the need to undo it people should watch Dr David Starkey's splendid speech.
	Connor and I were both there in fact at the recent New Culture Forum annual conference in Westminster.
	It's available on YouTube and it's garnered a huge number of views and it got a lot of engagement.
	So, as I say, while the Conservative Party has spent the last 14 years obediently accommodating this new status quo, people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, now suspiciously close to Keir Starmer himself, have had plenty of time to plot ways to entrench it further and to kill off the traditional constitution of the United Kingdom, the sort of King, Laws and Commons.
	uh in uh in a way which makes it at the moment it's impossible it's very difficult to I think I think Carl Benjamin has actually said this before either here or he might have said it on the new on that when he came as a guest on the New Culture Forum in fact Blair's basic ambition and Peter Hitchens has warned about this as well and Starkey mentions it too was effectively to make conservative politics real small c conservative politics very very difficult if Keir Starmer succeeds he may well make it impossible
	And so we have this new 150 page report, ominously titled A New Britain, which I'd at any rate encourage people to leaf through, maybe not to read the whole thing.
	I'm not sure if Gordon Brown's prose particularly has much to recommend it.
	I doubt he wrote it himself in fact, but it says he did.
	But there is a very helpful summary of the contents of what The new new Labour under Keir Starmer has planned for Britain, which was put together by Jay Sorrell, which I believe that is actually, I don't know who he is, I think that might be a pseudonym in fact, at Toby Young's The Daily Skeptic.
	And Sorrell zones in on two particular aspects of this intensification of the Blair Act revolution that is likely to be on the horizon.
	So we've got the further subordination of Parliament to the judiciary, Which will give birth to an increase in the kind of human rights radicalism that has hampered so much of our politics.
	We even had the case, you know more about it than I do, Conor, what was that?
	It was an ECHR case.
	Oh what, the boomers used Article 2 and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so that's the right to life and the right to a private family life.
	To argue that because global warming is increasing average temperatures, didn't provide evidence of that, that four elderly women, one of whom died during the proceedings of just old age, couldn't go on holiday, couldn't swim in their pool, couldn't sit on their balcony and couldn't go outside without wearing a hat, and therefore this was a human rights violation that required all member states to take immediate and accelerated action on climate change.
	It's too hot for the boomers to have a cruise, therefore in debt the entire next generation with windmills.
	That's a very fabulous pithy summary of what went down there and we saw recently a similar thing where I believe it was the Supreme Court in Britain in fact, which I should have probably got a link to this but people can look it up, the Supreme Court in Britain ruled that drilling for oil and well gas licenses in Surrey is now an obligation for all people engaged in such activities to take account of the effect they're having on the climate.
	This is a Friends of the Earth case.
	They have to calculate the lifetime emissions released by the use of their product when it's out of their hands, not just during drilling.
	Because, of course, we don't have to calculate the lifetime emissions of importing it from overseas when it's done far less cleanly and far cheaper.
	Instead, we just have to actively destroy our own energy manufacturing capacity.
	It is also worth mentioning to any Americans that are watching that the name Supreme Court is trying to steal some of the prestige of the US Supreme Court.
	I think that was deliberate by Blair who's quite a canny sort of PR operator in the first place but actually it is, as you're alluding to, an avenue for judicial activism more so than the US Supreme Court that I think is actually doing a rather good job as far as the other branches of government are concerned.
	It is definitely true Josh.
	All Supreme Courts and any human institution In fact, there's always a risk that it can be politicised in a very overt way, but at the moment the US Supreme Court's reputation is holding up together much better than ours.
	Well, I think the reason is because the appointments are expressly political.
	the president himself during his term appoints the judges.
	Therefore, they know their, their partnership.
	And you know that you have to live under the, the dictates of, fortunately at this point, one party is adherent to the constitution and another party just hates the constitution.
	So if the Republicans put someone in, at least you're going to get someone that's according to the spirit of America rather than just judicial activists.
	But over here, I don't actually know what the appointment process is for Supreme court justices, but I did, I know when I, when I spoke to Liz in her book, when she was working in the department for justice, she made certain recommendations.
	I think she was the first female Lord chancellor and all of the other people that were meant to be advising her at the time that much more senior said, no, no, no, we're not going to put that into effect because we're going to tell the judges to overrule your, you, you appoint our guy instead.
	So the it's, you've got no, it's politicized, but it's the people that are doing the appointments have no direct accountability to the people they're meant to be ruling over.
	Absolutely, but I also think the really crucial thing that makes our Supreme Court much more liable to be infiltrated by a kind of human rights radicalism, as Sula Brabham would want to call it, a kind of left wing
	The policymaking unit by the back door, so to speak, sort of bypassing the need to get it, oh god, the incredibly tedious business of having to get it through Parliament, all that sort of thing, is because the US Supreme Court, which was set up in 1787, was deliberately set up as a kind of national Supreme Court and there was an understanding that there was going to be this political process, all parties would have a hand in the people who got appointed to it.
	In the British case, because this was more of a political plot by New Labour, the Conservatives side of politics, and I mean that in a small c sense, was rather caught off guard.
	So whereas the U.S.
	have had, U.S.
	Republicans have had quite a long time, well they were the Federalists back then but mutation to the Republicans under Abraham Lincoln, they've had a lot of time to set up things like the Federalist Society which deliberately try and get together good originalist judges who can do the conservative bidding on the Supreme Court.
	All of our appointees which I believe there's some political oversight involved.
	They're all creatures of that kind of new labor revolution because it was much more a political project by Blair rather than a national project at the initiation of the birth of a new nation so that's a concern as well and I'm just going to quote A passage from this excellent summary, which is much shorter than the 150 page document written by Gordon Brown.
	Mercifully was also not written by Gordon Brown.
	Mercifully not written by Gordon Brown.
	He's got a very neat pithy style as well, this chap, Jay Sorrell, whoever he happens to be.
	So just to kind of make it more tangible and concrete to people, he writes the following.
	Consider small boats.
	Under the current system, a reforming government could solve the problem of illegal immigration tomorrow.
	It could legislate to make the Rwanda scheme legal, or leave the ECHR, or declare a state of emergency.
	This would require a simple majority in the House of Commons, or an extremis, the creation of several hundred new peers.
	With a new Britain, quote-unquote, and judicial review, the issue will be taken entirely out of elected hands.
	Judges will simply enforce the principle that every human is entitled to live in a Western country.
	So at the moment we're being hampered By the lack of a political will, and that's bad enough, in the future it could be irrelevant.
	Even if there is a political will, it could be made totally irrelevant.
	You'd have to go through the incredibly exacting, laborious process of unentrenching entrenched constitutional rights which redound to the interests of immigrants in this case and redound against the interests of the host population that has already had its patience tested I would argue for the two decades at this point.
	And another particularly alarming aspect of this This doubling down on the Blairite revolution is going to be the enshrining of new social rights.
	I don't know what our views are, gents.
	Rights language can be insidious enough politically, but when you're prefacing the word rights by social, you should always be concerned about what your political opponents might have planned for you and so I'm going to actually quote from page 12 of um if we can go back to the commission on the UK's future the the original report is that possible yep just there we go there we go if you go to page 12 which you don't need to I can just read it he um Gordon Brown or one of his spads or whoever it might be he had one eye on it at all times
	I'm sure now that is cruel the Maybe it's David Blunkett.
	There should be new constitutionally protected social rights, like the right to healthcare, for all based on need, not ability to pay, that reflect the current shared understanding of the minimum standards and public services that a British citizen should be guaranteed.
	That's an explicitly communist statement.
	I was about to say exactly that, yeah.
	That's healthcare communism.
	That's not from each according to his ability to pay, that's each according to his need to be serviced by some Nigerian we imported yesterday.
	Indeed.
	And communism is bad enough when it's a political agenda, when it becomes An irreversible constitutional, well a very tough to reverse constitutional de jure system, it's even more insidious.
	And I had to quote this sentence as well because I think it's the most alarming that I came across when I leafed through the 150 page document and see if you can spot the insidious throwaway line to which I'm referring.
	This is on, I don't know the page number.
	So that no child, family or elderly citizen need live in poverty, every person legitimately present Every person legitimately present in the UK shall be entitled to social assistance in relation to periods of unemployment, disability or old age in accordance with the relevant laws.
	No person, no person shall be left destitute.
	So there's a constitutional right to 70% of smallies getting social housing?
	Indeed.
	Another insidious aspect of that is the definition of poverty because of course if you define poverty as it's currently defined in the UK as a certain percentage beneath the median then poverty can never be eliminated and you'll always have a modus operandi for economic redistribution.
	Yes and I hadn't thought about definitions of poverty as well and you would imagine as well that it will have an incredibly distorting effect on voting because surely what you're going to get in that case is an even higher number of dependents in the political system.
	I mean enterprising people are going to get the hell out of here.
	Leaving you with a higher proportion of dependents in the population, whether foreign dependents or homegrown dependents, who I'm generally more sympathetic to.
	It's a permanent clientele state.
	Exactly.
	The other insidious part is...
	Legitimately present.
	Yes.
	Not legally present.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Legitimately.
	And who declares the legitimacy?
	He who does the constitutional revolution.
	Indeed, indeed.
	If I can be very pompous for a second.
	Sovereign is verüber den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet.
	That means sovereign is he who decides the state of exception.
	I think these people are going to be deciding What counts as legitimately rich.
	You put Schmidt in the original German, blimey!
	I was going to say the same thing except not in the original German.
	Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
	As soon as Connor brought that up I knew what he was alluding to.
	And we're also, so immigrants will receive a constitutionally entrenched right to be subsidized at our expense fundamentally and if that isn't rich enough when it comes to, you know, a kind of pathologically altruistic xenophilia and a kind of You know, studied contempt for your own people and your own duties to them.
	We're also staring down the barrel of a further clampdown on free speech to protect, as ever, we saw, you know, talk of Hinduphobia earlier.
	Well, Hinduphobia is still on the rise as a concept.
	Islamophobia has been entrenched for quite a while and it may now be on the verge of being entrenched in law.
	So we're going to go to Oh I should probably say as well, before we go to our now mutual boss at the New Culture Forum, Peter Whittle, I think a lot of this has to do with Stama's flirtation at any rate with the concept of potentially a new blasphemy law designed to protect Muslims from, you know, having their feelings trampled upon.
	Wouldn't you just quote Hadith verses that make them look bad?
	Yes, gosh, you know, that could be an optics, you know, nightmare.
	I think this has a large part to do with the fact that Stalmer, precisely because he's cautious to distance himself from the Corbyn legacy, has been very muted on Israel-Gaza.
	He seems to have lent, as most politicians in the Western world have done, moral and diplomatic support to Israel in the war to avenge the grotesque attacks that happened on the 7th of October.
	And I think it's partly as a way of trying to Limit the hemorrhaging of the Muslim vote, which is again an important clientele class for a Labour party which long ago ditched solidarity with the working classes for the politics of minoritarian grievance.
	The meaning of Islamophobia will be further watered down and then altogether criminalized.
	So Peter Whittle, my boss at the New Culture Forum, now mutual boss with Connor, has put out a very important video recently warning us to prepare for Stammer's very censorious plans.
	If we can just play the first minute of it.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Hello, I'm Peter Whittle.
	Now, if you've been following the election, you might have seen this Labour Party video.
	If not, then take a look at this cosy chat between Keir Starmer and the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan.
	One of the things that is coming up over and over again, um, is Islamophobia.
	And, well, you can see the stats, you can see the numbers rising, particularly since October the 7th.
	Although, we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that before October the 7th, um, this was all heading in the right direction, and it's been far too high for far too long.
	Clearly we need to just say over and over again Islamophobia is intolerable.
	It can never ever be justified and we have to continue with a zero tolerance approach and I think there's more we can do in government.
	There's certainly stuff online which I think needs tackling much more robustly than it is at the moment.
	What I'm hoping Kerry is your experience as a prosecutor means you'll be thinking about the strategy we can use to make sure we take action against those who break the law.
	Now despite... Why is he dressed like Conley Drucker's rubber-dingy rapids?
	Britain Islam.
	Sorry, just had to note that.
	Who's Conley Drucker?
	The independent journalist?
	Yeah, my favourite Rwandan ambassador.
	The funny thing is, I agreed with everything Keir Starmer said except about the term Islamophobia.
	So he made it sound as if, well...
	You know Islamophobia is this pervasive thing but it's the use of the term to silence legitimate criticism of Islam which there are many.
	To say the least Josh and also as well I think the other thing that I'm always keen to point out to people because you know Despite my objections to Islam as a set of religious dogmas and my objection to the Islamization of my own country, not least as a Christian, quite apart from all that, I don't want to see Muslim businesses subjected to a kind of anti-Muslim Kristallnacht of any kind.
	But the one thing that I always do find puzzling when Islamophobia is put on a pedestal with anti-Semitism, and I would want to put in anti-white rhetoric in this country as well, when it's sort of put on an equal playing field with anti-Semitism, does Islam strike you as a politically, as a particularly cowed political force in this country?
	I mean, just to give you one point of contact with this, how many Jewish people do you know who engage in acts of public prayer, let alone in London?
	None and a lot of synagogues have security.
	Indeed, and I think we have a Reuters article next up which shows that the UK government has made a conscious point of increasing security funding for Jewish people.
	They probably should have done that as well to the white working class girls in various towns across Britain that were subjected to, I don't know, I suppose you could call the grooming gangs an Islamic hate crime.
	That might have been a reasonable use of government funds though certainly that's true but it goes to show that if we're going to engage in conversations about what is more serious and I would agree with you that's why I wanted to put anti-white in because I think it's far too popular to object to the Islamization of Europe or to object to mass demographic transformation of our countries but we need to do it in polite liberal terms and we need to say that we're doing it for the Jews, we're doing it for women, we're doing it for gays.
	I would also want to put in, and for the majority population which doesn't want to see this happen to them either, but nevertheless it goes to show that if it's being put at which it is routinely put on a sort of equated with anti-semitism, Islam seems to me to be an emboldened force in this country.
	It's flexing its muscles, it's intimidating, MPs into resigning.
	It's a completely distorting parliamentary procedure.
	We saw that with Sir Lindsay Hoyle.
	It doesn't strike me as particularly bashful.
	That's just one common sense point of contact with what's really going on on the ground.
	Yeah modesty, not among the pantheon of Islamic virtues is it?
	Definitely not.
	Well immediately again after October the 7th happened those prayers outside Downing Street were not in solidarity.
	Yes.
	They were not for the victims.
	They were not for any Palestinians who had yet been killed in the crossfire because the retaliation hadn't started yet.
	They were prayers of victory.
	Indeed.
	So, that is to be remembered.
	Indeed.
	It is also worth bearing in mind a game I like to play sometimes when people question the violent nature of Islam.
	I say, here is my copy of the Qur'an, I'm going to open it at random and you will find on any page a call to violence.
	Yes, yeah.
	And every time I've done it, every single time, I've always been able to find it.
	Yeah no, again they're not bashful about hiding that either.
	So I thought we'd look into a bit of Whittle's own analysis of this because he quotes from a definition that is going to be used by Keir Starmer in drafting up what seems likely to be legislation.
	I mean it was quite ambiguous there, if Starmer was In some sense, it was ambiguous.
	I mean, the political motivation was not at all ambiguous.
	But you know, there was talk of, we need to tackle that online.
	And I suspect that we as online, given our online presence, whether it's through Loaded Cedars, or whether it's through the New Culture Forum and European Conservative and other places, we might be victims of a kind of expansion of Ofcom's remit.
	That seems perfectly, perfectly plausible to be a perfectly plausible outcome.
	And they'll outsource the enforcement to various state-sponsored quangos like Hope Not Hate, and obviously the definition was formulated by the all-party parliamentary group on Islamophobia, but they have various underlings, various Islamic advocacy organisations that are also, ironically, against the Labour Party, tied into the Muslim Vote Initiative.
	They need not even introduce any new infrastructure to do this sort of thing.
	They can just use Section 127 of the Communications Act and use the politicisation of the police which, you know, has been going on for quite some time now.
	That was under Thatcher from the public order bills.
	to just encourage the police to go after this more often.
	So it might not even require new legislation.
	No.
	It could just draw on existing legislation in a very overt fashion.
	So there's that aspect to it.
	But then the thing that made me think that rather than just use of existing legislation and expanding Ofcom's remit and dispersing yet more power to the NGO-ocracy, as some people like to call it, I found it very very alarming there when Sadiq Khan saying, oh and you've got of course got your legal background as well don't you Zakir?
	So you know you have you have you have a background in sort of tackling this sort of stuff.
	But this is going to be legislative in my view and the legislative form it will take is here quoted by Peter Whittle.
	is an invented word which has been used time and again to stifle argument and valid opinion.
	But this new definition widens it to such an extent that all debate or discussion on a whole range of enormously important issues will be effectively shut down.
	The definition was agreed by an all-parliamentary party group and reads thus: "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." Thoughts?
	Jibberish, isn't it?
	Muslimness.
	What is a Muslim?
	Isn't that Matt Walsh's next documentary?
	What is a Muslim?
	We might need it.
	For conceptual clarification's sake, do you have something to say?
	Yeah.
	I don't remember the race of Islam.
	I believe it's a theological doctrine in which Anyone from anywhere can sign up to, but you can't easily quit it.
	Yeah, that's true.
	You can't have second thoughts, but yeah, the racial element is just capitalizing on the, you know, the prevailing wind, isn't it?
	It's trying to make it sound all the more egregious that it's merely racist rather than, you know, being prejudiced against a particular religious belief, which actually is seen as far more acceptable in this current day.
	And as GK Justin warns us as well, Evil always takes advantage of ambiguity and we have a case study of ambiguity there.
	So it seems like a further part of Keir Starmer's brewing revolution will be We will see that sort of the passage of a de facto blasphemy law which exists in the United Kingdom already, I mean has anyone checked in on the teacher at Batley Grammar School lately?
	I mean he is suffering from the existence of a sort of de facto blasphemy law becoming an insidious de jure one that favours this new Muslim clientele class, this growing Muslim clientele class in British politics and counts yet again against the host population that has already been subjected to a reckless demographic experiment.
	So we have a political class that not only imports foreign often hostile dependents but then presumes to forbid us from criticizing them.
	So fair warning after the election we need to be ready for a two-front war in my view.
	One for the soul of the right and we've spoken about that in Conor's segment in particular but the other probably more difficult against the escalated belligerence of a slick motivated highly well-organized left.
	Very good.
	And with that, onto the video comments, please.
	At the bottom of the list, you might want to go to the top one.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, Rishi Sunak is just haunting us here.
	Yeah, grinning, gloating face.
	Oh well, he won't be haunting us much longer.
	No, quite.
	There we go.
	We're just fighting tech issues.
	Here we go.
	Hey, look, it's my shirt.
	Um...
	How are you on my shirt?
	Italian food is just great.
	It really is.
	It's just natural, even the...
	The dirty little secret when it comes to Italian food is that it's not very good.
	It's an exercise in taking meagre ingredients and trying to make them taste less meagre.
	The paucity of nutrition, particularly the lack of vitamin D in their food, is why they were hit so hard in the early, deadly waves of COVID-19.
	Contrast with Japan that has excellent food and they weathered the early phases much better.
	Okay, I agree in terms of the carb intensity of it because I don't really eat that, but the idea that it isn't tasty, like the nutrient profile, fair enough, but no, pizza's delicious.
	I'm sorry to say that's true.
	I respect the fact immensely that you've gone for such a controversial opinion as Italian food is not good.
	I respect that a lot.
	I like Italian food, it's not my favourite, but credit to you for that.
	It's mental.
	Right, California refugee with the botany report.
	So here's my Datura reidei plant.
	It's really healthy and it's got a few flowers that are going to bloom.
	And I want to show you just how quickly these flowers actually bloom and then die away.
	Forgot to do it last night but they're still kind of in bloom.
	But these two bloomed last night and then this more vibrant one is blooming tonight.
	And just like that they are all wilted and done for.
	I love these, they're so great, and I actually know about Datura quite a lot because it's used in South America, Vice actually did a documentary about it, you can use, I think it's the flowers, they crush it up into a powder and blow it into people's faces and all of a sudden, because it's a psychoactive thing, it can be used to basically control people, like you take over their mind because they become so suggestible, it's also a deliriant as well.
	And people take it recreationally, although it would be thoroughly unpleasant because I've read accounts of people talking to invisible people and losing days of their time in hellish-like states.
	So it's real-life poison ivy.
	That's mental.
	Okay, alright, on with the next one.
	The desecration of Stonehenge as national heritage was very problematic, but also as religious iconography and symbology.
	This is coming from somebody that would even see religion as being an evolutionary adaptation and not necessarily being religious, but I still think it has use and beauty because it calls on that part of you to be introspective and to grapple with your soul and to not be in touch with a destructive urge.
	There's a reason that Hardy used it as his concluding motif in Tess of the d'Urbervilles, because there's some sort of connection via ancestor worship.
	It's almost like an altar to the past, and so the idea that they just douse it in, ironically, carbon paint from a fire extinguisher.
	They're climate jihadists, and I think they should be given the exact same sentence.
	I think they just all need to be prescribed as a terrorist group.
	All of them, all of their subsidiaries, they should be treated as terrorists.
	So there you go.
	A Gentleman's Observations of Swindon Chapter 6 Swindon had 27 households in 1086, 248 poor taxpayers in 1334, 600 residents in 1705, 1,198 residents in 1801, the first national census by the way, 1,600 residents in 1814 and 2,495 residents in 1841.
	Swindonians were apparently a notable settled people even in their irrelevance, as it was noted that despite other places holding better opportunities, Swindon was not a town that its occupants readily moved from or changed.
	Yeah, it wasn't until GWR was established here, and then I think it was the NHS, if I remember Rory telling me correctly, that the town had a bit of a boom.
	Well, it was that they set up a, I think, the first public library, which was the inspiration for the NHS model.
	But that was GWR, a private company, setting up for their employees.
	Yeah well GWR I mean go read Rory's articles on the website about the sort of decline of GWR and how it's hollowed out the town because it's fantastic prose but also you can walk around the shopping centers and see it's almost like walking through the the rib cage of a great beast all of the apparatus that used to lower the engines into the into the cabooses and that and now there's A KFC and a Ralph Lauren outlet right next to it.
	It gives me the same feeling as seeing a washed up whale skeleton on a beach.
	Like it was once a great thing, a wonderful thing, that now is just a sort of shadow of its former self, not where it belongs.
	Yeah, it's like the death of the Kraken in the third Pirates of the Caribbean film.
	Or that, yeah.
	Yeah, well, you know, my frame of reference.
	Anyway, on to the written comments on the website.
	JJHW, I've never bothered watching election results, but this time I will be watching Lotus Eaters.
	Well, thank you very much.
	We'll have more announcements as to guests and what we're going to do over the course of the few hours coming out in the coming weeks.
	General Haiping, best opener in a long time.
	Look, there are gremlins in the wires and our fantastic new producer Samson is currently trying to undo some of the prior incompetence.
	Sorry, this is my fault.
	So please be patient with him because he is doing the Lord's work and this will be fixed.
	It was my coverage of the Zimbabwean goblin attacks that have done this.
	Okay, on the first, Harrison is TK Maxxing.
	What does that mean?
	As in, he thinks your wardrobe is from TK Maxx.
	I think this is Charles Tyrwhitt, how dare you?
	But, you know, if you're maxing it means you're doing something very well at least.
	Oh does it?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, you're the perfect TK Max mannequin apparently.
	I think it's meant to be a compliment.
	Oh, well thank you then.
	Thanks.
	What do you think the chances are for these Tory MPs who are representing Red Wall seats to move to Reform UK once they're destroyed by Labour?
	I personally think these people could be the key to changing public perception of the opposition to Labour.
	To run again?
	Some of them.
	I wouldn't be shocked.
	I mean, I think some of them were hoping to win their seats and then defect to Reform while they were already in.
	I don't see someone like Miriam doing that, though.
	I could be wrong, but yeah.
	Things change fast in politics, so I don't want to make any bets.
	We've got a $3 super chat from Not Just A String.
	It's on Rumble, not YouTube, obviously.
	A three-way hung parliament, either officially or practically, would be legendary.
	I don't see that happening.
	You're not going to get hung parliament with a massive Labour majority.
	Like Labour are still going to get a majority unless fraud really does an upset in the next few weeks and I don't think there's a time to do that but I do think there's a possibility that reform If he pulls a blinder in the next two weeks, could get more seats than Dory's.
	That'd be amazing to watch.
	I think the fulcrum of that would be a three-way leadership debate.
	And that's why I don't think the BBC or Ofcom aren't mandating them do it according to the polls as far as I'm concerned, so that's why they don't want to do it.
	But if you had Farage on stage with Sunak and Starmer, I think you'd see a massive poll shift.
	And that would be very useful as well for the post-election narrative craft, as I said in my thinking.
	You know we've got a renewed battle with a very motivated left but equally we've got to fight for the soul of the right and there are going to be people like David Gauke and Rory Stewart wanting to say well clearly the Tory party have just been far too right-wing over the last 14 years if Farage completely eats up the Tory vote.
	Not only those key marginal potentially wins more seats than the Tories, those sort of op-eds in the new statesman, they may still be written, but they would be even less convincing than they already would be.
	Yeah, Tobias Elwood will have to go from having two reasons to be called a com by TORQ and GB, which is playing containment, down to one reason, which is all white boys should die in Ukraine for some reason.
	Andrew Wilcox, "I live in this Lib Dem Southwest stronghold mentioned, and you were all 100% spot on.
	If you live here, you can have all the luxury beliefs without having to deal with many of the consequences.
	I agree, Bath is absolutely wonderful and it's full of people that are completely disconnected from what politics is actually about.
	Peter Harvey, Connor, don't worry about the Commonwealth citizens voting.
	My wife is foreign, is herself going to vote for Reform UK.
	I'm I'm sure she's lovely, that is not the predominant case, I'm afraid, my friend.
	Again, it's much like, yes, they have one Muslim donor, the overwhelming number of Muslims will vote for the Oldham Independent Party because they want Sharia law.
	I'm sure your wife is an absolutely delightful woman from wherever she is from in the Commonwealth.
	The overwhelming majority of Indians will vote for Hindu nationalism.
	Even the UK.
	So I am worried about that and I think it should be absolutely repealed and so does Rafe.
	Rafe being an expert on the Commonwealth and himself not purely of English extraction is going, yeah we should bin that off, it's antiquated, it's just not right at the moment.
	Last one.
	Dave North.
	Thank you, Connor, for saying we in Boston, in Lincolnshire, are reliable.
	I'm doing what I can locally.
	Might even be able to get access to the count.
	We'll update you if you do.
	Yeah, we'll have the chat open while we're live streaming and that, and we'll be taking in Super Chat, so we'll be able to read those out for live responses.
	We'll hopefully have live results coming out, and if there are people that can provide us regular updates from on the ground to give us, frankly, an edge as a sort of Grassroots new media company operation over the big Westminster lobbyists who have inside scoops.
	We'd really appreciate it.
	So thank you for your support.
	Could I just do a quick favour to Sam Weston as well?
	I don't know if we're going to read another one, but it's a really easy answer.
	What was the book you recommended by Graham Allison Harrison?
	It sounds like fascinating and insightful reading.
	It really is.
	Everyone should read it.
	It's called Destined for War.
	Can China and America escape the Thucydides trap?
	Maybe don't type in the subtitle if you can't spell Thucydides, but destined for Graham Allison.
	Excellent.
	Josh?
	Also, I was just going to quickly say well done to Dave North for actually going out and doing as much as you can locally.
	I think that that's actually very important.
	It does determine the direction of elections.
	A very determined on the ground force.
	Very much so.
	So, someone online says, ISIS has been crossing the southern border since it was founded, plus Chinese nationals, plus the cartels.
	Southwest is pretty screwed.
	I think that's putting it lightly, yes.
	But I think also it seems like there is a significant uptick in the crossings, which is important, I think.
	And Baron von Warhawk says, as bad as Islamic terrorists sneaking across the border is, I'm just concerned about the 30 Chinese men sneaking across the border as well.
	Call me a conspiracy theorist, sorry, but I can't help but think that 30 well-built men from the largest communist country on earth are probably up to no good.
	I think that's probably fair to say, yeah.
	It's not like the Chinese tend to have any trouble entering the United States legally anyway, so the fact they're doing it illegally seems to indicate that they're probably expecting to be denied for some unscrupulous reason.
	So Josie's Angel says New York has passed the right to shelter laws that has led to uncalculable numbers of apartments inhabited by squatters and interactions with violators go to housing courts not to the police.
	Terrifying.
	The Shadow Band with a $50 donation.
	Thank you very much.
	Josh, if you ever do another Contemplations on Psychology, please do one on age-inverted hierarchies where kids tell off their parents.
	Maoism, USSR, Puritans, Quakers, woke.
	Well, I've got personal experience of that because sometimes I tell my own parents off for failing to uphold the table manners they taught to me.
	So there we go, got lived experience too and another one as well.
	What does do to a society long term?
	How long will it be that woke kids can tell off their elders?
	Will we eventually return to a more normal hierarchy?
	Not until the boomers die off.
	Yeah, I think that there's a sort of parenting anomaly in the boomer generation and I think actually lots of younger people are becoming, the ones that actually choose to have children, are becoming really quite good parents from what I've seen, just anecdotal experience, so you know, I've not looked at research, this isn't in my professional capacity, but I'm actually quite impressed so far, which is some good news for once, you know, you get it once at a blooming.
	Do you want to just do the top one from there, Harrison?
	I'll just click on it now.
	Why don't you do it?
	This one?
	Okay, alright.
	World Woo Too Tight.
	Harrison is right on the money regarding the post-Blair ideological subversion and that the communism described is no longer a simple political force.
	It is now the null hypothesis.
	So I thought I'd read out one that's complementary to that.
	Very good.
	Yeah, no, it's not going to be, you know, the idea of politics as a contested field will be taken out of the picture.
	And that's the real way of winning.
	It'll be neutral managerialism.
	Neutral managerialism.
	It's okay, we're not divisive anymore.
	We've all come together and agreed how to impoverish you and destroy your civilization.
	Anyway, back in about 25 minutes for Lads Hour, if you're watching live.
	If you are watching live and you're not already signed up, you can sign up for as little as £5 a month and join us as we talk about how to reconquest the empire.
	Otherwise, thank you very much for watching.
	We'll be back at one o'clock on Monday.

▲