Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:37:18

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1178

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Tuesday the 3rd of June, episode 1178.
	So, right, what are we going to be talking about today?
	I've got Beau and Firas with me.
	Firas is going to be talking about the efforts to keep the Ukraine war going.
	They seem quite determined to that.
	You're going to be talking about maybe Taiwan is going to kick off soon?
	World War 3!
	Yes?
	It's definitely happening!
	It's already started!
	Now, yeah, just talk a little bit about Taiwan.
	Yes, war!
	Press the button.
	Happy now.
	And I will cover, how to put this delicately, Kirsten's interesting relationship with attractive young Ukrainian men, which might lead to the situation where we need a new prime minister.
	So we're going to have a quick look at who the contenders are.
	Sure, it's a very interesting field with amazing numbers of rich pickings.
	All with experience in business, politics, life.
	You said on the podcast yesterday, words to the effect of they can't replace Starmer because they've got no one else.
	And I thought, aha, challenge accepted, sir.
	It may be my toughest challenge yet, but we'll see what we can come up with.
	Also, we have to acknowledge that we are aware that Dank has called us out on a wrestling challenge.
	That was something that came up at the, was it the...
	We chatted about that.
	I don't know about wrestling.
	I can box.
	I don't know how to wrestle.
	But I am up for some sort of intra-company violence charity, whatever.
	That would be good.
	I'm not going to say who.
	It's Carl.
	Somebody is against us doing this.
	But there are some of us on the staff.
	Again, not going to mention any names.
	But it's me who's pushing very hard for this.
	Harry loves wrestling, doesn't he?
	Is Harry a wrestler, is he?
	He loves wrestling, yeah.
	Oh, right.
	I wouldn't do it.
	I'll shatter like glass.
	I'll be a ref.
	I'll be the ref.
	How about that?
	Right.
	But is Harry the sort of, you know, the 70s wrestling where they actually wrestle all the ones with the folded chairs and the koyu?
	I think more that.
	Right, okay.
	I don't know.
	Fair enough.
	Luca is apparently a top-rated fencer, so one of Europe's best.
	So maybe we could do boxing, fencing and wrestling or something.
	I don't know what Dank's staff look like, though.
	They might be giants among men.
	We might turn up and they're all 6 '6", 250-pound giant Highlanders, and we're like, oh, we didn't realise you were all massive.
	There'd have to be some kind of weight classification.
	They're still Scots, so they're going to be a bit, you know...
	slightly more violent than normal.
	Yeah, a bit meth-y, a bit...
	They all come messed up.
	It's always good to have a big man versus a little man, like Kane versus Xbox or something.
	That's always a good thing.
	Actually, Cole's good with a sling, isn't he?
	Oh.
	So, yeah, whatever.
	Right, anyway, on to something serious.
	Yes, so let's talk a little bit about Ukraine.
	Big departure from fairy tales, if you watched that segment yesterday.
	I like that segment.
	Thank you.
	But today we're talking about the Russia-Ukraine war and where we are after the 1 June attack by Ukrainian forces against a bunch of Russian airbases that host Russia's strategic bombing fleet.
	Now, what does strategic mean?
	Strategic means capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
	It doesn't mean that these planes only carry nuclear weapons.
	They are used for other purposes, launching cruise missiles, things of that nature.
	old-fashioned bombing runs, but the importance of these planes is that they are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and the...
	The objective of this treaty is for Russia and the United States to limit the number.
	of deployed nuclear weapons that they have with a view towards managing escalation and the prospects of escalation.
	The idea is that both sides have eyes on what each other are doing and the aim of that is to assure the other side that they aren't planning to Launch a surprise nuclear attack on anyone.
	So that kind of enhanced transparency and enhanced visibility allows the Russians and the Americans to maintain what they refer to as strategic balance.
	They both know what the other side has deployed.
	And that then leads to a level of stability because they're assured that they aren't planning sudden strikes on each other.
	Now, the Russians suspended their participation in the START Treaty in 2023, but only up to a point.
	The treaty involves a series of regular inspections.
	Of the weapons that the other side is doing, the other side holds.
	It involves regular notifications of planned drills, of planned exercises that involve these weapons so that nobody's under the impression that a sudden nuclear attack is being launched.
	But they kept up the bit that says we only deploy a certain limited number of nukes.
	And that is, I think, the most important part because it stops the two sides from engaging in a nuclear arms race and a nuclear arms race can lead either side to take conventional action and can trigger war.
	If you're worried that one side is planning to nuke you soon, then your best course of action might be to actually initiate a war and take conventionally as much as you can.
	To manage that threat.
	My rough understanding of the Cold War is the most dicey bits was whenever it looked like one side might start to get more of an advantage over the other one.
	Precisely.
	Push things, you know, the Cuban missiles.
	Precisely.
	Exactly.
	One of the things I thought when I saw this, that the talk of nuclear bombers, I was thinking, it's not 1962.
	You don't put nukes on bombers, particularly.
	That's the whole point of having a missile program, isn't it?
	So you have a nuclear triad, is how it's described.
	And that involves the bombers, which are part of it.
	Still, to this day?
	Yes, still to this day.
	Because didn't the US end their strategic bomber thing quite a few years ago?
	No, the B-52s are still there and the B-2s are still there.
	These are the jets that are most likely to be used for nuclear attacks.
	And then there's a range of other jets that are also capable of carrying nuclear.
	You can have really tiny tactical nukes.
	There's even a nuclear artillery shell, right?
	Yes.
	So I think they even created a nuclear bazooka.
	I don't...
	Yeah, the tiniest of tactical nukes.
	But anyway, if there was going to be a nuclear exchange, Russia would put it on a missile, wouldn't they?
	So they would put it on a submarine.
	It's a triad.
	A bomber, a missile, or a submarine.
	A missile fired from a submarine still, though?
	As well as missiles fired from submarines.
	And the idea is that the submarines, because they would survive an attack, give you a second strike capability.
	Whereas traditionally, the first strike capability would be either aviation or ground-launched missiles.
	Because it's on a submarine, it's a little bit smaller, more compact, etc.
	Everything in this domain comes with certain trade-offs.
	But the key point is that one of the reasons that nuclear-capable jets are kept out in the open, at least according to General Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor to the United States, so he would know, is to, as part of the application of the START Treaty, because if you put all of your bombers underneath hangars...
	Everybody's keeping their cards on the table and that gives assurances that you're not planning any nasty surprises.
	Yes.
	So there is therefore an understanding that we do not muck about with this stuff because that leads to uncontrolled escalation.
	And so what do the Ukrainians do?
	They decide to attack the one thing that can cause violence.
	Let's have a look at the videos here.
	Let's have a look at the video.
	It's a bit, what else should I say?
	Irresponsible?
	Uh, ever so slightly.
	Slightly, yeah.
	So, this one.
	It's more interesting because Russian civilians jumped on the lorries and tried to stop more drones from coming out.
	Right?
	Very.
	And four or five nuclear bases that host the Russian Air Force at which there are strategic bombers.
	We're attacked.
	The reports of the extent of the damage vary quite considerably.
	The Ukrainians are saying that they destroyed 40 of those, which would be a huge number.
	4-0.
	4-0.
	Strategic bombers.
	Strategic bombers.
	These things cost what?
	300 million each or something?
	Hundreds of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions.
	The Russians do it cheaper.
	And these, for the most part, are developed in the Soviet era.
	And they, you know, not everybody is trying to build the fastest possible jet that can deploy nukes because that upsets the strategic balance if suddenly somebody believes that the time to deliver a nuclear weapon has gone from, I don't know, three or four hours to one hour.
	Ah, okay.
	the decision-making then becomes much more complex.
	So actually, this could help Russia, because then they can reasonably say, look...
	We're going to have to build 40 high-tech ones now.
	That becomes part of the dynamic.
	Right.
	That becomes a possible part of the dynamic.
	And they just happen to be a hell of a lot faster and more stealthy than the old ones.
	which puts everybody else in danger.
	Because one of the things that you want to maintain is a decent long enough window for you to be able to check with the adversary whether or not To check with your own military, is this actually credible?
	Etc.
	So the shorter the time for delivery, the more quickly you must react.
	The more quickly you must react, the more likely you are to do something reckless.
	Shots of error goes up.
	Exactly.
	Because I thought I heard that the Ukrainians wanted to do a drone strike on the nuke early warning system in Russia.
	They did.
	The one that wasn't even facing towards Ukraine.
	They did attack one of those.
	And the Americans were like, God, don't do that.
	Because if you do that, what are the things you've talked about?
	They did it.
	Oh, they did it?
	They did attack one of the early warning systems.
	Right.
	Which was, again, an act of gross irresponsibility.
	Because then you're changing the dynamics of the war from being one between Russia and Ukraine to one between Russia and the United States.
	I think it kind of is.
	And no one comes out of, Yes.
	But it's very much in Ukraine's interest to make it overt.
	Exactly.
	So within the sort of established rules of the game, everybody uses proxies against everyone else.
	That's fine.
	However, we do not mess around with each other's nuclear capabilities because the consequences of that are So there are layers to this game and different layers have different rules.
	So within the lowest layer is to use proxies.
	And within that, the further away from the other countries borders, the more permissible it is.
	So you will arm the Vietnamese or you will will arm the Koreans or whoever because that's far enough and Moscow or St. Petersburg or Washington or New York are not at risk so that's okay going right up to Russia's borders as in supporting Ukraine in a war that's coming close to a red line within the use of proxies yeah using that to muck about with Nuclear stuff?
	That's insane.
	Just turn this around.
	Let's say the Russians were sending tens of billions of funding to the Mexican cartels, and the Mexican cartels were doing drone attacks on US nuclear early warning systems.
	No, no, no, no.
	Everybody would accept that this is extremely reckless, that this is extremely irresponsible, that you're putting the safety of humanity at risk, that you're putting the survival of the species at risk.
	If it was the other way around, if somebody messed with the British nuclear triad or with the French or with the Americans, there would be wide consensus that this is extremely irresponsible, bordering on insane.
	I mean, you don't really need to with the British ones, because our submarines should keep breaking down anyway.
	Which is a slightly different story.
	Yes.
	But this is what the Ukrainians did.
	Now, there's another element to this, which is they used civilian trucks to launch these drones from, and civilian warehouses.
	Apparently the drivers didn't know.
	And apparently the drivers did not know that they were being used in an attack.
	They, personally, as individuals, they...
	That would be breaking the law.
	You're not meant to look inside it.
	It's none of your business.
	You're just carrying civilian goods, whatever the paperwork says you're carrying.
	However, the Russians also have a pretty sophisticated capability to launch missiles from container ships, as do the Iranians, as do the Chinese, as do the Americans if they wanted to.
	So it's possible to launch things from containers.
	It's just understood that you don't play around with the civilian supply chain in this way because then the entirety of global trade breaks down.
	If when I see a Chinese ship, I should read it as a military threat, that's it.
	We're not trading with China anymore.
	Yes.
	There is no distinction between civilian and military.
	You're not going to let a Chinese cargo ship come steaming into one of your major ports.
	And vice versa.
	the Chinese would not allow American or British or French cargo ships anywhere near their ports because these containers could be carrying weapons.
	As a strategy, this seems...
	From the Ukrainian point of view, it's so reckless.
	It just feels like it's a last-ditch Hail Mary desperation move.
	That's exactly what it is, I would have thought.
	On one side, it is.
	On the other side, they're showing the Russians that we can take the fight to you in enormous depth.
	One of the bases that was attacked was maybe 4,600 kilometers from the border of Ukraine.
	So this was deep in Russian territory.
	How many bases did they hit?
	Four or five.
	Simultaneously?
	Yes, simultaneously.
	The Russians are saying three.
	There's a reporting of four or five.
	This is a pretty good op.
	I mean, whether it's wise or not, but it's a good op.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	It's a very impressive operation.
	It's also dangerous in terms of the nuclear balance between the United States and Russia.
	Yes.
	There is no way the Russians will believe that either the British or the Americans were not involved in planning and executing this.
	Wasn't there a truth social from Trump that you could read it to think, oh yeah, maybe he knew?
	Something like that.
	No, the White House is absolutely denying that they had any idea.
	The White House is denying that they knew about this because for them to admit to knowing about this would be insane.
	But aren't the Americans providing all of the intel that lets Ukraine do anything?
	The Americans, the British and the French are all providing intelligence in different ways.
	Ah, so actually it could have been so that they might have been relying on the French or the British for this one.
	Conceivably.
	Right.
	Conceivably.
	From a risk management perspective, the Russians have to believe that the Americans were involved, and they have to plan some way of retaliating, and they wouldn't retaliate against the U.S. in an open manner.
	The most likely people to be targeted are therefore the French and the British, and I would argue the British more so than the French, because British intelligence is up to its neck in the Ukraine war.
	And they and the French have taken the most hardline positions there.
	Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
	So what kind of target?
	I mean, a mine on a British destroyer or something?
	Conceivable.
	I mean, there's always been reporting of a relationship between the Russians and the Yemenis, the Houthi in Yemen.
	And that would be part of the Russian response to the activity in the Black Sea.
	They would retaliate in the Red Sea.
	Both sides would have plausible deniability.
	So that's one possible area.
	Another possible area is to, you know, send a truck full of drones and say that it was the Palestine Action Front that was attacking a factory producing F-35s.
	Or use one of these various far-left loony groups that are operating in Britain and support them to conduct some kind of sabotage attack against energy, against shipping, against aviation.
	Something sort of to extract a similar price.
	Yes.
	So you'd send in an operative to basically take these useful idiots?
	Skill them up, provide a bit of equipment, then disappear, let them do it.
	And the intelligence services, they know that this was a retaliation, but it's not provable.
	Everybody would know that this is happening.
	Yes.
	But nobody would admit that this is happening, because admitting it imposes on you a responsibility to respond.
	So you don't admit.
	That you know that it was the Russians.
	The other part to think about is that the normalization of the use of drones and civilian containers in this way means that anybody else can do it now.
	I was thinking that you drive a truck into like St. James's Park just behind Downing Street, Whitehall.
	I mean, if the IRA could fire a motor into the number 10 back garden back in the 70s from...
	You know when the cabinet meetings are, you know which window they're through.
	You could fly drones with that, no problem.
	So, not to encourage this, not to support this, but to say that when you cross these lines, it encourages others to cross these lines.
	It comes with a price.
	It comes with a risk.
	It's not that you do this once and then, okay, you're happy and nothing else is going to happen.
	It's that when you cross these kinds of lines, there are consequences.
	The consequences will be hidden from our view.
	We won't know exactly what's happened.
	People in the intelligence services will know.
	They will decide what to say to the public and what not to say to the public.
	And they will decide how to weaponize the narrative.
	Because we see Keir Starmer saying, there's going to be this massive defense expansion, we're going on a war footing, we're getting ready to fight, we know that Whitehall is thinking about conscription, we know that they're thinking about how are they going to use reserves, how are they going to use reservists, etc.
	And then you do something like this and you hit a key part of the Russian nuclear triad and then you say, well, why...
	It's always very difficult to know if they actually were the Russians because Russia gets blamed for almost everything that goes wrong.
	Probably some of them were.
	So the poisonings and the assassinations, yes, odds are they were.
	The guys that were supposedly going to see a cathedral in Salisbury and then ended up poisoning a guy and his daughter with Novachuk.
	Yeah, that was, you know, Novachuk only comes from a certain number of places.
	Let's not forget the Polonium 210 in Alexander Litvinenko's system.
	Let's not forget that.
	Let's not forget that.
	Although it didn't happen in Britain, though.
	I thought it was a teapot in a hotel in London.
	Was it?
	I think so.
	I might be getting the details wrong, but...
	Okay.
	So you see this kind of dynamic going on, and then you see equally dangerous things with the Estonian military, of all people, who don't have a navy, seizing a Russian ship.
	In the Baltics in April.
	And then you see a response to that.
	I think this one was the ship that was seized in April to try to stop Russia from exporting oil to sort of enforce the sanctions militarily on Russia, essentially.
	And then the next time the Estonians did this, the Russians sent in a jet, an Su-35, into Estonian airspace.
	To make sure that nobody would dare touch their tankers.
	So you're seeing the Baltic states as well as Ukraine escalating this conflict in a way that risks drawing in the big players.
	That is the fullness of NATO officially as opposed to by giving aid to Ukraine.
	And you see this kind of gambling mindset by two-bit players like Zelensky, like the Estonians, like the Lithuanians, Who are risking everybody because they don't like Putin and they have a problem with the Russians.
	When really, if you're stuck next to a giant like Russia, it's very unwise to provoke it because even if the big allies come in and help you, the war will happen on your territory with your people as cannon fodder.
	Mind you, Zelensky seems to have no problem using all of his people as cannon fodder.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	So this risk-taking is very dangerous.
	And actually, this war has made Zelensky incredibly rich.
	Yes.
	It depends which Estonians you're talking about.
	Some of them might do incredibly well out of a war.
	Yes, absolutely.
	But at the end of the day, hitting some Russian jets...
	So the Russians are...
	Still a big number.
	Which is still a very significant number.
	Which is still a very significant number.
	But, A, it doesn't do anything to their industrial capability.
	They can build more of them.
	And they will be newer and better and better equipped, etc., etc.
	And, B, it means that they must commit to the war completely.
	So we saw yesterday negotiations happening in Istanbul, as ordered by Trump, and as Trump keeps on insisting that they must have negotiations and end the war.
	Yes, that was a crazy thing, because it was...
	One day.
	One day before the peace talks.
	And you see this as the Ukrainians saying, well, okay, we're not interested in the negotiations.
	And if you look at the official positions on the two sides...
	They've taken this territory.
	They're not going to give it up.
	And they're seeing that they will insist on joining the EU and NATO, which is the initial cause of the war as far as the Russians are concerned.
	The Ukrainians are not even conceding Sevastopol.
	And insisting that Crimea will also be theirs.
	Okay.
	And all they're offering is some sanctions relief conditional that the Russians also pay some compensation for the war.
	This is Monty Python and the Black Knight at this point.
	More or less.
	Whereas the Russians are saying that absolutely not.
	These territories will be ours.
	The Ukrainians must be disarmed with enormous limits on the Ukrainian military in terms of size and equipment.
	And the Ukrainians must maintain neutrality in perpetuity.
	And NATO and the EU must give written guarantees to that effect.
	So the positions of the two sides are extremely far apart.
	Well, the positions might be different, but the Russians can probably get what they want by just continuing the war.
	So there is a realistic political objective for the Russians to pursue, which is to keep fighting the war until the Ukrainian military breaks, or until they reach Kiev.
	And now they're launching an attack from Sumy, and that gets them much closer to Kiev and overstretches the Ukrainian forces.
	For the Ukrainians, there is no realistic objective for them to pursue.
	That's the most important point.
	And they tried invading Russian territory in Kursk.
	If they'd taken Kursk, that would have made no difference.
	But they got kicked out, and they got completely defeated, and it cost them a huge amount of territory in the Donbass itself.
	They've been bloody tenacious.
	Absolutely.
	A lot longer than I would have thought.
	And they are doing things that risk the safety of their backers.
	That's what I think is the most important point.
	There is a level of recklessness in the pursuit of this war that's really, really dangerous.
	Shall we read a couple of the comments?
	Yes, sure.
	All right.
	So, O...
	A weak and imploding Russia propped up and controlled by China isn't in anyone's interest.
	At the start of this conflict, I wrote a piece saying, imagining Russia defeated.
	And it is much worse for Russia to be fully defeated and to become a complete Chinese Liebenstraum than for the Russians to win the war.
	And then from Alex Adamson, this is a comment for you, Bo.
	Hello, Bo.
	What's the update on my request to cover Sharp on the site?
	I've almost finished reading the books since last I asked.
	Four hours left on Sharp's Devil, and that's it.
	Okay, whatever that is.
	Okay, yeah, I would, I'd love to, first of all, I'd say, There's loads.
	There's like 20 plus.
	I would do that.
	I will do that.
	Maybe, sure.
	Maybe with Luca or something.
	I mean, there's always a bit of a backlog going on.
	So even if I started on it now, you wouldn't actually see it for weeks and weeks and weeks.
	But I would love to do that.
	I want to do that.
	I will do that.
	But you won't see it.
	Do it in costume.
	Yes.
	That would be awesome.
	I get the actual green jackets.
	The sharp green jackets.
	So, yeah, hopefully I will do that, but you won't see it any time soon, so I'm afraid.
	Okay.
	And then from the engaged few, I think Ukraine attacked aircraft that were fitted to carry and launch the Kinzel hypersonic.
	Yes, but they are also nuclear capable.
	So these weapons systems can fire both conventional and unconventional.
	And then there's a couple of comments about Dank.
	Just distract Dank's boys with sheep.
	Default victory.
	No, that's Welsh, not Scots.
	Maybe Scots is, but I don't know.
	And from BasedApe, when are we fighting Danks boys?
	Watch out for headbutts and eye gouging.
	Scots fight dirty.
	Their weakness is food.
	Throw tactical Mars bars to distract them.
	I will find what a strategic Mars bar is and I will use it.
	A weapons-grade deep-fried Mars bar?
	Yes.
	Okay, could I get the mouse?
	Oh, yes.
	Oh, alright.
	So is this all my stuff?
	I think so.
	Definitely not mine.
	All right.
	All right.
	So I thought we could talk a little bit about Taiwan because at the weekend or a few days ago now, Pete Hegseth made some comments about Taiwan, basically saying, speaking to a bunch of people in the sort of American military establishment, saying, you know, let's not forget Remember, the Chinese do still want Taiwan.
	I think the Chinese line, or I saw a senior Chinese official saying, yeah, we want reunification.
	That's how they talk about it.
	The Chinese talk about it as reunification.
	They don't recognise Taiwan.
	In fact, actually, most of the world doesn't formally, legally recognise Taiwan.
	The official position of the United States and Britain is that Taiwan is part of China.
	Since the 70s, I think.
	That's the official position.
	but we'll still use the Pacific Fleet to defend them if we need it so it's a funny sort of I don't I don't We can see that Taiwan is part of China, but also we might go to war to stop you getting them.
	Yeah, it is a bit of an odd situation.
	Well, it's part of the post-World War II US military paradigm.
	We'll keep massive bases in Germany forever.
	Who knows?
	We'll defend South Korea against North Korea forever.
	We'll defend the right of Taiwan to be independent from the CCP.
	Forever?
	I don't know.
	Yeah, it's still all part of that, right?
	It feels like they're walking it back, like the Chips Act and a whole bunch of things.
	Like, they need Taiwan because of the chips.
	Well, no, we can say that now.
	why not say that now so in most people might know that in Taiwan they build sort of 80-90% Microchips are semiconductors.
	They're the best at it.
	It's not only have they cornered the market, but they are also technically the best at it, apparently.
	Which I find is a tiny bit weird.
	It's like something from an Isaac Asimov novel or something.
	There's this planet, and there's this one country that's got one company in it that all the world fight over, this one company.
	But there you go.
	So here's the weird part.
	The machines that make the chips don't come from Taiwan.
	And the designs of the chips do not come from Taiwan either.
	But the actual fabrication of the chips is pretty much almost monopolized, 80-90% by Taiwan, especially for the highest high-end chips.
	So the smallest 3-nanometer and 5-nanometer chips.
	So they make the best ones, but they don't design them, nor do they build the machines for them.
	And the machines are built by a Dutch company.
	the lithography machines, whereas the, what do you call it, the designs are largely American.
	The Koreans are also a player, and now the Chinese are breaking into this market and are sort of developing their fully integrated capability to build everything from the machines down to the It does make sense.
	There's a company, TSMC, it's called.
	It just makes me think, when you hear about this, why haven't all the biggest players in the world, the US, China, even advanced places like France and Britain, especially somewhere like America, you've got tons and tons of money and research and development, and why would you rely on one Taiwanese company?
	But there you go, that's where we are at the moment.
	Massive capex, I'd imagine.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Yeah, it is.
	When Biden tried to get them to move the chips, the chips manufacturing, he filled the bill in question with so much DEI BS that TSN couldn't actually implement it.
	And it's a big hot mess.
	So that's one element, perhaps a very crucial element, is the...
	But let's just see what Higgseth actually said.
	Credibly preparing to potentially be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
	It's public.
	That Xi has ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027.
	The PLA is building, the military needed to do it, training for it every day, and rehearsing for the real deal.
	It goes on in that vein, but you get the idea.
	So just to say it's sort of been in the news a little bit, like everyone from the BBC on down, I mean, I've been hearing this my whole life, more or less.
	I mean, he said not till 2027, but it could be imminent.
	I mean, Al Jazeera saying there.
	China saying, don't play with fire.
	Sabre rattling there.
	The Telegraph goes.
	It's all over the news.
	Of course, the Guardian go with his cowardice.
	Trump's cowardice.
	But still.
	So this is something that I always find fascinating.
	The way in which the left and the far left have become the biggest warmongers.
	The idea that today saying, look, the Chinese are a great power.
	They're going to have their sphere of influence.
	Let's figure out a way to work around this.
	The Russians are a great power.
	Let's figure out how to work around their sphere of influence.
	That has become the right-wing position.
	And even the far-right Putin-Shill position, as people often get called.
	Whereas the leftist position is the existing liberal order, which only happened through a bizarre series of historic accidents, must be maintained even if we have to risk nuclear war.
	So they're quite pro nuclear war these days isn't it these days they're these days they're pro anything that destroys So there's been this shift in the discourse, and it's really incredible.
	It is.
	It honestly is, isn't it?
	Well, I mean, so just a couple of minutes, just talk about the people that might not know.
	World War II comes along.
	They decide eventually they have to make common calls and fight the Japanese.
	They do boot them out.
	I mean, the Japanese got nuked in 1945.
	But then they go straight back to war with each other.
	And it's in 1949 when Mao wins.
	And that's when Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Nationalists, retreats to Formosa.
	The island, or Taiwan, what we call Taiwan today.
	And that's sort of, it's been that way ever since.
	What's the origin of it?
	I didn't know the origin of it.
	Yeah.
	It's the dissident Chinese.
	What, the more capitalist side is it?
	Well, yeah, Taiwan today is a democracy, a republic.
	Well, the Chinese pretend they're a republic, but of course they're a one-party system.
	But in Taiwan, it actually is sort of a republic.
	It's got a democracy and stuff.
	And yeah, their open economy is booming, relatively booming.
	They're not Han Chinese as well, are they?
	Well, I don't know about the ethnicity side.
	They are very much Han Chinese as well.
	I like to think of them as the real Chinese.
	They're Chinese.
	They're not Taiwanese.
	They're Chinese.
	Yes.
	The other ones on the mainland, they're commies.
	They're just the communists.
	Their official name is Republic of China.
	Yeah, yeah, right.
	The name of Taiwan is the Republic of China, whereas China-China is what refers to itself as the People's Republic of China.
	And whenever peoples is inserted...
	In the same way that North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, whereas South Korea is just the Republic of Korea.
	I'm a Taiwan stan.
	I stan for Taiwan.
	So, okay.
	And ever since then, like the Americans back in the 40s, 50s, 60s had a big garrison on Taiwan.
	They pulled out in the 70s, I believe.
	But still, they say, It's not the official position.
	It's the implied position.
	Right.
	It's the implied position.
	So Biden got into trouble for saying it.
	Yes, he did, didn't he?
	Biden got into trouble for saying it.
	The big issue is for the Japanese.
	Well, we'll get into that in a second, if that's all right.
	I'll just say, but to build on that point, I mean, to this day, I mean, even at the moment, in the last day or two, they sent like the USS Nimitz, one of their big aircraft carriers, through the...
	A very, very clear message that we will use our navy if needs be.
	I think the HMS Prince of Wales also is in that part of the world as well.
	So, I hope it doesn't happen.
	And actually, if I actually had to...
	I don't think the Chinese will invade with boots on the ground Taiwan anytime soon.
	They might do it at some point.
	I mean, their line is, we want unification, whether peaceful or non-peaceful.
	That's sort of their line.
	But they're quite cautious in terms of having foreign adventures, aren't they, the CCP, in recent decades.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But let's just talk about what if it did happen and the global repercussions of it all.
	Because it wouldn't just be Chinese troops versus Taiwanese troops.
	It would very, very quickly spiral, wouldn't it?
	I mean, there's just sort of no doubt about that.
	So just on the grandest level, first and foremost, talk about the South China Sea.
	And so most people have paid any attention to the news over the last few years.
	We know that China is So there's the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.
	Look, there's a Paracel.
	That's Taiwan right there.
	Who controls the Paracel Islands?
	Increasingly China has built up a bunch of military bases there.
	Oh yeah.
	But there are competing claims between the different countries.
	They're coral islands, they're coral reefs.
	It's not like big islands.
	You'd have to make artificial islands to make them viable then.
	Spratly Islands again.
	Which they're making.
	Not a million miles away.
	Because what you want is just enough to put an airstrip on it.
	Yeah.
	Then it's important at that point.
	So, sorry, go on.
	And if you shut down the South China Sea, I mean, that has much bigger implications because not only are you losing the semiconductors, you're losing the electrical supplies coming out of South Korea, which is vast.
	But also the implications for China is serious because they've got a hell of a lot of manufacturing in the South China.
	And if the South China Sea gets shut down and all those exports get shut down, you've got...
	So shutting down the South China Sea is no small thing.
	So there's a couple of things here.
	From China's perspective, what they're doing is defending the main maritime route that they depend on for the supply of food and fuel.
	They get their oil from the Middle East.
	They get food from pretty much all over the world.
	One of the key routes is the South China Sea.
	I think it was either Vietnam or the Philippines that started the game of claiming islands, and I think they began it in the late 70s.
	The Chinese took a while to get there, but when they did get there, they did it with such gusto and with such competence that it quickly became a huge issue.
	Right.
	Because they did it at a scale, everybody else was claiming maybe one, maybe two islands, and then the Chinese just sort of built 10, 15 airstrips.
	And that's it.
	One of them is Woody Island.
	Right.
	Where they built it, I think, completely from scratch.
	Yes.
	It's like a sandbank, essentially.
	And they build this on it with an airstrip.
	And so, on one level, you can sort of see, well, it's their backyard, in a way.
	America wouldn't have anyone else being involved in certain parts of the Atlantic Seaboard, for example.
	So it's China Sea in various ways.
	But from the point of view of the Pentagon, the State Department, the Chiefs of Staff, the President of the United States, all American foreign policy, they're not happy with it.
	They're not happy with it.
	They see it as just straight up aggression.
	Yep.
	And so that's why they will send...
	A lot of it still.
	The South China Sea is a gigantic bit of the Pacific.
	So you can sort of sail aircraft carriers around and say, no, you can't get annoyed at us, China.
	We're allowed to sail here.
	But China hates it.
	They hate it when the West...
	Or the Nimitz is sailing around the South China Sea.
	They don't like it.
	So tension is certainly rising.
	Or has been slightly pitched up a little bit since recently.
	But what Hegs said there, I think is really interesting, is that the Chinese military, in lots and lots of different ways, has been designed as if it's going to attack Taiwan.
	Yes.
	In lots and lots of different ways.
	And training for it.
	Because as I understand it, I've never been to Taiwan, but as I understand it, it would be quite a difficult place to say.
	It's quite mountainous.
	It's not easy terrain.
	It's not like southern France or Belgium or something.
	It would be quite a tough call.
	And the coastlines are not particularly easy.
	Oh, there's HMS Prince of Wales there.
	We're still going around pretending in the shadow of a much, much bigger bully.
	Yes.
	Poking our head around from behind him.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Do as you're told.
	What is that even supposed to be?
	That's an aircraft carrier.
	Yeah, that's our preeminent aircraft carrier.
	Well, it's more that the American ones are gigantic.
	Like, the Nimitz is ridiculously big.
	But, yeah, in comparison, it's a lot smaller, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	A lot smaller.
	No doubt about that.
	And the sort of aircraft coverage experience.
	It doesn't work.
	They tried to send one of the two to help police the Red Sea, and they couldn't do it.
	Yeah.
	And so it doesn't always work, shall we put it this way?
	It doesn't always work.
	Right.
	Which is slightly embarrassing.
	Let's play this, but just without any audio.
	So there's some Chinese bombers and an AWACS plane, right?
	Yeah.
	That's an AWACS plane up the top there.
	And just that picture, that's Woody Island, I believe.
	So again, the Chinese are sort of showing, a little bit showing their hand.
	They know we'll have satellite, the Americans, we'll have satellite imagery.
	Yeah.
	We'll put some big bombers out there.
	You know, it's the game that's being played.
	Quick question, if I may, to you for us.
	In the first segment, we're talking about how there's this balance between the Russians and the US on the amount of strategic capability they have.
	Are China part of any of those?
	Not yet.
	There has been talks about signing a treaty with China so that they also, the US, China and Russia all manage their nuclear capabilities together with a view towards having visibility.
	But until that happens, China's just, And they have a disadvantage in terms of number of nuclear weapons, but they are redesigning and upgrading those at a pace that is much faster than anyone else.
	So the Chinese nuclear capability is the only one that is growing extremely rapidly, but from a low base.
	I see.
	And it is going to end up becoming perhaps the most modern, or second only to Russia's, in terms of the most modern.
	So this is a very, very dangerous game that's being played here.
	And the Chinese have got a very good, pretty damn good missile program.
	I mean, they send stuff to the moon all the time, no problem.
	And they have a base on the dark side of the moon.
	Yeah, they've sent loads of stuff to the dark side of the moon.
	And nobody knows what it is that they're doing.
	Which seems to be an important detail.
	In terms of the weapons platforms that you can put there, you won't detect the launch and you will only notice something coming your way through the atmosphere.
	Not certain if it's just some meteor that you didn't pick up on or an actual nuclear weapon.
	So this is a bit of a game-changing thing that's happening on the moon.
	Yeah, so just to say that the Chinese Navy and their actual army All sorts of weapon systems are all geared towards if we might one day actually try and physically take Taiwan, we've got everything in our arsenal to do precisely that.
	Well, there's an implication in that.
	If they're designing their military to fight for Taiwan, and Taiwan is defended by the US, they're basically saying we're designing our military to fight the US.
	Which is also happening.
	They're nowhere near there.
	I think they have three aircraft carriers, whereas the Americans have 11 nuclear and 8 non-nuclear.
	But the anti-ship missiles that they have are very impressive.
	Some argue that they can't actually hit a carrier with them.
	We've seen that if the Houthi can hit a ship with a drone, then the Chinese will hit some ships.
	So that was one thing I was going to say.
	If it came to a limited war between the United States and China, let's not assume they're just going to carpet nuke each other's cities.
	It's a limited war over Taiwan and naval engagements in the South China Sea.
	I still think the US would win fairly easily.
	The US Navy is a beer moth.
	It's unbelievably big and powerful.
	So say one day we wake up and the Chinese have done this.
	They've used these barges with big bridges on them that could just sail up almost anywhere on the coast of Taiwan and start unloading tanks and armoured vehicles and thousands and thousands of men.
	We just wake up one morning and that's happening.
	And the Americans, I think of perhaps the British response to the Falklands, they take a couple of weeks or a month.
	They get the entire Pacific Fleet, or even more, they get their Mediterranean or their Atlantic Fleet, they get together and they do a giant armada of most of the US Navy.
	The Chinese can't stop that, short of nuking it.
	They'd start raining anti-ship missiles on these vessels.
	They've got defences for that.
	They've got some defences for that, but the defences almost got exhausted fighting the Yemenis.
	Or there was a serious problem with the Yemenis.
	That's one side of it.
	Fair point.
	The other side of it is slightly more important.
	50% of shipbuilding capability is today in China.
	And 0.0 something percent in the United States.
	With the rest being mainly in South Korea and Japan.
	So the only three countries that are building ships today are China, South Korea and Japan.
	At volume.
	India has some, Vietnam, US, etc.
	Italy and Germany produce a lot of luxury yachts.
	But the sort of regular run-of-the-mill shipbuilding, the Chinese have an enormously dominant position.
	And so if this becomes a long industrial war, the Chinese have big advantages.
	And the closer you push Russia to China, The more of a problem you have because one of them is a natural resource superpower and the other is a manufacturing superpower.
	So the only sensible policy is to try to separate them somehow.
	From the United States point of view?
	From each other.
	From the United States point of view and from Britain's point of view as also an aspiring maritime power.
	So I'd say there's two things there.
	There's one if there was just a window of a couple of weeks of whatever China's got versus whatever the United States has got in terms of military navies.
	Right.
	In those terms, I feel like America wins.
	If it's a much longer protracted thing, then yeah, okay, so China has got a much bigger starting manufacturing base.
	But look what America did in World War II.
	They pumped out an insane navy in a year or two.
	Insane.
	They could do that again if they really wanted to.
	I don't see any of this happening, by the way.
	Yes.
	But if it did, we're just talking hypothetically, if it did, if China went all out to build the biggest, baddest-ass navy it could and the United States did the same thing, I feel like the United States win again.
	Right.
	I don't know, but I don't know.
	Anyway, say this happened, because this is interesting, isn't it?
	That they're very, very clearly...
	If America, if one day the President and the State Department and the Pentagon said, we will not defend Taiwan, I feel like China would bounce across very quickly and take it.
	I think what they would do first is a siege.
	It's a maritime siege.
	So this image is fascinating because this is the various Chinese training exercises up to 2024.
	It's blatant, isn't it?
	It's so blatant.
	I wonder what they're practicing.
	And so across from each of those patches is a major Taiwanese port.
	And the most important one is the port of Taipei in the north.
	And so if you blockade that, you blockade a lot of the ability to import energy.
	And they have a decent oil reserve, but they don't have a decent gas reserve.
	And they've decided to shut down their nuclear.
	Because why wouldn't you when you're at risk?
	That's what everyone does these days.
	You shut down our nuclear.
	So this was the single most insane policy that convinced a bunch of people that the Taiwanese aren't willing to fight.
	So why on earth didn't the Chinese do this when Biden was in?
	because that was that was their opportunity well they Biden just went along with the And the establishment, or at least the Pentagon, the State Department establishment, want to keep the status quo.
	So they're like, no, go over there and say what every president has always said.
	Kamala Harris did a visit, didn't she, to Taiwan?
	The CCP said, don't go over there.
	Don't do that.
	And she's like, I'm doing it anyway.
	I think Pelosi visited them.
	Maybe I'm thinking of Pelosi, actually.
	Pelosi the visitor.
	So, It wouldn't just be the United States, as you say then, it would be the Japanese would find it, and the South Koreans would find it difficult to not get involved quite quickly on some level.
	And then, just the geopolitical thing, the Russians, how and to what extent are they going to stick their oar in?
	It would become, if not like a World War II style.
	World War III, total war.
	If not that, it would be a giant conflict quite quickly, wouldn't it?
	The US have a major naval base in Manila, which is not far south of Taiwan.
	Yeah, right.
	Well, the story of the Americans and the Philippines, how storied is that?
	MacArthur, I'll be back.
	I didn't say I'll be back, I didn't say I will return, I think it was.
	But yeah, the Americans and the Philippines, again, it's one of the American pillars of their foreign policy, of their entire world hegemon.
	Yes.
	is that no one mucks with the Philippines on our watch.
	And whether they'll sort of...
	Again, if the Chinese did do this in 2027 or whenever, Yeah.
	What would Trump and Rubio and Hegseth do?
	Do you think they would get together eight aircraft carriers?
	Would they kick off the war to defend Taiwan?
	I don't know.
	It'd be interesting.
	It would be interesting.
	It's maybe not really the right way.
	So there's just the implications of this could be big.
	And I think Xi, not that I really know the mind of Xi Jinping, but he does sometimes still talk about the century of humiliation, the 19th century, where the rest of the powers in the world, United States, Russia, Britain...
	Well, yeah.
	Yeah, the opium wars.
	Obviously, that's long gone now, but still, they won't have anyone else in the world tell them their business.
	Yes.
	If we want to take Taiwan, we're going to do it.
	Yes.
	That does seem to be his mind, sort of his headspace, where he is, and the fact that they consider it just sort of a renegade province sort of thing, don't they?
	That's what they consider it to be.
	And things like this, and all those barges with bridges on them, landing, trying to perfect the art of beach landings.
	The stuff is a bit ominous.
	Like what Hegs said, my point is, is what Hegs said there isn't pointless saber rattling from the United States.
	No, no, no.
	I don't think it's just sensationalism.
	I think there's a real thing there.
	I think these kinds of training exercises, the idea is to say to Taiwan that we can choke you off, you're better off submitting peacefully.
	You're better off just accepting that you're part of China, whether you like it or not.
	The alternative is a war that puts you in the same position as Ukraine.
	Because the Taiwanese economy can't function if the Chinese wanted to stop functioning.
	And because the amount of damage that they can do in terms of switching off the electricity, in terms of endless drone warfare, in terms of just constant bombardment and harassment, is going to be very...
	So the Thai will know what's going to happen if they come along peacefully.
	It's not like the Chinese are invincible, though.
	No, no, no.
	I mean, talk about drone strikes.
	What about a big drone on the Three Gorges Dam?
	You can't bring down something as big as the Three Gorges Dam.
	Well, you wouldn't think so.
	Yes, there's a solution to it.
	The dam busters?
	Yes.
	Corchum 316, 617.
	Yeah, no, they were quite successful.
	They blow up a couple of dams, no problem.
	But the size of that thing is so monumental that the number of attempts that you have to make against it is just...
	The nature of dams though, particularly that one, is that the pressures are so huge that you need only put a crack in it and the billions of tonnes of water do the rest for you.
	But anyway, talking about dam busting, perhaps it's for another day.
	I would happily talk all about the physics of dam busting.
	Fair enough.
	In fact, I did a bit of content about that recently.
	Okay.
	And so, er...
	So, alright, there's just that.
	Just a bit of an update on Taiwan and that it could be a flashpoint.
	In fact, at some point in the future, it probably will be a flashpoint, I would think.
	I hope to be proven wrong.
	I hope that last statement dates terribly.
	I fear it won't.
	Do you want to pick out one or two of the comments before we move on?
	Yeah, alright then.
	So, let's see.
	It's fleshing up and down for me.
	Arizona's TSMC plant will supply 40-plus percent of chips in the world, and I think I read about an expansion beyond this.
	When it starts operating.
	Right.
	When it gets built and starts operating, but there's been problems with that, yes.
	Okay.
	I remember watching a video about Taiwan's plan if the CCP invades.
	Basically, it would involve airstrikes against the Three Gorges Dam, killing hundreds of millions.
	Thoughts?
	Yeah, that would be a disastrous thing.
	Yeah, it'd be horrible.
	Yeah, millions and millions of people would be swept away.
	Bo, I think you're forgetting drone warfare, in particular USVs, unmanned surface vehicles.
	Ukraine has made a lot of them and taken out a lot of the Russian Navy.
	Yeah, there are naval...
	Yes.
	Yeah, no, good point.
	But again, both sides would be doing that.
	Yeah.
	If it came to an extended naval war between the Chinese and the Americans, well, both sides would be doing it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, so should we move on?
	There were a few more comments, I'm afraid, but we have to move on.
	Sorry about that.
	So, we have the rather interesting case of Keir Starmer and roguish good looks, boyish, pretty young boys who appear to have some grudge against him.
	We don't know why.
	It's a bit of a mystery.
	you can speculate i did a daily video on this trying to get to the bottom of um you know why it is that these you know very pretty pretty young men um Yes.
	Getting to the bottom of it.
	No, no, none at all.
	As to why they have this enormous grudge against the Prime Minister and how they seem to know where he was living and what car he was driving only a few years ago.
	That was the very first thing I thought.
	They said it was some flat in North London somewhere.
	And I'm like, I thought that that would be a secret, like a sort of a state secret.
	I don't know where the Prime Minister lives.
	But do you live, for that matter?
	These pretty young boys do.
	Because there's a flat above number 10, and you've got checkers.
	Oh, I know about 10 Downing Street.
	But where he used to live.
	Yes.
	Yeah, who would...
	shall we say?
	That, or just everything.
	Or someone told them.
	Or some intelligence.
	Ukrainian intelligence services.
	But they are all Ukrainian.
	That is odd, isn't it?
	Yes.
	That's odd.
	All of them.
	I think they might be Romanian or something.
	Romanian citizenship, originally Ukrainian.
	Oh, okay.
	So they're all Ukrainian.
	So Ukrainian, right.
	Yes, yeah.
	And are they, I know it's a bit of a sensitive, perhaps the most sensitive thing, but are they male prostitutes?
	Oh, goodness, but we couldn't possibly...
	Are we honestly not allowed to...
	What they are is male models.
	And there are apps that you can go on where if you're sat around on a Saturday night, you've had a bottle of wine, and you just suddenly realise that what you need right now is a male model.
	because you've got a watch that needs a male model.
	You can go on this app and you can summon...
	Ah, at short notice.
	You need some modelling.
	If you need some modelling.
	At home, in your home.
	Yes.
	And it appears that, well, we know that some of these very pretty young men Up to your taste.
	Looks like an ugly person, if you ask me.
	Well, maybe it's just a bad shot.
	I don't know.
	It's all very short term, so you sort of, you know, on short notice, you...
	Maybe get a discount.
	There is a photo of what he looked like when Keir Starmer was living in the other property and he was a lot more boyish.
	Very Owen Jones-ish he looked like.
	So maybe while they were going to male modelling jobs, because presumably they were busy, because they're very pretty.
	So maybe they were busy going to and fro all these male modelling jobs.
	And whilst walking the streets of London, they saw Keir Starmer coming out of a house and going into a car.
	Maybe that's how they know.
	It's happened to him.
	Yes.
	And his foreign policy isn't good enough for them, from the Ukrainians, and so they're taking revenge?
	Oh, I presume it's the None of this adds up.
	It is very odd.
	It doesn't add up.
	It's even stranger is that nobody in the media is asking about this.
	That's funny, isn't it?
	That these guys would be on these apps, would know where the Prime Minister lives, and would have enough reason.
	I mean, it seems one of them was the arsonist, and the others were accomplices.
	These are the allegations so far.
	We don't know that for a fact, but these are the allegations.
	But then...
	Was this an intelligence operation by a foreign adversary that decided that there is a strategic importance to an old RAV4?
	Or to a property in which he no longer lived?
	Or was this personal or was this...
	That's a very good question.
	What did they think?
	They probably, I would have thought, I'm guessing, weren't trying to actually assassinate him.
	So what are you doing?
	Why are you burning up his old car?
	Or a car that he's not in or anywhere near?
	So you're sending a message of some type.
	Why?
	You do get...
	Why?
	You know, I'm sure these young men have...
	He played cards with one of them.
	What?
	I don't know.
	Maybe that's something I heard that might be wrong.
	What possible way would a senior...
	It doesn't make any sense, does it?
	Look, I'm sure Keir Starmer has probably never met, you know, these very pretty young men.
	But, yeah, but...
	But maybe it might be in somebody else's interest to get the story to come to light.
	I don't know.
	There's some 4D chess going on somewhere.
	We have to speculate wildly because...
	It might be a denotis.
	Do you know about denotises?
	Yes.
	Do you think maybe that's going on?
	That's why the mainstream media is just not saying anything.
	Yes, but we're not covered.
	No one's been in contact with us, have they?
	No one's emailed us.
	Yeah, we can say whatever we like.
	Until we get arrested anyway.
	But yeah, so very odd.
	So these three pretty young chaps.
	Yeah, for some reason are involved in this way.
	And there's a fourth man.
	The fourth man?
	The fourth.
	Here we go.
	Fourth man arrested over fires at homes linked to the Prime Minister.
	What does this say?
	A fourth man has been arrested over a series of fires connected to the Prime Minister, Sakiya Starmer.
	The police have said...
	Oh, he's a Ukrainian as well.
	Is it Petro Potronok?
	No, no, that's not him.
	That's a previous one.
	We don't know what his nationality is.
	No, I'm pretty sure this one is Ukrainian as well.
	I read it somewhere.
	Oh, I don't know.
	Maybe I'll come back to them.
	But I got the impression the other one was a Ukrainian as well.
	But maybe I could be wrong at that.
	Yeah, so the last line here says the other fire took place on May 11th at the front door of a house converted into flats that was presumably associated with the Prime Minister.
	I mean, I do hope that the...
	I think his sister-in-law was living there.
	I might have that wrong, but I heard somewhere, read somewhere that...
	The Prime Minister's doors should not be violated in any way.
	You know, that is important.
	So anyway, for multiple reasons, and we don't want to be arrested, so we move swiftly on.
	A man's front and back door is his own private kingdom, sir.
	She'll defend it with his life.
	Yeah.
	No, it's super, super weird.
	It's super, super weird.
	Yes.
	Whatever it is, even if it is just some sort of to do with his personal life, even if it's just as simple as that, then, I mean, talk about the perfumo affair.
	This is actually bad.
	They're firebombing stuff.
	Yes.
	Like, it's proper, proper criminal things.
	It's not just a disgrace.
	It's not just embarrassing, personally.
	It's actually...
	I can't...
	I have a feeling there's going to be a huge amount of trouble in getting the documents for the trial.
	Yes.
	What are they going to say?
	What are they going to charge them with, exactly?
	In addition to the existing charges, what are they going to say?
	Will any of them take the witness stand?
	Yes.
	Somebody's going to ask, how did you know the Prime Minister?
	How will their defence lawyer argue their case?
	Yes.
	Because one of them is 21, and Keir Starmer has been Prime Minister for a year, and in some of these properties he hasn't been involved for several years.
	So if you do the maths, that 21-year-old would have been 17. And so there are ridiculous questions around this.
	Why would the Prime Minister need a 17-year-old model?
	If indeed he knows him.
	We don't know.
	The media should be salivating over this.
	The Times should be all over this.
	The Telegraph should be all over this.
	Let alone the sort of other media outlets.
	It is bizarre.
	And we hear nothing?
	I presume they haven't covered it as much as we haven't covered it on the basis that we don't want to be arrested.
	because Keir Starmer basically just arrests people who he doesn't like.
	And this one, I mean, you don't have to...
	And it is obviously straight off the bat odd.
	It's the only way of saying it.
	It just doesn't add up.
	I was going to disagree with you when you said it's obviously straight, but you went on.
	Okay.
	Anyway, so for this reason, I've taken a look at the betting odds for the year that Keir Starmer's replaced.
	Now, he's still favourite to leave after the next election, but the odds are narrowing of him leaving sooner.
	And for that reason, you know, we have to think about, OK, well, who is going to replace him?
	And here's Betfair with their betting odds of who's going to replace him.
	His fave.
	We're streeting.
	Oh, my God.
	Imagine Prime Minister streeting.
	Well, So I have put together, this is what I spent my morning doing, Labour top trumps.
	And, you know, I'll whiz through these.
	I don't want to spend too long on it, but I'll whiz through these.
	And you can tell me if you think we're sort of on the mark here.
	So I've done a card for Keir Starmer here.
	Are those numbers out of ten?
	Out of five.
	Oh, out of five.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	So he is experienced because he's head of the CPS.
	He's a barrister.
	He's been prime minister for a while.
	So he's got experience.
	Inselect, for Labour.
	These are also for Labour.
	Okay.
	You know, he's reasonably smart.
	He lacks imagination.
	Charisma, he doesn't have any.
	None.
	Probably should have given him zero.
	I think he should have included soul there and then give him a negative number.
	Yes, could have done that.
	Leftism.
	Well, he's a communist.
	So he's actually quite lefty as they go, even within Labour.
	So that gives us our baseline.
	And so this is Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary.
	The problem with Wes, right, is look at that majority, 500, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	That's tiny.
	Yeah.
	That's really small.
	He could lose his seat next time.
	Easy peasy.
	Yep.
	Yes.
	Almost certainly he's going to lose his seat.
	What is his constituency out of interest?
	Oh, don't worry about it if you don't have it today.
	I can look it up.
	Ilford?
	Yes.
	You know that one?
	Yeah.
	That's East London, Essex.
	That's my manor.
	Oh, right.
	Okay.
	Massive Muslim population, in other words.
	Or foreign.
	at least foreign it might be Indian Yeah, that could easily flip to Quite possibly Ilford.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Hilford's like Delhi.
	Right.
	Anyway, I've made the point.
	I've made the point.
	Subcontinent.
	That bit.
	So he's the favourite, but I think we can rule him out.
	Even though he has got a little bit of charisma and he can talk to camera and all that kind of stuff.
	Yvette Cooper.
	Very experienced.
	She's been a cabinet minister under Blair and Brown.
	She's been around.
	Reasonably smart, as a labour goes.
	Not much in the way of charisma, this one.
	She's looking more and more demon-like.
	Yes, she's made to red balls, isn't she?
	The inner demon has become more and more visibly obvious.
	Yes.
	She's got a decent majority of 6,000.
	She could probably survive.
	It's not great, 6,000.
	Back in the day, a small majority was under 20,000.
	But these days, it's a bit more competitive, isn't it?
	Yeah, that's what I would say.
	Yeah, 15, 20 years ago, I'd say 6,000 is decent.
	But not now.
	You could flip 6,000.
	Yes.
	6,000 could be flipped.
	Well, yeah, but not a lot of people are much better than that.
	I mean, we see how we go on some of them.
	But she's got fairly low odds.
	You make £12 on a pound bet on her.
	Also, I'd say she's a big beast, like a party grandee.
	That counts for a lot, right?
	Yes.
	So it's also about...
	Yes.
	So someone like Yvette Cooper, I think, I've got no special insight, but I think someone like Yvette Cooper will be able to get a bigger number of supporters within the party than someone like West Streeting.
	Yes, that's true.
	I would have thought.
	Yeah, I think she's a credible candidate on a number of points.
	Yeah, yeah.
	This is Dr Nima Parvini's top pick, Angela Rayner.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, I've got a prokonomism a score of five, a score of four.
	She should be, on a scale of five, she should be a six, no?
	Yeah, and you've given her an intellect of two.
	Why are you simping?
	She's a zero, obviously.
	She's a full-blown stupid person, right?
	I mean, she's common, so therefore she talks, you know, us labours, our care, that kind of stuff.
	Like, her political acumen, her ability to debate, all those sorts of things, are non-existent.
	I'll tell you why I gave her a two, is because she's smart.
	She's not one of those stupid people who think she's clever.
	She's one of those stupid people who realises she's stupid and knows when to shut up.
	And she has been doing that.
	Fair point, I suppose.
	And that was basically Parvini's argument, is that she's like now the creature of the Dark Lord.
	So, you know, she's kind of falling into line with that.
	She has got charisma, though.
	If you're into that kind of stuff, yes.
	If you're willing, yes.
	If you're working class, you think she's a proper.
	I don't find her charismatic at all, but I get what you mean.
	Some people will.
	Yes.
	Some people will.
	Apparently this played well, her going to Ibiza and throwing up a Roman to Alfvito and Rouse, or whatever it was that they were playing.
	Auslander Rouse.
	Auslander Rouse.
	I don't think it was.
	But anyway, whatever track they were playing...
	I found that, like, you're really throwing your political dignity down the toilet.
	It worked for the Finnish Prime Minister for a while, until it stopped.
	Yeah, until it doesn't.
	Oh, she was fantastic, wasn't she?
	Was it the Finnish?
	Yes.
	Again, the majority not that gigantic.
	And she's in an Islamist area as well, isn't she?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, actually, no, she was the one who was begging for support.
	The Pakistanis for their votes, yes.
	And actually, yeah, she might lose that as well.
	And she's Deputy Prime Minister, so she's credible.
	She's got low odds.
	Andy Burnham, he's not an MP.
	He's the Mayor of Manchester, and he's doing pretty well in that.
	So they'd need to shoehorn him into his seat.
	He's got executive experience.
	He's reasonably smart, as a socialist goes.
	He's been around for a long time.
	Yeah, he's got some...
	He can do the thing.
	He won't ever come across as charismatic charismatic, but he can do the serious statesman type stuff.
	He can do the Teflon Dave Cameron thing of appearing.
	Bulletproof.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So I think he's a credible candidate.
	Who else have I got?
	Oh, Rachel Reeves, the woman who wrecked the British economy single-handedly.
	I mean, she's wildly out of her depth.
	She should be running the finances for a bathroom fitters in Dagenham or something, not Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	Yeah.
	A decent majority there.
	The £12,000, she'll probably keep her seat next time, probably, you would have thought.
	If they get stuck with her, it would be hilarious.
	If sort of, of all of the big names that Labour have, she ends up being the one that sort of survives, it would be quite funny.
	There are some even funnier, but I do take your point.
	I feel like you're being generous with the charisma again.
	I don't see...
	They are scaled for Labour.
	Fair enough.
	I didn't know who this woman was.
	Yeah, who?
	Who the fuck is that guy?
	Who is that?
	I don't know.
	I honestly don't know.
	Education Secretary.
	She's got reasonably low odds, 30 to 1. I'm not sure I've ever heard of her before.
	That's telling, isn't it?
	Doesn't she have something to do with a women's portfolio as well?
	Oh, probably not.
	Oh, wait, I have...
	Oh, you bought that one?
	Yeah.
	Is that not her?
	I have seen her come up before a couple of times.
	Yeah, she is also, again, sort of an intellect and charisma vacuum type person.
	Just obviously a career party person and nothing else.
	Right.
	But Sheffield's got name recognition, right?
	No, most people...
	And I follow politics quite closely.
	Darren Jones.
	He's got reasonable odds.
	These are not the tightest, but they're contenders, and he's apparently Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which I think is what Rishi Sunak was before being propelled to Chancellor.
	So it's a route for people that they like.
	I've seen him talking on TV before, and he's...
	It's that classic...
	Just all that nonsense.
	Very much in the mould then.
	Just the same old, same old crap.
	Right.
	But apparently he's got a tech background.
	He was like the lawyer for BT or something.
	Okay, great.
	I mean, they're all lawyers.
	They're all either trade unionists or lawyers.
	Lisa Nandy.
	Oh, God.
	Only just eaten.
	Don't.
	Well, she looks like the sort of woman who would cause a scene in a restaurant.
	I mean, I wouldn't want to be sat next to her table because she's going to pick a fight with somebody or the waiter or something.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm being unkind.
	I honestly won't go into any detail about my feelings about Lisa Nandy.
	Suffice to say, I find a despicable, a despicable person.
	Right.
	On many, many levels.
	An actual fifth columnist type.
	Right.
	Yes, fair enough.
	David Lammy.
	God.
	Is the best outcome not a David Lammy versus Kemi-Baden or general election?
	It would be the funniest thing to happen.
	Yes.
	It would be hilarious.
	and I would pay to see that debate.
	I don't care what...
	I would do anything to see that debate.
	It would be the funniest thing.
	I don't think any of them could form a cogent thought and run with it.
	I remember when David Lammy thought that the black smoke coming out of the Vatican was racist?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	How could you forget?
	You also went on Celebrity Mastermind and got the lowest score that had ever been recorded.
	Some of the answers on that.
	Anyone look it up?
	On its general knowledge.
	It was like a comedy sketch.
	It really was.
	It really was.
	It was sort of beyond embarrassing.
	If the tactic of the globalists, or whoever you want to say, the cabal that's trying to destroy the West, if their strategy really is one of humiliation, to humiliate us, by putting someone like a dementia-riddled Biden in charge, to give us Lammy, to force Lammy on us.
	I would really buy that more, that it is a strategy of humiliation.
	Let's talk about Raina being just a straight-up stupid person.
	Yeah.
	Like, he's super low IQ.
	No general knowledge of the world.
	It's embarrassing.
	It's humiliating enough that he's the head of the FCO to make him Prime Minister.
	A few years ago, it was going on about how there were no police officers on the street.
	I remember that, yeah.
	Which was a legitimate complaint.
	And there was one behind him.
	Right there.
	Who was actually not there for him.
	He was sort of doing his beat.
	And this guy is just unfortunate.
	Just one last thing to say.
	Go out there and Google YouTube on Celebrity Mastermind.
	You will laugh your socks on.
	It is quite funny.
	But, right, he's got reasonable odds and he's got a decent majority.
	So he'd be sticking around.
	So he is actually a proper contender.
	Shabahan Mahoumad.
	Right, yes.
	She was an unknown until this government came in, really.
	She became the Justice Secretary and is responsible for things like, well, all of the things that you see that are going on with the justice system.
	That falls under her remit and that of nice Mr. A.G. Harmer.
	The fallout from the Southport stuff comes across her desk.
	The grooming gang's inquiry not happening.
	Also, she was the first female Muslim MP, apparently.
	Right.
	Interesting.
	Again, the majority, not No, not a good majority at all.
	No great charisma.
	65 to 1 odds.
	That's sort of really bad.
	This person is apparently on the...
	This one surprised me because...
	I think she did, yeah.
	Did she?
	I might be wrong, but I thought right in day one, Starmer took, or first week, Starmer took it away from a bunch of people.
	I think she was one of them.
	For a long, long time, I thought that she was a parody account.
	There is a Twitter account.
	Which basically uses a porn star's face and gives it an MP and says MP after the name.
	Right.
	A parody account.
	Okay.
	And I just mentally mixed up Zara Sultana with that account for ages.
	And at some point I realised, oh no, actually that's a real MP.
	Yeah.
	But she has a very strong social media presence and the young leftists love her.
	Yeah.
	So she scores well on charisma and leftism, but I didn't know she'd lost the whip, so...
	I might be wrong, but yeah, the charisma thing, I mean, maybe even geared towards Labour people and even in other people's eyes, still, I don't find her...
	Yes.
	She's really, really obnoxious.
	And I don't suggest that she does her hair like that again, because she's done that thing where she's pulled her ponytail so tight that she just looks permanently surprised.
	I mean, she's got the opposite.
	If I've got a receding hairline, she's got a preceding.
	A preceder.
	Yes.
	Very little room left for the face on the head.
	Again, a fifth columnist.
	Straight up.
	Straight up enemy of the people.
	Enemy of the state, essentially, I would argue.
	Disgusting person.
	But she makes the Betfair list, and it's not wild odds, 130.
	I mean, it's up there.
	Are they odds from the betting site, ones you've made up?
	No, here we go.
	It is from Betfair.
	Okay.
	I just took the...
	Whatever's in that column.
	Fair enough.
	No, fair enough.
	So someone seriously has looked at it and tried to calculate the outcome.
	Oh, no, no.
	That would be the arbitrage between backers and layers.
	Between stories again?
	The people backing it and laying it.
	Okay.
	So that would just be the arbitrage out between them.
	Okay.
	Jess Phillips, now this would be the funniest outcome because Carl would have to move to somewhere without an extradition treaty.
	You know Carl and I have a bit of background.
	I didn't know that.
	Carl moves to Buenos Aires.
	They used to date.
	No, not really.
	It was something else.
	The point is, if she comes in, Carl has to leave.
	She's not going to make it.
	She's totally losing her seat next time.
	I thought Emma John was even smaller than that, but she's going to lose her seat next time.
	Yes.
	Unless the party move her around, can they just do that?
	They can.
	I think they can just do that.
	They can do whatever they want in turn.
	They allocate the seating based on whether or not Central Headquarters likes you.
	Yeah, you do get people parachuted into somewhere.
	That's how Keir Stormer ended up parachuting into Holborn, right?
	Right, right, okay.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	They do sometimes do it, yeah.
	Can Carisma 4 out of 5, are you sure?
	Who thinks that?
	Socialists.
	This is scaled for Labour.
	Okay.
	Let's run with it.
	Let's run with it.
	Fair enough.
	This is a probably more credible candidate, actually.
	Sadiq Khan he's not But again, they could just parachute him into a safe seat, short notice.
	Loads of experience.
	He's actually quite smart.
	I mean, he's evil and he represents the wrong people and all that kind of stuff.
	And he's a fifth columnist and he's all about complete demographic replacement.
	But he is smart and therefore he's dangerous.
	His charisma is strong.
	Again, for socialists, he can do very well on camera.
	He's very good on interviews and stuff like that.
	He's pretty leftist.
	The reason I only put him up to three is because actually at some point his leftism veers into tribalism, but not for the British tribe.
	Yes, of course.
	His socialism is all just a front for tribalism.
	It really is.
	It very obviously is.
	If you look at the ex-account of Muslim labour, you'll see a near-perfect account.
	Near perfect overlap between the most leftist positions and the most pro-Islamist positions, and they sort of use that very, very effectively, and he's the guy who's mastered that game.
	I think he is probably one of the strongest, most credible candidates, so I think his odds are a bit high there, 65. I might back that, just because I think there's something in the odds there.
	Why not put your money where your mouth is, bang 20 quid.
	Sadiq Khan to be PM.
	Maybe I will.
	To be leader of the Labour Party.
	Not necessarily PM.
	If you think it's going to happen before the next election, I suppose that's by default.
	I had to mention, he's another credible candidate, David Miliband.
	David Miliband.
	I put his brother up on the left so you wouldn't confuse.
	This is always funny for me.
	So these two are brothers.
	They're both, you know...
	David is smart, urbane, good interviewer, calculating, serious contender, and his brother is an absolute prat.
	And these two went up for Labour leader, and Labour chose Ed over David.
	It was because of the odd way they did it, right?
	You could have a second vote and a third vote.
	And you tally it all up, and you just pipped him.
	Because the trade unionists wanted Ed.
	He's more lefty.
	And at that point, David was like, sod this, and he left and he became something big at Facebook.
	And now he runs...
	International Rescue.
	Yeah.
	So would these be the guys bringing boats?
	I think they're the Thunderbirds, aren't they?
	I don't know.
	But David Miliband, yeah, I mean, he's again got that Teflon thing about him.
	He was Foreign Secretary, wasn't he, for a while?
	He's been around ever since the Blair years.
	But I think, I might be wrong, of course.
	I don't know what's going on in his life.
	But I think he's ruled out ever coming back to frontline politics.
	Quite possibly.
	I mean, he'd be earning more money.
	Because Ed is in the Cabinet right now, right?
	And David isn't even an MP.
	I mean, it is bizarre.
	So again, he would need to be parachuted back.
	I think he's got quite tight odds given that, given mainly the thing that you said, that he doesn't want to come back.
	It's been quite clear.
	And he's making a lot more money and having an easier life outside of politics.
	So I probably wouldn't back that one.
	He's also a bloody red He's not like He is a full-blown Yeah.
	So it's not like David Miniband will come back and we'll have a good government.
	No, he's less left-gloving than his brother, but still, skilled for Labour.
	And then I just thought, I'll throw in one for...
	She's 11.5.
	I put her leftism down at one.
	I didn't know her majority was so small.
	Yep.
	Didn't know that.
	Should have known that.
	Wow, okay.
	So her odds are 11.5 compared to the Nige.
	His odds are only 3.3.
	He's got very low odds of being the next Prime Minister.
	Very high odds.
	Never mind, whichever way.
	Yeah.
	It's a decent bet.
	I mean, you won't get much back if you're money.
	Decent majority as well, especially given he was an outsider party.
	I put his leftism down to zero.
	Again, this is scaled for Labour because he's basically just a centrist who doesn't challenge any of the assumptions of the left-wing paradigm.
	Yeah.
	I left him at zero, which is to say, you know, not left-wing by Labour standards, but still dirty, dirty centrist.
	He is very charismatic.
	You've got to give him that.
	Interesting, there's the Movember clash going on in that picture.
	Indeed.
	He's pretty smart and he's experienced.
	I mean, not in Westminster, perhaps, but, you know, he's been in politics for a long, long time.
	I had to put his experience up and he's got a decent majority, so that's good.
	I mean, that is the thing about his charisma.
	We've, particularly, personally, I have thrown shade at Nigel a whole load of times, but you cannot deny his charisma, his ability to speak.
	It cannot be denied.
	I went to the Reform Conference, what, two years ago or three years ago?
	And people were up there, even some of the other big people, like Tyus and stuff, they get up and they talk and it's interesting, and we'd come, da-da-da-da.
	Nige comes in and there is a little bit of electric.
	And he does work the crowd a bit.
	He's very effective at that.
	Got to give him that.
	Got to give him that.
	So, before I close off...
	This is Bay Stop Trump's Rupert Lowe.
	Experience 5. Long business career.
	City banker.
	Chairman of Southampton FC.
	Led multiple financial and agricultural businesses preventing politics.
	Intellect 5. Sharp as a tack, this guy.
	Charisma 5. Left is a minus 5. Boom.
	I didn't know his majority was that small either.
	I knew it wasn't big, but that is actually pretty tight.
	Well, I mean, he wasn't expected to win.
	He wasn't supposed to win, but, you know, he got through anyway.
	And actually, his majority will be a lot bigger next time.
	I hope so.
	I think so.
	A very good constituency.
	Yeah, everyone says that.
	He's been a very good constituency.
	That seems to be the consensus.
	And his odds are surprisingly low.
	I mean, look at that, 42. I mean, that's lower than some of the people who are actually in the cabinet now.
	Yeah.
	So that is decent.
	So we leave that there.
	Have a quick look at any questions.
	Alexander Adam says, no, I can't read that because we will get arrested.
	T-Tone says, excellent segments this morning.
	This America appreciates you all.
	Thank you.
	Archbishop of Doan's, there was an arsonist at the PM's residence and the press can't be arsed to ask any penetrating questions.
	What a queer situation.
	Yes, it is very odd.
	Like you, I'm a bit confused.
	I don't know what's going on there.
	How queer?
	Right, OK.
	Have we got any of the video comments?
	The videos?
	Can we do video comments today?
	Somebody wake Samson up.
	Have we got the videos?
	We've got something else to do.
	We should read some comments.
	Can we read some comments?
	Okay, right.
	Okay, let's go to the comment bit.
	Do you want to read some from yours?
	Sure.
	Pick out two or three that you like.
	Very good.
	Baden von Warhawk, just because of the name.
	If I had to guess what's happening now, I'm going to say that Russia is not going to listen to any calls for a ceasefire correct and will accept nothing but unconditional surrender now.
	Yeah.
	As this is the second time there was talk about the ceasefire and they used it to strike Russia.
	One thing we can all agree on is that the war will continue.
	Yeah, more or less.
	Gabriel Syme.
	The drone operation is perhaps more valuable to Ukraine as a statement than the actual strategic results.
	Yes, good point.
	They have needed to prove for a while now that they are capable of fighting back to try and boost their own morale and dissuade NATO backers.
	It's not a lost cause.
	The impact on the battlefield itself seems minimal, however, so I would expect that the borders will continue to slowly shrink west in addition to whatever reprisals Putin comes up with.
	Yeah, very much in agreement.
	Yep.
	Do you want to do something?
	Yeah, just a quick one to say on your segment.
	Bleach Demon said, Bo, you are thinking of the M2829 Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system developed in 1961.
	Yeah, that's that bazooka.
	It's a nuclear bazooka.
	It does sound quite cool, doesn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, Flashpoint Taiwan.
	Let's see.
	Alan Fisher says, if you were to try to build a chip fabrication facility from the ground up, it would take years just to get the infiltration system for the air and standards needed to allow production.
	Right, I get that you don't build Rome in a day.
	Let's read a short one.
	Captain Charlie the Beagle says, we're 5-1-1 can't wait to see Taiwan take back control of mainland China.
	Yeah.
	Let's do it.
	Let's make it happen.
	I'll pack that.
	Chiang Kai-shek, let's go.
	And Pieta Harvey says, if Taiwan truly falls, the West might carpet bomb all of its factories to ensure China doesn't get any of its technology.
	I've heard that as one thing, that yeah, if China invaded Taiwan, maybe America would flatten that factory facilities up in the north near Taipei, just so the Chinese don't get their hands on it.
	I mean, it's not a crazy tactic.
	Anyway.
	Dan and Dank sweatily rolling around the ring says, We think that if it bleeds, it leads is true.
	Sensationism drives a news cycle.
	Then the papers will be all over the Starmer story.
	Funny that this also applies to the Savile and Epstein cases.
	I don't see the connection.
	Why on earth would they not want to publish such important and profitable stories?
	Colin P says, Yes.
	I've seen it suggested that these attacks on two-tier Stalin's properties may be part of the apparent drive for war with Russia.
	Oh yes, the Telegraph put out a story saying that Russia was behind these Ukrainian male models.
	What's the angle on that?
	They weren't able to find one, and they did say in the article we haven't got any evidence for this, but it's Russia.
	Right.
	There you go.
	So again, what's the angle though?
	Don't ask.
	Okay, got it.
	You have to accept it.
	Stop complaining.
	And Sophie Liv says, I'm going to be honest, I don't really see the attractiveness of these guys.
	Right, well, okay, let me explain it to you, Sophie.
	First of all, you are a lady, and I think you're a lady that likes gentlemen.
	I don't think that these pretty young men are going after...
	Yes, your intended market.
	So that's one thing.
	Second, the photos are them now.
	You want to think about how they looked four or five years ago when they were much more boyish.
	Very boyish.
	She also goes on to say, well, I always go watch lotuseaters.com for my eye candy.
	So there's that.
	Yes.
	Actually, I think she likes you.
	I think.
	Are you trying to pout?
	Yeah.
	Are you trying to do blue thunder?
	Blue steel, yeah.
	Poor girl.
	Poor girl.
	She's going to have to freeze frame.
	Anyway, sorry, I've waffled over and I'm ten minutes late.
	I'm going to be told off.
	Thank you very much for watching.

▲