The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1298

Nov. 18, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:58

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1298

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1298 on this Tuesday the 18th of November, the year of our Lord 2025.
	I am joined by the host of State of Politics.
	The host of State Politics.
	How's the state of politics going?
	It's good actually, you know?
	Yes, yes, all right.
	State of politics.
	State of politics, check out state politics.
	But between us, what do you think of your co-host?
	Who?
	What Bo?
	Bo's Bo.
	Bozo as well.
	Yeah, what?
	It's a decent chap.
	I thought you were setting up that shiva bloody video.
	No, no, no, I wouldn't do that to you.
	I wasn't even going to mention it.
	Brilliant.
	State of politics.
	State of politics.
	Yeah, Bo's alright.
	Yeah, state politics is alright.
	Check it out.
	You might like it, you might not.
	it's pre-based today we're going to be talking about um what are we going to be talking about uh Wild things in Parliament.
	Commandant Mahmood on boss mode.
	Pakistan, you're going to be telling us all about the virtues of Pakistan.
	Yeah, we've got to say thanks to Pakistan, haven't we?
	Yes.
	And Trump's 50-year mortgages.
	Not a fan personally, but well, we get to that.
	Right, so it's over to you and your broken links.
	Okay.
	So, recently, in the last 24, 48 hours, the Home Secretary, Shimana Mahmood, MP, has decided that the asylum system is broken.
	Whoa.
	I mean, it is.
	Big news.
	Whoa.
	Big news.
	It's broken.
	And it needs an overhaul.
	That's news, isn't it?
	Like, we haven't heard this before for the last 20 years plus.
	But she says she's going to bring in a whole raft of new measures to sort it all out.
	Right.
	And, well, the takeaways for me are, one, that it's just liars.
	It's just nonsense.
	And beyond that, even, I don't think, I don't have any faith that they actually implement most of this.
	And even if they did, it's one, just tinkering around the edges.
	And two, not what we want anyway.
	It boils down to more safe and legal routes.
	Boils down to ID cards.
	Oh, okay.
	Largely.
	So they're going to control immigration by controlling us instead.
	Right, very good.
	And just net more people in.
	More safe and legal routes.
	Controlling immigration by opening the floodgates.
	Let's make sure they don't cross on small boats.
	Let's make sure they legally enter by an aeroplane.
	Right, but let's give them a packet of peanuts and a refreshing drink on their way in.
	Yeah.
	And have no way for the Home Office lawyers to deport them because it's all legal.
	Oh, excellent.
	Okay.
	Fine.
	Okay, here's an article.
	The key takeaways.
	What we need to know.
	So refugee status to become temporary.
	There's lots of talk that we're going to copy the Danish model.
	But, I mean, it doesn't really matter anyway.
	If people are a chancer coming from the third world, they don't necessarily care.
	Danish model.
	Is that when you pay them to go away?
	Dane Geld.
	Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
	No, it's that in Denmark, apparently they made it that you don't ever, or not ever, but it's very much, much, much more difficult to become just a permanent right to remain.
	So it's always temporary at some point.
	It's got to go back.
	As it absolutely should be.
	You know, refugees, if your home country becomes stable again, like Syria, for instance, we had loads of people in London cheering and whooping and hollering that the Assad regime had toppled.
	Oh, go on then.
	See you later, mate.
	Yeah.
	Bye.
	Off you pop then.
	Bye-bye.
	Like, you don't belong here.
	Well, lots of Middle Eastern countries do this.
	I mean, you can go and work in like Saudi Arabia or, you know, UAE or something.
	You'll be a temporary citizen forever.
	So you go.
	Right, yeah.
	As it should be.
	Yeah.
	Which is normal.
	It's mental.
	Most of the world, particularly the developing world, have just got normal, i.e. based immigration policies.
	It's not even it's not even based though, is it?
	Like, you say it as if it's some like radical thing to be like, well, you can't permanently become a citizen here.
	It's not really based.
	It's just obviously that's going to subvert everything.
	It will subvert democracy if they get the right to the franchise.
	Subvert everything.
	Like it's just normal.
	Is it based to just not be suicidal?
	No, I suppose not really.
	Is it based to want your culture?
	No, it shouldn't be.
	There'll be a human rights law overhaul.
	And the second you actually look at the detail of it, it's not any sort of overhaul.
	That's not a correct word for this at all.
	They'll tinker around the edges of Article 8 of the ECHR.
	No question of actually leaving the ECHR.
	No question of that.
	They'll just put a slightly different emphasis.
	Look, the government will narrow the application of Article 3.
	Not good enough.
	Not good enough.
	You're not getting it.
	That's not what we need.
	That's not what we want.
	But also not necessary because other countries don't apply the ECHR in the way we do.
	They don't allow asylum applicants to stay with the nonsensical excuses that they give and the ways that they weaponise the ECHR.
	Other countries don't allow that to happen.
	So you don't, I mean, you could just not, you could just do nothing and it would be the same thing, just how it's interpreted.
	I mean, this was always the same case with the EU.
	I know.
	I know the ECHR was a different thing from the EU, but the EU would pass regulations.
	The rest of Europe would like treat them as guidelines and maybe do a bit of that.
	And we would just take everything as absolute gospel and gold plate everything.
	So, I mean, is this going to be the same with the ECHR?
	Yeah.
	Mental.
	Yeah, it's just milquetoast is not even the word.
	It's just nonsense.
	It's nonsense.
	We need to leave the ECHR, obviously, need to do that.
	Ending housing and financial support, yeah, to some sort of limited degree.
	Like they want to reduce the amount they're spending on hotels, but then just immediately just talk about, oh, we'll use bases, military bases and stuff.
	Again, no question of actually really just getting rid of them to save us money.
	No question of that.
	And there we have it.
	And there we go.
	New safe and legal routes.
	Brilliant.
	So all of it then, up to this point, is just bullshit, really.
	It's padding for this bit.
	Yeah, right.
	Brilliant.
	It's what it all boils down to at the end of the day is we're still going to flood you as much as possible.
	And I made this point on the aesthetic politics.
	Check out aesthetic politics.
	State politics.
	Last night we recorded a segment actually on this.
	And I made the point that they're saying under the changes, volunteers and community groups will be able to sponsor individual refugees.
	Oh, great.
	So they've allowed in a bunch of, I don't know, third worlders, Pakistanis, whatever.
	It'll be those people that will be like, well, yeah, I want my cousin to come, so we'll just sponsor him instead.
	Great.
	So people we never wanted here to begin with will now then be able to flood the country with more of their cousins.
	Because it says at the end of that there'll be an annual cap on arrivals.
	Well, I think you're exactly right.
	It will be 100,000 people and their cousins and second cousins.
	Great.
	Brilliant.
	And in Parliament on Monday, she ruled out any sort of cap anyway.
	Oh, so yeah.
	Oh, okay.
	So even the one limiting factor is gone.
	Right.
	Brilliant.
	Visa bans.
	Again, it's just so weak.
	Countries like Angola, Namibia, and Congo, if they don't take their people back.
	Why on earth they're not taking their people back already is crazy.
	But uh w we'll look at maybe an emergency break.
	Could you get more of a contrived uh bullshit phrase and that we'll put an emergency break on it, you're at why aren't we being held hostage by third world countries?
	It's just absurd.
	Yeah, no, we're not going to take our people back.
	Oh, what?
	Well, but please take your people back.
	Oh no.
	I mean presumably because these third world has no occupied positions like home secretary.
	Well yeah obviously yeah yeah and an increased use of technology ID cards.
	So more safe and legal routes and ID cards.
	Brilliant.
	And no cap.
	And no cat.
	Brilliant.
	Love it.
	So let's hear from the horse's mouth a little bit.
	400,000 have sought asylum here in the last four years.
	Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation.
	And over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived.
	To the British public who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair.
	It feels that way because it is.
	The pace and scale of change has destabilised communities.
	It is making our country a more divided place.
	There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority.
	But if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.
	So it's all just to stop anyone really getting angry about their country being stolen from them.
	But also the fact that they've not put a cap on it means that that entire statement is moot.
	She's like, oh, it's the people are angry with the rate of change.
	Yeah, okay, but you're not putting a cap on it, love.
	So the rate of change is going to continue, but you'll be like, no, shut up, because it's legal.
	And the way it will work is the Home Office will draw up some proposals that look good at the time.
	And then the human rights lawyers will go to work and systematize it and say, okay, and they produce these sheets that say, okay, if you're in, you know, whatever, Bumalia, these are the things you need to say on your application.
	They can't legally refuse it.
	So, I mean, under this scheme, you could have 20.
	I mean, we think we've got high immigration now at a million.
	There's no reason why an IGU couldn't provide us 20 million people a year.
	They can do that.
	And the other point I'd make is that is a brutal centre partying.
	You could roll a penny down that.
	If she ever shaved her head, she'd have a tan line going up the middle.
	I have no doubt about who we really are in this country.
	We are open, tolerant, and generous.
	But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must lead.
	To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
	Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country.
	As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels, shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
	Pretty certain there was just an outcry recently about what's been done under Labour taxis, you know, maybe?
	Yeah.
	What?
	I mean, this is just such.
	I hate the theatre of Parliament now.
	Like, I once engaged with watching these videos and I hate it.
	I absolutely hate it now because it's all theatric, it's all complete nonsense.
	You can't hate them enough.
	I despise this theatre.
	It's 100% messaging while they do whatever the hell they want to do behind the scenes anyway.
	Yeah.
	There's all this feigning of, oh, you know, the feigning of opposition.
	Shut up.
	Demolish the whole thing.
	Disband all of this nonsense.
	One positive, though, to take from it is the movement of the discussion, even if it's all bullshit coming from them.
	They wouldn't even be talking like this like a year ago.
	They wouldn't even be, you know, from Labour talking about, you know, trying to one-up the one-upmanship of who's going to deport more, who's going to be stronger on the asylum system.
	There's at least that.
	Well, so the thing is, you know, some people will poo-poo all of this as worthless and pointless.
	And it's such a, to build off what you said, is that this serves a purpose because it shifts the entire Overton window.
	You know, the dialogue is now, well, how many people are we going to deport?
	How are we going to control this?
	And that's normal mainstream dialogue.
	So whether they do something or not is actually besides the point because this furthers what we want in the end.
	Because this normalises the conversation.
	So when they fail, which they will, then someone else can come in power and go, well, they failed.
	We're going to succeed where they failed.
	We're going to do this.
	Oh, and actually some more stuff.
	And people will cheer it on because they'll go, yeah, that's actually what we want.
	And it's become the mainstream dialogue.
	I think there's actually a legitimate point in that because, you know, I remember back to the early 2000s.
	Now, before the year 2000, we were just a normal, sensible country.
	But after 2000, the main place where the dialogue was had was on things like BBC Question Timing.
	Nobody watches it anymore, but back then it was.
	And the lefties started this process where every time like a Tory came on, they just called them racist over whatever the thing was.
	It's racist, racist, racist, racist, racist.
	And the Tories basically become, they got Stockholm syndrome over this.
	And they got to the point where they kind of had, I mean, by the time they were, you know, certainly up to Boris Johnson, all they ever wanted to do was prove that they're not racist to the point where they've elected a, you know, a first-generation Nigerian immigrant as their leader.
	They're desperate to prove they're not racist.
	And that's because the dialogue was owned by the left.
	So if what you're saying is, I think you are, that now the dialogue is owned by the right, I mean, you might not get the benefits tomorrow, but I've already seen where this takes a country over a period of a couple of decades.
	Yeah, I mean, because even if Nigel Farage fails, right, which he might do.
	Oh, he will.
	Yeah.
	I mean, what comes after him is going to be very extreme.
	And they'll just build off this rhetoric and go, yeah, guys, they will all talk.
	We're going to do this now.
	And everyone will cheer.
	Everyone will want it.
	If nothing else, certainly the dialogue has moved.
	No one can deny that.
	Let's listen to a touch more.
	We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are.
	Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe.
	There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims.
	This is true despite an existing returns agreement and that Albania is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Yeah, so again, we're just not deporting people when they were rights, by absolute sort of legal rights should have been deported already.
	At least she's saying the right thing.
	That's something.
	Right.
	A year ago, that wouldn't have even been brought up.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Mention the ECHR here.
	While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself.
	There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights has contributed.
	This is particularly true of Article 8, the right to a family life.
	The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of this right, and as a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to.
	And we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming.
	So you hear something like that and you think, oh, that's good.
	Right?
	Oh, they've actually said that.
	So that's good.
	But then, again, once you really let them go on a bit further, you hear what it's really all about.
	Of providing refuge.
	We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hong Kongers.
	For that reason, as order and control is restored, we will open new, capped, safe, and legal routes into this country.
	There it is.
	There it is.
	And then a bit later, I think I've got it lined up.
	Someone asks her, What's the cap then?
	And she's like, Well, I'm not going to give you that.
	We're not going to do that.
	So, also a small point on Afghanistan.
	When the military evacuates a country, you're supposed to bring your military personnel out of the country.
	You're not supposed to bring everyone in the country with you.
	That's not how evacuations work.
	Yeah.
	That's also not something you should be saying in Parliament, considering the amount of Afghanis that are committing crimes against the natives.
	Probably not something you should be highlighting.
	Mahmood.
	And then His Majesty's leader, loyal leader of the opposition, stands up.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Home Secretary for advanced sight of her statement, most of which I read in the Sunday Telegraph, actually.
	But I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration.
	It's not...
	Wait, are you?
	Are you pleased about that?
	Also, why is she dressed like a Chavet in a pound store who's just left her trachea on?
	She's pleased now that there's stronger words coming out.
	It's funny because it's too long ago.
	She was proud.
	She's a first-generation immigrant.
	Can I welcome the Home Secretary statement, which I feel this immigration white paper is a move from the 20th century to a much better future immigration system.
	In particular, I'd like to thank the Home Secretary for removing the annual limits on work visas and also on international students, both of which I lobbied for on behalf of the Wellcome Sanger Institute and Anglia Russia.
	All right, so you changed your tune a bit there.
	So no conviction on it whatsoever.
	So no conviction on it whatsoever.
	I mean, here is another clip of her.
	We had a cap of tens of thousands when David Cameron came in.
	We need to ask ourselves why didn't that work rather than just enforce it?
	Something went wrong there.
	So it's not just a problem.
	Oh, something, just something went wrong.
	Throwing out targets.
	Something with the system.
	So I'm talking about the system.
	People who are throwing out numbers and saying, oh, well, we'll leave the ECHR and so on or giving you easy answers.
	That is how we got in this mess in the first place.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	That is such nonsense.
	Oh, well, we had a cap and it wasn't stuck to.
	Why wasn't it stuck to?
	Because you don't want to, obviously.
	Don't sit there and be like, well, we can't put a cap on things because it wasn't stuck to before.
	Oh, brilliant.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that makes perfect sense.
	God.
	Yeah.
	I can't stand these people.
	Yeah.
	I mean, someone had asked that last clip.
	Someone would ask her, what is the cap then?
	Or are we going to leave the ECHR yes or no?
	And she's like, we can't answer that.
	We can't tell you that.
	I mean, she can, but the answer would be no, and she knows that's not the answer that she can give.
	Yeah, right.
	And so after the statement, people get to stand up and ask some questions.
	Well, look at this butte.
	Their little Nigeria badge.
	Yeah, she's really going to help us.
	It's a place that's been made richer because of the people who've come here from all over the world.
	Literally, some of them have fled persecution and have made a home over many years.
	I meet these people every week.
	Oh, do you?
	Brilliant.
	Yeah, anyway.
	Such nonsense.
	No, I tell you what, I'll tell you what has happened.
	People have come here and made their homelands richer by remittances that we don't tax.
	It's not made us richer, it's made us poorer.
	That's a fact.
	On a slightly broader point, why is the UK Parliament a series of ethnic women discussing how many people get to come into my country?
	What is this?
	Well, because they don't allow anyone to have the franchise, don't they?
	So obviously, our democracy can be subverted by foreigners, obviously.
	Zulu sighted in the South West, sir.
	Thousands of them.
	Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are fair and sustainable.
	So we welcome some of what the Home Secretary have said on that score.
	But what is not helpful is the Home Secretary claiming that the country is being torn apart by immigration.
	Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.
	I will, however, welcome news about safe and legal routes.
	This is something that is the theme of this.
	On both sides of the house, it just keeps coming up again and again and again that they want safe and legal routes.
	Finally, we hear from somebody with a little bit of European ancestry, and his thing is that the ethnic women discussing this are not going far enough to let enough people in.
	Yeah, well, he's an effeminate douche, isn't he?
	So weak men in parliament now.
	Fairness to act with efficiency and to act with compassion for local communities in the UK who want this resolved, but also for asylum seekers, too.
	No.
	Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I have to say to the Honourable Gentleman, I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and asylum system is creating across this country.
	Unlike him, unfortunately, I am the one that is regularly called a and oh, oh, language.
	She means business, though.
	Language.
	She dropped an F-bomb and a P-bomb.
	She means business.
	Theatrical bonus.
	Actually, the Speaker did pick her up on that and say, apologise, because even if you're quoting someone else, you can't use that language in the House.
	And she basically said, well, I've said it.
	I will.
	Yeah, I've said it now.
	Brilliant.
	It's in Hansard now.
	But, yeah.
	So, okay, here's, again, gets to the bottom of it.
	Listen to this bit.
	What we won't do is set arbitrary targets or caps.
	Oh, I thought in your statement just 20 minutes before you said you would bring in caps.
	Because someone just asked a question: what is the cap?
	And she just said, we're not going to have caps.
	And we have learned the lessons of previous governments.
	What lessons?
	What lessons have you learned?
	Us being flooded, that lesson.
	I think that setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence.
	The better thing to do is to actually get on with delivering these reforms, passing the reform means nothing if you haven't set a camp.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I hate you.
	You cannot hate these people enough.
	You can't hate them enough.
	And here.
	To continue the UK's proud history of offering sanctuary while simultaneously reducing illegal channel crossings.
	The right way for refugees fleeing persecution should be through safe and legal routes that are subject to full security checks and controls.
	It's just that again and again and again from both sides.
	They're not getting it.
	Yeah, they're not getting it.
	They're not getting it.
	Sure, put a little bit more pressure on this lid of the pressure cooker.
	Try and keep it down a little bit more.
	Try.
	Try.
	It's going to blow up.
	It's going to blow up.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there would be general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system and that the government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel on small boards.
	But in what she says today, is there a danger that those people that we do actually need to come to this country legally with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap to keep our NHS working and to work in the social care sector will actually look at this country now and say, no, I don't want to go there.
	Oh, no.
	Well, to hell with them then.
	It doesn't matter.
	Who cares?
	We've sustained ourselves enough with that.
	This is absolute just detritus.
	I hate it so very much.
	It's completely redundant.
	All of these points, complete nonsense, so out of touch.
	You've seen this thing where it was reported that we would strip assets from the people that we're deporting.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And it had been reported something that we'd actually take jewellery off of them when we're deporting them.
	There was no question of that.
	But all the lefty commie traitors have jumped up.
	There are good, ongoing negotiations going in relation to return hubs.
	I very much hope we can thank the people to do so before then.
	That is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites.
	I know that will engage more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, and I look forward to that.
	But given that he's a member of a party that started hotel use, I hope he'll reflect on that first.
	Daniel Zeigner.
	Thank you very much, Speaker.
	I support my Right Honourable Friends' statement and particularly her announcement about safe and legal routes.
	She'll know that cities like Cambridge have a long tradition going back to kinder transport to welcoming people from Syria and Ukraine.
	And I very much hope she'll work closely with authorities like Cambridge City Council to work on measures that can make these routes work.
	I thank people in destitution.
	That is why we do make financial packages available for people to voluntarily remove the country and that will always be the case.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Speaker, in their manifesto, they were promised to defend migrants' rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity.
	Instead, what we have is a policy that's welcomed by Reform UK and that's even found favour with Tommy Robinson.
	From throwing refugees into destitution to denying any meaningful route to citizenship to forcible evictions, where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that people.
	It's toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to do with them.
	The chronic housing crisis, the running down of public services are not caused by migrants.
	They are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country.
	Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-reform reform is actually just boosting this baseless far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions when we urgently need leadership and ideas?
	Let me tell her, I couldn't care less what any other political party has to say about these matters.
	I don't care what other politicians are saying on this television.
	I don't care what other activists are saying either.
	I care about the fact that I have an important job to do and I can see that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed.
	If it was possible to pretend there wasn't a problem because there wasn't one, I wouldn't be saying there is one.
	There is a genuine problem in this asylum system, and we need someone to sort it out, not to pretend it doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is one of the things that fuels the division in the first place.
	My own constituents, since I have been home secretary, have been telling me directly of abuses in the visa system that they can see with the evidence of their own eyes long before any officials in my tour have ever clocked onto those things.
	It is a moral responsibility when you see something broken to fix it and to make sure that the fact that it's broken is not fueling division in our country.
	And let me also say to her, it is Green Party politicians who are absolute hypocrites because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituency.
	Single-digit IQ Greek MP, shut up.
	Everyone understands basic equation, you know, the basic equation of supply and demand.
	But when it's confronting them, you know, in relation to immigration, they conveniently always forget the demand part.
	They're like, it's just supply, guys.
	It's just supply.
	So some improvement on the rhetoric, but all I'm seeing here is a parliament full of traitors.
	Yeah.
	Effeminate douchebags.
	They're all about more safe and legal routes.
	And how dare you even notice that there's any sort of problem?
	They'll all be replaced if this keeps up.
	Do they not realize that?
	Like suicidal empathy.
	Do you not understand that your jobs will become untenable because you'll be replaced by some foreigner?
	Do you not understand?
	Do you not even want your like on the most basic level?
	Do they not have any sort of self-preservation instinct?
	I don't think they think that volume is.
	My God.
	As I say, the only positive is that it's just moving the conversation, isn't it?
	I mean, apparently, Nigel, just this afternoon, or very shortly before we went on air, I think, so I haven't actually got clips from it or anything, was going to talk about cutting foreign aid by 70%.
	It should be 100%.
	Yeah.
	And strip all foreign nationals of benefits.
	Which is nice.
	Again, it's movement in the right direction.
	And I think pressure from the online rights where they're now trying to, the Tories, Labour, and reform are each trying to outdo each other.
	It's nice to see that, if nothing else.
	It is literally mental that some foreigner can come here, work for 10 years, and then get a pension for the rest of their life.
	That's insane.
	That's actually insane.
	I think we're one of the only countries in the entire planet that does that.
	Oh, you can come here, work for 10 years, and then you get a pension.
	What?
	Well, you remember Nigel not too long ago, someone said, what does it mean to be Welsh or something?
	He said, well, if you've been here for 10 years and you've made taxes, who's five years?
	Oh, was it five?
	Five years brilliant.
	You've come here, been here for a few years, and you haven't committed any crime and you've paid your taxes.
	You're as Welsh as any Welshman.
	Well, of course, what we really need is just full mass remigration.
	In fact, it's inevitable, I would say.
	Some thought that that talking point, which now seems to be taken up across the house, some thought that that was just a far-right fantasy.
	But in fact, now all the main parties are trying to outdo each other.
	So, okay, I'll leave it there because I've used up my time.
	But yeah, it's annoying to see that our parliament is just packed full of enemies of sort of the nativist interest.
	But the conversation is moving to the right.
	You've got a couple of comments.
	And you know, those dreams where you suddenly realise you're walking around naked.
	I've just realised that I'm doing that.
	So hang on.
	You read comments and I'll sort the stuff out.
	Okay, sort your blazer out.
	Dawn Browning, Field Marshal Browning just gives us $10.
	Thank you very much for that.
	Big old something, it's cut off, I'm afraid.
	I know the British people are open and generous.
	Immigrants making it easier for immigrants to come every damn time.
	Yeah.
	TY for £5 says, you're overlooking the demographic change over time.
	I hope by the time people realize it's all talk, you won't have the numbers to change it.
	Yeah, definitely.
	That's definitely the strategy.
	Immigration filibustering.
	Arcadia for £5 says, as Starma looks shakier by the day, Mahmood is on maneuvers with an eye on becoming the next prime minister.
	This is why she's talking tough.
	Quite possibly.
	I mean, maybe.
	TY again for another £5 says, surely saying that we need to import skills highlights the inadequacy of the state education system, right?
	Well, I just don't believe it at all.
	We don't even have an excuse for it.
	Well, I just don't believe that talking point at all, that we have to import people because of their skills.
	And we just don't.
	We just don't need to.
	Okay.
	Well, a pile of crap.
	Anyway, thanks, Pakistan.
	We've got a lot to thank Pakistan for.
	Really?
	No, obviously not.
	In fact, actually, you should be thanking us, Pakistan, genuinely.
	So I thought we would start this segment with a brief history of Pakistan.
	So Pakistan exists because we effectively created it.
	So you're welcome.
	You're welcome.
	So Britain partitioned British India into India and Pakistan in 1947.
	If you want to jump in here at any point, our resident historian, please do.
	It's a decision driven by the failure of the Hindu majority Indian National Congress and the Muslim League to agree on a united India.
	Funny that.
	Inter-ethnic conflicts, isn't it?
	Pretty dumb to keep important both parties over here.
	It's interesting you've got a picture of Jinnah there.
	Yeah, he's sort of the main one of the main political forces behind that.
	You know, like Gandhi didn't want to break up in East and West Pakistan and India.
	But people like Jinnah sort of insisted on it, basically.
	But I mean, back in the early 19th century, we ridded that part of the world, Sin, from sort of the Indus Valley, whatever you want to call it, from the oppression of the Mughals.
	So again, you're welcome.
	The British Empire was far less repressive and oppressive.
	Quite altruistic.
	Than the Mughals.
	There was so much inter-ethnic conflict, they didn't really have a lot of choice.
	And that's the thing I worry about this country: if we leave it long enough, we get to the same point, and Britain will need to be partitioned into a Muslim section and a non-Muslim section.
	Highly likely.
	Highly likely, unfortunately.
	So basically, facing pressure to grant Indian independence, the British government concluded that a partition was the only way to resolve the political deadlock between the two major parties.
	The last viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, announced the partition plan, which split British India into a predominantly Hindu India and a predominantly Muslim Pakistan.
	So we create Pakistan.
	You are welcome.
	But this is how they repay us.
	So Pakistanis are, amazingly, the largest group of asylum seekers in the UK.
	So the largest amount of asylum applications are coming from Pakistanis.
	That's mental.
	They're not in a state of civil war, are they?
	Oh, we're going to get to their country in a minute.
	That's mental.
	That is insane.
	So there is over 11,000 claims in the year ending June 2025, making it the top nationality for asylum applications in the UK.
	Now, these claims have increased significantly in recent years.
	I wonder why.
	Though most applicants arrive in the UK on a visa rather than through small boat crossings, which are dominated by the nationality.
	So there's a lot of people that just come here and then claim asylum, basically.
	So they don't come here illegally.
	They just fly over and then they claim.
	So Pakistan is the most common nationality for asylum claims, followed by Afghanistan and Iran.
	Now I can understand those two.
	You know, I don't agree with it, but I can understand.
	You know, Iran, not exactly a great place, you know, not brilliant.
	I can imagine trying to claim asylum from Iran.
	Afghanistan.
	Again, I don't really want any of them here, but I can understand why some of them would want to flee.
	Logically, you're internally, you know, continuous.
	I mean, it makes sense on its own logic.
	Yeah.
	But Pakistan is a stable country.
	Oh, it's so stable.
	Oh, it's so very stable.
	So, number of claims in the year ending June 2025, Pakistan had the highest number of asylum claims in the UK.
	Literally, the highest number.
	With 11,234 claims.
	That is again insane.
	I'm going to keep saying that.
	The arrival method.
	So they basically just arrive in the UK with a visa and then they go, I'm going to claim asylum.
	So that should automatically be a rejection, obviously.
	Some more information for you.
	So as of mid-2025, there were approximately 317 Pakistani foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales, making it the second highest foreign nationality after India.
	Right.
	So data from 2022 shows that Pakistani individuals made up about 14,846 of the Asian offenders in the UK justice system with a 39% custody rate.
	Thanks, Pakistan.
	This is how you repay us for giving you a country.
	Sending us their best and brightest.
	So the custody rate for Pakistani offenders was 39%.
	That is the highest among all Asian ethnic groups.
	Brilliant.
	Great.
	Love it.
	In 2022, Pakistani offenders represented, I've covered this, 14,846 of the 40,861 Asian offenders in the justice system.
	We don't mean when we say Asian, obviously, you know, they're probably not lumping in Japanese people in there, just as an FYI.
	They're many Bhutanese offenders.
	Yeah.
	Well, I don't know.
	Maybe.
	Probably not a lot of samurai on that list.
	No.
	So they're not sending their brightest.
	We're not getting good value out of all of this.
	How stable is Pakistan?
	How stable is Pakistan?
	Do you think Pakistan is quite stable?
	Is it quite good?
	Is it looking like a good place?
	What do you reckon?
	I mean, they're claiming asylum there, aren't they?
	I know I said it is a stable country by the standards of what you would expect in that part of the world.
	I mean, not by the Cotswold standards, I wouldn't imagine, but well, they're stable enough to have a nuclear program.
	Yes.
	Do you know how much they spend on their nuclear program?
	I don't.
	It would have to be tens, if not hundreds of millions, wouldn't it?
	There's no other way around that.
	Oops.
	Yeah.
	It's fantastically expensive.
	Any guess how much a country that people are claiming asylum from spends on their nuclear program?
	250 billion.
	Let's go for that.
	Just every year.
	You think 250 billion a year?
	That's way too high.
	I'd still say £100 million.
	Oh, right.
	Oh, okay.
	£869 million.
	Okay.
	That's quite a lot, really, isn't it?
	They've got a space program as well, haven't they?
	Yeah, they actually do have a space program That this year alone, they've spent effectively 15 million pound on 14.9 million pound to be exact.
	It doesn't really matter that it's a little amount.
	Because we've given them quite a lot of money.
	Just gratis.
	Just aid.
	Just aid.
	We give a country that sends us their criminal filth, basically, as the numbers I've given you indicate that.
	And I've not even gone into the grooming gangs.
	Oh, I could have gone really deep on this.
	They're not state funding that as well, are they?
	Well, I mean, they effectively are, surely.
	If we're subsidizing a country and they're sending us these people that they then refuse to take back, I mean, we basically are, aren't we?
	We are funding them.
	Oh, yeah, that's true.
	But I mean, I could have gone really hard on this, right?
	I could have gone really hard on Pakistan.
	But I didn't.
	I was pretty fair.
	I was pretty even on this.
	Could have been way worse.
	Wild guess in how much we've given this country that has a nuclear program that they spend nearly a billion pound a year on in aid across the last decade.
	Just a wild guess.
	Do you think it would be hundreds of millions?
	Do you think?
	Yeah.
	Do you think?
	Have to be.
	Hopefully you've not seen it.
	Sounds right.
	Hundreds across the last decade, so like 100 million?
	Why not?
	More.
	A bit more.
	500 million.
	500 million, guys.
	500 million.
	Final answer, Chris.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	£2.3 billion.
	Just giving it to them.
	Just given in aid.
	Just given Pakistan in aid since 2015 to 2024.
	We have given a country that has a nuclear program and a space program £2.3 billion in aid.
	Right, and apparently we don't have the leverage necessary to get them to take people back.
	No, no, no.
	We have to get their people because asylum.
	So here's a radical.
	Asylum, we're at.
	Why don't we just say, we're going to stop giving you the money unless you take back all of your citizens?
	Yeah, we could do that, couldn't we?
	Because if we're going to pay anyway, we might as well get mass re-migrations out of it.
	Yeah, we could, couldn't we?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That'd be an easy deal.
	Yeah.
	They would just say, yeah, why then?
	I mean, we're effectively subsidizing this country.
	It exists on our money.
	I mean, if you want to be under rule again, by all means, just say.
	We have enough of you here.
	You know, if you want us to rule you again, then by all means, please.
	Wow, I suppose from their point of view, they can rule us.
	Maybe not.
	But they've already got the Home Secretary.
	Maybe that's what it is.
	They're going to get more and more of them.
	It's quite a simple question.
	We're giving them billions of pounds.
	At what point?
	And in return, we get loads of their sex criminals and violent criminals in return.
	Fraudsters, it's all manner of crimes.
	Doesn't seem like a great deal for us.
	Doesn't seem like it's particularly in our interests to be doing that, does it?
	I mean, on the face of it.
	If you're looking at it purely on a transactional basis, it's not a great exchange, is it?
	It's not a good value.
	It's not the best deal I've ever seen.
	It doesn't seem to be making us particularly stronger.
	No.
	So not only do we spend obviously billions per year on housing people, but we're also sending billions out of the country.
	Just to one country, remember?
	And I didn't even look into what I should have done.
	So SOS.
	I should have looked into how much money leaves the country in remittances to Pakistan, which would be amazing.
	Side note, if a producer could just quickly Google that, that'd be wicked.
	How much money leaves the country to Pakistan in remittances?
	Please do that quickly.
	Google that.
	That'd be excellent.
	Because we don't tax any of this.
	We don't tax remittances out of the country.
	Not like India does.
	You know, India taxes money that leaves the country.
	As does, I'm sure, Pakistan as well.
	So, the various enemy cabals that have been masquerading as our governments for the last few decades are, in fact, funding our own invasion and demographic replacement.
	Yeah, literally, yeah.
	Brilliant.
	Yeah.
	Oh, it's great.
	I love this.
	This has been my best segment to do research on.
	I couldn't quite fathom the amount of waste and money that we pour out to Pakistan until I did this.
	It's truly shocking.
	It's truly shocking.
	And so, obviously, this segment popped up because over the last two days, at the time of recording this, three days now, I think, the Telegraph revealed that somehow, some reason why we accept asylum claims from Pakistan.
	It should be an automatic refusal from a country that has a space program and a nuclear program that we also provide unlimited aid to, it seems.
	No.
	Refuse.
	I know what you're telling me is right.
	And I'm sure you've fact-checked all of this.
	So this is all fact-checked, yeah.
	But it's so bizarre.
	It just doesn't.
	It's like not connecting with my brain in some way.
	It's just so odd that we would do this.
	Like late-stage Rome, sending 250 million denaris a year to Gaul or something.
	It just.
	Why would you do that?
	Yeah.
	The bottom line is that Pakistan isn't a country from which it should be claiming asylum.
	It's like claiming asylum from Canada or something.
	It's like, no, you.
	Literally, yeah.
	Well, no.
	Yeah.
	No.
	It might be a bit hot and smelly, but.
	Yeah, it's not a great place, I'm sure, but it doesn't mean we should accept the detritus of Pakistan.
	There's enough flowing through the streets.
	And the bizarre thing about that aid is I know how corrupt aid is.
	So effectively what we're doing...
	To cancel it then?
	Yeah, well, effectively, that money will be mostly stolen by the Pakistani elite.
	Yeah.
	So we're spending billions on housing low-class Pakistanis while funding the lifestyles of high-class Pakistanis.
	Yeah, quite literally, yeah.
	While appointing Pakistani ministers.
	And councillors, which then go and campaign to become members of parliament in Pakistan.
	Because that happened recently in London.
	I mean, this country hasn't got long left.
	No.
	No.
	I'm talking about the UK, not Pakistan.
	Pakistan has a bright future ahead of it.
	It's the UK I'm worried about.
	Yeah, this is absurd.
	There is no justification for accepting asylum claims from Pakistan.
	It's actually absurd.
	So thanks, Pakistan.
	Thank you very much.
	And this is how you repay us for literally creating your country.
	Bizarre.
	Do you have any of those comment things?
	Yeah, we do, yeah.
	A bit of a quick segment, that one.
	What am I looking at?
	Needed to be said.
	What's this?
	O Chig Dor.
	Weird name.
	Could the current state of the West through migration be so no one interferes in the ethnic conflicts back home?
	I'm not understanding that one.
	What?
	You can go that one.
	Could the current state of the West through migration be so no one interferes in the ethnic conflicts back home?
	That we're so flooded by them that our foreign policy will be watered down to the point where we never get involved in maybe.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Yeah, I guess so.
	Subverted the politics so much.
	Yeah, I guess so.
	What have we got here?
	Bim Jim.
	Cheers for the money.
	Thomas Galinder says, so when are we going to partition Bradford?
	Yeah, Birmingham, perhaps.
	I mean, the reason why we have so many Gaza protests every single week is because basically we've got so many Pakistanis here.
	Why they care so much about Gaza?
	It won't be just one city, though, will it?
	It will be like they'll get like half the country.
	It's like the Midlands, really, isn't it?
	It belongs to the Kuzzy Bros.
	Disgusting.
	Chris H says, do they have a space program just to make sure the secure the good spots for corner shops on the moon?
	I like that, Chris.
	I like to cut your jib there, mate.
	That's funny.
	Good one.
	Cranky Texan says they don't tax remittances because they want remittances.
	Figure out why and all if of makes sense, at least from a certain point of view.
	No, so India doesn't tax remittances.
	India does tax remittances of money leaving India.
	Yeah, not coming in.
	But we don't tax any remittances leaving this country.
	So when anyone's like, oh, immigration's well good.
	Yeah, you haven't worked out the figures, have you?
	Of how much they provide to the country versus how much they cipher out of it.
	And in a week's time, I'll almost certainly be doing a segment on the budget where they put up every single tax.
	I bet I won't be wondering.
	No, of course it won't.
	Of course it won't.
	Not just a string says, at least said Home Secretary is scared the plan won't succeed if efforts aren't made.
	But we're already at critical mass anyway, and it's not getting better when things get inevitably worse.
	Yeah.
	There's another one from Doomhand.
	It says, to paraphrase Ron Paul, foreign aid is when governments of rich countries take money from their poor people and give it to the rich people in poor countries.
	Yeah, accurate.
	Accurate.
	Anyway, there you go.
	My links, Harry.
	Harry didn't do the googling, I asked him to.
	Ridiculous.
	Oh, maybe you get it later.
	He's waving.
	Maybe he's got it.
	I think we'll come back to that.
	I think we'll come back to that.
	We should probably do this.
	Right.
	So Trump has gifted us 50-year mortgages.
	This was his.
	Us.
	Americans, you mean?
	Well, yes.
	I mean, that sounds great, don't I?
	I'm talking about the Anglo-world as a whole, but yes, the Americans.
	Lots of Americans watch this.
	That's good, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's very good.
	Yes, lovely people.
	They speak English.
	You don't realise that Carlton.
	50-year mortgage.
	Isn't that good?
	Well, opinions vary.
	Opinions vary on this one.
	Obviously, it's terrible.
	So, well, yes.
	So Trump supporters have come out predictably and sort of said this is good.
	The Libs have come out and said that it's awful.
	The problem is, though, is the Libs say that everything he does is awful.
	On this occasion, they're accidentally right.
	I mean, it's sheer stock clock, but this is not a great thing.
	And Trump has truthed, I believe, this image out where he's compared himself to one of the worst presidents of all time, Roosevelt, and tried to make himself look good by basically extending the debt trap even further.
	So, yes, not impressed with that.
	It does lower your monthly payments a little bit, but it does basically turn your home into a 50-year subscription model where you spend most of your life renting from the bank.
	I've heard there's this phrase that might apply to this.
	I don't know if you've heard of it.
	You will own nothing and be happy.
	Yes.
	Is that right?
	I don't know when they're going to.
	I mean, they're busy at the first part of that.
	I'm not sure when the second part comes along.
	I don't know when I'm going to be happy about something.
	It does, I mean, it does just mean that you'll end up paying more, ultimately, a lot more, in fact, in interest to the bank.
	A fair bit, actually.
	Fair bit.
	So the bank, the winner out of all of this is your mortgage lender, the bank.
	Yes.
	They do rather well.
	Aka BlackRock.
	I will come to the affordability bit on this.
	I mean, I'll quickly run through a little bit of the history on this.
	So, mortgages used to be quite sensible before the 1930s in the US, and they were, you know, very short duration, might be three or five years.
	And they were interest only.
	At the end of the three or five years, you had to pay the whole lump sum.
	So, it was basically you were going, you know, it was set in a world where you had to buy a house outright.
	Well, they said, okay, well, that's kind of still what you need to do, but we're going to give you a five-year grace period or whatever to get the funds together so you can get your life going a little bit earlier.
	Back when houses were actually affordable in real terms.
	Well, yes, and also they tended to build them in proportion to the population, which was quite good.
	And they built them to last as well.
	Yes.
	I kind of know people in the generation just above me, so not even the 1930s, in the 1970s.
	And they would say, we saved really hard for two or three or five years and then bought our house outright.
	Because it cost three grand or something.
	Whilst being a milkman with a stay-at-home wife, I saved really hard for 18 months and then bought a house.
	Yes.
	You can do that kind of thing.
	Congrats.
	So entirely different world.
	Because it's orders of magnitude more expensive now, right?
	Oh, very much.
	It's not just that inflation has gone up, so the price of your average house has gone up.
	It's not that.
	It's multiplied many, many, many times.
	Well, there's the debasement effect of money itself, and there's also the fact they don't tend to build houses.
	So some of them are supply and demand.
	Yeah, something like that.
	In Britain anyway, some kind of shitty three up, two down, semi-detached, in nowhere important 400 grand.
	Yes.
	Right?
	That's normal.
	Americans watching this won't believe what we pay for our houses.
	Well, I'm going to show you some American houses in a bit, and you won't believe what even a low house over there costs.
	So even though they might have it bad, it's not anywhere near as bad as it is.
	But I haven't finished kicking on FDR yet before we get on to affordability.
	I was going to make the comparison with a much better president, in my view, Warren G. Harding.
	Now, I know historians typically tend to present...
	I mean, you might have a different view, but most historians tend to think that Harding was awful and FDR was the bee's knees.
	But, I mean, Harding...
	Lefty historians.
	Well, yes, yes, exactly.
	But, you know, there wasn't just the, you know, the Great Depression.
	There was the 1921 crash as well.
	And Harding, who was excellent, his response was to do absolutely nothing.
	And that's why nobody's ever heard of the 1921 crash.
	Because he was just like, okay, didn't do anything.
	The market cleared and then they kind of went up again.
	The 20s were actually a pretty good period.
	The roaring 20s, aren't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	But when you get the depression in the 30s, the reason it's a depression as opposed to a slump that nobody's ever heard of is because FDR started this process of government can fix everything.
	And so mortgages went from being this, you know, okay, well, you're almost there with your house and houses are cheap, so we're just going to get you over the hump.
	We're just going to, you know, you can start your life five years earlier with his short-duration mortgage.
	They started bringing in much longer term mortgages and creating a whole bunch of federal agencies behind this, you know, the Federal Housing Authority and bloody loads of them with acronyms all over the place.
	Well, the New Deal, just quickly to say, FDR gets in the 30s.
	He wasn't president during the Wall Street crash, but still, not long after he gets in.
	And yeah, the New Deal is a socialistic thing.
	He can fix everything.
	And why Trump wants to compare himself to FDR?
	God only knows.
	I mean, why he thought in whatever reason.
	The problem with Trump, though, the problem with Trump is he is ultimately a line go up boomer.
	And he's, I do think he, I mean, obviously we support him here and I do like him, but he is a line go up boomer and this every sort of things, I don't support it all.
	His commentary about flooding the country with Chinese students was.
	That's the same mentality of the line-go-up.
	It's a bit mental.
	It's like we must, the unis must continue.
	No, they don't.
	Let me.
	He supports this because of line go up and he supports the H1B1, whatever.
	Great.
	For the same reason.
	Oh, line's going to go up.
	Excellent.
	So a lot of people on the right hate Roosevelt.
	Americans hate Roosevelt and see him as sort of a Clement Attlee type figure.
	Everything went wrong from him onwards.
	Yes, that's my.
	But, you know, people on the mainstream, you might say, boomer-truth view of history is that FDR saved America.
	You can demonstrate it.
	Not even including World War II, before World War II, with the New Deal and everything.
	He sort of saved America.
	It was exactly what America needed: all this state intervention.
	And so if you believe that angle, that view of history, as lots and lots and lots of people do, you know, when I was doing sort of A-level history, for example, it was sort of taught that FDR was the B's knees.
	Well, if you subscribe to that, then Trump comparing himself to him would make sense.
	You're about, oh, right.
	Trump shouldn't be thinking of it.
	Yeah, it's wrong.
	He shouldn't be thinking of us.
	Because one of the things that the whole process with SDR started is massive US government intervention in the mortgage market.
	So for any Americans watching, I don't know if you know this, but you have a really weird mortgage system.
	Because the way they do it over there is you buy a house and you get a 30-year, typically a 30-year fixed rate mortgage for the entire lifetime of the mortgage.
	Whereas nobody else in the world really does that.
	So that sounds quite good if the rate is low enough.
	That's not bad.
	That's better than what we get.
	If the rate is low.
	Right, okay.
	yeah and what what if you but the other thing is okay let's say you even get in on a low rate and then a job opens up which is 200 miles away and rates are now higher Are you going to leave your really low rate on your nice house to go and live in a shitty house for a better job?
	So it kind of ossifies the entire system.
	And as a result, the Americans have this really weird sort of lumpy housing market that sort of booms and busts all over the place from year to year.
	So yeah, so a whole bunch of government interventions got involved and you ended up with this system.
	Now, it's kind of going to make an awful lot more sense if I kind of illustrate it through an example.
	So I want to talk about Mr. Average American and then put some numbers on it.
	And I thought, well, because this is a visual medium, I've got to start with Mr. Average.
	So I got AI to take every known photo of 30-year-old Americans and generate a composite.
	We're about to lose loads of American.
	Oh.
	And so this is our composite of what the average 30-year-old American looks like.
	You know, that just gives you a basing point to hang this on.
	And I've had to give him a name, so I've called him Mayo Borber.
	One in a thousand will get that reference.
	Yeah, I don't get that reference.
	You don't speak Portuguese.
	Anyway, so he earns $84,000 a year.
	That is apparently the average American wage.
	Bad wage.
	Yeah, I've got to say, just on that.
	That's not bad.
	That's a brilliant wage.
	So, yeah, I mean, if any Americans watching this thinking I'm shitting on America, trust me, every word of this is shitting on us Europeans.
	I mean, just that, the 84,000 a year, right?
	Yeah, you have no idea how poor we are.
	Yeah.
	In fact, one funny thing is we did a segment on the wage differentials between the US and Europe.
	And afterwards, a Bucky's store manager in America sent us a huge crate of goodies from his store and a note attached that said, because I'm so rich and you're so poor, you need this.
	No, good.
	Bucky's cheesy poof, so delicious.
	Yeah, they were lovely.
	So basically sends some more.
	If you're watching Mr. Manager, thank you very much for that.
	Anyway, so Mr. Average American, he earns $84,000 a year.
	So that means he's got 7,000 monthly grosses.
	And a sensible housing ratio, once you've got other living expenses, is about 30%.
	So he's got 2,100 to spend on his mortgage.
	Now you've got property taxes and insurance.
	So basically, the mortgage payment that he can make is 1800.
	And we'll just work through a quick example as to what this looks like.
	Now, if you're...
	Oh, I'll run through it in a second.
	Approx...
	Okay.
	Okay, sorry.
	I'm looking at that game.
	That's the, yeah, sorry, I shall.
	So, typical rates at the moment are about 6%.
	Now, the house that you should buy when you're doing a mortgage is whatever you can afford to pay back over 15 years.
	That's really what you should be aiming at.
	Of course, nobody actually ever does that.
	What they do is they look at the absolute maximum that they can borrow and then they buy the maximum amount of house that they can borrow, which kind of is people volunteering for the debt trap effectively.
	But I'm going to show you this example so you can see how I think on this.
	So, a 15-year mortgage, because bear in mind, he's got his 1800 that he can spend on it.
	So, if he was going to take a 15-year mortgage, that would mean that he can borrow 210, assuming a 20% deposit, that gets him to a house price of 260.
	That's really what he should be buying.
	And of course, when he doesn't do that, you know, he borrows over 30 years now that this has become kind of standard.
	That means he can borrow 300.
	So, along with your deposit, you're looking at 375, and that's what they all do.
	So, you can see that the jump from 15-year mortgages up to 30-year mortgages, it kind of did have an appreciable difference because you can see the house that you could buy goes from 260 to 375.
	Yeah, a big difference.
	Probably a bigger, better house.
	Yes, and that's what people want more than being poorer in real terms.
	Well, at least initially, there's also the factor that I'm going to come to that what it does is it bids up house prices.
	So, there is that, but nevertheless, 15 to 30, you see the huge difference that it has.
	Right, now look at the difference that a 50-year mortgage makes.
	It's 10k difference.
	What?
	What?
	Why?
	It's all down to the kind of the slope of the curve on how long-term money works.
	I'll explain it like this.
	What's the point in that then?
	Well, it does make your monthly payments slightly lower.
	I mean, this has worked out to show you on 1800 the difference that it can make on the prices.
	But, you know, the difference is actually quite tiny.
	Yeah, so the example I'd use is, for example, when you buy when you retire and you buy an annuity that's going to pay you out money for the rest of your life.
	I mean, actually, technically, that's a perpetuity because it will pay out forever as long as you're alive.
	But then people don't live forever, so you know, annuity is fine.
	The difference in the maths between an annuity and a perpetuity is 50 years.
	At that point, it basically crosses because the curve falls off at such a rate that the longer out your money is, the less difference it makes to the upfront cost.
	And so, that's why when you go to a 30-year, you've already captured all of the benefit from going to a 15 to a 30.
	Going from a 30 to a 50 barely makes any bloody difference to your payment, right?
	Does make differences that we come to in a minute how much the bank rakes in?
	Well, that is a different number, right?
	That is a hell of a different number.
	Now, if you just think a final point on this 10K difference, what do you think is going to happen to that?
	You're going to get a different class of home or you're just going to bid up a house that was worth 375, you're just going to bid it up 385.
	Yeah, you're going to do exactly that.
	Right, now the median home.
	Um, so we talked about Mr. Average America, uh, but actually, the average house in America, I mean, as much as averages apply in America since it's so diverse, but it's 410,000.
	Okay, so even for Mr. Average, the average home is still out of reach.
	I was going to say, probably people in Metropolitan LA or New York are like 410.
	I wish.
	I've seen tiny little apartments in New York for like a million or two million or whatever.
	Silly, a stupid number, stupid number.
	But we're not talking about them.
	Yeah, no, we're not talking about it.
	We're talking about someone living in Tennessee or Colorado.
	Yeah, if you're trying to buy New York, then I mean, good luck.
	I mean, even the closer bits of Jersey, you know, I'd imagine you're going to struggle.
	So, look, this 50-year loan doesn't really make it any more affordable.
	It just increases the debt heavywears.
	And I knocked up this graph before we came in here that kind of illustrates the point.
	So, this is years across the bottom here, zero to 50.
	This is amount of monthly payments going out.
	So, again, we're sticking to Mr. Average, Mia Borber, and he can make these payments of $1,800 a year.
	And then we've got these three housing scenarios that we talked about.
	Now, with a 15-year mortgage, as you can see, it gets paid off quickly.
	And this line here is the amount of actual principal you're paying back.
	So, not interest, principal.
	So, at year zero, that's his total payment.
	Down here, here's how much principal he's paying.
	But he starts off paying back somewhere near to half principal straight away.
	And these and these kind of key points that I marked along the chart here, that's when he's paid off 25% of the loan, 50%, 75%, and then obviously 100% when he reaches the line.
	So, you can see he's only in there for like seven years and he's paid off 25% of the loan.
	Like, whatever that is, nine years, he's paid off half the loan, and then he sort of pays off the rest of it.
	So, a nice kind of tight, tidy repayment schedule.
	And then, look at how it changes to the 30-year.
	So, he's in there for, well, whatever that is, maybe 13, 14 years before he's paid off a quarter.
	He's been in there for 20 years before he's paid off half.
	Now, if you think this is bad enough, at least this isn't too bad.
	At least if you buy a house when you're, I don't know, 35 and you've got a 30-year mortgage and you pay it off by the time you're 65, okay, fair enough.
	But, I mean, how many 15-year-olds are buying a house with a 50-year mortgage so they can pay it off by 65%?
	I mean, that blue line is sort of the norm of what I mean.
	That's simple, that's sort of similar to what I've got.
	Yeah, right, that's similar to what a lot of people have got.
	I mean, people that started 10 years ago, 15 years ago, it's still a shit deal, really.
	Yeah, but it's sort of because you can live with it, you can live with it, yeah.
	And the term is fairly standard worldwide.
	I mean, somewhere between 20 and 30, that's that's just standard the world over, really.
	I mean, Japan, they briefly experimented with 100-year mortgages that you passed on to your kids in your will.
	But, oh, thanks, Dad.
	That's horrible.
	Oh, you just horrible.
	I've inherited massive debt.
	Oh, lovely.
	Thank you very much.
	Anyway, they got rid of that.
	That was a silly idea.
	And the other way to think about this is the area above the curve is your interest payment.
	So, you know, if a 15-year mortgage, let's call this A, that's your interest payment.
	This is B, so A plus B, if you're on a 30-year, that's your interest payment.
	And look at the size of the interest area that you're paying with a 50-year mortgage.
	And the other thing, just to come back to this point, you've been there almost 30 years before you paid off a quarter of your house.
	It's not a good deal.
	It's a false economy, isn't it?
	And let's say you're a 35-year-old and you take one of these out.
	You're almost 75 by the time you paid off half your bill.
	It's funny, I thought Mr. Trump was a master of the art of the deal.
	Not for other people, not for the average American trying to start a mortgage, because that's a terrible deal.
	Yeah, that's awful.
	Yeah.
	It's a terrible deal.
	Larry Fink is loving it though.
	Oh, yeah.
	But when it comes back to this point, area above the line, that goes with the bank.
	You know, here, bank only gets the area under the line, that's not much.
	That is meaty.
	You can see why, you know, mortgage companies like that, but that to the banks, pretty solid.
	They're raking in quite a lot of interest.
	There's another word for it.
	It was a lifetime product.
	Like another word for interest you could use, isn't there?
	Like usury.
	Yes.
	But the indentured servants have to pay.
	When I say indentured servants, I mean, might as well be slaves at this point.
	Yeah.
	But yeah.
	So, anyway, let's have a look at that typical average house, $410,000, and just look at what you actually pay back.
	So if your mortgage for the average US house is 15 years, in total, you pay back 600.
	So, you know, you're paying back a 50% premium in order to, you know, defer your payment.
	Total interest of 200,000.
	Now, see, that's still in a fair world, that's still a complete piss take, isn't it?
	That's really.
	I mean, imagine if you came up with the idea of banks.
	I mean, the first bank that figured this out was like, oh, bloody hell, that's a good deal.
	So we get to make 200,000, 50% over 15 years.
	That's a good deal for us, the bank.
	Safe as houses, he's collateralized.
	Nice.
	And now that's not enough.
	And if he buggers up and doesn't pay it back, we repossess it.
	Yep.
	Fully collateralized.
	And then that wasn't enough.
	So then, total paid on a 30-year mortgage, you pay back basically double.
	You're paying the full price of the house just as interest on a 30-year.
	And now it gets stupid.
	If you do this over 50 years, the full price that you're paying back on your £410,000 mortgage is three times 1.2 million, of which double the price of the house, 800,000, is how much you're paying to the bank.
	So, yes.
	Not great.
	oh then I've just got the graph but it would be nice to just have mental I mean most people don't Hardly anyone can do this, really.
	You have to be independently wealthy to just pay for a house up front and don't pay anything in interest.
	Well, I mean, there are solutions that the country as a whole could adopt.
	Who's got 400 grand?
	Liquid cash.
	I mean, if you had it, you would do it, right?
	Although most people, I think, still don't.
	People that have got hundreds of thousands of pounds of liquid capital will still probably get a mortgage.
	They probably wouldn't go for a 50-year option, but you'll still be like, well, I want a lot of that money to just spend on me in the intervening years on holidays and cars and things.
	So I'll get a mortgage.
	In fact, the most prudent thing to do would just be to buy the house.
	Yeah.
	But who really does that?
	I mean, a lot of mortgage fries don't even let you do that.
	Right?
	I think a lot of mortgage fries, mortgage providers, if you said, look, I've got 400 grand, let me buy that house, just boom, straight up.
	They'll be like, no, we don't offer that option.
	You can't.
	Well, you can.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I'd imagine you can do that in the US system.
	I know in this system.
	Oh, maybe in the US.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, sorry.
	We'll talk about the US.
	Sorry.
	But I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm in that situation.
	I've got liquid capital, but I still have a mortgage.
	And the reason I do that is because I can borrow money at 3% and invest it at much higher than 3%.
	So it's worth doing it.
	But then I am, I do have a system in place that I can pay back that mortgage if I need to at any time.
	I just prefer not to.
	But that's not really the situation most people are in.
	People are just going to max out whatever the amount of borrowing they can, load them themselves up to the hill, they're going to then bid up the prices because there is an interesting mechanism where what you should potentially do, right, is you should go and buy the house that you can afford to pay back over 15 years and then take the 50-year mortgage, and that will save you money every month.
	And then that money you take and you go and invest.
	And as long as you can do better than 6%, I was just saying, that only works if you're savvy enough to invest properly.
	Because all this, all the problem with all this is when you borrow as much as you possibly can on what you earn, what if you lose your job or something happens, you get ill, or you've put all your savings into investments and they tank.
	Yes.
	Anything can go wrong in your life over 15 years, let alone 50 years.
	Yes.
	Or you're guaranteed your income is never going to go down.
	You can't guarantee that.
	Well, that's why I kind of feel compelled to mention that example.
	You should buy the house that you can afford over 15, take the 50 and invest the difference.
	Because, I mean, people will scream at me in comments if I don't mention it.
	But you're right.
	It is a tiny percentage of people who are one going to be savvy enough to do that.
	And then two have the discipline to do it.
	And three, stick with it.
	I mean, the vast majority of people are just going to bid up the house prices, max out their expenditure, save nothing every month.
	And if they lose their jobs, they're just screwed.
	Yeah.
	And I don't want to be too sick of fantasy to you, the great Dan Tubb.
	No, I don't mind.
	You're a successful venture capitalist.
	Yes.
	Most people invest money and lose it because they don't know what they're doing.
	They just have a punt and it wasn't the right thing to do.
	Most people aren't to be fair.
	Most people aren't capable of taking any savings or lump sum they've got and investing it wisely enough to get more than six percent.
	That's actually a bit of an ask yes to out to outperform every so often interest rates that's.
	If you can do that, good luck to you.
	If most people's wife comes into my office when i'm doing some finance stuff and she says oh, what are you doing?
	And I start explaining and then she just looks at me and says i'm sorry I asked, and turned around and walks out again, I mean that is what.
	Where most people are, they're not.
	Yeah, they're not.
	They're not going to do this.
	You need half a lifetime of of of doing it.
	Yeah, like it's like most things, like trying to paint a, an oil painting or write a novel, the first few times you do it it will be crap and you'll fail.
	Trying to ride a bike, the first few times you are going to fall off 100 if you stick at it and you're good enough, but that's rare, that's right and most people aren't successful investors.
	If you start asking average Americans to do this, especially like 30 year olds, they're just going to stick it on some weird crypto thing and yeah, they might be able to buy a mansion at the end of it, or they lose it all in the first six months or something.
	And you know the the first is probably more likely.
	Um, I also wanted to take a quick look at.
	You know, I also looked up what is the most average town in America, the most average city?
	Did you let Ai do this, or Google, or yeah, I think I?
	I asked chat GPC, I asked it what is the most average of average places in all of America?
	And apparently it's Illinois and it's this.
	Okay, whatever the hell it is like.
	Oh man, Herno or Perfect are nice places.
	Can't you look at that?
	You guys in the states have no idea how expensive stuff is.
	They're average houses.
	Space is such a premium here I can't remember what this, this city, is called, Herno or something like that.
	Yeah, that house there for the top left 225 000.
	That would be like a three million pound house here.
	That's, a mansion.
	So, what do you mean?
	Fully detached.
	9,000 square feet.
	Let me just go back to Mr. Average, right?
	So, Mr. Average on a 15-year mortgage, he should be buying a 260 house.
	So, let's go and see what Mr. Average can get in the most average town.
	So, we're looking for anything at 260.
	I mean, this was easy.
	You're like a double garage one for $999.
	What?
	Can anyone see a 260 or close enough?
	Yeah, there's two, three, four.
	Most of them are under that, right?
	Okay, let's just go with this one then.
	Yeah.
	Look at that.
	It's a double garage.
	That's a nice little house.
	That's lovely.
	Raise a family in that.
	Yeah.
	Lovely, jubbly.
	But then this is average town and not like New York or, you know, where it is that you live that the Democrats have been elected for the last 30 years and have basically stopped all building from happening through rent controls and housing regulation.
	So the biggest downside to all of this is you have to live in Illinois.
	That's not that bad.
	I've never been to Illinois, but I'm sure it's all right.
	Yeah, right.
	I've never been either, but it looks nice.
	Flood it with MAGA people, be all right.
	Let's find a 400,000, what they're all aiming for.
	The average.
	Why do you even look?
	64 grand.
	That's a bungalow, isn't it?
	Yeah, but I mean, for.
	Yeah, it's nothing, is it?
	As a starter home.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	It's got a garage, a nice amount of space.
	It's got a front garden.
	Front garden is in the UK.
	Most people don't have a front garden.
	I was going to say, frankly, that's better than the flat I live in, which hasn't even got a balcony.
	Yes.
	Let alone a front or backyard.
	Mad.
	Yes, exactly right.
	So, and the other weird thing about the American market is you can't take your loan with you.
	It's tied to the house.
	Whereas in the rest of the world.
	So you can't move.
	Well, if you do, so this is the thing.
	Let's say you went in at a really low rate and you've got that 30-year deal and a job opportunity opens up a couple of hundred miles away.
	If you sell the house, you're going to lose a deal and refinance at whatever it is now.
	Let's say it's 8% at the time.
	Who wants to go from 3% to 8%?
	Do you buy a to let?
	Do they do that?
	There might be ways around it like that, possibly.
	I'm not sure on the intricacies of it.
	So in Averageville, Illinois, 400 grand, I imagine, does buy you truly a mansion then?
	I'd imagine so.
	You could get a massive property for 400 grand in suburban Illinois.
	I tried to find one, and apparently, this is the most average town in America, but I tried to find one at $400,000.
	$265,000.
	I think I'm rather than scroll through and try and find something that's $400,000 worth, I think I'll give up.
	I'll just give up.
	Quick comment to round this out.
	What actually fixes this?
	Because to be fair, not every town in America is like average town.
	Yeah, sure.
	What actually fixes it is building more homes.
	It's that simple.
	And typically the places with the biggest problem are the places that have Democrat mayors that put rent controls and housing regulations.
	He comes along and says, I want housing to be better.
	So I'm going to put all these regulations on, which makes it more expensive to build.
	Zoning restrictions, that's the other thing.
	Get rid of these zoning restrictions.
	If you don't have zoning restrictions, what you get is a blend of residential and commercial all mixed in.
	And you get these organic communities form.
	But the Americans, they love their zoning restrictions.
	So that, again, is another massive impedance to it.
	And just the whole regulatory friction.
	It's too much of it.
	And allow mortgages to be transferable to take them with you to a new property like you can everywhere else in the world.
	There's that.
	But no, I think Trump has made an error.
	Yeah, massive one.
	Yeah.
	Effectively, just taking money out of the pocket of your average Joe and giving it to mortgage providers, banks.
	Effectively.
	I mean, what else?
	How else can you describe it?
	Well, I'll go back to the chart.
	I mean, just look at this area here.
	That is money to the bank.
	I mean, it's just bizarre.
	Great.
	And why he wants to compare himself to FDR, who's probably one of the worst presidents ever.
	Maybe he's just being honest.
	Yeah.
	That was a mistake.
	That's actually what he believes.
	He's being honest, then, isn't he?
	But yeah, hopefully the next MAGA president is not a line-go-up boomer.
	Because, yeah, this is wrong.
	Right.
	Bim Jim says, message deleted by podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	My God, that must have been spicy.
	Covered that one, yeah.
	Okay.
	The only one that we did is the Ollie.
	Oh, Ollie.
	If no one asked for this already, can we have a broken ox on mortgages, please?
	You've talked about mortgages before, haven't you?
	You must have done.
	I've mentioned them in passing on a whole number of times.
	The thing that I want to do with you is about mortgages.
	Oh, okay.
	We've got a thing in the pipeline.
	Yes.
	And that's about mortgages and pension funds.
	That might be more of a history one, though.
	Well, it could be an epox or a break.
	Epomics.
	I mean, it's definitely economic history.
	Yeah.
	So it could be either.
	But no, I'll have a thing about doing one of mortgages.
	Any on the other side?
	Oh, you've got another one.
	Oh, have I?
	Oh, smashing round something.
	You guys are talking about mortgages when you have no idea what you're talking about.
	The 50-year mortgage is a great thing.
	90% mortgages never reach maturity to selling refi.
	It's also optional product.
	Okay.
	Well, like I say, some people like it.
	I don't think it's a particularly good idea.
	I mean, he's right that you can refinance into something else as you go further on.
	But that kind of got to the point I was talking about: you have to kind of treat it as you have to buy the house that you can afford and then just treat it as a way to lower repayments and do investments on the side.
	It's still a false economy, though, because look at that graph, for example, the amount of the actual principal you're paying off.
	It's just way, way, way, way, way slower.
	Yeah.
	So how is it a good deal?
	Well, because you can just buy something and it's got cheaper monthly payments.
	Well, it only works if you're investing alongside it.
	Because otherwise, you're just building up no equity in it.
	The only equity you're getting is the debasement effect on the price of the property.
	So there's that, yeah.
	Strange history says, new show idea, Zillow Eaters Gone Wild.
	You three gents looking at some home sale fun.
	Yes.
	What?
	He thinks we should do a show where we look at American homes.
	Could do.
	I'd have fun with that.
	It would just be frustrating that all their homes are dirt cheap.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	It'd be very annoying.
	Right.
	We should have a look at the comments of the lovely subs.
	Subscribers, not people you whip.
	Do you want to read some of yours, bro?
	Yeah, if they bring them up on screen, I haven't got them on my screen here, but could do.
	Was there not any for the other side of the chat?
	I'm familiar with the average town, but in America, when you see prices that low, it means crime made people run away.
	Yeah.
	Could be a fair point.
	It probably is a fair point.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I didn't check out the demographics of wherever the hell that wasn't.
	That's probably a fair point.
	Someone else just calls it a money laundering scheme.
	Yeah, I mean, take that up with smashing Rand something who says it's a great idea, a great thing.
	Okay.
	I mean, it hardly makes any difference to the monthly payments.
	So it's just going to trap people who go the term.
	Okay, so subscriber comments for my one.
	Zesty King says, I trust Labour to create government bodies and procedure not to use them for good.
	I trust Reform UK to use the existing government bodies for good, but I expect them to get bogged down.
	It's entirely possible here that Mahmoud is doing what Farage can't.
	Create the mechanisms for him to use and enact deportations.
	Well, that would be nice if that happened.
	I've got no faith Nigel's actually going to do anything like that, but it would be nice if that were to be the case.
	Omar Awad says, I once had this chap, Omar, hi, Omar, on the Gold Stream Gold tier Zoom call.
	And I think he said, we always pronounce his name wrong.
	So sorry about that.
	But I forgot what he said was the correct pronunciation.
	Why was he called it Omar Ward?
	What was it supposed to be?
	That's the thing.
	I can't remember what he said.
	You did tell us.
	Omar.
	Which bit are we getting there?
	Omar Awad.
	Okay, anyway, I do remember that you tried to correct us.
	Right.
	But don't remember the correct pronunciation.
	So I just couldn't say it properly.
	He's a gold tier Zoom guy, so we're appreciated.
	Anyway, he's a good chap.
	He says, even without taking into account the fact immigrants shouldn't have access to benefits of any kind, any real asylum seeker should be eternally grateful for safe harbour.
	Yeah.
	And bare-bones care.
	Instead, we get complainants of human rights violations for conditions better than any armed forces experience as standard.
	Yeah, the idea that they sort of refuse to be put up in a barracks.
	Yeah, so well, why was that okay for people that you literally employed to defend the country then?
	It's good enough for real patriots who are prepared to be recruits for a while or do national service back in the day or whatever it was.
	But it's not good enough for someone that's just come over.
	Who likely lived in a mud hut?
	Yeah.
	Work that one out.
	Yeah.
	Right, I'll let you do some other comments.
	Okay.
	Fuzzy Toaster says, I demand a Pakistani man-servant and a Harim.
	If I'm paying for it anyway, I may as well have it and benefit from it.
	Brilliant.
	Sophie says, reminds me of the story of the sick largest economy in the world giving foreign aid to the second largest economy in the world.
	Yeah, this is England and China.
	Ugh.
	Zesty King, with so many Indians and Pakistanis coming to Britain, it really makes you think if British rule in the region was really that bad.
	No, of course it wasn't.
	Like, yeah, I don't know.
	At a certain point, the world needs to pick your battles.
	You either want to be ruled or you don't.
	You know, you either want all the benefits of the West or you don't.
	If you can't get your shit together, then just ask us to rule you again.
	Like, that's fine.
	Yeah, the British Raj in India, the British government in India, was a net positive for that part of the world in almost any metric you can imagine.
	Yep.
	But okay, colonisation was just bad across an evil across the board.
	I don't know.
	I wanted Pakistani Harim.
	Yeah, I was gonna say, are you part of it?
	I'm thinking it through.
	Saying no to a Hareems is always a difficult thing.
	You don't fancy Bushwhacker?
	I mean, presumably there wasn't.
	Presumably there was a reason why when they hired Hareems, they went further afield to get their stock.
	But I don't know.
	That's probably a subject for another podcast at this point.
	Oh, yeah, Northern Blood.
	Yeah, the 50-year mortgage is not a great idea after seeing Dan's math, but still a better idea than the Australian Labour government dropping the percentage of savings required for a home from 10 to 5%, thus ending raising the price of houses.
	Yeah, this is what this always does.
	Whenever you put more borrowing into a system, unless you create more houses at the same time, it's just more money chasing the same properties and therefore they get bidded up.
	So, yes, exactly right.
	In that Australian example they said there, and in the 50-year mortgage example in America here, you quite quickly get to that, what they call sub-prime mortgages.
	Right?
	I mean, that was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thing where basically people were trying to buy houses they ultimately can't afford.
	Somewhere along the line, you default.
	Yeah, so, I mean...
	Because you've got 50 years to bugger it up.
	We're slightly late on time, but we started late.
	So I'll go over and just make that point.
	So yeah, so that was the issue, right?
	So the problem is when you started with mortgages, is from the first blush, it's bad for the bank, right?
	Because the bank is looking at this and thinking, okay, I've got no idea what the state of money is going to be in 10 years' time, but I've got to write a commitment now to receive a fixed income from you to buy this thing, and I don't know what my return profile is going to look like at 10 years out.
	Right.
	So what they did is they started creating things like mortgage-backed securities.
	They started securitizing these things to stretch them out for the long term.
	And then actually they realized, well, actually, this is bloody good business because now we've got this securitized long-term income that we can then sell off to pension funds or whoever wants a long stable income stream.
	And actually, we can churn them through really quickly.
	So we just want to write as much business as we can and the longer term debt, the better.
	Which is why they're probably so happy to be getting 50-year mortgages because now they can sell 50-year income streams as a securitized product.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Richard Shimmy says, it's my understanding Trump is doing 50-year mortgages because one of his advisors kept pestering him about it.
	He's basically doing it to get that advisor off his back, which is just as bad as doing it because boomer line go up.
	Well, whatever reason it is, I think this is one that deserves a little bit of pushback.
	That's a terrible reason.
	If that's true.
	Yeah, that's terrible leadership.
	That isn't any kind of leadership, is it?
	No.
	Yeah.
	Now, here's the debasement effect.
	Dreadnought Logan says, my parents bought their house for 500,000, four rooms, three baths, 1.5 acres.
	Now the house is worth to the bank 2.1 million and they haven't done anything to it.
	It's like, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Brilliant.
	If you're in property.
	Well, the only thing I will say for this is it benefits banks and people who already have property.
	But you're not going to sell your house, so what good does it really do you?
	I mean, really, the only people who benefit from it are people who've got an elderly relative who's about to die and they don't need to move into it.
	I was going to say, it might benefit if you pass it down to your family.
	Oh, no, inheritance tax makes a table.
	Well, it's buy it out of your ass the moment you die.
	Brilliant.
	Yeah.
	It can be.
	It makes sense, though.
	So probably not a white pill segment episode today.
	Wasn't much white pill in there, to be fair.
	Maybe we'll do a bit of white pilling by the end of the week or something, but we've got to dish out the black pills now because we were oversupplied.
	So thank you for joining.
	Thank you to my co-hosts.
	Check out Stay of Politics.
	State of Politics.
	Yep, State of Politics.
	And see you in the next one.

▲