Welcome to a brand new year on the podcast of the Load Seaters.
It's 2026, I'm going to try and remember that, even though I'll probably keep saying it's 2025, but you know how these things go.
I'm joined by Dan and Peter McCormack from the Peter McCormack Show.
How are you?
I'm good, man.
How are you?
Good to see you again.
Yeah, you too.
Like, our last podcast was pretty good, didn't it?
Pretty well.
I got annihilated, but it wasn't that bad.
I was watching the comments too.
It wasn't that bad.
No, look, it's, I think, I've thought about it a lot recently, and we as a country have been slower to grow the independent media than, say, America, but we're actually having the conversations which the public want and the independent, sorry, the mainstream media won't.
So I think it's important we just keep doing these things.
I agree.
Right, so today we're going to be talking about new frontiers for Somali pirates.
Because this has been a kind of evolving story over the past, well, over the Christmas period, really.
And it's just getting worse and worse worse.
Pop memes have been produced, most of which are too racist for me to share, but I will share what I can.
And that too.
Then we're going to be talking about the Dominic Cummings Spectator podcast, which did you watch it?
I did.
Well, I listened to it.
Right, right.
There were two parts.
Did you watch both parts?
I was cooking at the time.
Actually, I don't think I did get the second bit.
No.
That's the better bit.
Yeah, I was going to say the second bit's where it gets really good.
And then we're going to have a discussion about who we should be deporting.
Because apparently we're deporting somebody, some people.
So, you know, you're not half Irish, are you?
You're not half Irish.
I am half Irish.
Am I off?
You're on the list.
Anyway, let's begin.
I think Irish counts.
Right, so let's take a look at what happens when a Nordic welfare state system is intersected with Somali pirates.
Don't think it goes especially well.
So this has kind of been a bit all kicked off in the last few days.
Nothing is working.
Here we go.
Let's see if I can make that work.
With Nick Shirley.
So he's a YouTuber.
He's been making YouTube since about 2014.
And he started off with.
So, you know, he was doing YouTube since he was 14.
And he started off doing, you know, standard pranky type stuff because, you know, what else is a 14-year-old going to do?
To be fair, that probably was around 2014.
Looking at it.
Yeah, it might have also been.
Yeah, it might have also been there.
And he's been moving into taking a look at fraud.
And this video really blew up, like 3 million views or something like that.
Is it more than that?
Yeah, 3 million views.
But then it's been clipped and shared on a whole bunch of other things.
He's basically looking at the fraud in Somali daycare centers.
So, in fact, I'm going to use this clip because it probably gives, for those of you who haven't seen the story yet, a better intro rather than trying to find it on the main video.
How are you?
I would like to see if I can bring little Joey, my son, little Joey, here.
Is there a paperwork?
Can I check out the daycare?
No.
Why can't I check out the daycare?
Okay, but if I can't get paperwork or anything to submit my son, little Joey, to come in here to daycare.
We'd really like to put Joey in this daycare.
We've heard great things.
No, I would like your business card actually.
Okay, can I speak with somebody?
Where are the children at?
Are there children here today?
No.
No children?
Why are there no children?
So, anyways, it's lots of bits like that.
We discover that Somalians make up less than 2% of the Minnesotan population, but over 70% of the childcare industry.
Is that real?
Yes.
Which is a degree of specialization.
This next part kind of did voice.
He is stood here outside the quality learing center.
Here in Minnesota, massive fraud is taking place within the government and the Somali population.
Here, this building alone, Quality Learning Center, is a daycare.
Yet they spelled learning wrong and they said learing.
This daycare alone in 2025 has received $1.9 million from the government.
And the strange things about these childcare centers is there's no one here right now.
It's midday on a weekday.
If you were to try to go inside, it's completely closed and the windows are all blacked out.
No one's working.
Midday, children should be in here.
And this place is licensed for 99 children.
And this is the outside.
There's no windows, no nothing.
And like I said, they literally spelt the word wrong on their sign.
This is open and blatant fraud taking place here inside of and it gets worse.
I mean that that particular center has donated six million to Democrats in the past two years.
So yes, no, that center.
That's a nice slush they've got going on.
That is a nice little laundry circuit going on.
Have you followed this one, Pete?
Yes, I have.
It reminds me of something Michael Malice said to me.
When you see government as two rival gangs fighting for territory, it becomes you start to see it exactly for what it is.
Look, the larger the surface area of the state, the larger surface area there is for grifters and criminals to go and steal from it.
And when the incentives aren't for profit, when the incentives are just to be able to steal, it becomes very easy to steal.
And so we have the same problem here.
The surface area of the state is huge and we have a huge amount of grift.
I mean, I can give you examples of things I uncovered even in my own hometown of Bedford where the surface area of the local council is so large that people are able to monetize that.
One example is in property.
The local council will house anyone who is homeless.
There's no limit.
And so Bedford gained a reputation locally as you never go without a home in Bedford.
And so some of the people I know are landlords who have multiple properties, they stopped buying properties to rent out to the local council to homeless people.
And now they lease properties and sublease it to the council and take the spread.
Ah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
Because a lot of the council budget goes on bed and breakfasts.
Bed and breakfasts, hotels, and accommodation for homeless people.
Because if there is no limit to what you will provide, and Bedford is known for that, then if you're on Luton or Cambridge and attracts people in.
So like I say, the larger the surface area of the state is to grift, people will grift it.
Whereas a private operator has to operate with a profit, you know that surface area could be attacked by suppliers.
And that's clever and scalable because if you don't even buy the building, you just rent it, you don't even have to do repairs.
So you literally just sign one lease and then sign to another agreement and get a 3% spread.
Yes.
This is why people just, or people like myself now, just think of government as a criminal organization who steals from us through taxation and distributes it to their friends.
Yeah.
I mean, you got a leaflet a while back about how your Swindon taxpayer money was.
But I imagine this is fairly evenly replicated across the country.
80% of the council tax in Swindon is redistributive, whatever that's supposed to mean.
And it goes on, you know, buying buses to ferry around disabled people and stuff like that.
And it's just like, great, okay, thanks.
Yeah.
Well, this is why councils up and down the country are now going bankrupt.
Yeah, section, is it section 104 or section 114?
I can't remember the name.
I can't remember the legislation, but there's basically this is why reform, the local councillors, they got in, they were like, right, we're going to doge this.
This must be fraud and waste.
I mean, I'm sure there is a lot of fraud and waste, but a lot of it is just mandated by central government.
You have to pay for these things.
Endless legislation that comes down for them to force us to be able to pay for it locally.
But if you look at it, 94% of the national budget is spent by Whitehall.
I think in Switzerland, 40% is in the local cantons.
Really?
And so we have centralized power, decentralized payment.
Possibly one of the things that's worse with this one, perhaps, is that in the UK, there's a lot of fraud and there's a lot of abuse and a lot of waste.
But it's less clear that there's a direct cycling effect between the money being spent and going back into labour.
Or at least if it is, it's a little bit more subtle.
This one, it's kind of blatant.
In places like Leicester or Bradford, there's going to be exactly this kind of environment.
I mean, I'll give you an example.
This is Tim Waltz, governor of Minnesota.
I'll get rid of that.
So that was the old Minnesota flag.
And there we go.
Why do you remove it?
Because they changed it a couple of years back.
Looks a lot like the flag of Somalia now.
Yes.
I don't know the Somali flag.
Well, it's got a star on it and it's blue.
Okay, interesting.
There we go.
It's almost two on the nose, isn't it?
How does that happen?
Because Somalis are something like 16% of Minnesota now, and they're a very organized minority.
They support each other and are very active for their own cause.
Well, when you've got one quality learing center, which is giving you $2 million, would you not want more of that?
And if you're donating, what was it, $6 million or something per learing centre?
Yep.
Just get more learning centers.
Tim Waltz is like, yeah, I think I will change the state flag to the Somalia.
The scale of this world, and it's not just daycare centers.
I mean, there's a whole bunch of different things as well.
I mean, it's like autism as well.
So autism spending in Minnesota has gone up 130x.
I don't mean 130%.
I mean 130 times the autism spending has gone up in Minnesota.
Isn't it something like $400 million now or something like that?
Yes.
Because I look at it.
Yeah, it was $3 million and now it's like $400 million.
Somalia is something today.
Somalis are particularly focused on that niche as well.
I mean, just to give you an idea of the scale of this, this is Curiosity Rover.
It's basically on one of Pluto's ice mountains.
Oh, yeah.
It is three times cheaper to put a probe on Pluto than it is to have Somalians in Minnesota.
Something is wrong about that calculation.
And you might get the joke with this one, Pete.
Yes, just open a daycare centre.
That's the latest grift.
I'll give you one more chuckle before we return to the back and forth.
Picks are in theaters soon, hopefully.
We don't need to be pirates anymore.
I found a better way.
Government-funded daycare, huh?
We must go to Minnesota to Minnesota.
In a world where some rules need to be bent.
Did we spell something wrong?
Who cares?
As long as they spell our names right on those million-dollar checks.
Comes the story of triumph.
Remember when we had to illegally steal from innocent people like thugs?
But now we're stealing from innocent taxpayers.
Just like the government intended.
Look at me.
I'm the millionaire now.
You know, Tim Waltz, a couple of years ago, announced that they were creating a budget for daycare centers of something like $350 million.
So he basically just opens up state coffers, essentially invites the Somali community.
Just think so.
Do you think anyone's gonna?
Do you think Tim Walsh was gonna go to jail?
Well, no, of course not, of course.
But it's the brazenness of it, right?
Because, like, okay, guys, I'm opening up a $350 million coffer for any of you to come and make claims for daycare centers.
Is the average, like, you know, white, you know, German-descended Minnesotan being like, right, that's a great grift.
I'm getting in on that.
No, obviously not.
They're just like, okay, I'm getting on with my day.
I've got a job to go to.
You are literally just inviting communities that don't have the same sort of scruples that the native community of Minnesota has to just come in and just loot.
It's just an open invitation.
I mean, well, I mean, bloody box isn't working.
It should be.
Here are some of the bit off here.
These are literally the people involved in the scam.
I mean, I remember hearing about because you know we've had that stuff in the press recently about getting rid of trial by jury.
So that actually came up about a good 15-20 years ago.
And I remember when it came up, and they were talking about getting rid of juries for complex fraud cases because apparently it was so complicated that no jury could be expected to follow it because these frauds were that sophisticated.
We've got to the stage now where you can literally just get given a form and fill it in and post it.
And that's the level of complexity of fraud.
You remember that guy who defrauded like Google and Microsoft by just sending them bills?
Yeah.
170 million or something.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I thought he was a hero, but they obviously don't do that.
I'm joking.
But the point is, it's literally on that sort of level, isn't it?
It's just we'll just send the government a bill for some money and they'll just rub stamp it because they don't care.
Yeah.
And no one will ever come and check.
There'll be no due diligence.
It doesn't matter.
But the thing is, as you said with Tim Walsh, he put $350 aside for this.
He knows what's going on.
He put a signal out saying, come and get it.
It's the money.
But this is the point.
The larger the surface area of the state, the more people will steal from it.
And people like Tim Walsh have no incentive to stop his voters.
Well, they have every incentive of doing more of it.
Of course.
A lot of that's coming back to the Democrat Party.
This is why the Labour Party wants to have blasphemy laws only for one religion because that religion is voting them.
And I think this is the important point.
The thing is, it's not, though.
That's the thing.
They've even lost that constituency.
They have for now.
Well, yeah.
I think the Greens will just hoover them all up.
I mean, this kind of hits so many different issues.
You know, it's the value of groups of no-value immigrant immigration.
You know, the over-taxation spending by government, which then leads to the inflation, which I know you've been talking about lately.
I mean, inflation is ultimately caused by the state running too hot and inflation is the cooling mechanism.
Currency debasement is the cooling mechanism that lets them get away with spending too much.
You know, corrupt officials and judges.
I mean, maybe I'll come on to some of that as well.
I mean, the point about the immigrants themselves, I mean, just in case none of us want to say it, I'll let this guy make the point.
A 23-year-old revealed massive fraud by Somali immigrants in Tim Walz's Minnesota.
The fraud was obvious, but practically no one called it out.
Why?
Come on.
Isn't it obvious?
It's because they're black immigrants and people are afraid of being called racist.
Well, I won't play the rest of it, but he basically goes on to say: look, they're just cultures that are not compatible with the West.
They won't work.
Somalians have got a very strange culture, even for like African nations.
Yeah.
It's very just deeply clannish.
And they were kind of cool as pirates.
That was the coolest thing about them.
You know, I didn't even think they were cool as pirates.
Pirates are kind of cool.
Pirates are cool, but my favourite team's called the Pirates, so I kind of like pirates.
I didn't think the Somalis were cool as pirates.
They didn't have drip, man.
You look at like 18th-century pirates, they are drip.
Well, and they didn't have a flag with a skull and crossbows.
But look, again, the surface area of the state is so big, you're going to allow people to grift it.
And our friends on the left don't really understand this point about immigration: is that if you continue to allow other people to come in and steal from us, that we are going to take a more kind of pessimistic view on immigration, and that's where it's coming from.
So you have to have a realistic debate about what immigration is, where it benefits and where it doesn't.
If you allow a large number of people to come in and grift the hard and working people who get up at five, six in the morning, go to work, you're going to have conflict.
Yeah, I mean, I mean, just re-emphasizing the point of, I mean, it's this kind of thing that a lot of people just don't want to say that there are basically there is below this certain line, there is kind of very little point in taking people from those countries in terms of the contribution they make.
I'm genuinely surprised the Italians are a positive contribution.
Yeah, so I mean, even without the fraud, Somalians cost money.
But, you know, for whatever reason, we're just not allowed to notice this.
The other axis on this.
Just a quick thing, though.
Go back, go back to the previous one, because this is basically countries with established benefit cultures and just without, right?
Like, countries where you can't just go to the government and take loads of money from them.
Well, as soon as that option becomes available, they just start taking loads of money from the government.
Why wouldn't they?
Why would I refuse this apparently unlimited spigot of money being poured into my pockets?
It would be crazy if I'm from the Horn of Africa or Morocco or Turkey or whatever.
Why wouldn't I do this?
It's like, well, I mean, there are reasons, but there's a reason that your country sucks and that the country you've come to doesn't.
And the reasons are that you don't just take infinite money from the government.
You actually think of yourself as being the owner and possessor of the country.
And so there's a reason that you work and pay your taxes.
And that's the thing that makes our countries better than their countries, frankly.
There's another thing you know intrinsically as an entrepreneur.
I mean, how long have you worked for yourself, Carl?
About 13 years, something like that.
And I'm assuming at some point you've made the mistake of having a weak link within your company you've held on for far too long and put up with.
And eventually you get rid of that person.
You realize, oh, my company's a lot stronger.
I mean, I don't want to.
Yeah.
I mean, I've been given that they might be watching.
I've been there.
But you do.
You make excuses for people.
It's hard.
It's difficult.
You don't want to get rid of them.
You don't want to sack them.
And they're dragging the whole company down.
Or there could be multiple people.
And then once you finally deal with that, you understand intrinsically in the future that you want a strong company full of strong people so you can build a strong balance sheet and profit.
I mean, the country's the same.
I don't know many people who aren't pro-immigration for people who come here positively to provide a service or contribute something that we haven't got here to grow the country.
It's a very small number of people that actually want to do that.
But once you just allow your country to be to allow immigration at such a level that it drags the country down, drags the services down, you're actually just eating the country alive.
And I think that's just a much more practical way to look at it.
Well, and also there's just no friction.
So, I mean, I have this conversation with actually somebody who was on the left and had their own business.
And they were doing the standard, accusing me of racism, all that kind of stuff.
And I was saying, well, would you hire a foreign person to work in your business?
And I'm like, yeah, of course I would.
And I said, well, would you interview them first?
He was like, well, yeah, of course it would.
And I said, well, why can't we just do that then?
Well, why can't we just at least have a five-minute interview with people before we let them into the country?
We don't even do that.
Just complete lack of friction the whole way through.
The other thing I was going to talk about is, you know, a lot of this fraud has been exposed for over 10 years at this point.
And cases have been brought.
And so in one particular case, some Somali fraudster Was basically convicted unanimously by the jury of defrauding the state for $7 million, and the judge just voided the case.
You've gone stand for these awful white females.
Which voided it?
For the white female liberals, a lot of this is ideological and they view this as a kind of reparations.
Well, I don't know.
Is it that or is it transferring motherhood behaviour?
Instead of having kids, I'm going to have immigrants.
Yeah, yeah, no, but that's the sort of motive for it.
But the result is that they essentially view themselves as, yeah, like paying a form of reparations, taking care of a community they think can't take care of itself.
And so it's about it's transference of the mother stink instinct.
Maybe.
Yeah, points me.
So the Minnesotan Attorney General is on the case and she is basically going off to the far right to expose this.
Well, I mean, you know, they know their constituents.
They've got to defend their men.
I mean, example of how obvious this is.
So, I mean, this guy's going to walk past a dilapidated office, and apparently it's got 60 healthcare businesses inside it.
It's a deserted office building.
You know, they are not even trying that hard on any of this.
There would be a use for these Somalians, actually.
If you think of white hat hackers, you know, white hat hackers?
Yeah.
They help companies find gaps in their cybersecurity, maybe.
Or you could essentially have, I don't know, you're suggesting put them in boats off the coast of Cuba and let them go.
No, I'm suggesting to find the point.
Join them in the government to say, here are where all your exploits are, where billions are going to be siphoned off by our fellow countrymen.
It's a great job for them to do.
They could be well paid and perform a service.
Yeah, we don't have to pay them more than the fraud they're able to conduct.
don't know i mean otherwise what's the incentive uh But also, you're assuming.
Yeah, but no, but also you're assuming that they would do this because that would be viewed as sort of treachery to their own community, right?
Because you think, oh, I would report so-and-so if I thought he was stealing money because that's the right thing to do.
But they would think of you as some sort of race traitor.
They would say, well, hang on a second.
You know, how could you do this to the Somali community?
You know, you would be an outcast.
Money talks.
Making lots of money.
I was going to make my point earlier about the complexity of fraud because I think if I was going to do a fraud, I'd end up making it so bloody complicated.
I'd be like, oh, it has to do this, and then I'll cover it by this, and I'll do these inter-company transfers, and then I'll set up a shell company and stuff like that.
What you're kind of pointing out is they exposed it by just walking into a government office and saying, can I have some money, please?
Oh, do you have a daycare centre?
All right, then.
Form to fill in.
It wouldn't have occurred to any of us just to basically just ask.
I would have set the daycare centre up like an idiot.
Like, I would have gone and created a daycare kid there.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
I'd be like, you know, canvassing mums and be like, look at this bouncy castle we've got or whatever.
I don't know anything about daycare centers.
Making no money because you're feeding them.
Yeah, exactly.
I'd be like, my margins are razor thin, man.
You know the mistake you made, having kids in your daycare centre.
Well, they used to.
I mean, funnily enough, they used to do that.
So this is from about 100 daycare centers.
Yeah.
So this is from an earlier order for the scheme to work.
Daycare centers.
But basically, what happens is you get a family of Somalians turn up at this daycare centre.
They go in, they register, and then they all get back in the car again.
They drive to the next one, walk in, sign in, and then go to the next one.
They just do that all day and they get a kickback.
But eventually they realised, why are we bothering with all these kids?
Yeah, what's the point?
Yeah.
Just fill in the fake names.
Yeah, we're just filling the fake names.
No one's going to come and check.
That was a really inefficient business.
But there's the thing about, you know, cutting the dead weight.
Streamline the process.
Here, now they've been caught out.
They're having to sort of cover their tracks.
And in the script that she was given, she was asked to say fraud is bad.
And it triggered an emotional response.
If childcare is cut, I'm unable to work or go to school.
I understand.
Fraud is bad.
And then funnily enough, the...
Sorry, can we just linger on that for a second?
Like, that's the first time she's ever read those words.
I heard the idea that fraud is bad somehow.
And she blue-screened.
Yeah.
So celebrated.
But that's what I've been doing this whole time.
Okay.
And then that liberal woman behind her comes out and speaks next.
And she does the Freud-Unslip at one point of basically saying, of course, that it's fraud.
And then she, like, basically has to.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I saw this the other day, and it looks like the office.
You know, it looks like something out of the office where it's like, fraud is bad.
oh, you know, the sort of camera zooms in on them or something and then zooms in on someone else's face.
I mean, this is kind of the American version of the grooming gang scandal, except that it was the taxpayers getting...
I won't complete that sentence.
Yeah.
It's a lot less impactful then, but it's still ridiculous.
But I mean, this only happened because a whole system did not want to say anything about it.
And politicians were getting kickbacks from it.
This is a lens for the entirety of the state, whether it's America or the UK or Europe, in that it's completely and utterly failing at everything it should be doing.
The thing is, though, I'm uncomfortable with just saying, oh, it's just the state.
Yeah, it is the state.
Don't get me wrong.
It's the state, the media as well.
But it's the community that's taking advantage, too.
Of course.
Yeah, but we say, of course, but like, sorry, you know, if this had been, you know, a community of Norwegians and Tim Waltz was like, right, we're going to bring out 350 million for daycares, very little of it would have been taken.
But it's downstream of the state, all of this.
Sure, I mean, the reason these people are in America is because the state has brought them in.
Yes.
But, you know, it's important to note the kind of substantive moral difference between communities.
I mean, to be fair, the reason I think that Somalia doesn't have a big state is because every time they try, it collapses before it gets to the scale that it does.
I mean, the idea of a Somalian state is kind of a fiction anyway.
Yeah.
Right?
Like, what kind of real power do you think the Somali state has?
Probably less effective than the Labour government at this point.
It's probably harder for it to be grifted.
Oh, yeah.
It's got hardly any money.
I imagine the tax revenues are atrocious.
But the point is, there's very little genuine interaction.
It was like when we go to Afghanistan or Iraq, it's like, okay, how does this country work?
Well, it works with clannish strongmen who will give you something in return for something else.
It's like, right, but we've set up the Iraqi government or the Afghan government.
It's like, okay, but you don't understand what you're talking about.
There isn't a national state here.
There isn't a nation in the sense that we understand the nation.
So it's the same as Somalia.
It's like, what are we doing?
We're applying our lens inappropriately to them, which is just.
And bear in mind, Elon reckoned that 20% of the federal budget was going in fraud, which means that two-thirds of federal taxes is just being used to pay fraud.
I mean, that's the insane part.
That's the bit where people should be revolting.
Yes.
Because why the hell would you work?
I mean, I'll just cut to the end link here.
But I mean, this woman makes a good point.
She's got a medical practice.
Why the hell am I bothering?
I've got the Somalis.
I've got eight grandkids.
No, but she's got eight grandkids.
She would actually make more by just setting up a daycare centre for her own grandchildren than running a medical practice.
Do you know what percentage of Somalia's economy is based on remittances?
A third?
It's literally a third.
Yeah.
A third of the entire economy of Somalia is Somalis sending money back from wherever they live now.
And what percentage of that is from Minnesota?
I don't know, actually.
A third of that?
Yeah, well, it's going to be a large percentage, though, isn't it?
That's the thing.
But, I mean, this is the question that I increasingly find difficult for young people.
I mean, your son's about the right age.
I mean, I would say to him, why do you bother working?
Well, he works because otherwise he'll get slapped from me.
Well, yeah, okay.
But no, no, but that is the problem with young people at the moment.
That's why there is so much nihilism around.
What jobs do exist?
The old career ladder is slowly dying because a lot of entry positions don't exist anymore.
They've been passed over to AI, large consultancies now are reducing the amount of entry-level jobs that are coming for grads.
But even if they want to take the honest route, then what is the gap between when you first earn a salary?
Maybe it's minimum wage.
How much do you have to get to to be able to afford a deposit for us to buy a house?
I mean, you get into the range of £40,000, £50,000 a year.
I mean, that's above the average in the country.
And so that's why there's a lot of, I think, nihilism and degeneracy around.
Crypto has been so successful because people thought they could buy an ape and make some money.
And if they lost, so what?
They're still with their parents.
So there's much bigger, wider issues relating to this and the role of government and what we're doing for our children.
I wrote an article yesterday, and that's what I did on my New Year's Day.
I think actually what we're doing as parents is quite cowardly because we are, I say collectively we.
I mean, I know the people around this table aren't, but collectively we are saying to our kids, for what we want as adults in the short term, you're going to have to pay for in the long term by not being able to afford a house, not being able to have children and probably not being able to retire because we want stuff now.
But as parents, you know, intrinsically, you must make sacrifices for your children.
We all do.
Whereas a generation, multiple generations, we now need to be making sacrifices for our children to restore some sanity to the way we run our country.
Yeah, 100%.
Well, we'll come on to that very shortly, actually.
Luke says, I think the funniest thing is the guy who said, oh, their paperwork got stolen.
Yeah, did you see that?
Yes.
The guy standing outside.
Again, weird this genetic Somalian guy saying, oh, yes, Rob was broken and stole the paperwork on the kids.
So why would they do that?
To what end?
It's very unlucky.
Just honestly, do I look like I was born yesterday?
Luke asked Dan, what's your take on the Iranian protests and what's happening in Nepal?
Oh, is something new happening in Nepal?
I haven't seen the new thing in Nepal.
I have no idea.
So I'm going to have to check on that.
On Iran, we were talking about this beforehand, weren't we?
I mean, hopefully it goes well, but my theory is they just get brutal because basically they don't want to end up with a spike up there, so they're going to do what it takes.
And if it means mowing down civilians, I think they're probably going to do it.
I think they've already done it.
I saw a thing about live ammo being used.
Live ammo has been used.
Yeah, but anyway, that's for another time.
So let's move on.
I really enjoyed this podcast, a series of podcasts, dual podcasts that Dominic Cummings did with the Spectator.
I really enjoy Dominic Cummings.
Just the fact that he says things that are outside of the consensus of the establishment after having been within it.
And so he just tells it like it is to their face.
And because you've got people like Michael Goff who are such creatures of the system, they have trouble believing what they're hearing.
And this was a great example of that.
So we'll...
Gove is not strong on the chin game, is he?
No.
No.
No, he's not.
But that's something.
Well, the great thing about Cummings is he is explaining what we all feel.
We all feel that everything is broken.
He explains why.
No.
He doesn't show curtsy at all.
So we've got a few clips I'm going to play.
And he begins the podcast by saying, look, the problem with Britain is essentially, and I saw a chap on Twitter say this, and I can't remember the guy's name, so I'm really sorry I can't credit you.
We're in a sort of interregnum at the moment between paradigms.
The current paradigm has clearly come to its end.
Cummings says, look, everything's knackered, and everything's knackered all at once.
This is kind of forth turning stuff.
Kind of, yeah.
It's like the NHS, the political system, both political parties, the universities, the public trust in the system, just everything is just knackered.
And more of the same is only going to compound the problem.
It is the system itself that is the problem.
And he says, look, the people who are most realistic about this that I've spoken to as an insider are the people who are essentially running what he calls the deep state.
So the people, you know, intimately connected to the mechanisms of the functioning of the state, if anyone can even figure out how that's done.
And total outsiders like us who are just like, wow, everything seems screwed.
So, you know, what can be done?
And he begins with, we'll begin this one where he talks about the problem of the system itself.
If you can play this, please, Samson.
Almost the heart of darkness in the entire system is the legal section of the cabinet office.
One of the things that Jeremy Hayward did, effectively from his point of view, was to grab control of large parts of the legal system by bringing it into the cabinet office, calling it the very complicated process.
But essentially, he got the cabinet secretary control of this legal entity inside the cabinet office, which then spreads its tentacles throughout the whole system and to a large extent displaced the old power of the Attorney General and the Attorney General's office.
The cabinet office legal team is massively remain.
Remember, they leaked against their own government during the Brexit negotiations 2019-2020, which the cabinet secretary apologised for and said was unprecedented in British history to have our own government lawyers leaking against our own government negotiating too.
Massively pro-Remain, massively pro-ECHR.
And for them, the ECHR is like a religious principle.
It's a commandment that supersedes everything else.
So from their point of view, defending that is critical.
So very interesting.
Who did he name there?
He named a guy called Jeremy Hayward.
Now, most people have probably never heard of this guy.
I hadn't heard of this guy before this podcast.
But as you can see from his Wikipedia page, he was made a baron.
And he was the principal private secretary to Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1999 to 2003 and 2008 to 2010.
And then became the cabinet secretary to David Cameron and Theresa May from 2012 to 2018.
And then he moved to the head of the Home Civil Service in 2014 to 2018.
And so you can see this is...
That is an odd career path, right?
The Americans don't have anything like this.
You don't have somebody who's a senior staffer for Biden who then runs a department for Trump.
Right.
And he died in 2018 of lung cancer.
And so it's very interesting how this guy was so melded into the system that the Conservatives probably didn't even think to remove him.
And he is the one who centralizes under the Blair administration this kind of legal power within the system.
And so what this does is it creates a massive issue with the layers of legality that are currently stacked on top of the British state.
So we've got like, and at one point, Go is like, oh, you know, isn't the British system like, aren't we being taken advantage of because of our fair play nature?
He's like, yeah, maybe up until the 1970s, that was how it worked.
But then we have the European courts, the Human Rights Acts, and various other things that are being stacked on top of it.
Now, it's created this kind of reverberation chamber where it controls and distorts everything within the old system.
The old system is trying to live as it used to, but it's completely hemmed in by all of this stuff.
In fact, I'll let him lay out from players.
It's politically now incendiary because the thing which is driving it legally is the Human Rights Act.
So, the only way I went into all this in great detail in 2020, the only way you can stop a lot of these things, similar to the boats, is by facing legal reality and saying you either have to amend/slash repeal Human Rights Act or you have to put up with it.
But you have to make a choice.
Sulak wouldn't make a choice on the boats.
The law fare that's going on now is a similar problem.
They look quite surprised that this is literally this black and white.
But everyone knows that it is this black and white because it is the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights that they are appealing to to keep these people in our country.
So it's got to be this.
This is the midwit meme, isn't it?
It very much is.
You've got basically everybody, you've got Steve Laws on the outside at one end, and you've got Dominic Cummings at the other end, and then you've got Michael Gov and everybody else in the middle, just going, oh, it's complicated.
No, it's not.
Exactly.
It's literally not complicated.
And so I'm building up to something here.
So let me carry on a sec.
So basically, what he's saying is, look, this is enmeshing the entire system into torpidity, right?
It's become so constricted and captured by this series of legal regulations and the structure of the legal system in the cabinet office that nothing in the system can move.
And in parallel to the EU and the ECHR slash Human Rights Act, you also have this huge development of how judicial review works in the country.
And these processes are completely entangled.
So you can't separate out the effects of the Human Rights Act from judicial review.
So then as you know, Michael, when you're sitting inside government, not 1%, not one in a thousand of the things that the Human Rights Act actually touches ever becomes public.
But every day, as a minister or every day in number 10, you're told constantly, oh, you can't do that because of the Human Rights Act.
You can't do that because legal advice es blah.
You can't do it, da, da.
These things are never made public.
No, no, no.
So it's a completely internal process.
So I think what we've got is we've got an old British Whitehall and MP system, kind of evolved over centuries, right?
Then you've got now sitting on top of that the EU system, the Human Rights Act system, and the judicial review system, combined with the lawyers inside Whitehall, means that the old British system doesn't work anymore.
And he's completely correct about this, I think.
And what this does is it completely constrains anything that any of the politicians can do.
So this is, as we were, we're constantly talking about how the Blairite quangocracy and the legislative reforms and constitutional reforms that Blair put in have served to extract power away from the government.
So ministers are actually no longer accountable and are not, in fact, in charge of their departments or not, in fact, able to do anything.
And what Cummings has explained to us is how this is working.
Any thoughts so far?
I've got one more clip I want to go through before we have a proper discussion.
Let it finish, because there were bits that, because as this is on the way, there's bits I want to bring up.
Yeah, okay.
This is a slightly longer clip, but I think it's totally worth it how he describes how the system works.
People don't realise, but the madness of the Human Rights Act now means that a secret process has evolved inside the government that looks at various terrorist threats.
And a very weird, perverse outcome of this is that the lawyers have decided that it's okay to send some special forces guy over to the middle of nowhere, watch someone come out of a building and drone strike them and kill them.
That's lawful.
But it's unlawful to have the same team of people grab him, put him in a helicopter, bring him back to Britain for questioning, right?
All these human rights lawyers all over Twitter go, Cummings is insane, clearly, completely bullshit.
This madness is impossible.
Then, of course, over the next couple of years, more and more people come out saying, yeah, this is exactly, this is exactly what happens.
So all these people, right?
KCs, judges who are part of the system, also have no real understanding of the insane ways in which the bureaucracies morph behind the scenes in secret to cope with this public thing of the Human Rights Act.
The system kind of reverberates internally because of legal advice and forces people internally to do all of these things, which are then kept completely secret.
Now, the contrast, of course, is, look at what's happened in Europe this year on very interesting aspects of how the Commission has suddenly behaved.
The Commission, for the first time really, started to get panicky on the whole thing about the boats in the Mediterranean and the effects on public opinion in the South.
So very quietly behind the scenes, the Commission has just suddenly said to the Greek government and to the Spanish government, if you need to do ABC, just do it and forget the Human Rights Act and forget the ECHR.
We'll turn a blind eye.
We don't give a shit.
Just solve the problem.
Now, that also is a very important dynamic, right, which shows the problem that Britain has.
In Europe, it's a completely normal thing just to go, oh, yeah, well, we signed up to all this shit, but actually now it causes this insane problem.
So just deal with the insane problem and we don't care what the lawyers say.
Everything is normal.
But in Britain, that's impossible.
The Cabinet Secretary Marcheson says, I'm sorry, Prime Minister, but there'll be a judicial review and you'll be told that you'll be in contempt of court and potentially thrown in jail.
So therefore, you must do the following thing.
As you know, Michael, PM after PM has had exactly that conversation.
It's completely dysfunctional.
It's mad.
It's not working for anybody.
And this is the scary part of it.
It's because we are, I mean, it's so obviously not working.
The rise of reform and green is a reflection of the fact that it's not working for anybody.
People are just looking for some kind of hope.
If you're a lefty, it's Zach Polanski.
And if you're a conservative, it's reform.
But Neimar Parvini, a mutual friend of ours.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, he wrote the book, The Populist Delusion.
This cannot be fixed internally.
It can only be fixed from the outside.
The entirety of government needs...
I mean, it's a bit like, you know, when a company...
I'm not even sure I agree with that.
I mean, if you had a parliament of absolute mad lads who are like, right, we're just going to legislate this out of existence.
It is possible for Parliament to just reform and reconstitute the entire state.
It would just be an incredible undertaking.
But I think you need to start with the mandate to win the election to do it.
Oh, yeah.
And nobody's talking about that from any party that has a potential to win.
And this is why it doesn't matter whether we get reform.
If we get reform, things will slow, maybe.
Or if we get...
The system won't work for them either.
No, it won't work for them either.
Or we'll get some kind of left-wing coalition, which probably kind of likes it in some way because they get to do all their crazy shit.
But this needs reforming from the outside.
This needs reforming from us, the public.
So that was the point you didn't have there.
But remember the bit where Cummings was talking about?
The public need to step forward.
We need the good people.
Because right now, if you're smart or clever, you will be working at a company like a SpaceX or a Tesla.
You're going to go into the private sector and get rewarded for you.
Oh, you're right.
Yeah, it's fine, you carry them.
Yeah, but that's the most important part.
So what do we get in terms of politics?
We get student politicians, morons and half-wits.
And we are delegating responsibility to our lives to people we do not respect, like, who have no experience or no skills, that they wouldn't survive in the private sector.
The thing is, every so often you do get a quality person go in and they get frustrated, they leave and they tell all their friends don't go anywhere near government.
Of course, I wouldn't go anywhere near government.
You'd be completely impotent as a smart or a wise person.
So I wouldn't go anywhere near it.
But the most important part is, if you're going to play it, is it that bit where he talks about it needs to come from the public?
Step forward, take one for the team and fix this.
No, he's just talking about the flight of elite talent.
Yeah, elite till I mean, if you're a legal.
Yeah, the only way you would go into the state is if you're somebody like a Rupert Lowe and you've already made your money and like this is, I can't put up with this shit.
I can't put up with this shit anymore.
I'm going to do something about it.
I'm going to be a bulldozer.
But there aren't enough of those people.
And too many of those people, I talked to, I mean, you must do.
I've talked to some people.
Reputationally, they don't want to step forward.
They don't want to be attacked.
I mean, look at the tax.
It's a gross thing, Pop.
Yeah, so the only way to build this, my only personal belief is the public have to say, we do not tolerate this anymore.
Because the funny thing is, it's not working for the left or the right.
If you go and read one of Grace Blakely's articles, she's talking about very similar problems that the Conservatives are talking about, that the institutions have utterly failed.
Everything is trickling upwards towards the rich.
The state is a complete grift.
The right and the left are actually talking about the same symptoms.
The problem is, is the left want to solve it with Marxism, which we know will utterly fail.
And the right want to hopefully solve it with free markets as such.
But I think this whole thing has to be fixed by the public.
The public saying no more.
We do not tolerate this.
The problem is, though, we're in a constitutional crisis that is so profoundly complex that I mean, I don't think Michael Gove understands it, right?
When you're watching through, yeah, he's very nervous because obviously he's an ardent defender of Kemmy Badenock and the Conservative Party, right?
And when Dominic is explaining to him the problems, you can see that Michael is just kind of in some parts glazing over, where he's just like, right, okay, you know, this is a really profoundly difficult thing to understand.
And actually thinking, right, who is it I have to identify as essentially people who have to lose their jobs, lose their entire positions, like entire departments need to just be liquidated.
You know, like this is a massive undertaking that speaks to the genuine constitution of the British state.
It's not sufficient for us to say, well, we're just going to get on outside of it and hopefully they'll leave us alone.
It's like, no, they're going to continue to tax us to death to pay for an insane system that, as Cummings was saying, was all done in secret.
All of these things are done in secret because some lawyer, some Casey or whatever cabinet office lawyer, goes to the Prime Minister and says, you'll end up in jail if you do this.
And instead of going, okay, what law are they going to put me in jail under?
Because I'm just going to repeal that.
Instead of doing that, they go, oh, well, yeah, good point.
I'm just going to just carry on and get my pension afterwards, I suppose.
We're in an unusual moment in time, which is an opportunity in that this party is so hated by everyone.
They're hated by opposition, but they're hated by the people who voted for them.
Usually, there's large support for the ideological support for the party.
I mean, under Labour, under Blair, sorry, the Labour voters still supported him.
But you have universal dislike.
I think the really important thing to communicate to the public is this cannot, this, it cannot be fixed by voting in just new people.
It's going to be very, very hard unless they come with a mandate from the public to fix this.
And I think that's the only way to say it.
Unless there are people who are going to be like, oh, democracy can't work.
It's like, well, yeah, sure.
But like, unless you're raising an army and are going to literally go and storm parliament with bayonets or something, then your only option is electing people who have a particular mandate for this kind of change and essentially have a revolutionary fervor in them to just liquidate the entire system.
But it can happen.
I mean, six, seven years ago, immigration was a fringe topic.
You were a racist for talking about immigration.
Now it's policy, even though they're not executing it, it is policy for the Labour Party, right?
We all kind of, the public have demanded immigration be something we deal with, and it will probably be the central issue over the next election.
But we can solve immigration.
We're still going to be broke and poor.
And so we have to solve this.
And I think it's an important job to get this to the electorate, this message, so the electorate demands something better.
On a very slight tangent, your talk about revolutionary energy going into government.
Curtis Yarvin just put out an article basically saying that Trump had his moment.
He had his Rubicon energy for the first two years and he didn't do it.
And so it's now impossible to change anything under Trump.
Trump should have been liquidating instruments of the American state in the same way that I'd like to do with Britain.
And this is the thing with Farage.
He's going to have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity when he comes in.
If he grabs that Rubicon energy, he can do it.
I have absolutely no indication or belief that he will.
Well, we'll get to Cummings' view on Farage in a second.
So obviously, he makes his predictions as to what's going to happen in the new year and with the continual sort of degradation of the system.
The lesson of the last 10 years is the system will keep doubling down.
So the system will definitely keep doubling down again in 2026.
They'll rally around.
We will all, the system will rally behind.
Continue infinite immigration.
There's no way out.
After all, the Treasury says economically there's no alternative.
And it's racist to have an alternative.
So carry on on infinite.
So you don't think there are signs that that is changing in number 10 now with Labour's and Shibana Mahmood and all of that?
Well, it's all complete nonsense.
They won't do anything on the boats because they can't do anything on the boats.
The boat is hardwired because of the Human Rights Act and judicial review and how Whitehall operates.
It doesn't matter.
Shiobana says whatever.
Rishi said all of this stuff in 2023.
I predicted in January 23 when he made all these statements.
I said repeatedly, it's all total bullshit.
He will not stop the votes.
The boats will carry on.
The legislation they're passing will have zero effect.
And I very confidently predict the same thing now.
What about the fact that they cannot control illegal migration?
That will carry on.
They can't control Whitehall, so all of Whitehall's pathologies will continue.
They can't get a different economic model, so they'll just have to keep putting up taxes and stagnation will continue.
They can't control the police and law and order, so crime will continue to get worse.
They can't control the NHS, so the NHS will get worse.
Obviously, the MOD fiasco can only get worse and worse.
They'll lie more and more, cheat all the budgets, blah, blah, blah.
All the major things which is currently disintegrating will continue to get worse.
The benefits thing as well.
So you notice that she was saying, well, what about the legal immigration?
Because Labour had tried to get that down.
But conversely, as he talks about in this clip, we won't watch this clip, but he talks about the focus groups that he's working in.
And that was depressing.
Everyone was leaving.
Everyone's leaving.
And they want to get their kids out.
And last year, 250,000 British people left.
Every year you get about 500,060,000 foreigners who have moved here also leave.
But now it's gone up to something like 250,000.
So it's not an infrequent conversation with the missus.
If we leave, where do we go?
Everyone has this conversation.
Everyone has this conversation, of course.
My son's considering it.
And this is only going to, like, as he says, well, they might be speaking a good game about reducing immigration, but they still let in 850,000 people last year.
So it's still a huge number.
And the treasury will turn around and say, okay, but we're bleeding manpower.
If hundreds of thousands of Britons are leaving, they have to be replaced because our economic model is predicated on perpetual population growth.
And we have to be honest about the type of people who are leaving who are British as well.
Yes.
They will be wealthy or highly skilled.
And they'll be probably taking their children who are probably highly educated.
The demographic of people I talk to who are leaving, left or talking about leaving.
They're not people on benefits.
They're not people on benefits.
No.
And so that brain drain is going to be ultimately long-term damaging for the country as well.
Yeah.
And so it's this kind of doom spiral that we're falling down into that he's identified.
And it's because of the kind of parasitic state and the mystery apparatus that can't be controlled.
Because no one has ever held accountable for any of these things.
Because it's done in secret, and the people that we elect, I mean, the entire argument behind democracy is, well, if we don't like that person, we can hold them accountable and vote them out of office.
Okay, but that doesn't work if power is actually held by a managerial bureaucracy that operates behind the scenes with secret processes and strange esoteric or sorry exoteric foreign laws.
That can't work.
And that's what he's identifying, which is just genuinely brilliant.
And you can see Gove just looks out of his depth throughout the whole thing.
But anyway, so he...
Or guilty.
Well, yeah, there is that, too.
You'll notice at one point in there he goes, well, this is why I couldn't do everything I wanted, because...
Because if you act very aggressively and fight every battle, the system views you as a virus and starts forming antibodies to fight you.
And so, you know, this sort of system sort of locks ranks and keeps you out.
And it's like, okay, well, that's probably true, but not very courageous, is it?
But anyway, he goes on to explain what he thinks Farage's prospects are, which aligns with what many of us have been saying.
Do you think Farage recognizes the weaknesses that the electorate have identified?
And has he talked to you or people you trust about it?
I think intellectually Farage knows what I'm saying is true.
I've said this to him and he didn't argue.
And I think you can't argue, right?
Like, you know, unless you want to be a complete... Farage is not...
I mean, a lot of people in Westminster are delusional.
But Farage is much less delusional than most of them.
And it's just an empirical fact that when you talk to people, voters on big things, voters tend to get to the heart of these big questions, right?
They sniffed out.
When all of the pundits were saying, oh, Starma and Sue Gray, there's serious grown-ups who are in charge.
The voters knew this guy's a dud and he's going to be crap, right?
Most voters are way ahead of Westminster on all the big questions.
And the voters say over and over again, and Farage has been told this by lots of people, they want to see a team and they want to see a plan.
What doesn't Farage have?
Team or a plan.
Yeah, because it's not at all beyond the Realm's possibility that this year, after the may elections, essentially Starmer is forced to resign Bozeman Party.
And the Labour Party have no one competent to replace him.
Well, the Labour backbenchers could vote down their own government in a competency function.
And he could be in within two years.
And he's got nothing.
He's got Zaya Youssef and that's it.
So the interesting bit was a bit after this.
I don't know if you had it, but Cummings said, if he was Farage, what he would be doing is publicly advertising.
We are looking for 600 people to run.
We want the best people.
If you understand health, if you understand business, come in.
You're going to have to take one for the team, but you're going to come in.
You're going to be part of this administration to turn the country around and publicly run that.
And we would see it.
We would see the jobs.
You would know the vetting procedure.
But we're not seeing any of that.
And actually, the British Constitution has a mechanism to allow him to do that very smoothly.
So, yes, he needs MPs, but they could be cannon fodder.
He can find a quality person and say, we're going to make you a lord.
We're going to make you the minister of something.
We're going to give you a lifetime peerage and then you have a nice fancy title.
Just run this thing for me for two years.
Loads of people will say, Yeah, okay, I'll take a two-year career break to get a nice fancy title and run something for you for a couple of years and then bug you off.
I think Farage's problem is a little bit similar to Poyev in Canada, whereby he's so close to becoming prime minister, he may be fearing fumbling the ball and he wants to be afraid of what happens the day after he becomes prime minister.
What's more important, becoming prime minister or what happens when you leave as prime minister?
Because there's no point becoming prime minister when you leave, you leave as somebody who was impotent and hated.
You want to go in there knowing you could leave as someone who was celebrated as a success, thought about in history as being great.
Well, I think to do that, you've got to go in with the mandate that the public wants, which means you have to be brave right now.
Yeah.
Because the public are telling you what we want as a country.
And the thing is, everyone's like, well, the election isn't for another three years.
Well, you don't know that, right?
It's entirely possible that the Labour Party falls into its own kind of doom loop like they did with Truss and Boris and Sunak and Theresa May and all that, just straight spiral down.
So it's like, right, just call elections, just call elections.
Let's, you know, get a mandate.
At least something needs to happen.
You don't know that Kier Starmer's going to be the prime minister by the end of the year, right?
It could well be that Farage is the Prime Minister by the end of the year.
And so you've got to have the plan now.
And not only that, that gives you the commanding position in politics.
Farage has been on the dip recently because what's he saying?
What's he doing?
Well, nothing.
Well, he's allowing people to have his voice by coming after him.
And just think about it with Trump.
Look, I think Trump has failed in this term.
And like you said, he probably can't turn it around.
But he never stopped talking to the public.
He never stopped speaking the language of what voters want.
He still isn't.
I mean, to see the White House put out a tweet with a picture of him saying remigration, I mean, that would have been totally toxic to talk about five years ago.
And so you have to speak the language of the public.
And I think, and I worry for Farage, like, who are the advisors?
Because I think I actually think Trump, the one thing I'll say about him right now is I don't think he cares about advisors.
I think he has a good sense of the public.
Okay.
He's failed in this term, but he had a good sense.
And he just went out there and said what the public wanted to hear.
And that's why he got such a commanding win.
Farage needs to be doing that.
He needs to be out there talking constantly.
Should be on 40% easily.
Look how much press and publicity Zach Palazzi's getting.
And he is fundamentally a moron, like an unintelligent moron.
And Farage is intelligent.
If you talk, I mean, I've met him privately.
He's a smart guy.
When you chat to him privately, you suddenly realize there's an entirely different person who's entirely different from what you see on camera.
Like, he's very intelligent.
He's very empathetic.
Very, you know, he thinks about these things.
People need to see this all the time.
He needs to be out there and talking.
But moreover, he needs to be constructing the plan.
Yes.
Like, I mean, don't get me wrong.
I like some of the people around Farage, but okay, is it Tice, Sarah Pochin?
You know, who are we talking about here?
A few more Tories would affect and then everything.
Danny Krueger's good, but it's just Danny Krueger, right?
Like, you know, where are your top-tier economists?
Like, there are a bunch of economists who are for Brexit who are like, yeah, here's a slate of ideas.
and of course the Tories did none of them, but why hasn't Farage just corralled all those people and been like, yeah, this guy's got...
Because he's brittle and he's afraid one of them might outshine him.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And so I guess the question is: well, I mean, one of the best bits for me was him, Michael Gove asking, well, what about the Conservatives?
Can the Conservatives turn it around, right?
You know, he's a big fan of Kemi Beidnock, but can the Conservatives, you know, bring in a firebrand of their own and turn it around?
And Cummings' answer was just gold.
Maybe we're going to put in Miliband or Rainer or someone on the left because they just want a left person to do left things.
And they will drive all the pathologies worse and worse.
And then they'll blame racism and capitalism and everything for that and they'll just keep doubling down.
the tories i think of dead the tories have just moved on to a place even worse than universal loathing and hatred to a kind of they're kind of parked in the you're just waiting to die space as far as the public does think of them as sort of wheelwrights or thatchers or stained glass window makers It's a quaint organisation irrelevant to modern life.
No, I wouldn't say quaint.
I'd say it's like some kind of like, I guess I'd put it more like, if you're going to have a metaphor like that, I would say it's more like the local vagrant who used to smash everything up, but is now cabbaged and sitting in a wheelchair and isn't relevant anymore.
That's the metaphor that I would use that I would use.
I love the way the journalist glances at a boss and it's like, I want to laugh at this, but I know that you were proud minister.
I think he's personally directing that at Gove.
Yes.
And another point, I haven't got the clip, where Go's like, so could I have been Prime Minister?
And Cummings is like, well, I don't want to insult you on air.
And he's like, no, no, no.
And he's like, well, yes, you could have been because we're in a system that permits Sunak, Boris and Truss.
And so why can't it?
It was just the most insulting thing in the world.
What do you think would happen to the Conservative Party if they gave the top job to Rupert Lowe?
I have no idea.
I honestly have no idea.
Because Rupert Lowe, with a mandate to do what he wants to gut out the old liberal wets from the Conservatives, would, I think a lot of people, I think it would be a large problem for reform because a lot of people would vote for revenge of Rupert Lowe on a day trying to put it in.
But the advantage the Conservatives have is they have the infrastructure.
Like a lot of it you don't want, you don't want CCHQ, but they have the infrastructure, the branch network, to actually deliver.
And essentially, Rupert Lowe is kind of reforming.
So hypothetically, it would absolutely work.
And that would be a serious contender, and Tories would be back.
It's never going to happen because the power structure in the Tories is essentially the leadership in the MPs.
And pretty much all of them would need to be replaced.
Yeah.
I mean, Desmond Swain from the New Forest, he can stay, but the rest of them, they're just all going.
Yeah.
But if the Conservative Party doesn't want to face its own existential crisis.
Then they've got to fall on their swords.
Of course, you need honourable men who are like, no, I care about the institution more than my own career.
Does it look like they've got any of those?
Like, sorry, very few remain.
But they could genuinely win the next election.
They could hold the power of...
Well, when you say they, the category of Tory could, the people who are currently in it and make it up, all of them would have to go.
So it's Turkeys voting for Christmas.
So they won't do it.
Not all of them.
There's maybe three.
Yeah.
But that's the point.
You can count on one hand how many actual good Tories there are.
You can count on one hand how many seats they're going to have in the next election.
Well, no, they're going to do slightly better than Labour, actually.
What do you mean seats?
Few hands.
But I've spoken to a few people inside the Tory Party and they just don't think there's any mechanism to just hand the party to Rupert Lowe.
I mean, if they wanted, there would be a mechanism.
Well, I mean, it would have to essentially be a kind of consensus within the Tory Party.
But even then, like, there's no procedure to do that because that's never happened before, right?
So they would have to invent one or Rupert Lowe would have to join them and basically lead an insurrection within the party, which is possible, but I don't think he wants to join them.
I think he wants them to come crawling on their knees to him, which is funny.
Yeah.
So, you know.
But anyway, that was just the funniest thing in the world to me, though.
I love the fact that Michael Gove was trying to be like, so yeah, do people think well of the Conservatives?
You know, like an old-fashioned industry?
No, they think you were a vagrant who smashed things up who's now a cabbage in a wheelchair.
Like, I was making dinner when I was watching this, and I was howling with laughter.
Is this part two this bit?
This is the part two.
And it's the best part.
Okay, so I didn't watch part two.
I didn't realize there was a second part.
And you can see Gove just taking this on his mighty chin, just being like, right, okay, I guess I'm just going to suck that up.
And then we'll leave that there.
But the point is, I think Dominic Cummings is echoing a lot of the points that we've been making about the system and how the system is congenitally malformed at this point.
It requires essentially a kind of constitutional jihad against it.
We have to be waging war against the way that the system is made up.
Basically, everything that was ever done by the Blair administration has to be undone.
Everything.
Can we put him in jail as well?
Can we send him to The Hague?
He's the most evil person this country has produced.
Yeah, I mean, I personally would love to.
But from a practical standpoint, it just has to be that the system itself is the problem and it has to be destroyed.
You're going to do any of the comments before we move on?
Yeah, yeah.
Man who wears some Russian thing on his t-shirt is definitely a man who needs to be heard.
There's something for come and see, but I don't know what that's a reference to.
I've no idea.
But the thing is, it's Dominic Cummings.
We actually do need to hear his opinions on these things because he's one of those intelligent outsiders who was actually managed to get inside for a few years.
And you don't get that kind of analysis from anyone else on the inside, I'm afraid.
So I thought in this one, I would ask a question.
It's a nice, easy question.
So snappy answers, who are we going to deport?
Well, I told you me, I would actually start with the Labour Party and probably anyone with blue hair.
Right.
Because they need to go on the list.
They need to go first because we are still in a democracy and we don't want their votes affecting us making any strong decisions.
I say that as a joke.
Look.
I think it's important to do this setup here.
And I'm probably more liberal side of the conservative people you get in.
But we're looking here at the interview between Andrew Gold and Steve Laws.
And there is a fracturing within the conservative movement between old conservatives who are kind of liberal wets to traditional conservatives to civnats to ethnats to whatever comes.
Base to very basic.
Yeah, yeah.
And a fracturing means it's harder to build a big tent around what are solid ideas.
So if we are talking about immigration and the country has accepted it's been a failed experiment, what is sensible and palatable?
And I think there is a scenario where you can keep everyone directionally happy.
If you take the ETHNAC position, one, their ideas crumble on critical analysis.
Do they?
Well, I think what Steve Laws would...
If Steve Laws ran a party and suddenly became prime minister, trying to execute his plan would destroy...
Well, his is not the only ethnic position available.
Sure.
I will say that.
Sure.
I do want to do.
Should I just get to what I was saying?
is that I think a sensible, charismatic, conservative person can build a big enough tent under a sensible immigration policy, which...
Yeah, but what is that sensible policy?
Because at the moment, only one man stood up and given an answer.
Everybody else has a vague notion of what it might be and talks around it, but only Steve has come.
So just to give everybody context, I won't play a lot of this at all.
Let me just play the first 30 seconds of why we're talking about this at the moment.
So Andrew Gold, who sort of popped up in recent years and suddenly become very successful, was speaking to Steve Laws, and they had a conversation about deportations.
Are you a racist?
That makes me racist, so be it.
I wear it proudly.
I've had enough.
I want everyone gone.
So someone's going to come knock on my door.
It's not personal.
It's necessary.
That will not work.
To find out who would have to be removed, the easiest way to do this is medical records.
This is mental.
I don't believe you're European.
I think you're Jewish.
But I'm not going to Israel.
Yeah, if I had PowerMate, you would be.
You shake your leg and get aggressive when we talk about Jews being European.
I'm not shaking my leg and just giving you...
I just have a twitch.
A twitch?
Twitch only comes up when Jews are mentioned.
We can move on to another topic if you want to.
I can envision millions of people being thrown onto planes and deported from my country.
I think Tommy Robinson will fight against that.
Tommy Robinson will, Dick, because he's a traitor.
Tommy Robinson has loads of foreign friends.
He promotes multiculturalism.
He's a Zionist piece of shit.
Do you have any room in your mind for that you might be wrong?
No.
So anyway, I won't play too much of that, but that's the concept, and that's why we've all been talking about, well, yeah, but what is the deportation criteria?
Because Steve, to be fair, you know, you might be able to pick some holes in it, and you might be able to, well, edge case this, edge case that, but at least he's given actually given an answer.
I mean, there's a fundamental proposition that he's basing all of this on, and that is England is the home of the English, and therefore is the collective property of the English.
And a corollary of that is that we have a right to feel demographically secure in our country.
As in, at the moment, if you look at the country, we're somewhere between 65 and 75% English.
Going down fast.
Going down fast because they're cramming in as many foreigners as they can and millions of people are deciding, you know, I think I'm just going to leave.
And this is unacceptable.
And those propositions, Steve Laws is fundamentally correct on, right?
It's fundamentally correct.
And it's just not arguable from any position on the spectrum.
The left would be like, oh, no, England doesn't belong to anyone.
It's like, well, then you've got no argument for Palestine, do you?
It doesn't belong to the Palestinians.
And actually, the Israelis have done nothing wrong with the West Bank, just, you know, bulldozing homes and whatnot.
That argument collapsed in on itself.
And I don't even know why anyone on the right would argue against the idea that collectively the English have the claim to English.
So based on that, would you describe yourself as an FNAP?
No, because I'm not a nationalist, because nationalism is a whole different...
It's French, you're going to say.
It is.
It is, but it's a whole different way of looking at the world.
But the point is, the issue is, do groups of people have collective claims?
And the answer is yes.
We agree that J.K. Rowling, women have a collective claim to have women-only spaces away from men.
Yes, they do.
Groups have claims.
Do the Palestinians have a claim to Palestine?
Yes, they do.
Do the Israelis have a claim to Israel?
Yes, they do.
Do the English have a claim to England?
Yes, they do.
And therefore, right?
That's the question.
So, like, all of these sort of like, you know, buzz labels, like Sifna, ethnic, it's like, none of that really matters because they're not really properly articulating what the problem actually is.
They're a function of sort of Twitter discourse, which isn't actually getting to the heart of the issue.
And so the question is, well, how do we establish a regime under which the demographic security of the English is maintained?
And the nature of the state is geared towards looking out for that interest.
Because in every other country, it's either assumed or in some countries it is written into the constitution that the majority ethnic group of the country will remain the majority ethnic group.
So give you a data point on that.
Moreover, that the government itself will act in the interests of that majority.
Whereas what we have is the opposite.
We have a government that's operating in the interests of universal liberal human rights and the economy.
And so it is bringing in millions of people and giving them rights above our own.
And that's not an acceptable position.
And that, in fact, it makes Steve's position seem a lot stronger because, well, why are we living in such an unjust way under a government that purportedly is our own?
So what I was going to say on that is four out of five Anglo countries in the world today have special laws which privilege the indigenous population.
Really?
Yes.
Canada, Australia, when they say indigenous, they don't mean the Anglo-population.
Nope.
They mean the Indigenous.
So all I would ask for is, well, why can't we have it as well in the last remaining Anglo country that doesn't have special privileges for the Indigenous people?
The problem with that, though, is we dispossess the Canadians, the Australians, the Americans from their own countries as well, because these countries didn't exist.
They put those laws in place.
Yeah, but the Indigenous Canadian is not a Native American, right?
Because Canada didn't exist.
So, you know, that's an Iroquois tribesman or whatever it is.
But an actual Canadian is someone of Anglo-French heritage.
That's what a Canadian is.
An Australian is a criminal.
No, I'm joking.
And again, Anglo-Irish or something like that, right?
So this is what an Australian is because Australia didn't exist.
Canada's existing.
But that's a long way around.
I mean, are all three of us agree that remigration is necessary?
Because I absolutely am.
Millions of people have to go happily.
Are you on board with that, Pete?
Well, so I always want to know what are the policies.
So my question to this is, what are the policies and how much power do you have to accumulate to do it?
Because remigration can be quite broad.
Yes.
Okay.
And so what is it we're talking about and what is it that puts the best interests of the public at first?
So I think it's very easy to say we should go to close to zero legal and illegal migration, unless it's somebody coming in to do a.
So, for example, we could go to zero immigration, but we might want doctors, because it takes a long time to train doctors.
We might want to fill positions.
We might want to bring people in from other countries.
That's good for the health of the country, so we can have a sensible policy around that.
Okay, I think we can all agree that people who've committed a crime, who've come to this country, we should be asked to deport them.
But I do think there's an important question to ask.
Say, if somebody commits a horrific crime rape of a child and we're not sure, if we deport them to another country, they will then go on to rape other children.
Should we hold them in our cells unless the other country is willing to take them?
To put them in a cell there?
No, they should hang them well.
Well, that's an alternative, but we don't have that law at the moment.
We could okay, but we could, but while we don't and while we might not get it through.
You know if, if there's 40 000 uh foreign criminals in our jails but I don't know one percent is uh, people who've committed horrific crimes.
I'm willing to compromise on the one percent, hold them and send the other thirty nine percent.
I then also think we have to look at the benefit system, how that's being used to grift.
I think that's an incentive structure.
It goes back to the surface area of the state.
So I tend to want to know about the nuance a bit more.
But I I I agree that we do need to look at this quite seriously.
I think if you put the right policies in place, a lot of people will just leave.
They'll just leave themselves and you won't have to throw them onto planes and spend a lot of money.
So, excuse me, it's like methadrone methadone for uh, immigration.
But the but was anything that I was saying about my general conception of what the state is for and who it should be operating in the interests of objectionable.
Well, we had this conversation before.
Like it's what?
How do you define what is an English person?
I'm half Irish.
Am I English?
Do I have a clan half English?
I'm half English but but, but then, but it sometimes, when these conversations happen, it depends on which country your other half from.
So so i'm always just.
I just want to know Those, because it's all well and good saying it, but if you have to create policies, those policies can be litigated.
Will it be litigated?
How will it be litigated?
So I'm not opposed to any of this.
I just want to know how it will happen because for the country to be happy, we have to then write the policies and accumulate the power to make this happen.
Otherwise, it comes through violence.
But it won't come through violence in the next year.
It's going to be decades away.
So we just have to be a little bit smart about it.
Well, the violence is already happening.
It's just that both sides are not taking part.
Sure.
Sure.
Yeah.
Now, I mean, some of the pushback on Steve Laws has been, well, go on, then define it, you know, break it down.
Because, I mean, I'm actually in the position where I've done a gene test we all did for a ladzhaw.
I'm actually 100% British and Irish.
You can say, well, Steve's only 2%.
Steve's 2% Irish.
He has to go.
Yeah, exactly.
So that's the thing, right?
So I think he said that mixed race kids have to go because they're, say, 50% not English.
So presumably it's somewhere between 50 and 100%, a line is triggered.
And a lot of people were saying to Steve, okay, well, therefore, you've got to define it.
You know, how does it work?
And the danger is, I think he's just going to keep getting thrown these edge cases because if it comes down to a mechanism of governance, you do actually need to draw a line somewhere at some point.
But moreover, you're kind of on the wrong end of the discussion if you're forced to introduce arbitrary three-fifths compromises, right?
You're making it's not just that, but you're kind of on the defensive there, right?
Rather than taking ground.
Rather than doing anything intrusive and invasive, the problem with doing intrusive stuff is any exercise of state power ends up having a hard edge that cuts against someone else.
And so on the other side, you've always got bullshit lefty Hollywood creators who are going to spend decades polluting your memory and making the Nelson Mandelas of the world famous liberal sweethearts when actually he was literally a terrorist.
He's actually a terrorist, a communist terrorist, right?
And so I think you've got to make sure that you don't end up stepping on this rake.
And so hard, like, yeah, okay, technically, you might be able to recruit 100,000 really rough guys and just burst into communities, just grab entire families, shove them on a plane and just get them out, right?
That's not going to age well.
That's going to age really badly, even if you think that is immediately necessary.
And the risk of that, also, by the way, is that the reaction is so bad from the left and the centre ground is that you lose the next election.
A lot of this gets unwound.
And assuming you can even win a coalition with that kind of rhetoric buzzing around your party, right?
Because I agree with you.
To win an election, you need a big 10, and that means you're going to have to take the most moderate position as the most likely position.
And so I think that is fair and correct.
And if this is such a pressing issue, which of course I agree that it is, then what actually does just staking out the most hardline position actually do?
It's not really very conducive to building a coalition that can actually win elections, that can actually implement policy.
It's more about attacking the people around you, right?
Attacking the people who should be.
Well, that's the uncharitable interpretation.
The charitable interpretation would be what he is doing is he's out there on the flank, taking all the arrows for us so that our position seems actually quite reasonable.
And you know what?
I appreciate Steve for doing that.
Or because we do seem a lot more moderate now, don't we?
You know what it's like to be me now.
But also, but there's also another argument.
It's like the Fuentes position that what he's establishing is a voting block that says if you want us, we want to be part of the conversation.
Sure.
Which is also another argument.
I think that potentially collapses as well.
But I just think that if long term it's about demographic protection to what someone like Steve wants, you can do this through certain shifts in policies and certain incentives that just naturally return the order.
But we also have to face an.
This is why I always talk about inflation and money as well, because this is all well and good, but if if, people aren't having babies, we have another issue in this country.
So this yeah, but this has to be tied to the economic opportunity for young people so they can get jobs, buy homes and build families, because otherwise we're screwed anyway.
But there is a lot of evidence to suggest that actually, immigration does suppress the birth rate because of exactly competition resources exactly, and and just a general sort of psychic sense of dispossession.
It seems uh, that people don't feel comfortable and safe raising children in an area that has been diversified, and so they don't.
That's that sure feels a bit bit abstract.
There is a real reality of the cost of having a child sure no, and i'm i'm not, i'm not sorry, I wasn't trying to denigrate the yeah practical, material concerns either, but it's in addition to those things.
The feeling of safety and comfort is important to whether you're going to have a family or not.
Um, so the point being, I i'm personally of the opinion that uh, I think you are correct broadly on the in, you want it to be an incentive structure right, I think obviously, with illegal immigrants, you can just grab them and deport them.
The public is not going to complain about you.
The lefty Arty types can't really say that you're the bad guy for deporting illegal rapist number 27 or whatever right is you know, no one's going to buy that you might have somebody with a mobile phone.
Rather than saying uh, fraud is bad, is saying I don't know, rape is bad.
You could.
You could have the lefty doing the same again there exactly, but it's it's, it's not something that's gonna um curse the country.
Because, I mean honestly, I I lived in James for eight years we do not want to saddle future generations with a kind of generational guilt.
Our Germans are screwed up.
You do not want to do that.
So we have anything that we did would have to be done in a certain way, or else it's a curse.
So i've got a proposal and I think it is within the liberal framework.
Well, at least it's a hell of a lot more liberal that will follow if we don't do something like this.
So what I said at the beginning um, every Anglo-country apart from Britain, has a laws that that give special privileges to the indigenous population.
So I would do that.
I define um, the indigenous population as anyone who has any British ancestry.
So just grandparent or something yeah and, and I, I mean I would make one, one in four um, British grandparents would be enough for me, because otherwise you get into that game that I talked about earlier.
Also, having having this kind of flexibility changes the nature of where they're going to attack you.
Right, because if, if you're like yeah okay, you have to have like four British grandparents or three, then that's exactly what I want to avoid.
Yeah they, they come at you going okay well i'm, i'm gonna argue the edge cases.
Um, if you expand it now, they're arguing downstream of you.
Yes, so sorry, Karen.
Yeah and and and, and I would make that.
Basically, can you do you have lineage in this country that goes back before 1945?
You know, pick the war, I mean you pick, pick some arbitrary date, but the war seems like an appropriate one.
Do you have British lineage back to that?
If you do, you're eligible for welfare and contesting parliamentary seats, that sort of stuff, holding high office.
If you don't well fine, maybe you can live here, but you're not getting any welfare and you're not going in parliament, because then you avoid all the questions of like what percentage?
Or these sorts of things.
But then I haven't forced anyone to do anything exactly, but millions will self-deport and you could even say something like okay, and this, this kicks in in three years time.
If you go now, you can have a lump sum which is the remainder of that three-year term of your welfare.
If you just go now.
Yeah, I mean, the Danes did this as well.
They paid the Dane girls um, but the this is another thing just turning off the spigot uh, stop allowing people in and stop giving them money, and then millions will just leave on their own backs, because a huge like taxing remittances would probably deport millions of people.
The only other i'd go two steps further um, one is to allow no new mosques and close the ones down that we've already got.
And the second, There will be people making moral arguments against you on this, right?
Yeah.
So you essentially want anything that there's just no moral argument against.
So, and that's why I went the way I went on the first bit.
On the second bit, Sod, I'm going to take the hit.
I'm just going to close the bloody mosques.
Right.
And the last thing is just apply existing law uniformly.
And, for example, food standards.
No more halal exotia.
I mean, that's fine.
Preventing halal slaughter, so any meat that they want has got to be imported, so it's an increased cost.
No, allow it.
I mean, if you need halal meat, you can bloody go vegetable.
Yeah, but someone's going to be like, right, so you're going to starve these people, right?
That's what they're like.
You can eat a carrot.
Yeah, I know.
But the point is you're burning political capital unnecessarily, right?
And again, like, targeting mosques, this is an unnecessary use of political capital.
Why not use that political capital to remove the desire for mosques and?
I will say my first proposal does like 95% of the work.
It does.
But, like, for example.
The rest is personal.
Yes.
Yes, it is.
It kind of is.
Deport anyone connected to a grooming gang, right?
That was Rupert Lowe's position.
It's like, look, if we, you know, you all knew that the grooming gangs were going on.
The wives knew, the children knew.
You're all going back to Pakistan, right?
That is a large lump of a community, a very large lump.
But you're doing the thing that you accuse me of, which is burning political capital on...
Well, no, I think that's a perfectly defensible position.
Well, I think my mosque is perfectly defensible.
I'm not saying it's not defensible, but you'll get activists and liberal types who will start making loads of arguments.
They'll make the arguments against the rape gangs too, but you'll always be able to come out and go, this is a family of rapists.
Well, you're going to have to get rid of the ECHR first.
Well, obviously.
Oh, yeah.
Obviously, yeah, yeah.
You remove any legal barriers.
And lots and lots of Whitehall.
It's all got to go.
Sure, but that's the constitutional issue rather than the demographic issue.
But fundamentally, just to finish this off, because we're running out of time, he's not wrong to be arguing for the demographic security of the English people in England, obviously.
Well, no, I mean, I'd just very quickly say, it sounds like Carl and I broadly agree on the how to do it, and then we're just discussing how we would spend our last bit of political capital.
You want to deport certain groups, I want to close mosques.
What would you do?
But deporting certain groups would close mosques.
Well, yeah, that as well.
Yeah.
What would you do, Pete?
How would you do it?
What my political capital.
So I'm really interested in who can hold office, who can hold political office, because I would hate the UK to become like Lebanon.
Like Minnesota.
Yeah, like Minnesota, but specifically, there is a correlation between votes and religion.
And the problem is religion can set the base laws of a country.
I think we've crossed that point.
I was born, I was raised a Christian, a Catholic, but I'm more towards atheism, really.
I'm not practicing Christian.
But I'm very happy for the foundational laws of this country based in Christianity.
If you look at the laws within Muslim countries, there is a distinct difference because it's based on Islam.
And I think there is a correlation between, if you're Muslim, you're more likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, which means there's going to be political influence for things that are more suited to shift the laws towards their religion.
And that gets us in a position where we will have ideological clashes.
I mean, nowhere in the history of the world have long-term religions sat side by side and got on well.
It just doesn't happen.
It didn't happen in Northern Ireland.
Well, it didn't happen in Lebanon.
It can happen, but there has to be an express hierarchy.
Yeah, exactly.
Why can't we not prepare to counter this?
I think Pakistan has 10 seats in their parliament for minority religions.
And I think you can only be president if you are Muslim.
I'm not opposed to the idea that we try and separate religion and state.
And we say we do, but we really don't because we allow it through political influence.
I'd probably burn my political capital on that.
Interesting.
Then I'll focus on the money.
Anyway, so yeah, I mean, you are right, Dan.
Basically, other people need to start staking out other positions on this if they don't want more.
Because only Steve Laws has done so.
So, I mean, good for him.
Let's go to some of the comments.
Have we got video comments today?
There's a great comment from the website, Ewan here.
It's like, Gove as a snake being cornered by a mongoose.
And that is genuinely how it felt.
What it actually looked like.
Yeah, exactly.
They look it as well.
You know, that's a great analogy.
Let's go to the video comments.
Good morning, and happy new year, Lotus Eaters.
Yes.
It's the first rising sun of the new year.
We missed a little bit of it because of the cloud cover this morning.
But this is considered auspicious in Japan.
We're here at Saratoga Lake in New York.
It's lovely, though.
I thought Lee Charsota.
Yeah.
You know, first time in five years riding my bike into work, I've come off my bike today because of the bloody ice.
Yeah, I skidded off my feet.
Yeah, it's mad.
It was like black ice.
Is there another one?
Let's go to the next one.
Evening, Lodis and Crew, and to all the Merry Christmas.
I'm a licensed firearms holder in Australia, particularly New South Wales.
So if you have any questions answered, I can answer those.
Also, regarding certain restrictions, safekeeping laws, and among other things, that would have easily broken the laws leading up to the event that should have easily flagged them for figure thing.
And if Faraz is ever interested in looking at Australia's issue with particular Middle Eastern groups, I would suggest to Cronulla looking into the Cronala riots and more particularly ask Helen Dale about it.
She might have more information on it.
Have the screens gone blank there, Samson?
There we go.
Let's go to the next one.
From Starwave Toys, it's the Quality Leering Centre playset.
The place where kids can't read good, but the cash sure does.
Whoa, empty deck!
Load up the money counter and watch the grants rolling.
Reach daring government audits and nice and depriving actions.
I'll tell you all right.
Everyone complains about AI, but they're great for political commentary.
I love it.
I don't complain about AI.
I love it.
Somebody gave me AI tits.
Yeah.
I'm not sure if I like it or not.
It's strangely alluring.
Have you seen this thing for the last 24 hours with Grok where it's asking him to remove images?
Yeah.
Yeah, I do that.
He backfired on me quite a lot.
He removed his shirt for some reason.
Yeah.
Let's get to the next one.
Oh, here we go.
Merry Christmas.
Have they got the voice slightly closer?
There's a reason not to get the voice as well.
That's more unsettling than my AI tits, I've got to say.
There's something...
There's something uncanny valley about that one.
Yeah.
Good afternoon, gentlemen, and happy new year.
Well, we ended up with a bit of a brown Christmas, but we had a snowfall the day after Christmas.
And well, when you need to tackle a heavy snowfall, here's the device you use.
And hey, here's a brief song.
Better watch out.
I think she's a guy.
I ain't quite sure, but something ain't right.
Bridget Macron's coming to town.
Man, the Bridget Macron thing is just nonsense.
She's a woman.
She's just a groomer.
She's just being a massive pedo is enough.
Yeah, yeah, it's enough, is it not?
Yeah, actually, Candace has made it so ridiculous, we've overlooked the grooming.
Yeah, exactly.
She was literally grooming.
He's younger than her children.
It's mad.
Anyway, we have the Gold Tier Zoom call in half an hour, by the way.
I forgot to announce that at the beginning of the podcast.
I'm not sure who's on it.
Probably.
I'm not on it.
Me and Nuka.
I could be, I suppose.
I don't know.
But we're just going to sit around and so if you're a gold tier subscriber, come and join us and we'll have a nice little New Year's chat.
This is actually December's Gold Tier Zoom call.
Just we could do it today, so we were going to.
It's the way the calendar keeps rotating, isn't it?
Roman Observer said, how could we believe that Lowe as the head of the Tories would be on the right path?
Maybe if he started by deporting Kemi.
Well, yeah.
Yeah, but, I mean... I wouldn't deport her, just deny her benefits and the ability to hold a parliamentary seat.
What's remarkable about Kemi is how little impact she's making, right?
Like, the first black woman as the leader of a party, nobody cares.
Nobody cares what you're doing.
That time has passed.
What have you done this for?
She's a black woman.
She's a boss.
The whole the first thing doesn't cut it.
No, it's all gone.
Yeah.
And now she's just.
I don't know.
Like, nobody thinks about her.
She never comes up in any kind of political discourse.
Forgettable.
Exactly.
But the conservatives are generally, aren't they?
Henry says, an important thing to remember is the system will rally to protect itself.
It isn't doing it based on some sort of top-down leadership of it.
The incentives at each level push everyone in the system to defend itself.
None of the civil service are going back to a reformation because they'd be out of a job.
And the only reason that they haven't been sacked yet is because it's legally impossible to sack them.
And that's another good point as well.
There were parts in that interview where Gove was kind of accusing Dominic of being conspiratorial.
I was like, no, this is all the way they work and they always have worked.
And Henry here is exactly right.
The thing will just tighten because everyone involved realizes that this is their pensions on the line.
So completely true.
But anyway, I'm afraid we have run out of time there.
So Peter, where can people find more of you?
Just Twitter, Peter McCormack, or the Peter McCormack show on YouTube.
Thanks for having me.
I really enjoyed this.
Well, thanks so much for coming in.
Hopefully this doesn't ruin you.
I won't read the comments.
It's not the comments I'd be worried about.
Anyway, thanks for joining us, folks.
We'll see you in half an hour for the Gold Tier Zoom call.