The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1357 features Lewis Brackpool, Harrison Pitt, and Charlie Downs from Restore Britain, exposing a 2020 Mind the Values Gap report revealing MPs ignore mainstream public views—60% support capital punishment for terrorists, 65% for child murderers, yet Labour and Conservatives push left/right extremes. Restore’s 65,000+ members (growing toward 100,000) contrast with Reform UK’s perceived establishment drift, including retaining unelected Quangos like the OBR. Supporters dismiss Farage’s divisive policies and media antics, framing Restore as a necessary spear against "Blairism" to prevent national collapse. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the podcast of The Lord Seattle's for Wednesday, the 18th of February, 2026.
I'm joined by the Restore Britain team, Lewis Brackpool, Harrison Pitt, and Charlie Downs.
Thanks for being here, gentlemen.
Hello, Carl.
Hello.
And today we're going to be talking about how the people have actually already told us that they want restore.
They just don't know it yet.
Then we're going to be talking about Nigel Farage's response to the Restore Britain party.
And then we're going to be talking about how reform have just come out today, literally, and admitted that they're just pure containment in literally every way that actually is substantive.
And so it's going to be a big podcast.
So we'll just get straight on with it.
So back in 2020, this report came out and it's called The Mind the Values Gap.
And what this did is show us the distinction between the general public and what the average person in this country actually wants and what they're getting in parliament.
And it's pretty bad.
So we'll just start on page seven.
There's a lot to this, obviously.
So I'm going to pluck a few things out that are particularly relevant.
But yeah, there we go.
Page seven.
So you can see the economic values here, right?
So as you can see, the voters are actually kind of centre-left when it comes to economics.
They are, of course, accepting of markets.
They're, of course, accepting of private property ownership.
And they accept that, you know, I mean, nobody likes paying taxes.
But you can see that none of the MPs, and remember, this is back in 2020, so you really only had two horse race.
There are only two games in town, Conservatives and Labour.
So that's based on the sort of the paradigm that's breaking down.
But it shows you why that paradigm is breaking down.
Labour MPs and voters are far to the left, but at least the Labour voters and the Labour MPs are kind of roughly aligned.
Conservative voters and conservative MPs massively out of whack.
Conservative MPs and the councillors and the candidates and the members are all way to the right, which means extreme free marketeers, compared to not only conservative voters, but the median voter themselves.
And so you're right, okay, that's a strange misalignment that isn't good for anyone.
And then if we go down to the social values on page 10, I mean, here's just like a more detailed, granular point on that.
So as you can see, like the average voter is just not really getting at all what they want.
And management will always try to get the better of employees when it gets the chance.
Well, I mean, conservative voters and labor MPs agree with that.
So why are the conservative MPs so radically in favor of big business, for example?
And all these sorts of things.
The one law for the rich, one law for the poor.
Conservative MPs, no, not at all voters.
And Labour MPs are a bit more realistic about this.
And of course, big business takes advantage of ordinary people.
Well, the Labour MPs are a bit more to the left on the voters, but still, you can see this is a complete misalignment.
Then we get the social values.
That's very interesting, isn't it?
All voters are to the right of conservative MPs.
Interesting that the dichotomy there is liberal and authoritarian.
I mean, how do they define authoritarianism?
It's true.
It doesn't matter.
You know, right-wing and left-wing.
You know what they're saying.
Should you be more restrained or more open, right?
But isn't it interesting how Labour voters are far to the right of Labour MPs and the average voter is to the right of the Conservative MPs?
So our MPs are generally wet libs.
And it's not anything new, but at least it's nice to have the actual data there.
Any thoughts on this so far?
Yeah, well, I mean, one thing that I would say is that I think that we are still to some extent living off the fumes of the Cold War, in which in order to be a patriotic person, in order to be pro-Western, in order to be conservative in some sense, you had to be in favor of the free market because the free market was against the Soviets.
It's the obvious alternative.
You've either got a set.
The options are simple.
Either we have a free market system or we have a centrally planned society of the kind that Hayek warns about in The Road to Serfdom.
But I think it was very well put by, I can't remember his name, but there's someone running in Florida at the moment for some role.
He's called James Fisher back.
And he was on Tucker Carson the other day, and I think he put it very well.
What we want in America, he said, and obviously in Britain, I think this would be the position of restored Britain, is not so much a free market, we want a free people.
And so to the extent that that is consistent with market dynamics, excellent.
And to the extent that market dynamics act in a predatory fashion, which in fact erode the freedoms of Englishmen or Britons in this country, then we should dissent from it.
So in other words, it should be a matter of pragmatic judgment, not sort of ideological rigidity.
And I would say that that's our position.
This is a point that I've made many times as well, because the abstraction, the ideological abstraction of the free market is actually not reflective necessarily of the concrete reality of property ownership.
And in fact, the free market has come to inhibit property ownership.
Good luck getting a house on EV ladder by the way.
And that's all the free market that's done that.
That's not socialism.
So he's absolutely right.
Is the market actually useful and is it serving its function?
And has it been used to exploit the countries or actually serve them?
And so I'm like with everyone else, I'm, of course, a standard Englishman on this.
I own my property and you don't get to tell me what to do with it.
But I don't want to see the country at the whims of predatory international capital.
That's not a good thing for anyone.
Yeah, I would summarize our position.
As you know, Carl, Rupert is a man of the city.
He was a businessman.
But he recognizes, unlike I would say, more or less every other politician of the so-called right, that Britain is not just an economy.
And this is something that you can do.
Yes.
He recognizes that Britain is a people and we are not just an extension of an economy.
And therefore, the economy needs to serve the people and not the other way around.
And so I would sort of summarize our position by saying that we believe in rewarding risk-taking, we believe in rewarding hard work, but not to the extent that it makes it impossible to survive in our country if you are somebody that genuinely can't work.
We believe in taking care of our people.
But also, we've got a real problem with the sort of radically Reaganite sort of style open markets, which is: okay, if we were dealing with just a purely free market with maybe the Northwest European countries, the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Holland, those sort of countries, then maybe we could have that sort of radically open.
But now we're competing with China and India, who essentially have what we would consider to be slave labor and drastically undercut our markets and our workers.
That's not a fair competition, and we're actually setting ourselves up for destruction, which is why China is the manufacturing hub of the world at the moment.
So we, I think, have all agreed basically, free market Reaganism, as you pointed out, it's archaic, it's a holdover from the Cold War, and actually it's been exploited.
It crosses over with immigration as well.
Yes, it does.
Because you can definitely argue, and I would argue it as well, that immigration isn't really a binary sort of topic.
It's not to do with left or right anymore because the far end of capitalism is importing cheap labor, and the fat cats at the top get richer and richer with that.
So when you argue with the Greens, for example, who want to just use us as an economic zone, open the borders as well.
Yeah, you can easily flank them from this side by literally saying, well, hang on a minute, if you bring all these people over, it's going to drive down wages, it's going to cause friction, and it's going to cause the state and the welfare state and various other institutions.
Not only that, you are being the useful idiots of big business.
Yes, exactly.
You say, oh, I'm against the rich, but you do everything that they want.
Exactly.
Since Trump's victory, there has been an obvious attempt on the part of the left to try and pivot back to economic considerations.
Rather than being race communists, we'll go back to being more sort of old school economic communists and egalitarians.
And you have these people who are sort of spokespeople for this.
And I suppose in the British case, what's he called?
Garansky?
Oh, well, Gary Stevenson.
Gary Stevenson.
Gary Stevenson.
But what you realize very quickly if you start talking to these people, not that I have, but I've seen them talk about it, is that as soon as you start probing them on the extent to which immigration makes the kind of agenda that they're interested in having less scalable, they immediately prioritize certain race taboos, as Eric Calpin would, over their supposed economic egalitarianism, which goes to show that it's fairly skin deep.
And it is largely just a strategy.
But this is the point, as we've discussed.
Well, just a quick thing.
It's mostly just predicated on resentment.
I just hate the people, yeah.
And therefore, and white people.
Yeah, predominantly.
Imagine managing to dovetail your two favourite hatreds together to destroy the country.
Sorry, but we discussed a few months ago the rise of the post-woke left embodied in the figure of Gary Stevenson.
And I said at that time that the right does actually need an answer.
And you were well ahead of the curve on that.
Well done.
Because what they're saying is true about property ownership, about the way in which wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people because of the type of system that we have.
But I mean, our position would not be to just steal from people to rectify that situation.
Because I mean, the main reason not to do that is because it doesn't work.
Or ban landlords.
Yeah, ought to be as blind to the importance of demographics as these people are.
As soon as you start scratching blows.
I mean, there are some genuinely decent, we might call them like paleo-conservative leftists who do understand the importance of culture and the understanding of demographics in making a society flourish.
William Clouston is the obvious example.
Yes.
And William himself, I'm sure, would be willing to admit this.
They are a rarity these days.
Oh, absolutely.
Very.
But this is exactly the point, isn't it?
Rather than actually engaging in some kind of necessary surgery to heal the wound and fix the problem, they just want to change the excesses of the problem.
Yes.
It's like, oh, no, I still want as many cheap workers coming in as possible.
I just want to then be punitive towards the people who are benefiting from this.
It's the worst of all possible words.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
It's the worst of all possible words.
How about we just stem the tide?
Yes.
So they just don't have the option of benefiting the way they are.
But anyway, right.
So let's move on to social values since we've covered the economic values.
And my goodness, look at the poor all-voters dot in the middle there.
Labour MPs radically to the left.
Conservative MPs also radically to the left.
You can see it.
You can see it with your own eyes.
It's good to see the data.
We are not represented in any way by anyone in the establishment and haven't been for a very long time.
And then, look, I mean, this, like, this is the first one is just the death penalty, right?
Like, Labour voters are to the right of conservative MPs on the death penalty for, say, terrorists.
Yes.
Right.
Now, this, we'll get into the polling in a minute because it's just ridiculous.
But again, all voters, young people don't have enough respect for traditional British values.
Conservative voters, sorry, all voters, radically to the right of the conservative MPs, who are basically on the same spot as who are to the left of the Labour voters.
Just this is crazy.
British values mentioned, though.
Yeah, I know, I know.
But for the average person, they just think that means traditional Britain.
Yeah.
That's what they're thinking.
Proper Britain.
Yeah, proper Britain.
And so this has been a consistent through line through our politics.
I mean, look at that.
People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences.
All voters, yes, quite right-wing on that.
Conservative MPs, well, hang on a second.
I'm a wet lib, actually.
Labour MPs, no, I want your communities filled with troublemakers, which is why on day one, Kirstama opens the prisons.
Like, this is traditional left-wing politics in order to create chaos in society that you have to deal with.
One thing that I would say, I mean, I gave people on the left, I mean, there is every difference in the world, isn't there, between a stated preference and a revealed preference.
And I gave people trouble on the left earlier for being sort of economically leftist, but not being willing in a way that someone like Clouston is to bite the demographic bullet.
Same is true the other way for many of those conservatives who are trying to be performatively tough about giving people stiffer sentences and all the rest of it.
There's a really good example from the US would be all Republicans almost to a T, when asked, ordinary mainstream Republicans, do you believe in meritocracy at universities?
They go, oh, yes, of course.
I completely believe in meritocracy at universities.
But when it comes to actually confronting what the results of meritocracy at universities would mean, I think there was a study, Harvard itself admitted, because it was forced to in a lawsuit brought by in an action by Asian students who felt like they, alongside white people, were being discriminated against through affirmative action at Harvard.
Harvard admitted that the black population of its student body would go from being around 14% to 0.6% if meritocracy were truly enforced and there really was a sort of colourblind process of admission.
When it comes to this, and I don't think that many Republicans would be politically willing to tolerate that by way of outcome, the same applies here when it's stuff like people who break the law should be given stiffer sentences.
You've got all of these conservative, or to be fair, they're the left of voters, which is interesting, but a lot of conservative members and conservative voters, not to disparage them personally, but it's very likely that they wouldn't, they would be, their consciences would be pricked by what that would mean in practice.
That would be certainly the case for the MPs.
Certainly the case for the MPs, but in fairness, at least they're not being performatively tough about it.
I didn't realize that.
I quite get my point, but if I were to say, if you have more people from foreign backgrounds going to prison, and I don't know, there's a statistic that the left makes a lot about, this percentage of black people who are in prison, a lot of conservatives are not actually going to be happy with that outcome.
No, maybe they should stop committing crimes.
But I like the final one there.
Schools should teach children to obey authority.
Even then, the voters are just to the right of the conservative MPs on this.
Now, this should have been the easiest slam dunk for a conservative MP.
How are the members and the voters far to the right of the average MP on this?
This is completely uncontroversial.
I mean, look at Labour voters.
Even they're right-wing on this issue.
Labour MPs and Labour members, of course, radically to the left.
Given that Labour control the schools, I'm somewhat surprised that they disagree with that so strongly.
Wow, I suppose.
Authority in this case.
Anyway, I don't think they did when this study was committed.
So that's the landscape that we've been in for a long time.
This was done in 2020, but nothing substantive has changed on this.
All of our MPs are, of course, still left-wing in some way or another.
I would imagine the position of all voters has hardened on all of those issues, though.
I'd say that's probably the only thing.
I would love to see an update on that study.
Anyway, so I thought we'd talk about Restore Britain's stated positions on any sort of popular and controversial hot topic.
Because as far as I can tell, and we have all of the polling for this, Restore Britain represents a massive underserved demographic that we call the British public.
Because when polled on all of these issues, the British public's like, I like that a lot.
And so actually, a lot of what Rupert Lowe and yourselves have been putting forward is actually completely uncontroversial outside of the Westminster bubble of very left-wing liberal ideology.
And I thought we'd just go through it in detail.
So talking about gender ideology.
British Public's Controversial Positions00:16:14
Now, I mean, this should be a really straightforward thing for everyone in this area to go.
But even now, they're still talking about the plight of men in dresses, which is very strange.
But of course, Restore Britain will not pretend that a man wearing a dress is a woman.
We're just not going to do that.
They're going to follow the Supreme Court decision.
And people agree with this, unsurprisingly.
Over half of people agree with the Supreme Court that a transgender woman is not legally a woman.
Over half believe they should be excluded from women's sports and toilets.
So you have an overall majority there.
It's just really cut and dried.
No controversy there.
J.K. Rowling has won and Nicholas Sturgeon has lost.
I made the point to the venerable Alex Phillips the other night that this issue, although it is very important because we still have a governing class in this country that believes in this kind of nonsense.
Nevertheless, it is, I think, viewed as being a kind of safe anti-establishment talking point to talk about trans.
It's kind of permitted.
kind of allowed to, which is why you hear reform MPs banging on about it.
If it helps, we're going to get onto all of them.
This was just the easingness in.
So it's like the basics, yes, men are men and women are women, and they're not interchangeable.
That's really not very controversial.
So the next one is, of course, on non-stunned slaughter.
Yes.
Of course, Rupert has been banging this drum, as you can see, for a long time now.
Back in June last year, he was saying this.
And now, this is one of those things, actually, I couldn't find very strong polling on in Britain, but around Europe more broadly, wildly popular.
Yeah, no particular reason to think that the average Brits would have a different opinion.
I mean, I think it may well be higher in Britain because we have the longest tradition of any country in the world of animal rights.
I was going to say.
1832, I think, the first animal rights law passed.
There's a book called The English Are the Human, and in it, the Dutch psychologist who's writing it, he's visiting Britain.
He goes on about the British love of animals, and he just can't understand why we love our animals so much.
It's like because they're our friends.
I don't know.
I don't know what to tell you.
Yeah, well, I don't know if you've got this included car, but the Telegraph of all places published a hit piece on us.
I think it was yesterday, last last time.
Oh, I didn't see it, actually.
About this topic, essentially criticising us for calling for halal and kosher slaughter to be banned.
And our response to that is: this is Britain, and we will do things our way.
Yes, and that's the correct result.
There was a poll that Rupert Lowe posted on his Facebook page that suggested 55% of people wanted a ban on non-stun slaughter, and only 12% didn't want to ban it.
Although, like I said, I haven't seen the details of this one.
But I think it's really safe to assume that that is, I mean, honestly, I think that's severely undercounting.
If you actually showed someone a video of non-stun slaughtering, say, are you okay with this?
Yeah, part of the point.
It's interesting that the reaction about us wanting to ban Halau and kosher has been from the bubble, it's been quite interesting to see many people come out and start saying, well, it's an issue that's, you know, it's not looked at.
It's an issue that we just don't really care about.
Yeah, it's settled.
Like, you know, we just carry on.
Interesting.
Dog Whistle for Xenophobia says Iqbal Mohammed, one of the Gaza MPs.
And oh, is this the one you were talking about?
That's the one.
Yeah, banning ritual slaughter would shame Britain.
Come on.
Does anyone believe that?
I thought it was an issue that nobody really cared about.
But also, I'm personally of the opinion that the fact that we permit it is what shames us.
And actually, we need to do something about this.
I really enjoy it.
It's completely inappropriate for a first world country like ours.
Of course, but you are also a racist, according to popular Twitter poster Harry Eccles.
Well, it's exactly.
Sorry, who is he?
Sorry?
He's a popular left-wing tweeter.
Oh, right.
Never heard of him.
And, yeah, you're going to be shocked, though.
He thinks you're a racist.
Oh, really?
Yeah, this is...
Don't care.
The next one.
Not allow foreigners to vote in British elections.
Wow, that seems controversial.
stand by the way because commonwealth citizens can stand as reform showed all of us you don't want you don't want bangladeshi nationalists standing in i don't want bangladeshi nationals standing in my election Absolutely.
Why would we want any foreign national standing in our election?
Danny Finkelstein, friend of the show, replied to a tweet that I made about this about how we don't want second-generation migrants occupying positions in great offices of state in this country, which in my view is perfectly sensible.
But he said it was a bonkers fringe position.
Why do we want foreigners in positions of power in our country?
Okay, Danny, but how many generations do British people have to live in Pakistan or Israel or India before we're allowed to stand in their elections and take over their country?
And if the answer is there is no limit because you're not allowed, then why shouldn't we be reciprocal on that?
Anyway, so perfectly sensible position, in my opinion.
The British subjects, the British public, of course, think the same.
Now, again, I had to go back to 2013 to get this because for some reason, they just don't poll on this.
But 60% of adults say no.
It would be even higher now.
It's bound to be even higher now.
I didn't realise there was a migration that happened in 2014 between two systems.
So they brought over like old data of the electorate over to a new system and it's completely discombobulated and they can't actually find exact data on who is voting in our elections, especially Commonwealth citizens.
Um, I believe we got uh, I think it was Bradford, who came back to us as well and said, I think it was over 30 000 I need to double check on this because I haven't looked at it in quite some time but uh, it was over 30 000 Commonwealth citizens voting in Bradford alone.
Unbelievable, um.
And I I found that you can.
If you're part of the Commonwealth, you can.
Let's say, you're from Canada, you can fly over on an indefinite leave to remain or indefinite leave to enter, you can stay in temporary accommodation and you can sign up and vote in our elections.
Literally, you can come on holiday.
Yeah, you can come on holiday to vote.
I think a very important point to make here uh, but the the grounds for excluding these people is is very easy and straightforward.
As far as i'm concerned, the major principle of democracy is that you need to receive the consent of the governed in order to, in order for a certain policy to take effect when it, when we're talking about immigrant populations with incredibly shallow roots here.
Their consent is assumed by the fact that they have chosen to live in this country.
They, in in the vast majority of cases, they will have backup homelands of their own to which they can the vast majority, every single person well, I mean, there will be educators, like the Kurds, and all that sort of thing, but you but you.
So that's why i've had to had to hedge it a bit but yes um, who and to which they can relocate in the event that they are unhappy with the way in which the British uh, having built this country uh, decide to organize themselves in their own way, politically right and frankly, this is our country, it's just.
You know, this is our country, it's our democracy, this is our political power.
You aren't entitled to.
It is the way I look at these things.
Um anyway so uh obviously, the British public in favour.
How about deporting criminals?
Controversial with some, including Nigel Franchise, we'll get to that in a bit, but not controversial with the British public.
Obviously uh, 90 of people like yeah, why would they stay?
Yeah, and Kirstan was like they're not only staying, i'm letting them out early, we want them to work.
Yeah yeah very, very bizarre, but um overall.
Uh, people want millions to go.
Right, this is just.
If millions go, then millions go.
And uh this, this is a very interesting uh you GOV uh poll.
That they did, but they found that um 45 of Britons here think, admitting no new more my, no more new migrants and requiring large numbers of migrants who came to the Uk in recent years to leave.
That's apart from the 12 who don't know.
We'll take them out.
Uh, that's, half of the public already agree with this, and this was done uh, a few months back.
When was?
Yeah, August last year.
So this was before Rupert Lowe started Restore Britain as a party.
This is before any significant campaigning has been done.
No, just half the people in this country are like, why are there so many foreigners here?
They need to go home.
And that is with the public being very low information on these sorts of topics.
Because I think it's in this exact same study, but it shows that the majority of people think net migration is running at about 70,000 a year.
And they think most of the people they see are illegals.
Yes.
And so if they think that it's only 70,000 and it's at that point they're saying, you know, there's far too many coming.
And in fact, we need to reverse this process.
Just wait till we start running our campaigns nationwide, showing that it's in the millions.
And more to the point.
I mean, this is the moderate position, as you said, Carl, about the various other positions that we're taking.
This is the normal, I think, settled opinion of the British public because the alternative, and in fact, what has happened already is far more radical than what we're proposing.
It's insane.
But you can see that more people than not think, yeah, millions have to go.
So Rupert Lowe, absolutely correct when he said, if millions leave, millions leave, and 45% of the public are like, great.
And if you got 45% of the public to vote for you in a general election, you'd have a massive landslide.
And everyone knows that.
So again, wildly popular position that Rupert Lowe's just put his finger on the pulse on.
So of course, cousin marriage, Kier Starmer might be for it, but people are obviously against it.
This is from 2025, three.
Three quarters.
Yeah, 77% of Britons say it shouldn't be legal, and the rest are poor.
It's just that remaining percent saying, yeah, let's be up for it.
Countries where it's normal.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
It's just wild that.
It's like three-quarters of Britain oppose incest.
Yeah, yeah, that's mental.
Basically, yes.
So again, another wildly popular position.
But then there are other things that don't tend to come up that much, but Rupert Lowe has come out and said anyway, and these are the things I find the most interesting because these are all fairly predictable, right?
These are all fairly mainstream things.
One of my favourites was the home defense point, right?
Because I'm just telling you, no, if you ever broke into my house, I'm gutting you like a fish.
I don't care what happens to me afterwards, right?
But the British public completely agree with this.
And this is one of those things that there have been test cases, and essentially the judiciary has had to back down out of public outrage because people are like, you are not punishing that guy for defending himself in his own home.
And of course, people have always been in favour of this.
This is just one from 2014.
Oh, no, we want to extend the basher burglar law.
The majority of the public support changing the law to allow people to use whatever force they see fit to defend themselves and their homes against intruders.
And most say that causing death is acceptable.
Yes, don't break into my house.
If you break into my house, you deserve it.
60%.
It's quite different from the Cameronite hugger hoodie.
Very much.
Bash a burglar.
Yeah.
Bash a burglar.
That's actually one of our slogans.
Break into my house and you get what you deserve.
And then, of course, the death penalty is another one of those points.
Weirdly, the millennials are most in favour of it.
And was this?
This was not very long ago at all.
Last year.
And there have been.
58%.
Yeah, 58% of millennials.
But overall, there have been lots of different polls of this.
It's about 50% of people who just, when you ask, just yes, I'd like the death penalty back.
We're the only party offering that, by the way.
I know.
And Rupert Lowe's the only MP in parliament since about the 1960s who even agreed with that.
Too much screeching, by the way.
I know that question.
I know.
And Stalma, of course, anti-death penalty campaigner for free in his spare time against paedophiles.
It's worth mentioning as well that we're talking about the values gap.
This has obviously been in existence for a long time, beginning in the 60s, I suppose, which is when the death penalty was abolished.
And it was abolished, not by a government promising to abolish it in advance of an election.
It was abolished by Roy Jenkins.
Well, Roy Jenkins was home secretary, but it was through a private member's bill.
It was not mentioned in any manifesto.
So it was very much a matter of a kind of small cadre of people treating their own luxury.
Well, indeed, treating their own luxury beliefs is sort of the settled view of the British people, and it just hasn't been reversed since because Conservatives haven't had the courage to do so.
Correct.
I mean, personally, I love, and again, this is from November 2025.
I love the British public sometimes.
You know, 17% are in favour of bringing back flogging.
I'm one of those 17%.
And a minority of 21% are like, bring back the stocks.
But again, just, you know, 50%, when asked neutrally, do you support bringing back capital punishment?
Now, as everyone knows with polling, if you change the question, you change the results.
And so we say, well, what about for terrorists?
It goes up to like 60%.
What about child murderers?
65%.
Everyone agrees.
Why are these people still here as in on this mortal plane?
Like, these people need to be dealt with.
And there's just no real debate about that.
So the point that I'm making here is that actually, basically everything Restore Britain has put out has just been a reflection of the unserved desires of the British electorate.
Yeah, the 60% of people who didn't vote at the last election.
40%.
The 40%.
It wasn't 60%.
60% who did.
But that's still a massive percentage.
Even so.
Massive percentage of people who've just given up because they're not seeing their values represented.
They're not going to get what they want.
I'm surprised to see Lord Glasman come out in favour of the return of the stocks.
I'm not Glasman's base.
Really?
Oh, yeah.
He's one of the few blue labour types left in existence who's just like, why aren't we flogging these people?
Oh, my God.
That's a great question.
But the thing is, Lord Glasman actually represents on almost all of the issues, the majority British popular opinion.
He's not a communist, but he's not a free market radical, and he's socially conservative and wants to see severe law and order and discipline.
He honestly is very representative of what the average Britain actually wants.
Don't quote me on this, but I do believe he's quite pro-Shabana Mahmood at the minute.
To be fair, she's one of the most hardcore home secretaries we've had in a long time.
Like, you know, as much as I don't like Labour or Shabana Mahmood either, a lot of the stuff she's done has been pretty solid.
You can't argue with it.
But anyway, so what do you chaps think of all that?
That seems fairly reasonable.
Yeah, I mean, it's obvious that the British public have not been served by the political class for as long as I've been alive, certainly.
And for some reason, there is this consensus in Westminster within the M25 about what is moral and what is not.
And I think really one of the main reasons that we decided to turn Restore Britain into a political party, having been launched as a movement and pressure group, is simply because the vehicle, the sort of natural vehicle for these sorts of ideas, Reform UK, was drifting basically to where the rest of the politicians have drifted to on these issues.
And so if reform is not going to be the vehicle for these ideas, then the British public need something else.
And that's the gap we intend to fill.
And it's clearly the gap that you are filling.
I mean, Rupert Lowe, basically, on almost all of these issues, is just basically where all voters are.
Yeah.
It's to the right of all voters.
Well, it's to the right of all MPs.
Anyway, we'll move on to the next point because, so the announcement and the rise of the Restore Party has been very interesting.
Let's go to the next one, Samson.
It's been very interesting because there has been an illegitimate squatter in the chair of the right-wing seat, claiming to be the king of the right without actually being very right-wing himself.
So before we go on, how has the response to the launch of Restore been from the back end, from the people on the receiving end?
Overwhelming.
Yeah, it's pretty overwhelming.
Overwhelming support.
Overwhelming.
I mean, you know, some people, very vanishing few who wants to cancel their memberships, but in the dozens, compared to an inbox of in the thousands.
Yeah.
I think our inbox yesterday was sitting at around 6,500.
Yeah.
Having various staff members going through it all day for multiple days.
No, I mean, our membership is- I understand you're past 60,000 members.
Yeah, well, I was just going to say, so our memberships are past 60,000.
I think that was either yesterday or the day before, and it's continuing to climb.
I mean, I think that we're probably going to hit 100K.
Overwhelming Support00:03:48
I think that is doable.
I think it's completely doable.
Very, very doable.
And beyond.
But no, I mean, the response has been overwhelming.
And in terms of, I think personally, for the three of us, the support has been just unbelievable.
It's very heartening because it shows you there is an appetite for what we're offering out there.
A great many people who are underserved by the current political establishment.
And again, particularly reform.
It's like primarily from reform that a lot of our new members and indeed new councillors are coming.
And not just people, and also people who are just completely checked out of the political system entirely, which is obviously a demographic that polls struggle to get a handle on.
On that point, by the way, there is something important to say here because one of the main criticisms leveled at us, obviously, is you're going to split the vote.
And what I would say to that is we're taking them.
Yeah, one, one.
You know, who are we splitting the vote from?
In our view, we're splitting the vote from the establishment, whether that's Labour or the Tories or Reform.
They're all essentially different shades of the same entity, which is what people, Reform themselves, in fact, call the Uni Party.
So if we're splitting votes away from them, good.
I mean, they are the source of all the problems in this country.
But more to the point, if you look at the poll that was done, which placed Restore Britain on 10% in the polls a couple of days after we launched, you will see that a great many people who polled for us were people that didn't vote in 2024.
And so in fact, the idea that we're splitting anything is just false.
It's recovering lost voters is the main issue.
But ultimately, I don't really think that they have thought through that attack line either.
Because, I mean, A, it's the attack line the Conservatives used against Nigel Farage when he launched the Restore.
You're splitting the vote.
You're going to give us Labour government, which actually is what happened.
But Nigel then just making the same argument against you.
It's like, yeah, but look where you are after going through the process.
Why should we think that this wouldn't be the same for Restore?
But moreover, I don't want to swear, but get effed.
Like, don't care.
You're not entitled to say that.
They're not your votes.
Well, notice what they haven't said.
Here's why we are better than Restore Britain.
Yes.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Here's why you should vote for us instead.
And so anyway, there was this clip that went around initially of Nigel responding to a journalist.
What do you think of Restore?
I mean, I don't know.
I'll just say one thing.
He's not Nigel.
He's Farage.
I guess.
I guess, yeah.
Hi, Nigel.
So Rupert knows his new party, Restore.
And since setting it up, since setting it up, there's been lots of Twitter accounts associated with the party that have shown racism and anti-Semitism.
Do you think Restore are a racist party?
Absolutely no idea.
They're of no interest in me at all.
That's literally.
I don't want to talk about this.
Of course you don't want to talk about this.
But the problem is, this, of course, hasn't gone away.
And so he was forced to address it at his press conference the other day announcing his shadow cabinet.
Full of Tories, yes.
And what was really interesting about this is just how he fumbled the ball.
Do we need to watch this again?
I'm sure we've all seen it.
Up to you, Candidate.
Up to you, Candid.
We'll watch it.
Moving on to Rhiannon of center-right politics in this country.
It's called reform.
And as I'd mentioned earlier, people think, oh, Farage has done it.
We'll just set a party up.
It'll be marvellous.
We'll sweep the next election.
It just isn't as easy as that.
Now, does he have a profile on X?
Yes, he does.
Is England going to support him?
Probably.
But you see, when he stood up and said that we've got to consider the mass deportation of entire communities, including those born in the United Kingdom, that just moves way beyond a point of reasonableness, of decency, of morality.
And that was the moment at which, you know, I realized we just had to get rid of him and get rid of him as quickly as we could.
General Atmosphere Shift00:15:49
And I think in terms of the way we dealt with that, we were probably more brutal than the other parties.
But you know what?
That's the way it's going to be.
It's very Westminster bubble kind of language, that's unpacking that morality.
But what's interesting is: okay, is it decent and moral to frame him or allege a crime that he didn't commit, try and get him sent to jail in order to politically destroy his career?
Police turning up at his house, armed police turning up at his house at half past nine at night.
Yeah, I mean, like, if it, I mean, there would have been nothing wrong.
No one would have actually objected if Nigel had come out and said, well, I didn't approve that.
I thought that was beyond the pale.
So we've expelled Rupert Lowe from the party.
We've removed the whip from him.
He's no longer a member of our party.
And, you know, may he have a long and prosperous life or whatever.
That's been reasonable.
Also, a slight correction you said that Rupert Lowe crime was considering doing that.
I think our policy is that we would definitely do that.
It's not a matter of deliberation so much as resolve.
As we reaffirmed yesterday in a clip that was viewed by Asmundold, of all people, yeah, it's absolutely the case that we would deport entire communities.
Because in the aftermath of our rape gang inquiry, it has become abundantly clear that the rape gangs, which for those not in the know somehow, is the industrial scale trafficking, rape, physical violence, violence and torture against predominantly white female children in this country, English girls, many of them living in care, but many of them not, many of them from normal families who just got caught up in this sort of thing.
It's obvious that this was an open secret among these communities.
Again, primarily.
It's not a secret.
I mean, the number of people open.
Yeah, it's just open.
The clan behaviour where cousins, brothers, neighbours would come and all victimize the same girl over and over and over.
And the kind of honestly, I mean, the way they were being selected from the care homes sounded like a slave market.
It's unbelievable.
I mean, and that was in the testimony of various survivors, by the way.
And the wives and daughters knew.
In fact, there's articles showing that the wives are saying, well, English girls are dirty, they're filthy, they deserve it.
And it's like, sorry, this is a community that is riddled with child rapists.
They just didn't go.
They need to leave our country.
There are tens of thousands of them who are currently unaccounted for.
We know that the girls were raped hundreds of times each, but you've got the ringleader, the guy who was pimping her to whoever, but you don't know who all of the customers were.
And she was 12, 13, whatever it is.
Can I just say, by the way, it's really important you've used that word customers there, because I think something that a lot of viewers may not understand and that I didn't understand before the inquiry, I just sort of assumed that this was just degenerate weirdos who enjoyed this sort of thing.
It's a money business.
And it's entirely enmeshed within other criminal enterprises, including arms dealing, drug dealing, and all sorts of other horrible things.
So there was money changing hands when these crimes were going on.
And so what you have to ask is, you know, do you agree with Farage that you don't want the people who were aware of these crimes and covered up for them in many cases remaining in our country?
I mean, our position is absolutely not.
We don't want to ever again.
Farage, not only is he drawing a red line in the sand, say, mass deport, I mean, he said this before, but mass deportations is not happening under reform.
I'm standing in the way of justice for the Grimmingang victims.
There are tens of thousands of men who are currently in this country who have raped children who are just wandering around at liberty.
That's not acceptable.
How can we tolerate that?
It's just worth asking.
You learn a lot about a person's political outlook and moral priorities by asking what their red lines are.
We've discovered what one of Farage's red lines are, and I'm willing to venture to suggest, as I think we all would, that it's a very bad one.
But think about what some of his red lines aren't.
Vaccine mandates, Nadi and Zahawi.
Like shipping Afghans without the knowledge of the British people into rural England.
That's not a red line to be able to do it.
Boris Wave.
Oh, the Lightline Safety Act.
Clamping down on the freedoms of Englishmen.
Are not red lines, but wanting to deport people who either took part in or were complicit in the mass industrial rape, torture, and on occasion, even murder and slaughter of defenceless white British girls.
That's not a red line.
It's interesting telling.
Absolutely insane.
So, Farage, when asked, I mean, don't get me wrong, Rupert Lowe just came out and doubled down on all of this.
Yes.
If the communities of foreign nationals knew their husbands, cousins, or brothers were industrially raping white girls and did nothing, they should be deported.
Very, I mean, frankly, I would love to see some polling done on that.
I bet the average person do you.
Well, we did some polling last year.
I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head.
Yeah, in fact, why don't I find them?
Keep talking.
But it obviously is going to be a popular opinion.
People are obviously against this.
And coming out on the other side of it is a very strange thing.
But it's putting Rupert in a very almost Trumpian position where it's him and then everyone else against him.
I mean, how is Nigel Farage's opinion there different to Zach Polanski's?
How is it substantively different to Kier Salma's?
It's exactly the same opinion.
And only Rupert Lowe is on the right of this issue.
So, okay, wonderful.
That's strategically a brilliant place for Rupert to be because he actually means it.
You can guess...
Sorry, can I just say it?
Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
So...
So, no, sorry, Lewis, go on.
You can get a sense of what Farage is actually like.
And I'd like to bring up this story briefly.
I met Farage for the first time at a Reason conference several years ago.
And this was when I was a big fan of Nigel.
This was before he joined Reform.
And someone said to me, would you like to meet him?
And I said, absolutely, I'd love to.
So after he finished his speech at the conference, we followed him out, went out the back.
He was lighting up a cigarette.
And they introduced me and said, oh, this is Lewis, X, Y, and Z.
I shook his hand and I said, just wanted to say, massive fan of your work, like what you've done for Brexit.
You know, it's fantastic.
So I just wanted to say to you personally, thank you very much.
And his response was, you should get out more.
And so that made me embarrassed.
He looked away and everyone laughed and I felt isolated.
I'm sure this will get clipped, but how's this for getting out more?
So I will just say...
Why would you respond to anyone like that?
You'd just be like, thanks very much.
I was an admirer of his for quite a while.
Oh, yeah, I can imagine that.
Yeah.
Little did he know the world historical significance of that evening.
Yeah.
That's a joke many people are getting.
So, yeah, the majority of the public support deporting foreign nationals who knew about a family member's involvement in organized child sexual exploitation but failed to report it.
So this is a majority position.
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
And so anyway, Nigel Farage has made a prediction.
Won't be on 1% even in Great Yarmouth.
Bold statement.
Well Great Yarn.
So Great Yarmouth First, which is our local party in Yarmouth, is currently polling on 44%.
Yes.
Bit of a mistake there.
But I can't help but notice that the recent polls that have come out about reform have been down by like two or three points.
And that's within a couple of days.
So if I were Farage, I mean, one of them had him on 28 and the other on 24, only five points ahead of Labour.
And so if you think you're the insurgent right-wing party and you're going to take over, don't you need a bit more punch at the polls there, Nigel?
So anyway, France doesn't think this is going anywhere.
And so let's talk about the responses to reforms from reform surrogates.
Because this is where it really gets interesting for the sort of commentariat.
Because, I mean, they think it's fine.
They think it's fine.
It's only Nigel's mistress and Richard Tys's mistress having a discussion on TV.
Unbiased coverage.
Unbiased coverage about how this is fine.
Restore Britain entering the political light.
Should we watch it?
Yes, go for it.
When people look at Reform UK and then all of a sudden where it's in the polling, it took Nigel Farage to build up his own personal profile.
Two decades of constant hard work and slaughter.
And people who live on social media think that Rupert Lowe is already at that level.
I just don't think he is.
I think if you went out there in the street and said to people, what do you think of Rupert Lowe?
They'd say, who?
That hasn't been disparaging about him.
That is just the reality of the situation.
Most people aren't sitting there on their X timelines 24-7.
But I don't really understand what the motivation is for this.
What I want to know is what policies are dramatically different to reform policies.
You know, other than he talks about remigration all the time.
Remigration, how?
Who?
How many?
By what device?
What is the actual policy?
What is the law that you're going to be using to enable this?
How is that going to actually be performed?
But one thing that does alarm me is it is.
She waffles on behalf of you.
Yeah.
Can I say a couple of things?
Please.
It's a very, very flat-footed understanding of how these things work.
Most people do not.
I think I posted on Twitter yesterday, something along the lines of like British politics is not an interminable episode of I'm a Celebrity.
Like most politicians, including future prime ministers, are not famous prior to politics and then finally they can make their bid.
There are people like Trump who obviously are the exception to that general rule, but most people become most major politicians become known through their engagement with politics.
And I see no reason why it has to be different in the case of Rupert Lowe.
Obviously, his profile is lower than Farage's.
Farage has been on the scene for 20 years and he's an I'm a celebrity, but he was an I'm a celebrity.
But it is also the case that that is a double-edged sword popular.
Oh yes, I was going to say most people when she said who's Rupert Lowe, I don't know.
Well, who's Nigel Farage?
Oh, I hate him.
Exactly.
Two-thirds of the day.
So if you're widely known, you incite tremendous adoration, but you can also incite tremendous contempt.
And Rupert Lowe, so in many ways, it is actually an advantage not to have too much, not having your reputation preceding you all the time.
And people can just assess you on the basis of your policies, what you're saying, your demeanour, your character, and all of those, as far as I'm concerned, ticked boxes.
How many people on the street do you think knew who Kier Starmer was?
Exactly.
Exactly.
Gordon Brown or Tony Blair.
Tony Blair.
And he was an advantage because the view on him was zero.
Now it's tremendously negative.
So yeah, they think everything's going to be fine.
And I'm sorry, I just don't think that it is.
And I think that what we've seen is a lot of psychological pressure that have been brought to bear on reform.
This screen cat from the Young Bob debate seems to pretty much summarise it.
We'll come back to this in a minute.
I've not seen this, no.
It's good.
Well, I can tell.
I know that.
I mean, I've seen this kind of response from the few reform surrogates that exist.
Gwen Towler has been under tremendous pressure.
He posted the other day, I'm not going to say anything about that.
He posted yesterday about how he'd done an event in Maidstone.
It was a rough night, apparently, because, of course, there has been a long detachment from the reform top brass and the reform members and local branches.
Well, more to the point, we've just had seven councillors, county councillors in Kent, come over to our party, many of whom were in Maidstone.
We'll get to those in a minute.
So there's been this sort of general atmosphere.
I mean, have you guys been seeing this, or is it just me?
Not the atmosphere, this just being a...
Oh, they're breaking up.
Oh, yeah, they're terrified.
I don't know if you've got this in.
I actually do have it in the next one.
Reform/slash GB News commissioned a poll to show just how unpopular Rupert Lowe is.
If he's so unpopular, if we're so irrelevant, ignore us.
If we're not, you know, if we're so much, you know, so not a threat...
It reminds me...
And also the hypocrisy now for us saying, well, that was a push poll, so, you know, you got 10% because you commissioned the poll.
Well, you commissioned the 8% poll.
It reminds me of a particular someone who uses terms like very online rights and then says, why don't you subscribe to my sub stack?
Fastest growing sub stack in the UK.
But what I find really interesting about that is the idea that online people somehow don't vote.
Sorry, what?
Or don't have families and friends that they talk to about this.
But also, I think what was an academic agent said the other day, like, what do you think people online are?
They're just normal people with computers.
Yeah.
Oh, exactly.
Often tweeting when they're bored.
And again, they're often the most engaged and knowledgeable as well.
And it's not nothing to have those people batting for you.
Well, this has been a massive problem.
And this is why I think essentially the atmosphere in reform at the moment is the atmosphere of one being under siege, but not just being under siege from any old army, being under siege by like the Assyrians or something, right?
Because essentially, if reform are actually outmaneuvered and sort of outbid by restore, that's the end of all of them.
There's not going to be a Concord made.
There's not going to be a peace treaty.
They're going to lose everything.
And by the way, this is partly a function of the fact that reform, despite the use of this word by people within the party, reform is not a meritocracy.
You don't ascend in reform on the basis of your abilities.
You ascend on the basis of how hard you suck up to the people in positions of authority.
And so, you know, people like...
It's like the boys.
It's like the boys when Starlight is first brought in.
I haven't seen the show.
Oh, it's awful.
But that's the atmosphere that's going to be.
And so if reform don't win the next election, for example, a lot of these people are going to be out on their backsides.
Because they've been promised a job.
They've been promised a safe seat or whatever else.
Completely.
And so there's very much already, after only, what, five days now, a bunker mentality within reform.
And that was really quick.
Like, that normally takes a long time for that kind of pressure to build.
And I see it everywhere.
Just, I mean, like, there have been like call-in shows and all this sort of thing where you can see that they are.
Because the problem that reform have is they actually have very few actual surrogates in the media, right?
They have a very narrow constituency of people who they have allowed to come into the fold, and they've kept everyone else out.
And what's happened is...
Like us, by the way.
I mean, because we're trying to sort of, you know, do work for them and saying, like, use us.
You know, we have media profiles.
Both of mine.
Yeah.
Like, Dan and Bo got deselected as candidates for reform a couple of years ago.
And then you think that the Tommy Robinson issue that Nigel Farage has been having, I mean, whether you like him or not, Tommy is a massively influential figure.
Millions of fans, working class fans across the country that reform are trying to court.
You've got like Katie Hopkins, you've got Dan Wooden, all of these very high-profile, strong right-wing voices.
Nigel Farage has been like, no, I don't want anything to do with any of you.
It's like, okay, but Nige, you've got to understand, right?
These people on the sort of like the battle map of British politics, these are like barons and dukes who have significant armies of their own.
And you're like, yeah, but I've got my peasant levies that I've drawn up.
And it's like, okay, well, good luck with that.
And it was fine when you were basically just ignoring everyone.
But you haven't just been ignoring everyone.
You've been attacking everyone non-stop.
And now you always assumed you had the right-wing vote.
You assumed that we had nowhere else to go.
And suddenly, oh, actually, we can do things for ourselves.
For those crying about the split the vote stuff, for those crying about us, you know, doing very, very well in less than a week, it's reform to blame.
Yeah, actually.
We wouldn't have to exist.
We wouldn't have to exist because of them.
They have created us.
That's the point I'm making.
Why are all these people just left on the table?
Donald Trump didn't do that.
Donald Trump went on Alex Jones.
Donald Trump went on every podcast he could.
He went on Joe Rogan.
He went everywhere.
Donald Trump created the biggest tent possible to make sure that he didn't have anyone to his right outflanking him that could have come back and bitten him in the rear.
And that's what Farage is getting.
Farage has done this to himself.
It's all right, though.
You can do cameos.
Bank England's Independence Crisis00:07:30
Well, yeah, I mean, you know, go on, big chungus.
It's so embarrassing.
It's so embarrassing.
I hate his cameos.
And he only makes like 16 grand a month, which, don't be wrong, is a lot of money, but not when you're Nigel Farage getting a million a year from his GB news contract.
Can never be bought.
But I just can't stand it.
Niger, you're making what, you know, 50 grand a month or something?
You need those cameos, do you?
Like, God, it's embarrassing.
And the thing is, like, I mean, as much as reform will say, I think their line for the foreseeable future will be that we're irrelevant and that we are not a threat to them and all the rest of it.
I mean, just we've got three years.
They're not acting like it.
Yeah, well, they're not, for one thing.
But we've got three years, most likely, until the next election, and there's a hell of a lot that we can do in that time in terms of getting support at every level, like you were saying, ground numbers, you know, people in the mainstream, probably not the mainstream media, but certainly the alternative media, which commands a far larger audience than the mainstream media anyway.
And I just don't know what they're going to do.
I mean, you know, maybe they will shift to the right, in which case I would say good.
But somehow I just don't think they will.
It will always seem insincere.
They've made their bet.
Yeah.
Well, it seems very insincere.
In fact, on that note, Samson, let's go on to the next one because we'll talk about how reform have just admitted that they're containment, right?
So the idea of pushing them to the right, they seem to have drawn hard lines.
Can you get the next one up, please, Samson?
They've drawn hard lines in that they're just not prepared to budge on certain things that put them firmly within the Blairite paradigm.
I think that's where Restore really comes into its own by saying, no, we're rebels against the system.
We are not here to reform and tinker with Blairism.
We're here to destroy Blairism.
This is a key point.
Bring something back that Blairism itself ruined.
So this is key because if you think about the two philosophies being offered to the British people by the natural homes of conservative, patriotic-minded people, it is to conserve and to reform, both of which fundamentally recognise the legitimacy of the system that currently exists.
And in my view, and I think in our view, you would have to be mental.
You'd have to be a madman to want to conserve this system.
And you'd have to be, I think, just fundamentally naive to think that it can be reformed in any meaningful way.
Well, that's destruction.
Yeah.
But we're on the road.
We've got to keep going.
And so our position is revolution.
Our position is tear down this system and restore, you know, what came before, restore Britain.
Correct.
And that seems to be the best way.
So, I mean, like, this happened just this morning.
Apparently, just a quick thing as well.
Why is Robert Jemrick the shadow chancellor?
I realize that's the second most important position.
I think I can tell you why.
So it must be that Farage is essentially gifting.
That will have been the terms upon which he entered the party.
But Jemrik, I mean, we're getting them for experience.
Well, Jemerich has no experience in economics, is a lawyer, and he's never been the shadow chancellor.
He was the immigration minister.
What is he doing there?
Like, where's Nadim Zahawi?
I thought that's why he was being brought in.
So you've got the vaccine guy who, for no reason, Richard Tice.
I mean, Richard Tice actually has a background in economic settings.
Exactly.
So, yeah, exactly.
I mean, he's at least the business secretary.
But, like, again, it's just really weird.
And with the Home Secretary, it's like, sorry, Zia Yousuf, why not Swell Braveman, who was the Home Secretary?
Because I thought you wanted experience.
Zia Yousuf's not even an MP.
And there were three MPs.
Was it three or four MPs still sitting on the bench without a brief?
Where's Lee Anderson?
Where's Lee Zaho?
He's eating common sense fish and chips, mate.
Honestly, this is such a gift to restore.
This is such a gift.
I'd also like to know where the OBR's fiscal discipline was in the years 2020, 2021, 2022.
If it was established, as Jenrik's here saying, if it was established by George Osborne, I think in 2013, in order to instill fiscal discipline, then it hasn't succeeded in doing that in the least.
And another quick thing, be very suspicious.
I'm sure we'll get to this later.
Just as we should be suspicious of the way in which the word racist and the way in which xenophobic and bigoted is used, also be very, very suspicious about the way in which the term independence is used in a political context.
One of the strokes of genius, just to give the devil his due for a moment, of Blairism, is that obviously Blair was very hostile to the British Demos because he didn't trust them to make the sort of decisions that he thought needed to be made in the interest of Britain.
And so as a way of preventing the demos from being able to get their way, he rebranded unaccountability as independence.
Correct.
And so whenever you see the word independence said by a Blairite party, and I'm afraid that does now include Reform UK, substitute unaccountable for independent and it will make a hell of a lot more sense.
And that's literally the point of it as well.
I mean, one of his first acts was to take the Bank of England out from under the Treasury.
It's like, okay, well, that's great, but I can at least have some influence on who is in the government and therefore who is the chancellor of this.
What can I do about the Bank of England now?
And as Liz Truss has been banging this drum, and I think correctly so, oh, the Bank of England is a law unto itself.
And this, this, so for anyone who doesn't know, the Office of Budget Responsibility, as I said, it's a Blair organ that was created by the Cameronites and the Bank of England's independence or lack of accountability.
Back to the 90s.
Goes back to the very late 90s with the very beginning of Tony Blair.
And so Jemerich is, he will say in a speech today, the OBR is far from perfect, but the impetus for its creation was a design to instill fiscal discipline.
And that is something we wholeheartedly endorse.
Rather than abolish it, we will reform it.
Again, perfectly put, Robert, Jemerick, because you weren't exactly right.
No, you agree with Blairism.
Yeah.
You just want it to work better.
Yeah, he believes in the OBR.
He just thinks it's being run badly.
It's the same with Ofcom and all of these other Quango-type organizations.
Unaccountable Kwangos.
These are going to be maintained by reform.
Yeah, I mean, how has the OBR done ensuring fiscal discipline if that is its nominal purpose?
And how is the Bank of England done guarding monetary stability?
Not very well at all.
And just, you know, like trying to institute a diversity opinion on these Kwangos is not going to be sufficient.
They need to be brought back within direct political ministerial control.
The whole premise of Blairism was to try and make sure that as little of that obtained as possible.
And it's not just OBR and the Bank of England.
The Kirst Arm has complained it.
It's the climate change.
You pull a lever and nothing happens.
Exactly.
Well, yeah, indeed.
It's Climate Change Committee, Migration Advisory Committee, the Charity Commission.
Everything.
They're all outside of direct ministerial control.
If I recall correctly, there are something like 440 Kwangos that control half a trillion pounds of government spending.
So it is an insane level that is above the government, that is not accountable to the government, and essentially has rendered the government itself irrelevant.
And that was all by design.
It's only the commons.
Absolutely.
Blairism was a political agenda posing as an anti-political agenda.
Correct.
And so this, under reform, the Bank of England will remain independent.
Sorry, that's terrible.
As you said, it's correctly interpreted as unaccountable.
The Office of Budget Responsibility, I mean, there have been plenty of examples of how this has been used as a political tool.
Again, Liz Truss being the most obvious one.
So this is awful.
This is absolutely awful decision-making.
I wonder who is actually behind these policies, though.
Is it Jenrick?
Because like you say, I mean, he's not got any economic species.
Who can know?
Who can know?
Anyway, so that's terrible.
The next thing, though, is Sweller Braveman said, look, we're going to get rid of the Equality Act and scrap the Equalities Minister, which sounds great.
She's going to be the Equalities Minister, so I'm scrapping my own job.
British Values Debate00:10:06
Hard to believe that anyone's actually going to do that.
But okay, that sounds great.
But then Zia Youssef was challenged on this by Victoria Derbyshire.
And she, for the sake of time, we won't play it out.
But she basically says, so you're just going to keep all of the things that the Equality Act does.
You're just going to scrap the Act in name only.
And Zia Yousaf is basically like, yeah, oh, such a gift.
It's really bizarre.
And you can see that.
I mean, look at her face.
She's just like, that doesn't make sense.
Well, it's very rare these days for regime journalists to look as confident as that.
Yes.
And because, like, this is the thing: if you are trying to take the fight to your adversaries, but in doing so, you are conceding all of their most foundational premises, you are going to lose that fight sooner or later.
So, the reason why Victoria Darbasher looks so smug when questioning Zia Youssef is because she knows that he fundamentally shares her premises.
Whereas when you watch Emily Maitless with Rupert Lowe, he rejects her framing from the outset, and as such, all she can do is flail around like a middle-aged.
I don't care.
I don't care.
And it's a bit of a superpower.
We just need to stop caring about the priorities and the good opinion of people who despise us in any case.
Yes, and like you say, you can see the dynamic between the two, just in the body language in the thumbnail there.
Who's winning?
Who's got who on the hook?
Zia Youssef, fidgeting, uncomfortable, had to essentially admit that, yeah, like as she says, so it'll be the same act but with a different label.
Yes, it's preposterous.
And again, it's reform's commitment to Blairism.
This is part of the Blairite order, and reform are committed to it.
Anyway, so the next one is Nigel France talking about, well, what is an Englishman after all?
Still in your head.
We will watch a bit of this.
It's remarkable.
Listen, I'm not going to start drawing ethnic lines on what being English is.
Otherwise, maybe back to DNA Tesla, whether you're Anglo-Saxon.
I'm not going down that road.
It's about how you feel.
And it's about what your priorities are.
That's what I.
It's about whether you're wearing a dress.
That is unironically, word for word, the radical intersectional left's view on gender politics.
A woman is whoever believes that they're a woman, whoever feels like they're a woman, and whoever acts like a woman.
And that's it.
And Nigel France has this transgender opinion for the ethnos itself.
And it's really not very complicated.
You are British if you are descended from an English, Irish, well, Northern Irish, Scottish, or Welsh parentage.
That's just what it is to be British.
I would also make a very simple point here.
We're constantly hearing in Britain and have done throughout the period of Blairism about ethnic minorities and the interests of ethnic minorities.
An actual extension of that is that an ethnic majority must exist.
And if it doesn't, if an ethnic minority exists, and if not, then what happens to exactly these sorts of ethnic minority protections that the Equality Act is trying to secure in the first place?
So it's internally incoherent.
And then another thing as well, like once they stop trying to denounce the collective self-interest of the host population of these islands, they move to pretending we don't exist in the first place.
And the way to really rumble these people, and this is a tactic that I would recommend that people use, ask people on the left of politics, are you in favor of reparations for slavery and colonialism?
And many of them, not all of them, but let's just say you get one who says yes.
Yes, this is the gift.
Yes, in print in principle, do you understand the proposition at least?
And if you're in favour of reparations for slavery and colonialism, the next question that naturally arises is who pays whom?
And they were like, well, of course, the British people would pay back the territories that they looted and stole from and crush into the dust and all the rest of it.
And then you go, oh, who is the British people then?
Ash Sarka, are you going to be coughing up money and giving it to Bengalis and giving it to Indians and giving it to Africans?
That means that the Caribbean blacks that are here, who are the descendants of the slave, owe themselves money.
Not even that.
We might be giving money to places like Nigeria.
Well, indeed.
So they might be giving, the slave descendants might be giving money to their slavers.
The point is that whenever they want to shake us down for money, they know exactly who we are.
As soon as we s say that we would actually like to develop a sense of group consciousness and defend our own interests, as we Except the right of any other group around the world to do so.
The Welsh have their minority parliaments.
They know exactly who we are when it suits them, and they pretend not to know who we are when it suits them also.
But it really does come.
Sorry, it comes down to the English, though.
That's the problem.
Because the Welsh have the SNF, the Scottish have the Scottish Assembly, which are at least ostensibly there for ethnic self-determination within the political structure of Great Britain.
We just don't have this.
Yeah, so this was the central contention that Alex Phillips had when I debated her the other night on Talk TV.
I said that one of the most fundamental differences between our party and Reform UK is that Reform UK do not have a clear definition of what a British person is.
It basically is this, which is the Blairite line, which is that it's just somebody that believes in British values, whatever that even means at this point.
Whereas our position is, as Rupert said in the launch video, Britain is a people.
Correct.
And it really is that simple.
And if you look up English or Scottish or Welsh on Wikipedia, it will say they're an ethnic group.
Not the government.
And on the government website.
Yeah.
Like it's not, that's not a controversial position.
It's just a statement of fact.
That's because that's the only way you could actually define these things as a thing.
And so it's nothing to do with how you feel.
It's nothing to do with the clothes that you wear and the habits that you keep.
But moreover, how is his position in any way substantively different to Zach Polanski?
It's not at all.
It's exactly the Zach Polanski position.
To make an addition to that, there's obviously a lot of chatter online about British values, what that means, X, Y, and Z, and the use of British values in cohort with nationality, we as a people.
My argument has always been, okay, well, not only has British, the term British values was created under Blair for his campaigning, so you're using a Blairite term construct as it is.
I would say, okay, let's use that framing for argument's sake.
So British values.
The British values of someone in the 1960s who very much are still alive in comparison with someone with the British values of 2026.
Does the person from the 1960s, are they now not British because they don't adhere to the values created by modern politicians now?
Or indeed the 1860s.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Napoleon, not British, actually.
Exactly.
So it's a very fallible and very easily deconstructed concept that just needs to be done away with now.
But moreover, it shows their commitment to Blairism.
Exactly.
This is a Blairite concept for a reason in order to validate, justify, and in some way sort of incorporate into the political structure, bringing in millions of foreigners.
I mean, a great question.
How did these people come by British values if they come from other countries?
Why call them British values if they're found universally?
They're not actually parochial to this place, or else these people couldn't have come by them on their own.
If they really want to come to Britain and Britain is really defined by its value system, just send them the PowerPoints.
Give them the King Rest quiz.
If it's transferable knowledge, if it's simply a matter of how you feel, then go and create Britain in your home countries and see how you get on.
And why aren't Brits just springing up in foreign countries all the time?
It's the same in the argument of the American values.
Sorry, we're not a propositional nation.
We're not a values-based nation.
Our values have changed over time and will change in the future, and yet we'll remain the British.
I can't believe that we've demolarized ourselves that much, that someone that's come here five minutes ago that has taken a quiz on kings and queens and given a piece of paper is suddenly as British as it's preposterous and everyone knows it's not true.
That's the problem.
Anyway, this canard was going around still.
Again, we'll go back to the base.
I didn't know this.
That's interesting.
Yeah, we'll go back to Alex.
Just as a quick thing is, what's interesting is how quickly reform have essentially defaulted back into leftism, back into Blairism, using all of those arguments.
Watch this.
Restore Britain believes British people are an ethnicity.
We are a race.
We are a demographic.
Every other political party has a nebulous view of Britain and British people.
Okay, so British people are a race.
My stepsister is not British, then.
I'm sorry, I just don't.
I don't understand.
Pause it for a sec.
Yeah, I can.
You are allowed to not be British, you know.
Yeah, yeah, but she does understand.
Oh, yeah.
This was only from October last year.
Make science racist again, says Alex Phillips.
It's been taboo to acknowledge ethnic differences in our biological makeup.
I don't know Alex Phillips' own personal situation.
Did she say her stepsister?
Yeah.
The fact that she chose her stepsister means that presumably you're well aware what we're talking about.
You can't then say, wait, does that mean my stepsister wouldn't be British and then go, I just don't understand.
Well, clearly you have wrapped your head around the concept because you've immediately gone to someone who does not fit this designation from Kim Ratcliffe.
Why did they black out the foreign players?
It's like this is what your football team would look like with racial.
It's like, why did you choose those ones?
Yeah, why did you ask?
Because you know they're all British.
They're all British as each other.
Have you screened them for British values?
Has Naja François how they feel about being English?
It's like just pretending not to know what we're talking about.
And as I say, it's gone from sort of denouncing it, and then when we call the bluff and say, look, we don't care about your terms.
Again, I talked about unaccountability earlier and how whenever we see the term independent, we should substitute unaccountable.
I would be in favour for terms like racist and terms like xenophobe and terms like bigoted.
Just change that for averse to your own dispossession and conquest and it performs exactly the same function.
And so once they've stopped trying to demonize it, which they now have because they realize that these tools have grown blunt with overuse, they just pretend not to know what you're talking about.
I mean, her saying literally make science racist again.
Christianity vs Secular Interpretation00:03:28
Okay.
Oh my gosh.
I mean, that's didn't even say the headline.
That's a strong statement, but it's strong.
To suggest that you don't recognize that there is an ethnic group or four ethnic groups that make up the British, and that is juxtaposed against non-British ethnic groups.
Come on, Alex.
We know what's happening.
Can I also add, in my debate with her the other night, she said that what we were proposing was scary.
That's the word that she used.
She said it's scary, the route that we're going down.
And to that, I said to her, like, yeah, no, shit.
We're talking about the future of our country here.
It's not going to be, you know, rainbows and butterflies and bunnies.
It's, you know, this is existential for us.
She's living the end of history.
Yeah, yeah.
And so, you know, if it wasn't scary, I think we'd probably be focusing on the wrong things.
Yeah, but this is the point.
And she tweeted out the other day as well, as you said, you know, she had a post that was scary.
And I was like, look, invoking the Nazis is not going to make us relinquish our claim to England.
I'm sorry.
Luckily for you, we are not madmen and we are not hateful.
We are not spiteful.
We are not people who want to inflict pain or suffering or anything like that.
It's just, as Rupert pointed out, there is a grim determination behind all of this.
It just, we have to take action.
Can I say one thing as well?
The idea that it's scary.
Look, I can see how it might be scary if people were to imbue their ethnic identity with a sense of quasi-religious or kind of messianic significance and regard it as the measure of all things.
That's really what the Nazis were guilty of, viewing it as the measure of all things, including moral values and all the rest of it.
Given that our framework is Christian and is explicitly Christian, we regard the existence of ethnic difference as simply a feature of God's creation.
Yes.
And therefore, we want to act as stewards over it in just the same way that we want wildlife to flourish.
It's not a matter of wanting to stamp out alternative forms of organic life.
It's part of God's creation.
And given that we...
I don't mean to laugh.
I know, I know.
I know.
Given that...
Given that we are, given that our moral framework is much more Christian than it is informed by a sort of quasi-religious sense of blood and ethnic significance.
We are not going to mutate into sort of Nazi fever dreams or anything like that because it would be inconsistent with our Christian understanding of the good.
So, just on that, but even if you had a secular position on that, it would still be something very normal and modern.
And, well, of course, I respect their countries.
I want my country respected.
It'd be sort of Westphalian.
Mutual recognition.
Yeah, exactly.
Settlement where it's like, you know, I, of course, respect you do what you want in your country.
And that's why I go on holiday to your countries to go, oh, wow, look at this strange way they do things here.
I just want it to be normal when I get home.
You know, that's all people are asking for.
Just on that point, because this is really important, because we are a Christian party.
One of the key principles of Christianity is not to worship idols and to make an idol of the nation or the race is by definition anti-Christian.
So the idea that, as you say, that's where we're going to go is just absurd.
Correct.
Sure.
But the point is, there has to be a secular interpretation of what you're saying as well.
Well, sure, yeah.
And there absolutely is.
But to these people who are suggesting that we're going to go down the kind of mid-century ridiculous, it's just absurd.
But also, so much of secularism in Tom Holland's book is very good on this is itself a bequest of Christian civilization.
That is correct.
There's an undeniable Christian heritage to liberalism as the practicing Christians, but I'm including in this people who share what we might call the moral intuitions of Christendom.
Compare Generations00:07:24
The moral heritage.
Yes.
Yeah.
That includes many secularists.
No, that includes every secularist.
To the extent that there are secular humanists, yes.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Yeah, there's no secular humanist who's decided actually we can adopt a Nietzschean framework on this, which is just as viable through an atheistic secular perspective.
There is actually nothing stopping you, apart from your own post-Christian moral intuitions, to say, oh, I can't just conquer that city and put all those people to the sword.
No, you absolutely can if you'd like.
It's just you don't like.
One of the institutions that has actually been strongest on Halal and Kosher Slaughter is the Secular Humanist UK.
So it goes to show that Christianity lives on in peculiar ways.
Yes.
And it's a long conversation with the new atheists that we're going to rehash now.
But the thing is, Alex.
Poor old Alex, we're going quite hard.
I don't mean to go hard on her, but she's just one of the most prominent reform defenders in the media at the moment.
And she's been going hard on immigration because she feels unsafe.
I mean, watch a little bit of this, but you know, and the thing is, I agree with everything she's saying here.
Was it not enough when we noticed what was going on with grooming gangs?
Was it not enough when we see what's happened to the victim of Abdul Azaydi?
When are we going to have the conversation that women's safety is being mortgaged at the altar of mass immigration and this faux political correctness?
Like, why am I living in a country where I hate being here?
I hate it.
I hate London.
I despise it.
I'm not safe.
I'm not protected.
I'm the one who's constantly out there in the world.
Oh, you're a monster, you're a Nazi, you're a racist, you're a Zenith.
Be kind.
Fuck off, be kind.
Fuck off.
I didn't live 41 years of my life, working hard, dragging myself up from a working-class family to get where I am, to pay this tax.
And my thanks is to be name-called, have my car bashed in, groped, mugged, outpriced in the housing market.
Fuck off.
I mean, I agree with her completely.
Yeah.
When she's being honest about how she feels about it.
It's just that the problem is she's committed to reform and reform are committed to Blairism.
And therefore, they have to go back to the old responses that Blair was using back in 1997.
Yes.
They have nowhere else to go.
Gwen Towler, of course, has she said the same sort of thing with young Bob, I'll skip that.
But Gwene Towler, again, committed to the Zach Polanski position.
This is the Zara Sultana position.
The UK is a country that is mixed.
That is a fact of life.
It's like, well, it wasn't a fact of life 50 years ago.
Why is it a fact of life now?
And why must it be a fact of life in 50 years' time?
We are committed to foreign communities being in this country.
And I'm sorry, I'm just not committed to that.
And this is just one of those things where, again, how would you be different from Labour or the Greens or the Conservatives?
This is all on the same point.
And sorry, like if millions go, millions go.
Gwen.
So say very quickly, if Restore Britain doesn't get its way, then it's actually not true to say that the UK, as he tellingly puts it, will be mixed in 50 years' time.
It will be uniformly conquered.
Correct.
But then you've got another, this is the bit from the Alex Phillips Young Bob debate that I want to address.
Young Bob did very, very well here.
His haircut didn't do very well.
Bob, I've already teased you about this on Twitter.
Needs to be smartened up, mate.
But otherwise, very good.
But so we'll watch this because it's telling.
Bob, thank you ever so much for coming in.
Word of warning.
You're very young.
You're starting out on your career.
I do not want to.
Doesn't matter what happens.
I do not want to see you blow yourself up.
So just if that happens, it means there's a right-wing establishment that censors people.
Might.
Maybe there is.
I've not seen that.
You're not seeing that?
No.
It's a very clever, quick-witted remark by him.
It was a very good response for him to catch that because I would have probably just let that go.
Yeah, so very quick on his feet.
But Alex basically gave the game away here.
What's Mafia like?
It is.
Nice watch.
That's politics.
Nice family you've got there.
But you know, you know who the head of that mafia is.
It's Nigel Farage.
Of course it is.
He tried to cancel Rupert Lowe.
He's cancelled Ben Habib.
He's cancelled all of these people.
And she knows her position in the hierarchy.
She's a lieutenant.
And she's not an evil person, but she understands that she's in a system.
And Bob is putting himself in real danger of being targeted by that system.
Farage will say, right, you'll never be on GB news anymore.
You'll never be on talk TV.
He'll make the call.
And Bob has been like, you know what?
I'm just going to take it on the chin because things just can't carry on like they are.
I love that she's just straight up warning him of that.
I appreciate her answer.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
And it's filmed.
And play it back.
And this is another thing that I think is really interesting about Restore Britain is that it just seems to be culturally different to reform in its internals.
Yes.
As in, I know everyone in it, and they all seem to be, well, honestly, most of them married men with children.
Yeah.
Without scandals in the world.
Compare that.
Not to be libelous, but I will say generally compare that to the people calling the shots at reform.
Yeah, not quite the same.
I have to say, just a matter of public record, by the way.
Yeah, there's a substantive difference.
I mean, Alex is one of those people, allegedly.
There's a substantive difference in the calibre and quality of the men I see and women in Restore and Reform.
And this is just something I think you can't really put too much overemphasis on.
Nigel Farage has always had a Jack the Lad reputation.
It's like, yeah, he's the last man of the old order.
He's here to save Blairism.
And it's almost like, oh, so you've come crawling to me.
How is it that Kierstama wasn't able to do this?
How is it that David Cameron wasn't able to do this?
How is it that the system itself has got to this point?
And Farage is like, right, okay, I'm a Blairite.
I'm going to fix it for you.
It's like, sorry, I don't want Blairism.
I want this over.
Like we said, we want a restoration.
We don't want a conservation or a reformation.
We want to go back to how it used to be.
Yes.
You know, I'm sure, obviously, you remember the 90s, the late 90s and everything.
Before Blairism, it was just brilliant.
Yeah, I'm going to be honest.
It's an amazing country, and I'm sad you don't get to live for it.
Well, this is the reason why I think Rupert has captured the Zoomer vote so effectively as well.
And we've had conversations, you know, after a pint or so, you know, talking about, you know, you never lived through the era of, you know, before Blair.
I mean, I don't want anything different to this.
No, of course.
I was 94, so I don't really count either.
So that's why I'm honored Zoomer, according to these lads.
But yeah, it's about going back to that time that we, you know, sometimes people say it's romanticizing it, but I wouldn't say it's bringing forth.
Yes.
Bringing it forth.
Yes, word of reassurance consistent with some of the concerns that Alex Phillips was raising earlier.
One notable thing about pre-Blair Britain, not a fascist hellscape.
It wasn't.
I remember it very clearly.
Not one goose step.
No, obviously it was a perfectly decent and respectable country, which is why Tony Blair was so easily able to take advantage of it.
Yes.
Anyway, we'll just say, I'd like to give a quick apology to Maria Botel.
I didn't include her in yesterday's segment I did on this because people had already come around.
I know, Maria, I'm very sorry.
Maria is an absolute.
Well done, Patriots.
That's fantastic.
Patriots Rising00:05:10
So excellent.
So she was an independent councillor in Yorkshire.
So she has said, no, Restore is the party for me.
There have been others.
This is Pete Colley, who he came from Reform in Stevenage, which good man.
And then you've got a series of others.
Sorry for the time.
I'm not going to be able to just list them all.
But a series of others.
By the way, can I just say they're all in Kent County Council, and we are, I think, five councillors off of being the official opposition.
Really?
Because the Lib Dems are on 13 or something, right?
Yeah, yeah, I looked it up.
So that's very fast work.
But the point you can see is that this has struck a chord because people are well aware that reform is being run honestly like a despotic tyranny.
Something like Saraman running Orthank is how it comes across to me.
And tell me I'm wrong.
Yeah.
Well, they're just fundamentally part of the establishment, and that will become clearer and clearer and clearer over the next few years.
I think the Saraman comparison is going to get more and more salient.
But anyway, you heard it at first.
Anyway, but the point being, people are aware.
They're not happy.
We've been hearing on the grapevine for a long time that the reform branches are very unhappy with the way this is.
This is correct.
And this is a really crucial point.
Not every person in the country, I will grant, knows who Rupert Lowe is.
Every single Reform UK volunteer and every single Reform UK councillor knows exactly who Rupert Lowe is.
And many of them even talking to us.
There was, speaking of local branches, there was Oliver from Western Supermayor.
He was the chairman, regional coordinator for Reform Branch in the West of England, and he's decided he's joining Restore as well.
And so basically, you've got the good people who have been on the ground.
This has always been one of the problems with reform.
It's like, Nigel Farage will do something terrible.
And everyone will be like, okay, but the guys in the infrastructure of reform are all good guys.
They're all good, hardworking, volunteering patriots who are doing the best.
And this is why Farage has always been in such a quandary with his dealing with how he treats Tommy Robinson.
The membership love Tommy Robinson.
They absolutely love him.
He's fans of his.
And so Nigel Farage kicking him in the face is the same as him kicking them in the face.
And so it's always been very, very poorly managed.
And then, I mean, I saw this and in the abstract, if you were going to list people in modern politics and you'd say they're going to be the saviours of Britain, Tory Party 2.0.
Is this the team you'd have chosen?
It's hard to imagine.
I think it's worth thinking about.
Let's say that Britain is restored, Britain is saved.
In 150 years' time, when this tale of legend and song is told, will that be in the visual aids that are used to describe this history?
I don't think so.
Again, very Blair-right.
It has to be said as well, by the way.
No shadow foreign secretary there.
So they at least had the good sense to not announce Nadeem Zahawi at this particular time, because I think that would have been an absolute deathblow to them.
Oh, it's so bad.
But they will, by the way, they will announce him in the near future.
It's so bizarre.
Like, Nigel, you don't have to have a foreigner as foreign secretary, actually.
A foreigner, but one of the worst ministers in the previous government.
Absolutely.
Our architect of vaccine mandates and lockdown.
Yeah, I mean, just be in prison.
Yeah, I agree.
The remittances for Somalia.
Yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
And also for illegal migrants, the amnesty as well.
Yeah, amnesty for illegals.
What are we doing?
What are we doing?
Remittances for Somalia.
I think it's very safe to say.
I think it's very, very safe to say that we won't be bringing on senior politicians or careers.
Former ministers.
How many members of Boris's cabinet are you taking?
Great question.
I'll have to get back to you on that.
We've got loads of comments, but of course, I've been a bit strapped for time in this one, so sorry that we're not going to get to the super chats, but I'll read some comments off the website to hear us out.
So, Connor has left a comment.
It's in the air, gentlemen.
We're going to win.
It's going to be difficult, but everything that's worth it always is, which is obviously correct.
Sophie says, I just want to congratulate the Restore team for the great success that's happened in such a short time and thank them for all the work that's made it possible.
The air has changed.
I now see young men speaking up everywhere and people knowing inside that the time is now.
There is work to be done.
Thankfully, all the warriors and soldiers on the ground are ready and willing.
The tip of the spear, you guys, has penetrated the armor.
I'm looking forward to help pushing the rest of the spear until it finally penetrates the heart of Blairism and global elitism.
It's going to happen.
It's that, or we literally die as a nation.
Yes, that's it.
That's the choice.
Yeah, that is the choice.
The thing is, well, who was the one?
You know, if you find mush, keep pushing.
Lenin, Lenin.
Lenin.
Yeah, we've found the mush.
Yeah.
Everyone can feel how soft their reactions have been.
They have been weak in response to this.
And you shouldn't have left your right flank so wide open.
But sorry, now we're in the mush and we're just going to keep going.
So you get what you deserve on that, frankly.
I mean, you made your bed.
So Anne says, thank you so much for getting the restore team on today.
Well, you know, I do my best.
Great guests and wonderful to see so many all at once.
Please do this again to provide updates on how Restore is growing.
Absolutely.
Yeah, absolutely.
If you'll have us.
Of course we'll.
Stay Untroubled in Confrontation00:04:52
RW says, let's have it, lads.
Three Patriots.
We're all behind you.
Don't blink and stay the course.
Definitely.
Mason says, I joined the Australian Liberal Party once.
I hated it.
Didn't even last a year.
No substantial policy discussion.
Every conversation was about what you could provide, usually money, influence, and votes.
It's easy to see how anyone who has climbed the ladder would be inauthentic and stuck in a bubble.
I hope Restore Britain accounts for this when considering party structure, respect my membership, let them in on discussions and be grateful for their support.
One of the things I saw Rupert post was how he's not going to be dictating local policy.
Yeah, that's right.
And that is honestly, like, I saw people being like, oh, right, so they're not going to get any help from head office.
Like, no, what that is, is the assumption that Englishmen know how to run their own affairs best.
What does Rupert Lowe know about the state of the drains in Cornwall or something like that?
He doesn't know any, you know, you're empowered.
And this was always the attitude that was the problem with the European Union.
No, we're going to take all the decisions outside of the problem of the Quangos.
Take the decisions outside of the hands of the politicians so they don't have to take responsibility for anything.
What kind of people does that attract?
It attracts freeloaders.
It's like loafers.
People who go, oh, not my problem.
You have to push it up the chain.
No, we want people who are actually competent, who are going to take responsibility, who are going to get the things done in charge.
don't want an overbearing administrative bureaucracy on your head saying no you have to do it this way no i can't look at the anyway so basically that i think that restore britain is already on the right track when it comes to its own internal party structure uh just from that alone But I'm sure you guys know exactly these are the sort of problems you're going to face.
And these are fair challenges.
Yes, exactly.
Omar says, in the same way that it's difficult for us to intuit Isat cultures, I think they have in turn a blind spot to how we internalize a foreigner inserting themselves into conversations over our sovereignty and right to exist.
We don't immediately lash out such blatant attacks, so they read it as permitted ignorance of the permitted ignorance of the heavy resentment building up behind a dam of cultural politeness.
They keep poking the sleeping lion and growing bolder, assuming it might be dead.
Yes, and this is one of the things that is going to be a difficult thing for them to accept.
At some point, we're just going to have to say flat no.
And Rupert is that point.
Yeah.
Are you not worried about me calling you a racist?
No, not really.
My own conscience is untroubled.
Yes.
Yes.
Exactly.
That has to be the attitude of everybody out there, by the way, as well.
Like, you just can't guess.
Yeah, and I know it's easy for us to say because our jobs are not threatened by these allegations.
But honestly, if you can, if you're in a position to do so, look the person accusing you of being a racist in the eye and just say, I don't care.
Because you know more than anyone else who you actually are.
So why should you capitulate?
I like that line.
My own conscience is untroubled.
Yeah.
It's the right attitude.
Michael says deportation is the moderate position.
And we won't go any further.
Russian.
It's the future of the country.
It certainly is.
Oh, absolutely.
And also, it's not without precedent.
The 20th century is replete with mass population exchanges through all sorts of different countries when a particular political paradigm collapses.
When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, when Nazi Germany collapsed, when the British Empire collapsed, you get mass population transfers.
And luckily for them, on the collapse of our paradigm, when things change, we are much more reasonable men than they had in the middle of the 20th century.
There is not going to be mass bloodshed.
There is not going to be suffering or cruelty.
It's going to be just an unfortunate thing that has to be done.
And everyone's going to do what they can to make it as smooth and painless as possible.
This is the point.
I don't think we're deeply ideological people.
It's just like looking at the situation for what it is and just being like, this just has to, like, we just can't do this anymore.
Yeah.
You know, that's it.
Russian says, Danny Finkelstein, friends of the show.
I chuckle for 30 seconds straight.
Well, I mean, you know, Danny Finkelstein most affected by patriots.
Always, yeah.
It's weird how he keeps insulting.
Yeah, exactly.
He keeps leaving you in front of the bullets.
It's like, but Danny, no one's talking about you.
Lord Finkelstein, you're not involved in this conversation.
It's just really weird.
I saw you written a thing in the times saying, oh, I've been attacked by all the Groypers.
But they didn't know who you were until you started.
Anyway.
Maria says, Restore will no doubt have to weather all the combined assaults from the media globalist elite types who care little about them or at all about the national survival.
Well, I mean, they're the ones killing it.
Restore could possibly split the vote, but I think more likely will unite the vote across the nations to make our nation a nation.
Yeah, and I'm just tired of the entitlement of it.
No, we're going to win and too bad.
Cry about it.
Not my problem.
Your problem.
There's still a long way to go between now and then.
We can't complain.
That is important.
Restore's Unlikely Victory00:04:47
Yes.
But thankfully, this is our job.
That's true.
This is non-stop war against the system.
Total war in every aspect that we can possibly conceive of.
We are against everything that they do, and we're going to win.
The death penalty is unironically a British value, says that's a random name.
That's true.
And it's an English value.
The death penalty has always been cherished by the English in particular, which is very like so many things up until the last five minutes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Until the 60s.
Alex says, the centre has never existed.
It was always a construction of the legacy media political construct.
Yeah, it's the apparatus of the Westminster SW1 bubble to keep out the undesirables like you lot.
But yeah, you're absolutely right.
And the fact that it's collapsed so comprehensively at this point is just remarkable.
Yeah.
Really enjoy seeing it go, frankly.
And that's a random name says 40% of people didn't vote because they didn't feel represented.
You mean Kemi doesn't represent the average Brit?
Well, I mean, to be honest with you, Kemi's actually not by far the least of the problem, frankly.
Like, she's got more popular support than someone like Kierstom or Rachel Reeves or David Lamy, or, you know.
So it's actually not that too, it's not too bad, frankly.
She's not particularly relevant.
I mean, the betting markets have Rupert at better odds to be the next president than Kemi Bednock.
I don't think we need to concern ourselves.
It's amazing, isn't it?
Richard said, Farage is a mirage.
His attendance numbers as an MEP or MP should tell you all you need to know.
What's he been doing?
He hasn't been working hard as he pretends.
Definitely not what you want.
Yeah, I mean, the left-wing attack, how many times have you been to Clackton?
It's true.
You know, I hate to give them that, but it is true.
And Anne says, When I see Nigel's cameos, I see someone who will sell his dignity for money.
Makes me wonder what else he has or will do for more cash.
Obviously, a man of no principle.
Big Chungus sends his regards.
I hate it so much, man.
I hate it.
Have you seen any of this?
Oh, I'll play it to you after it.
It's so funny.
So there's a website called Cameo where people come.
I know I've heard of it.
Yeah, to record a video message to someone.
And so people are like, okay, well, let's see what we can get Nigel Farage to do.
Only for 70 quid as well.
That's what I'm saying.
People keep catching him out and making him say stuff.
It's like OnlyFans, but for celebrities.
Go on, play one.
These are all real, by the way.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
James Marson, what did you do with Big Jungus?
We know you're the sus imposter, and I saw you vent in electrical.
What did you do with that wish delivery the other week, James?
Use code Among Us for a $20 discount on James Marson merch.
No, play the next one.
Happy birthday, Hugh James.
An update to the group.
Crisis in Plotland.
Ramona Big Jungus has launched a military coup and only you stop it.
Sign up to NordVPN and use the code Among Us to beat the totally sus Chungus.
Insane Plotland.
I want to wish you, Nathan, Harry, Lynn, Haraza, Grad, a great pog day.
I've got to tell you that Big Jungus sends his regards.
I'm going to ask Nathan how his neighbour is doing.
This comes from Daniel.
It would be one thing, right?
If he was just a TV presenter, he was doing this.
And that would be quite funny.
But it's the fact that he's positioning himself as being the savior of Britain and of England and occupying the space that would otherwise be occupied by somebody like Rupert and trading on the idea that he's a serious offering for the future of this country.
I mean, we're not laughing with him here.
We're laughing at him.
He's a clown.
He's a absolute clown.
And the fact that for 70 quid, he can literally prostitute himself, sell his dignity, and obviously roll out these clips.
It's just like, Nigel, you aren't strapped for cash.
If you were strapped for cash, I might understand it.
I think he actually just enjoys them.
Maybe.
I think he just does it for the money.
And so anyway, deeply embarrassing.
Anyway, I assume that chaps people should go to restorebritain.co.uk and join us.
£20 a year.
Very affordable.
Very affordable.
Lots to be done.
So at last count, I think we're about 65,000 members.
So if we can get it to 100,000 within, well, I mean, a few weeks, I think that's doable.
Maybe it is a bit optimistic.
But if every viewer who's watching now signs up, I mean, please do.
I mean, it has to be done.
There's no other party in other vehicle that's going to do the things that are necessary in this country.