The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1414 dissects England's local election collapse, where Reform UK wiped out councils in Wigan and Tameside while Labour suffered catastrophic losses under Keir Starmer. Hosts critique Starmer's refusal to resign despite accusations of weakness regarding the Southport killings and alienating the "Red Wall" through net zero policies. The episode further analyzes Sweden and Germany removing "Islamophobia" from official documents, arguing this protects free speech against arbitrary enforcement by unelected bureaucrats promoting multiculturalism. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the Muslim Brotherhood's alleged exploitation of EU funding and calls for reclaiming environmentalism from dishonest left-wing narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Local Election Results Roll In00:14:40
Hello, and welcome to the podcast of the Load Seaters, episode 1414 for Friday, the 8th of May 2026.
And what a great day it is, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm joined today by Brother Stelios and Brother Nick.
And today we're going to be talking to you all about, of course, the recent local election results that are now rolling in today as we still speak.
It's still ongoing, so we won't have all of the information, but we will certainly enjoy a good helping of salt mining and no doubt, you know, just Assess the political lay of the land as it's now falling.
We're then going to be talking about Sweden retiring the term Islamophobia and why this might be a little bit more of a shrewd move than just sort of like the blanket good it might seem on the surface.
And then I thought, seeing as we're rolling into the weekend, we'd finish with a nice wholesome segment celebrating the life of Sir David Attenborough on what is his 100th birthday.
So, with that all said, Nick, what happened last night?
All right, well, what happened and what is happening?
What is happening is the death of the Uniparty, massive change in the country.
It's over for Labour and the Tories, and we're in a new world, a brave new world, and it's still going on.
And because we have quite a few American viewers and things like that, I will explain briefly what local elections even are, because I've seen some people asking me online.
Essentially, it's on one level, it's who does your bins.
It's your very small local area.
You might not even know who the person is.
You get to the booth, you can vote for three people, sometimes two or one, and you just say, okay, this is my local councillor.
But on one level, it's about local issues.
On another, it's a protest vote against.
The government, that's quite often what they are.
They're seen as a bit like midterms, but now with all the changes in the country, they're actually even more than that, and they're indicative of this new change and this complete rejection of the uniparty, particularly of Labour.
So that's really what they are, and so they're more significant, really, than they've ever been.
And that's a sort of overview of what local elections are, and they're still rolling in.
I've got here the BBC, these are just sort of live results at the moment.
Reform is on 439, and you see Labour 261, they've lost 287, reform of gain 437.
So you see the way it's going, yeah, definitely a massive gain from two, they went to 439.
Yes, because they're on two because they're new.
And then you see Greens are gaining, as we expected, Conservatives losing, Lib Dems up a little bit.
To be honest, I'd expected the Greens to be a little higher.
Yeah, because it depends which seats are related first, and they are probably going to go up more.
But it is mainly about reform winning, and we will talk about that and acknowledge what that means.
It's also mainly about Labour losing.
Starmer was projected and Labour to lose perhaps even 1,800, perhaps even 1,900.
So if they lose anything less than that, they'll probably try and claim it as a pathetic victory.
Victory.
It wasn't as bad as we thought.
Because some people even said up to 2000.
So they knew it was going to be very bad, and it is bad.
Everything that's been coming in is that it's probably even worse than many of them thought.
Labour Party is like that guy in Monty Python's Holy Grail where he's on the back of the case.
He's like, I'm not dead.
It's like, oh, yeah.
And one word that keeps coming up is apocalyptic.
So this was quite interesting.
This was on Sky, and Sam Coates talked about it.
It's quite good for an overview of how bad it was.
Let's just see.
It's meant to be at 132, but it's not.
So I'll just Get it to there.
Sure.
So the whole thing is actually quite good, but because we've got limited time, let's just go to about here and see what he had to say.
This was in the middle of the night.
Changed.
This is a pretty apocalyptic result from what we've seen.
The maps show that Reform UK is wiping out entire councils, winning them ward by ward across all sorts of areas of the northeast.
Including parts where you would expect Labour to at least manage to keep a toehold.
I'm thinking of places like Wigan in Greater Manchester.
We were just talking about Taneside in Greater Manchester, areas where even the great Labour White Hope, Andy Burnham, might have thought to be able to improve the Labour brand.
There is not much evidence of that.
Instead, there is just challenge after challenge.
We haven't really got to the stage of the evening where we see Green gained in any significant numbers.
One council in West London, Richmond, it appears that the Greens actually lost five seats to the Liberal Democrats.
That's a bit of a surprise, a little bit of unpicking to see whether that's representative of anything.
But I think that Nigel Farage has come out and declared this part of a revolution.
And the real question is where does this leave Keir Starmer as we're now into the early hours of Friday morning?
Because from everything I can see, there is not a delegation about to knock on number 10's door.
But the kind of scale of defeats that Labour councillors are enduring up and down England, because we've only had the English votes, is really painful and seismic.
And an emotional spasm may yet.
Prompt some action against the Prime Minister, even though.
All right.
Painful, seismic, apocalyptic.
That's what it is for Labour.
I mean, what must these past few weeks have been like if you were like a Labour campaigner, an unironic, oh, I believe in Labour just getting.
I mean, the whole process of campaigning must have felt like something akin to a death march.
Yeah, and we'll talk about that, how unpopular Starmer is on the doorstep.
He's radically unpopular.
And just a note on the Greens, as you said there, it's not clear yet how well they are going to do.
Is it because the seats are still coming in?
But Zach Plenty has been damaged by.
Saying that the police were wrong to take out the guy who'd stabbed people in Golas Green.
The way they did it was too brutal.
He lost massive popularity there.
And it turns out he was unqualified in his hypnotherapy as well.
He didn't have the license.
And so that's obviously upset people.
And running on Gaza in local elections, it's not clear how well that actually does.
It does well with hardcore Muslim voters.
Sure.
That's their main thing.
But it doesn't necessarily do that well.
So we're yet to see if the Greens will have quite the bounce that people said, but certainly reform have.
One thing that's quite funny about Starmer is he's competing with his own terrible record.
So, although these are really bad for Starmer, 2025 was also incredibly bad.
So, I was saying to you just before the show, one of the very unlikely and strange defenses Starmer could make is we've got to put this into context.
I was even worse last time.
Now, this is ongoing, so he may top that.
But he did terribly.
So, he has one of the worst local election records of modern PMs.
There he is.
It's about a share of councillors' losses and proportion of defenses 66% in 2025, which would even beat Brown in 2009.
And very unpopular people, Major Rishi Sunak.
So, and then you see Starmer now is here, but he could still go up.
So, it's all disaster for Starmer, any way you look at it.
But he was bad already.
This one's quite interesting because it's John MacDonald, who was a big guy in Labour under Corbyn, because he was a Corbyn guy, and he's still sort of knocking around, causing trouble for Starmer.
And he talks about why it's so bad for them, not just in the parliamentary party, but on the ground, how Labour's just based their grassroots is in danger of being completely destroyed.
They work so hard, they do the best they can.
So, it's been a real service.
And I'm sorry this has happened to you.
This is.
This is a nightmare.
It's my worst nightmare, actually, in terms of politics this year.
Your worst nightmare?
Electorally, it is, yeah.
Because we lose our base to win elections.
Worse than 2019?
The German government?
Oh, yeah, I think so.
In terms of, look, we got hammered then, and I was part of that.
But we thought, well, we'll pick ourselves up.
I supported Becky Long Bailey to be leader.
She didn't get it.
Keir got it.
And I said, he's democratically elected.
Therefore, give this man his chance and all the rest of it.
We win that election on the basis of promising change.
Now the level of disillusionment means this isn't just a risk to losing a Labour government.
We could lose the Labour Party.
Now that sounds like an exaggeration, but if you look at what's happening to us, we're losing our base within the community.
Our membership has dropped at least by half.
The people who are going out and working on the ground are no longer there.
Once you start losing that grassroots base of your organisation and structure, you're threatened in your very existence.
See, existential for Labour.
Because who are their natural constituency?
This is the problem that all the parties are facing.
All the old loyalties are gone.
It used to be.
In the North, you're voting Labour, working class, that's gone to reform.
And before that as well, it totally broke during Brexit as well, with the Red Wall just collapsed.
And even though they lent their votes to Boris Johnson at the time, who was unworthy of them and totally betrayed them and all of us on every issue, I suppose it's that thing that, but at least it showed that actually that old way of thinking, well, Oh, I'm voting this way because my grandfather did, and that's just where we're from.
And that's that paradigm is just gone.
Yeah.
People will look for other parties to vote for now.
Yes.
And the big thing is, no one's safe.
There is no, because the new loyalties are yet to be built.
So no one knows what's going to happen.
It's yes, all that's gone.
Doesn't matter how your grand voted, all that's gone.
Reform, that's where people are now.
That's not going to be loyal either.
It's all about who can actually make change, who can actually break the status quo and break the uniparty.
That's all anyone cares about.
Yeah.
And they finally caught up.
The normie is finally the guns to take.
Let's say one thing about this as well.
Yeah.
What John MacDonald's saying, because this was another point as well.
So, when Labour came in the other year and they won in the election, everyone was saying at the time, it's like, well, that's going to be the death of the Labour Party.
But, you know, before MacDonald's like, oh, and this has just come out and this is how things are now, it's like, yeah, we were all saying this earlier on, John.
Like, this is not some new insight.
We all knew that the situation for the Unit Party had become so untenable.
Like, the dissatisfaction had never been stronger.
And actually, it was suicide for Labour to even want to inherit.
Mm hmm.
The political system after 14 years of what the Tories did to it because you knew they were not going to do anything to help save it.
They were too stupid.
I want to ask something here because it seems to me that there are several ways in which the term uniparty is being used.
Do you mean Labour and Conservatives?
Yes.
Okay, then in that case, it's absolutely yes.
There are numbers plummeting.
You can then use it in the context of a reform turnout to be just a uniparty.
Yeah, because it generally means the Tories are Conservative, but it can mean anyone who then joins it.
I mean, Lib Dems.
Are also part of it.
Okay, because let me just factor in this that there are some people for whom every party that governs will be a uniparty.
Yes, I mean Tories and Labour with the caveat when you say, oh, they're just uniparty, that means they're not really the change from Tories and Labour, but it generally means.
I like the fact because every poll we encounter our reminder that the Tories exist.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I completely forget that.
Yeah.
You see, their numbers are plummeting.
No one believes that they have anything to offer.
Well, I've been saying that Kemi Baynock's a bit like Paddy Ashton, which is an old school reference, because he was very well liked, but he was the leader of a minor party.
And Kemi, she might not be quite at that level yet, but her ratings are increasing, but the Tories' ratings are going down.
So this is a problem she has.
But the last thing I want to mention is I think that people are overestimating the Greens.
They're a protest party.
I think a very significant amount of voters who voted Green here are going to vote Labour again down in.
The next general election.
It's a protest party, and between now and then, Polanski will be interviewed again.
He's going to be ridiculous in it, and people are going to notice.
Yeah, but he's got a background of being a sort of quite anti Corbynite Lib Dem.
Now he's pushing full Corbynite far left politics.
As you say, not even a hypnotist, it turns out.
Very questionable background in many ways.
And also, yeah, saying that the police were too strong.
His instincts are terrible.
His political instincts are not good.
And he just, every interview he does, as you say, loses because people see what he's like.
And many, it turns out from focus groups, a lot of voters think the Greens are still about the whales and dolphins.
They just haven't updated their software.
And as soon as they see what they are, they're like, oh, it's Islamism.
That's the problem, though, because there are many, we forget.
Especially those of us who are very, very too much online, who forget that most people aren't, and there's a tremendous lag.
I will say this I'm sure you've experienced this.
Have you ever shown things to people who aren't online, and maybe they get temporarily enraged?
And you think, Yeah, okay, suddenly they see sense, and next day you'll see them acting as if you didn't, as if nothing happened.
It's like with the men in black, you know, back to sports ball, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
And this is why I'm calling this the normie begins to hate because.
They're finally catching up.
This has been the problem for years, but this is the finally the voters have said, Right, no more of you then.
Labour was the last chance, it was the Loveless landslide.
It was, as you sort of alluded to before, it's like, All right, we hate the Tories, we'll give you one last go because we don't really know what else there is.
And there wasn't anything really reformer new, and it was like, It was very quickly now we hate you, and it was over almost immediately for Labour.
So that it is the death of the Union Party.
And oh, yeah, Starmer is a big problem because Starmer, I put this out at 2 55 a.m., just my election madness, but um.
Starmer, this is Scarlett Maguire from Merlin Strategy.
You're a creature of the night.
I know, it's ridiculous.
Posting bangers in the night.
Always on 24 7.
Anyway, this just gives you an idea how bad Starmer does on the doorstep.
When you sit in focus groups, which can be such a valuable thing to do, just listening at length to voters talking about why they make the decisions that they make, what was the one or two things that came across most strongly to you?
I think the first thing that came across the most strongly was the The level of dislike for Keir Starmer, and that was true across the voting spectrum.
So, from your sort of progressive left all the way to your populist right, or whatever you want to call it, voters were damning about Keir Starmer, and it was the same words that were coming up over and over again weak, primarily, but then also words like liar as well.
And they saw the government as characterized by U turns.
There you go.
So, and I've said a few things like, why is he so uniquely hated?
It's a whole podcast on its own, but bureaucratic, arrogant, lacks integrity, cold and inhuman, worships international law to an absurd degree, thinks everything's about.
Process and underlying all that is the fact that he hates the British people.
Widespread Dislike For Starmer00:14:59
This is the case.
I mean, people even on the doorstep mentioned his free glasses and things.
You know, he got the freebies, lack of integrity there.
Mandelson, total lack of integrity, throwing people under the bus.
So there's no real redeeming features.
Thinks everything's a process, wants to get campaigns around the world to bring it, get horrible killers off the hook, or used to do that.
Now he does things like releasing criminals from jail, Southport.
Just the list goes on and on and on.
Right.
And now he wants assisted.
There's nothing redeeming there.
Jury trials.
Yes, there's nothing.
Yeah, exactly.
And Southwell, we'll get on to because I think that was a big one for him.
But so people, it's just a type that we sort of like certain types in Britain.
One type that does quite well is the toad of toad, the whole thing that Farage tries to go for.
The other is a kind of more aristocratic thing.
Maybe you sort of got to, maybe even Rupert Lowe a little bit.
Maybe Jacob Rees.
There's different types.
People, Boris, although he's hated now for the Boris wave, this is a type that appeals to British people.
But Starmer is a type we recognize, but as a villain, he's the sniveling Jobsworth bureaucrat.
That we just hate.
He's part of British sort of mythos or whatever, like folk culture.
But he'll be in a movie getting a wedgie.
He's the guy he's hated.
We don't like that bureaucrat person, but we recognize them.
But Starmer, of course, luckily has got it all and he totally gets it and has totally absorbed all these lessons, not as they used to say.
We made a number of pulls which were the right pulls in terms of stabilizing the economy, investing in our public services, and not getting dragged into the Iran war.
But we also made unnecessary mistakes.
And my job now is to set out the steps that we will take.
To bring about the change that people want and deserve, you are not going to resign.
No, I'm not going to walk away and plunge the country into chaos.
We were elected to deal with these challenges, and that's what we will do.
Has Ed Miliband asked you to set out a timetable for your departure?
Well, I think Ed Miliband has dealt with this and made absolutely clear that he supports me.
What do you say to those in your party that are really upset with.
Huh?
Too quiet.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
It's always like, yeah, I can.
The thing is, right, it's like, yeah, but you've suffered, Kia, an absolutely cataclysmic defeat.
So when you say about the fact that, oh, yes, and, you know, we just need to get on with giving the people what they want, it's like, yeah, but are you the guy best positioned to understand what the people want?
Because it seems like the point is that you're way off the radar of what people's concerns are here.
That being said, that was false.
They don't want what you want.
You weren't re elected to anything.
You were elected on a protest vote against the Tories.
No one likes what you have to offer.
Ed Miliband is plotting to get rid of you.
He's talked to Starmer and said, let's do it gently.
And let's have a time scale for when you leave.
He has a lot of influence in the party at Millerman, so he can say that.
John McDonald was saying where they should do a similar thing.
He's done, it's just a question of when, but he doesn't get it and says, No, I'm totally fine, I'm not going.
I said to you before the show, eventually the world will just be Starmer and cockroaches.
They'll be like, I'm still here, there's no one left, it's just me and volcanic rock.
It's like the old tumbleweed blowing through.
And it'll be fine, it'll be like, I've still got to deliver the changes that you want.
Starmer, there's no one here, you're in an apocalyptic landscape.
But he just will never get it.
It's incredible, really.
It's incredible.
It's a certain quality, I suppose.
So, one quality has is a kind of ridiculous stubbornness, total lack of self awareness.
The thing is, as well, I remember back to, I think it was just a recent quote as well, certainly within the past month, where he talked about the fact that what the elections are going to be about, he was less talking about the local elections and more the upcoming general election in 2029.
But he actually rightly said, this is going to be really a referendum on British identity.
You know, that's what all of this is coming to in the end.
What does it mean to be British?
Mm hmm.
Because, from Starmer's point of view, it's literally just anyone in here with a passport.
And they're threatened with an amount of privilege and defence from the institutions that we mere second class citizen English plebs on the outside are just not given a likelihood to get.
Yeah, he believes in Globus Britain.
He famously prefers Davos over Westminster.
He has said that.
And all he's lying is calling reform divisive and hateful, whilst being obviously divisive and hateful himself.
It's okay when they do it.
It's okay when they do.
It's okay when they do.
I know, that's all he's got.
But it's like, oh, no, not division.
It's like, yeah, but I don't want to stand with you.
Right, right.
Like, that's the point.
It disgusts me what you stand for.
You explicitly don't stand with us in every possible metric.
So, yes.
I mean, to be fair to Kemi, she actually is playing quite well the I'm just being sensible thing.
She doesn't constantly insult everyone.
Starmer's not even sensible.
Hiring Mandelson is not sensible.
What he did after Southport is not sensible, and we'll see.
But here he says people are still frustrated.
Their lives aren't changing fast enough.
Just completely the wrong lesson.
It's completely opposite.
Lives are changing too fast.
Immigration, towns unrecognizable, cost of living, can't buy a house.
Things have changed way too much.
Demographic collapse.
It's like a complete wrong message.
And one thing that even John McDonald mentioned, Chris Bryant, when he was on a telly last night, all the Labour people, they came out and said, Well, we're trying to get our message across about renters' rights and employment rights, but no one's really, there's some things outweighing.
It's like those are also crap policies.
One of them makes renting impossible and makes it impossible for landlords and reduces the amount of houses out there.
The other one makes it impossible for employees to hire anyone.
So unemployment has gone up.
So even the policies that you're a flagship for are crap.
It's like, What do you do?
I got quite angry.
Haven't slept.
Burnside sums it up here.
The British people are sending us a message.
We're listening.
They want us to go further and faster, which is why we're rolling out breakfast clubs to workplaces, speeding up asylum approvals, and building more mosques than ever.
If I never hear the phrase breakfast club again, I'll be quite happy because the amount of times they're breakfast clubs, I even know what it is.
I refuse to learn what it is.
But I eventually figured out what it is.
It's like for, you know, it's people to eat, kids to get breakfast who couldn't.
But it's like, stop saying breakfast clubs.
It's a minor thing, relatively.
You know, it's like they're so bereft of any ideas.
Diane Abbott, rare W. There is a myth, very widely held in Labour, that we've achieved a huge popular victory in 2024 under Starmer.
In fact, we won 9.7 million votes, over 3 million fewer than in 2017, and half a million less than the disastrous 2019 poll we won because the Tories imploded in 2024.
Completely true.
Even the mass is on point.
Yes, the mass is there.
She hates it.
You know what they say about broken clocks?
Yeah, yeah.
Diane Abbott can't read the time.
The only time I've heard her saying something sensible.
It was this, plus when she stood up.
And attacked Starmer in Parliament recently and said no one cares about process.
Those were the two.
And they were both, she's got, by her hatred of Starmer, adds like 20 IQ points.
Go on, Diane.
I'm rooting for you.
Go on, go.
Quite an interesting point for Ferris.
We will get on to reform.
I don't want to be like trying to underplay it.
Reform have absolutely crushed these.
There's no doubt.
But Carl just sent me this one before, which is quite interesting.
Farage risks believing what Starmer believed when he won in 2024.
People are voting against Starmer, not for Farage, Nadim Zaharwe or Robert Jemmick.
And there is something in that.
And I'll get on to that more at the end.
It's people are lending their votes at the moment.
There's no loyalty at the moment.
But for now, reform are riding high.
Mary Harrington, quite interesting.
Labour bet the farm on a coalition of white working class NGO students and Islamists.
Now the white working class is binning them for reform.
Students are binning them for the Greens and the Islamists are binning them for assorted Klan grift candidates.
Basically, just leaves the NGOs oops.
I saw recent statistics.
Apparently, the Muslim share of the vote for Labour has gone down from 80% to 38%.
Wow.
So it's absolutely fell off a cliff.
I mean, obviously, a lot of it has gone to the Greens and the Independents and so on, but this is what you get.
You know, this to go back to the whole you know, start of the Blairite project, and oh, we're going to rub the right's noses in diversity and everything.
It's like, and now it's destroying your party because those groups are again like the Red Wall working class voters, those groups that you thought, oh, they're foreigners, they'll just vote for us regardless, it doesn't matter.
It's like actually, something will come along, some wedge issue that will take them away from you.
Who is the natural labor voter now?
It's basically my football team, which is uh, blokes in London who are sort of professional class, sort of blob or blob adjacent.
And that's which means sort of civil service, but also BBC and all these things, financial institutions.
There's like a very small group, it's actually a small group.
And New Labour was always a small group.
John MacDonald's not going to be voting Labour, is he?
No, no, exactly.
And I know it's elite theory, you always have a small organised minority, but New Labour was never popular, really.
Blair sold it.
He kind of went off the back of Thatcherism.
He did a lot of stealth reforms.
Yeah.
It's never really been a popular thing.
Like the working class don't like it, the Tory type people don't like it.
Who actually likes it?
It's not been popular, but what it has been is just locked in by the system itself.
Sounds strange to say because it's Blair managed to achieve massive victories, but.
The actual new Labour philosophy, he kind of had to smuggle it in.
It's not really a popular philosophy.
It wasn't honest.
No, and the Labour Party don't like it, which is the pressure that Starmer's facing.
They want further leftism.
Anyway, so who are Labour now?
So, Claire Fox, driving me mad.
All commentators, sorry, commentators all focusing on should Starmer stay or should he go.
Completely missed the point.
He may embody popular loathing for Labour, but this is a deeper rejection of a whole political elite that sneered at, demonised, patronised millions of voters for too long.
Yes.
Boom.
And it's the entire attitude of the Labour Party itself.
There's no one to replace Starmer.
There's no one who could do it better than he could.
There's no one who's going to save this.
It's over.
It's done.
It's just unflailing in the final match of the boxing fight.
You know, up against it and just sweating and then falling apart.
The reason they're done is who else?
Rayner, same problem.
Miliband, we've even tried him before.
Burnham might do better because people don't know what he's like.
He's still not an MP.
No, no.
And Starmer tried to block him.
And if he tries to block him again, he's in more trouble.
Yeah, I have a question because that's what, you know, that's what I ask myself every time I hear Starmer speak.
Have you seen any other politician expressing weakness to such an extent?
Maybe there are, probably there are, but he's unbelievably weak.
Yeah, it has really no redeeming features except this cockroach stubbornness to just plow on and never be.
That's the only thing he's got, I think, which comes from a lack of self awareness.
Oh, it's me.
I forgot I put that in.
I'll put you alike.
This is another one of my 2 30 a.m. bangers.
So, Starmer said to all the Labour members, it's just a Starmer message, like delusional thinking that together we build a stronger and fairer Britain.
I just said, you're done and you've brought your party down with you and you deserve it for your hatred of the British people.
You deserve it for Southport alone.
And I don't think he's ever recovered from Southport.
And this was the reason I put that in is it was confirmed here by James Hartville, who was also talking to Annunziata, who was talking about Southport.
And he said, this is the truth.
Labour's poll collapse dates from the Southport killings.
Yes.
Why?
Because the Labour Party was seen to be protecting the killer's identity while criminalising the people who were angry at the massacre.
These muggers are right.
Labour still don't understand its error.
And I said at the time, this is a disaster.
This is a moral disaster.
It's a terrible attack on the British people.
It's also not going to go down well.
And the media nonsense message at the time, MSM, was, oh, he's handled this well because he's put some people in jail.
It's like, he hasn't handled it well.
He sided with a foreign child murderer and he's put British people in prison.
This is absolutely.
And what happened is the Times put out a thing I couldn't find out, but it was a little graph.
You could click on all these little data points, and it was how aware are people of this policy and how much do they like it.
The absolute worst one was winter fuel, which was a disaster flavor.
Stupid policy saves a small amount of money, but everyone just thinks you're freezing old people to death.
And that was the most awareness and the most hatred.
That was a terrible policy.
But one of them was Southport.
People hated the way he handled that.
The conventional wisdom was good.
It wasn't good.
It was terrible.
But again, even that, just to go back to the winter fuel allowance, it just takes across the entire thing.
It's like, oh, we're going to cut off the winter fuel allowance for the pensioners because we need to cut somewhere.
We need to cut, cut, cut.
It's like, okay, why don't you start Kia with the welfare for the foreigners?
Why don't we just start there?
Wouldn't that lighten the burden a bit?
But no, we're going to penalise the pensioners in all of this.
Yeah.
And it's interesting that Southport just didn't work.
For them, how could it?
How could it?
It was a really tone deaf moment.
As soon as he got in, Southport happened and he was done.
You know what was really interesting with Southport was that in that case, he acted like an ideologue.
He had the golden opportunity to be the classic boring politician who's going to mediate between the two communities.
And he just instantly made it about the Muslims feel bad.
The state sides with the Muslims.
Do you know what?
I wasn't going to say it.
I just remembered that.
That was a crazy thing he did.
You would expect him.
From any like talking blazer or something, you did to go there and you know act like the diplomat talking in platitudes, abstract thing.
He just went straightforward and said, Far right thuggery, yeah, far right thuggery.
The state sides with the Muslims, and even with that, so you burnt any goodwill that you had, you know, just inherited by coming into power.
You know, if there were some people going, Well, at least it's not Truss and Sunak and Boris, you know, like let's just give him a chance, maybe it'll be better, you know, just like from a normie perspective.
And it's like, okay, but then Southport comes along and he basically says, right, okay, I'm going to protect the Muslims because they're my voter block, they're my client group, and they're not even that anymore.
And children had died.
Yeah, and children died.
And people were angry.
And I remember being on GB News and I was hosting, and they wanted me to say that the people protesting Southport were far right.
And they kept nagging me to say it.
So I said, okay, some of them might have been because there's always that one guy with the Nazi tattoos.
And they kept telling me to say it again.
I wouldn't keep, I wouldn't.
And they took me off hosting.
I never hosted again because I wouldn't, the People's Channel wouldn't want me to say that the Southport protests were these far right people.
I was like, I just don't believe it.
People's channel wanted you to condemn the people.
Right.
And every other channel is doing it.
And I wouldn't do it.
And then, and I never hosted again, I found out later that was the reason.
Right.
And then, if you look at it, the police later agreed with me and said it wasn't these organized far right groups.
The lie was that they were busting in these far right groups.
It was a genuine feeling from people who just had enough.
They said it was this organized far right thing.
On the whole, it definitely wasn't.
And even the police agreed with me.
So Star Wars was completely wrong.
So, a disaster.
And just, what a scumbag.
Anyway.
So, on the reform thing, Although I hate to share Matt Goodwin's gloating tweets, we have to acknowledge reform have done, and only because of time, we're not going to say much about it, but reform have obviously crushed it.
Now, to some degree, even people like me have had to consider do I vote reform?
Because even people like Angloid, who's a sort of lotus ear, he said, vote reform locally because they might defect to a store, but also the base are sort of more based than some of the front bench who are a bit questionable.
And it's council level.
The Far Right Lie Exposed00:15:53
And there's something in that.
And I think you did make a strong argument.
You look at who's there, you're like Green Labour.
Tory reform, you're like, okay, you're basically like, have they got a vaguely pronounceable name?
Are they vaguely on the right?
These are kind of the options you're dealing with.
It's a bit touch and go, isn't it, in some constituencies?
Sometimes in my constituency, Reform and Green had pronounceable names where Labour and Tories didn't.
I'm like, what do I do with this?
So it's, and Goodman points out, though, they're winning the North.
Lisa Nandi waking up to see 24 or 25 seats in her area of Wigan go to reform.
Angela Rayner wake up to see 18 to 19 seats of Thameside go to reform.
So if Labour think the answer is to relax immigration and ape the Greens, they have no idea what's going on there.
And Lisa Nandi, it's like, oh, you get the round of applause when you're on question time and the BBC have got a controlled environment for you, but get out there and reform are just destroying you.
Yeah.
But honestly, just ask yourself, what do they stand for?
Who?
Labour.
That's the question.
They only stand for open borders, NHS spending should go up in the EU.
Yeah, in the EU, globalisation.
Yes, and also inheritance tax.
Yeah.
To get rid of privacy, what do they stand for?
Destroy small business.
They seem to, exactly, he's correct on this.
They seem to want to show themselves greener than the Greens.
Even when the Greens were scoring better at polls, when they were dancing at Trafalgar Square and they were dancing with all the male strippers and stuff and the Gimps, Labour started saying we need to start talking about a summer campaign for sex toys.
Oh, yeah, that woman, yeah.
Nesbitt, yeah, awful, yeah.
Obviously, that messaging cut through.
Just insane, the stuff.
I know the stuff they focus on.
Yeah, yes, XPs were British, the campaign.
Yeah, I know.
I know the stuff they focus on is absolutely crazy.
What do they believe in anymore?
They seem to attack virtually.
If they find a different agreement, is it small business?
We attack you.
Is it patriots that attack you?
Is it the North?
You know, like everyone, they hate everyone.
It's like, who's left?
Yeah, it's instant, it's madness.
Yeah, and James Hartfield says to Aaron Bastani, he's missing the key element.
It's reform that's beaten Labour in these elections.
Labour is losing support for policies Bastani helped to put in Labour's manifesto, like liberal immigration policies and net zero, which the North just doesn't want.
It's a little bit more complicated because there's something from Persuasion UK.
I couldn't find it, but John MacDonald quoted it, which is that for every 10 Labour, every seat, 10 seats Labour lose to reform, they lose 16 to the Greens, Lib Dems, etc.
So, Who are they really losing it to?
They're basically losing from all sides to varying degrees.
They're losing to Greens on some of the Gaza stuff.
Yes.
And they're losing to reform on anything like working class and traditional.
So it's a bit of both.
Quite interesting from Adam Rem.
Reform sweeping and the rise of Muslim independence are both direct consequences of mass immigration.
We'll see some highly paid broadcasters do their best to dance around this very obvious truth.
So that's the new post immigration politics, sectarian politics.
Tories, little quick mention, because they won back Jewels and the Crown, they won back Wandsworth and Westminster.
And Wandsworth is so Tory, even back when I was at university many moons ago.
I lived in Wandsworth for a few years, yeah.
The first posh people I met were at university.
One of them was a guy called Jasper, and he'd wear sports hoodies like they do, and he had a badge, keep Wandsworth conservative.
Really?
I didn't even know what Wandsworth was.
I was like, okay.
Well, I mean, his work's been paying off.
That's a shame.
20 years ago.
But like, so Kemi's claiming these limited victories.
It's not the total wipeout for the Tories.
I think, as I've said, she's like the leader of a minor party now that's semi well liked.
What's this one?
For those who remember the Tories, some of them might vote.
Sorry, did they actually try to turn it into a win?
Yeah.
They lost 100.
How many did they lose?
It was ongoing, but it wasn't as bad as Labour, so we won.
Yeah, they won a constituency.
I don't know if we have time to play it, but I was going to just end on this from Lee Kane, who's a former Boris guy communications director, but now he does polling and things.
And he just points out that really this is a new landscape where people are voting for someone new, anyone that can achieve change.
And it's very temporary.
If reform don't do it, they'll move on again.
Of all the findings, the one that surprised us the most, we saw that almost one in seven people who have left the Tories and Labour to go to insurgent parties, if you will, of reform and the Greens said only one in seven said they would think about returning.
The others no longer see it as an option.
I think if you look inside both parties, and particularly the Conservatives, there's this view that people will go and they'll see reform and they'll sample it.
The same with the Greens, that these parties will fail and they'll all come back home.
To the traditional parties.
But these voters were telling us that's not what they tend to do.
They feel that they've given both parties their trust in their vote time and time again.
They've been let down by the fact that they haven't given them the change that they want.
So they are looking elsewhere.
And I think we've seen now a large proportion of the electorate permanently abandoning the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, which is obviously going to be a huge change for our politics.
But are those people permanently signing up to reform or green?
No.
And I think that's the thing that's quite interesting with it.
While there are some who say that they will stick with Greens and reform, others have said if they don't deliver the sort of change that I hope for, I may stop voting.
Or importantly, I'll keep looking for a new party.
And I think that element's quite interesting because things like Restore, for example, people will start again to flirt and move over that way.
And I think people are very open minded that they will keep searching for change, they will keep looking for parties that can deliver for them.
It's not that these parties are particularly popular in such.
They just think all parties are going to let them down and that they're very open minded to looking for other opportunities.
Boom.
So there it is.
So it's a chance for a store.
A little bit disappointing in a way that they didn't get going earlier because there was so much appetite to get rid of these main parties that they could have got a lot of votes.
And as we speak, Great Yarmouth is still unfolding and a lot still to play for.
But that's basically it from Lee Kane.
It's over.
For the time being, I'm happy for the Labour and Conservative parties to just get what they deserve.
Yeah, it's over for them.
People are looking for new parties.
They're going with reform for now.
But if reform mess up, they'll move on again because finally the normie has begun to hate and he's done with the old parties.
Sorry for going over.
No, no, it's an important thing to discuss.
All right, I'll just quickly.
Could go through the rumble rants.
Where have we got?
So, Okador says, Did anyone hear about Miss Zimbabwe and the social media fallout of the winner?
I did not, but maybe that's something amusing to talk into.
Habsification says, I've been trying to find the results of Great Yarmouth, but I haven't found anything yet.
Well, I believe the counting started at 11 a.m., so it may be that we're.
I just checked, and the latest update was it's still going on.
Right, so we just simply don't know yet, but we have a good feeling about it.
Base 8 for $2, thank you, says, I'm not in the habit of defending Polanski.
But if you go to a hypnotist to get your cannons upgraded, I feel like you probably don't deserve to have money.
I mean, it's a fair point, isn't it?
That's a random name says, as reform keeps slumping and restore keeps rising, how likely would it be that reform councillors flip to restore?
Well, I imagine that the likelihood for, you know, there was a likelihood for some of them, but the important point is that restore don't just take everyone that's coming, right?
There needs to be some proper entryism and vetting, which.
There seems to have been, actually, thus far, which is encouraging.
Spring Mage says, Bojack, Bojack, the double dades.
Nice.
And Brother Stelios, Brother Luca from 4T and Barber says, Have a wonderful weekend ahead.
The restoration is ahead.
But not me.
4T and Barber obviously hates me.
I suppose it's just implicit.
He never gets also some of our love.
Nothing, no, nothing.
Busted my ass for no reason.
Gone.
And if we could go to the next segment, Harry, thank you.
No, no, Harry, let's start with this one.
Yeah, I'll use the.
Use technology.
Thanks.
Right, so you may have heard that Sweden has banned Islamophobia.
I think that this is big news, but in a way, it's kind of like Schrodinger's ban.
It is and it isn't.
It's not always as it seems.
Yeah, but that said, it's not that significant discourse hasn't occurred and people haven't actually said things that should have been said and they couldn't say before.
They have.
But yeah, let's look at what happened because it's a very complex story.
Right, there is this article by the Brussels Signal.
This is the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Maria Malmur Stenergaard, and they're saying that the Swedish government drops the concept of Islamophobia.
So when people are talking about banning Islamophobia, they're not talking about penalizing the use of the word.
They're essentially saying that the government is not going to use the term.
On its official documents, especially when it comes to legislation.
Now, on a first note, that's good.
It's not bad.
It's definitely not bad.
The question is, how good is it?
And whether they're taking one step forward and then they're going to take another step backward.
You'll see why I'm going to say this.
So, the reasons that they gave are reasons that we're very well aware of.
They have to do and they revolve around the fact that the concept of Islamophobia is giving an excuse for people.
Both Muslims and far leftists to start demonizing people who are criticizing Islam.
And this blurs the lines and it completely destroys free speech.
And it completely blurs the lines between actual criticism of a religion, actual criticism of a particular doctrine, which is part and parcel of being a free member of a free society and a democratic society as well.
Christopher Hitchens called it out many years ago.
Yeah.
He said they've already been using the term, you won't be able to use it soon, you'll be called a bigot instead of legitimate criticism.
Yes.
He would never be on the left these days, he wouldn't be able to survive on the left.
No.
No.
And I think that even late in his career, he left the left in a way.
To some degree, yeah.
Yes.
So the reasons that they gave are reasons that we have mentioned several times on the podcast.
As I said, they frequently revolve around free speech and the chilling impact of the use of this word as a conversation stopper.
So I'm not going to focus much more on this.
But I will say this there seems to be a difference between us talking about it here.
When criticizing an establishment that doesn't talk about it, and when people from the political world are talking about it.
So, this is something good.
That said, there is also something that I consider to be a bit of a bad thing, and something that is an occasion for sorrow is that we occasionally hear European leaders say the obvious decades down the line and saying it within the context of trying to.
Argue that nothing is to be done about this.
A chief example is Friedrich Mertz, the Chancellor of Germany.
He suddenly had an epiphany that destroying all your nuclear plants is not a good thing for your economy and for your energy sector and your energy dependency.
And he said it in the spirit of, but it's too late to do anything about it.
I'm happy that the Swedes aren't doing this.
Let us look a bit what they're saying.
Sweden's government has formally abandoned the term Islamophobia.
In its official communications and policy documents, describing the concept as problematic and potentially harmful to free speech.
Foreign Minister Maria Malmur Stenergaard announced the decision during a parliamentary debate in late April, marking a clear shift in how the country addresses criticism of Islam and related ideologies.
The moderate party minister told parliamentarians that the term risks equating legitimate criticism of religious doctrine or Islamist.
Political movements with irrational hatred or anti Muslim racism.
Wow, that's almost like what Europeans have been saying for decades.
Yes.
And they have been.
Trying to explain to our leaders.
They were being.
And we have been demonized for saying so.
Yes.
Especially when it comes to terrorist incidents where there is a whole establishment that tries to gaslight people.
Initially, they are trying to say that.
The guilty person who conducted these crimes doesn't fit a particular profile.
And then they start treating it as an isolated incident that isn't indicative of any sort of wider pattern.
Whereas the merest criticism of this is treated by the establishment as an indication of a very deep epidemic of far right extremist hatred and violence.
That's the thing, the hubris of telling you, having the goal to tell you how you have to feel.
About all of this, once these terrible things have happened, as well.
It's like, no, you don't get to decide what I think, how I'm going to, you know, mentally react to it.
I'm sorry, that's just not something within your power.
I was saying to Stelios before we started that Dominic Grieve has been doing this in this country.
He's a Tory, but he's put together this working group who are all Muslim to come up with this definition of anti Muslim hostility.
And it's non statutory, it's not even legal.
So what's it there for?
It's just there to nudge and create an atmosphere of intimidation, as far as I can see.
Absolutely, yeah.
That's all it's there for.
People like Nick Timothy have done good work countering it, but yeah, it's constantly putting up.
And what an anti Muslim racism, I know this is an obvious point, meaningless sentence because it's not a racism.
They always bring that out whenever they want.
That's why I said whether this is a case of one step forward, one step backwards.
Because essentially, what they're going to do is to say, we are not going to use the term Islamophobia, but we are going to use the term anti Muslim racism.
Now, the question is, why don't they apply the same rationale they applied to the concept of Islamophobia to the concept of anti Muslim racism?
And once they do this, they will see that this does have the same effect on.
Free speech.
And I will say this because it seems to me that there is a double standard that Europeans are playing against themselves.
And it's time that they stop doing it.
If you look at days in the UN, you will see a day combating Islamophobia, you will see a day combating anti Semitism, but you won't see a day combating Christianophobia.
And Christianity is the most persecuted religion on the planet and remains the most persecuted religion on the planet.
Especially in Nigeria, China, Egypt, you can go on and on.
India.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And frequently they are persecuted also by Muslim extremists.
And even by secular Western politicians as well.
Absolutely.
So I'm in favor of free speech.
I don't like these terms.
But if these terms are going to be used, why the double standard?
This raises several questions.
Recognition And Native Rights00:15:25
This might be a silly question, too much to get into, but isn't behind all this the whole concept that you can ban hate?
You can't ban hate.
As Morrissey once said, viva hate.
You're not getting into hate.
And why should you.
Oh, yeah, it's like hate makes the world go round.
Why can't I hate stuff?
I do hate loads of stuff.
It's like, as long as I don't commit a crime and do anything to that person, why can't I even hate them?
This is the thing you can't ban hate.
It's so Orwellian on the face of it.
But that's the thing, and that's why it's absolutely Orwellian and arbitrary.
It's arbitrary.
It allows those who are in power to arbitrarily choose who they are going to prosecute and who they aren't, and who they're going to allow to get away with it.
And the legislative framework that has been used and has been pushed forward in Europe and the West has been a legislative framework that has turned the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt.
Why?
Because if I give you inconsistent rules and I have the power, you're essentially guilty.
Because you are violating something I told you not to do.
So I can arbitrarily choose how long I will let you get away with it, if I choose to let you get away with it.
And this is what happens with woke legislation.
And this is what happens with subjective legislation.
If laws are don't kill and don't steal, we have publicly accessible criteria for verifying or falsifying the statement that someone has violated the rule or not.
But when it comes, To subjective elements when it comes to don't hate, no one can enter your mind.
It's esoteric, it's metaphysical.
An action is exotekic.
It's very clear.
When people say you killed that person, but it was or wasn't a hate crime, it's like there probably was an element of hate involved.
But it only gets called a hate crime if it's against certain groups.
But if you do it to white people, even if it's so obvious there is anti white hatred, it's never a hate crime.
Axel Rude Cabana wasn't accused of a hate crime by the authorities.
And the grooming gangs were a hate crime.
It was a non hate crime incident.
It wasn't even that.
Gangs, if you want to go there, are the biggest hate crime incident we've ever seen because they're explicitly anti white.
But.
But I almost say make them all hate crimes andor none, but it only gets done one way.
As we know, certain things are hate crimes, others aren't.
I say either ditch it entirely and just say it's either the crime or it's not the crime, or if we're going to do this hate thing, then it has to be that grooming gangs are hate crimes.
But the thing is, even if you were to genuinely make it an even playing field, as you say, it doesn't abolish the hate.
In fact, you know, one of the things that we've found is that actually by being subjected in our own home country to the idea, you have to have a positive opinion about this community.
You have to feel good about these people.
Yeah, they have to work to earn it.
Respect is earned.
It's not owed, it makes it worse.
And the hate kind of comes from the consequences of their actions.
Like, for example, I don't hate you, Nick.
I seem to think you're actually quite a decent fellow.
But that's because we actually have positive interactions with people.
If we don't, then obviously it's going to lead to dislike, distrust, and then eventually hatred if things don't improve.
Especially if people keep coming in saying, you know, you're not allowed to feel that way about him.
Right, it's just absurd.
That exacerbates it.
Yeah, because it's a gaslighting on top of the incident.
Yeah.
Right, so let us look at here.
This is the article from the European Conservatives.
Sweden finally scraps the concept of Islamophobia, and they are going to change it with anti Muslim racism and anti Muslim hatred.
Now, my problem with this is that on a first glance, anti Muslim racism and anti Muslim hatred are as subjective as Islamophobia is.
Because hatred and racism, they refer to irreducibly subjective factors.
So perhaps the Swedish government should ask themselves why they think that the rationale they gave to stop using the term Islamophobia in their legislation doesn't apply to anti Muslim racism or anti Muslim hatred.
That said, because I don't like being sloppy, they will start defining what they mean by it.
And probably the definitions and what is going to be included in them and what isn't is going to come in the form of a long document that most people aren't going to read.
So at the end of the day, I'm going to say here the devil is in the details.
Whether this is one step forward or one step forward and then one step backward remains to be seen when it comes to these details.
But one thing this is the parliament's.
Choice, but there have been people like Charlie Wiemers of the Sweden Democrats who have been pushing the overturn window forward.
And let me show you some clips here.
He's talking about it, he's really talking about it in the EU parliament, but also in Sweden.
He's continuing a conversation that has started lately.
Actually, not lately, but lately it has been reinvigorated, especially after Rubio and people in the US and Trump have started.
Talking about designating some parts of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
This has definitely led to a push in Europe and people like Charlie Wimmers to talk about this.
I'm not saying that he is motivated by Rubio or the US.
That's not what I mean.
I'm saying that on both sides of the Atlantic, there do seem to be rejuvenated attempts, reinvigorated attempts to talk about the Muslim Brotherhood and its way of operation.
And here he's basically.
speaking common sense.
And it's a good thing that he actually says it.
And let me play this video.
Mr. President, Islamists and Islamic states are attacking free speech in Europe.
And some are waving the white flag.
Denmark's proposed ban on Quran burnings was praised by the Turkish government.
The speaker of the Arab League urged European states and the EU to adopt similar laws.
Pakistan called Denmark's bill A step in the right direction.
A step, ladies and gentlemen.
97% of mosques surveyed in Sweden want more.
They want to criminalize desecration, provocations, and insults of Islamic symbols and values in general.
A giant leap towards Sharia.
Mr. President, if you know the Islamist endgame, the proper response can only be this.
Not one inch.
No appeasement.
No submission.
No surrender.
Never.
Now, this isn't the average European speech in the European Parliament.
No, can't imagine Kajakalis giving a speech like this.
Yes.
So he is saying here, he has been one of the people in Sweden who are really pushing forward for this conversation to be had and also for ending the reliance on the notion of Islamophobia.
He says here what you mentioned before, Nick, about Hitchens.
That's the common sense line Islamophobia is a word to silence critics.
Europol must not use it.
From Malmo to Marseille, Islamism expands.
Law enforcement needs clarity, not Muslim Brotherhood slogans designed to shut down scrutiny.
Europol should not push Islamophobia, a term used to silence critics.
And this is correct.
And as we said, then the thing is that what Europeans don't get at large, and also in the parliament, some of them do get it, but they're evil.
But I'm going to talk about the other ones, is that you cannot have.
A free and democratic society when you talk about our democracy.
You cannot have a free and democratic society without having free speech.
You cannot have a society that is based on the claim for recognition without recognizing the right of native Europeans to dislike a particular religion that isn't native to Europe, especially when it is a religion that does have its fair share of extremists.
Its fair share of terrorists, and especially when lots of terrorist hits, when members of their religion are overrepresented in terrorist hits and threats.
So these are conversations that absolutely have to be had.
And what is chilling is that the EU at the moment, this hub of unelected bureaucrats, not all of them, I'm talking about those who are actually unelected and occupy the top echelons of power.
Is they really hate European identities.
Oh, yeah.
They really hate European identities.
And they're penalizing any demand of the natives to be taken seriously and to claim and assert that they do have the right of sovereignty but also the right for recognition in their own lands.
So, Europe, you know, if it is going to be a massive supranational organization, it has to be based on an identity.
And you cannot have an identity that isn't exclusive.
So, if it is going to be a European supranational organization that tries to, as they say, which I'm not saying it's a good thing, but if they're trying to sort of decrease the strength that national loyalty has over natives and supplant a new identity for them,
that can only be a European identity.
Because identity is fundamentally exclusionary.
You cannot have an identity that doesn't exclude anything.
So at this moment, the EU is to a very large extent occupied by unelected bureaucrats who are pushing in the name of democracy recognition and European identity something that is absolutely a bomb.
Especially when you have, as you do, the sort of like the UMMA.
And all of the Muslims that have come into Europe as well, being exactly that, an exclusive identity group that are setting themselves up and just making a list of demands of us, saying, we are not the same of you, and we have demands of you that you need to change to be like us.
And the European Union is trying to say, no, no, we're all the same here.
And it's like, no, but so if we're all the same, why are they making these demands?
I will say this here.
I think that the people who are more responsible in this case.
Are the Europeans who are pushing multiculturalism?
Oh, of course.
Because they can't say.
Sarah refers.
Yeah, they can't be saying to people who come to Europe, well, don't integrate, we're evil, and then expect the others to integrate.
They do have an argument, I'm sorry to say.
In this case, say, well, you are telling us to not integrate.
You are telling us you're evil.
You are telling us that your identity and your culture and your history is.
Demonic.
So, this is fundamentally a European problem.
When you have multiculturalism, you need to have very strong, if you are to have multiculturalism, and very frequently it's a very problematic endeavor, but if you are going to have multiculturalist experiments, you have to have very rigid rules.
And the Europeans seem to be, the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, seem to be interested only in creating a two tier system.
That is treating native Europeans as second class citizens in their own city.
Here again, Wiemers is talking about a report he made and collaborated with other people in circulating.
This is the report called Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood.
And it's a report that he claims shows exactly how Islamists exploit the concept of Islamophobia to promote their agenda and secure EU funding.
Here, this is the document.
People who want to check it, you can click on the link below, visit the website or podcast today.
You can find the click below.
And here, you know, they have the conclusions, and it's interesting.
And I'll just read from page 50.
It says the Muslim Brotherhood and its panoply of offshoots and affiliates do not champion liberal democracy.
That's the understatement of the year.
This just in.
Deeper examination of their statements and problematic connections below the suggest the sugar coated slogans they produce for social media, grant applications, and PR opportunities makes it evident that their ideology and goals remain essentially unchanged since the time of Hassan al Banna and that their strategy follows the rulebook laid out by their founder.
And other influential ideologues such as Maududi and Al Qaraodawi.
Right, and they're talking about how this is used in order to mask extremism and how they're infiltrating in Europe.
Now, what I want to say is that at the end of the day, when it comes to the discussion of Sweden and the concept of and stop using the concept of Islamophobia in legislation, there definitely seems to be a discussion going on.
In Sweden, that wasn't had before, or at least we didn't hear about to the extent that we do right now.
And there is a push for that discussion to be had in the European Parliament and the European Union, which does seem to indicate a step to the right direction.
That said, again, my point stays switching from one subjective notion to another doesn't change the issue, just changes the term.
And let me just read a bit.
It also suggests, as well, that really for the For the Swedish authorities who've implemented this, it's more of a question of branding and optics and its ideology, of course.
And let me just read a bit about this report.
EU Resolution Pushed Forward00:04:16
It says, Weimers opened the event by highlighting an uncomfortable truth that European taxpayers' money is funding organizations that reject the Union's core values of democracy, freedom, and equality.
Well, these are the stated values, but they don't seem to be the actual values.
And let me just say, when it comes to To democracy, you can't have a democracy without a demos, and the demos stands for the people.
You need to have a culture, you need to have a really strong, really strong degree of cultural continuities in a population that is going to constitute a demos of a functioning democracy.
You can't have it otherwise.
This is definitely a conversation that you know politicians don't want to have, but it's one that absolutely should be had.
Um, well, yeah, here I've Sorry.
No, I was just going to say, they will have it whether they like it or not.
And if they don't have it, then what will happen to them is just what's happening to the Labour and Conservative parties now.
Yeah, and the question is, is it going to happen 10, 20 years down the line, and they're going to do a MERTS and say, well, yeah, that wasn't a good idea, but it's too late to do anything about it?
We don't have 20 years.
After more have died, we don't have 20 years.
Yeah, no, we don't.
This is a very costly lesson that, you know, I don't care.
They shouldn't take 20 years to learn.
They know already.
It's not that they don't know about it.
It's just that they don't say it.
He says this is not speculation.
This is not ideology.
This is evidence.
WEMA declared, emphasizing the report's forensic analysis on the MB's sprawling network of NGOs, student groups, religious institutions, and lobbying platforms.
The report argues that MB affiliated groups have secured funding through programs like Erasmus.
Plus, rights, equality, and citizenship, and citizens' equality rights and values, using these resources to promote separatism, anti Semitism, and a political religious vision incompatible with liberal democracy.
And I want to say this.
Let me just also read the next.
Wiemers criticized the Muslim Brotherhood's Wasatiya or Middleway Doctrine as a tactical facade for gradual Islamization and noted links to designated terrorist groups like Hamas, the MB's Palestinian offshoot.
And I will say this.
It's just glaring to watch all the pro Palestine people protesting one day, and then when Trump sort of stopped what was going on, they stopped protesting, even though there was footage of Hamas killing Palestinians.
There was also no protest, no human rights concern.
When it came to Iranians being killed by the mullahs and the mullah regime.
So, yeah, I do think that there is something behind this.
Absolutely.
And you can't explain the double standards there.
You have to, in a way, follow the money.
So, is this going to be one step forward, one step backwards?
I don't know.
It remains to be seen.
But it looks like a conversation is being had.
That wasn't had before.
And this conversation is pushed to be had in the EU.
And recently there was a resolution in the EU to toughen up on migration.
Of course, passing laws and signing decrees doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to carry on implementing it.
But it seems like the discussion that is being had right now isn't the discussion that was being had five years ago.
It seems like this is definitely the discussion that the unelected bureaucrats of Europe, of Brussels, would classify as far right extremism.
Attenborough's Generational Impact00:10:07
Yes.
All right.
For the sake of time, ladies and gentlemen, I'll get to the rumble rants after I've just done my segment.
Harry, would you be able to pop it over to mine?
Thank you, mate.
By the way, three results in for Great Yarmouth.
Absolutely crushing victory for Great Yarmouth First.
Patriots, well done.
Crushed, they're so far ahead of the second candidate in the first three seats.
Fantastic.
You love to see it.
All right.
Well, a very happy birthday to Sir David Attenborough, National Treasure, who turns 100 years old today, born, you know, on this day, 8th of May, all the way back in 1926.
And so I think it behoves us to actually just recognise what has been a very extraordinary life, really.
Because, you know, this is a man who has been on television for as long as I've been around, for as long as my father has been around.
And for as long as my grandfather was able to watch television when it was invented in his own time, okay?
So there's a generational aspect here to Sir David Attenborough's work.
Now, I just want to say off the bat, I recognise the fact that there will be a lot of people who have their own problems with David Attenborough, right?
The fact that he's been on stage with Greta Thunberg, the fact that his environmentalism might be a little bit overzealous for them.
But I think that we should try and just.
Step back a bit from the actual pure ideology of the man and just look at some of the things that are genuinely worthy of note here.
So, to just go through some of the basic information, obviously, as I say, he was born 100 years ago today in London, but he grew up mainly around Leicester, which I imagine was a very different place back then.
His father was Frederick Attenborough, and he was a principal of what later became the University of Leicester.
And of course, he had a very, very famous older brother as well, which was, of course, Richard Attenborough, a fantastic actor from Brighton Rock, Jurassic Park, and all those iconic films, and who was a terrific man in his own right.
So,.
But the thing is, David Attenborough has far more than what we here think of him now as that wonderful man with that sort of classic, just gentle, soothing voice, right?
He's a wonderful narrator and he does the nature programs as well.
One thing to remember is that actually he was kind of a pioneer in his own time.
And now all of the things that we take for granted today when we think of as the modern documentary, certainly when it comes obviously to his own.
Specialist field of naturalism and you know biodiversity and just nature, of course.
You know, he had a strong hand in shaping and tailoring how those documentaries were created, how they were filmed.
So he joined the BBC back in 1952 as a trainee producer.
And at first, he actually didn't want to be an on screen presenter, he was more interested in producing just factual programs behind the scenes.
And his early work included developing.
An innovative live television programming during the early years.
So, back then, of course, you know, in the very early years, it was all very static.
You know, you were always like, it was someone in a studio and they were talking to you and the camera wasn't really moving.
Yes, it would zoom into you and everything.
But what they tried to do was so in 1965, Attenborough became controller of the BBC's newly created BBC Two because they were creative with naming back then.
And in this capacity, as it says in Britannica, he helped to launch an ambitious slate of.
Programming, including the dramatic production, The Foresight Saga, and the much landmarked cultural education series, The Ascent of Man, and Kenneth Clarke's Civilizations documentaries, as well, which were some of the greatest documentaries ever put on the BBC.
This was, of course, at a time when the BBC was still an institution of great prestige, amongst obviously the subversion that I am aware was there at the time.
But far less.
They didn't hate the country.
They were still doing things like commissioning C.S. Lewis to give talks on Christianity to rouse the nation.
Yes.
Very different BBC.
Yeah, very different.
And he also, and I hope Carl doesn't discover this information, but he also introduced audiences to a seminal comedy series, Monty Python's Flying Circus, demonstrating a willingness to support bold and unconventional work.
So he pushed for more location filming rather than studio only broadcasts.
He also wanted unscripted and observational footage as well.
Educational programming that was entertaining as well as informative.
And as I say, to use a camera to explore places the audience had never seen before, you know, because with the invention, of course, of camera technology, there's a big and beautiful world out there.
And, you know, it's been one of the, I think, as well, for a lot of people who feel trapped by cityscapes and urban environments and just the ever, you know, just seeming onslaught of progress.
That actually, David Attenborough's documentaries have done a wonder, not just here in Britain, but the world over, for still finding magic and enchantment in the natural world, making you want to go out there and discover it yourself.
And I will just say, just as my own point, far more colourful than Hollywood seems to be willing to make any of their films today, right?
There's a vibrance to them.
There's like a real immersion that is kind of wondrous.
And there's a reason, of course, in part, as why he's been able to do all of this.
For as long as he has, because if we go to here, the Guinness World Book of Records, they go on to talk about the fact that, well, up until his most recent series was broadcast, The Secret Garden, apparently only five days ago, you know, this week, the veteran host has been on our screens for a head spinning span of 72 years, 243 days, obviously beginning, as I said, in 1952.
And over the seven plus decades that would follow, Attenborough has hosted.
Hundreds of series and films that both educate and astound audiences by exploring the wonders of the natural world.
For multiple generations, he's become the de facto guide and champion of all matters of nature and then how important it is to preserve it.
In that way, I kind of see him as a bit of a British Hayao Miyazaki, you know, making his Studio Ghibli films and some of the environmentalism that he pushes.
But despite all the fame and praise, he's never lost sight of the fact that what drew him to the natural world.
In the first place.
So, he's a venerable patron of the World Land Trust, Fauna and Flora, the Zoological Society of London, which is, of course, the oldest zoological society in history, and which established itself over 200 years.
So, I think it's quite a remarkable legacy, really.
And one thing as well, I think, that's quite remarkable is that even as a young child, you know, he was just so intoxicated by the wonder.
Of the natural world as a child, seven years old, looking at insects and for fossils and things.
And I think there's something very wholesome about finding something magical as a child and actually following through on that passion and devoting your entire life to it.
Anyway, I've just been conscious of the fact that I've probably monologued for about seven minutes.
You're going to cover that when the BBC suddenly decided to get rid of him and he had to go on other channels.
That was that period, wasn't there?
They suddenly didn't have to go on to Amazon and things like that.
He's done Netflix shows.
Yeah.
I think it was a period where the BBC decided, there was a guy called Cassian who was one of these BBC guys who decided these things, and he said, The days of men standing on a hillside telling you how it is are over, of white men particularly.
There's this stupid phase where all the good things, like the Kenneth Clark thing and Atta, but they suddenly decide, oh, we want to get rid of all that.
Then I think you can maybe gain back.
But I trust old white men standing on the hillside telling me how it is.
That's the best work the BBC's ever done.
Right.
That's a formula I don't really want to get away from.
So.
Moving on from all of this, I will just say, like I say, yes, there has been a lot to do with his environmentalism, and, you know, he's supported a lot of the net zero agendas and everything.
But I feel like to simply lay all of this on Sir David Attenborough, it's like these things are already in motion.
They've already been decided by people far richer, far more in the shadows, and far more influential than Sir David, right?
And I can understand why a man who is dedicated Dedicated himself to looking at the natural world, to studying environments and ecosystems, would feel threatened by all of this.
But at the same time, you know, he does come out with some genuine wisdom as well.
Where, as he had an interview with the Daily Mirror back in 2016, it said the naturalist, who was 90, of course, back then, admitted that the country is experiencing difficulties in the aftermath of the vote to leave the EU.
And he said, It's very easy, as we all know, to be tolerant of minorities until they become majorities and you find yourself a minority.
It's easy to say, Oh, yes, these lovely people, I love the way they wear such interesting costumes, which.
For me, it speaks to a proper old school British way of seeing the front.
Oh, don't they wear interesting things?
But he says, but that's fine until someday you find out that they're actually telling you what to do and that they've actually taken over the town council and what you thought was your home isn't.
Human Nature And Tolerance00:04:13
I'm not supporting it.
I'm saying it is what it is.
So, not some doddering old imbecile who doesn't have a grasp on human nature as well as the animal world.
Yeah, I saw a couple of quotes recently.
Maybe it was that one.
From like Millennial Woes had shared, or someone had shared on X, I was like, That's what I'd say.
That I checked it, and yeah, and he was saying it not that he believed that necessarily, but he was realistic enough to say this is how people feel.
Yes, and he's still perhaps a bit of a BBC type guy, so he's like, I'm not necessarily saying this, but at least smart and realistic enough to acknowledge that's the tension that's there.
It's like, well, the point is, I suppose, unlike the very things that we were talking about in your segment, Stelios, where it's just all this legislation and language policing, you know, at least Attenborough is just acknowledging no, no, no, this is just core human, irrepressible human nature.
And you cannot fight it.
This is how people are going to react when they are put into such circumstances.
So, because we're obviously on YouTube, I am going to struggle with copyright issues, so I'm not going to be able to play this.
But, my gosh, man, as well, just to say some of the actual TV that he has created in his time has been up there with anything that I've just found in actual film or storytelling, right?
When you actually see the quality of the documentaries that he's created, as well as you say, with that classic voice.
I mean, this one here, where this iguana was being chased by the killer snakes.
I remember watching this years and years ago, and I've never forgot it because I was just absolutely hanging on the edge of my seat watching this iguana just like flailing its limbs as the snakes are going for it.
Yeah, his hippopotamus one stuck with me.
I've been trying to find it since.
It starts like the fish run away.
They don't run, they swim away.
And then the crocodile, they go, even he's getting out of the way.
And the alligator, like, getting out of the way.
Like, oh, what's going to happen?
And then the hippo just, like, runs along the bottom of the lake or whatever and, like, bursts up.
And I was like, this is awesome.
Yes.
Because it was showing how ferocious hippos were.
People don't always realize they kill the most people in Africa of any animal.
Stuff like that stays with you.
So good.
And the other thing as well.
Oh, and the chimp one.
What was the dynasties one with the chimpanzees?
Right.
Incredible dynasties.
Yeah.
And it showed, like, it was following this alpha male chimp and the difficulty to maintain his status.
And he has to fight and all this.
So good.
I didn't know you were in a documentary.
But anyway, as I say, it's just really visually remarkable.
It's a testament to how he himself has personally shaped documentary telling about the natural world.
And as well, in many ways, right?
He's very much the, you know, he was a 20th century kind of Joseph Banks, you know, who was going around as a naturalist with Captain Cook back in the day.
You can still feel that British heritage and lineage, right?
Irrespective of how.
Strongly, you feel like he associates with it.
What I'm saying is, it's baked into his character.
I will also just point out as well that back when there was.
Do you remember when there was that poll back in 2016?
Where, in fact, there was.
So there was a.
The United Kingdom's National Environment Research Council announced that they were going to put together some cutting edge scientific research ship and it would be named in honour of Sir David Attenborough.
They ended up calling it the Sir David Attenborough.
But that was, for people who remember correctly, the name that they gave it after rejecting.
The popular will of the people who wanted to call it Boaty McBoatface, back in one of those classic bits of British humour.
And so I will just play this one from Onyx.
I think I can get away with this, if not.
Of the most important fossil bearing sites in all the world.
For here you can see fossils of the very first animals that evolved on this planet.
It's just wonderful.
Everything about it is thoroughly enchanting.
The Greatest Source Of Beauty00:02:19
And whichever part of the world he goes to, he manages to have such an, irrespective of how you feel about his views on climate change, you cannot deny his knowledge of the natural world itself, of ecosystems, of species, of all different animals.
It is truly remarkable.
It's unparalleled.
Yeah, and the idea of a presenter who really knows about it, because often our presenter is just some puppet who's the presenter and they don't know anything.
And you see that quite often, especially when women talk about football.
But anyway, yeah, he really knew his stuff.
He was behind, as you said, I didn't know that.
He actually didn't even expect he was going to be in front of the camera.
Have you watched much of his stuff, Stelios?
It has been in a while, but yeah, they're absolutely lovely.
And I love watching nature documentaries.
Yeah, me too.
Well, and that's the other thing as well, I suppose, that it's wonderful to escape, right?
It can offer an escapism.
When you are just watching the animal kingdom at work.
But also, you know, I think that in a world where we are constantly building up and populations are booming, and it's like that he does make some points.
Do we all want to be like India?
Are we just racing to get our populations as high as possible, you know, with the GDP and the constant influx of like all of these things?
And, you know, he has critiques of capitalism that are absolutely fair.
Is he a Euromaxer?
Well, I imagine he is at this age.
I imagine he's a little more relaxed and chill.
I wouldn't do what he's doing there.
No.
I hate these animals, the arthropods.
Yeah.
It's disgusting.
I'm just going to be like this.
Tell me when you.
I'll tell you what.
I'll just scroll.
How about that?
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There you go.
We're good?
Cool.
And so there were just a few quotes I want to read.
Woo says that it seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement, the greatest source of visual beauty.
the greatest source of intellectual interest.
It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.
And the fact is that no species has ever had such wholesale control over everything on earth, living or dead, as we have now.
Responsibility And Unaccountable Leaders00:04:34
That lays upon us, whether we like it or not, an awesome responsibility.
In our hands now lies not only our own future, but that of all other living creatures with whom we share the earth.
And, you know, in that sense, it's stewardship, right?
There's a traditionalist argument for all of this as well.
I don't see this as subversive messaging.
I do feel that we do have that responsibility.
He's the biggest ally and the greatest inspiration, yeah.
Yeah.
Tell that to an earthquake.
No, no, no.
I'm just, yeah.
But honestly, he's great.
And so I'll just assume he absolutely loves what he's doing.
You can tell.
And you can get immersed into what he's saying.
You don't do it for 72 years if you don't love it.
Yeah.
You know.
So I thought I'd just leave it with this message that he seems to have recorded that The Independent have put out.
I had rather thought that I would celebrate my 100th birthday quietly, but it seems that many of you have had other ideas.
I've been completely overwhelmed by birthday greetings.
From pre school groups to care home residents and countless individuals and families of all ages.
I simply can't reply to each of you all separately, but I would like to thank you all most sincerely for your kind messages.
I wish those of you who have planned your own local events tomorrow have a very happy day.
And a very happy birthday to you, Sir David.
All right, I'll quickly go through the rumble rants.
Yes.
Okay, so we've got Tom Ratt says, I've set a grok task to inform me that when any of the nine challenge wards are announced in Great Yarmouth, to tell me the result, as well as my own for Leeds City Council.
Godspeed to Rupert at all.
Yeah, well, as you say, Nick, it sounds like the results so far are encouraging.
14 Barber also says, Brother Nick, you were implied.
You aren't busting your ass for nothing.
You're doing amazing work.
Have a good weekend, too.
I have to type quickly on my phone.
Thank you, sir.
Have a good weekend.
I'm sorry that I had to play the victim to get that out of you.
Fortian Bob is a great man.
He seems like it.
He is.
Patriot.
Flying Crocodile, thank you for $2.
Says, I have no hatred or phobia of any persons who don't want to have power over me.
Getting distracted by tribalism will only bring ruin to your Obe tribe.
The real enemy is the one who opens the gates.
Yeah, this is what we were saying.
It's the European unaccountable leaders who've allowed this to happen to us.
Once.
The people are inside, of course, they're going to push for their own interests.
That's a random name.
Says, all laws are subjective because our enemies don't care about truth or objectivity.
They will always play with words in order to use the law against us.
And he also says, you can't have a law that says don't steal, but the commies will simply say that they are reappropriating your property.
So, what happened to my grandpa when communism took over Bulgaria?
No, I appreciate this, but we're not living in Bulgaria, in communist Bulgaria, and there is such a thing as, you know, the degree in which legal arbitrariness exists.
Yeah.
I mean, yeah, you can have crazy commies coming and say, well, you're all stealing because you're not in communist utopia, so you're guilty.
Yeah, they can say this.
I'm talking about when you're talking about legislation, you have to presume a degree of common sense that communists absolutely lack.
Yes, well, that's true.
Okay, Harry, do we have any video comments today, sir?
We do not.
All right, well, I guess we'll just go to the comments then.
You've got to read some from.
Yeah, I'll read some.
I don't know how much time we have, but.
We've got five minutes, so.
I'll read a few then.
Dirty Belter, always a great name.
Breaking news Saruman, though isolated in Orthanc, pledges to continue working with the forces of Mordor to bring about change.
We will break you to check as soon as I consult the.
What's the ball thing called?
The Palantir.
I'll consult the Palantir.
Of course it is, it's Peter Teal.
Yeah, hilarious.
Omar, when they ask for unity, it begs the question for whom?
Multicultural Values In Conflict00:02:42
Surely not all us.
Alt right racist, there's really no other voting group they haven't spat on and turned away for them to appeal to.
This is absolutely true.
Miramidan, something like that.
I don't know how you say that, but it says Farage and reform come across as controlled opposition no matter what they say.
The Uniparty is still there, but just a new paint job.
Well, that's it.
If people think that, then they will turn against reform in due time.
Lord Hinklister Hector X had a good one.
Somehow Starmer is always taking flack, but is never over the target.
That was quite funny.
That's clever.
Good one.
Right.
George Happ, Sweden plays word games, changes nothing.
Islam is already there and causing trouble.
Zesta King, the EU and many of its country's leaders do not recognize the people of Europe and their ways as native to the land, not themselves under any obligation to uphold them.
That is why Sweden says no problem in legislating in favor of a foreign religion.
Omar Wad says something quite insidious about policing hate that I don't actually think about is that it's involuntary.
You don't feel about something on purpose.
Furthermore, Is in spite of a form of hate like rubbing their nose in diversity.
Well, I mean, yeah, that's the argument given for freedom of religion when it came to the 17th century and the wars of religion.
People like Locke were saying that you don't fundamentally control some of your beliefs.
So it's, you know, how can you.
Yeah, I don't know if I agree with that.
I don't think we have completely.
No control over what we think.
But yeah, I mean, to some extent, we don't control it.
Yeah.
Right.
Okay.
And especially when it comes to knee jerk reaction and emotional reactions of the sort.
And dirty belter, Islamophobia, along with other such concepts like hate speech, racism, sexism, and so on, are used to attack the symptoms of friction between ethnic groups and cultures.
Just as painkillers don't resolve the cause of a headache.
Neither does banning expressions that can be classed under various isms or phobias.
The only chance for true peace between groups requires sincerity, which requires the chance for unpleasantness to resolve a grievance.
You need both the carrot and the stick.
Absolutely.
And if I may, I want to make a comment about this.
Do I have time to make a comment about this?
Yeah.
So, I mean, we do say often, and I think it's true, that people didn't vote for living in a multicultural melting pot.
Wild Mammals And Deforestation00:02:58
And it's absolutely true.
And I want to say just a bit what is implied there is that when you have a culture and a people, and it could be multi ethnic, but it isn't multicultural.
There is a culture and a set of values that people have.
And when the government doesn't take the mandate to pursue a multicultural experiment, Directly says, I'm going to wage war on these values because the only way to make a multicultural experiment work is if you backtrack from these values, especially when it comes to the kinds of experiments we're talking about in Europe.
It's just going to be wild, isn't it?
When the history books are written, it's like, yeah, from the European Union's perspective, the problem with the European Union was that there were too many Europeans in it.
You know, that's really what it's going to come down to.
All right, is that the problem?
Well, I mean, obviously not.
Alright, just a few from mine then, which is Occupied England says Throughout my childhood, born in 1997, thanks to my parents, I was raised on David Attenborough documentaries via VHS recordings.
Ugh, nostalgia.
I would grow up on all of his DVDs and Blu rays.
My favourite was the Life of Mammals series, released in 2003.
By the time I was seven, I could name every species of mammals in zoo visits.
When I was a kid, I longed to be a wildlife cameraman.
Now at twenty-nine, even though I respect Attenborough, I get irritated by lack of debate on taking action against, um, I assume he means, uh, non-European nations.
I'll just say for the sake of this, you understand, on their huge amount of environmental pollution and habitat destruction on planet Earth right now.
The West began environmentalism.
The poor right needs to reclaim environmentalism away from the dishonest left.
Yes, I absolutely agree with that.
And then, final one, Henry Ashman says, I will forgive Sir David for being very environmentally focused.
He's been all around the world and he has a lifetime.
And that he can remember how big and wild the rainforest, etc., were.
Seeing the deforestation will make a big impact on him.
I guess it's the equivalent of those of us born before something happened in '97, looking upon modern Britain with disgust because we remember the before times.
Yes.
Well, we're coming up to half past two now, ladies and gentlemen.
You can join us again in half an hour live for Rad's Hour, where Dan is going to be taking us through a jolly good game, as he usually does.
I believe we're talking.
Something to do with political parties.
It'll be fun.
They're always fun.
Anyway, and if we don't see you there, have a wonderful weekend, ladies and gentlemen.