Bo and Stelios analyze Keir Starmer's collapsing government as over 85 Labour MPs demand his resignation, triggering a leadership crisis amidst defections like Jess Phillips. They map the ideological squeeze between radical leftists, centrist Reform UK, and conservative Restore Britain, arguing Labour must choose between alienating its base or risking electoral defeat. The discussion abruptly shifts to UFOs following Trump's UAP declassification, debating whether mathematical certainty of infinite life contradicts skepticism about FTL travel and low-quality footage. Ultimately, the episode highlights the chaos of modern British politics while questioning humanity's isolation in an infinite universe. [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
Starmer Drama Unfolds00:02:49
Hello, and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters, episode 1416.
We are now only 72 away.
It is Tuesday, the 12th of May, year of our Lord, 2026.
And I'm joined by Boe.
All right.
And Stelios.
Hello.
So, what are we going to be talking about today?
We are going to be talking about the drama that is Starmer, the Starmer drama.
Yeah, the ongoing saga.
Yes.
Shortly to be concluded, I think.
Possibly.
Possibly.
If Starmer resigns during Bo's segment, can somebody put it in the chat?
Because.
Well, you joke, but it is an ongoing thing.
I'm not joking.
So we've had something interesting happen moments ago.
Moments ago.
That we're going to talk about.
So it's a fast moving set of events.
I will then be discussing my one, I don't know.
My one I think has got more evergreen appeal, at least slightly more, because I'm going to be asking what happens after Starmer.
What do they do?
What do they do?
And I'm going to talk about aliens.
Yes.
Fresh from your success on your segments about sex slaves in J.P. Morgan, you're going to be.
Segments.
Segment.
Many segments about being a sex slave.
You are now going to do a segment about would you be willing to become a sex slave to an alien?
Yes.
Ironically, the first book I've read about aliens was someone's, allegedly, someone's autobiography who said that aliens abducted him at night and performed a colonoscopy on him.
Yes.
I think for me, it comes down heavily to what their kink is.
I mean, if it's like James T. Kirk and they're just blue, but otherwise quite hot, that's one.
If it's tentacles, I'm out.
Yeah, right.
Yeah.
I'm not doing that.
Whatever it is.
Right.
Okay.
So, oh, with that, it's over to the bow.
All right.
So, it is the day today.
It may or may not be judgment day today for the Starmer government, but the House of Cards is very much rickety.
Isn't it?
It's a question of time.
It may even happen during this live stream.
Yes.
We don't know.
We don't know, but it seems that it's in the mail for Keir Starmer's government to collapse.
Whoever does the number 10 removals is waiting for the call.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
They're on speed dial.
I will say, I don't think that this is going to happen.
Not that it shouldn't happen, but I think that it's not going to happen.
I'm sure we'll get into it.
Have faith, Stelios.
It's not happening at all.
I don't think that he is a thousand years of Starmer.
No, no, no, no, thousand year Starmer rack, the age of Keir.
Government Collapse Imminent00:14:40
No, well, you think he'll be there in 2029 fighting the general election?
I think there's a high probability, really.
Yeah, I may be wrong.
I really, there is money to be made on the betting markets if that's your view.
Okay, nobody else thinks that.
Please enlighten me.
So, I'm gonna go there.
Just put a betting site, you'll get a bit of gold.
Polymarket.com.
Okay, so, uh, first of all, a quick show for Breakfast with Bo.
We're supposed to do that from time to time, shield our own stuff a bit, breakfast at 8 a.m. every weekday morning.
It's a good show.
Join me for your breakfast time base takes.
Do it every single day.
Okay, with that said, this morning, in fact, this very morning, the news is absolutely dominated by the question of the British government collapsing.
So it really was, I thought I'd just show this link.
It's the one I use every morning.
There's just the front pages.
And if I scroll down, you'll just see that it's every single paper.
All the way down to the sun and the star is about Starmer imminently having to leave.
So I just thought about, thought we'd talk about what's happened in the last 24, 36 hours.
It's every single one, every single one without fail.
And you manage this like a slab of spam in every single picture.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's the same.
It's almost exactly the same image they've decided to go with.
They very often do that, don't they?
The same photojournalist gets all the big bucks.
Yeah, they do them dirty.
Yeah.
So, okay.
What it was after, of course, the by-election implosion last Thursday, well, it was all to come out on Friday mainly, didn't they?
Labour did so badly, and Keir Starmer's position is so weak and shaky already for a number of different reasons, least of all the Mandelson affair.
And being the most unpopular Prime Minister of all time.
Yes.
Of all time.
This is just sort of one of the last straws for a lot of the parliamentary Labour Party, i.e., actual Labour MPs, particularly the left of the party.
So that's one of the first things to say.
Why is Starmer so unpopular?
It's one thing to be really unpopular with the electorate at large.
But why is he so unpopular within his own party?
He's got a giant majority.
Why is he so unpopular?
Well, it's to do with the fact that he's considered, despite being a complete socialist, a total lefty, too left for the Fabian society as a younger man, literally.
Why is he considered right within the Labour Party?
He's considered a Blair right.
Well, I mean, if you look at the leftists and the extremists, they do say that unless you're supporting Mao and Maoism, You're far right.
So I've heard many of them trying to say that he is right wing.
And especially what they could be considering is the Greens are rising in the polls.
So maybe we need something much more like that instead of what Starmer is giving us from their perspective.
My theory would be that because he's actually in government and he's got Treasury officials coming to him all the time and saying, look, you literally cannot pay the police, the armies, the NHS wages if you don't keep the bond markets happy.
And that is forcing him.
To be a bit realistic, whereas the Greens, they don't have to worry about realism.
They could just promise absolutely, and they do, they promise absolutely anything.
And the left of the Labour Party, or the lefty in the leftist party.
I mean, as you pointed out on the excellent bow show this morning, most of the Labour MPs, they're not in government.
They're in the legislative, but they're not in government.
So they don't have those briefings from the bond market.
They just think, yeah, why can't we just have the moon on a stick?
It's funny how lefty, like, say, specifically, lefty Labour backbenchers, They seem to think that it's like the evil bond market holding us to ransom in some way.
It's like, that's not what's going on.
It's not working like that.
Why do you think that your leftist economic theory is just nonsense?
It's like those evil bond markets aren't letting us spend as much as we want forever.
It's like, no, they're just not willing to give you their money because you're lunatics.
Yeah, right.
So, okay, so Starmer did his speech yesterday morning, a little 15, 20 minute speech, trying to sort of steady the boat.
Trying to say, I'm the right guy, don't get rid of me because it would just be, it really would be pure chaos without me.
The electorate don't like it when parties change leader halfway through a parliament, which is not untrue, right?
And he tried to sort of signal a bit to the left of the party, talking about nationalising steel, for example, British steel, but no real proper concrete plan.
Saying the words, I take responsibility, but not actually taking any responsibility in the QA afterwards, where a bunch of journalists grill him about it, is sort of not accepting that he is the problem, specifically him personally.
Apparently, that was what was said on the doorstep a lot at the local elections.
People saying, you know, I'm Labour, I'm old school Labour, I would vote Labour, but it's Starmer.
I don't like Starmer.
I cannot vote for Starmer in this election or a general election.
He's not really accepting that.
He's not really taking that into his heart, refusing to.
So, okay.
You guys want to say something still?
No, I think basically that he wants to stay PM.
And I think that the situation is so bad that most probably everyone who would be a successor would want him to suffer the 2029 loss in the general elections.
And they come and so they don't get all the negativity of governing.
That's how I think they're going to go.
I think that most of them who are lining up for the Labour, for the premiership within the Labour Party, I think they're just scared because he is doing a really bad job and they don't want to constantly have to justify their own party and being asked for what they consider to be Stalmer's failure because everyone in politics is much stronger in rhetoric when they're attacking.
So, I think that they don't want to be in a position where they will have to sort of defend Starmer, Summer's government.
Because they will have to say that, no, we have to go even further to the left.
Yeah.
I don't think that this is what the people want.
Oh, no, it's definitely not.
I don't want to tread on your toes too much for your segment in a moment.
So, anyone who will jump forward would just kill their career.
Okay.
So, that's what I think.
Yeah.
Maybe, quite possibly.
The party, Labour Party, seem to want to go to the left.
But the country mostly doesn't seem to want to do that.
Like in that speech he did yesterday, he was talking about, you know, closer ties to Europe, loads of more lefty stuff, closer ties with Europe, privatisation, sorry, nationalisation of things, more NHS, just all those, all the things.
He said his mistake, really, I'm paraphrasing, but his mistake mainly in government so far is not going strong and hard enough and deep enough on all of the things that he said that he's going to do all along, which is basically like breakfast clubs.
Yeah.
A few other bits.
That Brexit was a mistake.
That Tommy rallies are evil.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
So, I mean, essentially, his logic is this a little bit of Starmer has made everybody hate me.
So, therefore, the solution is a lot of Starmer.
Yeah.
That will clearly win them over.
It's just a quantity issue.
It's a bit like have you ever tried Absinthe?
Absinthe, the drink.
The drink, yeah.
Which I haven't.
It's right, it's vile.
But if you have enough of it, you start to like it.
That's presumably his logic.
I'm thinking of downforce on an F1 car.
If you don't go fast enough, the downforce doesn't kick in and you haven't got enough grip.
If you go much faster, the downforce kicks in and you've got loads more grip.
You have to really commit to it.
I'm not familiar with that.
Okay, anyway.
All right.
So he did this speech, just doubling down on anything, not really taking responsibility.
The Labour Party didn't seem to buy it.
I mean, a few diehards, sure.
But mostly, particularly all the left of the party and the backbenchers that have always wanted him to go for a long time now, they didn't buy it.
They just sort of immediately came out on Twitter and in various ways, leaking to journalists in various ways, saying, no, no, no, he's got to go.
And so.
Over the course of yesterday, yesterday afternoon, yesterday evening, quite a few senior aides resigned, like the person directly beneath David Lammy, beneath West Streeting.
You don't want to be directly beneath David Lammy?
It's not going to be, it's not a great place, not a great spot, is it?
They resigned.
And well, the number of MPs, Labour MPs, they would need to sort of force the leadership challenge would be 81, 20% of the parliamentary Labour Party.
So the magic number is 81.
And over the course of the afternoon and evening yesterday, the numbers kept ticking up.
You know, 57, 62, 65.
And when these went to print, various of the front pages were saying anywhere between 60.
I mean, look, the FT sit there says 60, but others already are up to 70.
Right now, last I saw, maybe half an hour ago, was, oh, it's up to 85 in real time.
There you go on Dan Tubbs' laptop, 85.
So that's enough for the threshold.
Parliament isn't open at the moment.
The King's speech isn't until tomorrow.
There was a cabinet meeting this morning, at half done this morning, which was slated to happen anyway.
I think that went ahead, yeah.
It did, it did, yeah.
And in that, apparently, the word out of that now is that he just refused.
To resign because technically, technically speaking, no leadership.
86 just ticked up to 86.
There you go.
At 14 minutes past one in the AM, in the PM, sorry.
On Tuesday, just tick up as we go.
Okay.
So it might have been best for the party and maybe even the country if he just did resign sort of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss style.
But he's decided he's not going to because technically there hasn't been a leadership, sort of formal legal.
Parliamentary leadership challenge made to him.
So there's nothing actually really technically forcing him to resign.
So he's decided to stand on that principle.
He is all about the technicalities, this man.
Yeah.
He's decided to stand on that and saying, well, there's no leadership challenge.
Obviously, his entire government and power structure and party is collapsing beneath him.
He's like, I haven't been challenged though, so I'm going nowhere.
That's his position at the moment as it stands.
We've had a few of the senior cabinet ministers coming out of number 10, speaking to Sky News very briefly, like an hour, an hour and a half, two hours ago.
And they were just parroting that.
It was obviously the party line.
They'll go up and say, no challenge has been made to the Prime Minister.
So he's not going anywhere.
We've got the important job of government to continue with.
I think the ones who want to succeed him do know, are aware of what Dan mentioned, but they don't want to say to their voters.
They are aware, for instance, of economics and the modern markets.
And that's why I think they don't want to jump in right now.
Wait, you think his challengers don't want to be Prime Minister?
Right now, no.
Yeah, but I mean, leftists are good when they have a big pile of wealth created by more conservatives that they can then distribute.
No, no, no.
I can't believe it works like that because the current set of people who are in a position to take over from right now are not going to be around in some future scenario of Labour ever coming back.
In fact, Labour's probably extinct.
If you've spent your entire life wanting to be prime minister and you're on the Labour front bench, it is literally now or never.
You're never going to get a chance again.
If you become Prime Minister now, even for a week, you're getting a Prime Minister's salary for the rest of your life.
You're getting speaking engagements at like a million a pop for the rest of your life.
Absolutely, I think they go now because it is literally their only chance.
I've got to agree with that.
If you look at someone like Gwesh Streeting, I get the argument, I get the angle you're saying that it's not a great time to become Prime Minister.
It's a poison chalice.
You get to be Prime Minister if you're not cued out by the left of your own party quite quickly.
You get maybe two years, two and a half years.
What's that worth?
I get the angle.
I get what you're saying.
But.
I've got to agree with what Dan said is that it's now and ever.
If you ever want to be the Prime Minister, your name etched into the annals of time that you got to be His Majesty's Prime Minister with great names like Robert Peel and Wellington and Thatcher, all that.
It's just.
Yeah, right, it's just.
It's now and ever.
Yeah, it's a crap.
You will have been dealt a crappy hand by history, but it's your only hand you'll ever get.
And if you're ambitious, if you've been a Prime Minister, sorry, if you've been a Member of Parliament, you've tried your whole life to become a Member of Parliament, you got it, you got invited to be in Cabinet.
Wow, I'm right near, I'm quite near now.
This is your only one and only chance.
They're not going to pass it up.
And even if you're a cabinet minister, your pension goes up 40%.
So it's like, yeah, yeah.
I love that.
Like, what is it, two, three, four times a year, you get to line up somewhere, like at the Senate or in Westminster Abbey with all the other ex prime ministers.
You're in an elite club.
You get to be at least something for the rest of your life.
You'll almost certainly get a knighthood, if not a peerage, all that sort of thing.
All right.
Okay.
So that's the current thing.
But here's one little data point I thought was very interesting just from Politics UK on Twitter.
It says the soft left of Labour MPs.
Have warned they would remove West Street from number 10 quicker than Liz Truss if he became PM.
How quick is that?
Very quick.
Is that 30 days or something?
Or I forget now.
Yeah, was it less than that?
So, okay, quickly talk about then when, if and when Keir Starmer gets cooed out of power.
Let's say he has the king, he hangs on for the rest of today and tonight.
There's a king's speech tomorrow, opening parliament.
Very soon after that, the next day or a day or two after that, by the end of this week, perhaps early next week at the latest.
It goes through Parliament and there's enough MPs, clearly enough MPs, to have some sort of vote of no confidence in him, a leadership race.
And he fails out.
I think even he said this morning that if there was a leadership election, he would just enter it and try and, you know.
Yeah, but that's too cowardly.
Beat them.
Cowardly.
Yeah.
It's like, I mean, I'm not challenging you, but if I challenged you, I would challenge you.
Don't challenge him.
Oh, I see.
Cowardly from their point of view.
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Enough talk.
You're saying he should be literally more.
Queer Stalin.
Ooh, Starmer.
Labour Leadership Chaos00:15:44
Yes.
He should just be.
No, Wes Streeting is out the party.
He's lost the whip.
Anyone else who looks like they might challenge me, they're just gone.
And I'll have that and that Ukrainian lad.
Just really double down on the queer Stalin.
Well, that is one interesting thing.
Say Labour triggered a leadership race.
Keir Starmer himself entered it, won it, and then purged the Labour Party of the left.
Like 50, 80, 100 of his own MPs started ruling as a minority government, but he just killed the left of the party.
I'd give him credit for that in an odd way, in a perverse way.
I mean, they'd all join the Greens and then he'd be out.
Oh, yeah.
Right.
But, okay.
But you could purge, like, I don't know, one a month, something like that.
I'll just slowly pick them up.
Truly like Stalin.
Yes.
Like, slowly, slowly whittle them down.
Yeah.
Okay.
But so, if it's not that, then who's next?
I mean, there's the whole Burnham question, the whole issue.
He's not even an MP.
Some MP, maybe probably in the Manchester area, would have to pretend they've got health issues or they want to spend more time with their family, trigger a by election.
The NEC within Labour somehow select Burnham.
Then he actually wins the by election, which is far from a given.
Then there's the full Labour leadership contest, which Burnham then wins.
Yeah.
So it's like end of the year and people are aching for the blood now.
All that process would take a long time, wouldn't it?
I mean, months.
And the big thing, he actually wins the by election.
Yeah.
And then say all of that happens, all those stars align, and Andy Burnham is now the leader of the Labour Party and the Prime Minister.
Yeah, and then they get wiped out.
And then in 2029, get trounced anyway because people don't, most people don't love Andy Burnham.
No.
Most people are not like waiting with bated breath to vote for Andy Burnham, are they?
Most people.
I mean, judged against a normal person, Andy Burnham's still quite weird.
Yeah.
It was a full Blair right there.
It's normal for Labour.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, he's still like an open borders guy.
He's a complete socialist.
Really, really.
He's got that comment about, oh, what was it about the bond markets?
He said something about, but it was typical Labour thinking.
It's like, I don't know why we listen to the bond markets.
It's because they're literally paying your wages.
Because we are in hock to them now because you guys couldn't stop spending.
If you actually just said to the bond markets, no, we're not dealing with you at all anymore, he wouldn't get his prime minister's salary because there wouldn't be money in the coffers to pay for it.
Well, wouldn't we just default on our national debt?
Well, I suppose they could start printing money, but then you're in Wemmer territory.
Weimar, hyperinflation.
Right, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That would really genuinely tank the economy properly.
Yes.
Wouldn't it?
Yeah.
And then we'd run out of foreign currency.
Then we couldn't get energy.
So the lights would go out.
It's all right.
We've got gigantic bullion reserves.
Oh, no.
Gordon Brown sold all that.
Sorry.
My mistake.
I remember.
Like 200 quid per ounce.
And it's now at 2000.
Yeah.
Gordon Brown, texture like son.
Terrible leader.
Okay.
So, apparently, some on the left are saying if the whole Burnham thing doesn't play out, who then?
The bookies have Wedg Streeting as the most likely.
How many people hate him?
Well, again, the left of the party hate him just as much as Starmer.
Again, he's too far to the right for them.
Yeah.
Okay.
He wants to bankrupt the country slowly, which is like, no, that's not good enough.
And so they're saying that if he was replaced, Starmer was replaced by Wes, by Wesley, that they would coup him quicker than this trust.
I don't know, but that's interesting.
To quote Captain Picard, shut up, Wesley.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, West Street are not to be confused with Wesley Crusher.
Although they both are sort of just silly little boys.
Yeah.
Aren't they?
Okay, this came in just literally just as we were about to start the live stream.
We were just checking to see if Starmer had actually resigned before we did the segment.
Yeah, we got this instead.
With parliamentary aides, very, very junior members of the government, they're not full cabinet members, resigning.
80 plus just normal MPs, backbench MPs, saying they would.
They would back some sort of leadership, trigger a leadership race.
The next thing to happen, usually historically, is that four members of the cabinet start resigning.
Oh, another data point to say that apparently last night Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, said to Starmer, apparently, you need to quit or at least set out a timetable of when you're going to quit.
So again, that house of cards, very, very, very shaky.
It's like a Jenga tower where it's all janky and like, how is that still standing?
How has gravity not pulled that down yet?
That's what it feels like.
Well, the next thing is actual cabinet members resigning and then surely it's dominoes.
And well, here's the first one.
The Right Honourable Jess Phillips, no less.
She's safeguarded.
She just resigned, just now, moments before this stream started.
Labour having a safeguarding minister is such a joke after they oversaw decades of grooming gangs.
Oh, and when there was meant to be a grooming gang inquiry, she tried to make it about general purpose sex crime.
Well, she tried to make it about white men.
That's what she tried to do.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Question Does this mean she's leaving Labour?
No.
She'll just leave the cabinet.
Yeah.
I mean, Starmer could be so incensed with her that he could throw her out of the party if he wanted to.
But no, no.
It would be fun to see if she's going to defect to the Greens.
I think she's just waiting for whoever's next and hopefully, I mean, maybe she backs Rainer and Berner, maybe she backs Streeting.
I actually don't know.
I've got no idea.
I don't follow her closely in any way, shape, or form.
But she's obviously just looking ahead now, you know, seeing the way the wind is blowing.
Starmer is.
Done one way or another, even if it takes a few more days or even a few more weeks for it to truly play out.
Although she would be hoping for a position in the next government, I imagine.
Carl is now slightly less likely to go to jail.
Who is that?
Yeah, well, she's no longer at the Home Office, right?
As of now.
Yeah.
So she had her chance to sort of get Carl Benjamin legally.
Not anymore.
Well, not until there's another government and she's invited to it.
Who knows?
She might be the Home Secretary in the Streeting government or Zach Polanski government.
Oh, yeah, maybe.
Who knows?
Okay, it really does feel like now.
It all starting to collapse.
So I think that's my time up.
And we'll see if it happens in like today, this afternoon, this evening, or over the coming days.
I can't imagine he's got more than a few days to go with this.
You think that his government's going to collapse?
I think so.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Within a month, let's say.
Oh, certainly.
Certainly.
Within a week.
Let's give it a week.
You give it a week.
You give it a month.
I give it a long time.
I give it way less than a month.
No, I give it.
If it lasts to the end of the week, I'd be surprised.
There's a couple of rumbles there if you wanted to do any rumbles.
Okay, is it?
Logan17pyne says, Quick question: What would happen if he was to kick out all his challengers at once?
You're right, we sort of said that, didn't we?
Like him.
Yeah.
I mean, what would happen?
Awkward Stalin.
I mean, he's got.
He can do that if he wants to.
He could do that.
I mean, it would be.
That would be the funniest outcome.
It would be like absolutely.
Imagine him giving them speeches like, You don't exist without me.
Yeah.
It would be, it would fly in the face of like convention in various ways, but is I don't think there's anything legally something as the head of the party.
Actually, I don't know about enough about the internal labor mechanisms.
Maybe, maybe like by letter of the law, he's not allowed to do that unilaterally.
Maybe not.
I don't know, but I think he can.
I think he can.
Yeah, just a word about.
And then Fictajous says, Chess Phillips resigns, Carl will be pleased.
Yeah, yeah.
Do you want to load the next segment, Samson?
We have the comments.
We did the comments, didn't we?
The Ramble comments.
We just did them.
Well, one more just came in.
O Fook.
That's how I'm deciding to pronounce that.
O Fook says, I hear Jess Phillips is going to join reform.
Surely they're joshing with us.
Surely that's a joke.
That's got to be a joke.
Okay.
I'm taking that as a joke.
So, I mean, we've also got to ask yeah, okay, fine.
Starmer's going.
Well, apart from Stelios.
Stelios doesn't agree that Starmer's going, but we agree Starmer's going.
What does Labour actually even do with itself?
Because, I mean, here's the current state of polling.
Look, I'll put it on the three years.
Our political system is designed around this two parties, and then all the other parties are just in the background there.
But this was a good era for Labour.
But that is what our politics is designed for.
And then what's been happening is actually, I'll put it on the two years.
Look, Greens have come up from like 6% up to like 17%.
Reform have come from like 11% up to 25%.
And the Greens and so the Labour and the Tories, I mean, they're just in the middle pack there.
And they're in the middle pack with like the Greens and the Lib Dems.
And you've got Restore Britain, you know, surging up from beneath as well on the right flank of the form.
And our politics has become so mental for so long.
There's got to be a rightward shift.
I mean, just this.
I mean, I just, I put no effort into this.
I just scrolled about three things down my timeline.
And it's, you know, this guy, he was a refugee and now he's the Lord Mayor.
Of Bristol, literally the Lord Mayor.
I mean, this is what our politics has got to.
So there is going to be a snapback on this absolute sort of mentalness.
And so, the question that I'm kind of framing in this segment is, and it kind of follows on nicely from yours, Bo, what the hell does Labour actually do here?
Well, it's a very transparent thing.
They have completely gone down the road of the radical Democrats.
They are doing oppression Olympics.
And that's why the person you mentioned before is just saying, I'm more victimised than the other candidates that we can give.
So, give me the position.
They gave it to him.
And he got elected as a councillor.
So, you think that's a good thing?
This also goes back to what Angela Raynor, you were talking about with.
Respect to Angela Rayner that she doesn't have the CV, but she's one of the top most popular people in Labour.
Well, I mean, let's put some names to this.
So, Blue Labour would be people like Shabana McMood, Blair Right would be West Streeting, Soft Left would be Angela Rayner, and then Hard Left.
I mean, who's on the Hard Left?
Well, most of the backbenchers.
I don't know about many of the frontbenchers that are Hard Left, but Corbyn would have been Hard Left.
He's actually still an MP, so they could always bring him back.
But John McDonald, that kind of thing.
Is it just for Labour, or would you put Gary Stevenson and.
No, this is.
These are the Labour options.
They need to figure out where they end up on this.
Well, there's always, I say always, for a long, long time, there's been sort of a battle over the heart and soul of Labour.
What is Labour?
What should it be?
I'm talking about from the beginning, from the 1920s.
There's one interesting thing, because I remember this when I was young.
When Tony Blair got in, John Smith died in 1994, I believe it was.
Just died out of nowhere.
Tony Blair just would have been his home secretary.
But he died of natural causes, heart attack or something.
I don't know.
Suddenly, Tony Blair, this sort of wannabe up and coming Home Secretary, Shadow Home Secretary, suddenly he's the leader.
And what he did in 1995 was he changed the, let's just go back that far, he changed the Labour Constitution to get rid of Clause Four.
Clause Four, they called it.
And that was renationalisation.
That's it.
Yeah.
That's it.
So that's an old school, proper, proper socialist, commie adjacent thing, old school red thing is that the state should nationalise most things.
Yes.
The vast majority of most things.
And Tony Blair got rid of that.
Yes.
And now lots of people look at that and say, okay, that ushered in like what, 10 years of Blair and then more years of Brown.
And that sort of made Labour sort of normie friendly.
That meant that tabloids could get behind new Labour.
Well, they occupied the centre ground.
Yeah.
Right.
But, okay, fine.
But the left of the Labour Party always hated that.
Hated that.
That was one of their core things.
It's like, we're socialists.
We're Reds.
What Tony Blair has done has sort of profoundly wounded us.
Blair just calculated they've got nowhere else to go.
So I win.
Well, right.
Yeah.
So what I've been doing over this weekend is I've been watching as much of the left's output as I can to try and figure out where they're going.
I've got to say, left, left, like Owen Jones.
Yeah, all of that.
Where Corbyn isn't left enough.
Sorry, Starmer isn't left enough.
Funny you mentioned that, Bo.
There we go.
Oh, here we go.
Here's a bit of Owen Jones.
Okay.
So I started watching all the left wing media this weekend primarily because I was interested in doing a bit of salt mining.
Okay.
Right.
And then I actually started to see that there's something really interesting going on.
Now, actually, these two don't directly address the question that I want to ask because they've already made up their minds on this.
Did they talk about Blair and Clause 4 at all?
No, Clause 4 didn't come up.
Okay, all right.
The whole rightward shift of Labour definitely came up.
But actually, no, there's only one bit I want to kind of get out of this, which I thought was really interesting because they talked about how the online left is despised by Labour.
Now, just listen to this and tell me, is that not exactly what the online right gets from a form?
I'm just going to divert slightly from my topic, but listen to a bit of this.
If I can make it work.
Samson, make it work.
I'm thinking that was it.
I mean, it's weird, but whatever.
Yeah, I mean, I found it really interesting the Starlight faction because, I mean, their whole project is based essentially on active contempt.
To a massive chunk of Labour's natural core coalition.
But I mean, what's interesting is the way, I guess, the right wing project of the Labour Party evolved, because for a long time under Blairism, it was a denial of class.
Class doesn't exist anymore.
We're all middle class.
If you say anything else, go back to the 60s dinosaur.
And then you had this reconfiguring of class, particularly after Brexit, along the lines of basically this socially conservative, small town white guy in the 50s who often owns their own home.
I'm not saying, by the way, that that segment doesn't exist.
It does.
But I'm saying basically it was defined, their political shift and their shift to the right was defined around.
That person, essentially.
And this active contempt towards people who are basically younger, have progressive social values, or progressive sensibility.
You know, as I said, private renters often in precarious positions.
But, you know, the more savvy people, I think John McTurn is, for example, is exactly.
Anyway, Aaron Pastani makes a good point in response to this.
But I just thought it was fascinating.
Does he?
I don't know what he says, but I doubt it.
Sorry, go on.
Owen Jones does tend to rumble on, despite speaking very fast.
He does.
Multiculturalism Under Threat00:15:24
Does go on at length.
But I just thought it was fascinating that the online left's problem is that Labour have abandoned class as an issue and they genuinely hate the online left.
Whereas our whole criticism of reform, for example, is that they have abandoned ethnicity, they've abandoned the whites and they actually patriotism and nativism.
So I'm slightly diverting from my point.
Yeah, but the left has abandoned class since the 60s.
Isn't rediscovering fire.
Well, yes, and the right has abandoned the native population since at least that long as well.
From what I gathered there, I mean, Jane seems to be annoyed that the Labour Party doesn't really represent full socialism.
Yes, basically.
Oh, yeah, that expression.
Full socialism.
And again, I don't want to keep banging on about it, but that clause four thing is all part of that.
Yeah, it's been the case for a while.
Yes.
For quite a while.
And the idea that the Labour Party stands up or is in favour of the actual working class, that A true sort of 20th century Labour movement, truly in the true sense.
Again, that hasn't been the case for a long, time.
So, I mean, what do you expect?
But no, this is the point that I actually wanted to come to.
So, this is a really fascinating discussion.
So, I'm going to stop this a couple of times and you'll start to see quite quickly why I'm so fascinated with this particular question.
So, let's listen to we've got hard left John McDonald having a conversation with Sam White, a Labour strategist.
And I'll stop this in a couple of places, but you'll see why this is interesting.
But they look like, is it, Sam?
It's not.
And that slightly mistakes the problem.
When you look at the loss of our voters from 2024 to the blocks of the left or blocks to the right, we're losing 17% to the right and 15% to the left.
So the idea there's.
So just there.
I question those numbers, but all right, go on.
Well, I mean, and John McDonald had different numbers.
He said they're losing 16 voters to the left for every 12 they lose to the right.
But whichever, whatever they are, right?
Okay, I mean, whatever.
Whatever they are, it's round about 15% is going.
From the center out to the right or the left.
So, just from the start there, if you're Labour strategists, what the hell do you do about that?
Well, it's either you want to, they have to make some sort of decision, don't they?
Because you need a coherent policy at the heart of government, surely.
So, do you either try to appease the party, specifically the left of your own party, or do you try and appease the people, the majority of the country, who have got a very different worldview to the left?
Even the voters, they're peeling off both ends.
I mean, I'll play a little bit.
It's a sticky wicket for them.
They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
It's also difficult because they also want to go back to the EU.
Or at least have closer ties with the EU.
And the EU right now does have a shift rightwards, but also the unelected bureaucrats, they just want to keep doing what they're doing right now.
But I mean, Europe's just, from our point of view, is fundamentally, we don't get to decide what happens largely in Strasbourg or anything.
So, at odds with our sovereignty.
But they identify themselves as global citizens from a leftist perspective.
I'm talking from a leftist perspective.
They don't see a difference in their mind between it being made by a foreigner and it's just this.
Big family of voters.
I'll play a little bit more so you can see the horns of the dilemma that Labour Party is really in at the moment.
The simple solution by moving left is not an answer, nor probably moving right.
It's a much more complex set of problems.
No, I agree with that.
It's making sure that we're addressing those issues that are facing, first of all, our progressive base, which has always been our base, and then also those that have moved to reform.
There's some that have moved to reform on Brexit that are beyond our reach now.
But the others actually are the ones that we can win on the same arguments we can use with the progressives.
Which is about is the system working for you?
It's about wages, it's about being able to afford a roof over your head, whether it's rents or mortgages.
And it is also about feeling that the public realm is properly invested in.
So are you agreeing with Sam that it would be a mistake to identifiably move Labour to the left?
No, I'm right.
Quite the reverse.
Make it impossible to bring back those people who want to reform and have more of them.
I think it's not about a radical change.
It's about making sure we're addressing those issues that that progressive base of ours, Need to address.
And they're very similar to a section that have gone to reform as well.
And it's largely around this.
No, they're not.
What are you talking about?
Shut up, John MacDonald.
You're done.
Go away now.
You're like dinosaur of the past.
I can see the argument he's making.
They've got to protect their left flank.
Because that's what the Labour Party is.
It's a left wing party.
And if you lose your left.
Yeah, but to what end, though?
To still get trounced in 2029?
To continue to exist as a political force.
Okay, all right.
But what that's worth.
Realistically, I think he's thinking very idealistically.
They'll probably have to find dirt on Polanski and circulate it before the next election.
Let me just put this in there.
And just bear in mind that every time Polanski is getting interviewed, it doesn't actually work in his favor.
Don't trust John McDonald on anything.
He's as read as they get.
So, yeah, I appreciate that.
But if they don't move left, they cease to exist as a political party.
That's the kind of argument.
And And you, okay, so you're probably going to be more on Sam's side, right?
So this is Sam's response.
And this, again, this is the key bit I want to get to you.
He's actually trying to win the next election.
Listen to this.
To the Greens and Lib Dems, you could not get a majority, right?
That would prevent the Labour Party getting a majority, right?
So that is not an electoral strategy.
Right.
So, I mean, I slightly misclipped it there, but he said, look, even if we got back all of the people who went to the Greens and the Lib Dems that were formerly in Labour, that went to the Greens and Lib Dems, even if we got them all back, We wouldn't be able to win a majority.
So the Labour strategists, they're like, they're actually trying to win the next election rather than.
So, whereas John McDonald, he's having a completely different conversation.
He's saying, how do we continue to exist as a political party at all?
Okay, yeah, he's having a complete.
You're right, okay.
Yeah, yeah.
And so, I mean, this is.
But in his paradigm, though, i.e., really far left.
Yeah, but that's where the Green voters are.
Yeah.
So I'm not making the argument that John MacDonald has a superior view for the country.
I'm purely asking this as if you wanted, for some reason, if you wanted the Labour Party to continue to exist.
What the hell do you do?
Can I say something on this?
Because there's another way to view it.
He does raise this question, but when he asks, How do we continue to exist? he implies, How do we continue to exist as the party we are right now, which has the identity we associate with it right now?
Well, you can't.
So he could be saying that it's not that they're going to get zero seats.
I find this highly unlikely.
They might get seven.
Well, let's see.
I think that this is a bit premature, but let's see.
I hope you're right.
I hope you're right.
What he could be saying is that, well, we need to stay the left wing party that we already are, instead of having someone like Starmer, who in his own mind is right wing.
Right.
So it's not like the sets of Labour, it's about the character of Labour.
Yes.
But you see how someone like John McDonald's view is not realistic.
Okay, so you save Labour sort of a A core, a dying white dwarf thing of Labour and it's really, really far left.
Right.
Okay.
Fair enough.
If you want to do that.
But then, but then never win a general election ever again.
I mean, good.
Okay.
Yes.
Do that then.
Go ahead.
Yes.
But I don't know.
I've got sympathy for the left wing argument here.
Because if I was a Labour, my mindset right now would be not how are we going to try and shoot the lights out and win the next general election.
I think that's pure fantasy.
I think the only question they need to concern themselves is how do we exist?
As a party, how do we stop going extinct within the next five years?
I get it.
But there's one thing to just manage to not go extinct, there's another thing to never ever win power ever again.
Yeah, but if you retreat and you survive, you can fight another day.
You can then re pivot to the center or something later on.
If you cease to exist, I mean, I mean, that's a fair point.
I get it.
I'm.
So I put together this graphic.
So, you know, this is.
So, you've got socially conservative, socially progressive on one axis, and you've got economically left to economically right on another axis.
Now, it used to be so easy because this blue box up here, right, that was Tory.
And we can all quibble about exactly where these go.
I mean, I. You mean going back to like the 1930s or something?
Well, I mean, not even that, 1980s.
Okay, there.
Who did you say?
Was it John Smith?
The Labour leader.
Yeah.
Back when it was, was it, was it, yeah, it was John Major and John Smith.
Yeah, the red box down here would have been not all of it, but would have been the Labour position and most of this would have been the Conservative position, right?
Then what happens is Blair comes along and he's like, okay, what I'm going to do is I'm going to move up and I'm going to take all of this.
The lines.
Yes.
Well, he basically just said, I'm going to capture this centre.
I'm going to move right.
And he's moved right over into the right.
Wing sphere on a whole bunch of stuff, all right.
And the left, all this, all this kind of half moon here, they've got nothing to do but vote for me.
And then Cameron came along and he was like, Hang on a minute.
That seems to work at the ballot box.
I'm going to do that.
So I'm going to move my sphere down here.
And actually, I should have extended it out to LGBT stuff because if you ever listen to an interview with David Cameron, the one thing he wants to talk about is gay marriage.
Yeah.
He's so proud.
He's so proud of it.
He's aching with pride for what he did on gay marriage, right?
So that was the situation.
But what that did.
Is that left?
Everybody up here feeling deeply unsatisfied, and the left, particularly down here, everybody down here was deeply unsatisfied.
So, new parties emerge, right?
And okay, now this is the key discuss this to your heart's content, chat and panelists.
But where we are today, drum roll, this mess, right?
I see what you did there.
I absolutely see what you did there.
Yes.
And I'm going to have to talk you through this because there's a lot of overlapping circles here.
So, Green Party, obviously.
They are off the chart.
They are off the chart.
Quite literally off the chart.
Okay.
They are queer dancing on stage.
They're not just mass immigration, they are unlimited immigration.
Literally.
Open borders and Islamist.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
Crazies.
I mean, they are the most radical left wing positions, right?
So that flank is covered.
Truly swivel dyed.
One nut.
At the other end of the spectrum, we've got Restore Britain.
So that dark blue is Restore, not the Conservatives.
No, this one up here.
Oh, that is very much Restore.
That is 1950s demographics, national pride, Christian nation, strong borders, all of that.
They are well up here.
Then you've got this centre oval here.
Can I draw a little?
No, I can't draw a little square.
This central oval, that's reform.
So they're trying to straddle assimilation, multiculturalism, a bit of fiscal discipline, a bit of law, but they are very, very centralist.
They're not really getting into family values and strong borders.
They're certainly not doing Christian nation.
They're certainly not doing national pride and they're certainly going nowhere near 1950s demographics.
They're not doing any of that.
They are just absolutely camped out in the centre.
And that's why they're pulling support from basically the dissatisfied boomer.
You know, you're just as likely to be a reform voter by being, I mean, we saw this with the election results recently being a Labour voter or a Conservative voter, they're both equally as likely to come over.
They're absolutely straddling the centre.
Then you've got the Conservative Party, who, I mean, you know, They still fancy the mass immigration.
I mean, that was Boris's whole thing cheap labour immigration.
They've now literally got a cheap labour migration leading the party.
But, you know, they're still in this assimilation.
And actually, for a while, this bit in the middle, multiculturalism and assimilation, just going back to this one, all right, that one.
For years, you'll remember this Blair and Cameron, all they wanted to do is argue about assimilation versus multiculturalism.
Like, that's the big debate.
Are we going to have multiculturalism?
Culture, or are we going to assimilate them?
And they both agreed that either is fine, but they argued about that like that was an issue for years, and it was so frustrating.
Anyway, then you've got, yeah, so we've done the toys, and then you've got the liberal democrats doing their weird, yeah, globalized global identity, multiculturalism, but also local community and protecting vocals.
So, but anyway, my point is, right, look at this map now.
Consider that you are a labor strategist, what the hell do you do?
Literally, what the hell do you do with this political map?
You do what every politician does lying.
What?
You lie.
You lie.
Yeah.
Yeah, but what do you lie about?
You try to convince, you know, the, you know, the almost everyone except Restore that you are the best person as the Batman.
But how does that work?
Because you're not going to outlie the Greens because they are authentically proper left.
You're not going to be more authentic than Reform in the middle.
So even if you lie, that doesn't get you anywhere.
I would say they've got sort of two choices and they should.
They're going to need to make a choice.
One is appease the left of their own party and just go full bore with that and get smashed at the next general election.
Do that.
Go progressive.
Give someone like Owen Jones what he wants.
Yeah, that's what I say.
There's that option.
The problem with that, though, is that reform's problem is they're centrist and they find it very difficult to convincingly articulate these positions because people.
People, when given the choice between restore and reform, people just go restore.
If these are their values, that's what they do.
So, even if you go left, how can you convince anybody that you actually mean it?
Blue Labour Strategy Shifts00:06:00
Well, okay.
That would be the job of the next two, two and a half years, wouldn't it?
Depends who they got in charge, if someone's convincing enough, if Andy Burnham shtick really works.
So, either go left, go full progressive, or the opposite.
Return to like full blown Blair.
Go to war with the left in your own party and go full Blair.
Full sort of old school Tory, sort of go 90s Tory, go blue Labour.
One or the other.
They can't please both.
Where is it?
They can't please both, can they?
Obviously.
But they've got a choice.
They either go with Shabana McMood with blue Labour or they go with Angela Raynor and soft left.
Yeah.
See?
Yeah.
Go on.
You think they have to give Owen Jones what he wants?
Well, no, no.
My problem is, right, is I've been thinking about this all weekend and just from the question of if I was a Labour strategist, what the hell would I do?
Well, what would you do?
I haven't got a fucking clue.
Okay.
I have no idea.
It's not a simple answer, is it?
And I'm normally stuck between a rock and a hard place.
And I'm normally quite good at this stuff.
I can normally see the political angles, but I'm looking at this and I'm like.
They can't come close to pleasing everybody, can they?
Yeah.
They cannot.
Well.
And I'm doing the same because I'm just hoping that somebody in the comments or one of my fellow panellists would be like, oh, no, it's easy.
What they do is blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I'll be like, oh, it's not easy.
I mean, if I was somehow in charge, if I was quantum leaked into the body of the next Labour leader, I would go the full centrist route.
I would go down the Blairist route of things because, at least then, in my calculation, you would stand, you'd get less trounced at the next general election.
If you went full progressive, you went full Owen Jones, never go full Owen Jones, you'll appease the lefties in your party and most of the country won't vote for you.
Well, that's okay.
So that's the problem, right?
So this center axis is actually where most of the votes live.
Oh, yeah, of course, right.
I actually think it's probably I don't know.
I don't think the restore is quite there.
If you were to take the restore and move it up and to the right a bit, but not all the way, not everybody actually wants to go for full Christian nation and 90s, 50s demographic.
But actually, I do think the sweet spot is kind of that, right?
And reform is catching.
But the point is, there are a lot of votes in the middle.
Mm hmm.
Because most people are scared and they don't engage in politics, and actually, whatever the media says is kind of where they frame their assumptions and stuff.
But look at how competed that centre bit is.
There's like four parties overlapping it.
What would you do?
I mean, help me out.
First of all, if I had a solution for Labour, I wouldn't say it out loud.
Clever.
Clever.
We'll just say it quietly, just between us.
Just whisper it.
Yeah, I'll just whisper it.
No one's listening.
The Labour whisperer.
Can you actually imagine a solution?
But even if you're not going to say, can you actually, can you honestly say that you look at this?
It's hard to imagine.
To be honest, it's hard to imagine.
Yeah.
Because they have completely, they have the worst of both worlds.
They have the bad elements of the center and also the bad elements of really bad elements from the left.
They have no character.
Yeah.
Essentially, what they have is the marketing of we are relatively serious and the previous guys were dog.
Yeah.
Crap.
I think the most fundamental thing, problem for the Labour Party is that both the old school progressive, Keir Hardy style, Labour movement style, socialist Labour, and the Blairite New Labour movement and all that stuff, both of those are now out of date.
Both of those, the world has moved on from that.
I think the majority of people in Britain don't want any of that.
I think they can't go and convince the working class.
Because the working class knows already the impact of mass migration on their wages.
So they can't convince them with, but you'll have more NHS.
They can't do this.
So the paradigm used to be the working class.
I think they'll double down on the far right extremist catchphrase for all the rest.
It's the only thing they can do from a political angle.
So the issue used to be there used to be the working class and then the middle class and upper class.
And the sort of middle upper class, they tended to vote conservative and the working class voted the Labour.
The problem the left has got now is that.
Actually, if you're working class, as in you actually have a job, you already restore or reform.
They've actually now got the benefit class.
And the benefit class are so unmoored from reality that they don't have to care about financial reality at all.
So I think if I was a Labour MP, I would probably back Angela Rayner now and just try and straddle the bit on the left that isn't quite as mental, but is at least a little bit crowded.
I want to move myself out of that reform bubble a bit.
And I would go with the soft left for Angela Rayner.
Where's the image?
There we go.
I would probably go soft left, but it's a really hard question.
I don't know.
Dan, that's the issue.
Bearing in mind what you just asked, that they are relying on the benefit class, don't they need a big pie to distribute to the benefit class?
Oh, I think it definitely follows.
At this point, I'm ignoring governing reality entirely.
I'm purely thinking how does the Labour Party continue to exist for another decade?
That's all I'm thinking about at this point.
And I can't figure this shit out.
I can't build with politics.
I think that they will exist.
Can Labour Survive Decades00:02:43
I'm not happy to say this.
Will they?
Let's see.
Anyway, if anybody can figure out what the hell to do, if you're a Labour strategist, say in the comments because I haven't got a damn clue.
But one possible idea is that thing I said where the party moves to sort of the centre and blue Labour and purges itself of its own left.
Yeah, but then you're in reform territory and you're going to get eaten.
Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah.
I feel like you've actually got a fighting chance at the general election then.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong.
There is an even more sinister solution open the borders even more and push for political rights for those who enter, just like the person you mentioned in the beginning, who just from a refugee went straight forward to a councillor.
Yep.
The full.
So that's the.
Yeah, the full invasion strategy.
Full invasion of this country.
Right.
Like having a Tamil transit.
Gender Tamil become a Scottish Member of Parliament without a visa to work.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just dial that up.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe.
Why not?
Why not?
I don't want to get into Stelios' segment.
I'll just.
I'll just.
Owen Jones speaking with this.
Yes.
Right.
And the other ones afterwards.
So Vandrill says, hey lads, I love your work.
I know things are quite exciting here in the UK right now, but it would be interesting comparing Starmer's situation to Germany's Mertz.
Both are quite similar these days.
Yes, they're both screwed.
But yeah, that is a good point.
And thank you for the $5.
Sigilstone says, Dan, you look rough.
How did your job interview at JP Morgan?
Well, the unpaid internship does have some perks.
So I'll just say that.
It's funny that Sigilstone says, I have them can.
He says funny stuff.
O'Puck says, Starmer just said he refused to quit in response to questions about Jess Phillip jumping ship, which probably means he'd be gone by supper.
Fallen Firebird says, the reasonably sane people and legacy voters are being squeezed out of Labour by the right.
Reform mainly while the insane voters are being squeezed out by the Greens.
Yep, that is exactly the problem I got with this.
Johnny says, I would look at modular politics, try and test systems directly for public scrutiny.
Ochidor says, to me, it sounds like a name rebranding more than a stance change to fool people's money.
And Stiglestone also says, I know what you do as a Labour strategist.
You get the bottle from your desk, drink it all, then you go to your bottom drawer for the snubnose.
UFOs vs Political Rebranding00:15:08
That is probably.
Do you also give up?
That's very dark.
That is actually.
Where's the liar, though?
Where's the liar?
Next segment, Samson.
He doesn't like to load the segments.
Samson, wake up, sir.
He's done it.
Sorry.
That's it.
Right.
He's waving his fist at me.
Samson did nothing wrong.
Hashtag pray for Samson.
Samson did nothing wrong.
Right.
We're going to talk about the alien question.
And I do believe that the truth is out there.
I really believe that the truth is out there.
Oh, yeah, because we've been busy with British politics.
Has he actually said that there are aliens?
You will see.
Right.
But the truth is out there.
So, Donald Trump announces the declassification of documents regarding, they don't call it UFOs nowadays, which is unidentified flying objects.
Everyone knows they call it UAPs, which is unidentified aerial phenomena.
We'll talk a bit about why this change happened, but let's listen to what Donald Trump said here.
I think we're going to be releasing as much as we can in the near future for some reason, and I guess it's just a reason that's been in the minds of people for a long time.
That is such, they want to find out about the UFOs and anything having to do with UFO or related material, and we're going to be releasing a lot of things that we have.
And I think some of it's going to be very interesting to people.
I've interviewed people.
So there are several questions here.
First of all, it's a good thing that they are releasing.
Documents.
In my mind, that's a good thing.
But there are several questions that we need to ask.
Like, why does he say that a few files at a time will be released?
I think that people deserve the truth.
Hasn't it been the argument for a long time, ever since what, the 40s or something, or the 50s, that full disclosure, full hangout, band aid ripped off disclosure would be so psychologically damaging to the average normie that society as we know it would crumble to pieces straight away?
All religions would be abandoned.
All cities would be in flames within moments if they did such a thing.
It's like Indiana Jones IV towards the end, you know, where she touches the skull and her head explodes.
Or if you look at the Ark of the Covenant, your face just melts.
Yes.
So another question is do these files that have been released prove the existence of aliens?
Some high profile individuals think that they do.
I'll mention a retired admiral who said that he thinks it does.
Did you say retired or retarded?
Okay, okay.
Could be both.
And also, there's another question that we definitely have to ask is do aliens exist?
And I think that we have to touch upon this question towards the end of the segment because the people deserve to know the truth and also our audience deserves to know the truth about us.
Can I say one little element which I'd just like to put to bed?
I don't know if you were going to touch on this or not, but whenever you talk about this stuff, inevitably, some people say it's all just a smokescreen to take attention away from other things, whether it's the war in Iran, the Epstein files, any other.
Any other sort of scandals that are going on.
All of this is just a distraction.
I just want to say they may well be right, but we're going to talk about it anyway.
Yeah, we absolutely will.
It could also be both.
It's a good idea for the audience to tell us in the chat and also the comment section what they think about this, whether they think aliens exist and whether they think that these declassified documents actually prove the existence of aliens.
Hang on, is the question do aliens exist anywhere in the universe?
Or is it, do aliens exist and have visited us?
I'm pretty certain that you can add an extra paragraph if you want to talk about them visiting us.
Right.
So, speaking of the truth being out there, there's a document, there's an article on Ellie called The Truth Is Out There, written by Bo Dade here and published almost five years ago.
Four years and 11 months, if you want to be more exact.
And Bo is talking about the truth being out there.
So, Bo, what do you think?
I can give you my take in general.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, so, one, are there aliens in the cosmos?
I mean, yes.
Because if space is infinite, and so far, as far as we can tell, it seems to be, then it's a mathematical certainty that there are aliens.
Not only are there aliens, there's an infinite variety of them.
That's the nature of infinity.
So, mathematically, it's something like a certainty.
My gut says probably no, possible, but my gut says no.
There's lots and lots of reasons why that's much more far fetched to me, much, much far.
If they can't travel faster than light, it's very, very difficult to move between planets.
And you just almost certainly wouldn't be able to move between galaxies.
Just no way.
There's still ways you can do it, even with FTL.
Right.
So let's save this discussion towards the end of the segment.
Let's look at the reception of.
This move by the Trump administration.
We have here the director of the Age of Disclosure saying he believes Trump will be the one to finally reveal that humanity isn't alone.
He is enthusiastic about it.
There's another viewpoint that is not enthusiastic about it.
Dr. Stephen Greer is.
Can I just clarify my position?
I was just like, you hadn't quite finished.
I was just saying, I think aliens, alien life forms, even an infinite variety of them, are in the universe.
Whether they've visited us or not, I suspect not, but it is possible.
That is actually a possibility.
For me, I'm going to need full blown slam dunk evidence because I want it to be the case.
I'm honest about that.
I want us to have been visited by aliens.
So that's my bias.
But until I have full blown slam dunk evidence, and so far what we've got still isn't for me, doesn't hit that threshold.
So I'm not ruling it out, but I haven't seen good enough evidence yet, despite everything.
The Tic Tac instant, Commander Frey was instant.
Loads of these things are extremely interesting.
They come extremely close to that threshold for me, but it's not quite there.
Let's look at the footage.
Okay.
Right.
So let me just say here.
Dr. Stephen Greer of another project, which is called, I think, the Disclosure Project, says that he isn't particularly, he doesn't think that the Trump administration is in control and there is a shadow government and probably part members of this shadow government have dirt on people on the Trump administration.
And that is why the Trump administration isn't releasing all of it.
That's just his take.
I'm talking about the two different.
Yeah.
I'm talking about the two different.
Ways that this has been received.
Can I mention something real quick about Jimmy Carter?
Yeah.
It's the thing I quite often bring up when we talk about this sort of thing.
When Jimmy Carter was president of the United States in the 1970s, he asked for the highest possible clearance, way higher military clearance than the president himself gets, which is strange.
He's supposed to be the commander in chief and the head of government, head of state, in fact.
But he had to apply to the Pentagon for even higher clearance to see absolutely everything that was going on.
Yeah.
The office of the president had to apply for that and he was denied.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And he was denied.
The Pentagon said, no, no, that's not for your eyes.
Now, that does play into.
But that's a real thing.
That really happened.
Yeah, look it up.
For real.
For reals.
He should have started firing generals until one of them gave him the clearance.
He could have gone berserk, couldn't he?
He perhaps should have at that.
Wow.
But that does speak of, if you want to characterise it as a shadow government, it certainly is sort of a parallel power structure of some type, isn't it?
Certainly.
Yeah, definitely.
And there are people who are saying that within the Pentagon, there is a group of UFO enthusiasts in a way who are really hardcore and really want to pursue UFO research and keep it classified.
Marco Rubio says something sensible.
I'd say he says that people deserve to know the truth.
If an object is important enough to shoot, you have to also see what it is.
Talking about, he's talking about.
That sounds reasonable, actually.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
So, because this is what the US government's position is at the moment, isn't it?
Whether it's the FBI or whether it's the Pentagon, they say there just certainly are unidentified aerial phenomena.
That's not in question now.
Yeah.
It's just, are they ours, the United States?
Do they belong to Russia or China?
Or are they potentially from another world?
Yes.
We, the Americans, we don't know that.
Right.
So, I want to say.
There are things in the sky that we can't identify.
I want us to look at some of these videos and have the debate of whether they prove the existence of aliens.
Because I'm sure, Bo, from what you described, you're going to be like the hardcore Vatican priests in horror movies who really like exorcisms, but they're really skeptical with respect to lots of reports about exorcisms.
Okay, yeah, that's true.
You really want the aliens to visit Earth, presumably.
Sure, yeah.
So long as they have good intentions.
Right, yeah.
Because, I mean, in War of the Worlds, they had bad intentions, but thankfully it was something like a bacteria like E. coli that completely wiped them out.
But.
Let's see.
And Dan, I think you're less skeptical.
Yeah, I think that there are aliens.
So I could easily come up with a scenario as to how there are aliens here, even with the limitations of FTL.
Right.
So the very simple version is they got here a very long time ago and just left autonomous probes in the outer solar system that periodically check up on us, like a robot vacuum, but like that, except every so often they come in and they check, are these guys there yet?
And then they bugger off again.
And the reason they're coming around more now.
Is because the alien robot vacuum cleaner was like, Yeah, something's starting to happen here.
They noticed high altitude nuclear tests or something.
That's really cool.
There's just no evidence for it whatsoever.
Well, Stellios is about to show up.
Let us all, my co hosts and the audience, come back to the Lotus Seatus Situation room and ask ourselves, What are we watching right now?
So, this is one of the videos.
It's a boat, isn't it?
Yeah, with lots of aliens.
That's just a boat.
Do you see this?
That's an unidentified aerial phenomena.
What are we watching here?
Could that not just be a swan sped up?
Maybe the boat is going really slowly.
Right.
Let's look at this one.
I think this is the one that has generated the most buzz.
Let's look at what is this?
What am I looking at?
Yeah.
What are we looking at here?
And it follows a really weird trajectory.
You can see here, this is like a.
But no, no, seriously, what am I looking at?
Is this a sky or, I mean, what's the context of this?
This is just a blurred image.
Yeah, but why do you think this is?
I've got a bloody clue because.
It is an unidentified aerial phenomenon, isn't it?
That's exactly its description.
Yeah, well, you're looking up at the sky.
It's like a parachute.
Yeah.
Look at that.
And there's a vapor trail behind it.
There is a vapor trail behind it.
Yes.
It's.
Why can't.
Why is it, right, that alien videos have remained stuck at like 1980s resolution?
It's suspicious, isn't it?
But on my bloody phone, I now get like, whatever it is, I get ultra.
High 4K death shit, whatever on this.
So, you see the parachute here.
Is it an alien parachuting on Earth?
Well, one of the things I would say is first of all, like that star shape of it, that will almost certainly be to do with lenses and stuff.
Yeah.
That's not necessarily what you would have seen if you could see it, if you could resolve it with your naked eye, you wouldn't see that star shape thing.
But the way it's moving around, if it is indeed an object in the sky and that is indeed some sort of vapor trail behind it, it's moving.
Unlike a conventional craft, isn't it?
We can say that.
Does that say it's from another star system?
It was manufactured by alien hands on another world?
That could be a bit of glitter on the lens.
Right.
Okay.
It could be.
To add to what you were saying, several skeptics here are talking about the bokeh phenomenon, which has to do with lenses that you mentioned.
And they're saying that depending on the video or device you're using to shoot a video, There is a particular shape that is imposed.
Yes, of course.
And what is being depicted.
It's like when you see stars from.
So they're saying it's this Bukhaki phenomena.
It's just.
No, it's right.
For example, on James Webb, they use hexagon shaped mirrors.
So, quite often, stars appear with like six big rays coming off, and that's because it's the nature of the thing.
So, that's what you would see there.
It's to do with light and lenses.
Yeah, but it could be the case, though, that what we are all just like, we're excessively skeptical now, and we aren't accepting the reality of aliens.
It could be the case.
Look at this here.
Look at this here.
That's what I'm asking for.
There's some clouds.
Yeah, but do you see this?
That's it.
This is no cloud.
This looks like a giant flying jellyfish.
We could just be filmed in reverse.
What is this?
It's an unidentified aerial phenomenon.
Well, again, isn't it?
It's that, at least.
Yeah, the question is what is this unidentified aerial phenomenon?
I don't know.
I like thinking that it's a flying jellyfish.
Because of the parallax effect, it could be moving hardly at all.
Well, not hardly at all, but not at.
Could be all good.
Weather is here also.
It's probably not the parallax effect, but.
See this?
Was that an alien?
Sorry, where?
I didn't see it.
That one was.
Let's replay it.
Go on.
Let me play it again.
Look at.
What is happening?
Samson, make it work.
Samson.
Here we go.
Your expertise is required.
Press play.
Where am I looking?
Not that.
Okay.
That basically looked like a rocket.
Sorry.
Yeah, that.
Like a missile.
Mysterious Nighttime Object Caught00:02:24
It did look a bit.
Right.
So I think that that's my favorite one the flying jellyfish.
Are you sure that this isn't an alien?
Look at the way it moves.
It has a very suspicious way about it.
What am I?
Oh, look at it here.
So, no, I can't take this seriously.
Look at this.
Because the camera is mounted to a plane.
So, I mean, what you said, the parallax effect.
I've never heard of your Bakaki effect before, but because the camera is moving in relation to the object, you can't really tell what the object is actually doing.
It's unidentified and it shows that there is an intention behind it, doesn't it?
I think Dan makes a really, really good point that if we're back in like 1986 and there just simply hasn't been a high resolution slam dunk bit of footage, Or I could sort of believe it, but nowadays, nowadays, how haven't we got why is it always really, really poor and like low resolution quality?
Always, I call this, I call this uh, the stock, stockers' car.
Look at this, I mean, those look like you're driving at night, it's really dark, and the stockers behind you.
I don't know what I'm looking at, maybe that is somebody driving at night.
I mean, again, the image quality is so and I mean, yeah, to you, I mean, to your point, um, Bo, the amount of times we've covered like a random stabbing, and most of the time.
Right when there's been a random stabbing, there has been somebody just on their phone who happens to capture it on camera like all the time.
Like most things that happen, they just happen to be caught on camera.
And you're not telling me that somebody just hasn't happened to catch on camera in high death a bloody squid, just or whatever.
Just here, retired, I'll just add to that not just normal people on their phone, which is a reasonable ask, in my opinion, at this point in 2026, but with all sorts of military grade equipment.
Not one spy satellite, not one fast jet, not one, all the optics and various radars and sonars and all sorts of things on endless military hardware, software has captured, again, some sort of slam dunk piece of evidence.
Aliens or Just a Squid00:08:55
Not once.
I've seen the US.
I want to believe.
I want to believe.
I've seen the US military spending budget, right?
And I know how much defence contractors are making.
So you're seriously going to be telling me for the last 60 years, they've been like, yeah, spend more money, spend more money, buy a better missile, buy a better missile.
And then every time they've got to the optics, They're like, oh, yeah, but we've still got that 1980s camera.
So, yeah, we're just going to stick that on the bottom of the jet.
No.
I think retired Admiral Gallowdet has a different opinion to you, gentlemen.
So, it can't be explained by a drone or a helicopter.
It adds to the body of evidence that's occurring now in terms of video data and imagery that has convinced me that we are not alone in the universe.
The truth is out there.
So, he says this, and he also says that.
In response to the Rubia line, that this couldn't be Russian or Chinese.
It couldn't be.
That's what he says.
Because this is what he says towards the end of the interview because he says he's intimately aware of the technology of China and Russia.
And it's not theirs.
There's loads of things like the Tic Tac instance, like the testimony of someone like Bob Lazar.
Obama just not that long ago said, oh no, there are aliens.
Do you remember that?
On a podcast like about six months ago, you just said, Oh, no, yeah, there are.
Oh, yeah, and the interviewer didn't think it warranted a follow up.
So, I've got so many questions.
I'm not ruling it out.
I'm not one of those people who just laugh at you as a tinfoil hat wearer.
Like, I think Thunderfoot does that still to this day, right?
If you think there are aliens, you're just a mindless little child moron.
There's nothing else to be said.
I'm not that.
But give me a slam dunk bit of evidence.
So, all I'm asking is one bit as well.
And then I'm there.
But.
So far, I've not, unfortunately, unfortunately, because I want it to, but I haven't got that at this point.
Yes.
So the response was that of a craze, I'd say.
And I think the Daily Mail US really went for it.
And some of their posts are really, really funny.
Also in articles, they say, religious leaders told prepare now for UFO disclosure to unleash Bible changing revelations.
All right.
Come on.
Curb your enthusiasm.
I mean, what would that be?
Yeah, Jesus.
Jesus was real, good news, and we can prove it.
Bad news, he was an alien.
They say that FBI files reveal reports of four foot tall beings emerging from UFOs.
If she was your boss at JP Morgan, yeah.
What would you do then?
I mean, don't you fall in love with aliens?
Don't you fall in love with Orions?
At least this one doesn't look particularly tactical.
So I think I'm still going to say no.
The other problem with all of this is.
An alien mid coming your way is disinformation and misinformation.
Not in the sort of BBC verifier sense, but in sort of the truest, sort of darkest sense that people in the intelligence service in the United States, whether it's the Pentagon or whether it's the FBI or whatever,
have certainly, I think, very, very, very deliberately muddied the waters with disinformation and misinformation so that it's extremely difficult to unpick, if ever, Things that are quote unquote real and things that aren't.
There's loads and loads of red herrings, very, very, and gaslighting, very, very deliberately thrown out there.
So it's quite a complicated tapestry to try and unpick.
So they circulated this article by Stacey Liberatore.
I hope I pronounced it correctly.
They say FBI reveals reports of four foot tall beings emerging from UFOs and they got community noted, basically.
Yeah.
Again, can we have a picture?
What picture of what?
Four foot aliens coming out.
And what's the community noted?
Here.
Isn't that enough for you, Dan?
Well, that's been AI generated.
Are you sure?
Are you sure?
Really, aliens have the same facial layout as us, really.
I mean, slightly different nose.
I mean, that's a Voldemort nose and red eyes.
It's like, no, I wouldn't look at her and say she's a human being.
To your point about an infinite universe, presumably, if the universe really is infinite, then there would be a planet where there's having a podcast with guests that look exactly like us, except they haven't got beards.
And they're good or something.
Not only is there one, there's an infinite number of those.
Yes.
That's the nature of infinity.
So, actually, and this is mind boggling, there's possibly a world out there where there's a podcast like that with guests like us, but they somehow have a parallelism.
Well, that's unlikely.
Yeah.
Now you're getting into the realms of fantasy.
More based than us.
Come on.
Come on.
Let's get real.
So, tell us in the comments if you think aliens exist, if you think that they have visited Earth, and if you think that these files.
Are proving and demonstrating the existence of aliens.
And also tell us why you think that they're being released slowly instead of all in one go.
Not good at a load of shit, that's why.
I thought you were going to play the defense line.
I thought you were going to be like, oh, yeah, it's totally real.
It's totally real.
No, I can construct a set of scenarios that could explain it.
Right.
But it's just a potential explanation.
I still want to see the bloody video before I say, yeah, that is a thing.
Okay.
Fair enough.
It's like the exorcists I mentioned before.
It's like you do want to do the Lord's work, but you don't want to respond to pranks or crazy people.
You want to establish that this is a demonic possession.
Yes.
Should we do the, do you want to do your ramble rents first?
Yep.
Johannes Hugenboom, Stellius, what about them cannons?
Yeah, what about them?
Awesome.
Sigilstone 17, if aliens are visiting us and they haven't vaporized the UN yet, I have a serious question about their morals.
Yep, a drunk changeling.
My favorite theory is that Earth is actually an insane death world by galactic standards, and the aliens are trying to keep up a quarantine.
Yeah.
They say that planet there has been populated by psychopathic monkeys of some type that can't stop killing each other.
So, don't let them ever get off that planet.
So, play that out.
We have one of those, and it's called North Sentinel Island.
Are like, yeah, they're too mental.
Yeah.
Don't go anywhere near them.
So, are there space aliens?
Like, we are so far down the pile that space aliens, space Indians are like, yeah, don't go anywhere near them.
We need to be kept in the straitjacket of our own planet for our own good and everyone else's good.
Yeah.
Quite right, Mr. White says, how can we catch footage of ball lightning, lightning, blimmin' rare in good quality footage, but crap footage of blips going by?
It's a fair question, isn't it?
At this stage, yeah.
Again, if it was 1978, I could buy it, but it's not.
Foreign Firebird says, We see UFOs as starships because that's what we would need.
But alien life could be something far beyond what we even consider life or could comprehend.
Sentient alien could be giant flying jellyfish.
Absolutely.
It doesn't have to be anthropomorphic.
No, it could be a lot more.
It could be the size of a virus.
Yeah.
Couldn't it?
Yeah.
Also, like bacteria or, I don't know.
It could be a phlogistic structure that processes the world through chemical interactions.
It could be all sorts of things.
Johnny Logger says, Alex Davis Jones MP has resigned as well.
I think that's not relevant to the segment, to the alien segment.
It's for another one.
Sigilstone17 says, Remember when they released the Epstein files a few at a time in waves and that cleared up the issue and everything was settled and we all had complete knowledge of the issue?
Yep.
They don't like the full hangout, whether it's JFK, MLK, Epstein, this.
They don't like the full.
Full disclosure, do they?
No.
Let's go to the videos and the comments.
Industrial Mercy Killings Debate00:04:36
Solving crimes to protect innocent civilians from violent criminals.
There's only one way to accomplish that.
To complete an industrial amount of mercy killings.
Friedrich Nietzsche famously proclaimed, God is dead.
But he had syphilis in his brain, so what the fuck does he know?
God is alive and well, and he's covered in the blood of short men.
Where government issue rations are highly medicated and hair is illegal.
To answer your question, it is as great as it sounds.
I feel like they're like adverts, aren't they?
They're like Robocop style, funny.
I don't know.
That's the impression I got.
I'll keep an eye out for those then.
So, in that takeaway, there was the place where Charlene Downs was supposedly murdered.
And right by it, we have a gay crossing, a drag show bar, and a man bar.
And still near where Charlene Downs was supposedly murdered, we have this gay fetish shop.
This is the future that the Green Party wants.
I don't like this.
Yeah, the degeneration of our society.
I don't like that.
Anyone who doesn't know, the allegation is Shaolin Downs, a schoolgirl, was abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered, and turned into like kebab meat.
That's the allegation.
Yeah.
I believe the guy was either convicted and it was overturned, or he was ultimately let off.
And in the end, I believe, got a payout.
If I'm not mistaken, because he was either acquitted or his conviction was overturned, and then he countersued or something and got a payout.
When everyone who looked at that case closely came to the conclusion that it's likely that some serious foul play occurred.
Charlene Downs, R.I.P. R.I.P. Yeah, tragic.
Next video.
Mecha Monday.
A ban of something doesn't usually happen unless it is having an effect.
Bans are typically a reactionary response.
As the old duck build platitude goes, if you're taking enemy fire, you're probably over a good target.
Okay.
Is that the last of the video comments, Samson?
Right.
So let's have a look.
Comments of the good subscribers.
Do you want to do something yours or?
All right, yeah, sure.
Is this me?
Is this my one?
All right, Zesty King says As of an hour ago, bond yields are at 5.95%.
Dan, can Starmer survive even a week with yields this high?
Dan.
Sorry, I was reading my comments.
What did he say?
Zesty King says Can the Starmer government survive even a week with bond yields as high as 5.095?
I mean, it's already very bad and it's squeezing everything.
Over six, stuff starts to break.
But when they could probably get up to like seven or 8% for a short time, it's just that because you don't roll over the entire debt base when the yield goes up, it just makes your current issuances and your current rollovers more expensive.
So, I mean, we're already in the territory where the state can't function long term.
But I mean, short term, yeah, they can put up with it.
Okay.
Kevin Fox says if the cabinet demands Keir Starling set a timetable for stepping down, my money is on him.
Is on him saying 2050?
Staying until 2050.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
This must be a typo.
Staying until 2050.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Right.
On the what's the point of Labour, Sophie Liv says, This would be my game plan advisor, Labour deport all foreigners.
Oh, sorry, Stelios.
That way you get.
Oh, my God, Stelios.
We will miss you.
You can share a cab with your rat.
We get rid of 30 to 60% of all the people that vote green and reform.
And those who remain in the country will be happy that they actually vote Labour.
I mean, yeah, I mean, why aren't they just giving us red meat all the time?
That is a good point.
Lady Circusto says, with Dan's graph, where would Heritage SDP in advance go?
Yeah, you can't overthink it too much because I did throw it together in five minutes.
Infinite Possibilities for Aliens00:04:22
Yeah.
So it would become insanely complicated, wouldn't it, if you did?
If I really thought about it.
Childs Francis Montgomery Gallivard Oliver says, so Dan would do smurfette.
I did once.
In my defense, I was plastered.
How were you able to do that, Childs?
It's a fictional character.
But if I was in that universe, I mean, what are you going to do?
She's the only female.
Don't you also need to be the same scale as her remotely?
Aren't they like that big, a smurf?
Oh, I kind of assumed I was a smurf.
Oh, okay, fine.
Without smurf air, it's like being in prison.
You're just going to have to pick the most girlish, boyish smurf, aren't you?
Are you?
Your choices are literally smurf air.
Just be a Vogue cell.
There is also that.
Just control yourself.
I mean, that is a possibility.
Oh, I hadn't thought that one.
Yeah, I hadn't thought that.
I'm pleased to announce that the chat at least is giving me a business class ticket.
Oh, nice.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Why not?
Thanks, chat.
Alpha of the Beta says we're going to get evidence of aliens before the Epstein files.
Henry Ashman says so much of the dodgy looking footage comes down to either bandwidth or a lack of light.
Even the top of the range Doe Pro cameras and dash cams are notoriously crap at night.
And Sophie Liv says, Does aliens exist?
Do aliens exist?
Sophie.
Guys, you just spent an hour talking about Keir Starmer.
He's right there.
Yeah.
And last one, Michael Drabelbis.
Bo is right.
Mathematically speaking, there must be aliens.
Now, the question is are they advanced enough for interstellar travel?
And then would they want to visit us?
I think they're either from another dimension or the future.
No, the key question is the distance.
So that's why I wanted to separate your thing about are there aliens and have they visited us?
They're vastly different questions because there almost certainly are aliens.
But the distances involved make it incredibly difficult unless you do the thing that I said, which is to say, they got here a long time ago and we just got the robots.
I'm going to be like an inquisitor now.
So, if the universe is infinite, if the universe is infinite and there are infinite possibilities, and as you mentioned, there is a possibility also of one of these alien races who is technologically advanced and does have the ability to visit us.
So, why haven't they?
So, maybe it was the John Jellifer.
Even if the universe is infinite, you've still got the FTL problem.
What's the FTL problem?
Well, it's spatial geometry.
Faster than light.
Yeah, but that's how we understand physics right now.
Well, I mean, it's literally how space is.
You can have the Millennium Falcon, and don't you drive faster than light, or is it just light speed?
No, you can't.
It's faster than light, because if you see how the light moves in Star Wars, that wouldn't be how it would look like if you traveled at the speed of light.
Yes.
The thing is, you're quite right that it's hard baked into the fabric of space time that you can't go faster than the speed of light.
But then Stanislaus is right that that's only as we understand it at this point.
It might be, because I'm no physicist, it might be that there is a realm of physics beyond that that we can't fathom.
Also, we may never be able to find.
Within these infinite possibilities, there could be Arrakis, and they discover a new source of spice.
We could have the Harkonnens.
If the universe is infinite, there's a world.
I would definitely nuke the Harkonnens.
No question.
If the universe is infinite, there's a world out there.
Where the entire planet is smurfs, but it's the other way around.
It's all lady smurfs apart from one boy smurf.
Poor bloke.
What?
What a legend.
What the life that he must be living.
He'd be exhausted, wouldn't he?
Yeah, but good exhaustion.
In more than one way.
Actually, you'd never get to have a proper conversation.
I bet he invented AI just so that he could have a conversation.
Anyway, on that sexist comment, thank you very much for joining us.