#138 – Steve Baker – The Structural Failure of Government

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Peter McCormack Show

Episode #138 – Steve Baker – The Structural Failure of Government
Date: January 5, 2026
Guest: Steve Baker (Conservative MP, libertarian-leaning politician)
Host: Peter McCormack
Co-host: Connor

---

Overview

This episode delves into the deep structural flaws of modern government, focusing on the British system but exploring universal themes of state power, economic failure, fiat money, and the frustration of citizens and politicians alike. Steve Baker, appearing for the third time on the show, shares candid insights into government dysfunction, the nature of state incentives, and why political participation and constraint on power are crucial if change is possible. The conversation is frank, sometimes bleak, but ultimately looks for a path toward renewal—be it policy-driven, procedural, or, as Baker concludes, something deeper rooted in societal values.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Managerialism and the End of an Era

• Historical Context: Post-WWII, both UK and US societies embraced "managerialism," believing life could be improved by centralized, expert management (03:00).
• Baker’s View: “After 50 years of currency debasement… society's not working, and the problem cannot possibly be because taxes are too low, because there's too little regulation...” (Steve Baker, 02:51)
• Crisis of Interventionist Socialism: We're witnessing the failure of “backdoor socialism”—government expanding via debt and regulation, not overt ideology (02:20–03:30).

2. Institutional Failure: Left, Right, and Consensus

• Both left-leaning and free-market-inclined voters “are all pointing at the same problem—we have an institutional failure.” (Peter, 04:25)
• There’s broad agreement on the diagnosis: stagnating living standards, unaffordable housing, economic injustice (04:25–05:14).
• Disagreement is over the remedies and mechanisms for change.

3. The Reality Inside Government

• Competence and Incentives: Baker describes government as designed to “cope with ministers who are disinterested and incompetent.” (Steve Baker, 07:50)
• True focus of politicians: “The one unifying goal… is to basically be elected and be reelected.” (Peter, 09:11)
• Perverse Incentives: Once elected, the system rewards pandering to special interests for votes, not public service or structural reform (10:55–11:30).

4. Participation vs. Apathy

• Baker shares how a handful of people can control a political party’s candidate selection: “I could have been removed that day by a handful of people…” (Steve Baker, 13:15)
• The danger: non-participation is itself a form of consent to the status quo.
• Quote: “If you don't vote, you still get governed… so how do you get a decent government?” (Steve Baker, 21:58)

5. Parliamentary Sovereignty, Broken Promises, and Recall

• Elected governments routinely break promises, leading to frustration and disengagement.
• Baker advocates for “full unrestricted recall of MPs… if 10% of the electorate said Steve Baker is recalled… you'd face a by-election.” (Steve Baker, 15:37)
• Currently, recall is so restricted as to be meaningless.

6. Constraints on Power, Money, and the State

• Modern democracies lack real constraints—especially fiscal ones.
• Historical Reflection: American Founding—debate between Federalists (strong government) and Anti-Federalists (liberty, constraints).
• “If you constitutionally could not create money… you are restricted.” (Peter, 26:11)
• Fiat money and money creation are the root of many problems: “Elastic money is a folly… it's a crime.” (Steve Baker, 26:27)

7. Fractional Reserve, Free Markets, and State Overreach

• Even monetary scholars disagree, but Baker advocates “separation of money and state” and openness to alternatives like bitcoin and gold (27:29–28:32).
• Politicians follow, rather than lead, public opinion—making deep reform elusive.

8. Factions, Preference Groups, and Polarization

• When governments allocate money and rights based on interest groups, factionalism and polarization are inevitable.
• “What you do is create the factionalism problem that Madison warned about…” (Peter, 29:29)
• These swings—from right and left—may eventually lead to violence if left unchecked (31:12–31:52).

9. Dangers of Polarization and Breakdown

• Paul Dolan’s work on overcoming hate cited as a way to reduce destructive polarization (31:52–33:08).
• “History has shown us that civilization is in fact much more fragile than is generally thought.” (Steve Baker, 34:34)
• Real societal risks: youth unable to afford homes, rising discontent.

10. Constraints on Power—Practical or Illusion?

• Baker insists “we do not have enough liberty… we are not in a crisis of freedom, we're in a crisis of control by the state.” (Steve Baker, 41:10–41:12)
• Taxation and public spending are at historic highs; to rebalance, “we will have to cut spending in places which people will feel.” (Steve Baker, 41:44)
• Systemic change is inescapably painful, requiring public consensus, political leadership, or possibly a “reset.”

11. Revolutions, Resets, and The Limits of Protest

• Hostile to violent revolution, Baker is cautious about resets: “Once somebody starts doing that, then I find an old retired colonel's writing to me saying the police should be opening fire… whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop, stop, stop.” (Steve Baker, 45:51)
• The practical mechanism for change—peaceful, procedural, and participatory.

12. Equality, Preference, and The Social Fabric

• Baker and McCormack debate preference in welfare, legal, and political systems.
• “A policy of absolute non discrimination by the state would go a long way to constrain power…” (Steve Baker, 51:39)
• Equality of opportunity, not outcome, is the ideal; state preference via identity leads to backwardness and radicalization (53:13–54:30).

13. Economic Injustice and The Collapse of Social Mobility

• Personal anecdotes: today’s youth, earning more than previous generations, can’t achieve their parents’ standard of living (56:09–58:01).
• Baker blames monetary debasement: “A mortgage for half a million pounds for the ground floor… oh, you poor thing. A mortgage…” (Steve Baker, 56:54)
• State growth, through fiat expansion, crowds out ordinary aspiration.

14. Media, Narrative, and The Role of Ideas

• The media are complicit, focusing on trivialities instead of hard questions: “Why is it me, Pete from Bedford with a podcast, who's going, hold on, something's not working here…?” (Peter, 63:54)
• Baker’s “Fighting for a Free Future” project aims to reach opinion formers, especially journalists.

15. Strategy for Change: Cautious Optimism, Practical Participation

• Baker: “I've been through it. I've been there. Five general elections, 14 years… It is not a strategy of hope to be in the room to speak and to vote. That is how power is exercised and removed.” (Steve Baker, 79:33)
• Only widespread, meaningful participation will change party candidate selection and outcomes.

16. Deeper Solutions: Love, Dignity, and The Limits of Power

• Baker ends with a theological reflection: The Bible’s key message is “power does not work to set society right… Christ told us what that way is. It's love.” (Steve Baker, 80:46–82:59)
• He admits that while secular solutions may be insufficient, the idea of loving one’s neighbor—the “gospel”—is the only ultimate answer in a complex society.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On managerialism’s failure:
  “[We’re] at the end of a kind of a century of managerialism… This is now a crisis of the interventionist form of socialism, backdoor socialism…”
  — Steve Baker (02:20–03:20)

• On what unites politicians:
  “It is to basically be elected and be reelected. So it’s the accumulation and the defence of power…”
  — Peter McCormack (09:11)

• On political participation:
  “The trouble with non-participation is… even if you do… Someone else is in the room trying to remove them, and if you're not there… they'll be removed.”
  — Steve Baker (13:18)

• On recall of MPs:
  “I always have been… in favour of unrestricted recall with an appropriately high threshold… all you’d have to do… contribute to recalling your MP… go along to the council office and put your name in the book…”
  — Steve Baker (16:48)

• On money and power:
  “If you constitutionally could not create money, just imagine that scenario…”
  — Peter McCormack (26:11)

• On polarization and violence:
  “These extremities, these swings to the extreme I think eventually will lead to violence. That is my big fear…”
  — Peter McCormack (31:48)

• On public opinion and politicians:
  “Politicians try to get re-elected by following public opinion. They're not really leaders, they're followers.”
  — Steve Baker (28:32)

• On monetary debasement and modern life:
  “Monetary debasement for me is cowardice. It's spineless. It's preference. It's a power games.”
  — Peter McCormack (58:24)

• On the solution:
  “The lesson is: power does not work to set society right… Christ told us what that way is. It's love… we've got to conduct politics on a secular basis, but for me as a Christian… this is just going to keep on rolling on until we give up on the idea that law and power will set society right.”
  — Steve Baker (80:46–82:59)

• On the importance of action:
  “It is not a strategy of hope to be in the room to speak and to vote. That is how power is exercised and removed.”
  — Steve Baker (79:33)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Managerial Revolution & Crisis of State Power – 02:00–03:30
• Political Incentives & Insider Stories – 07:43–13:18
• Voter Participation and Selection Process – 13:18–15:14
• Parliamentary Recall and Broken Promises – 15:37–18:58
• Constraints on Money, Founding of America – 24:26–28:32
• Factionalism, Preference Groups – 29:29–31:52
• Polarization and Fragility of Civilization – 31:52–35:02
• On Economic Injustice – 56:09–58:01
• Strategy, Revolution, and Skepticism – 68:33–73:18
• Media’s Role and Need for Deep Questions – 63:54–64:53
• Conclusion (Biblical Reflection on Power and Love) – 80:41–83:11

---

Flow & Tone

The conversation is blunt, passionate, and laced with frustration, humor, and a sense of profound concern for the country’s trajectory. Both host and guest are unafraid to criticize the system and themselves. Steve Baker blends political realism (and some hope!) with libertarian skepticism and personal honesty, while Peter McCormack channels grassroots anger and a desire for meaningful agency. The tone stays accessible, with practical anecdotes and historical references woven into a narrative about the persistent failure of government structures—and the need for radical, peaceful rethinking.

---

Takeaways

• Government’s flaws are not just party- or policy-specific, but structural and deeply embedded.
• Money creation (fiat, debt expansion) is a central source of distortion and injustice.
• True change is only possible by constraining government power and incentivizing participation.
• Polarization and factionalism are real dangers—the solution must be both structural and cultural.
• Action is necessary: through participation, advocacy for constraints on power, and changing public opinion.
• At root, a society built on dignity, justice, and mutual respect is essential—perhaps even more than new laws.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[A]

Labour took treasury advice to cut winter fuel payments from better off pensioners. It's a right and sensible thing to do. Obviously needed to be cut, but it was announced during a Tory leadership contest, yet another one. So the easy thing was done, which was to stand with the pensioners against this unjust cut and the stupidity of it. It was a great moment for the Conservative Party to say, finally, the Labour Party's willing to live modestly in the real world. Of course we support this cut to spending. The Conservative Party and Reform should support every cut to spending and they should oppose every rise to taxation. And if there was an exception at all to that, it would be in the fundamental functions of the state, like defence and criminal justice. You know, really, taking winter fuel payments from better off pensioners is only the beginning of what needs to be done. And the fact that both Reform and the Conservatives failed to rise to that moment makes me agree with you that there is not currently political party offering a platform to the public which would save the nation.

[B]

This show is brought to you by my lead sponsor, Aaron the AI Cloud for the Next Big Thing. Iron builds and operates next generation data centers and delivers cutting edge GPU infrastructure, all powered by renewable energy. Now, if you need access to scalable GPU clusters or are simply curious about who is powering the future of AI, check out iren.com to learn more, which is I R E N. Yeah. The first person to come on one important thing.

[A]

Does my hair look all right?

[B]

Your hair looks great, man. We're going to leave that in. Yes. You're the first person to come on the show three times, Steve.

[A]

Well, I'm honored. Indeed. I mean, what an honor. Next time I'm feeling blue and undervalued, I will remember that I've been on your podcast three times.

[B]

Well, we like having you here, Steve. Why is the country not working anymore? What is going on?

[A]

This is the end of an enormous period of managerialism.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

I mean, at the end of the Second World War, people voted for massive increases in state power. It really worried Churchill. He'd issued his cabinet. The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. The Road to Serfdom, of course, warned that the UK was going down the road which Germany had gone down. Hayek meant it when he wrote it, but of course everyone thought it was ridiculous and didn't believe it. Churchill lost the election. After the Second World War, the public voted for a lot more managerialism in their lives. Oh, so I love the literature of that period. There was a book called the Managerial Revolution by a reformed American Trotskyite called Burnham. And he said that the New Deal American. The American New Deal, British interventionism, fascism, socialism, communism, all basically had at their roots the same phenomenon that people believed their lives would be better managed by somebody else in authority. Yes. Laughable, isn't it? Yeah. And what's happened, unfortunately, is that idea swept the world. And here we are all these Years later, after 50 years of currency debasement, in particular ultimately covering the fact that states spend way beyond their means chronically. Society's not working, and the problem cannot possibly be because taxes are too low, because there's too little regulation, because the government doesn't borrow enough money or there's not enough debt, or because credit's been too expensive, because none of those things are true. So we're at the end of a kind of a century of managerialism. I think this is a second crisis of socialism. The first one was easy to see because the Cold War ended and the Berlin Wall fell. This is now a crisis of the interventionist form of socialism, backdoor socialism. Yeah. And it's a disaster. But it's a particular disaster if people blame free markets.

[B]

Well, that is happening because as someone like I do or you do, who campaigns for free markets, who say, this isn't a free market, this is cronyism. This is not capitalism. Stop blaming capitalism. You've equally got the rise of the Marxists, the open Marxists, or the Marxists who won't admit their Marxists through Zach Polanski's. But really interesting. Did you see his interview with Rory Stewart and the War Criminal?

[A]

I did not see it. I know exactly who you mean. Yes, but I didn't see it.

[B]

So they asked him who his economic inspiration is, and he said, like Gary Government, I think maybe James Medway, I can't remember him, but he said, Grace Blakely, she came out and tweeted and she said, I'm not an economist, I'm a Marxist.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I was like, huh? But I went and read one of her articles, and I would say I agreed entirely, almost entirely with a diagnosis. And this is like this horseshoe theory where I think the socialists and the free market capitalists are kind of pissed off at the same thing. And when I say that, not the theorists, I mean the general public, the people who are more likely to vote left or more likely to vote right are all pointing at the same problem. We have an institutional failure. The problem is the more capitalist nature people are thinking, well, I'm going to vote reform, and they're going to Fix it. And then we've had the rise of the Greens for the Marxists and socialists say they're going to fix it. And I just don't think it can be fixed.

[A]

Well, okay, so by voting. Well, there's a lot to tease out.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Right. So thinking about strategy, it's ends, ways, means. So if we can start by saying, well, actually we can agree with one another on what's wrong and, you know, so suppose that left and I agree that there is massive economic injustice. I think it's because of state based fiat money, which is chronically expansionary, radically disrupting social processes and causing an unjust distribution of wealth made worse by state intervention, which underpins privileges for those who have assets, et cetera. Discuss. Right. But the left will see massive economic injustice because they think that capitalism just does that. Well, okay, so we can agree there's economic injustice. We can agree that it's a terrible thing that house prices are so high and that therefore young people can't form families and et cetera. So we can at least agree on there's an injustice that should be remedied. But then we need to get into, well, all right, what ends are we going to choose? Where do we want to get to? What is the way to get there and what is the means to achieve our, our ends? So that's really the issue of strategy, which we're here to discuss, I think is the subtext. All right, yeah, yeah. Because you're saying, well, voting won't fix it. But we said this before, whoever you vote for, the government always wins.

[B]

Yeah, I keep quoting that. Was it your dad who said that?

[A]

My dad who said that. Very wise. Building site carpenter.

[B]

So I keep quoting that. Thank you for that one.

[A]

No, you're right, it's great. It's a good one, isn't it? Good old dad. But think about council elections. Lovely. Yeah. The council keeps on governing locally and doing things like social care and it's very rarely good enough. But their turnout is about a third, whereas for a general election it will be two thirds. But they don't take any. They don't go, oh, woe is me. Two thirds of the people didn't bother to express a view. I'll tell you what, we'll take stock and start shutting things down. They don't do that, do they? They just press on and raise your council tax. And fail.

[B]

And fail.

[A]

So what is to be done?

[B]

Well, look, sorry, you've worked in government, the shackles are off. Yeah. And I've read Ian Dunt's book How Westminster Works and why It Doesn't. I think you could call that book a horror. It's terrifying what it unveils, like when you start to learn how we place incompetent people in charge of departments where they've got no experience of, but want to make a name for themselves, so they want to change everything and how dysfunctional it is. Like, for me, it was horrifying. But you've been in there, like, how much can you tell us about what it's really like, why it doesn't work?

[A]

Well, I'll tell you as much as I possibly can in the available time.

[B]

Terrify the listeners.

[A]

It is. Incompetence is definitely a theme.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I have joked with several Permanent Secretaries about the way that the Civil Service works, where I've said to them, well, of course, the Civil Service is set up to cope with ministers who are disinterested and incompetent. And every Permanent Secretary I've said that to several has laughed, because it's true. The Civil Service is set up. So even if you've got an incompetent, disinterested minister, the country rolls on. All the minister needs to do is sign the paperwork they're shown. They don't even need to read it. That is not where we should be. So what we need is ministers who actually govern the country, and govern the country with some robust, practical idea about how it ought to be done in order to achieve effects that people will approve of. But what typically happens is all anyone's thinking about is how to get the job they really want, which is very often the top job. And that generally means holding drinks parties for their colleagues in Parliament to butter them up.

[B]

So it's a greasy poll.

[A]

Well, it's just people being people. They want to get on, they're ambitious, they like status, they want to be thought fantastic. And instead of just rolling up their sleeves, concentrating on the task at hand and getting stuck into the job that's before them. I remember one Chief Whip said to me, steve, you're unusual because you just concentrate on the job that's before you. And I remember at the time thinking, oh, now I know what I'm doing wrong.

[B]

But so we did this thing the other day, we made a show and we went on AI, and I think it was grok, because it's a bit more based. And we said, what is the one unifying thing for all politicians across the spectrum was one unifying goal they have, and it wasn't serve the public to get re Elected. It is to basically be elected and be reelected. So it's the accumulation and the defence.

[A]

Of power that is not necessarily ignoble. It's that you can't achieve anything else unless you get yourself elected. It's when they lose sight of everything else. Look, I got into politics to basically stand against illegal wars, which. Yes, earlier, I've once met that guy. Gave him quite a hard time.

[B]

Good.

[A]

To protest against our reaction against terrorism, in particular, the way we ended up allowing ourselves to descend into extraordinary rendition to make inroads onto the massive problems in our monetary system and to get us a referendum on the eu. Because I'm really quite determined that power must be accountable to people at the ballot box. Because if you can't remove the government peacefully at the ballot box, as Karl Popper said, you have to do it the other way. So far, far better for everyone that we're able to remove unsatisfactory governments peacefully at the ballot box. So therefore, referendum on the eu. So I got into politics to do that and I was absolutely clear that for me, getting elected and re elected was a means to those ends. And people can agree or disagree with me, my selection of ends, but I was open about what I was doing. People elected me, so I felt entitled to do the things that I did. But it's still the case. You've got to get elected and re elected.

[B]

Sure. No, I get that. But the incentives in play once you are elected, special interest groups, voting blocs and access to money creation creates for me a very obvious set of perverse incentives. I haven't voted in the last two elections, Steve, and I'm not voting in the next one because I refuse to vote for decay. And I don't see that we can vote our way out of this. The living standards under labor are getting worse. I don't see any way they can improve living standards in the next three years. And I don't see a single party who can improve living standards right now.

[A]

So that's pretty. That's a devastating critique of the political class. And I share. You share that view. So I've been doing this project, Fighting for Free Future, which I'm wearing the badge off. And I've worked, for example, with Lord John Moynihan, who's written a brilliant book called the Return to Growth, about that thick, two volumes.

[B]

What's the TLDR on that?

[A]

Sorry?

[B]

What's the summary of how do we return to growth?

[A]

The summary of how we return to growth is we need to cut taxes and cut regulations. That means we need to cut spending.

[B]

You mean government is the barrier to growth?

[A]

Yes. Now here is the problem. Unfortunately, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. Now you said about the shackles coming off because I wouldn't have liked to say that as an elected politician, I'm afraid. Public voting public. You too, Peter. You're going to get the government you deserve because somebody's going to get elected. And this is the problem we've got is any one of us acting individually as a voter has very little sway on the outcome of an election. And yet we still have to put up with the government that comes afterwards. So how do you multiply the effect of what you do? And I'm stuck record on this one. Only about a dozen people turned up to my candidate reselection meeting at the last election. I was determined that if I'd lost the support of my association, I'd walk away and I would just give in and say, well, I've lost the support of the association. I got in the room, there were only 12 people there to decide whether or not I could be the candidate for Wickham. And three of them were people I knew were my settled enemies. Opponents. Right. And I looked around the room and I thought, if he's pulled this off, he might have a majority to remove. Remove me. I'm going to use the vernacular now. I thought, well, that I'm not giving in to that bastard who's been a thorn in my side since the start because he wanted to be the mp. He's been a thorn in my side all this time. I'm not giving him to him because he's managed to roll up on the day and get six people to vote against me with him. So at that moment I decided if I did lose, I'd go to the whole association. But the point I'm making this story, of course I won because I'm a. I'm a politician. I knew how to do it and I won. I took the wheels off what he was trying to do and I beat him. But the point I'm making here I am, I'm about as practical, about as libertarian as you'll get for a practical politician. And I could have been removed that day by a handful of people and people just. This is the trouble with non participation is even if you do, I mean, I may be good or bad by different people's estimations, people may not like the compromises I made or whatever, but it doesn't matter if you find somebody you like best, bear in Mind, it's all very well sitting at home liking them and wishing them well, but someone else is in the room trying to remove them, and if you're not there to vote in their support, they'll be removed. So when you talk about perverse incentives, there's huge truth in what you say. But in the end, speaking as a person who's been on the inside in government, as a candidate, seen the whole gamut for very often the problem is easily solved by people who are supportive just turning up for an hour on a Saturday morning to make sure you get reselected.

[B]

But do people even know they should do that or how to do that?

[A]

No. That's why I'm here.

[B]

Right?

[A]

That's why it's such a joy to be with you again. Because I love these questions that you ask and I love the opportunity to tell your viewers they could be so much more powerful if they would just join any political party and turn up and be one of the half dozen. Is.

[B]

Is Parliament being sovereign a good thing?

[A]

Well, so is the individual being sovereign a good thing? Because what's democracy for, really? There's loads of views on it. To me, democracy is one of the elements which restrains power so people can be free of coercion.

[B]

But if it's explicit consent, you. You vote a government, we vote a Labour Party. And their manifesto says we will not raise taxes on working people. Budget one, they raise taxes on working people by the back door.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Budget two, they raise taxes and working people again by the back door. They just fucking lied. They just lied. And. And what are we meant to do? Okay, well, we got to wait three more years of this shit and we, we get to vote again and cross our fingers.

[A]

This is why, together with Zach Goldsmith, very. I think it was in the 2010 parliament between 10 and 15. Long time ago now, Gosh. He and I advocated for full unrestricted recall of MPs. So you'd have to have a reasonable threshold, because you can't have a threshold of 100 people because your Labour opponents be recalling you every day. You'd need to have a threshold of. I don't know. Let's suppose 10% of the electorate. I don't know what the right answer is. It's arbitrary. But let's have a decision. But if 10% of the electorate said Steve Baker is recalled because we don't like what he's doing, you'd face a general election. Sorry, you'd face an elect a by election in your seat. So this, this movement.

[B]

So we don't have recalls.

[A]

We do have recall, but the way that by the time politicians had finished worrying about their opponents, vexatiously recalling them just for not being Labour or Conservative, whatever, by the time people had finished neutering it. I can't remember the rules now, but it's something like you have to have committed a minor criminal offence or something, or been sanctioned.

[B]

It can't be just because you're shit.

[A]

It can't be because you shit and broke your promises. No, but I would be, I always have been. And it's. Forgive me, because people won't like me saying this. It's bloody hard work being a politician.

[C]

Oh, I get it.

[A]

Of course it is. No, I don't understand, but politicians won't like this. But I am still in favor of unrestricted recall with an appropriately high threshold so that the public can just decide. So that all you'd have to do to contribute to recalling your MP to face another election would be to go along to the council office and put your name in the book, or do it online, whatever. And then if we were all up in arms with your campaign, powerful as it is, we could then say, well, let's recall. Let's recall all of these MPs, because.

[B]

We'Re in this position, because they've got a parliamentary majority. We sat with a government with a parliamentary majority where the polls show if there was an election tomorrow, they would only get four seats. I mean, it's existential for them, but they're still in power, they're still able to do, like, put in policies and changes to the tax, which have a really devastating effect on people.

[A]

They could do all sorts of terrible things.

[B]

But if you could recall enough, if there were, you could have enough by elections to shift the balance and then you could have a vote no confidence and remove the government. That would be a possible yes.

[A]

So, I mean, yes. I mean, it didn't occur to me before walking in here, but actually recall implementing unrestricted recall with an appropriate threshold. Excuse me, can I say that again?

[B]

Yeah, you say that again.

[A]

It didn't occur to me before walking in here.

[B]

But he's not going to edit it.

[A]

He's not going to edit it.

[B]

No, we don't edit anything.

[A]

That's the trouble with drinking.

[B]

They see you human.

[A]

Now they do a little bit of the old mulled wine. Caught up with me there. With an appropriate threshold, you could mobilise millions of people across the country to go and fill in that form on the web, or go down to their council and sign the paperwork and say, I want my MP recalled. And if we could recall enough MPs, you could bring down the government. And that's the sort of thing that we need in order to give the public, because it's a dramatic thing. Let's be really clear, we don't want to be in a position where the public can democratically bring down the government every week, because we do actually need a good government.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by Ledger, the most trusted Bitcoin hardware wallet. Now, if you're serious about protecting your Bitcoin, Ledger has the solution you need. Their hardware wallet gives you complete control over your private keys, ensuring that your Bitcoin stays safe from hacks, phishing and malware. And I've been a customer of that since 2017. Love the product, use it for my Bitcoin. I use it with my Castle multisig for protecting the football club's Bitcoin too. Now, with Ledger's sleek, easy to use devices and the Ledger Live app, managing your Bitcoin has never been more secure or convenient. And whether you're a longtime holder or new to the world of Bitcoin, Ledger makes it simple to keep your assets protected. So if you want to find out more, please do head over to Ledger.com and secure your Bitcoin today. That is Ledger.com, which is L E D G-E-R.com, that is Ledger.com but if the government faced the threat that they could be democratically brought down, maybe they would do a better job that would shift the incentives. The problem is, is that there's no incentives there right now. They know they've got essential because it's assumed consent. They assume they've got the consent until they call an election. And they know they can get away with raising their taxes and they know they can get away with fragile disabilities.

[A]

Raised VAT to 20% shortly after we were elected. And I can't remember exactly what he said, but he'd allowed the public to believe that he wouldn't. He might not have promised he wouldn't. I can't remember what he said. It's a long time ago, but certainly we weren't elected on a pledge to raise VAT to 20%, but VAT, 20%. I mean, it's outrageous that we had 20%. Such a wide range of goods at the point sale. Well, indeed, throughout the value chain. But politicians do that because the public have short memories. They think, well, people will have moved on and forgotten this by the next election. And that is one of the things we face. Anyone watching this is engaged in public life and politics and money and all the rest of it. But the vast majority of people are not engaged. Can I tell you the story of knocking on a door in my first election? So I'm wet behind the ears. It's my first time I've stood for election. It's a parliamentary seat. I walk up to a door, I could actually take you to the house. Even now, I drive past it often. Knock, knock, nobody's in. That's the first thing. Usually no one's in if they are in. Usually it's not a good time. Very depressing. Anyway, I turn away, the car draws in. It's obviously got Mum, Grandma and the kids in the back. Hello, Mrs. Smith, my name's Steve Baker. I've just popped around as your Conservative candidate to see how life is and see if there's any concerns or issues you'd like to raise with me. See how easily that slips off the tongue. Oh, she said, well, let me think about it. And she just had the checklist. Well, Mum's just had a good hospital appointment, the kids are in a good school, my husband's got a good job, we're going on holiday soon and life's pretty good. We can afford the mortgage, thanks very much. And that's normal life. Right. And I think one of the problems we all face.

[B]

But hold on, if you spoke to that person now, what do you think that list would be?

[A]

Well, I might have to go back.

[B]

Well, it is. I've had to take my kids out of private school because I can't afford it. We can't afford a holiday now. My husband's had to close down his business.

[A]

I mean, look, it could easily be that, but it could be. The point that I'm making is that for the most people, most of the time, life's broadly okay.

[B]

I think that's right now, though, do you think?

[A]

Probably not. I think the country's pretty seething with discontent. Yes, but this is the thing. When we're talking about practical political action, that actually might make a difference. Well, you can just withdraw your consent and say, I'm not going to vote. But from my point of view, the practical reality we face is that even on a. If a council is elected on a turnout of a third, they just carry on and govern and exercise their powers. So withdraw, and they do it on a turnout of 10%, they just plow on. So if you don't vote, you still get governed. So, okay, you're Gonna get governed. So how do you make. If it's a given you're going to be governed, how do you get a decent government? Well, unfortunately, even though each one of us can only make a tiny difference, we've got to actually go and make that difference. That's the case that I make, and we are stuck with it. In a democracy, why is it that politicians do these stupid, terrible things?

[B]

Because they can.

[A]

Because they can. But why would they want to? Because we've already agreed that what every politician wants is to get reelected. Well, I'm afraid again, shackles off. What I have seen for 14 years is what the public as a whole want is higher spending and lower taxes. And that's why we're always in the shit fiscally. Because a public that wants higher spending and lower taxes is always going to drive politicians who want to be reelected into borrowing and currency debasement. And that's why the value of the currency has collapsed since 1971. That's why Nixon had to end the last link to gold. I mean, he also had the Vietnam War. But the combination of war and welfare creates unbearable burdens for the taxpayer. So it just goes on to debt and currency debasement. And that's why everything's so shit.

[B]

But this is why I keep coming back to constraints on power. I've been the last few days, it's interesting. So I'd always spent a lot of time looking at the formation of the United States. I love the Declaration of Independence.

[A]

Oh, it's great.

[B]

Yeah. But today I was looking into the history of it. I didn't know the full background. I knew the taxation without representation, but I didn't realize it was because we were trying to finance the Seven Year War and we were basically just taking all their resources without governing them. I didn't know that background.

[A]

Do you remember how low the tax was they were trying to impose?

[B]

2%.

[A]

Was it?

[B]

Yeah, I know. I make this joke to my American friends. I was like, it was only a 2% T tax. A 2% T tax. What are you playing now?

[A]

Times have changed.

[B]

Yeah, you Californians with your 60% tax. But anyway, it was. I understood elements, and I've read elements of the Federalist Papers. I haven't read them all, but I've read elements. I've read some, but I understand the basis of the Federalist Papers. And we see Hamilton and we see Madison and Abbott. I forget all their names, but we see these people as the heroes because they won. They created the government. And so one of my friends Said to me, said, have you read the anti Federalist papers? And I was like, no. But in my mind, my assumption, the anti Federalist papers were people against the formation of America. And they may have been, but really it was, I think it was more nuanced than that. Now my understanding is, is that what they were trying to do was defend liberty. And so what you had is this battle between the people who were pro a federal government for defense and taxation, and the people were pro liberty, who wanted to defend the rights of the people. And then there was the, I think the kind of compromise with the Bill of Rights. And I looked at this and I was like, well, it's now broken. Why is it broken? And if you look at all the different things, basically the Federalists won. But the anti Federalists are probably having the last laugh because I think they've been proven right. And when I look into what the biggest mistake was is that they didn't have in the constraints on power was constraints on money. If you constitutionally could not create money, just imagine that scenario, well, then you constitutionally cannot create money. Then you are restricted. And I think the most dangerous thing we have done in our country and across Europe, in America, any country, is give the government the ability to create money.

[A]

Elastic money is a folly. Yeah, Highly elastic money. So I'm referring to.

[B]

It's a crime.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I think it is a crime.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So, but even that, you've got to be so. So I spent 25 years working with monetary scholars in privilege and a torment at times because they disagree so often on so many dimensions. One of them is the reserve ratio, that if you've got £100 in your bank balance, there should be a hundred pounds worth of gold backing it. That's the. And anything other than that is a crime would be the 100% reserver's view. But other economic scholars will say that that is stupidity and that fractional reserves are legitimate as long as everybody understands what's going on now.

[B]

But it's not fair. Fractional reserve.

[A]

Well, so this is the point I'm making here is a meta point, right. The point I'm saying is that even if you take classical liberal to libertarian monetary scholars of global reputation, they still disagree with each other about questions as basic as the reserve ratio. So I've kind of come to the view that the main thing that needs to happen with the monetary system is it needs to be in the private sector and regulated only by the ordinary commercial law.

[B]

Are you talking about separation of money and state? Yeah, of course, Yeah, I agree 100%.

[A]

And that's why I advocate for bitcoin and gold. Now if money goes terribly badly wrong. So Detlev Schlichter's book Paper Money Collapse, the Folly of Elastic Money and the Coming Monetary breakdown, written in 2010. I endorsed the first version, I endorsed the second version, hasn't happened yet. But this is what elastic money systems do where the state can create money or cause money to be created through lending into existence. Those monetary systems always ends up in an inflationary collapse. If we had an inflationary collapse in the west, what would they do? Would they say oh look, woe is me, we've cocked up there lads. What we'll do is we'll let you use gold and bitcoin. No, what they do reset they'd issue CBDCs and require us to use them is almost sure what they do. The exception to that which is I'm involved with a company called Glint and they advise various US states who have now legislated that gold and silver are legal tender which the US Constitution allows. Actually it says that states make no thing but gold and silver legal tender.

[B]

So they can't create their own money.

[A]

But the point is that they not. It's an interesting fact that US states can't adopt bitcoin as legal tender constitutionally but they can adopt gold and silver. But states are doing so. So if you live in Florida right now, you can hold gold and silver as legal tender which exempts it from various taxes. So that's very interesting because in the USA as a matter of practical reality, states are now returning to sound money. Why would they do that? Because it's in politicians interest because the public want it. So to me the trick in a democracy is always to persuade the public and to persuade opinion formers of sound ideas around liberty because afterwards politicians follow along behind public opinion. It's a great mistake to think that politicians lead public opinion. Politicians try to get re elected by following public opinion. That's the other. So apart from the disinterest and incompetence of ministers, another problem is that they're not really leaders, they're followers.

[B]

But that following I don't think is distributed evenly in that it's following enough of the right people who will vote for you. And this is why I'm so anti relationship between governments and unions because the unions are a block vote. They coerce, they coerce, they coerce, they coerce for their interests of their but like how many people do they represent? But how much of effect do they have say with the employment rights? I think it's pernicious. I think it's dangerous. And this is my problem is that when you allow government to. Because I think we're going from extreme to extreme, Steve, Naturally, when you give government the ability to, to allocate, create money, create laws, reduce rights, but distribute those based on preference groups, I think what you do is you create the factionalism problem that Madison warned about, that Washington warned about. Because what you're going to do is you're going to preference a specific group and with that, what's going to happen is the out group are going, well, this is not fair on me. I didn't vote for mass uncontrolled immigration as a great example. And then they're going to get a party that's going to go, well, we're going to stop that and they're going to support that party. And when that party comes in and allocates the other one. And so you get these.

[A]

So I'm very, very clear that the level of migration that we have had has been a massive problem. It's got to be brought down. But equally I'm very, very clear that it's not migrants fault. And here's the problem now it's too easy for politicians to blame migrants.

[B]

But I don't want to just. Sorry, I don't want to focus on that point. Just the point I was trying to make.

[A]

Steve, is that discrimination?

[B]

No, no, These, these swings are getting more extreme.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I think the rise of reform and the rise of the Greens represent the extremity. And I think that the woke left movement that happened in the US and now what will happen with Trump again is extreme because each party treats the other party during election like voting for them as an existential crisis.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

And I think it's the rise of Nick Fuentes is part of that. And these extremities, these swings to the extreme I think eventually will lead to violence. That is my big fear is that you get to the point where the pressure valve is there and I think the pressure's there in this country now. And when it blows, I think you can get violent and I don't want that.

[A]

I recommend you have my friend Professor Paul Dolan on. He has written a book called how to Stop Hating the People we Disagree with because he and I noticed during COVID a phenomenon. So as soon as he told people he was working with me against Covid extreme lockdown and restriction measures, people would say what? Steve Baker Brexiteer and they hated me because of Brexit. Hang on a minute. And we did an article against COVID vaccine passports on the Times. And all the comments were about my views on Brexit. And this and also the way people reacted to him over his views on COVID 19 caused him to realize just this, how serious this problem of polarization has become. That it's like racism. People, as soon as they realize there's this thin slice. I disagree with Peter about one thing, and because I disagree with him about that, I now can't see all the other good in him. So Paul's written this book in order to set out a framework for how we can move beyond that and start actually hearing each other again. But in terms of rising factionalism. Yeah, that's why Paul's written the book. It's a real phenomenon and it's really dangerous. And I think all of us of good faith have got to just encourage people to stay democratic and lawful. And I know you do. But we also have to, I think, acknowledge that the risks are very real. Occasionally civilization does collapse into barbarism. When I was a young Royal Air Force officer, we were patrolling the skies over the former Yugoslavia because there'd been a genocide in Europe in what, late 80s, early 90s, obviously Second World War. I mean, before the First World War, people thought war was at an end. And I'm afraid this is what happens. We think that war is an end and barbarism will never come again. And then it does. And civilization, history has shown us that civilization is in fact much more fragile than is generally thought. That that is to recognize a historical reality. And one of the reasons that I'm still in public life and bothering to put a suit on when I could have been at home with my feet up preparing for Christmas is because I too am really worried about where our civilization goes. With all of the rottenness in the economy and the injustice of young people, people in their late twenties who should by now have been able to buy a house and think about having a family if they wanted. The chances, if you're in London of buying a house, even if you're a well paid professional in your 20s, hopeless. The injustice of that and the implications for our civilization, well, where are people going to go? And because again, people are not generally going to sit down and read enormous tracts on monetary theory in order to get to the origins and their difficulties in central banking and the planning system, but they are quite likely to blame somebody. And when you start blaming and you're suffering and you're blaming and you're suffering and then some demagogue rolls into it and is willing to blame some minority out group. Though now it's getting dangerous and it's a real danger. The trick for all of us is to insist on the law, peaceful protest, to be thoughtful, to create a climate within which thought leaders. And you are a thought leader, you're an important thought leader.

[B]

Well look, me and Connor have, I mean we've had a week, maybe even longer, like 10 days, two weeks. We've been having really quite intense debates at home to the point whereby both of us, probably me a little bit more, have got a little bit frustrated. Right, is that fair?

[A]

That's Conor's main disagreement then.

[B]

Well let me give the tee up in that. I don't think it's frustrating with each other. It's a frustrating of trying to navigate to an answer.

[C]

And so a lot of the time I take the opposite side to him just to test him.

[A]

That is a very important Red team challenge is a very important phenomenon.

[B]

Yeah, he pushes me. So like I read a lot of history, a lot of American history more so than British history and as I said, I've been going through and I'm really intrigued by the battle between the Federalists and the anti Federalists which is again, the Federalists we need a federal government and the anti Federalists we need liberty. And where is that balance? And I am directionally libertarian. I always want small government but I'm not an anarcho capitalist. I accept the reality of government but I want us to preserve as much liberty as possible. I think, I think, I don't think we have a particularly. I don't think in this country we have enough passion towards liberty, understanding what it means and why it's important. And so I've been pushing Conor, I said I've seen the arguments. Everything the anti Federalists predicted has happened in the US and is happening here. So if they're right then the constraints on power do not exist. Therefore we need new constraints on power. Therefore I'm of the belief we need a peaceful revolution to say to government, this isn't working anymore. Our living standards have dropped, they're not going to get better. We can't vote a way out of it. It is because of this free access to infringing on our rights and creating money and doing so and allocating based on preference. We're going to swing back and forth. So I've stopped on policy, which is one of the things we get. This is when we clash and Colin's got a great question on this. You might have a better answer for me on when every time he pushes me on policy, I'm like, I'm not on policy. All I want to talk about are constraints on power, because it's the constraints on power that stop government doing things which are damaging to the country. And what do you always say to me?

[C]

I say it all falls apart policy, because everyone has individual bias and that's innate and you can never get rid of it. And by the way, so no concentrate on power will ever stop you making decisions on behalf of your people. Conservatives will still make decisions based on conservative mind and framing.

[A]

Well, it's certainly the case that everybody has inbuilt preferences and you could call them biases or whatever and lenses and experiences. You know, there's nothing I can do to change the fact that I'm from a working class Cornish background. I try to understand Old Etonians, but I can only really observe them. But I personally don't think that it's influenced how I voted in the House of Commons. But it's such an important subject of political theses and entire degrees. But I suppose the thing I would ask people is, are you in favor of one person being able to enforce their will on another? And almost anyone, anyone would say no, unless they're doing something harmful and we're trying to prevent that harm. That's the essence of the question. In what circumstances is it acceptable for one or a small number of people to enforce their will on others? And when you start casting the question in terms of in what circumstances is it acceptable to coerce others? Most people will say it's almost never acceptable. And that's why we have laws against things we call crimes. But as soon as people start dressing it up in the language of justice and equality, suddenly people start, oh, the fetters come off. Now it is okay to coerce people, but the other way in maybe is to say to people, imagine what would be possible in your life if you could keep more of the money that you earn. Imagine what would be possible in your life if your employer, instead of paying national insurance contributions of their own on top of your wages and also had to pay enormous business rates before they've even turned a penny in from a customer. Imagine if they didn't have to pay business rates and didn't have to pay employers national insurance. Imagine how much more they could pay you, the employee. And imagine how much more would be possible in your life.

[B]

Well, Steve, if there was no business rates and no VAT and No national insurance, contributions from the employer. Imagine how many other businesses they would create. I've pulled out of them.

[A]

And then things like employment rights would have a different context. I want everybody to be treated well. I employ two staff, I'd like to employ some more staff. I'm a director of four businesses. I want people to be treated really well. I want to exceed people's expectations for what a great environment it is to work in.

[C]

Steve, I like to map things out. How do limitations of power affect taxes?

[B]

Can I ask one question before that? Do you agree with.

[A]

Drilling on this point about more businesses? There's two basic approaches to politics voice, having a shout and forcing people or exit choice. If there were more businesses, people who were not well employed by their bosses could just get a job somewhere else.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And employment rights would be in a totally different context. If you've got a small number of employers and there's nowhere to go, the NHS would be one of the worst. Because if you're a nurse, where are you going to go? There are some private officers, you go to the private sector, but there's limited. I mean, the relative size of these things.

[B]

Whether you quit and then you go and work for a agency who employs you back in the NHS for more.

[A]

There we are.

[B]

Which is the grift? So Connor's question is relevant.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which you were about to ask. Remind me.

[C]

I just like to map things out, like, let's, like, go through it.

[B]

So before that, do you agree with my premise in that we don't have enough liberty in this country and to restore liberty we need more constraints on power and government? Do you agree or not?

[A]

Yes, of course I agree.

[B]

Great.

[A]

Apart from any other thing, if you just looked at the height of taxation, that answers your question. Look at the extent of regulation, look at the length of the tax code. Just even the most cursory glance at the facts tells you that we are not in a crisis of freedom, we're in a crisis of control by the state.

[C]

Cool. So you get that, you get your power structures. How does that work in practice? Let's take taxes, for example. How does that affect tax?

[A]

To get taxes down, there is no escaping. We will have to cut spending in places which people will feel.

[C]

But how does limitations on power stop them from upping taxes?

[B]

Are you asking what limitation on power could be created that does that?

[A]

So hang on a bit, though, because I think we're approaching this from slightly different places. I'm thinking, given where we are today, how do we get to where we want to be. But I feel like you're asking me a different question. I feel like you're asking me, if we had small government, how would we limit power to make sure it didn't grow large again? And I agree that that's an important and necessary question. But the absolutely pressing problem we have today is that taxes are historic highs. And arguably I asked an economist to write the paper, he duly did and it's been published. David B Smith are with the UK's limits of taxable capacity and the answer is yes, taxes are at excruciating levels. So really, Conor, my answer to you is that the revolution was it's water over the bridge. Power has ended up practically unconstrained because taxes are at historic highs and borrowing.

[B]

Is at historic highs.

[A]

Yeah. And currency debasement, as I said, keep going on about it because the chart was a flat line until about the 50s, about the time of the Second World War, then through the 50s, it starts coming up 1971. If you go from it's a rocket ship, it goes rocket ship. And it's categorically different contexts for all our lives. Either money holds its value or it collapses. And it's not like it was a gentle transition, it was 1971. And that happened because politicians weren't constrained and they tried to meet the public's demand for high spending and low taxes. And this is why frustration is. It's not an abstract problem. We are spending more money on pensions and the NHS and social care than we can possibly afford. And it's a very practical problem. Now somehow a mile style British figure must get elected saying to the public, if we continue down this path, we will have a hyperinflationary collapse and face utter ruin.

[B]

Who's getting the chainsaw, you or me?

[A]

Well, one of us should do it. Somebody's got to do it. Because we do face ruin. But that means the public have got to be brought to be willing to say, Peter, here is a mandate, please go and cut spending so that we have a surplus, not a deficit. And we understand you'll need to cut winter fuel payments to pensioners. We know you'll need to end the triple lock. We know that NHS spending can't go up. Actually it might have to come down. More of us might have to pay for more non life threatening procedures. Imagine or whatever it might be. We got to do something to get the spending down.

[B]

There's no nice answer. It's which one do you want? Do you want long term descent into which I think we're going to Get a combination of Argentina and Lebanon.

[A]

But I. But, yeah.

[B]

Or do we all group together? We agree it's fucked, Everyone takes a cut. We have a painful reset and we reestablish a country.

[C]

Well, so that's what it is, it's a reset because you've just agreed, Steve, that it will then start to grow again.

[A]

So that's.

[C]

So what do we do? Do we reset every 50 years?

[A]

Well.

[B]

Or a constraint on power?

[A]

Let's just be really careful about what the choices are, which we can actually make in a nation of. Of millions of people, a world of billions of people. Society is a. It's literally a complex, dynamic system. What does that mean? It means, like the butterfly flaps its wings and the weather changes. Relatively small changes can have unconstrained effects. Who knows what's going to go viral? We've got to be so careful about what we wish for. So. So I'm. I'm a conservative libertarian, you know, I know I want to be a libertarian, but I'm very, very cautious. We actually don't want a revolution. I don't know what's going to happen in a revolution. We've occasionally had riots in this country. It's not a good thing when people start burning buildings with others in them.

[B]

Agreed.

[A]

Yeah. And, you know, once somebody starts doing that, then I find an old retired colonel's writing to me saying the police should be opening fire with live rounds on young people who are rioting and. Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop, stop, stop.

[B]

Suddenly we're tearing them and sweat.

[A]

Well, yeah, so. Well, yeah, so when we. When somebody calls for a reset, I think, well, hang on, let's just be really careful what we're asking for here. The issue for me is, look, very practically what happened. Labour took treasury advice to cut winter fuel payments from better off pensioners. It's a right and sensible thing to do. When winter fuel payments came in, better off pensioners were telling me, I don't need this money. I spend it on a good bottle of whiskey or I give it to charity, whatever. It obviously needed to be cut, but it was announced during a Tory leadership contest. Yet another one. So the easy thing was done, which was to stand with the pensioners against this unjust cut and the stupidity of it. It was a great moment for the Conservative Party to say, finally, the Labour Party's willing to live modestly in the real world. Of course, we support this cut to spending. The Conservative Party and Reform should support every cut to spending and they should oppose every rise to taxation. And if There was an exception at all to that. It would be in the fundamental functions of the state like defence and criminal justice. But other than that, they should absolutely support every cut to spending. And you know, really taking winter fuel payments from better off pensioners is only the beginning of what needs to be done. And the fact that both reform and the Conservatives failed to rise to that moment makes me agree with you that there is not currently a political party offering a platform to the public which would save the nation.

[B]

Because the interests of winning election means you can kick the can down the road.

[A]

But let's be clear who we're blaming there. We're blaming pensioners who vote there and God bless them, I mean, we're talking.

[B]

About, don't blame them. Everyone will vote with self interest.

[A]

Well, yeah, but this is it. But somehow we've got to persuade pensioners. Well, we can maintain the triple lock and the winter fuel payment for everyone and free bus passes is very dear to some people. But these will be the consequences for your children and grandchildren. You are demanding that I, as your elected representation, hold your grandchildren in servitude, unable to buy a house and form a family and make a future for themselves so that you can turn the thermostat up a degree.

[B]

So on this podcast you are definitely hearing me talk about bitcoin a lot. Well, why? We live in a really strange time with governments driving inflation with their reckless spending and endless money printing. There is a way out of this. There is a way to protect your money, and that is by stacking bitcoin. I've made loads of shows about bitcoin. You can go and research this, you can go and read the books, but the truth is, it is the hardest money ever created. If you are interested in protecting your financial future, it's time for you to get on the bitcoin train. I have. I've been stacking bitcoin personally and through my businesses since 2017. It's protected me, it's secured my family's future and it also strengthens all of my businesses. So if you want to start stacking bitcoin, where do you do it? Well, for me it's with Gemini. They're a fully licensed, full reserve exchange and custodian. So they give you a secure way for you to buy and own your bitcoin. There's no risks and no funny business. So if you're serious about stacking bitcoin the right way, head over to gemini.com which is G E M I N I dot com. But you're asking the public to believe politicians, and this is my problem with it all, is that going back to Connor's point, if, if, and I'm sure the, the, the forefathers of America would be horrified if they saw now, yes, their project went wrong and they'll go, where did we go wrong? Fuck. We didn't know about fiat money. We didn't have constraints on money. Now, Zach Polanski, when he was doing the interview, he said, I used to make that mistake of thinking of the government's budget like a household budget. And I don't anymore because I can print money. Because I can print money. And I'm like, no, you should think of it actually even, even worse. Like I can take out a mortgage and get a car loan or get a loan if I need it, but I have to pay it back. Otherwise I lose my house or lose my car. There are consequences. I think it's even worse for the government. I think it needs to treat it like a household budget, but it should have the consent of the public to borrow money. And what I mean by that is that what is the point of a manifesto? They don't keep to. But if there was accountability and consequences, that you must balance the books if you choose to borrow, put the country into debt, you have to have a mandate, which means it goes to referendum. And I think once you flip those incentives and you say to the government that you have to do it, they have to actually, they can't create money for special interests. They have to actually go, we can't afford that and we're not doing it, or we can't afford this, we're not doing it, and that's a constraint on power. I really care. It's the one I care more about. Anything is that we understand what fiat money is and we constrain government to government's ability to create money for two reasons. Reason one is inflation is unfair. That's just, it is just unfair. It's great for those who got the assets.

[A]

Radically unjust.

[B]

Radically unjust. It's, it's totally unfair. But, but even, but the second point is when you can create money and choose to allocate based on preference, you divide society.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You say they're the good guys, we're the bad guys. Yeah, we're going to give the money to the good guys and they're the bad guys who oppose it. And then we get back into that swings of extremes.

[A]

Well, so that's. I meant to say this earlier, and you're glad you've reminded me. There Is a good argument made in the public choice literature, very well established, that a policy of absolute non discrimination by the state would go a long way to constrain power just to refuse to allow politicians to discriminate in favor of one group and against another.

[B]

But you can have equality under the law.

[A]

Yeah, for such like that. Treat people equally.

[B]

Yeah, but, but even with welfare, that is, that is a preference. So you will still always have some preference. But if your preference is restricted to a budget, I think you just flip the incentives.

[A]

Yeah, but even welfare, let's get really, you know, off. Shackles off.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

There's a brilliant book called Working Class Patients and the Medical Establishment and it talks about how the friendly societies were destroyed by the 1911 National Insurance Act. The whole establishment of the welfare state was supposed to extend the benefits which were then seen amongst the large friendly societies for ordinary working people, extend those benefits to those who couldn't afford them. But instead what they did was destroy it and create a system that couldn't be state.

[B]

Pardon?

[C]

Is that equal?

[A]

No, I mean, well, so equality.

[C]

So in a completely equal society everyone would have to receive welfare or no one would.

[A]

Well, so this is a really important thing. What do we mean by equality? So I believe in everyone should be treated as morally equal. That's formally equal. Even though we know that people are not actually morally equally worthy.

[B]

But formally under the law we treat.

[A]

Them, then they get political equality that turns out to be quite difficult to get through Parliament. Everyone's vote should count the same legal equality that the law treats everyone legally, equally and then equal opportunity. What you don't do is try to insist on equal outcomes. Now one of the crazy things, this insistence on equal outcomes, egalitarianism was one of the hallmark, always has been a hallmark of socialism, trying to get equal outcomes for everybody. But it always leads to tyranny. And one of the crazy things right now for me, I'm old enough to remember during the Cold War that our intelligence and security community was charged with preventing, amongst other things, subversion, an undermining of parliamentary democracy.

[B]

Hold on. They're going to be watching here.

[A]

Yeah, they will. They care what I say. And the point there is that even today it's incredible that the intelligence and security community discriminate against white British boys because they need more diverse people in their organization. Now I don't doubt that their organization should reflect the country, but stopping talented white boys from applying for their internships because of their identity, that is exactly the kind of subversion that they were established at a Time to stand against.

[B]

Which creates the race war, which is a scam. Do you know this Nick Fuentes? He's this. In America he's become very, very popular.

[A]

But the truth is right now I'm too consumed trying to make a living.

[B]

But he's representing young straight white men.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And. And vocalizing. Representing their frustrations. He's totally right. But he also wants. I, I don't think he would say he wants a race war, but he wants to. I. My view is that he wants a new di. Which preferences whites. And I think it's the same problem again.

[A]

We've just got to stop preferencing.

[B]

Yeah, preference.

[A]

I just. So hang on. So, you know, life is hard and sometimes we make choices which we don't foresee the consequences of and even they might have seen quite good choices at the time. They don't work out the way we would have liked. Sometimes we make bad choices and they were bound to backfire, but they were choices we made. And as human beings we deserve the dignity of making our own choices and having them work out for us and learning from them and having a process of becoming. In the end. All this that we're discussing boils down really to this. What is life for? I think life is a process of becoming something greater and more.

[B]

What is it Con. What is the purpose of life?

[C]

Pursuit of happiness.

[B]

Pursuit of happiness.

[A]

Pursuit of happiness, yeah. Why not?

[C]

Or having a purpose.

[A]

But we've ended up thinking we're behaving as if. We're behaving as if we had no dignity and no moral agency. We're submitting to the state constantly telling us what to do. And politicians who think they know what's in our best interests and it's. To say it's undignified sounds somehow pompous.

[B]

No, it is undignified.

[A]

It is a fundamental invasion of our right to be human.

[B]

No, they're humiliating us.

[A]

They are humiliating us.

[B]

They are humiliating us.

[A]

But that humiliation takes many forms. But you know, watching a young person with an amazing job and a huge career ahead of them being glad to buy a two bedroom ground floor flat in a terraced Victorian house for half a million pounds and be glad to buy it. I look at that and I think, well, yeah, I share in your happiness but oh, you poor thing. A mortgage for half a million pounds for the ground floor of a slightly extended Victorian terrace in London.

[B]

My dad as an aircraft engineer, great job, but it was never going to be middle management, London job.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And my mum as a nurse owned a detached Four bedroom house and put two kids through private school and we had a holiday every year. That is impossible on the same job.

[A]

What years did they do that in?

[B]

The 80s, 80s and 90s.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, that is poor monetary debasement had really got ripping through.

[B]

Yeah, I mean you look now. So let's say what, what would an aircraft engineer earn now? Maybe 80 grand. I don't know, I'm guessing. And my mum's nurse, I mean I.

[A]

Doubled my pay by giving up aircraft craft engineering and going into software.

[B]

Well, so let's say 120 grand between the two of them. Okay, so what is your disposable income after tax for those two people? God, five, six grand a month maybe. Okay, so what's a mortgage on a 42,000?

[C]

What disposable income a year off aircraft engineer, 42,000.

[B]

I mean, so he's a little bit more. Well, I know he started it on.

[A]

That he's above median.

[B]

Okay, but school fees have gone up 50%.

[A]

So it's not having the life you described.

[B]

Well, it's one and a half. Say it's one and a half grand a month per kid, so that's three grand a month. And a mortgage on that house will probably be 600 grand now. So that's a mortgage of what, another two grand a month? There's nothing, there's nothing left. Like you're over the limit. It is not possible. And that is monetary debasement. And monetary debasement for me is cowardice. It's spineless.

[A]

Of course it is. Yeah.

[B]

It's preference. It's a power games. And I'm. Oh Steve, I'm so over it. I'm over it because I don't.

[A]

But the. So I'm. I'm over it too. But the crazy. This is a wonderful conversation. I'm so honored to be here. But honestly, the frustration for me is that this is where I was in 2007.

[B]

I know.

[A]

I decided to get into politics when the global financial crisis then hit. I'd been looking at Austrian school economics since the dot com bust happened and interrupted my master's degree because I was expecting to make my fortune in software. And then the bust happened. Discovered Austrian school economics and the explanation of the boom bust cycle. I thought, oh, that can't be right because if it was, politicians and economists would change the monetary system. How naive I was. On we roll another seven, eight years and the global financial crisis hits. I'm already furious about the Lisbon treaty and the EU being rolled forward positively against the Expressed wishes of electors. I still don't understand how not everyone's furious about a structure of power being built positively against withheld consent. I mean, it's so outrageous and yet people still are in favor of the eu. It makes no sense to me, even after all we've been through. But I was full of this fire and fury then and I'm still deeply passionate about it now. But if anything, I suppose I've just been tempered by the reality of watching what happens if you and your viewers don't vote. The government will still get in. And dear old dad, he was, bless his heart, he's right. The government will get in and they'll suit themselves on a smaller electorate. But even like Sir John Curtis, the great pollster, on election night, I was interviewed and he said, talking about the swings, I said, the big swing is to staying at home. And he immediately shot me down. And everybody accepted it. But go and look at the data. In somewhere like Wickham, the big swing was not to the Labour Party, it was to staying at home, the Labour Party. It's not like the voters in Wickham swung from the Conservatives to Labour. My vote collapsed, but the Labour vote only fell. People, just too many people stayed at home. And even the pollsters don't give a shit. They don't give a shit about non voting, they just gloss over it. It's just the same as the socialists. The socialists proceed with their plans even though they cannot obtain the information necessary to make their plans succeed. It's just not possible. That's why socialism always fails. And the pollsters are as bad. If you stay at home, the pollsters are happy to ignore you and talk a lot of bullshit dressed up as science about how the swing sounds.

[B]

Give me something to vote for.

[A]

Well, I'd love to, but you know what the crazy thing is? The crazy thing is in a democracy it might end up. It literally really might end up falling to you and me to give your viewers something to vote for. Because who the hell else is there?

[B]

Well, I mean, this is. Again, I go around in circles. This is why I am so passionate now about the electorate. One, understanding how money works and how it works against them and how unconstrained power means. Yes, you might vote for somebody who allocates resources and rights and things to your preference or to your group, but if they don't win, the opposition going to work against you. And do you want to live in that world? Do you want to live in that world where it becomes so existential to win or do you want? Because I don't think it's about everyone winning. I think it's about everyone having the best chance to win. Yeah, everyone has the best chance.

[A]

That people forget that the normal condition of humanity is starving naked in a field with no food. People talk about abundance as if it was a natural condition of life. Yeah, insofar as we have abundance is because of the miracle of the free market, that people cooperating under conditions of strong property rights, freedom to contract, prices, profit and loss, leads to abundance. Because we create, we cooperate and we create. That's one of the great miracles and insights. And anything that interrupts this process of social cooperation, prices, profit and loss, freedom to contract, strong property rights is a.

[B]

Bad thing, but we have it.

[A]

But unfortunately, this is what has grown up. I mean, Keynes wrote about it, others have written about it. It's ideas that really matter. It's what was crazy, wild, stupid, neo Marxist student politics ideas of the 70s and 80s are now the mainstream ideology of the governing class, taken for granted by the vast majority of people in power, whether they're journalists or civil servants or regulators. They now just. Or indeed the people who've decided on the admissions policy of the MI5 internship program, they now think it's okay, positive. They now think it's positively a good thing to discriminate against white, white young.

[B]

Men and we should.

[A]

Then they're surprised that they get radicalized. I mean, honestly, you couldn't make it up. And we should normal for them.

[B]

And we shouldn't let the media off the hook, by the way, because they're just as complicit in this as well.

[A]

So my, my Fighting for a Free Future project aims to reach journalists. That's why we interview journalists on the podcast. We interview politicians, think tankers and opinion formers, mostly journalists. Because I really want journalists to explain why journalism works. Why so often when they interview ministers, do they ask them frivolous, gossipy questions about who's up and who's down today, when the question that really matters is Minister, why are you spending so far beyond the taxpayer's means? What are the implications for employment of that tax writer?

[B]

I think there's a more important question than that. How can you spend? And what are the implications? And this is the problem. They're dealing. The media are dealing with left right policy and who's, I don't know, shagging who? And who said this? And nobody. Like, why is it me, Pete from Bedford with a podcast who's going, hold on, something's not working here. There's a problem with the limitations and power. Why am I the one looking at history and going, we were told this would happen and it's happened. Why aren't we addressing it? Why aren't they going that deep? Pisses me right off.

[A]

Well, you're absolutely right to be pissed off. Yeah, I agree with you. So it's very. I mean, again, parallels. So when I got pissed off with politics and public life, my decision was to go and just dive straight into it. Your decision was to start a podcast? Well, different contexts. They're both valid. I believe they are both absolutely valid contributions to what needs to be done. I'm now a podcaster as well. By the way. I'd love for you to come on my podcast.

[B]

I would love to. I don't know what to ask. Well, yeah, but now I'm, I'm. I want to spark a revolution.

[A]

Yeah, but the thing is, thank God, the revolution you want to spark is a peaceful and lawful one. But the, the, the, the problem with revolutions, genuine revolutions, you just don't know what's going to happen.

[B]

I know.

[A]

And to me, the, if it, if it is the case, and I think history bears out that it is the case, the ideas are what really matters. Because why is the pen mightier than the sword? It's because ideas are more powerful than armies. It's ideas that shape the course of human lives. And it's not actually, it's not the ideas in the heads of everybody going around their everyday lives, actually, it's the ideas in the heads of people who shape opinion. Journalists, podcasters, social media influencers, and yes, politicians, regulators, people who edit newspapers, people who write newspapers, the people who actually shape the terrain of debate. You know, why have we ended up that any idiot with a car and a carving knife can now carry out a terrorist attack? How has that happened? You know, we should be asking really serious questions about why anyone would want to do it. And I've got to be a bit careful not to stray into. But we've ended up with a crazy situation. Now they can't hijack airplanes, so now we've got to have security apparatus around Christmas markets.

[B]

Oh, I saw that in Birmingham. First for hostile vehicles. Yeah. But, Steve, this also comes back to the money. Why did Nixon really come off the gold stand to finance the Vietnam War? Because he wouldn't be able to sell war bonds. And it's like he came off the gold standard to finance the war and I think the other way. How many wars would we not had if we were constrained?

[A]

Well, absolutely.

[B]

Would we be in this situation where we were bombing brown people in the Middle east because Tony Blair wanted to suck up to the Americans? And would we have destabilized the region? Would they be coming? I don't see jihadists and Islamists from pissed off with what's happening in Gaza or what's happening. I don't see them attacking, blowing up markets in Brazil. I don't see them. They're blowing them up in the countries that contributed to the wars, attack those countries. And those war happened because we printed money.

[A]

Ron Paul used to speak about this all of the time after 9, 11. And we've got to be really, really careful about where we go with the conversation like this. Because I'm just absolutely clear. No overseas adventurism, no military power is absolutely vital. It's there for defence. We do not send it overseas other than insofar as we need to for our own straight up defense of our own territory, we don't go into other countries for the regime changes. We just. We do not. But unfortunately, people fall into this error. But also we have to say to everyone, you absolutely never, under any pretext or any excuse, engage in terrorism of any kind. Innocent people deserve their security and we absolutely will act to protect them from those threats. But then people are going to ask questions, as you do, as Ron Paul did. How did we bring this on ourselves is effectively the question that people are asking. But we have got to untangle so many difficulties.

[B]

Things now constrain power.

[A]

Strain. Power.

[B]

Strain, power.

[A]

But also equal treatment.

[B]

Yes. Yeah. And property rights, like they. But I think they're downstream. Like that's, that's all part of the same conversation. Sunset clauses on special powers.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, we've got to deal with all of this. And somehow, Steve, I don't know. I mean, I see, I say, Conor, I was like, am I mental? Like, why is it me here who's getting so worked up, who's spending all day, every day thinking about this and trying to come up with a solution and think, well, actually we need a peaceful revolution and we can bring government to its knees. Like, am I mental or am I actually on the money?

[A]

Well, neither, I would suggest. We absolutely do need to dramatically change the way that the state functions and to what ends. But how we do that is the big question. I mean, look, let's suppose that this podcast went really viral.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Hello, everybody.

[A]

Tens of millions of people watch this video and sign up to your pledge, which I've signed, by the way, because I definitely do not consent to this government. But suppose they did. And suppose by some mechanism the government peacefully fell when Parliament returns in the new year. Okay, so now we're into a general election because the government, if Parliament's fallen, there's a general election. Who's ready to give us a government we want? At the moment, looking at the polls, we would probably end up with either a Lib Lab Green coalition or a Reform Conservative coalition. But if. Suppose we had either of those coalitions, which one's more likely to give us what we want? Probably a Reform Conservative coalition.

[B]

I have an idea.

[A]

Are they even remotely ready to form a government and deliver in ways that we would approve of the answers? Gobby.

[B]

No, actually I say I have an idea. Conor. Inspired is.

[C]

Yeah. Also no government will give you what you want because what you want directly affects them. So it's not about dissolving parliament and another election. It's about how do we change the.

[B]

They'll water it down.

[A]

Well, so I mean, we've had a parliament for a long old time and prior to the First World War, the dominant political ideology in this country, the center ground of politics, was classical liberalism. It was a different classical liberalism to the American version. But when the big political battle of the day was Gladstone versus Disraeli, they were. Disraeli wasn't a classical liberal, but he was forced to operate on a classical liberal territory. So I think the answer to your question is to make sure we get the government we want, we have to create the conditions whereby the public demand a classical liberal to libertarian government. And they will only do that when the opinion formers are shaping opinion in that direction.

[B]

We've got an idea. Go on, tell us if we're being naive. Single issue party, call it whatever it wants. The Constitution Party. Yeah, that comes out when its mandate is if we are elected, our one job and our one job only is we're going to come in and we're going to constrain the power of government. This is exactly how we're going to do it. Deliver the mandate to the public. You obviously have to find MPs who will run, who will support this. If you win power, you go through the process of undoing whatever statutes you need to do and implementing whatever laws create the constraints on the understanding of the public. Then you will call another election afterwards and that party will stand down. Now, if you started it now, maybe in the best, in the best case scenario you win a few seats, but you go in saying you will want us at the next election because this next government will fail and then by the next election everyone will go, fuck, they were right.

[A]

Yeah. The trouble with the next elections, remember what we were saying earlier, this rotten Labour government has failed after a year, has got another three and a half years of nonsense.

[B]

Potentially not if I've got anything to do with it.

[A]

So this is. I actually genuinely think that it's really implausible that this government will fall. Even if half or two thirds of the population signed up to your I do not consent pledge, what if they stopped consenting? But what does stopping consenting mean? Because you're not asking people to stop paying their taxes because they go to prison for that.

[B]

But what if they stop going to work?

[A]

Well, then they'd go hungry. I mean in the end they. But they're not going to.

[B]

But it happens in other countries. There's a non zero chance you could pull it off.

[A]

Well, or. Okay, there is a non zero chance.

[B]

But that's one option. The other option, but the.

[A]

Where I think I get really impatient with you is because I've been. And I'm not annoyed.

[B]

No, no, no.

[A]

But I've been a government minister in three departments and I've stood for election five times and I spent 14 years dealing with politicians and officials and the public. And what everybody wants above all is to be able to pay their mortgage and feed the kids and perhaps go on holiday. And so when you start saying your plan relies on people staying at home and not going to work, it's like it's going to run into the fundamental problem that people want to pay their mortgage. I mean, that's why civil servants are not in favor of a smaller civil service, because they are in favor like everybody else, paying their mortgage. Which is fair enough.

[B]

Single day strike.

[A]

We could have a single day strike. Yeah.

[B]

With the warning that if we don't have the government come to the table next month, it'll be a two day strike.

[A]

But again, I mean. Yeah, but government come to the table with whom? Because this is again, if you talk about power and where it's located, one of the things we.

[B]

In Soho right now.

[A]

Yeah. One of the things we did test very nearly to destruction in our country during Brexit was whether parliament actually is the origin of power, the expression of the public's power. And that's really, of course, in a democracy, power is with the people, the voting electors. But what we tested nearly to destruction is whether that power crystallizes for decision making purposes in the House of Commons. And the answer is yes. I mean, I personally held more times than I can remember the WhatsApp broadcast list, which decided which way things were going to go. And it was literally me with not that phone, because I've upgraded it, but one of these phones in my hand and people all looking at me and I sent the message and the vote went one way or the other. And then history changed. And that's, I think, why I get a bit impatient, because we've got a mechanism by which the public can change the course of the life of this country. And it's an incredibly effective, at its best, mechanism. It's just we've got a bunch of idiots sitting in it, arguing with each other about bullshit ideas that will never work.

[B]

But how do you get people who aren't idiots, then?

[A]

This is where we come back to. I'm sorry to what I said earlier.

[B]

I know, but I just.

[A]

People have gotta join a political party and I honestly. And please don't scream at me when you're watching this podcast. This is the problem. For years, we've neglected political parties. The membership of political parties has collapsed since the days of the Cold War. And it's not surprising you end up with a more limited field candidates, a more limited field of selectors. Candidates, when they stand up to be asked questions, don't get a Pete McCormack asking them. But what about business rates? Just walk me through what high business rates actually do to me when I'm trying to open a cafe and just explain to me what it actually means for me before I've sold a single coffee, to have to pay however many thousand pounds it is for whichever shop you've got and just force them to answer that. And, I mean, you could ask them about the football regulator. I mean, personally, I'm not very interested in football, but when somebody asked me to oppose the football regulator, I refused because I thought, if it really comes down to the football regulator, I can't be bothered. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe since so many people are engaged in football, I should be talking all the time about the bloody football regulator. Why on earth does football need a state regulator? Perhaps you think it does. I bet you don't.

[B]

No, of course not.

[A]

Thank God for that.

[B]

Football's in the right place, is it? Probably our biggest, most successful export of the last 20 years.

[A]

Honestly, it was Tracy Crouch, who I know and respect, who, Conservative mp, who came up with these ideas. And it's like, oh, what do they do?

[B]

Do they just sit there going, what new things? Can I come up with that?

[A]

No, they want to make a difference. So she. She's not here to answer for herself. And I do like Tracy, and Tracy's one of the few people who like me. I think we're the only two who have both refused to join a government on principle and resigned from the government on principle. So there's only two of us of that much principle. I just disagree with her on this point. Tracey, undoubtedly, absolutely loves sport and loves football and wants to make football better for the fans. And I absolutely do not impugn her motives. But how she ended up coming up with something that leads to us having a state regulator of a sport, I just don't get it. And it's a sign of how hopeless things have become, but there's really no way around it. The government's always going to get in. The government will get in with members of Parliament sitting on the green benches in the House of Commons. So then the problem does reduce to how do you make sure you haven't got fucking idiots sitting there? That's a phrase I've enjoyed saying. I'm going to say it again. How do you make sure you don't get fucking idiots sitting on the benches of the House of Commons unprincipled, blowing with the wind, with no real conception of how the economy works? You've never had to raise an invoice and live by it. How do you do that? You have to go to the selection meeting and weed them out at the selection meeting so that they can't get on just because they happen to know the right person to get through to be on the candidate list and say the right things on the day in front of the tiny number of people who happen to be blown away by what they said. The only thing you can do is go to the meeting, as frustrating as it is, and say it feels like hope.

[B]

It feels like cross your fingers and hope. And I'm beyond that. That's my problem, Steve. I am beyond that. And interestingly, I realized because of something somebody put on an X, is they. I'm not just rebelling against the government. I'm rebelling against every single person who backs the government and says it works. I'm rebelling against all of it.

[A]

So I'm really clear that the state as such doesn't work. I want a smaller state which does less. I would prioritize.

[B]

That's not that. No, what I mean is there are people who think it's good as it is, think it works, and I'm rebelling against them.

[A]

Well, rebelling against people who think I'm all for rebelling. Against and absolutely fervently, democratically and lawfully opposing those who think that more stuff, state power is a good idea. They're called socialists. They're absolutely wrong. They've been proven to be wrong time and time again through history where socialism always ends up collapsing, very often into misery and mass murder. And still they say that wasn't socialism because it wasn't utopia. It wasn't the right time. And they think that socialism equals utopia. So if it's not utopia, it wasn't really socialism. And this is a stupidity which. With which we should not have to put up. But when you say to me it's hopeful, that is, I think, where I do genuinely get frustrated. The reason I come in a suit is to inhabit that. I am a privy councillor who was a parliamentarian and it was a parliamentarian, really, not a politician. I stood up for what I believe to rewrite all the time without fear or favor. And it's done me an immense amount of harm. Hasn't helped me get on. You know, it's difficult now to make a living because I go, that's what's right. We can do that. And that's why I come wearing a suit. I'd much rather be in a T shirt. But I come to inhabit the politician, to just try to get across that. I've been through it. I've been there. Five general elections, 14 years of experience. I know how these structures work. It is not a strategy of hope to be in the room to speak and to vote. That is how power is exercised and removed.

[C]

It's a structure.

[B]

I think it's a structure wrong, but it's a strategy. Hope that people will engage like that. And I don't think they will.

[A]

But even then, Pete, you're so. You're asking people to not go to work, and that's also hoping that they will.

[B]

But. But, but also, even if they do and you get the right people in there, again, without the right constraints on power, we'll still have. I mean, so we are.

[A]

Unfortunately, life in society absolutely does put us at the mercy of the men and women around us. And that is the fundamental problem we all face. Yeah, of course it is. We are at the mercy of those we inhabit this country and this planet with. And one of the things we are both engaged in in our different ways is trying to influence what those good men and women think and what their children grow up to think in the hope that they will stop enforcing on us. The stupid idea that the government should do more and tax more and regulate more in the hope of making our lives better when we can all see it doesn't work. So unfortunately, we are all stuck. If we want a better world that we've got to influence our fellow men.

[B]

And women, we're just trying different ways.

[A]

Can I try a different way? Since it's the 23rd of December, it's Christmas in a couple of days.

[B]

Happy Christmas, by the way.

[A]

Happy Christmas. The big story of the Bible since we're coming to Christmas, the reason for renewal is that big story of the Bible is that power does not work to set society right. I gave this as a theological lecture to a room full of theologians and got away with it. Nobody told me I was wrong. The only critique I got was I mispronounced storge, which is one of the kinds of love. But the point is this. The big story of the Bible over thousands of years. The reason that Christ came is because power will never set society right. The law. God gave the people the law and said, follow the law. They asked for a king, and Samuel told them on behalf of the Lord what the king would be like. He tyrannized them and charged them taxes of even 10%. It's in 1 Samuel 8 if people want to read it. On go all the prophets demanding that the people turn back to the law, with the exception of Habakkuk. Habakkuk can see what terrors are coming down the road and cries out to the Lord on behalf of the people. And God says, leave it with me. I'm in charge. Time passes, Christ comes, Christ fulfills, the Lord sets it aside, and we, we. And we're saved by grace. I've set this out in a substack people can find online, and as I say, theologians listen to me. They didn't tell me I was wrong, but you never hear the bishops say this, and I wish they would. The whole point of the Christian story which begins at Christmas is that power and law cannot set society right. What we've got to do in life, in society, is choose a different way of relating to one another. And Christ told us what that way is. It's love. Now, people at this point be rolling their eyes or screaming at it. But look, we're sitting here frustrated that this way of doing things doesn't work. And there is a big, thick Bible, a book called the Bible, which agrees with us doing things. The Old Testament laws aren't all about how to slaughter a bull. They're about which fibers you can mix together in clothes. You know, they're Detailed product regulations. And all of that got swept aside by Christ, who said, we're gonna live by grace and love one another. And this, to me is why, as we go into Christmas doing this, is why I said yes immediately. It's so frustrating and we've got to conduct politics on a secular basis. But for me as a Christian, looking at. At the problems we face, I just think, yeah, this is just gonna keep on rolling on until we give up on the idea that the law and power will set society right. We need the public to decide they would like to live a better and different way.

[B]

Okay, so if it's love, do I need to stop calling Keir star Marijuanka?

[A]

It would be for the best, but I sat here and called people fucking idiots on the record. So I have things. I have even in this moment, shown that I am a sinful man with things to repent of.

[B]

I am a sinful man. Connor, anything else you want to add to?

[C]

So your solution is to rely on the greater, wider population to be kind?

[A]

This is the gospel of God. Yes. Since it's Christmas, the gospel of God is you have to love one another and the power is never going to work. But I've put that in because it's Christmas. From a secular point of view. From a secular point of view, we have got to keep struggling on, wrestling on and persuading people that they want the state to do less and taxes.

[B]

To be lower and it would work, Which I agree. Inolongerconsent.com that's my website.

[A]

I have signed up.

[B]

Go check it out. Steve, I always love chatting to you.

[A]

I love chatting.

[B]

Appreciate you. I'm saying Happy Christmas. I think this is going to come out Boxing Day. So happy Boxing Day. I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas.

[C]

No, next Tuesday.

[B]

Next Tuesday. It's going to come out next Tuesday.

[A]

Twixmas.

[B]

So I hope everyone had a great Christmas. And Steve, have a great Christmas. And viva la revolution.

[A]

Viva la revolution.

[B]

See you all later. Bye.