B (6:36)

Should the public always treat the state like the enemy anyway?

A (6:41)

Well, I, I think if you read the American Constitution, it's designed to always throw power back to the states and the individual away from federal government. But for the fact Roosevelt undermined the 9th and 10th amendment, probably it would be functioning better than it is because federal government's grown like a, like a weed. But I, I, look, I'm. You and I, I think agree that we like individualism. We don't like collectivism. We like a society which is self reliant, not a society which is basically sucking off the state's teat. We like people who work for a living, who actually contribute to their local community and society, not people who basically sponge on welfare. So I think the government that we've got wants to encourage this welfarism as a way of effectively controlling the British people. And I guess for people like you and I, Covid was a really disappointing lesson in how meek and mild the British people are. But I think they've got to start growing a bit of backbone, Peter, otherwise they're going to lose the country that we all dearly love because it's not working at the moment. It's going to get worse. And I'm afraid what's happening in their name is not going to be good for them or indeed for the people who follow them, their families, their heirs and everybody who depends on them. So I think now's the time we've got to all get real. And having been in Parliament now, well, it's two years in July, so, you know, it's shot by. And I started a new career at 67. I've never worked so hard. And whilst I'm fighting to keep up with everything, I think we have made a big difference, which I'm very proud of. And we've got a few things which we're going to talk about which I think will make an even bigger difference as we go forward.

B (8:38)

Both the Conservatives and Labour are facing an existential crisis. A lot of the Tory voters have moved over to reform. And if the polling is correct in the next election, currently Labour would only win four seats. Is there something darker going on here which is outside of the control of even both those parties that's allowing this to happen? Because otherwise why are these parties committing their own kind of suicide here?

A (9:05)

Well, I think what you're seeing is the British people have realized that actually they've been hoodwinked by thinking they had a choice for change, when actually you've had what we often call the Uni party. So I think the whole essence of Parliament, which is supposed to be 650 high minded individuals who obviously put the nation at the top of the agenda, but then they scrap between themselves to sort of obviously gain some advantage for their constituency. But always mindful of the nation at the top of the agenda. That's how Parliament used to work, but now I think it's been hollowed out by, as I say, these selection processes and whether you vote red or whether you vote blue. I mean, frankly, I can't even take Zach Polanski seriously. I can't take the Greens seriously. I mean, if you want to destroy your country, vote for them. The Lib Dems are almost a circus as well. Although, I mean, some very nice Lib Dem MPs, I get on very well with almost everybody in Parliament, but they're fine people, but they're not going to lead us to the promised land. And people have realized now that the Reds and the blues have let them down consistently. And we've seen, if you like, legislation on a grand scale which has curbed individual freedom and which I think has undermined the operation of parliament as it should have operated. So, yes, I think people now are in a very febrile mood at the moment. We've got obviously the light blues, which I, as you know, played a big part in keeping them going when Nigel left the battlefield to make some money. With Richard Tyson, Ben Habib, we've got. They're obviously, I think we've probably seen peak reform, but they're still a big force to be reckoned with. A lot of the Tories out there are saying it's wrong to split the vote. You know, we need the Tories and reform to get together. But, you know, I just, as always, what you find in politics is that egos get in the way of logic and the right has always been rather more split very often than the left. But I think people want change. I think it's a very rare event in Britain that people feel this way. But I'm increasingly seeing people questioning the way in which certainly since 2000, the parliament has worked. It did work with Maggie because she basically rolled back a lot of the post war socialism which, which I think we still suffer from when we look at the nhs, which was a sort of, you know, a token that was thrown at the people after, after the war, which is now completely unsustainable, particularly as we haven't got an economy. You need an economy to fund all this stuff, by the way. So. So look, I, I think we're in for change, Peter. I don't quite know how it's going to end up. I don't think anybody does if they're being truthful. But when you get chaos, you get change. And I think we're heading for chaos. I think we're heading for currency chaos. I think we're heading for economic chaos. I watch these labor jokers. They've got no idea what drives an economy and they talk as if they know what they're doing. You've got some deeply ideologically flawed people who are talking as if they've actually run a business. They haven't run a business. They've actually just clamored their way up the greasy pole within the civil service or within local government that they think qualifies them to make decisions on behalf of the British people. Well, I don't think that's right. So look, I think we'll see huge change. How the cards are going to fall exactly, I don't know. But in a recent poll, Peter, I haven't even got a party and I Polled quite a substantial poll, 9% in a national poll. I think in the East Midlands, I polled something like 20%. I mean, it's incredible to think. And this is obviously Restore Britain as a movement we're trying to unite, which I think we've done so far, and then we can talk about where we might go in the future on the Public Accounts Committee.

B (13:26)

Just so listeners and viewers understand, what is some of the most alarming things you have seen done with their money?

A (13:33)

Well, the first thing to say is that when I and the Tories put me on the Public Accounts Committee, so I should thank them for that. And, I mean, Kemi put me on. And Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown, who's the chairman, who I think does an extremely good job. You know, it's so much work, even for committee members. You know, we meet twice a week and we have briefings twice a week. So you have huge amounts of information which the National Audit Office produced for us. So the first thing to say is that when I first went on there, and it's dominated by Lib Dems and Labor, and there's me as the Independent, two Tories, that there was, I did create a bit of chaos. And I think some of the Lib Dems and Labor were considering whether or not it was a wise move to put me on there, because I started to ask questions, as I do, with the benefit of the knowledge I've got, in many different areas, and quite direct questions. And you mentioned before the interview, de Mantegna, it was really my question to her, which triggered, I think, some disquiet amongst the committee. Anyway, we sort of got over that when we had a meeting and we decided that actually the committee wasn't there to have a cup of tea every year with the Permanent Secretary and find that nothing had changed. In fact, things had probably got worse. But we were actually there to hold these people to account because the ministers aren't doing it. Therefore, the Public Accounts Committee, which is arguably the most powerful committee in select committee in Government, should be doing so. So questions shouldn't be easy, they should be difficult. And, you know, I offered to use our social media footprint to create some form of fear amongst these Permanent Secretaries when they appeared in front of the Public Accounts Committee, which, to my mind, would be necessary. I talked about ripping various asylum contracts apart, which people objected to my term of phrase. I said, I'm not talking about ripping people apart, I'm talking about ripping contracts apart. But look, now, and last week, I was extremely encouraged when we were talking, we had a Session on asylum. And I mean, the Lib Dems and Labor were joining in. So I thought we are beginning to make a difference. I think now what we've got to do is turn these questions and the waste that we're uncovering, and you've probably seen today, we've uncovered this huge amount of waste on this Bibi Stockholm contract, which, which is huge. And Lloyd Hatton, it's his constituency, he's one of the members of the Public Accounts Committee. So I've actually, I've actually sent him what we've discovered. He may or may not have known that, but this was a contract signed, overseen by Generic and Braverman. So I, I, I find. What do we find? We find waste everywhere.

B (16:31)

How much, Peter?

A (16:32)

I mean, billions. Billion. Billions and billions and billions. And it's a lack of accountability. It is basically, arguably far too many government bodies, quangos, non government governmental organizations. I mean, yesterday, for instance, we looked at the 48, what are called small government bodies and I asked for a list of them and I've done business with some of them. And these are businesses that they call it turnover. I had to point out yesterday it's not turnover if I had a business where the taxpayer gave me a budget. So it's businesses who get a handout from the taxpayer of 30 million or less. And they have up to 50 staff. So it's anything under 30 million of handout, any under 50 staff. And you've got a huge list of these operators. And question one is, what do they all do? We talked about whether or not they were sharing services. Well, often they don't because they're lots of little independent empires. How have they grown? Well, some of them are, in my view, completely wasted. It's just money that's going down the drain. And it breaks my heart to watch all this money disappearing because government's not accountable. And you know, for instance, the DWP has had its accounts qualified for 37 consecutive years. So I said, well, if I was a director of a company that had qualified accounts for 37 consecutive years, I would have suffered some form of penalty. But state bodies don't have the same, if you like, application of company law and laws that pertain to a director of a company, as they do in the private sector. So you again, you've got this schism between the state and the private sector. They're all running up vast accountancy fees and legal fees. They've all got different accounting packages. In fact, yesterday I heard of accounting packages I'd never heard of. I Said, was it Sage or Xero, some other abstruse package? And you say, well, have you looked at the financials of that company? Do you know they're going to be there in five years time? I mean, look, I think the naivety within state, the lack of accountability within state because you run a business. And my one rule is who's responsible, who carries the can if this goes wrong? And the answer is very often in government there is no distinct person who carries the can. So it's just one big mishmash of failure. And you know, whether it's the dwp, whether it's defra, I mean, you can roll through almost any government department and there is vast amounts of waste. Meanwhile, HMRC is crushing productive Britain with all these taxes to pay for this waste. And let's not get onto the Chagos Islands, which hopefully the Americans have now crabbed, and unnecessary waste like that.

B (19:39)

But.

A (19:41)

Why would you effectively damage productive Britain to fund this huge waste everywhere? It's just a ridiculous concept. So the British people have got to realize that when they're, and I don't mind like you, paying taxes if it's necessary. And we do need a lightweight government that protects our borders for a start. They're not doing that. You know, that actually carries out a function of making sure we have the right arms to defend ourselves. We haven't got that. I mean, honestly, Peter, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. It is complete and utter chaos and it needs total reform and it needs to be totally changed.

B (20:26)

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. And 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. Dominic Cummings calls it the Blob, you call it the Borg. This trust calls it the Deep State. Even if, even if Keir Starmer woke up tomorrow and wanted to evict or remove, deport every illegal immigrant, could he actually do it?

A (21:43)

Well, we've actually put forward a document on mass deportation which we think is deliverable. We look at the constitutional issues, how you solve those and then we actually look at the practical solutions to delivering that policy. But there's one thing I wanted to add which is on the state. The question I ask myself, and this is something I think everybody needs to ask themselves because I think we are heading for a massive currency crisis. I can't understand at the moment how with no economy running all the deficits we run, how is our currency holding up? So I just question, I mean, and I use analogies like big companies like Enron. So for instance, it took Enron a long time to actually go bust. It was a sort of the darling of the US stock market until it actually descended into bankruptcy. And I often think to myself, is Britain going bust? Are we actually perpetrating a huge sort of fraud on not only our own, if you like electorate and if you think about it, how long would it take for a country to actually go bust? I mean, we've been to the IMF before. I'm not sure the IMF would help us now. But I think when the sterling wall breaks, then obviously we, with our overvalued currency that currently allows us to import lots of goods, when sterling does actually correct to some sort of level that reflects our productivity, what happens then? Because we don't have really a manufacturing base, we're damaging our food production, we aren't investing in our industries and these recent taxes have small private businesses is going to further denude investment into long term investment into the backbone of Britain, which is our farms and our small businesses. So I just wonder what the real game is. And it just to me doesn't add up. And when I get these feelings very often it takes longer than I think. Bit like the gold market, which I've always thought would eventually have a huge run. And you're seeing that now because again we're getting huge dislocation. We're actually getting Real polity. We're getting what used to happen. We're getting real politics. We're getting basically the sort of the power of the ability to deliver versus speak. So those people who say things, if they can't back them up, people are beginning to ignore what they say. And if you listen to what Trump's saying, he's not. I don't always agree with everything he says, but at least he's got the power to deliver what he's talking about. And we've relied very heavily on America as the sort of global champion of peace. And we haven't invested enough. We've invested more than Europe, but Europe's invested very little in our own defense. So look, I think there's a lot of things that are going on which it's very difficult to take it all in. And most people want to live their lives honestly, simply, and enjoy their families and everything else, but they will. Everybody's going to be affected by this in the end.

B (25:00)

Well, look, anybody I know who's got a small, medium sized business is finding it difficult at the moment. It's very challenging. Anybody I know who's very wealthy can see the problems very clearly. You've run businesses, you run businesses. I have. When I look at the front bench of the Labour Party, but also large part of the Conservative Party, I see some of the most unimpressive people I've ever seen making some of the most important decisions for the country. I would not employ these people. If that front bench was a board of one of my companies, I would.

A (25:31)

As I've said, people cleaning my shoes.

B (25:33)

No, but I think there are parts of the voting public that don't really connect the dots of how unqualified these people are to do the job they're doing. And it's them who are causing all the damage. They don't understand economics, they don't understand how to run a business. And then what are we seeing? We're seeing businesses fail everywhere. We're seeing inflation still high, we're seeing jobs being lost everywhere. And I am, I'm terrified. But what I'm more terrified.

A (26:05)

Why would you employ people at the moment when, I mean, look at the amount of tax. I mean, some of my businesses are paying hugely more tax than they were before these Reeves tax rises.

B (26:15)

But I think there's four.

A (26:16)

A lot of them are taxes on employment. So what happens is people with AI, that's very dangerous because what people will do is it'll just hurry up.

B (26:26)

The.

A (26:26)

Shift towards less staff and more machinery. And that's possible now, I mean, look at the power of AI and it's not perfect yet, but it will be perfected over time. I mean, its ability to crunch data is quite exceptional and I find it fascinating. And indeed its ability to regurgitate history, which, you know, I sort of know my history, but I wouldn't, you know, once it's programmed into a computer, it's got much quicker recall than I have and it's probably got better factual recall than my history has taught me. So look, I think what they're doing is completely the opposite to what anyone would sensibly do. If they want to grow an economy and they want to increase, increase prosperity and they want to basically increase the average standard of living, you've got to, you've got to allow people to run their businesses, you've got to allow them to pass those businesses on like you have with the farms. That's the backbone of Britain and Labor are trying to break it, Peter, and it's just wrong. So, so I, so I, I, I, you know, and when I look at them and they sit in the chamber and they think that what they're doing is going to generate, I mean, when Rachel Reeves talks about she's going to regulate for growth, I have to stand up and say, you don't regulate for growth, you deregulate for growth. And it's a bit like when Richard Tice talked about taxing subsidies. I said, Richard, you don't tax subsidies, just remove them. So look, I mean it's staggering to watch and you can see it, but can other people see it? But then what have we got, Peter? Here we've got a big and big getting bigger dependency culture. We've got people of working age who aren't working. We got people basically pork barreling on the motability scam. We've got all sorts of handouts going on. And I think the dwp, the more we drill into the dwp, it's completely out of control. It's just handing money out like confetti. So that's not creating a culture where people want to work or indeed they see people who work actually better off than them because very often you're better off not working.

B (28:51)

Yeah, well that's a problem. I mean, I look across to Argentina and I don't think Malea is a perfect character, but I think he's playing with the chess pieces he has and he's sequencing things a particular way. But I look across there at the economic data, their borrowing costs are dropping, their poverty rates have fallen, the inflation's dropped. We've tried this socialist project everywhere, it's consistently failed. And at the moment his more libertarian Austrian project is working well.

A (29:22)

He is an Austrian school economist like you and I. And don't Forget Argentina had 100 years of what, what labor are giving us, basically, basically damaging socialism. So it's, it's, it. I, I mean I have absolute, total admiration for, for what he's doing. There was always a doubt that, that he would be able to hold on to it, which I think with the help of the US he's been able to do because it started then it, then it, then it stalled a bit. Now it's going again. And I'm just hopeful that after a hundred years of watching social socialism destroy their country because Argentina, have you been there? I've been there. It's the most fantastically rich, naturally rich country. If you look at the agriculture and you look at Buenos Aires and you look at the whole of the country, it's not any big, it's got vast natural resources and it was held back in the 20s, it was between 1900 and 1920, one of the richest countries on earth. Then it was destroyed by socialism, which we're being. And now arguably what Milei is doing is releasing people. So instead of the average wage being, I think $14,000, people are desperate to work so they can earn more and they can buy more and they can own more and they can aspire more. And I think he is arguably releasing Argentina from the manacles of socialism, which in the end holds everybody back.

B (30:46)

But my Argentinian friend said to me this week, my fear for you is it's going to have to get a lot worse before people will want a Malay type character.

A (30:55)

Well, it went, went on for 100 years. Yeah, I mean, I mean you, and I'll be pushing out the daisies by the time it changes here, if that's the case. Peter.

B (31:02)

But Milei required people who relied on handouts from the state to vote for him. They did because they were so sick of inflation, hyperinflation, inflation.

A (31:11)

Nothing worked. You couldn't build anything. You know, the whole thing was just a shit show.

B (31:17)

But that sounds like the UK right now.

A (31:19)

Well, it's going that way. It is. You can see it, you can feel it. If you, if you, if you understand the dynamics of how you create growth and how you actually create a proper, non interventionist sort of democracy, we're not going the right way and we're all going to pay the price. And I don't Think a lot of people can see it coming, to be honest.

B (31:42)

Well, look, Milei slashed the government workforce and he slashed spending. They went from almost a permanent deficit to a surplus I think within three months. And you, I, yeah, this evening I was cooking, I watched your 10 minute bill. I'd seen it before when you did it, but I watched it again last night with great interest.

A (32:03)

Well, I did refer to him in there, but I, my primary theme was the Weimar Republic.

B (32:09)

Yes, but what is it you, why did you tape the bill? And what is it that people do not understand about money creation?

A (32:15)

Well, I tabled the bill because I have this hatred of the state being able to print money because the state should be. And Thomas Jefferson and all the sound founding fathers of America, they were very, very clear on this. The state should be as accountable to the people as the people are to the state, because ultimately the people, it's the people who empower those elected politicians. And the problem with qe, and we've seen it, or quantitative easing, I should say, so people know, is that it allows the state to grow when the state doesn't deserve to grow. And Jefferson always said you should have totally transparent taxes so that people know how much tax they're paying and what they're getting for the tax that they pay. And we've lost all that now. And what you saw in Weimar Germany, and I thought it was a very interesting comparison because ultimately the end game for unlimited money printing, which is what the Germans did, is not only hyperinflation, what you get is you get a degradation of morals within society. So if you don't have any respect for hard work and for money creation, honest money creation, you end up with morals declining. You end up basically with the, with the organs of the state becoming corrupt, which is what I think is happening here. You know, I think Tony Blair's creation of the Supreme Court has meant that our judiciary is no longer honest. I, I think it's very much partisan and it's very erratic. I think you can still get some good judges arguably in the, in the periphery, but I think in the center it's been, it's been hollowed out. I don't, I don't trust a lot of the judges now. You know, you've got the professions which are growing hugely as laws proliferate. Accountants benefit, lawyers benefit, the professions benefit, and actual, the real economy suffers because the parasites are eating the host animal. So my whole point about the Weimar Republic, and I think you and I had this debate last week is the British people are Very meek, they're very law abiding, they accept authority and they don't complain very much. So the question for me is, are we going to go French Revolution or are we going to go Weimar Republic? And I guess in the House, what I was trying to highlight was the fact that the state should not be printing money in the name of the taxpayer who they're supposed to be serving. They should be effectively managing themselves in such a way that they don't proliferate at the expense of the private sector, but they do what they're supposed to do and they serve the private sector because it's really the private sector that creates wealth, it's not the state. The state spends money. Yesterday we had this, I think I said to you, they called it turnover, one of these little bodies. I said, hang on a second, it's not turnover. I said, if I could guarantee that I was going to be handed 30 million quid at the beginning of each year and my job was suspended, that's not the same as turnover. And again, I think they just delude themselves as far too many people. But without them, Peter, have we got an economy? Are they now our economy? Are we now running all these deficits and running a fraudulent game? I don't know whether the government accounts are correct. Even me, I can't get the answers to whether or not Oscar 2 is being populated with the right information. And as I say, using the Enron example, it took a long time before people realized they were bust. How long does it take before people realize a country's bust? I think we're heading there. Yeah.

B (36:06)

I don't think enough people really understand the downstream impact of the government creating money. We know obviously taxes are politically unpopular, but money creation is kind of opaque. You kick the can down the road.

A (36:19)

They should be disciplined. They should be. Of course they should be. Taxes should be transparent and the spend of that tax should be transparent so people can see where it's going. But even as an mp, I ask these questions. This is where I get a lot of the information from. So I've got not only information coming now from the Public Accounts Committee, but also I've got it coming from my parliamentary questions. But a lot of it comes back. And you may have seen a piece I did the other day on the asylum where I held up a document which had been completely redacted. So we don't have transparency, you know, and this, the significance of this Bibi Stockholm contract. And we found two or three others and they're just the tip of the iceberg.

B (36:53)

Is this where you ask them what else are they lying about?

A (36:56)

Yeah.

B (36:57)

I mean, are they terrified? But you hold contempt for you?

A (37:00)

I think they've in the past not been held to account. I think they turn up, have a cup of tea.

B (37:05)

But do they treat me?

A (37:07)

I mean, I mean, I find their answers, you know, very often I'm more confused after they supposedly answered the question than when I, before I've asked it. So I think what used to happen historically is people, they're always very polite with each other. And again, that's what I guess they got upset about because I questioned Dame Antonia at the committee, is this the 736? And I said, you know, I'm not an IT expert, but when I googled you, I find that most of Westminster and almost the entire, you know, government, you're known as the Queen of Woke up. Are you the Queen of Woke and everybody. I mean, which, which of course, she's embedded DEI within the Justice Department and now she's doing it within the Home Office. And as you know, DEI is a, is a deeply damaging concept, which I think is designed to, to provide jobs for people who wouldn't be able to get a job anywhere else, as well as oppressing the, the people who are accused of being racist if they express their honest views.

B (38:12)

But just back to the, the 10 minute bill. Did you have any expectation it would be taken seriously or were you wanting to make a point?

A (38:21)

Well, 10 minute rule bills are never taken seriously, really, Peter. They're, they're Effectively, you get 10 minutes uninterrupted in the chamber. So I was able to deliver my, my, my, my missive. And actually Christopher Chope, who's a Tory mp, I, I don't even know whether my bill is still alive or not. But usually what happens is a 10 minute rule bill dies at the end of each parliamentary session. But Christopher has got a whole raft of these 10 minute rule bills that he keeps alive. I think it's probably died by now, but, but it is, it is, it is almost an, the ability to express a view on something which goes into Hansard and everybody can hear. It was never going to go into a warning. The state would have, the state, you know, the government would have, would have opposed it and it would have, it would have fallen that way. They didn't actually speak against it, so technically it was still alive. It limped on, but it, it usually dies at the end of each parliamentary session.

B (39:18)

But if you were to be Prime Minister and you did have a party that won the next election, would you revive it and say, no, this is something we're doing.

A (39:25)

If you had a parliamentary majority, you could pass a law that the state has to abide by the same economic rules as the people over whom they govern. Yes.

B (39:33)

So you would do that? If I.

A (39:35)

If I got half a chance, yes, I would.

B (39:36)

Because it, because I remember watching it and it was, it was when you were in Reform, I think Nigel was there. Was Lee Anderson there or was it Tice? And so they're all nodding and smiling and agreeing with you. My question to Nigel would be, well, you sat there nodding and agreeing. If you win the next election, would you propose these rule changes?

A (39:57)

Very good question for him, Peter. You'll no doubt when you get him in here or ask him that. But, I mean, I sat in the chamber next to him when he promised to have a rape gang inquiry. And that's why, in the end, I did a rape gang inquiry, because I was sitting next to him when he promised he'd have one, which he never did. So, as you know, we've now done one, we've got it, it's ongoing. We've done a lot of work over the last year. There's some horrific stuff we've uncovered to the extent that the barrister involved, who's sitting for the next two, for two weeks in the first two weeks of February, and we've got a whole planned schedule of interviews with obviously, witnesses, we've got bound witness statements, we've got politicians, we've got experts, we've got. This is a proper hearing, after which he will produce a full report, which. But, I mean, as we go along, he has said to me in his entire career, he's never read such distressing witness statements. And I find it quite incredible. The government now have said they're going to have a statutory inquiry, but the truth is, at the glacial pace at which that's operating, nothing's going to come out of that before the next election, which I suspect is the purpose of it. Whereas when you see such evil happening to innocent, white, working class British girls, you ask yourself, how is our establishment not done, what it needs to do to protect those people? And how can it send somebody like Lucy Connolly to prison for a social media post when I can tell you this is happening, it is systemically happening throughout Britain. It continues today. And the police, the social services, the NHS local government, the Labour Party, nobody has done anything about it. It is a national stainless, ste, that needs to be exercised. And we, with our, you know, 20,000 people gave £600,000. We're going to hopefully demonstrate the depth of damage this has done to Britain. And if we've got enough money left, which we hope we will have, we will pursue some private prosecutions of people who failed to do what they should have done, which is what the state should be doing. People should be going to prison.

B (42:15)

I was going to, as my next.

A (42:16)

Question, people should be going to prison for this. It's just wrong. And obviously, for whatever reason, whether it was a desire to delude themselves that multicultural Britain was working, whether they didn't want to be called racist, I don't care. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And the state should be basically doing their job in ensuring that vulnerable people within our society are protected, whatever that means, that that's their job. And you can't have one group of people abusing another group of people and not being held to account. You just can't. It's just wrong.

B (43:00)

Is it a cover up to maintain a secure block of votes?

A (43:04)

I think it's linked obviously to probably the Muslim vote, to block voting. I mean, one of the things I think I said on your previous podcast I would get rid of is the postal vote needs to be absolutely eviscerated and it should be one man or woman, one vote. It should be done in a polling station, unless there's very good reason why people can't get there. And, you know, if you're serving overseas or something and you want to vote that, that you should be able to do, but other than that, no, we should not have postal voting. It is open to complete and utter fraud. I saw it in Peterborough when I was actually, we stood, when the Brexit party stood there, I think we lost by six or seven hundred votes from memory. But, you know, again, it's just wrong, Peter, and it goes against everything that we stand for. So I again, I think with the rape gang inquiry, Nigel promised one didn't do it. He promised several things and not done it. And I felt we had to do it. So we did it. And my team have been absolutely fantastic. I'd like, you know, Sammy Woodhouse, we've got a really unbelievable team of dedicated people who've been working nonstop on this for a year now. So the two week hearing is just a culmination of that and hopefully we'll have the report out. We're aiming to get it out in April or as soon after that as we can, but it's going to be, it's going to be quite a substantial and detailed report.

B (44:30)

So, yeah, good Work doing that. I do have one more question, just back on the economic side of things. If the government was forced to not use quantitative easing, how fast would it go bankrupt?

A (44:46)

Well, it wouldn't necessarily go bankrupt. What it would have to do is cut the number of waste, the amount of waste within the state. It would be forced to do that.

B (44:55)

Like we have to do with our businesses or our home.

A (44:57)

I mean, I was shocked when Boris was in power. I heard him say, don't worry if the private sector lays people off, the state will take them on. I mean, that from a supposed libertarian, free thinking, sort of conservative, I thought was quite extraordinary. So no, the state, if it can only spend the tax that it collects, that is a natural protection for the people against the unsustainable growth of the state, which is ultimately what, what leads to the Weimar style collapse. And a Weimar style collapse is very slow. People read about the Weimar Republic in 23, but actually it took from after the war in 1918, Germany continued to debase her currency and she survived and survived and survived until suddenly, and this is what I think is going to happen to us, till suddenly your currency becomes worthless. And if you then haven't got foreign currency. So what was happening was foreigners were buying up Germany for nothing. Across the borders they still had, I mean, you could buy Germany. Germany was being bought by foreigners. And people, what they wanted was, they wanted foreign currency because it was the only thing that was worth anything. And as you know, people were wheeling wheelbarrows around to pay for a loaf of bread. I mean, that's completely unsustainable. And that is, I'm afraid, the end game when statism gets completely out of control. But it happens very slowly. It doesn't happen immediately. What happens is all the organs of the state become undermined, they become dysfunctional, they become unaccountable, if you like. The protestant ethic dies and everybody serves themselves, not the people they're supposed to be serving. And that's what happened in Germany. Yeah, and then you had a massive sort of change, but it's incredibly damaging for all the people who have to suffer it.

B (47:01)

Well, it hollows out the culture as well, because it becomes every man for himself. It becomes about survival.

A (47:07)

Yeah.

B (47:08)

And I think as individualists, we still see a collective good.

A (47:12)

You did see it in Argentina, by the way. Not, not. They didn't quite get to that stage because you. They had several bailouts and you know, having lived in Brazil, which I did in 79, you know, it went from being the cruzeiro to the Cruzado. So they all, they all, you know, all those South American countries basically had little respect for paper money. So again, middle class Argentina got destroyed. Do people want that here? I mean, do we want that to happen here? Do we want, do we want, you know, good, honest middle class people being forced to do things that, that they would today think is unthinkable? No, we don't.

B (47:46)

Well, it's a middle class fight back that's really needed. And I've started to notice that the middle class are starting to feel the pain. They're losing their businesses. Of course their businesses are struggling or they can't now afford the school fees or the holiday. And I think that's, I think people are starting to feel that. But I'm particularly disturbed by the hostility toward business still. I, you know, I've run businesses like you. I think there's a few taxes. So people think of business tax as maybe a business raise or even, even, you know, your corporation tax, whatever. But I think there are, I think the high energy costs are a tax on the business, but I actually think the bureaucracy is a tax on the business. The amount of time I spend on accounting, HR issues, all of it just gets to the point where I'm like, I'm not actually in there running my business. I'm spending a day, two days a week on issues trying to comply with.

A (48:41)

That's what happens when the state gets out of control. Your regulators, the regulators are part of it. The FCA should be just shut down and the whole thing's a complete waste of time. It's destroyed London as a capital raising center. You know, all companies now list on nasdaq. Why would you come here when you've got a bunch of, you know, ignorant regulators who are basically doing everything they can to stop enterprise and stop risk taking. They've prioritized the pensioners and the savings industry and they try to eradicate risk from investment. Well, that's not what you want. You want risk takers who back entrepreneurs who create wealth. And that's what we've lost. So look, it's very hard to know how one rekindles that, but I sort of have hope that the British people innately are, are very enterprising and if we cut them free, somehow they will respond, but it won't, you know, whoever wins, if somebody sensible wins the next election, I don't think they can promise everybody nirvana. I think they can. You can say, well, you can get your country back and you can get your life back and you. But it's Going to be hard work. It's going to be. It's not going to be a sort of promise of, of sunlit uplands. It's going to be a promise of reward for hard work and reward for enterprise and a reward for long term investment. Long term investment, Peter, takes a long term. Doesn't happen overnight. And when you break up skill pools like we've been doing for the last 30 or 40 years, you don't replace them overnight. No, but I think technology is changing so fast that we, I think there are things I can see which could allow us to leapfrog other people and. But we're not going to do it if all our best people leave the country, which is what's happening. So the middle class, to your point on them, they're also in the worst position when it comes to HMRC collecting taxes from them. You know, they get paid their salary through the payroll. It all goes. You, you, the business owner, like me, collect the paye, the ni, the pensions, you know, we collect all that and we gift wrap it and hand it over to the state. So the state is continually burdening businesses with more and more red tape. And now obviously with the NI increase that, as I say, they put a tax on employment and the headwinds that businesses face are almost unbearable.

B (51:16)

Now we're also going to have to be now submitting our tax return four times a year.

A (51:20)

We're going to have to be. It's going to be what? Digital, digital online tax returns. And what they'll soon do is start collect collecting your tax quarterly. That's their plan, of course.

B (51:30)

And all of this is just more in advance.

A (51:32)

In advance, by the way.

B (51:33)

Yes.

A (51:34)

They've already. Instead of giving your tax return at the end of the year, when you know what you've earned and you pay the tax, they've already accelerated that to collect it.

B (51:41)

Here's the estimate.

A (51:42)

Yeah. This is where I tell. This is why you and I, they are the enemy of the state of Britain now. They've become the status is our enemy. Collectivism is our enemy. Fabianism, you know, Pabloism, the Haldane society, all these ideological trots are our enemy. We have to fight it. We have to take back common sense and logic, which we're rapidly losing.

B (52:10)

Can we talk about borders? Because it was quite interesting this week to see Larry Fink come out.

A (52:16)

Oh, Larry. He wants to buy up Britain.

B (52:19)

Of course he does. Yeah. He wants your farm.

A (52:22)

He wants our farm, he wants our businesses, he wants everything.

B (52:25)

Yeah, but he actually came out this week and Interestingly said, those countries which have resisted mass immigration are best positioned to take advantage of the economy over the next decade. And I think mass immigration is likely downstream from some of the things that he's done and benefited from. But that's a loose accusation. But I think it's, apart from Zach Polanski's group of crazies, I think it's universally accepted across Europe by anyone with half a brain that mass immigration has been a huge failure for a number of reasons. It's actually a betrayal of the country. I've got a few things I wanted to ask with this, specifically on this. Firstly, the 736 criminals you uncovered that 736 foreign criminals are missing.

A (53:20)

Yeah. Missing.

B (53:21)

Yeah. Who are these? Like what, what do we know about these people?

A (53:25)

Well, it seems they've gone missing somehow. I mean you, you ask yourself how.

B (53:30)

What type of criminals are these?

A (53:32)

Well, we're buried. I, I mean we don't know. But they've admitted they've gone missing. I mean, how can that happen, Peter? I, I don't know. Is it by design? I, I honestly don't know. I don't know. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that everything that happens seems to penalize those people who live their lives honestly and benefit those people who lives their lives dishonestly. I mean, I, I don't you think that.

B (53:57)

Well, I'm looking at Connor because it's something he has said regularly. Do you wanna, do you wanna ask for yourself, Connor? Say again? Yeah, about the country. Penalizes the honest people and yeah. It feels like you can't win in society without playing the game. If you do stuff honestly and you know, as a good man, you're punished for doing so.

A (54:20)

I think you're right and it's extraordinary, isn't it?

B (54:22)

He's Conor must work 50 to 60 hours a week. He is a hardworking lad and he's doing well. And every direction he feels like the state is working against him.

A (54:32)

Well, and a lot of my supporters, Peter, are Gen Z's.

B (54:35)

Yeah.

A (54:35)

Which is incredible really. I mean, I, I, I, you know, they're fantastic. They're actually more right wing than me, which is incredible when you think of the, when you think of the nonsense they've had to suffer through their education from sort of woke DEI nonsense peddled throughout the education system. It's f, to me it's fascinating to see that they actually, they're now more sound very often than, than, than people who haven't gone through that that situation. But I do, I do. Where I feel sorry for them.

B (55:05)

Yeah.

A (55:05)

And, and, and Connor's right. They haven't got the same opportunity that you and I had when we were young.

B (55:13)

I. I just want to interrupt. What did I say to you in the car of the way? Yeah, but it's a blanket state. Like there will be various different. I said to Connor the way down, I said, you're. You're more right wing than I am.

A (55:22)

Yeah, they're much more right wing than me.

B (55:25)

But they're sick of the country we've handed over to them. And I think about this a lot. And one of the thoughts I have, Rupert, and it goes back, we've got.

A (55:33)

To cut them free, Peter. We've got to give them a chance. We've got to get rid of all this nonsensical statism and we've got to allow them to, because they're the ones. They've got the knowledge of the way in which the world is changing. They're able to drive that change and benefit from it, but they can't if they're being tied down like Gulliver by a state that doesn't respect opportunity. They don't want opportunism, they want servile sort of slaves to the state who they dish out money to. You know, a bit like that wretched man Klaus Schwab says, you know, what did he say? You will own nothing and be happy. That just gets me completely irritated when I hear that. That wef rubbish.

B (56:19)

Well, it goes back to this point on the money creation, because I think about this a lot in that money. If you think of money as a proxy for time, when we continually and persistently create money, what we're actually collectively saying is, Connor, you've got to pay in your future for what I want now. But as a parent, I never do that. So why are we collectively asking our children to have a worse future? Because we're too cowardly to live within our means right now. And it bothers me a lot.

A (56:50)

No, you're absolutely right. And you know, there's so much wrong. Look at the put and take pensions we've got. Private sector businesses are castigated if they don't look after their pension schemes. But what's the state done? It's got a put and take scheme that it knows it won't be able to fund because demographics mean not enough are going to be paying in and too many are going to be taking out. So obviously, from top to bottom, we've got an issue. And I think Victoria and Britain, we were very lucky and very fortunate that they created huge amounts of wealth by working hard, by being technologically advanced, by basically having a completely devoted work ethic based on engineering, based on excellence, which the rest of the world wanted. They created the most incredible wealth which all of us to so far have benefited from. But the sand is rapidly dropping through the glass and I, I mean, that's going to run out. We can't live on our reputation forever, so. So we've got to cut these, these youngsters free.

B (57:52)

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 just do want to cover a little bit more on the borders because people, this is a hot topic and I don't think it's particularly hard to get immigration down. We just have to protect our borders. And I'm pretty sure you would have a great plan for that.

A (59:00)

But we've done our document. It's there, it's on our website.

B (59:03)

Yeah, but the re immigration is a big topic now and we're seeing America attempt it and I think badly, but there will be potentially a mandate for it. How do you think about this?

A (59:20)

We've done a document people can read as to how we think it should be done.

B (59:25)

We won't have similar as ICE agents running around with guns.

A (59:28)

No, I think you can create a hostile environment without actually doing that. And you can create a situation where obviously if people commit crimes, they get deported. I mean, I would immediately deport the ten and a half thousand foreign prisoners in our prisons, get rid of them, send them home. We've got obviously as we've said we've got our aid budget which we hand aid out to all these countries like Pakistan gets a large check and if people don't play ball we just remove those aid payments until they do. So we've got leverage and we've got power. But we seem to have a leadership that wants immigration, that likes immigration, that fosters immigration and some legal, some illegal. I mean it's just bizarre. I mean we are lucky to be an island and we've put forward and people can read the document and they can question it and they can say they don't agree with some of it, that's fine. But as I say, we've identified the reasons why we've got a problem, how we sort out those constitutional issues and then how we deal with the actual practical remigration of people who aren't making a contribution to Britain. And that's what we've got to do. But in order to do it you've got to have people who want to achieve that. And it's a bit like Brexit. We didn't have a state that wanted Brexit so therefore we haven't really had a proper Brexit which again, if ever I get near power I will deliver a proper Lee Kuan Yew style Brexit because that's what will benefit Britain. We do not want to be tied to a sclerotic, dying, post war socialist Europe. It's just a bad place. I like to go there on holiday but I don't want to be part of that block because I haven't got the self confidence to operate as a nation state which is what the people voted for in 2016.

B (61:37)

But is it bizarre or is it really tactical in that high immigration is likely votes for their party, of course, so it's really tactical, of course. So that means we have a limited time window to deal with this.

A (61:54)

I, I, I think we've got to put this right by 29. Peter, from what I can see the rot is going quite deep and I, I think if we haven't collectively found a solution by 29, I think it may be too late, it may be too late now. I mean it's, it's crept up on us and it's bad.

B (62:12)

But well, so we have really a, I mean when in 29 would it be mid, middle of the year?

A (62:16)

Well it depends. I mean again, if the economy collapses and Sterling collapses, it could be earlier but I, I mean, I mean they'll cling on to power, these guys, you know, they know they're not going to win next time. So they're going to be pretty hard to prize out of power.

B (62:29)

So let's say three years. I have lost all confidence in reform. I've been very public about this. I don't think you can, for whatever reason they discuss regarding, they need experience from within government. I don't think you can fix a country with the architects of its failure.

A (62:51)

Totally agree.

B (62:51)

And I have seen, I've yet to see much policy wise which is as hard as I think we need it. I think we need, I think we need things that people might not think they have the stomach for, but I think we need massive economic reform, massive welfare reform and I'm looking at reform right now. And you know, it was a ragtag bunch. It was you, it was Nigel, it was Lee, it was Richard, it was anti establishment. It was something going on there. It's like, okay, these aren't the establishment.

A (63:24)

Well, most of us, Lee accepted not being in Parliament so we were what is needed in Parliament. We need fresh blood, we need people with experience both of their locality of business. We need people who are going to actually change the outlook of the whole of Parliament. So they've got to be fresh and what reform are doing now, I mean as I say, I played a big part in driving reform support. I spoke at that 24 summer conference. I was completely committed to changing the way we're governed until Zia Yousef and Lee Anderson gave two palpably false witness statements which meant that I had to attend a police station in Hammersmith and undergo a voluntary interview which again in the end the CPS dropped because there's nothing there, there was less than nothing there. Question is, why don't the police do something about those two false witness statements? Because I don't think people should be making false witness statements about each other. So for whatever reason they did it, whether whether Nigel saw me as a threat, whether, you know, whether Zia Yousef saw me as a threat, I don't know. It came out of the blue. I, as I say it came out.

B (64:36)

It did come out of the blue.

A (64:37)

Came out of it came out of the sun like a spitfire. I would say so, so, so look, so look, I mean I, I, I, I think every time they hire or a new Tory who's basically got you past history and was involved in government and you look at, look at most of the people, I think we've almost got Boris's cabinet now sitting in reform. All we now need is Boris to complete, complete the sort of the, the flush. But, but so, so why would you and Nadim Zahawi, I mean, that was the most extraordinary defection. Why. Why do you want to bring in people who've been associated with failure in the past? I don't understand it. We don't want.

B (65:22)

I think it's a bad chess. I think it's a bad chess move. But I do want to say I don't think it came out of the blue, but this is kind of a compliment in that you did make a public kind of criticism. And Nigel.

A (65:33)

Not really. Not really. What I did, I said to Nigel in the December, I said, we got, you know, we basically fought in, got ourselves a foothold in parliament, which we had five of us and we were leading in the polls then. So I said to him, we're going to win the election now. What's the plan? And then I couldn't see evidence of a plan. So when Andrew Pierce rang me up and said, would I do an interview with him? Which I said I would. And I wasn't rude about Nigel. I simply said that Nigel is the messiah. But the question is, will Nigel lead us to the promised land? That was my question. I don't think that's rude.

B (66:17)

No, no, it's not. I didn't say it's rude, but it, but it's at the same time when the richest man of the world is saying that you should probably lead the party.

A (66:25)

He didn't never say that. What he said.

B (66:26)

I thought he did.

A (66:27)

What he said was he said Nigel wasn't the right person to be running Reform.

B (66:30)

Yes.

A (66:31)

And then when one of my supporters said, do you think Rupert Lowe is? He said, I don't know Rupert Lowe, but I like what he puts on Twitter. Now that's different to saying that I should be running the party now. Maybe, maybe Nigel thinks, you know, the, the relationships with the US and you probably saw I was on Tucker Carlson, who I liked very much. And the US Is a, I think got a big role to play, Peter. I, I think they are, you know, challenging this non, this post war nonsense. And I very much like what Musk says. I very much like what Rubio says. I very much like what Vance says. I think almost that the colonies, as they were, need to now come and rescue the mother nation because we are going badly off the rails and we could go over the cliff edge. So look, maybe he didn't like the fact that I was starting to create a relationship with Elon Musk. I mean, Javier Miliai was liking some of the stuff we were putting on Twitter as well, because we, we love him, he's a great guy. So, so look, I, I, I don't know. And I actually have to tell you, I, when they did it, I couldn't believe it. I, I thought it was incredible that they did it.

B (67:46)

But you look at the pattern, you can see he, he felt like you're a threat.

A (67:50)

That's what he's done to Kilroy Silk, to Ben Habib, to.

B (67:54)

There's a pattern here.

A (67:54)

There's a whole pattern.

B (67:55)

Yeah. And I mean, I, part of me thinks he, he lives in the image of Trump, has seen how Trump has created loyalty, but he doesn't have the same personality. I don't. Look, let's go to the bigger point.

A (68:06)

He's a good speaker. You ought to give him credit for that. But is he a deep man with huge amounts of real life experience? No, you know, he was a, whatever, he was a, a junior trader or blue button on the LME. And then he spent 25 years in the European Parliament where, you know, he got into trouble for various things. And I think the early days of the European Parliament, it was a bit like the Wild West. People were employing wives, girlfriends, you know, basically abusing a nascent system. And then obviously, you know, he's now spent time in politics. But he left ostensibly because he said he had no money, he wanted to earn money. And that's when we kept reform game was the Brexit party then. But the Brexit party is the legal entity that became Reform. So, so, so I was, you know, I, I, I was, I thought, aligned with him, but clearly I'm not. And I think he's even said that he would crawl on broken glass, you know, wouldn't crawl on broken glass or whatever it is to, to avoid me going anywhere near reform. Well, I can assure him I'm not, have no intention of working with Nigel Farage.

B (69:16)

But this gets to the bigger question. There are defected Conservative voters went to reform who are now, essentially there's people out there who, who are left with a choice, it's reform or nothing. But they look to you. You're seen as somebody that people do want to be Prime Minister. You're seen by many as one of the most equipped. You're, you are the anti establishment person at the moment. You don't take the salary. You, you give zero fucks what people think you will attack important issues based.

A (69:48)

On what is being chairman of a football club, Peter. I mean, if I was, if I was a sort of shrinking violet, I would have shrunk by now. So I'm not too bothered about all that.

B (69:56)

Yeah, I'm experiencing that even with our little non league club. But like people will vote for you but what are you going to do in two and a half years to establish something that means people can go, okay, this is the anti establishment party that I wanted. This is what, something that will fish Britain because I think with reform they're going to change the pace of decay and change who you pointed at. But they're not going to turn this around.

A (70:22)

They will not. As I say, I think I can definitively be aware as I asked that question of Andrew Pearce. I don't think they're going to lead us to the promised land, not from what I can see and not with the people they're bringing in now. So the question, the answer to your question is when they kicked me out and tried to politically assassinate me once, all of the nonsense had disappeared. And by the way, they said I had early onset dementia which I hope I haven't got. If I did have it, the last thing they should have been saying is that I had it. But that didn't stop them. And we have that on definitive evidence from a very trustworthy journalist. So I set up Restore Britain because I was acutely aware that I wanted to unite common sense thought and I think we've done that to some extent and I think we should look at the options. And I agree with you. I think what's happened with Genrick leaving, with Braverman leaving, with what's been happening to the Tory party, I think had I set up a party earlier, I wouldn't be on the Public Accounts Committee because the Tories wouldn't have put me on, they'd have seen me as a threat. I wouldn't have built the relationships I built in Parliament, which I've, which I've done now because I, and I get on very well even with a lot of the Muslim independents, you know, who sit at the back of Parliament. Rosie Duffield, I get on with Jeremy Corbyn. I don't agree with his politics but he and I talk to each other and I see him in Parliament. So I've, I'm, I think I've, I've now been, I'm seen as somebody who, they may not agree with me politically but they know I'm, I'm not a bad guy, you know, I'm not a sort of, I haven't got any agenda other than an agenda to try and improve Britain and return it to what it used to be. When I was brought up which is the best place in the world to live. So I think now for the next three weeks, I'm going to concentrate on the rape gang inquiry. I've made a decision that that is of national importance. I don't want to make any announcements before that has run its course and that is, I'm going to be attending it as much as I can. We've got a very good barrister, Grant Smith, who's hearing it. He'll be writing the report. Obviously, all of our team will be there and as I say, various people will participate from across the spectrum of. Anyone who's necessary to contribute will contribute and then Graham will write the report. So I don't want to detract from that right now because I actually think that is incredibly important to the British people and I don't want to let down 20,000 people who arguably gave more than they could afford as part of the £600,000 that we've raised. If necessary, we might come back some more if we need more to prosecute private prosecutions. And many of them have said they would love to give more to do that because I think they're as vexed about the failures that are absolutely apparent to us now. So I want that to take place. But I am, I've turned my mind now because I agree with you. I think we, we look at, at the Tories and I, and I get on very well with the Tories and I, and I have no issue with them. I think a lot of them are very, very good people.

B (73:48)

They're getting better.

A (73:48)

And I look at, I look at world.

B (73:50)

They get rid of the bad boys.

A (73:51)

Taking quite a lot of them. And I look at labor. Well, labor is just a complete lost cause. I mean, I mean, you, you. I can't just can't take them seriously. But again, there's some nice labor mps. I, I don't, I don't. I try and divide sort of my view of them politically to my view of them as people because everybody has good in them. And I, and I, you know, I think particularly the British people, they're good people, but a lot of them are just misguided on that side. I mean, I. Greens, Lib Dems, you know, nice people. But I'm sorry that, that they are definitely anyone who votes for them is. It's a wasted vote. So what we've got to do is. And you know, I talked to people often say, am I going to join advance uk? Well, I, the truth about that is Ben and I did speak to each other. I never agreed to lead advance uk. We had a big meeting with all of our staff present after I was cleared by the CPS and I was out of reform, because Ben is a good man and I think, you know, a lot of what he says is very sensible. I think he's a patriot, I think he does want the best for Britain. But I didn't want a party. As I said to him, a party at that stage was divisive. I wanted a movement which we've got and we've got our own fantastically loyal people who support us and I think they would like to see us now find a solution to delivering this change that you and I think is now necessary. It's going to be hugely hard work. It's going to be very complex and I don't think any of us can actually say how the course is going to plot itself. But. But Ben wanted a party, I wanted a movement. Initially, he said he'd support my movement and then we could turn into a party when, when we were ready to do that. But he decided to set up Advance UK and I, I've never ever publicly been anything other than polite and complimentary about Ben because he, he is, he is a. He's a good man. So. But that was the philosophical difference between us. He didn't want to wait, so he set up Advance, I've set up Restore. And I guess the question is, is there a way in which those two bodies can work together? And if there isn't, what do we do? And that's the question that is still got to be resolved and I will resolve that once the rape gang inquiry is done. But I can assure people, I know what they. I know they want change, I know we've got to do it by 29, and my intention is to try and give people the best opportunity to vote for something fresh, something that is outside the establishment, which is what reform used to be. As we said when we were first elected, we were against all the odds and that was a huge achievement by all of us to actually break into this closed shop. We broke in and we broke in against all the odds. And when I fought my campaign in Great Yarmouth, you know, I had no idea what great people they are and I've really got, I got to like them hugely. They've been badly let down by the post war elite and I'm, you know, I'm intent on trying to deliver a solution for everybody, but it's going to require their support. I can't do it. I can set up the opportunity, but then it's up to the British people and if they don't, then I respect that. But I've got to try and deliver a mechanism through which if they agree with me that we need radical change, it's got to come from outside the existing political establishment, then they've got to show that and they've got to support us and they've got to trust us because, you know, I will do my best to change this mess that is this homunculus like state which is sucking the blood out of Britain.

B (77:46)

Do you want to be Prime Minister?

A (77:48)

I never set out to be and I would have willingly supported Nigel Farage in being Prime Minister, but I mean, having seen the way they treated me and the way in the past he's treated other people, I'm not sure he's the right material to be Prime Minister. That's my opinion.

B (78:07)

But are you?

A (78:09)

I don't know. We'll have to see. I mean, I don't think anybody knows whether they are until they actually end up getting there was Boris. He showed a lot of promise and then failed to deliver. But I think you've got to remember that's why we need fresh people with a view that they aren't going to put up with the, the strictures and, and, and the Heffalam traps which the current state has become very adept at, at putting in your way. So look, I mean, I, I think people have got to know me. I, I run multiple family businesses. I, you know, I try and do my very best for the people who work for us and I will continue to do that. And if I ever were to win an election, it's far from probable at the moment. I'm, you know, who thought that an old rookie like me could go into Parliament and even be thinking of setting up a party to challenge the status quo.

B (79:12)

But it's doable.

A (79:14)

I think it probably, it's possible, but it's a hell of a big job. It's going to require a hell of a lot of hard work and it's going to require people to get behind us if they want change.

B (79:26)

Well, I ask for a reason because I've publicly said I haven't voted in the last three elections and I always say I will not vote for decay. I will only vote for something I think actually improves the country. I think we have very similar economic views. I think we have very similar views on civil liberties. And I am looking for a vehicle that I can get behind with my time and energy and I'm waiting For that.

A (79:53)

Come and join us.

B (79:53)

Peter oh, potentially, potentially. I mean I would happily write papers and support what you do. I'd happily be noisy. I'd happily dedicate the next three years, I mean, I think even said to Connor, I'd go to war for Rupert if Rupert went for it. But there needs to be a vehicle that is anti establishment because the establishment has failed. And if you created an anti establishment vehicle that was truly anti establishment, which did bring in the reforms that were required. I kind of feel bad at keep having to use the word reform, but the reforms that are required, then you would have my time and energy. But that's what I want.

A (80:24)

Peter when you look at the contracts that we've uncovered, we're just starting to get our minds around them. And you look at what happened with COVID you look at all of the misdirected contracts and all of the printed money that went, went missing and you look at the, you know, I mean, you've got to ask yourself, I know the state's gone wrong, but the question I ask myself is, is, is the British state in the hands of organized crime? I, I, I, I just don't know. Because what I do know is that mis procured contracts, centrally driven contracts, are actually an invitation for fraud. And you've seen it in Italy where you've got, you know, immense wealth in Milan and northern Italy, which is probably the richest part of Europe. If you take the Po Valley and you take that part of Europe and then you have vast transfers of wealth down to southern Italy, what happens? Sticky fingers of course, what happens with HS2 contracts? Sticky fingers. What happens with any other form of unmonitored or unvetted procurement contracts? Sticky fingers. So you have to ask yourself how honest now is Britain? And I don't think it's anywhere near as honest as it used to be, in fact, and this is what happened to Weimar Germany. It all became corrupt, dishonest, it was a sort of a rot from within. And then the end story is currency collapse.

B (81:52)

But this is what Milton Friedman said. He said that one of the easiest ways to get rich is special privileges from the government. And this is, this is why I ended up, I was always questioning libertarians. It's why I've ended up being kind of libertarian minded. And the only reason I want to get into politics is because I have so much contempt for the state and I want everyone to have contempt for the state and have it do its minimum purpose. And so if you create this vehicle, I mean I, and it, you know, we have agreement on civil liberties, freedom and economics, and I would back it because I don't have that. I mean, I was looking at reform. I was even thinking run of mp, and it's just. I do not want to be part of those architects of failure. Rupert, if you do it, you have my back in.

A (82:35)

Well, Peter, we're, we're, we're, you know, we've come a long way and as I say, I'm certainly going to give it till 29 and we'll see where we go.

B (82:44)

Well, listen, I hope we're back here in 2029 and you've done it. I'll be friends with the Prime Minister, which would be interesting, but, you know, look, I hope you do it and. Yeah, I think we'll talk some more. Good luck.

A (82:55)

I think let's take it a step at a time, as they say.

B (82:58)

Yeah, good luck. Thanks, everyone, for listening. We'll see you soon.