wavePod

Get Wave AI

PMQs #004 - I'm Withdrawing My Consent from the British State - The Peter McCormack Show | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to The Peter McCormack Show

PMQs #004 - I'm Withdrawing My Consent from the British State

The Peter McCormack Show

Mon Dec 15 2025

Summary

The Peter McCormack Show – PMQs #004

"I'm Withdrawing My Consent from the British State"

Host: Peter McCormack
Guest: Connor (Bedford Crew)
Date: December 15, 2025

Overview

In this episode, Peter McCormack has a candid and passionate discussion about his growing disillusionment with the British political system, the failings of democracy, and the broader generational despair afflicting British youth. After a pivotal week of reflection—sparked by watching the Piers Morgan interview with Nick Fuentes—Peter announces a fundamental shift in his own approach: he is "withdrawing consent" from the British state by refusing to participate in or legitimize a system he believes is irreparably broken. The episode delves into themes of institutional decay, generational betrayal, youth disenfranchisement, political media spectacles, and the urgent need for systemic change and limitations on government power.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Inflection Point: Peter's Change of Heart

Peter's week of intense reading and writing led to a breaking point regarding faith in political institutions. The catalyst was watching Piers Morgan's combative interview with Nick Fuentes.
Peter expresses disillusionment with "left vs. right" politics, culture wars, and government decay, recognizing that underlying incentives in government doom it to failure (00:20–05:40).
Quote (Peter, 02:24): "I'm done pretending that what we have here, this democracy... works anymore. I'm done. I'm over it."

2. The Futility of Voting and Structural Disenfranchisement

Peter and Connor agree that voting for different parties changes little; all parties ultimately maintain the decaying status quo (02:49–06:54).
Peter argues that not voting is itself a form of protest and "a vote of no confidence" (06:54–07:18).
Quote (Peter, 06:58): "I think not voting is a vote. Spoiling your paper is a vote. You're making a point."

3. The Piers Morgan vs. Nick Fuentes Interview: A Generational Lens

Peter’s perception shifts after seeing the reactions of younger viewers online. Initially, he supported Piers Morgan's performance, but backlash reveals a generational disconnect (08:57–11:46).
Connor explains that online discourse is driven by "games of memes and clips," not direct debate victories (11:02–11:46).
Quote (Peter, 11:46): "Our generation had Eminem... It was the same shock factor."

Examining Cultural Outrage and Youth Alienation

Peter analogizes the Fuentes broadcast to generational reactions to Eminem, noting shock value is a form of rebellion.
After a second viewing, he gains empathy for youth anger—many feel betrayed by a rigged system (12:05–14:58).
Quote (Peter, 13:35): "Why do so many people tune in to [Fuentes'] livestream every night and love what he's saying? ...Who are these people who are nodding along and agreeing? That's the bigger issue."

4. Critique of Media and Generational Outrage

Peter reflects that mainstream figures (like Piers Morgan) remain trapped in 'regime' thinking, expressing prescribed moral outrage rather than addressing real generational grievances (19:20–21:26).
He notes the necessity of moving past moral outrage towards actionable change, highlighting how expressing outrage accomplishes nothing for disenfranchised youth (21:26–25:18).
Quote (Peter, 21:26): "Your moral outrage is not getting rid of Nick Fuentes... So what are you going to do about it?"

5. The Lost Opportunity and Intergenerational Betrayal

Peter and Connor discuss how their generation enjoyed far more opportunity and hope—and how these have been taken from today's youth through policy choices, debt, and economic stagnation (25:18–27:00).
Quote (Peter, 26:00): "We’ve sold the opportunity and the hope of the younger generation to not have recessions. It’s as simple as that."

6. Institutional Collapse and Legitimacy Crisis

Increasing loss of trust in all institutions (politics, media, finance, and more).
Both left (Greens) and right (Reform) surges are seen as symptoms of a systemic collapse, not ideological shifts; trust in the machinery of democracy is broken (30:36–36:36).
Quote (Peter, 30:40): "The rise of Reform and the rise of the Greens are the same movement... It's a collapse in trust in the state."

7. Parallels on Despair: Grace Blakeley's "Generation Despair" Article

Peter draws direct connections between his own views and Grace Blakeley’s recent writing, showing broad agreement across ideological divides on diagnosis of youth despair (35:25–39:44).
Quote (Grace Blakely, read by Peter): “For decades, capitalism in Britain has survived on the basis of an implicit intergenerational bargain… That bargain has collapsed and young people know it.” (36:04)
Connor and Peter note the only divergence is in proposed solutions—socialist policies vs. systemic overhaul.

8. Systemic Focus: Beyond Policy to Limitations on Power

Both hosts argue that no party—be it Greens, Reform, or Labour—can fix the root issues; the system itself incentivizes short-termism, power retention, and generational theft (42:36–44:00).
Peter advocates for fundamental change: constitutional limits on power, not just swapping rulers (44:00–50:00).
Quote (Peter, 44:01): “If you were deliberately designing a system to hollow out the next generation, it would look exactly like this.”

9. The Solution: Cultural (and Constitutional) Revolution

Peter sees only a new cultural revolution—uniting left and right to constrain government power—as viable (44:00–51:00).
He challenges listeners to identify any improvement from government in the last 30 years, inviting debate (50:00–51:48).
Quote (Peter, 50:00): “If you can't give me a good answer, you are just selfish... If you want that better world for our kids, you have to do this—you have to be like me and go, okay, we got to change this.”

10. Media Approaches: Patrick Bet-David vs. Piers Morgan

Peter points to Patrick Bet-David’s more empathetic, 'adult in the room' interview style with Nick Fuentes as the model for meaningful conversation with figures outside the mainstream (52:11–56:37).
Quote (Patrick Bet-David, 52:18): “For a person who knows how to communicate as well as you do, when you use those words, you get an average person to question your intelligence. And you don’t need to do that.”
Peter praises Bet-David for “respecting the guest” and trying to effect responsibility in a younger generation.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Political Disillusionment & Not Voting

Peter (06:58): "I think not voting is a vote. Spoiling your paper is a vote. You're making a point."

On Generational Betrayal

Peter (26:00): "We've sold the opportunity and the hope of the younger generation."

On Cultural Outrage

Peter (21:26): "Your moral outrage is not getting rid of Nick Fuentes... So what are you going to do about it?"

On Comparative Movements (Left & Right)

Peter (30:40): "The rise of Reform and the rise of the Greens are the same movement... It's a collapse in trust in the state."

On Systemic Change vs Party Politics

Peter (44:01): "If you were deliberately designing a system to hollow out the next generation, it would look exactly like this."

On Solutions

Peter (50:00): “If you can't give me a good answer, you are just selfish... If you want that better world for our kids, you have to do this—you have to be like me and go, okay, we got to change this.”

Key Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |--------------------------------------------------|------------| | Peter’s Inflection/Self-Reflection | 00:20–05:40| | Voting Disillusionment; Political Incentives | 02:49–07:18| | Piers Morgan vs. Nick Fuentes Segment | 08:57–14:58| | Peter’s Reading of Audience Backlash | 09:36–11:46| | Generational Anger / Opportunity Lost | 25:18–27:00| | Institutional Collapse – Left/Right Movements | 30:36–36:36| | Grace Blakeley Article Comparison | 35:25–39:44| | Institutional Limits / Call for Revolution | 44:00–51:00| | Patrick Bet-David vs. Piers Morgan Interview | 52:11–56:37|

Tone & Style

The episode is blunt, introspective, and impassioned.
Peter’s personal frustration and moral urgency are at the fore, alternating between exasperation, self-examination, and sharp criticism.
Language moves from conversational banter with Connor to intense, almost manifesto-like declarations.

Conclusion

Peter McCormack uses this episode as a public reckoning, declaring a withdrawal of consent from what he sees as a broken, unfixable system. He urges his listeners—across the political spectrum—to do the same, focusing not on party politics, but on instituting structural limitations to fix the root causes of generational decline. He calls for unity, honesty, and an unprecedented cultural revolution to restore hope for the youth and repair the nation’s future.

Closing line (Peter, 56:37): "This is my commitment now. I am laser focused—this is all you’re going to hear me talk about now: limitations on power.”

Loading summary...

Transcript

Connor (0:00)

Foreign.

Peter McCormack (0:07)

Welcome to another episode of the podcast. I'm Peter McCormack. Got your boy, your Bedford grouper Connor here. How you doing, man?

Connor (0:15)

Who's the grouper now? Actually? Who's the group for now you're the grouper.

Peter McCormack (0:20)

It has been an. It's been an interesting week. I don't think I've ever had a week where I've read so much, written so much. I wrote four articles. I call this, I call this week an inflection point where I think I've, I think I've given my last. I'm. I'm done pretending that what we have here, this, this democracy that we have in this country works anymore. I'm done. I'm over it. I want to talk about that today. I want to talk about a couple of things. The inflection point came. I watched an interview between Piers Morgan and Nick Fuentes and I didn't know much about Nick Fuentes at the time. I'd seen a couple of clips about him. Just seemed like some crazy ultra right wing American guy. And I watched this interview with Piers Morgan and I had to reflect, had a moment of reflection, thought about it a lot. Ended up writing loads and going through that process. I kind of came to the point where I'm done. I'm done. I am done with the state of our democracy and the state of our government. I'm done with the decay. I'm done with the left right arguments. I'm done with the infighting. I'm done with the culture wars. I think every problem we have right now in this country is downstream of the limitations of our government. And so I'm going to shift my focus. I'm going to shift my focus. I'm going to stop thinking about the next election, whenever that is, if it's in 2029 or 2030, and think just that by voting in another party, magically everything's going to get better in this country. We're going to end the decay. I am at that point now where I believe every cup, every government is set to fail. And it's set to fail because of the lack of limitations that we have with our government. And it's not because politicians are evil. I don't believe they're evil. I just believe the incentives are set up for particularly weak, unintelligent people to exploit us, to continue the decay that we've had in this country. And so, yeah, here we are. I mean, Connor, look, Connor's my battering ram. We talk about this every, every day in the car. Every evening. Like, what's it like for you?

Connor (2:49)

Like, fed up. I'm fed up.

Peter McCormack (2:53)

Okay. Why are you fed up?

Connor (2:58)

It's the. It's like the future. Hope. There isn't really much, is there? From what you can see. And it's like you say, so what if a turquoise color gets into Parliament? Does much change? Or are they just going to be another version of the same thing, the.

Peter McCormack (3:17)

Same decay over and over again? Interestingly. So I came to this realization and look, I know this is obvious. Everyone's going to say, yeah, this is obvious. But politicians care about one thing. When Zach Polanski goes out to Calais and he gives water to migrants wanting to get into boats. Please, please don't just say like he cares more than you. He's a good guy, he's empathetic. We all must recognize this is marketing, right? He's going out there letting the journalists know and he wants to create a bunch of content that appeals to people who are more empathetic. The nice people, the be kind people. And it isn't just Zach Polanski. It's every single politician, their job. They've got one job, one job only, which is to maintain power. And I did this. I put it in grok earlier, put it in con. We'll show people. I wrote a prompt, an obvious prompt. What is the one consistent and overriding goal of a politician? Just give me one. Not ideological. What they should do, what they all care about. I did that on my grok. We'll do it in your. See if it comes back similar. All right, here we go. This is the one consistent, overriding personal goal that drives nearly all politicians in democratic systems, regardless of ideology. Political science describes elected officials as single minded seekers of re election because staying in office is the prerequisite for achieving any other aim, whether policy changes, power, influence or personal benefits. Without re election, everything else ends. Ideological goals are often subordinated to whatever keeps voters support. Which explains why politicians across the spectrum prioritize popularity, fundraising and credit claiming over pure principle. Okay, I mean, sounds about right. Sounds about right. Yeah, yeah. My goal is to get reelected and so I will do whatever it takes to get reelected. And the problem is if you do not have limitations in government, they're going to bend every part of government towards that goal. Unlimited fiscal power, Unlimited regulatory creep. No expiry. They don't own any of it. They absolutely will do everything to retain power. And that means we've got a system of incentives whereby the 650 people in government and all the lackeys around them. Their goal is for them. It's a selfish goal. It's not one where they're putting the country first. And I know, look, there's going to be people watching, going, what? You only just figured this out? Pete, Look, I've always kind of known it, but I'm just not playing it anymore. I mean I've talked about on this show a few times now. I haven't actually voted in the last three elections because there hasn't been a single party where I've thought, oh yeah, I think you're going to make the country better. I wouldn't vote for a left wing party because I don't believe in left wing economics. It's only that it's left wing economics I think are destructive. But I didn't vote for the conservatives because I didn't ever believe they had a plan. And I'm not going to spend the next three years getting suckered into believing another party will solve this. I don't believe it anymore and I refuse to be part of this.

Peter McCormack (21:26)

I think you're right. Yeah, yeah, I think you're right. But the point was, is that you've also got to go through this realization that there is a lot of pissed off, angry young people who really don't care what my generation or the older generation think. And in some ways it's such a waste of time with the moral outrage. Nick Fuentes has had the moral outrage. He didn't care. He's not given a shit. So once we're done with the moral outrage, the question, like, I was talking to somebody about this over the weekend who expressed their moral outrage to me and I said, okay, cool, I hear your moral outrage. Now what? Now what? What are you going to do about it? Your moral outrage is not getting rid of Nick Fuentes and your moral outrage is not going to get all these young people who are frustrated and pissed off and some are nihilistic and whatever. They're not going to suddenly go, oh, I hear moral outrage. You were right. I'm going to go, I'm going to put. Pull up my boots. I'm going to go to work and I'm going to buy a house in 50 years when I can afford one. It's not going to change it. So what are you going to do about it? And I think for me, this is kind of like, this is why I went through that moment. I was like, okay, I need to write. I need to get these thoughts down Have a think about it and then when you start to tap into it, kind of taps into the things I've been saying a lot recently. And there's one line I wrote, I won't quote it correctly but it was something along the lines of we had opportunity. And so what that means is like when I was growing up, I was lucky. I grew up in the 80s and 90s. Pre mobile phone, really. I think mobile phones came in when I was like 17, 18, some people started to get them. Pre social media, pre everywhere you went and everything you did, somebody filming you. Pre the pressures of social media, the young people have like pre all that. We used to go skateboard on a Friday night, we used to go to a Squires, listen to punk music and go home and we'd have a drink and it was fun, it was cool, life was cool. And there was all this opportunity. It was go to uni and you'll get a job. And look, I dropped out of uni but I dropped out of university because the Internet came and I was programming websites and I got paid well to go and do it. There was so much opportunity. And what we've done is we've sold the opportunity and the hope of the younger generation to not have recessions. It's as simple as that. We've sold out their future. If you consider money as a proxy for time, I'm repeating something I've said before on the show, but money is a proxy for time. The reason you have a pension, the reason you have savings is so hopefully by the time you're 60, 65, you can quit work and live off that money, you know, go on your cruise or go on your Caribbean holidays and spend time with the grandkids, it's a proxy for time. But the more we borrow from the future, the more the government borrows from the future, the more we drive inflation and the more we push that away from our kids, the younger generation, because it's going to be later until they can buy a house, the house isn't going to be appreciate as much, they're not going to be able to get a pension. So what do we expect? They're going to work their whole lives. That's what we've done. We've sold their future out, we've sold their hope, we sold their opportunity. And so when they're coming back from university and they're having to do 200 applications for 200 different jobs which are being sifted by a models and saying, oh, sorry, computer says no, and then they're Having to get a low paid gig economy job while they're sat there with 70,000 a debt thinking, how do I get out of my parents house and buy a home? No wonder so many are fucked off. No wonder so many don't give a single shit about what we're saying.

Peter McCormack (26:20)

Yeah. And that's why, like, look, that's why the focus has to shift. Look, I'm really lucky. I've got very cool sponsors who support what I do and hopefully continue to support what I do. But you got to break cover at some point, say enough is enough. The amount of private conversations I have with people, people I know work in business, finance, parents who tell me what they think privately but won't say it publicly is a problem. And look, more are becoming, they say, radicalized. That's a funny thing. I saw this tweet yesterday. Somebody said more and more of my friends are becoming radicalized, even those on the left. I don't think you're becoming radicalized. I think you're becoming. I think you're normal and you're having a normal reaction. It's just society said you're not allowed to have that reaction. But I think people are breaking cover. We're breaking. I'm breaking cover. I've already broken cover. Fuck them all. But my singular focus now is all our institutions have lost legitimacy. We all know that. What's going to fill the vacuum? And at the moment it's the Nick Fuentes. And look I'm really intrigued to see his evolution because we need to do something about this. This is kind of Fourth turning stuff. If you haven't read Neil Strauss's Fourth Turning, you should. And there can be positive outcomes and there can be negative outcomes. You can have massive wars or you can have transfers of power. Um, we had that with the glorious revolution in the, in the uk and, and perhaps, perhaps we just need another glorious revolution. Perhaps this is possible. Perhaps what happened in Bulgaria over the weekend is possible here. You know, if we, if enough of us go, we've had enough of this, we're not accepting this anymore, then perhaps, perhaps we can force change. But my singular focus is this, like I send to you about this con. It's about the kids, man. No, but in truth, your job as a parent is to steward the world so they inherit something better than you, than you had. And this is definitely your generation. Khan isn't. We've not we. And when I say we, it's a collective we for all the people of my generation or older generations. I say we are. You're going to inherit a worse world than we did. Less opportunity, a financial system that I think is on the brink of collapse. And I don't think that's being hyperbolic, but we have a job for the younger people and it fits into like two camps for me, your own kids, Are you helping them be set up for life with the knowledge transfer that you give to them and maybe financially helping them when they want to buy a house? Can you help them with a deposit? Are you preparing them for life, but also the entire younger generation? Are we building a better world from them? Will they inherit something better from us? At the moment, that is a absolute unconditional no. We are increasing the debt, reducing the opportunity, inflating the assets. We are making. We are, we are building a better world for us, which basically we're doing short termism, we're going for short term goals, short term pain avoidance for us and making the kids pay. We are deferring that. We're deferring consent. And that is wrong. And when you, I think when you come to that realization is that every decision I should make should be more pain for me and less for my kids. Then you realize you can't accept this anymore. You can't accept this system as it is. You've got to do something different. So I'm withdrawing my consent and look on my own. That means nothing. Just means nothing. I'm just saying I don't consent anymore. And what Pete fucking What you've got to put up with it. But if enough of us, if enough of us come together and say we withdraw our consent, we're not going to legitimize this broken system that punishes the youth anymore, then we can see change.

Peter McCormack (30:40)

So there's like a, there's a more profound point in this. Is that real? I think I've talked about it before, but that realization, the rise of reform and the rise of the Greens are the same movement. It's, it's that broken trust in the system. My whole life was like labor and conservatives. If you're a conservative person, you vote for conservatives. If you were more progressive or, you know, liberal, you would vote for Labor. If, if you were, you know, maybe more economics and business minded, you voted for conservatives, you're more working class minded, you voted for Labor. That was just like the traditional left right battle that I didn't pay too much attention to when I was a lot younger. But conservatives completely and utterly failed this country. They know it, we know it. They were not a conservative party. And the rise of reform has been a reflection of their complete and absolute failure. And that goes pretty much everyone since Thatcher. John Major, nice guy, didn't do too much. But your Camerons, your Theresa Mays, your Boris Johnson's, they all failed. They weren't conservatives. And so you get to a point, if you're a conservative, you're like, you don't stand for anything I stand for anymore. Along comes reform with traditional conservative values and the whole voter base moves to them. But the rise of the Greens, the recent rise of the Greens, it's the same thing. Yeah, it's a bunch of people from the left who voted for a Labour Party who have been nothing like a traditional Labour Party. They're not left wings. I mean, it's a stretch to say they're even centrist. They're certainly center right and they all feel let down and they're all moving to the Greens. But I think it's the same problem. It's not. It's a collapse in institutional trust. It's a collapse in trust in the state, it's a collapse in the faith in the state. But I'm not playing this anymore because I don't think either of these parties will change anything. It doesn't matter who wins the next election. We're going to get the same because of the incentives, because we do not have a limitation on power.

Peter McCormack (32:53)

Yeah. I said, zach Polanski is our Nick Fuentes. We were like, what do you want about, you know, Zach Polanski's pro immigration. Nick Fuentes is, you know, anti immigration. I was like, it's not what that is. What it is is there is a group of young people who are looking for hope. They're looking for someone to tell them a story which fits in the world that they live in now. And if the young people do not trust the institutions, you have the right wing, illiberal Nick Fuentes version. We have the left wing, progressive Zach Polanski version, but it is a group of people who have no faith in the institutions. One is fuck you, and one is be kind. But it's the same thing. Bring up that Grace Blakely article. So this, this is what's really, really interesting. So I wasn't aware of her until Zach Polanski did his interview with Rory Stewart and the War Criminal where they asked him who his economic inspiration was. And he listed off three or four people. Economists who aren't economists, they're activists. But by the by. And one of them he mentioned was Grace Blake. Is it Blakely or. Yeah, Blakely tried to reach out to her, offered her an interview. She wasn't interested. Well, she didn't even reply. Maybe she didn't see it. But anyway, by the by, she. So funny. She came out and tweeted, yeah, I'm not an economist, I'm a Marxist. I was like, huh? And then I'm reading one of her articles. I was like, I. You're saying the same stuff as me, so I'm going to read some bits. But she calls it Generation Despair. I mean, that's. That's exactly what we're talking about essentially, in this show, right? Like, okay, so work doesn't pay, housing is out of reach, and life has been. Why should young people keep propping up a system rigged against them? And look, it's very obvious I will have different solutions to Grace, but. And it kind of is also in line with that. You can draw a line from my article to Grace Blakely's article, to Nick Fuentes, to Mike Green. Mike Green went on the podcast this week, and you should go and read his three articles about this. We're all kind of saying the same thing, right? Yeah, let's read a couple of bits. Okay.

Peter McCormack (39:47)

Yeah. And then this. The end shittification of everyday life. If low pay and insecure housing weren't enough, the basic fabric of life in the UK has been systematically degraded. Our in real life lives have been subjected to the same process that's degraded our experience online. End Shittification. Austerity utterly broke the fabric that held us together as society. Well, okay. Public services are struggling to meet demand. Fact. Councils are going bankrupt. Fact. Youth centers, libraries and community hubs. Community hubs. The places where young people once built network skills and friendships have been shut down. Fact. The post pandemic Post pandemic inflationary crisis was the nail in the coffin for the livability in the uk. With the cost of living so high, some people are working so hard they don't have the time for hobbies they used to enjoy together, while others simply can't afford to go out at all. Even accessing nature increasingly requires a car and entry fee. Fact. Yeah, right. I mean, maybe, maybe Grace Blakely is the Marxist British Nick Fuentes, because look what she's saying. Add all these factors up and it becomes much easier to see why young people aren't working as much as their parents did. Economic participation has become a trap, leaving people stuck between low pay, astronomical housing costs, collapse in public services and the disappearance of meaningful social connection. And this trap is driving a deeper crisis of despair so deep it's shaping the reshaping the labor market. I mean, keep going. Look, it's just the same, same, same, same, same. Is there a conclusion? Okay, here we go. Asking these questions does not make you laser or irresponsible. Totally true. Asking these questions is a rational response to an economy that does not work in your interests. Absolutely true. Here we go. A political class that responds to the crisis of despair with derision or blame does not merit the support of young people. Fact. I mean, that's basically that same line. Whereas young people, we want young people to respect us for a system we've created that they have nothing to gain from. So if they've got no skin in the game, why should they care? Unless Labour can offer a compelling answer to the question, what do I have to be hopeful for? They don't deserve to govern. Thankfully, with Zach Polanski leading the Green Party, there's finally another option. And young people have been first to take it. And see, this is the problem. The solution is wrong. Zach Polanski is not going to fix this because it's a system problem. Zach Polanski's Economics. I think there's a think tank now that Gary Economics and James Medway are being involved in, which is. Yeah, I think it comes from a good place, but it's. But it's all socialist bullshit. And so.

Peter McCormack (44:01)

No, I mean, I put out a tweet earlier. If you were deliberately designing a system to hollow out the next generation, it would look exactly like this. Exactly like this. And if we continue to raise taxes, borrow more, decay our society, we are going to have a generation of young people who are either leaving the country or unwilling to participate. And if that happens, we failed morally. We've completely and utterly failed morally. And we're, we're leaving them a world to inherit that has nothing in it for them. So like I, for me, I'm like, fuck this, I'm not playing this game anymore. And this isn't me disengaging. This is me. This is me wanting to focus and say, okay, if the machinery is wrong, how do we fix the machinery? This is all non. This isn't policy. And so I think we have to build a God, this sounds so hippie, a cultural revolution, but I think we have to do. We have to build a cultural revolution where people accept that the system itself is broken. That's a hard sell. You've got to get enough people from the left and the right to sit and agree that the problem is the plumbing. The problem is the architecture of our country, the architecture of our Democracy that allows 650 people within Westminster to continually do really shitty things without limitation that damage our country and the future of this country. And so that's my focus now. I'm not doing this. I'm not, not playing this game anymore. I'm not fighting about policy. I'm not fighting from a right wing position because I'm a conservative. I'm fighting from a neutral. Like my hand is out to anyone from the left. I'll argue with you over your, I will argue with you over your ideas and your solutions because I think they're wrong. But it doesn't matter. What I want to do is still meet you in the middle and say what do we agree on. Can we agree that unconstrained power is dangerous? Can we agree that the failure in this country for the last three or four decades is unconstrained power? Like, I think a lot, you know, I went on this little AI rabbit hole. Well, I was looking at the Bulgarian Revolution. I was like, how do I start a revolution in the UK that brings down the government? But really interesting. That's what took me to the Glorious revolution. That's where I was learning about William of Orange and what happened and went down this rabbit hole of like, okay, if we wanted to constrain power, how would you do it? Do we need a new Bill of Rights? Do we need a constitution? And I looked. What was really interesting was digging into the US Constitution. Cause people say, oh, we have a constitution in the uk and then you realize it's not like a hard limits constitution like they have in the US whereby judges can challenge them and you can sue the government. It's. Trust me, bro, it relies on gentlemen being gentlemen. In the uk we'd be good old chaps and we respect these words and traditions. Sure, that might have worked hundreds of years ago. It's not working now. We don't have the very best people in this country sat in Westminster making decisions. We have student politicians and human rights lawyers and union masters. And we have people who are so desperate to retain power they will do anything. And that good old chap be a good old chap. That doesn't work anymore. We know it doesn't work. We've had decades of decay. We are drowning in debt. We have a disenfranchised, disenfranchised youth who just don't care anymore. So look, this is my commitment now. I am laser focused. This is all you're going to hear me talk about now is limitations on power. I'm not back in reform. I'm not back in Conservatives. I'm not backing labor, not back in Lib Dems. I'm not backing back. I'm not. I'm obviously not back in Greens. I am backing the people of this country. I am backing the idea that the electorate know better than Westminster. I am backing the idea that the worst people in this country are the 650 people in Westminster. They're, they're the root of all these problems. They've caused all this shit. I'm backing up the people of this country, which means I'm back in constraining our government. I'm backing the idea that we need new limitations. And I will put every bit of pressure I can do on this show on Twitter to just say, we need constraint, because the incentives are set up for the people in Westminster to focus on power rather than the electorate. And so that's where I'm at. That's all you're gonna hear me talk about. And I look, I challenge anyone who's like, nah, Pete, you got this wrong. We need government. Government's good for us. Tell me what they've done. Tell me in the last 30 years, one thing that's got better in this country. And if you, if you pull out a bit of magic and you find that one thing, find me five things you won't ask me what's got worse. I can tell you really easy. The NHS has got worse, our roads have got worse, our borders have got worse, our education system has got worse, our public finances have worse, pensions don't work, stagnant growth, wages aren't keeping up with inflation. People can't afford to get on the housing ladder. It's really easy to list everything that's got worse. And everything's got worse downstream of. Of government. So if you're against this, if you're like, no, Pete, we need government, tell me, debate me, come write to me, drop me an email, drop me a tweet, tell me what has got better under government in the last 30 years. And if you, if you can't, and you accept that we are leaving a world for our kids, they're going to inherit something worse. Tell me why you, if you're my age, similar age, tell me why you aren't laser focused on solving that. And look, we won't like what that means because that means we've got to pay back our debts. That means we're going to have to do more for less, which means we're going to have to, as the adults in the room, go through a bit of pain, but we're doing it to create a better future for our kids, tell me why. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't be doing that. And if you're. I don't care if you're politician, you're a judge or you're a journalist. If you can't give me a good answer, you are just a selfish. You are basically saying, no, I want this rotting system because it's better for me and the kids, the youth. But if you want that better thing, you bet, better world for our kids, you have to do this. You have to be like me and go, okay, we got to change this. Yeah, that's it. I don't have. I don't have nothing else to say, Con. That's it. I'm. I'm angry. I'm so angry that we've got to this point. Yeah. Anything to. You want to close out? Anything, boy.