Podcast Summary: PMQs #005 – "This Country Doesn't Work Anymore"

The Peter McCormack Show
Episode Date: December 23, 2025
Host: Peter McCormack
Guest: Connor "the radical" McCormack

Overview of the Episode

In this PMQs (Peter McCormack Questions) episode, Peter McCormack is joined by his son, Connor, for a candid, passionate discussion about their shared disillusionment with the UK government and the state of the country. The conversation spans politics, class, race, economics, and the idea of peaceful revolution as a way to reclaim power from what they see as an extractive, unconstrained state. Peter draws parallels with American history, explores theories of revolution, and proposes that the UK is at a boiling point where mere electoral change won’t fix things. Instead, he calls for a mass, peaceful removal of consent to the current political system.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal Context and Theme Setup

• A week of big debates: Peter recounts a week filled with heated discussions at home, following a contentious episode with Carl Benjamin and reactions to topics like race, revolution, and AI in schools.
• Peter’s position: "This country doesn't work anymore... I don't think we can vote our way out of it." (03:53)
• Not experts, but citizens: Peter and Connor position themselves as regular people invested in the country's future, not academics or politicians.

2. The Broken Social Contract and General Disillusionment

• Universal decline in living standards: Both hosts note that friends, colleagues, and acquaintances across the spectrum feel economic strain and lack hope that any party will deliver improvement.
  • “Are your living standards improving under this government?... No. Do you think the next party... will [improve them]? Again, it’s no.” (03:26)
• Content with decline: Connor observes that people seem resigned to perpetual decline and see no alternative but to stick with the status quo. (04:29)
• Voting for decline: Peter refers to the act of voting as, essentially, picking which flavor of decline to accept. (04:38)
• Peak frustration: "Why is everyone so content with it? ...Everyone goes, well, what’s the other option?“ (Connor, 04:39)

3. Power, Consent, and the Government-Electorate Divide

• Extractive state: Peter argues the government is not "the country," but has become an extractive machine prioritizing taxation, bureaucracy, and control.
  • “The government is not the country. The country is the people... Government is just extractive now.” (05:21)
• Mechanics of government are broken: No matter which party is in charge, power just centralizes further, standards drop, and consent is assumed but not truly given.
• Referencing U.S. history: Peter discusses the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in America, using them to highlight the dangers of centralized government and weak electorate consent. (13:43)
• Weak electorate: Peter contends the British people have a “very weak electorate” that provides only explicit consent (voting every five years) but little meaningful resistance.
  • “I think we have a very weak electorate.” (14:11)

4. The Cycle of Identity Politics and Manufactured Division

• Race/class politics: Reflecting on Carl Benjamin's arguments, Peter grapples with the lens of marginalization (whether along race or class lines), emphasizing that fighting identity politics with identity politics only helps further solidify state power.
  • “Fighting identity politics with identity politics is going to perpetuate this problem where the state gets bigger... the race war itself is a scam.” (09:17)
• Swinging extremes: The political landscape continues to swing to electoral extremes, each time consolidating more government power.
  • “Each swing feels like it's got more and more extreme because... it's an existential crisis for the country.” (10:09)
• Pawns in manufactured narrative: Peter accuses the government of creating these polarizing narratives to divide and control voters.

5. Revolution as a Solution—But What Kind?

• Consent as a lever for change: Peter explores the philosophical notion of withdrawing collective consent as a means to challenge and potentially change the system.
  • “If we collectively as a nation withdraw consent... we have the power to go back to government and say we don't accept this anymore.” (14:41)
• Revolutionary history: Drawing on past revolutions (MLK, Gandhi, American independence), Peter points to the recurring pattern of state overreach prompting mass resistance.
  • “MLK and Malcolm X at some point said, I'm not taking it anymore... in America... people said, I'm not taking this anymore.” (16:28)
• Modern revolutionary theories: Connor reads out academic definitions and causes of revolution—rising inequality, systemic breakdowns, separation of power and populace. (25:49)

6. Peaceful, Lawful, Mass Non-Compliance

• Peaceful revolution: Peter adamantly opposes inciting unlawful behavior (like tax resistance), urging instead “mass, lawful, legal, nonviolent, noncompliance.”
  • “This has to be peaceful... Everything I do will be legal within the law and peacefully. And I would tell everyone else to do the same.” (34:01)
• Rejecting violence: Connor is skeptical that violence can be avoided, but Peter insists that only peaceful protest can maintain legitimacy, citing historical precedents. (34:13)
• Building a movement: Suggestions include spreading the message of "I no longer consent," creating local discussion groups, and using social media to normalize the view that “the country doesn’t work anymore.” (36:57)

7. What Comes Next? Objectives for Change

• What do we actually want?
  • Not more “left or right” solutions: Peter rails against both left and right, asserting that both are simply playing different flavors of the same broken game.
  • Constraints on government: The most important demand is putting real, structural constraints on government power (e.g., sunset clauses, checks on emergency powers, tighter control on who makes laws).
  • Separation of money and state:
    • “The most important part... is uncontrolled money creation. When we came off the gold standard, giving the government the ability to create infinite money means the government will create as much money as they need... And so we need constraint on the money printer.” (40:07)
  • Learning from Switzerland: Direct democracy in Switzerland (collecting signatures for referenda) is held up as an example of genuine anti-centralization.
    • “If the government creates a law which the public don't like... if they collect 50,000 signatures, it goes to referendum.” (44:27)
• Skepticism about practical examples: Connor points out that no country currently practices a true gold standard or real fiscal constraint, not even Switzerland, though their “debt break” is mentioned (47:00).

8. Ending on Possibility and Action

• First step: Acknowledge brokenness: Peter urges listeners to publicly and privately acknowledge that the country doesn’t work, and to collectively remove explicit and implicit consent.
  • “Let’s just agree the country doesn’t work anymore. Let’s agree that we can collectively remove our consent.” (51:22)
• Possible next steps: If a real movement arises, discussions can start about what comes after: building a new constitution, adding constraints, or new forms of democracy. The main goal: get the public to stop tolerating the intolerable.
• Movement launch: Mention of a website—inolongerconsent.com—for people to add their names to a declaration of non-consent. (51:22)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "I think it's fundamentally broken and I don't think we can vote our way out of it."
  (Peter, 03:53)

• "Why is everyone so content with it? ...Everyone goes, well, what’s the other option?"
  (Connor, 04:39)

• "Fighting identity politics with identity politics is going to perpetuate this problem where the state gets bigger... the race war itself is a scam."
  (Peter, 09:17)

• "If we collectively as a nation withdraw consent... we have the power to go back to government and say we don't accept this anymore."
  (Peter, 14:41)

• "This has to be peaceful... Everything I do will be legal within the law and peacefully. And I would tell everyone else to do the same."
  (Peter, 34:01)

• "I think we can all agree it’s not working anymore. And what I’d like to think we would agree is it’s not working because the electorate doesn’t have enough power in the country and because government has too much power, has unconstrained power."
  (Peter, 39:44)

• "The most important part... is uncontrolled money creation... And so we need constraint on the money printer."
  (Peter, 40:07)

• "Let’s just agree the country doesn’t work anymore. Let’s agree that we can collectively remove our consent."
  (Peter, 51:22)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:08–04:23: Introduction, home debates, theme setup
• 04:24–08:36: Disillusionment with political options and living standards
• 08:37–11:49: Reflections on identity politics, Carl Benjamin, and race/class
• 11:50–14:11: Critique: State manufactured division, "pawns in a game"
• 14:12–19:43: Weakness of the electorate and the theory of consent
• 19:44–24:07: Participation in society, social media pressures on youth
• 24:08–31:29: Theorizing revolution, peaceful vs. violent protest
• 31:30–37:13: Examples from recent protests, need for peacefulness
• 37:14–40:06: Post-revolution: What should the demands be?
• 40:07–44:27: Structural constraints, separation of government and money
• 44:28–47:00: Lessons from Switzerland, anti-federalist ideas
• 47:01–52:38: Justice, fiscal constraints, movement launch
• 52:39–End: Final thoughts, call to action, next episode teaser

Tone and Style Notes

• Candid, passionate, sometimes irreverent: The conversation is raw and unscripted, with open use of slang and colorful language (e.g., “turkey voting for Christmas,” “retard” used in context of venting frustration, direct criticism of political figures).
• Deeply engaged and personal: Both hosts share not just analysis but frustrations, hopes, and skepticism—Peter especially adopts the voice of someone speaking both for himself and for people he knows personally.
• Philosophically ambitious, solution-focused: The show moves from problem description to laying out a strategic (if nascent) vision for peaceful political change.

Conclusion

This episode is a call to mass awareness and nonviolent action against what Peter McCormack and Connor see as an irreparably broken UK state. It blends personal conviction, political history, and radical (but peaceful) activism. Rather than mere complaint, it initiates organizing principles—collective withdrawal of consent, direct democracy, constraint of government power, and above all, open dialogue on what comes after “no longer consenting.”

Useful Links and Further Engagement:

• inolongerconsent.com (Join the declaration)
• Twitter: @ConsentEnds
• Email Peter: me@petermccormack.com

End of Summary.