PMQs #005 - This Country Doesn't Work Anymore

Summary

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: [e-mail]

End of Summary.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Welcome to the show. I'm your host, Peter McCormack. Hope you're doing well. We are two days from Christmas and we are recording. Probably it might be the final PMQs before. Before the end of the year. We might do another one. We will see. I've got your boy Connor, the radical here. How you doing, boy?

[A]

You're out, Piers.

[B]

You're out of water. That's my son. I love him. We've had a week. We've had a very interesting week. A lot of debates in the McCormack household. Everything from. Well, we made a show with Carl Benjamin where I got smoked. I got smoked in the comments. We've also been debating that, been debating race. We've been debating revolutions, constitutions, the state of the country. We even had a debate over AI and how it should be used in school. It's been a busy week, but we've been thinking long and hard this week, right?

[A]

Talk a lot, don't we, about everything.

[B]

I rant a lot.

[A]

But we do.

[B]

We don't just make this show and then go home and watch football. We sit in the car and debate every show we make. We debate the topics hard. We spent a lot of time thinking about this Carl Benjamin show and what the implications are. I've actually written an article which I may publish today, where I call the race war scam, which is definitely going to trigger some people. But we talk about this a lot. We think about this deeply. We think about the things that happen in our country and the impact it has on everyone. And so this show today is going to follow a little bit from the last one where I talked about no longer consent because I have been going down various rabbit holes. I've been reading a lot, thinking a lot about the role of government and the role of the electorate. The. The role of the electorate, the relationship between the two, how it works. I've been reading a lot about US History, how they declared their independence, how they wrote the Constitution, how they wrote their Bill of Rights, the debates between the federalists, the anti federalists. Because I think a lot about the state of the country right now. My overriding thought, which I keep coming back to you and if you follow me on Twitter, you'll keep seeing me say this or reply to people, is that this country doesn't work anymore. I think it's fundamentally broken and I don't think we can vote our way out of it. And so I'm going to take you on a journey. I'm taking you on my journey. What I'm doing. And look, I'm not a professor. I'm not constitutional lawyer, I'm not a constitutional historian. I am just a guy with a son who lives in this country who is trying to build a future for myself and the retirement, really, and a future for my kids, but cares deeply about other people in this country. The people who work for me, my friends, my family, people who live in my town. People live in towns up and down the country and what they're facing. And I feel like right now we have a country which is kind of depressed in that everywhere I go and I speak to people. I went to the football the other day and I always see people I know at the football. I ask them how they are, how things are going. And the same messages come back, is that everything is really expensive and work is really hard. And I've kind of come to this point whereby I start throwing questions back at each other and I'm like, are your living standards improving under this government? And they always say no. And I say, do you believe under this government in their full term, your living standards will improve? The answer's always no. And then I ask, do you think the next party, whoever wins the next election, whether Labour somehow, somehow were idiots enough to revote them back in, or whether it's reform or the Green Party, do you. Do you think under the next government your living standards will improve? And again, it's no.

[A]

And the next one, and the next.

[B]

One, and the next one and the next one. You got fired up about this this.

[A]

Week because I think you're. You're content with decline, no matter what.

[B]

The vote for decline.

[A]

And why is everyone so content with it? Yeah, I mean, like, everyone goes, well, what's the other option?

[B]

It's revolution.

[A]

At least have. At least try something, because if not, it's just going to be the same.

[B]

Yeah. And so I'm thinking about this a lot and I think we have choices as a. As a country. I. I think a lot about consent. And if you haven't seen it, I wrote an article this week on my substack, Connor. I'll get him to stick it in the show notes. It was called the Moral Case for a Peaceful Revolution in that I don't believe that government can work for the electorate anymore. And the government is not the country. Okay? The country is the people that make it. It's the people that get up, they go to work, they make things, they build things, they sell things. That is what makes a country. The government is. I think it's the. I Guess it's meant to be the thing that controls order, but it doesn't do that anymore. It's just extractive. It takes through endless taxation, it takes through rights, and it takes through bureaucracy. And we no longer have a government which I believe can deliver better living standards because of the mechanics of government itself. Thought about this a lot, and I think most of it came off the back of the interview I did with Carl Benjamin, which was on the back of writing a couple of articles about Nick Fuentes and the Gruipers. In that if I. If you haven't seen my previous shows about this, just a quick backstory to what happened was I watched an interview between Piers Morgan and Nick Fuentes. Got about an hour in, and I thought, kiss up. Kier called him Care Piers. I thought Piers more. It's quite funny that you. I could mix those two up. Those two up. But I thought Piers Morgan did a good job of holding him to account. I didn't really know who Nick Fuentes was, just kind of aware of him as this guy who's got this Rumble channel who screams about the Jews and has some pretty wild takes and ideas. So I just kind of ignored him and I thought Piers had done a good job holding him to account. And then I put a tweet out about it, actually. I replied to an Aaron Bastani tweet. And I woke up in the morning, I got smoked. And so I went and went down the rabbit hole and I kind of looked at who he is and what he represents and. And I did a 180. Because what I realized is actually he was like a representation of people who were fed up, who sick of the government, that the government no longer works and certainly doesn't work for them anymore. And then I was like, okay, well, there's an alignment there with a lot of people, a lot of different groups who no longer think the government works them anymore. And then I spoke to Carl Benjamin. He'd put a video together and we agreed to make a show about this. And Carl was focusing on race and how young, straight white men have been marginalized in this country through the law, through dei, through various mechanisms, but also had ventured into that world which Tate talks about, which masculinity was seen as toxic. And whilst I recognized and agreed with Carl, at the same time I felt myself pushing back against him, saying, well, hold on a second.

[A]

Can I just correct, though?

[B]

Go on.

[A]

He did make a point of saying he wasn't making about race and it was about class. Now, you might have your own opinion on that. But he made a point. I can't remember his actual words, but it was something along. He specifically makes it about the class of the young straight white man. And not just the white.

[B]

Sure. But at the same time is about preferential treatment and how groups treat preference.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I was the yeah, but, but guy saying, I don't see. I won't treat a young black kid differently from a young white kid who's third generation. There's no reason to for me. And I got smoked for this. And what I, what I recognize with this is that we are now in a. We're like in a new world. Like the Overton Window's been nuked. And there are serious discussions about race, immigration and religion and what it means for the future of a country. And these used to be fringe ideas. These used to be considered extreme ideas, even discussing the idea of being proud of being white or supporting white people. And one thing that stuck out to me with this, and this is where I was talking to you about it, Conor, is that whilst I get it, I don't think we fight identity politics with identity politics. I don't think we fight victimhood with new victims. And I think the race war itself is a scam. But bear with me, let me explain why. It's not that grievances aren't legitimate. People have legitimate grievances. I get it. It's that fighting identity politics with identity politics is going to perpetuate this problem where the state gets bigger and the state grows. Because if you fight on identity politics, you are creating preference. And when you create preference, you as the state has to manage that preference and allocate resources based on that preference. And this is, this is why I think we keep swinging from extreme to extreme. You see it in the US through my lifetime, you went from Reagan to Bush, from Bush I think it went to Clinton, then back to then, well, not back to, but to Bush Jr. From Bush Jr. We went to Obama, and then from Obama we went to Trump, and then from Trump we went to Biden, then Biden to Trump too. And for me, each swing feels like it's got more and more extreme because each swing has been that if you vote for the opposition, it's an existential crisis for the country. And that allows government itself to consolidate power. And we see it here in the uk. It's really obvious for me now to see in that I am a non voter because I refuse to vote for decay. When I look at what's happened in our politics, we've swung from labor to conservative to labor to conservative. Now we're swinging from labor to reform and Green, which is, for me, it was a reflection on the electorate knowing there's a problem but not knowing who to vote for and being sold a new narrative. And each time that new narrative gets sold and we get a new party, all we get is another consolidation of power. And so I'm over this. I'm. This for me is we're focused on.

[A]

The wrong problem.

[B]

We think the solution, or we're being pitched into this game. God, this is where I start to sound like that conspiracy theorist. But I believe it. I think we're being. We're pawns in a game where government creates narratives. They create winners and losers. They have special interests, and their special interests create block votes to help them take control of government, consolidate power. And for me, we've missed the really important component, which is the separation of the government and the electorate. Because if we play the game, if we're in there, right, if we're in there, we pick apart and we vote for it. We're really. It's like Steve Baker said to us, it doesn't matter who you vote for. Government wins and that decay will continue. We're at that point now where I think, like, it's time to. Time to recognize that this is not working. It's just not working. It's not working for anyone. Living standards are going down. There is an authoritarian creep from the government. Living standards aren't going to improve under this government. I doubt they're going to improve under another government. I don't think we can vote our way out of it. So there's a problem there. And this, I think, is the problem that the anti Federalists identified in the foundation of the U.S. government. The U.S. the United States. And I'd recommend go and read the history of this because it is fascinating. I've been re. I mean, a few years now. I've been going back and forth into this. When they kicked our asses, asked us to leave the country, they had to create the country, the rules of the country. And it started with a Declaration of Independence. They kicked our asses, got us out. They had the Articles of Confederation, which were essentially weak, but there was two groups arguing back and forth. There were the Federalists who were arguing for a strong government, and the anti Federalists who were arguing for liberty. And I think us as a country here, we have a essentially, I know we're not a republic, but we essentially have a very strong government. I think we have a very Weak electorate. And that's where I've got to. And this is where I'm at. This is where I'm at.

[A]

Con.

[B]

I think we have a very weak electorate.

[A]

Weak in what sense?

[B]

Weak in the sense that we mainly only think about explicit consent, whereby every five years we get a vote and we cross our fingers and hope things get better and they don't. And I am beyond explicit consent. Right. I am beyond that point where consent is assumed by government. I think consent in the form of government itself is fluid in that you can withdraw consent, not me as an individual. I can withdraw consent. It doesn't do anything. But if we collectively as a nation withdraw consent, if we all say, fuck it, I'm done, I'm over this, we have the power to go back to government and say we don't accept this anymore.

[A]

Sure. But what makes them weak? You didn't answer that.

[B]

What makes that.

[A]

Because is it the fact they're just putting up work?

[B]

Yeah, just going, okay, okay. All right. So you're going to raise our taxes for the second time after saying in your manifesto you weren't going to raise taxes.

[A]

I think they're getting there. You can feel it boiling.

[B]

Oh yeah.

[A]

It's like a. Any minute it could just fucking switch.

[B]

Yeah, I'm with you.

[A]

Like it does feel like that when you walk around. But.

[B]

I think it can be organized in a way and I think it should be organized.

[A]

Well, if it's not organized, it's chaotic and potentially very dangerous.

[B]

Yes, well, I think about that a lot. I was reading today about the theory of revolution, why it happens and revolutions do happen. Revolution, Revolution. It's funny, I think about it honestly sometimes I'm sat there and I'm, you know, in the sauna or in the car or laying in bed and I'm like, I think we need a revolution. Can we do this? Am I that guy? Is Pete from Bedford the guy?

[A]

That guy, pal.

[B]

You know that guy. But am I that guy that Pete from Bedford, covered in tattoos, dresses like 15 year old? Am I that guy? But I guess with. I guess every one of these movements starts with someone going, fuck it, I'm not taking this anymore. MLK and Malcolm X at some point said, I'm not taking it anymore. Gandhi said, I'm not taking anymore. In Czechoslovakia, someone, I don't know who sparked the Velvet Revolution in America when we were taxing them without representation and trying to finance our seven year wars, people said, I'm not taking this anymore. And so, I mean, I'm at that Point. But, like, I don't want it to be me. I don't think people will take me seriously enough. Or maybe they will, but I'm at the point. I'm not taking it anymore. Not for me, for you and your sister and everyone else, like our friends who are closing down their businesses.

[A]

So what then? Well, so what now?

[B]

What do you think? I can give you an answer. How do you. I mean, how do you feel like you get. You get to spend all day with me ranting about things and saying we need to listen to this documentary about the negotiations around the Constitution and then me ranting about ideas. But what do you actually think yourself? Not. Not what I think.

[A]

This clearly ain't working. Yeah, that's clear to me.

[B]

How is it not working for you? Not me.

[A]

I don't need to give stats. Right. It's a feeling. Right. I think it comes down to a feeling. And if the feeling is, I don't feel much happier, I don't feel like there's a chance of me feeling happier or getting more or any. There's no drive. It's the pursuit. There's no pursuit.

[B]

Pursuit of happiness.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You say you don't like your job.

[A]

No. But, like, one of the things I loved most about that Mike Green interview is when he was. He said, it's the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness, the pursuit of it. It's something to go for, something to look for out to and be like, all right, I want that. How do I get there? The journey is the best bit. That's what everyone always says. Right.

[B]

Where do you. Because he talks about participation in society, and I'm not. When I say I'm asking you, I'm also asking you to answer for your friends and young people. But, like, where do you feel like participation in society is harder for you than say it was for me? And then Granddad and so on.

[A]

Most places, competing, trying to just, like, build. Build that life. Right. The house, the car, the kids, the wife. Right. The stereotype of, like, the life that you want. Right. It's not really that much to ask for in. In terms of, like, just being able to just not. Not a lavish life, just have that life, raise a family. Yeah. I feel like that's very, very difficult now.

[B]

I mean, we've talked about it.

[A]

And plus, on the other hand, you didn't have to live with the growing up, seeing 9 billion other people online, living their lifestyles out.

[B]

So you're the coolest people.

[A]

And your cost of participation isn't just your local town and community. Now it's pretty much the planet. Your cost of participation is when you upload that Instagram post, can I get more likes? How do I show my life in a different way?

[B]

You kind of.

[A]

Your cost of participation has become this massive network of people now.

[B]

That's interesting. Is it fair to say you're answering that for other people? Because you never really bought into the.

[A]

I don't care.

[B]

You didn't buy into social media though.

[A]

Did you still see it? Yeah, you see it, but you still on social. And I scroll through and I see the 21 year old living out in Dubai with his Lamborghini.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Even if it is leased. But you see it and it's constantly in your face and you're like, oh.

[B]

It'S a new pressure.

[A]

Yeah, I'm that guy. I'm the same age. Why not me? Like, what have I not done, right?

[B]

What do you think of that idea? Because they've just done in Australia where they're banning social media for under 16s, and it goes against all my kind of like libertarian principles of like, the state shouldn't regulate this. But at the same time, similar to, like, I don't think kids should be able to access hardcore pornography on their phone. And they can, but I don't think they should. I think it's. I think it's damaging and we should do everything to stop it. This one is against kind of like principles because it's censorship. But at the same time, what do you think about. Because we do have rules for kids. Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You can't buy.

[A]

I don't really want to talk about pornography with you, but.

[B]

Yeah, fair enough. The phone one.

[A]

Yeah. No, I think it's. It's brilliant. Like I. We talk all the time about mid-90s. Right. If you can get kids back to that, just being innocent kids, away from it all. Brilliant. Why not?

[B]

So you. So you would support a band?

[A]

I think I would. But also there's. Then. Then I think, yes, but they need to be prepared for the world they're going into, which is one. Where will that put them behind when they can't use a phone at 16? They don't know what buttons like.

[B]

Come on, kids, learn quick, man. I stuck an iPad in front of you, you're probably about two and you instantly swipe in. Yeah, I don't, I don't worry about that. I think a lot, but.

[A]

Yeah. What now, then? What now? I'm pissed off. What now? You tell me. You're. You're the old grown up in the Room. Right.

[B]

Well, look, the way I've been thinking about this is if there's a theory of revolution, you should probably look it up. Look up the theory of revolution. But there is a theory of revolution that revolutions happen. And there's two types. There are obviously peaceful revolutions and there are the ones that are less peaceful. And I in no world want a violent revolution in this country. I firstly think it damages your cause of speaking to the government and saying you want peace, you want better, you want more rights, you don't want an infringement on your civil liberties, you don't want to be taxed endlessly. But I think revolution is inevitable. I think every country faces revolutions on a long enough time frame because power always centralizes. It's like we were talking about this morning, right, when I said when you give governments access to the money printer, they just print. And so if you give them that lever, they're going to use it. And if you look around the world, who isn't abusing that? Very few aren't abusing it. So.

[A]

Yeah, but that's, that's always my point when you go, oh, the money printing needs to stop. And if that happens, you would have a much more prosperous society. Right. Potentially everything went off the gold standard. It went to ship, basically.

[B]

So why.

[A]

And then I bring it back to you. Name me one country that doesn't print money well and if you stop, do you suddenly have a disadvantage on everyone else?

[B]

But potentially. So you. Potentially. But you know, Switzerland has a pretty.

[A]

They still print, but they have a case study for literally the gold standard anymore.

[B]

Sure. And perhaps that is a problem. I mean, perhaps it is, but I don't know. This is, this is the one. I don't know. I don't know. All I know is right now it isn't working. What we have now isn't working. And it's not just for us here. You see the protests in Lithuania this week over like attempts to control the media protests in France. I mean there are protests Bulgaria. Bulgaria or. Yeah, well, that might have been a coup, that might have been a fake protest.

[A]

No. What was the farmers one?

[B]

Wasn't that, I think Brussels and France. Yeah, so, so look these things, it isn't just in the uk, it's across Europe. It feels almost like, it feels like our Arab Spring. Right. In that people are at that point where government isn't working for them. I think there is a strong correlation between what happened when Great Britain was trying to fight a seven year war and it was going over to the US and taking their resources, but not really giving them proper representation. And I think there is a. I think it's a similar scenario over here across Europe where we are drowned in regulation, we are drowned in infringements on our civil liberties and we're being taxed in every which way possible and people are sick of it and.

[A]

Can I just buy. Sorry.

[B]

So what are we going to do about it?

[A]

Yeah, well, people know this, People get this, people know they're pissed off. What's. What's the other option?

[B]

Have you got that theory of revolution? Or a summary. Find me a summary of it.

[A]

Explain how, why and when societies undergo rapid fundamental change, often involving mass mobilists. Mobilization.

[B]

Mobilization.

[A]

Mobilization to overthrow existing power structures for new ones, with key approaches focusing on and distinct or analyzing deep societal conflicts and systemic breakdowns, not just individual desire.

[B]

Does it say, like, the kind of things happening? Because I think it's.

[A]

What are you looking for?

[B]

Well, so inequality rising, the government's not listening. Separation between the electorate and the power base.

[A]

Revolutions are driven by inherent conflicts between economic classes.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Over the means of production, leading to new societal structures. Focuses on state autonomy, international structures and international weaknesses.

[B]

Yeah, look, there's a range.

[A]

State power, but. Right, we're pissed off. What's our options? We either carry on, which we already know is a bunch of shit, or moan.

[B]

You just moan. You tap on your keyboard, you go on X, oh, this is rubbish. Or you, as a collective, as a country, you come together and say, we're not taking this anymore. And I think we have this unique time because I was telling you, there's a guy put on Twitter and it's like when you're rebelling against the state with revolution, you're not just rebelling against the state, you're rebelling against the people who accept the status quo as well. So this isn't like a hundred percent rebellion by the electorate. It's a rebel by the people who.

[A]

There's some retards out there.

[B]

Yeah, there's retards out there. Yeah, you're a retard.

[A]

Retard. Retard. It's good to say the R word. Say it.

[B]

There are some retards out there. I mean, there are. I mean, do you see that gray Linenham tweet? It's like the. No, I'm not going to say that. Go and look at the Graham Linenham tweet. But the point is, is that. There are enough people who are pissed off. Okay, if there was an election tomorrow, what percent of the vote would labor get? They might get 20%, 15%, I don't know. But that says 80, 85 or 80% of the people have said, I've had enough. And if we do nothing, I think reform probably win the next election. Although their polls, they're dropping in the polls now. Maybe it's a reform conservative coalition. Maybe there is, God help us, a coalition between Labor, Lib Dems and Greens. But whatever happens, one thing I guarantee is we will have an election and everyone will still be pissed off a year later. So if enough people acknowledge this and say, this is not working, the country doesn't work anymore, the government doesn't work anymore for us, you have to then say why. And if you come to the conclusion is that it's the mechanics of government, if this problem is happening all across Europe, kind of having it even in a little bit in America, you have to say the mechanics of government are wrong. It's the things the federalists and the anti federalists debated, which is between centralization of power and liberty. I think in our country there's too much centralization of power. When you give them the levers, they have the ability to pull them for their special interest groups and their voter groups. So you have to go right. This doesn't work. You have to collectively agree. You have to mobilize the country to say, I've had enough of this. I don't believe in the institution of government anymore. I don't believe we can vote our way out of it. I no longer consent. That's it. Might be on a website about this, but you say, I no longer consent. You accept the country doesn't work anymore, and you have to go through what I think is a peaceful revolution which is mass, lawful, legal, nonviolent, non compliance. You mobilize people to refuse to comply with the system. Because whilst we give explicit consent when we vote in every election, we give implicit consent every day by going about our daily lives, by getting in our cars, going to work, going shopping, and contributing to a system which the government governs. If we just stop complying with that, if we stop contributing and enough people do, it will bring the country to a standstill in a legal way. You can't arrest me, Keir Starmer. I've done nothing wrong. I've done nothing wrong, okay? I haven't misgendered. You haven't said hurty words.

[A]

What does stock contributing mean, though? Like, if everyone stopped paying taxes, does that count?

[B]

That is illegal. And I do not support that in any way at all. No, I do. No, because this is the Point.

[A]

Why does he say it like that?

[B]

I mean, if people choose not to pay their taxes and they get away with it, congratulations.

[A]

So what's the way, though?

[B]

No, no, but this is an important point, is that when we had the protests up in Southport after the murder of the three girls at the Taylor Swift Sing along, there were protests on the street. And what did we see after that? We saw the state respond as it does with violence, and they were locking people up for tweets and Facebook posts.

[A]

But also, let's be fair, those protests were largely violent.

[B]

Oh, no, I disagree. I think they.

[A]

I saw people set a hotel housing people in it on fire.

[B]

No, no, there were aspects of violence, sure, certainly. But that is the mistake. That's the point, is that, you know, I talk about this.

[A]

Can you have a mass revolution without small sections of violence? How do you control a crowd that big?

[B]

I mean, that's very difficult.

[A]

You know, Tommy Robinson, violence inevitable.

[B]

Tommy Robinson put on his Unite the Kingdom march in London and he repeatedly, over and over again said to everyone, be peaceful. Hold on, bear with me. Don't wear your masks, don't drink, be peaceful. There was one outbreak with this guy.

[A]

Due to a counter protest.

[B]

No, no, I don't think that's fair. I think it's more to do with how the police marshalled people into that corner.

[A]

They marshaled them towards a corner where a counter protest was.

[B]

But the counter protest wasn't being violent. No, it wasn't.

[A]

We stood there and watched it.

[B]

Yeah, it was the group at the front of the Tommy March and the.

[A]

Group at the front of that march.

[B]

But they weren't lobbing bottles. I was there.

[A]

They don't drink.

[B]

No, but the point is.

[A]

But the point is that they love their matcha.

[B]

But you go on the Daily Mail the next day, what's on the front page? Videos of a policeman walking away with a bloody hair and a bottle.

[A]

It's always the headline.

[B]

Yeah, it's always a headline. And they didn't, by the way, they didn't do that through the BLM protests. They don't do that when there's left wing violence. And this is why you have to be clever and smart. The minute you start breaking the law, you give this authoritarian government a reason to clamp down on you. Okay, If I went out and said, people don't pay your taxes, I am encouraging people to break the law. I could be arrested and I don't want to do that. This has to be peaceful. It's like these Americans who see me put up my post on X where I'm like, yeah man, we need a revolution. And they're like, this is why you shouldn't have given up your guns. I understand the argument you're trying to make, but I don't think we're going to have a violent revolution in this country at the moment with guns. We wouldn't. You know, we're not going to do it with forks or knives or spoons or anything. Right. It's not realistic and it would destroy. I think violence undoes your arguments.

[A]

See, I think the opposite. So you think they should be peaceful isn't realistic. And I think it's nice and well intended. But I think no matter what you go in with, the outcome will always be violence, no matter who instigates it. The state can instigate the violence, but you at that point have no choice but to counter with violence.

[B]

Yes, you do. You have a choice of not countering with violence. It happened with mlk, it won't happen with Martin Luther King protesting that Tommy March.

[A]

When the police come with their riot shields, what does that signal?

[B]

Oh, they're ready. Don't get me. Look, you missed it.

[A]

Riot shield goes. We're ready, we want it, don't give it to them. Look, it's easier said than done.

[B]

Sure. There is a reality that you can get sparks of violence in any protest. I accept that reality exists. I enter my non compliance and my removal of consent peacefully and everything I do will be legal within the law and peacefully. And I would tell everyone else to do the same. Can I, can I even spark a revolution? But even if people become violent, I would object to it. And I say this knowing the police themselves will be violent. I mean, look at different countries. Look at what happens in France. I mean they protest every week about something or other and the police are out there and they're setting fire to stuff. If you look what happens in Russia, you say one thing, you get clobbered and thrown away into a van and up to the gulags. Like different governments will respond in different ways. But if you stand peacefully, it's going to be very difficult for the government to come at you violently. And if they do, they are removing their legitimacy even more. Okay, if there is a, if I go up to Parliament Square and there's a hundred of us standing there with signs saying we don't consent and they start hitting us with batons, I mean that's, that's going to reflect terribly on them. And I, I think they will look for an excuse and look for a reason to arrest you and look for a reason, but just don't give it to them. And I think we need this. This is. This is my approach. I'm going to keep writing about this. I'm going to keep talking about it. I'm going to encourage people to remove their consent. Every time you see a tweet or a Facebook post from the government, just say, I no longer consent. You can create groups. You can create. You can get 20 friends down into a cafe and talk about how the government is infringing on your rights, overtaxing you, and by the way, overtaxing you by inflation as well, which really is kind of taxation without representation. It's kind of. Kind of analogous to that. And they are making business hard. You can say, I don't accept this anymore. Talk about it. And every time you see a post about something stupid the government's doing, just say, just reply them, this country doesn't work anymore. If we can get the whole country or large parts of the country saying, this country doesn't work anymore, which is fact, and I no longer consent, you can create a movement.

[A]

Cool.

[B]

Cool. Let's go have a pint.

[A]

Then. What? Well, people are pissed off. They've agreed that. They say, I don't consent. We've agreed that now.

[B]

Well, you mo. So you mobilize people.

[A]

I'm talking about after. Oh, let's say we're successful.

[B]

So Keir Starmer gives me a call. Yeah. Then what?

[A]

What are you asking for? Kiss. Thomas.

[B]

I'll tell you what I'm not asking for first, because I think this is really important. And this is where I kind of, like, recognize myself being in the fight, criticizing the left and making fun of Zach Polanski or Keir Starmer is that I also. I'll make fun of the conservatives. I make fun of reform. If I disagree with something Nigel says, I'm going to say I disagree with Kemi. I'm going to say it because I'm refusing to play the game anymore. And it was that. It was that. Remember we talked about that Grace Blakely article, the Marxist? It was really fascinating reading her article because I actually think the left and the right can agree on one thing and they can agree the government isn't working anymore and the country doesn't work anymore. I think why they think it doesn't work and what doesn't work and their solutions will be entirely different. But 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. And if we can agree on that, then the next step is a negotiation or a discussion around agreeing what constraints on government look like. And look, democracy evolves over hundreds of years and we've been through kings and we've been through various governments and we've been through various law changes and I'm just out here going, yeah, by the way, it's 2025 and Pete McCormack's going to rewrite all of this and we're going to have a new constitution, we're going to codify it and we're going to constrain the power of government. And I laugh but, but I also kind of think it, I think, I mean I'm probably gonna fail. I'm gonna fail, right? There is no world wherein I don't. Well, there may be, but in like 200 years people are going, well there was this guy, Pete McCormack and he started a revolution and we. But maybe, maybe it is whatever. Yeah, maybe it is.

[A]

In 200 years that was the case.

[B]

Revolution.

[A]

Connor, what would they have said? You did?

[B]

They will have said. He said no, he said it does. He won't still.

[A]

What are you asking for?

[B]

Constraints on power. And do you know what? There's lots.

[A]

What does that mean?

[B]

Well, there's various constraints on power. Yeah. Sunset clauses on emergency powers which the government suddenly requires. There should be sunset clauses. There's things like that. It's who creates the laws. Like what part of the government creates laws and do we know who they are? And what is the role of the judiciary in interpretation of the laws. These are all important points. But actually I'm going to focus on one thing and one thing only today because I think it is the most important part when I look at what has absolutely and utterly failed in the US and what is failing here is uncontrolled money creation. When we came off, I mean there's different components to this. Central banks are a problem. But coming off the gold standard, giving the government the ability to create infinite money means the government will create as much money as they need. There's no constraint on money creation anymore. Yes, they tax us, but they can borrow as much as they want. I mean how much has. How much Rachel Reeves borrowed? I mean it's record borrowing under this government. And what are we, 3 trillion in debt? Yeah, it's endless. And same in the US, 36 trillion of debt, look at inflation. And when you give them unlimited money creation, they can create unlimited money for their special interests. And so if they can create unlimited money for their special interests, you have factionalism and you have the decay of society because you're no longer creating, you're no longer constrained. So you're no longer trying to run the country for the best of the electorate, you're running the country for how you retain power. And so we need constraint on the money printer.

[A]

But no one does it well.

[B]

I mean, a turkey is going to vote for Christmas.

[A]

No country is practicing this in modern day society.

[B]

Do we know that? Factually true. There's not a single country.

[A]

Name me one.

[B]

Well, I'd love to know what Switzerland's doing. Because for me, the Swiss model, which I'm very interested in, is because when I went down this Federalist anti Federalist rabbit hole of looking at the arguments, what was interesting about it is I'd read the Federalist Papers or like the summary of them and listen to podcasts about them. And the Federalists are celebrated as the people who founded America. And you don't really hear so much about the anti Federalists. Cato and I can't remember the other. I think there's three of them. And somebody once said to me that I think it might been, might have been Hodl. But somebody said to me, have you read the Antifederalist paper? And I assume the anti Federalists were about. They were just against the creation of the Federal, the Constitution and Family of America, which kind of they were. But really, actually I think it does it a disservice. And I think the name Antifederalist is actually does them a disservice. What it really was, was for me, and by the way, if you're some kind of like American historian, I've got this wrong, feel free to write to me and correct me. But essentially it was a fight between centralized power and decentralization. It was a fight. The Federalists wanted a strong united government, a federal government which could protect itself. And the anti Federalists wanted liberty. They wanted to ensure that government didn't get too strong. And look, the Federalists kind of won. The anti Federalists got what they want. They got the Bill of Rights, but the Federalists kind of won. But the anti Federalists will be laughing now because essentially the US government has outgrown the constraints of the Constitution and everything they feared would happen has happened. Okay? And so when I look at what happens in Switzerland, the direct democracy they have, which if you have if you don't know, go and look it up. If the government creates a law which the public don't like, if they, if they collect 50,000 signatures.

[A]

100,000.

[B]

No, no, 50,000. I'll come back to the hundred thousand. It's 50,000. They say 50,000, it goes to referendum. But if they want to create a new law themselves, if someone within the public wants to create a new law, if they collect 100,000 signatures, that then goes to referendum. And to me, that is basically the anti federalists, because the government, if the government is the federalists, they have control over power and they will always centralize power and they will create new acts and new laws and new acts of parliament, whatever. But there's no anti federalist check on them. It got weakened. The antifederalist position just got weakened over time by the centralization of power. I think what the Swiss have done is they've created that check and balance on the power. They are the anti federalists. They are the ones who go second government. We don't want that. That's fucking bullshit. We don't have this in our country. I mean, we're even worse. Our constitution is. Our constitution is based on like being a good chap, you know, these are. This is what a good British young man will do, a good British politician. Follow the rules of the Magna Card. We want to, but look, Parliament is sovereign in our country. They can do what the fuck they want and they do do what the fuck they want. And there is no constraint on their power. And sure, when it works, it works. When it doesn't work, it fails badly. And right now it is failing badly.

[A]

So no country operates currently on a true gold standard, not even Switzerland, although they've printed the least amount of money.

[B]

Okay, I'd be looking. What are the constraints on their money printer? Because that would be interesting to know. I mean, I would say to people, just buy Bitcoin, but. But even before we get there, we have to get to the point where the general public, the electorate, they are, I think they have to believe they are in command. I think right now a lot of people would just think they're subservient to government. The government in charge, they're the bosses. We just do what the fuck we're told. We're going to raise your taxes.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Oh, that's annoying, but okay. Anyway, I'll go to work, pay my taxes. Okay. We're going to remove your jury trials. I don't like that. Yeah, well, we're going to do it.

[A]

Oh, okay.

[B]

We're going to arrest 30 people a day for sending tweets and saying mean words. Yeah, yeah, okay. Well, we don't like it, but okay.

[A]

The only different one, which I wouldn't imagine any other country has, is the indirect fiscal constraint, the debt break.

[B]

Okay, where's that?

[A]

Do you know that? Well, when they, the government has like a spending cap just to get back after they spend a little bit too much to get back to zero.

[B]

Well, they have a debt ceiling in the US but this is fucking bullshit. Because what basically happens, they hit the debt, raise it. Well, they have a debt ceiling. Large parts of the government close down and then they horse trade to, you know, to raise the debt ceiling and they just basically agree to give a bunch more money to special interests. It's the same bullshit. It's the same bullshit. I think if people really understood money and how it works, they would realize the worst person to give uncontrolled money creation to is government. Look at the incentives, okay? No politician is incentivized to do the best for the public. Their incentives are to win and defend power in every single time. Every instance even. Nice be kind. People like Zach Polanski, he wants to accumulate power. Once he get it, he'll want to defend it. And how will they accumulate and defend it? By supporting special interests. If there isn't enough money in government to do that, what are they going to do? They're going to create money. It is as old as time. This is what they do. And so without that kind of constraint, if we do not constrain the money printer, we will never constrain government. And so for me, it's the most important thing.

[A]

Don't give them the money so they can lie.

[B]

Separation of money and state.

[A]

They can. It will stop them from doing things that they can't.

[B]

It's. They'll still get to do crazy shit. It's government.

[A]

Yeah, but they'll have to. They'll have dilemmas to face. It's not like everything or nothing.

[B]

Yeah, we're kind of putting constraints around.

[A]

Them a little bit.

[B]

Yeah, putting like hanging weights off them. Yeah, hanging weights off them. So these decisions are hard because when they can, when they are the allocators of laws and when they are the allocators of money and when they are the allocators of rights, they are going to allocate the laws, the rights and the capital to their preference groups, to the people who are going to vote for them, which creates, you know, special interests, which means we have pernicious laws and Pernicious rules and you know, things are very destructive to the country. We need to break all that.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I just also kind of feel like it's inevitable. Well, what do you eventually get to policy. And the policy will be for their groups. Labor policy will benefit Labour supporters, Conservative policy will benefit Conservative supporters.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

I go back to the. A parliament full of independents, no parties.

[B]

What problem?

[A]

1. Problem number one in most cases is factionalism. Yes, that's what's got us here, factionalism that way.

[B]

Yeah, but even if you had a parliament full of independents secretly, they're going to create factions in the back door.

[A]

Sure, but it's not one side versatile, it's not two parties. It might be 20.

[B]

Don't get me wrong, look, I mean my favourite politician is Rupert Lowe. I think he's the best we have right now. And he essentially has a one seat party.

[A]

We said I'm Great Yarmouth and that's it.

[B]

The party of Great Yarmouth, is it? Great Yarmouth first, yeah. And he cares about the country and the people of the country in the future. That's very obvious. But I think you're going to get factions anyway. It's always going to be. But if you have the direct democracy element to this, you have another constraint on power, the anti federalist position. So look, I don't know the exact answer. I need to speak.

[A]

We're working through it.

[B]

We're working through it. They wrote the constitution in I think four months. We will have a British constitution ready in four months. Give us a bit of time. There are smarter and better people out there, know more about this than me. All it's like, what do I know and what do I not know? What do I know with 100% clarity? This country doesn't work anymore, okay? It just doesn't. It's fundamentally broken. What else do I know? I know it doesn't work because government has unconstrained power and the ability to create as much money as it wants.

[A]

Okay?

[B]

That's what I know. What I know. I also know the people of this country, a large percentage are sick of it. I mean, we created the website inolongerconsent.com go and check it out. People have been signing the declaration on that that they don't consent anymore. People are following the Twitter account. We've nearly got a, I think about 750 followers on the Twitter account in like three days. I know there are people who are pissed off, upset, frustrated, don't know what to do and looking for an answer. I'm Just saying, like, here's the first step. Let's just agree the country doesn't work anymore. Let's agree that we can collectively remove our consent. Let's just tell the politicians, let's get people speaking the language of the country not working. We collectively can arrange, we can push back against government. Let's do that. If that creates a movement, if it becomes a thing, great. We will start to think about what that actually means. But we're already thinking about it. But I think right now we've just got to get the country to agree it's not working anymore. And it's not working because of government. And we cannot vote our way out of this. I am. I'm convinced of that. And, yeah. Any final thoughts?

[A]

Radical rebellion.

[B]

You no longer consent. I no longer consent. All right. Love you all. Give me a feedback. Let me know what you think. Subscribe. And all that stuff, all that jazz and. Yeah. And have a lovely Christmas. Enjoy your Christmas dinner, maybe with your family. Sit around, have these conversations. We always know politics comes up at Christmas. I no longer consent to Brussels sprouts. Fuck your Brussels sprouts. Have the conversations. Honestly, I want to hit. I want to hear from you. You can. You can drop me an email. It's [e-mail]. you can comment on this. You can go to the inolongerconsent.com website. You can go to Consent Ends on Twitter. Just let me know what you think. Like, am I mental? Am I crazy and thinking we should do this? Or are you in total agreement? Because I think I'm right. But I might be mental. But anyway, let me know what you think. Love you all. Have an amazing Christmas. We'll probably. Are we going to do one of these before the end of the year? Probably.

[A]

There's always shit that you're ranting about.

[B]

Yeah, we will probably see you before the end of the year. Have a great Christmas. Love you all. Peace out. See you later. Bye. Com.