Conservative Failings and the Reform UK Party | Nigel Farage

Hello everybody. In the last week, we've made arrangements with Nigel Farage, who is the man who took Great Britain out of the European Union with Brexit and who now runs a political party in the UK called Reform. The aim of Reform is to shake the Conservatives up, let's say, and return the classic liberals and the moderate right to something approximating what would you say an orientation that's actually based on the fundamental principles of Western Civilization itself: Judeo-Christianity at the bottom, the democracy that emerges out of that as a consequence of the concept of the sovereignty and divine import of the individual, the family above that, the community, the city, the state, the nation under God—that entire subsidiary structure—to return to an orientation that makes that primary and the foundation of identity itself. Nigel Farage's party is making great headway in the UK—surprising headway—and also among young people. We had the opportunity today to take 45 minutes just prior to the upcoming UK election to discuss, well, who Mr. Farage is and just what the hell he's up to. So tune in for that.

"Hello Mr. Farage, it's good to see you again."

"Hello there."

"Thank you. Yeah, so we've got 45 minutes for you to explain to everybody just what you think's going on in Great Britain in the UK in general, and then also to delve into the details of the election that's coming up right away."

"Thank you. Well, we had really a massive political event happen eight years ago last week. It was called Brexit. It happened after a 25-year grassroots campaign—a campaign for sovereignty, a campaign for borders against a wholly globalist establishment. And that included all of our main political parties, pretty much all of our newspapers, all of our trade unions, all of our big employers' organizations, all of our big banks, all of our state institutions, all of whom thought that membership of the European Union was the right place for the United Kingdom to be. And I took a view almost exactly 30 years ago when I decided this was wrong—that actually the nation-state is the essential building block within which people want to live; that it's a building block that they're prepared to pay their taxes to; it's the building block in extremists that they're prepared to put a military uniform on to defend. Because I've always taken the view that the nation-state really is like an extension of your family, your community—it's your country.

So I spent a quarter of a century from the tiniest of the lawns campaigning against the establishment view, and it took a long time to get any traction. But in the end, it was really the question of borders because we had a total open border with over 400 million people in the continent of Europe. And that was the issue that really lit the blue touch paper of sovereignty on its own. Even though I think, you know, self-government, parliamentary democracy—even though I believe that to be an absolutely fundamental principle—kind of people said, 'Well, it doesn't really affect my life directly.' But it was when we started to see immigration numbers coming into Britain on a scale that have never been comprehended over the last couple of thousand years that really the population decided to wake up.

So we have this extraordinary shock that took place on June 23rd, 2016—Brexit—and the public voted very clearly for us to leave. Our parliament didn't like the result, and many of them spent the next three years trying to get us to re-run the referendum. We managed to avoid that in the end after years of wrangling and, frankly, I think probably the most shameful period in the entire history of a British Parliament. In the end, on the 31st of January 2020, we left the European Union. Now in constitutional terms, that was probably the biggest event, I guess, for about 300 years. And you would have thought that was that because the Conservatives—at least that's the name of the party—they're called the Conservative Party—they got a massive 80-seat majority, a majority not seen from the Conservatives in Britain since the time of Thatcher. You've got to go back to the mid-1980s for that.

And the hopes and aspirations of those that voted for them—and I gave them considerable help with that victory—were that with self-government, the numbers coming into Britain would reduce; with self-government, illegal immigration could be effectively dealt with. And another crucial group—5.5 million men and women running small businesses acting as sole traders—believed that the massive regulatory rulebook that had been put on top of everybody—taking away their time, their effort—that that could be reduced so that we could encourage entrepreneurship; we could encourage real economic growth. And so the Conservatives were riding on the crest of a wave, and many said, 'Well, I mean, Boris Johnson will be Prime Minister for 15 years.' And what has happened over the last five years, in my view, is they have betrayed all of those hopes in absolutely every way.

Elected as Conservatives, but they've governed as Metropolitan liberals. They introduced Net Zero policies. I mean, so insane was some of it that Boris even suggested that we take out a production of 30% of our farmland. And when it came to getting rid of regulations, basically nothing was done. In fact, arguably, for many sectors, they are now living under more bureaucratic control now than they were as members of the European Union. And the big one—the big one—is legal immigration. And just to give people some context on this, in the late 1940s, it was very much felt that we owed a huge debt to the British Empire, British Commonwealth, because in two world wars, 40% of the contribution came from the Commonwealth—Canada, of course, your home country, being one of the most remarkable of them. And so began legal immigration from the West Indies and elsewhere, and it ran all through the late 40s, the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, right up until Tony Blair got in. It ran all through that period with a net migration level of 30,000 to 40,000 people a year. And we genuinely did not have in the late 1990s divided communities.

Mr. Blair opened the doors in the most remarkable way, and during his time as Prime Minister, our population increased by nearly 3 million as a direct result of legal migration. And then the Conservatives in 2010, in their manifesto in 2015, 2017, 2019—in four consecutive manifestos—they promised they would reduce net migration back to its historic levels of tens of thousands a year. Well, let's take Rishi Sunak's premiership, should we? In the last two years, a net 1.5 million have come. I mean, these are numbers that are just beyond anyone's imagination. Our population is now up by 10 million since Blair came to power. And what that has meant is that life, the quality of life for people on these islands has diminished, has changed. You can't get access to a doctor's appointment; traveling on the roads is, I mean, frankly, almost impossible; housing—do you know we have to build in our country a new home every two minutes just to cope with legal migration? And the British public are saying this is wrong, and it's frankly not fair, and that our kids, you know, can't even aspire to owning a home in the way that their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents did.

So a feeling of real disconnect, a feeling of real betrayal—a Conservative Party slumping in the opinion polls, a Labour Party rising because kind of in a first-past-the-post electoral system—that's what happens. And I just decided, Jordan, and I, you know, having spent 25 years of my life fighting for us to be sovereign, free, and independent, and having been victorious, I just decided that I just couldn't stand aside in what was this snap general election called when nobody really expected it. And I knew that I'd only have four months to pick up a party—Reform UK—that was virtually in many ways, I mean, no money, no structure, no substance. But I just decided, you know what, if we're going to have self-government, let's exercise it properly. Let's exercise it in the interests of our people. So I decided a month ago I would, you know, plant my flag in the sand and put myself forward for the election.

So that is why I'm here. I think the disconnect that exists between our political and media class in London and the rest of the country has never been bigger, and this is, for me, just the first step. This is a five-year project. We're really aiming at the 2029 general election. What I intend to do, hope to do, after we get over this hurdle on Thursday, is to build a mass movement across the country for change—a populist mass movement."

"All right, so I have a bunch of questions. Let's start with the political situation with regard to the Conservatives. So the first question I'll ask you about three and then let you answer those. What do you think it was that alerted you so long ago to the dangers of the EU? And the reason I'm asking that is because there was reason for people to be hopeful about the EU project; the fact that you could travel in Europe without passports from country to country was interesting. There was a while when there seemed to be a real sheen on the EU project, and there were, of course, concerns after the first and second world wars that the project of nationalism had flaws built into it, especially on the European side, that were so massive that some other form of government might reasonably be attempted. The world is unifying more too because we communicate with each other much more now. You were obviously very early in your apprehension that distributing power farther up the hierarchy to a unified say European government or the UN or the WF for that matter had serious flaws. So what do you think it was that made you alert to that so much before anyone else really caught on to it?"

"Well, I'm a sort of amateur historian. I love history, and I do think there are things we can learn from history—sadly, we rarely do. But there are things we can learn. And here's the point: I mean, yes, of course, you know, in 1870 the Germans invade France; in 1914 the Germans invade France; in 1940 the Germans invade France. And so this idea came around that if you unify France and Germany—and, of course, it began with a coal and steel pack in 1951—if you unify France and Germany, if you unify the whole of Europe, those nationalistic factors that caused war would go away, and we could live in peace. And I completely understand why people would have thought that after two catastrophic wars.

And, you know, think of the bombing, the civilian deaths, the Holocaust—all the awful things that did take place. But it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and the misunderstanding was that the existence of nation-states led to war. But they made one fundamental error, and it's this: provided the nation-state is acting as a functioning democracy, you don't have that problem. There is no example—there is no example in history of one functioning democracy going to war with another. And far from being a project of peace, I took the opposite view. I took the view—in about 1990, really—I took the view that if you take away from nation-states their ability to determine their own future and hand it up to a higher authority over which you have little or no say, far from dampening nationalistic sentiments, it's likely to increase nationalistic fervor. And here's the thing: why democracy works. Democracy works because whether you like the result or not, you settle it with a cross on a piece of paper, you know, and not with a gun. And so I actually felt that it was likely to provoke nationalistic stroke terrorist groups, not to diminish them.

So I took that big-picture view a long time ago. And what happened was, you see, we did have a referendum on this back in the 70s, and my parents were told, 'Look, vote to stay part of this because it's about trading with our neighbors; it's going to be good for business; it means we can travel to Europe freely.' Ironically, pre-1914, we could travel all over Europe without even having a passport—that's been rather forgotten. And no one thought, or very few people thought back in the 70s that it would threaten sovereignty, that it would threaten nation-state democracy. And as the years went by, a project that started around peace became a project about power. Tony Blair himself said, 'This is now a project of power,' and the ambition of the European Union was actually to become the world's leading superpower, miles away from what we were told we were joining.

Now look, I, you know, I've worked for American companies in a previous life; I even worked for a French company for a brief period of time. I get it. We're living in an interconnected world; I understand that. I am generally pro-free trade, provided it's fair. You know, and I get international business and travel, and I understand all of these things. But the unit by which we want to live our ability to determine many things that are very important in our lives—democracy, which for goodness sake is what we fought two world wars for—these things really, really matter. And to begin with, you know, my warnings about this were thought to be hysterical, but in the end, it did become a majority view. And I think if you look around Europe now, you'll see political movements that are on the rise who really are talking about similar things, Jordan, to what I was saying 10, 20, 30 years ago."

"All right, so let's turn our attention to the Conservatives. So, um, there are a couple of things that you pointed out that have been great mysteries to me. So, for example, I'm absolutely jaw-droppingly amazed that the Conservatives adopted Net Zero policies under Boris Johnson. It's like, what the hell were they thinking? You know, my, the most skeptical part of my brain and suppose the rude part thinks that this was cooked up by Boris Johnson to impress his young wife on the personal side, and that the Conservatives, as well as a group, lacked a vision so comprehensively that they had to turn to this idiot climate apocalypse mongering that's used by power-mad tyrants to cow the public into delivering them all the authority and power. And so I just can't wrap my head around the Conservative shift to Net Zero—not only because it's such a profoundly anti-conservative movement, at least with regards to such things as entrepreneurial activity and freedom, um, and it's profoundly anti-subsidiary, so it works against the spirit of distributed responsibility. And the economics of a shift to Net Zero are so appallingly catastrophic that it's a miracle that anybody who could count would even ever consider it. So, like, what the hell was going on with the—and certainly this is part of the reason they're being devastated at the moment—what in the world was going on with the Conservatives? Where were their heads at?"

"Well, you're right. I think that, um, I think that Boris Johnson's new much younger wife, Carrie—or Carrie Antoinette, as she's known—I think she perhaps did play something of a part in this, but it was broader than that. It was broader than that. You know, David Cameron in 2010 became a Conservative Prime Minister, and he and his sidekick George Osborne—the Chancellor—they saw themselves as the heir to Blair. They were essentially globalists; they were essentially career politicians, and they don't like to be criticized. They don't like the Twitterati; they don't like the G7, whatever it may be. Uh, they don't want to stand out from the crowd. They haven't got the courage of their convictions because, do you know what? They haven't actually got any real convictions.

And so we've been priding ourselves that we've cut carbon emissions more than any other Western country; we have cut carbon emissions by 44% since 1990. And you know how we've done it? We've de-industrialized. We've de-industrialized our steel plants; they close down, they go to India where the steel is produced under lower environmental protections, and then guess what? The steel goods are shipped back to the United Kingdom. We haven't actually reduced global CO2 emissions; we've just exported it to other countries. And at the same time as doing that, I mean, Boris said he wanted us to become the Saudi Arabia of wind, so wind turbines to be built all across our seascapes and some of our landscapes. But of course none of it working unless it had subsidy, and guess where the subsidy has gone? It's gone onto the electricity bills of ordinary folk, for whom energy is disproportionately a much higher percentage of their income. So we've actually de-industrialized; we have transferred vast amounts of wealth from the poorest to the richest, and even in terms of a CO2 debate and emissions, frankly, globally, we've achieved almost nothing.

And I think it's a combination of woolly thinking, but above all cowardice, and this is really my complaint about the so-called Conservative party: they are cowardly. They want to be popular amongst the right circles in the smart dinner party set in London; they can't stand the pyre that happens on social media, and they're in politics, and you'd think they're still, you know, in a university debating society. It's all a great big game; it's all about climbing the greasy pole. It's not about conviction."

"Let me ask you about carbon dioxide. I want to ask you a hard question. Many of the Conservatives that I talk to now—small-c Conservatives—are beginning to push back against the climate apocalypse mongers, but they're still doing it pretty apologetically. And so, you know, I've been looking at the data on carbon dioxide production for about 15 years, trying to sort it out, and my view as a scientist who's capable of assessing data is that if we were taking a dispassionate look at the situation—one that wasn't informed by the Club of Rome overpopulation doomsayers, for example—that we would conclude that by historical standards over periods of millions of years instead of thousands, we're actually—the planet is actually in a pretty severe carbon dioxide drought. And that the influx of carbon dioxide from the fossil fuel industry into the atmosphere is actually a net ecological good. And the reason I think this is because there's one piece of data that leaps out at me that is so large that it seems to put everything else in the shadow. And that is that in the last 20 years alone, the planet has greened by an area factor of 20%, which is twice as big as the continental United States. Now that's not all—not only has it got greener and a lot greener; the places that got greener were primarily semi-arid areas—in fact, exactly the areas that the climate doomsayers said would turn into outright desert as the planet warmed. Not only were they wrong; they were wrong in the opposite direction.

And then we could add to the fact that—this is like straight-up NASA data. I'm not making any of this up—that crops themselves, the crops we depend on to like eat, have increased their productivity by something approximating 15% along with this additional greening. And so, I can understand environmental concern that any rapid transformation of the ecosystem, including the rapid production of carbon dioxide, is something to be alert to because rapid change, it's difficult for biological systems to adapt to rapid change, let's say. But it seems to me that it's time for people who are not fond of the climate fearmongers to not be apologetic about their opposition—quite the contrary. Now, I know this is a rather—I might be regarded as a rather extreme stance—but I'm curious about what you do think about the climate crisis per se. And, you know, you've already made the case that Britain's attempts to address it have done nothing but enrich India and China and likely increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere anyways because of the lack of environmental standards in those countries. I think that's true, but I'm not sure that that gets at the issue as deeply as perhaps it might be addressed. So, anyways, um, I'll put you on the spot with regards to that."

"Well, I don't understand the science of it, and I haven't studied that aspect of it as much as you have. I've looked more at what we're doing in the name of dealing with the problem and my criticisms of that. But I would say this: I do find it extraordinary that people call carbon dioxide a pollutant because, as I understand it, you know, plants don't grow without carbon dioxide. And you're talking about the Earth being much greener than it was, so I don't understand that. I also—I've often asked the question, you know, what about sunspot activity? Surely historically, when it comes to the planet heating up and cooling down, sunspot activity is a factor, and yet that doesn't get talked about. And then, of course, we've got volcanoes—particularly underwater volcanoes in the Pacific Ocean. And from what I can understand, only 3% of carbon dioxide that's in our atmosphere is produced by man. So without delving deeply into the science, I do have some pretty big questions that I'm not afraid to ask."

"So, okay, so let's turn to the Labour Party, if you don't mind. So I'm watching with apprehension as the UK populace wanders over the brink, going to elect a Labour government in all likelihood. This concerns me a lot because if the Conservatives have been overrun by globalist liberals with a progressive agenda, I can't imagine who's lurking in the background on the Labour side. Well, I can't imagine because I worked in universities, so I actually know exactly who's lurking in the background. And so, I'm very apprehensive about what a Labour government will do to the UK. And so, what do you think a Labour government will do to the UK?"

"Yeah, I mean, Starmer has no—Keir Starmer has no leadership qualities whatsoever. He is devoid of any sort of charisma at all, and people do need a leader, you know, that inspires them to a certain degree. He's kind of doing well because he's not the Conservatives, and there is revulsion—there is revulsion at them; a sense of betrayal about them. On the face of it, his manifesto on climate change is almost identical to the Conservatives; his manifesto on economics is almost identical to the Conservatives. But I think we know that what we'll see is trans ideology in the ascendancy. We'll see more legislation designed to divide us up into different groups rather than bring us together as human beings equal before the law.

I look at his potential front bench of the top ministers. I see very little competence whatsoever. He's almost going to win by default as opposed to, you know, a big enthusiastic wave of support. And so, in some ways, I think there's every opportunity for this just to be a one-term Labour government. There'll be no honeymoon; there'll be no after-victory glow. He faces a big set of problems, you know, the ones I mentioned earlier—the population explosion, the fact that our public services don't work, the fact young people can't get a house, and even their rents take up over half of their income—and he won't have the solutions to any of it. He's campaigning on a slogan of change, but actually, it'll be more of the same, just ever so slightly worse. So here's the opportunity: the opportunity is to reshape the center-right of British politics to be where the silent majority actually are. Now, I know that the British Conservative Party have been around for 190 years, but nothing necessarily lasts forever. And what I'm doing with Reform UK is I am taking those stances on all of those issues that I think give us the kind of radical change that we need. And, you know, I use the word radical in an old-fashioned sense of the word. You see, I'm a traditionalist. I think that our culture matters; I think that our history matters; I think the way that we teach our kids about who we are as a people, as a nation, matters. I think understanding the Judeo-Christian principles that underpin, frankly, all of our civilization, I think that matters. And yet, I believe you can be a traditionalist whilst recognizing that your institutions need to be brought into the 21st century and that that can be done and one is not inconsistent with the other.

So my goal is to reshape the center-right of British politics into a form that actually stands for the sort of things that you and I would believe in and becomes electable and wins in 2029. Sometimes in life, things have to get a bit worse before they can get better."

"So let me go at you with the typical leftist radical critiques, let's say, of the UK. You know, my country, Canada, in so far as it's a good country, has principles that are derived from the UK, and they're very functional. And I read a great book at one point called 'The Wealth and Poverty of Nations' by a guy named Landes, a historian from Harvard, who pointed out that in the Western Hemisphere, if you were a country in the modern world that was settled by France, Portugal, or Spain, you were poor, whereas if you were a country that was settled by Great Britain with British institutions, you were rich. And that struck me and still does as highly probable. And so, the radical leftists would say Britain has a dreadful colonial past, that the capitalist enterprise marginalizes the poor and other marginalized groups. Obviously, that the time for nationalism is far gone, and you have to be something approximating an oppressive fascist to think otherwise. There's no brook whatsoever given for anything that smacks of Christian nationalism, which would be, again, I suppose to your insistence that the Nationalist project has to be embedded within or alongside the Judeo-Christian project. And so, well, those are fundamentally the criticisms, and so you said you're a traditionalist; you have a walloping flag sitting behind you. You've obviously been a staunch advocate of British sovereignty for forever and despite remarkable odds. So, what case can you make, say particularly to young people, for that serves as a barrier against the assault and accusations of the oh-so-moral radicals, but that also offers people a compelling invitation moving forward? What does reform have to offer?"

"Well, we believe in family, community, and country. We believe they're the three building blocks that matter to all of us, at whatever age we are. And if you deny those—well, you're entitled to deny those—but it's rather important that through the education system, people don't just hear that argument; they hear the positive argument. And I think what progressivism is doing, it's confusing young people. I mean, young men—young men are being told they can't be men. We've got England through to the quarterfinals of the European Championships as I speak, and they're being told that if you go to Germany, please don't drink too much beer; please don't chant in the stadiums; please don't sing songs that are funny but might cause offense; please don't be young lads. That's effectively what we're telling people through this progressive agenda.

And we're telling women, now look, you know, what's the problem? You're in a changing room; you're in a locker room, and there's somebody there with male anatomy, but that person calls themselves a woman, so what's your problem? And then when we send a double rapist—a violent double rapist—to a woman's prison, we're telling women, 'Don't complain! How dare you! That's transphobic!' I mean, all this stuff does is totally confuse everyone. And then you can move on from that to the diversity and inclusion agenda, which says that companies, corporate companies, government organizations don't employ people on talent; no, no, no, no, no. You've got to fill your quotas according to race, ethnicity, sexual preference. And all we're doing here is we're dividing everybody up; we're putting them in pigeon holes, and far from bringing us together, actually, all we're doing is causing ever greater division.

And actually—and it goes back to your point about Landes—actually, the kind of society that we've developed, evolved over these centuries, it may not be perfect, but you know something, it's a damn sight better than anybody else in the history of mankind has ever come up with. And, you know, when you see nearly 25% of 18 to 24-year-old Islamic men and women born in this country now think jihad is an acceptable principle, you realize that if we're not careful, this progressivism is going to destroy our society as we know it, lead to chaos and make us poorer. That's the case to put to young people. And you know what's exciting? What's really exciting about this is all through my years of battling for sovereignty and borders, my supporters were over 45, over 50. Now, despite the fact this political party has only been active for a month, I've just seen polling today suggesting that Reform and what I stand for is now the second most popular amongst the younger generation in this country. And actually, I believe that within a short space of time, our objectives, our goals, you know, our policies, our thoughts, our feelings, our principles can become the number one amongst young people in this country.

And I've pretty much given up with the Millennials—they're gone; they're gone. I mean, they talk about work-life balance and, you know, no one wants to get out of bed in the morning and they think the state owes them a living. I'm seeing amongst Gen Z something very, very different despite what their school teachers and university lecturers are telling them. I'm seeing great hope among Gen Z for the kind of principles that we believe in; I'm seeing it in France at the moment, where the, you know, we're heading up for the second round of these French elections and even though Marine Le Pen's economic policies might be deeply socialist, you know, culturally, she believes in La France.

And I fully understand why. I see Trump doing amazingly well with young people in America, and suddenly even though I'm sick, some young people for some reason think I'm cool. So actually, I am seeing great hope. Thank goodness."

"So I want to approach this from a psychological perspective for a moment. With regards to your emphasis on family, community, and country, we're neck-deep in identity politics; I suppose that's the core of the so-called culture war. And the progressives in particular suffer from a pathology of atomized liberalism because—and it's based on a misapprehension of psychological understanding—they believe that identity is something that can only be defined by the individual. But even it's even more atomized than that—it's not only is identity only proclaimed subjectively, no matter what it was, but that very subjectivity is actually disintegrated into racial identity, ethnic identity, or sexual, let's say, sexual identity. And so what that means is that it's a very small fragment of the subjective that's defining identity.

And so then you might say, okay, well, what truly defines identity? And your emphasis on family, community, and country is a much more psychologically and socially astute vision. Human beings are very, very social; we're communal organisms. We live in parabon, parabonded sexual arrangements in the main. If we're mature, we live in families that have multigenerational commitments; we live in communities that can scale upward to the level of a nation. We're instantiated at every level: married couple, family, local community, town, state, nation—all of those are part of identity. And then the core of identity is the sacrifice of individual whim to that broader community and the future. So it's a sacrificial gesture on the part of the individual to establish a mature identity that includes other people in the future.

That's why there's so much emphasis on sacrifice in the Judeo-Christian tradition; the community is based on sacrifice. That's absolutely 100% accurate. And so I've been talking to young people all around the world, and one of the things that makes the crowds go silent—that the conservatives have at their fingertips that you've already touched upon—is that the meaning that all these young people are missing in their life is going to be found in their willingness to sacrifice their idiot individual whims for something that's beyond them; for an identity that stretches beyond them— to their marital partner, to their family, to their community, to their city, to their state, to their country under God—that whole upward striving, communal, and future-oriented identity—that's where all the meaning is because that's the most fundamental expression of the instinct that unites us.

And it's also where the adventure is because it is the case that the more responsibility you take onto yourself in that sacrificial manner, the more adventurous and meaningful and deep your life becomes. And conservatives can explain this to young people—it's like your missing value is to be found in the voluntary adoption of responsibility. And you know they understand this because every time I say those sorts of things to the audiences that I'm speaking to, they go dead silent. No one's pointed this out for 60 years. And so your emphasis, and I think the emphasis on the rising rate around the world on the necessity for family, community, and country as higher-level integrating structures with regards to identity—that that gives you security, so that quells anxiety, and it gives you hope because it gives you something to do. And you need something to do to have hope and to have that positive meaning in your life; it's adventure through responsibility. And conservatives have that to sell if they're wise to sell that to young people—to offer that to young people, to invite young people to that."

"Well, I mean, you know, one of the most exciting things in life is to be part of a team, isn't it? You work together with other individuals, and if you achieve a victory, a goal together, it feels—always feels better somehow as part of a team than just for yourself. There are some exceptions to that, but generally, I think that that is true. Look, you know, I am going to go on fighting; in fact, to be honest, I've only just started properly fighting atomized liberalism. I want us to completely abolish the diversity and inclusion laws, completely abolish the equalities act that was brought in by the Labour Party in 2010 and which the Conservatives haven't had the guts to even talk about because they're cowards. And I want us to basically say we don't care; we don't care what you are. I was asked the other day, what was I going to do for the black community? Do you know what I said? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! I couldn't give a damn whether you're black or white, whether you're gay or straight. I really don't care! You'll be judged by your character; you'll be judged by your ability; you'll be judged by are you a contributor to society or a taker out. And right at the moment, this is considered to be dangerous radical thinking, but I think if we can start to explain why this matters, if we can start to explain that that's the only way we're going to have any chance of a unified society that works together, you know, with mutual benefit for each other, I think this is one of the next great political battles, and we're going to need some quite brave leaders to take it on.

But I, yeah, you know, I mean, I have to say, you know, the lunacy we saw with Black Lives Matter in 2020, you know, maybe people have begged to reflect every slightly on that. We've got to treat human beings as being equal before the law, judge them on their values, judge them on their character, judge them on their merits—not by their skin color or sexual preference."

"Yeah, well, a ringing endorsement of the Civil Rights Movement from like 1963. You know, you'd think we would have figured that out. So maybe to close, sir, if you don't mind, why don't you just tell people where are—what do you expect from the election? Where are—where is your party sitting—and also, are—why are you not concerned, or how are you concerned about the fact that, you know, you're splitting the vote on the center and on the right, let's say? And of course by doing so, in some ways, playing into the hands of the idiot progressives that are going to end up running your country. So let's deal with both of those. What's the risk in what you're doing with regards to the union of the Conservatives? And then also, what do you think—what do you think's going to happen to your party in particular in this upcoming election?"

"Well, point number one is the Conservatives don't need my help to destroy their election chances; they've done it to themselves. They were going to lose anyway, and it's very interesting, a large number of people who say they'll vote for me if I wasn't here wouldn't bother to vote at all—that's how disenchanted they are with the whole thing. As I said earlier, you know, a Labour government is going to happen; the Conservatives deserve to lose; Labour don't deserve to win, but they're going to win. What I'm doing here is putting a first big marker down. Albeit just in the space of a few weeks, we are going to get millions of votes. We are going to get our first people elected into that Parliament. And I might remind people just as happened to a party called Reform in Canada some years ago, everyone said, 'Oh no, Reform—Reform will split the vote; Preston Manning's a right-wing nutjob,' you know, all the same kind of criticisms. And in the end, Reform won, and as you know, Stephen Harper proved to be a very good Prime Minister in many ways of Canada, having first been elected as a Reform MP and then effectively doing a reverse takeover of the very tired and increasingly progressive Conservative Party.

I am trying to do something very similar to what Reform did in Canada all those year—30 years ago. And to be honest with you, it's one of the reasons I chose the name Reform UK, seeing inspiration from what happened when common sense got back into Canadian politics. Sadly, now long disappeared under Trudeau. So we're going to get, well, you know, I mean, I— we're going to get millions of votes; we're going to win those seats. But I'm going to do this differently. This is not going to be just about what we can do in Parliament. We are going to build—this is my ambition—we're going to build a mass movement for common sense and we're going to build it not just because we object to what the progressives have done to us, but because we believe in family, community, and country. And I think the more people, particularly young people, hear those arguments, the more successful we'll be over the coming years."

"Well, sir, that's an excellent place to stop, and we've timed it within the minute so that always books well for paying careful attention. Good luck later this week. We'll want to have a conversation at some point in the future about this Alliance for responsible citizenship that's trying to do on the international side pretty much what you guys are trying to do on the national side. And so I do think there's a real opportunity here for the right and the classic liberals to come together to produce an invitational vision of the future that can lift young people and the countries they're part of out of this idiot apocalypse mongering malaise that seems to be mandatory from the moral perspective as far as the anti-human radicals who hate Western civilization are concerned. So good luck later this week. We're watching with bated breath in Canada and everywhere else."

"Yeah, very good to talk to you. Thank you, Jordan."