Why are protests erupting in Dover, Portsmouth, and elsewhere? It’s a question that’s on the mind of many British people right now. And it’s a question I explore on this week’s episode of The Silent Majority Podcast, in which I walk you through a series of bombshell revelations about what is really going on in Britain’s broken asylum system and explain why people are being gaslit and misled by the system.
If you want to support a platform that speaks up for the silent majority, challenges the establishment, and now reaches millions of people every month, then please join us as a paid supporter.
Paid supporters make everything we do possible — they can unlock every full episode of the podcast, every article, live discussions with me, our subscriber-only group chat, and the knowledge that you are helping us reach millions of people with arguments and evidence they simply won’t get anywhere else.
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT
Hello, everybody. Welcome to the second episode of the Silent Majority podcast, the place where we like to push back against establishment narratives. We like to ask questions that very few people are willing to ask.
And more importantly, we like to give you information and evidence you’re probably not going to hear today anywhere else.
Now, this week, we’re going to be looking at the disturbances, the eruption of protests and demonstrations in the United Kingdom, in Dover and Portsmouth. Of course, those are related to migration.
But I’m going to be asking what actually lies behind the simmering public anger in the country, because I do think we are approaching a very dangerous place.
But before we get going and discuss all of that, before we start, I just wanted to say, if you’re listening as one of our free subscribers, if you’re listening on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts, our early episodes are going to be completely free and open to everybody.
But after a little while, we’re going to limit the podcast to a short preview for our free subscribers, and the full episodes are going to be available to our paid supporters over at mattgoodwin.org.
And the reason we’re doing that is because we are using the support from a small number of our paid supporters to invest in social media, to build a platform that actually genuinely represents the silent majority.
We are reaching tens of millions of people now every month across social media, through things like our Substack newsletter and now this podcast.
We are immensely grateful to our paid supporters for making that possible. So if you want access to every post, every episode, the group chat, live discussions with me, head over to mattgoodwin.org and become a paid supporter.
Now, enough of that because it’s time to get going with what we really want to talk about today. And that is the eruption of significant protests and demonstrations in Dover and Portsmouth.
Many of you will have seen the scenes.
These were highly coordinated events, public protests in two major places in the UK. We saw hundreds of people, in some cases dressed in black, wearing balaclavas, taking to the streets, blocking off essentially the port of Dover.
And then just a few hours later, the next day even, we saw those extraordinary scenes in Portsmouth where a small boat, a mega dinghy, carrying around 140 illegal migrants arrived off the south coast of England.
And when it became clear that that mega dinghy—and of course, this is significant because most of the dinghies and boats do not land at Portsmouth, they go around to Dover—hundreds of protesters started to gather, not just locals, but people from organized networks.
And they proceeded to block roads. They tried to block the boat from arriving, and they tried to prevent the police from taking those illegal migrants and asylum seekers to be processed.
And Britain was once again this week confronted with, I think, a level of anger, frustration and tension around the immigration issue that is now becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Many Labour politicians quickly proceeded to criticise the protests, demonise the protesters. Prime Minister Andy Burnham described “poison” being brought onto Britain’s streets. The Labour Policing Minister described the protests as being unacceptable. Labour Minister Emma Reynolds described them as being “thuggish”, as dealing with or bringing intimidation.
And I do think it’s interesting because for the last few years, we have had a political class in this country, a ruling class, that has been more than happy, more than willing to allow mass protesters to march through the streets of London, Hamas sympathizers, anti-Semites, all kinds of extremists.
And they’ve barely said a word.
But here we have working-class British people protesting peacefully so far—and I’ll come back to that point—and yet Westminster and much of the left in British politics has had a complete nervous breakdown.
I do see a significant amount of hypocrisy.
Now, before getting into what’s caused these protests, what lies behind them, the chaos in the asylum system and some absolutely remarkable figures and evidence that we’ve discovered over the last seven days—and I’ll walk you through all of it—and I’m going to talk a bit about where I think this could be taking British society if we do not get control of the borders, obviously I’m just going to insert the caveat at the top of this podcast.
I do not support violence. I don’t think anybody who’s involved with our newsletter supports violence. We do not support intimidation. We do not support people breaking the law. We do not support people—well, I don’t support people wearing balaclavas. I don’t think they’re particularly useful.
I agree with some politicians this week who have said the best move for Britain is to ban all face coverings, including the burqa and the niqab. We are entering a society here, if we’re not careful, where face coverings are being normalized and becoming mainstream.
But let me be crystal clear at the top of this podcast. Let me tell you what I do support. What I do support is the right of the British people to peacefully protest against what is happening to their country.
And rather than simply condemning these people, rather than simply calling them far-right extremists, misinformed, and then quickly moving on, as much of the political and media class is doing, I think we need to ask a much more important question, which is what I’m going to answer today.
Namely, why is this happening?
Why are people becoming so angry in Britain?
Why is the country being pushed to the very edge?
Why are we seeing so many protests and demonstrations in recent years?
Because it’s not just Dover and Portsmouth. It is Epping. It is Bournemouth. It is Dundee. It is Falkirk. A number of towns and cities now have seen significant public protests and demonstrations against a specific policy that is being imposed on this country from above.
Britain now feels like it’s on the edge. In fact, only recently, the credible pollsters YouGov asked the British people—this is a mainstream pollster—to what extent do you think it is likely that there will be civil conflict in Britain in the next 10 years?
And one-third of all British people, one third, one in three, felt it is very likely that there will be civil conflict, potentially even civil war, in Britain within the next 10 years.
So in this episode, I want to really interrogate this and explore this, focusing in particular on what we’ve learned this week about the absolute chaos that is unfolding in Britain’s asylum system.
Because while all of these protests were taking place, all of the demonstrations in Dover and Portsmouth, something really important was happening in the background over the last seven days.
One story after another broke, one bombshell after another, involving an asylum system in this country that increasingly looks completely overwhelmed and out of control.
And I’m going to walk you through the big revelations because when you put them together, I think you begin to understand something critically important.
The small boats, the more than 209,000 people who have arrived now in Britain illegally on the small boats—and remember, in some polls, immigration is still the number one issue in the country.
It’s why I talk about it perhaps more than other issues.
But the small boats are only the most visible part of the crisis that is unfolding in Britain because behind those boats—and this is the important point—sits an asylum system that is simply not working. Sits a government machinery, the blob, the establishment, that is simply not in control of what is happening in this country.
So let’s go through what we’ve learned over the last seven days, because I think it has been quite a week.
I want to start here with the whistleblower, with a government insider that has blown the whistle on what is really happening behind the scenes. And I want to start with what they have revealed to the British people.
Just 1% of asylum claims in Britain, according to somebody who is working on asylum claims, just 1% are genuine claims for asylum.
That is what they told the Times newspaper. One in every 100.
This is not a fringe. This is not out on the margins or the extreme. This whistleblower went straight to one of the biggest newspapers in the country and said just 1% of asylum claims that they can see that are being processed are genuine.
Now, of course, this is not an official Home Office statistic. This is not an official report. But this is somebody who says that they have personally assessed thousands of asylum claims. And what they have seen is nothing short of astonishing.
They have talked about what people inside the system apparently call package claims. The same stories, the same supporting evidence, the same circumstances, the same excuses, the same motivations for seeking asylum come up time and time again.
In other words, you’re talking about widespread fraud.
The examples they gave: hundreds of Iraqi Kurds all saying they’ve been in a relationship with the daughter of the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan region. So either the daughter of the Prime Minister of Kurdistan really gets around, or these guys are gaming the system.
So many people made the claim, according to the whistleblower, that it became a running joke inside the Home Office.
Another example: hundreds of Pakistani applicants claiming that their lives are at risk because they are in a gay relationship with the same man. That’s right. Hundreds of asylum seekers from Pakistan claiming to be in a relationship with the same man supplied letters supporting the claims.
And many people, by the way, who have applied for asylum claiming to be gay also happen to have been photographed at the very same gay nightclub, which it turns out is now closed.
Now, of course, we’ve heard allegations like this before. Some of you will remember in recent months we had an undercover BBC investigation which found that immigration advisors and immigration lawyers—it’s a real racket—have offered to help migrants manufacture false sexuality-based asylum claims. They have helped them to pretend to be gay, essentially.
So when somebody who actually works inside the system comes forward and says that there is indeed widespread fraud, shouldn’t we be asking some very serious questions?
Because this is supposed to be a credible, reliable asylum system. It’s meant to protect people who are genuinely in need, genuinely fleeing persecution. To some extent, Britain should protect a small number of those people.
Although many of us, myself included, would argue that through helping refugees from Hong Kong, helping refugees from Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of people—
Not only of genuine refugees, but the taxpayer, the British taxpayer. And we’ll come back to the costs later on because it is frankly absurd.
Another example was people from Bangladesh who claim to be now under persecution because they happen to belong to a particular political party. But when they were asked about the policies and the beliefs of that political party, they couldn’t answer the officials.
You know, we are being completely gamed in this country. And it is the hardworking, taxpaying British people, members of the silent majority, who are being forced to pay billions of pounds every year for this fraudulent scheme.
Now, that whistleblower, that wasn’t the only story this week, because that was followed very quickly by a second story, which also pointed to the absurdity of the system.
The United Nations Refugee Agency, which I don’t think you can describe as a right-wing organization, to put it mildly—it is definitely a member of the woke industrial complex—looked at how Britain has been conducting asylum interviews. And what did it find?
Well, it found that there was a real risk that Britain was giving people asylum who were not entitled to it and that it was making many mistakes. It was refusing people who genuinely needed some protection while also granting asylum to people who are not actually entitled to it.
In fact, it found that in nearly 30 of the 60 interviews for asylum that it examined, there were important credibility issues which had not been resolved. In another 19, the full basis of the asylum claim remained unclear.
In other words, in many, many asylum claims that are being made here in Britain, those claims, those applications, are not even meeting the quality threshold that has been set by our own government.
I mean, this is absolutely outrageous. We’re not talking about somebody on social media, an opposition politician. We’re not talking about a Substack writer even, although they’re great. We’re talking about the United Nations Refugee Agency flagging serious concerns about the quality of decision-making that is currently taking place inside Britain’s asylum system.
And the Home Office’s own numbers tell us something else indeed, because what we’ve also seen this week is a series of revelations that really do need to be known by everybody in the country.
The initial asylum rate, the rate at which people are being granted asylum after applying, has certainly fallen in recent years.
Now, back in 2022, that success rate, that grant rate for people applying for asylum in Britain, was 77%. Almost everybody was getting it, right?
They were just rubber-stamping applications left, right and center.
Today, it is 38%, so nearly 40%.
So we’ve gone from granting more than three quarters of all asylum claims to about four in 10.
Now, Labour politicians will sit on television and say, well, look at this, the system’s working, and they’ll gaslight you, a bit like they’re gaslighting you on the hotels.
Because what they tell you when it comes to the asylum hotels—and you’ve seen it all week again—they’ll sit on Politics Live or Question Time and they’ll say, well, the number of asylum hotels are coming down. Well, on the surface, that’s true.
But what they’re doing behind the scenes is they’re just moving people out of asylum hotels and they’re putting them into HMOs, housing for multiple occupancy, where they put upwards of 10 people in the same house, and they’re moving them into private accommodation.
And then you have private companies like Serco, who are offering landlords more favorable contracts if they take on illegal migrants and asylum seekers than if they take on British people. So they offer landlords, for example, things like no council tax, lower bills, instant repairs, all of this kind of stuff.
But here’s the kicker. Those private companies like Serco are bankrolled, are backed by money from the government, by money from the British people.
Which raises another obvious question. What on earth has been happening before these asylum claims have seemingly dropped? Are we actually now getting more decisions wrong? What exactly has changed?
Well, whichever way you look at it, these are not actually the numbers of a system that is inspiring confidence.
If you go back before 2022 into the 2010s, even the 2000s, the number of asylum claims were much lower than they are today. So even at the 40% grant rate, we are still processing and accepting many more applications for asylum than we did in previous years.
It’s a bit like when they say, well, the small boat numbers are down 40%, so therefore everybody should just relax and not be concerned. Well, that’s not the metric.
The metric is what happened before 2018.
And what happened before 2018 is we had no small boats. We don’t want the small boat numbers coming down 40%. We don’t want any small boats. That’s the metric.
But what you see is, through this debate, they are trying to normalize illegal migration. They are trying to get people to accept that this is now a permanent feature of our national life.
When Andy Burnham says, I’m going to move processing centers, detention centers, from poor areas to rich areas, the debate then becomes about redistributing illegal migration when the debate should be about stopping illegal migration.
But the reason they’re gaslighting you is also because they’re not telling you about the appeals process. And this is what we also learned this week.
Let me just bring this one up because this is another unbelievable thing. That’s a great story, another unbelievable piece of evidence that came out this week.
Because even when the Home Office declines an application for asylum, when it rejects that application, that doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody instantly leaves Britain. They can appeal that decision.
And this week we learned much more about what is happening in that appeal process.
Close to 6,000 appeals against rejections were allowed. Another 10,200 cases were withdrawn, normally by the Home Office. And when those outcomes are combined, it turns out that two-thirds—and this is in the Times newspaper again—two-thirds of rejected asylum claims are overturned on appeal. 64%.
64% of asylum claims that were initially rejected are overturned on appeal. Nobody will tell you this on BBC Question Time.
Think about what that really means. So the Home Office makes a decision. It says no. The case moves into the appeals system. And then a very large proportion of those cases either succeed on appeal or they are withdrawn immediately.
Again, what is going on?
Either large numbers of initial Home Office decisions are wrong to begin with—I would not be surprised by that—or new information is entering the process later on, or the system is simply struggling to reach consistent decisions.
Either way, it is a complete and utter joke.
Whatever explanation you prefer, the consequence is the same: more delays, more immigration lawyers, more tribunal hearings, more administration, more money being spent by the hardworking British people during the worst cost-of-living crisis pretty much since the Second World War, going on something they never asked for, they never voted for, and more time before Britain finally establishes whether anybody has a right—
The time, the clock just ticks on.
And now that backlog has completely exploded. This is what we learned also this week. In fact, we learned about this towards the end of the week.
It is, for me, the figure that best captures the total chaos in the system.
For months, ministers have been talking about clearing the asylum backlog. They’ve been talking about improvements. They’ve been talking about getting on top of the system, getting things moving.
You speak to anybody in Westminster, in the SW1 land, they’ll say, “Oh, isn’t Shabana Mahmood great? She’s doing such a good job.”
Except now we’ve discovered something that blows all of that apart because the asylum backlog has not disappeared. It’s just moved.
Because new figures show that at the end of June 2026, there were more than 90,000 asylum appeals waiting to be heard. 90,000. A year earlier, it was only 59,000.
So in just a year, under Labour, the asylum appeals backlog has increased by 51%. Think about that. 51%.
Now, the government speeds up the initial asylum decisions. You get more decisions being made, more people being rejected, but then more people appeal and the pressure just moves from the Home Office into the courts, a bit like the pressure is moving from the asylum hotels onto HMOs and private accommodation.
So if you clear one backlog, you’re just simply creating another somewhere else in the system.
In fact, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has already warned about precisely this problem, referring to repeatedly shifting backlogs rather than actually reducing them.
So it’s like a game of whack-a-mole. The system is just moving this problem from one part of the system to another. And again, it is the British people, it is the silent majority, who suffer.
Because we don’t really have an asylum backlog anymore. What we have in this country is a chain of backlogs running through the system. And the system is now completely incapable of dealing with this issue, of resolving this issue.
And that is why so many people out there, millions of people out there, are feeling so utterly frustrated.
There are now more than 155,000 outstanding asylum cases in this country. 155,000.
The government itself said only weeks ago that the average wait for an asylum and immigration appeal to be decided by a judge was around 67 weeks. More than a year.
This is why I think the political debate completely misses the point.
We are always hearing ministers boast about how many initial decisions they’ve been making, but who cares how many pieces of paper they are actually processing if the cases are just piling up elsewhere?
The real test of an asylum system, in my mind at least, is incredibly simple. Can Britain quickly decide who is entitled to remain here? And then crucially, when somebody is not entitled to remain, can Britain actually remove them from the country?
I mean, we’re now in such an absurd position that even the Times newspaper this week has now adopted the Reform UK position.
Now, the Times newspaper, in case you haven’t noticed, has launched an all-out war on Reform UK, targeting Nigel Farage and the people around him, spending basically the entire summer trying to derail Reform UK.
Now, whatever you think about Reform UK, it is a bit hypocritical for the Times newspaper then this week to adopt Reform UK’s policy, which it did, when it called for the immediate detention and deportation of all illegal migrants.
And anyone who enters Britain illegally, according to the Times, should not be given asylum. They should be immediately deported and moved offshore to a third country. And the Times suggests perhaps use the Falkland Islands.
Now, what’s the difference between Reform UK’s policy and what the Times newspaper is advocating? Very little indeed.
And this is the absurd position that we find ourselves in. The establishment attacks the anti-establishment party while parroting the anti-establishment party’s position.
So this is why, again, I’m optimistic. Those of us in, let’s call it, common-sense land, who have been arguing against the establishment now—
I would argue, by the way, if you look across Europe, that is what is happening.
The other thing we saw this week: the enormous election results in Germany.
What we are seeing there is hugely significant. The Alternative for Germany is replacing the failing liberal, established Conservative Party, the CDU. The AfD is replacing the dominant, historically dominant right-wing party while calling for a much tougher position on migration.
You look at France in the polls. Marine Le Pen, Jordan Bardella, who I met last week at the Reform Conference, they are topping the polls, likely to be the next president and/or prime minister of France.
Look at Austria. The Austrian Freedom Party, number one in the polls.
Look across Europe, you see much the same. We are winning the argument when it comes to the issue of migration and border security because a lot of people looked at those scenes in Ceuta, Spain earlier this summer and they can see what’s coming.
They can see what is coming down the track if we do not change course.
And in Britain, as I’ve written previously on the Substack, what that means is building Fortress Britain.
It means leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. It means repealing Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act, and it means immediately detaining and deporting anybody who arrives in this country illegally, turning back the boats and sending in the Navy, but fundamentally changing the legal architecture around this country.
There is no point being in the Refugee Convention in 2026. It was made in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is not fit for purpose.
There is no point being in the European Convention on Human Rights when we cannot control our own borders and our own laws and our own policy.
The reason people voted in 2016 to leave the European Union is because they were tired of being stuck in an illiberal, undemocratic regime that imposed policies on them that they never even voted for and they couldn’t influence.
But that is precisely what we have with the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR. We cannot control these decisions. Unelected judges, influenced by unelected lawyers, influenced by a political class in Westminster that is wholly focused on maintaining and upholding the broken status quo.
Now, millions of people in Britain might not know the detail in the asylum system that I’ve just talked about during this podcast. They might not know the exact numbers.
But what they do know, because the British people are not idiots, is that the system isn’t working and they are not being respected. They are not being treated fairly.
The old argument about British culture is that it was always based on fairness. It was based on the idea of fair play. And that is so important to the British people.
But what they can sense is that the very politicians on the left, Labour politicians and also Tory politicians too, Lib Dem Conservatives, that when they tell the British people, when they lecture the British people about fairness, about compassion, about empathy, what the British people can now see, like people across the West, is that those words do not mean what they used to mean.
Because what we have now is a political class in the West that is absolutely, absolutely dominated by the mindset of suicidal empathy, obsessed with suicidal empathy.
They want to show so much empathy to people who do not come from Western nations that they are destroying Western nations along the way.
That is what I see when I look at these numbers.
150,000 unresolved asylum claims. 210,000 people arriving illegally on the small boats. That’s more than twice what we have in our standing army.
It is completely and utterly insane.
Which brings me back to the protests that are now erupting very regularly across the country, which brings me back to Dover, brings me back to Portsmouth, brings me back to the anger, the tension.
And what we’re witnessing, the establishment response to those protests, has been utterly predictable.
Andy Burnham, Emma Reynolds, every woke celebrity, many mainstream journalists have condemned the protesters. Many mainstream newspapers have.
Ironically, many of the same newspapers that claim to represent public anger on immigration were some of the quickest to condemn people who were protesting peacefully.
They’ve been called thugs. They’ve been called far right. We’re back to the Keir Starmer playbook. They’ve been talking endlessly about people presenting a threat to British society.
Now look, as I said at the outset, if you’re committing violence, if you’re intimidating others, if you’re breaking the law, then of course the police should act, and I don’t support people engaging in violence.
But what I find absolutely remarkable is the complete lack of curiosity in Westminster and the media class about the bigger question, about why all of this is happening.
What I find remarkable is the hypocrisy.
I do not remember Shabana Mahmood, who has come out this week and said the police must get tough on the hard right, I do not remember Shabana Mahmood coming out and saying the police must get tough on those balaclava-wearing thugs from Muslim communities in East London who were marauding through the streets.
I do not remember the political class saying the police and the system must crack down on all of those hate marches through our capital city for the last three months—or four years.
I do not remember them adopting the same mindset when it comes to sympathizers of Hamas, the Islamist organization, by the way, that happens now to have praised the UK Labour government twice in as many years.
I mean, my question, as I wrote in the Substack this week: what on earth did Britain’s political class expect? What did they think was going to happen? What did they think the British people were going to do?
Because for years, for decades, pretty much ever since May 1997, where in my mind this hideous experiment begins, the British people have voted for immigration to come down. They’ve voted for demographic change to be slowed.
And for years, governments, whether Labour or Tory, have promised control. They’ve promised they would lower immigration. They’ve promised they would secure the borders.
Beginning with Tony Blair and Jack Straw and David Blunkett, running right through to Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer and now Andy Burnham.
But what have the British people been given instead?
One betrayal after another.
Small boats crossing the Channel. Asylum hotels opening. Five-star accommodation for people breaking our laws. Legal experts, lawyers, courts working overtime to prevent the British people from controlling their own borders, their own country.
An asylum system that is now riddled from top to bottom with fraud, with fraudulent claims. It’s become a Ponzi scheme. Rejected applications disappearing into an appeals process.
And now what we see is righteous public anger, legitimate public anger. People saying enough is enough.
And what I wrote about towards the end of this week, which actually has turned into one of our most-read pieces this year, what I wrote about is my concern, my fear, to be frank with you, about where this is heading.
A few years ago, I read the work of David Betts, a professor at King’s College London, an expert in conflict, military conflict and war. David’s very well respected. He’s very well cited in academia. He’s a serious man with a lot of studies, papers and books behind him.
David got some attention a few years ago, as some of you will know, for daring to suggest, having spent much of his career looking at civil conflict and civil war in developing states, that actually the conditions for civil conflict are now present in Western nations like Britain, and that actually we are already sliding into some kind of civil conflict.
The wheels, he argues, are already in motion.
Now, I explain his theory in the Substack. I talk through the different dynamics that he points to, the things that you would need to be present for that to happen.
But let me just read one of the quotes from his excellent report with a co-author, because I think it sums it up:
“The consequence,” he writes, “is a political culture that’s no longer defined by left and right, but by something starker. A belief that politics itself is theatre, with real decisions scripted elsewhere, beyond scrutiny or correction,” or we might add, the people. “In this sense, the central political belief of liberal democracy, the conviction that voting matters, has withered away.”
And I think that is what those people at the protests, those people in Dover, those people in Portsmouth, can sense.
It doesn’t matter, based on the last 30 years, how you vote. It doesn’t matter if you support Labour. It doesn’t matter if you support the Tories because nothing ever changes.
Immigration levels keep going up. The borders become weaker. The boats keep coming. And the bill, the billions of pounds that have to be paid, is forced onto the British people.
That is why I genuinely believe, even though I was skeptical of David Betts’s argument at first, that we are now entering a very dangerous period in British politics.
Because the social contract is being stretched beyond what is acceptable and what would support democracy and social cohesion and the legitimacy of the state going forward.
When millions of people start to conclude it’s not just that the state cannot do its job, it’s not just that the state is incompetent, but when millions of people start to conclude that the state itself is working against their own people, against its own citizens, well, then we’re entering a very dark place indeed.
And I suspect at the radical tip in Dover and Portsmouth, that is indeed what all of those men and women have already concluded.
There’s no point actually waiting three or four years for a general election. Nothing’s going to change. They need to protest and demonstrate peacefully because they’ve given up, clearly, on not just the establishment, but they are giving up on the social contract.
That is a very, very, very dangerous place for a country to be.
The mainstreaming of two-tier politics, the mainstreaming of a sense that mass migration is completely out of control, the mainstreaming of a sense that the state now prioritizes minorities over the majority, and the mainstreaming of the belief that it is the people who are being forced to pick up the tab.
Tens of billions of pounds that should instead be going on building primary schools, secondary schools, building prisons, building hospitals, building roads, building infrastructure for the British people. Investing that money in our national defense, for goodness’ sake.
We’re now in the absurd position in Britain where the establishment says we don’t have enough money for the Royal Navy, for the Royal Air Force, for the British Army, while every year, every single year, we are sending £23 billion either overseas in foreign aid, funding things like contraception programs in Pakistan, eco farms in Nepal, or going on welfare payouts for people who are not even British.
Now, if that isn’t suicidal empathy, I don’t know what is.
And I think that is why so many people are so frustrated.
Now, I attract a lot of criticism. I’m going to be really honest with you. The reason I am Mr. Unpopular in certain circles in BBC SW1 land is because I’ve come to the conclusion that if we do not do those things, this country of ours, our home, will not only become unrecognizable, but it will enter something that will both look and feel very dark indeed.
That’s all for the Silent Majority this week with me, Matt Goodwin.
A quick reminder: in the coming weeks, we’ll be limiting the podcast. We’ll be limiting it to free previews for our free subscribers.
If you want the full episodes going forward every week, along with every single post, live discussions, group chat, leave comments and all the rest of it, and the ability to support platforms like us speaking up for the silent majority, head over to mattgoodwin.org.
Become one of our paid supporters.
Support our work.
Help magnify our voice.
Help us get out there.
We’re reaching millions of people every month, but we need to reach many more. And we cannot do that without a small vanguard of our paid supporters who make our work possible.
Thanks for listening. I will see you next week. Keep your comments, your thoughts, your responses coming in. I read them all.
Have a good weekend.
Have a good week ahead.
Bye-bye.
