 Happy Belated International Workers Day. May Day was on Saturday and the weekend suitably turned out to be one of struggle. That was first with the kill, the bill demonstrations on Saturday and then with a very dramatic pitch invasion by many United fans on Sunday. It's going to be the latter. We're focusing on tonight and to talk about revolution in the Premier League. Once again, I'm delighted to be joined by Ash Sarkar. How are you doing Ash? I'm just feeling it's International Workers Day and you've got me here grafting like a dog. What about my International Workers Day, Michael? We don't do days off at Navara apart from when we don't have live shows already scheduled in. The news doesn't stop. To be honest, if the news had stopped, maybe I would have given you today off, but it was just, you know, I just knew I couldn't not spend an hour tonight speaking with you about a pitch invasion in the Premier League. Also, you might need something to distract you from the disappointment that was that final episode of Line of Duty. So, you know, we need to give something back so people don't just wallow in that anti-climax. That's going to be the theme of downstream tomorrow. We're not going to talk about Line of Duty anymore on tonight's show, but if you are as obsessed as, I mean, I think 12 million people in the country, make sure you tune in tomorrow. As for tonight, as I say, we're going to start with the glazes out protest. Then we're going to talk about Boris Johnson's monetary woes or financial woes and finish on a video from the CIA, which everyone has been sharing and debating today. Of course, as always, do please let us know your comments by tweeting on the hashtag Tiskey Sauer. We'll try to get to them throughout the show. Now, plans for a European Super League might be dead in the water, but anger against the billionaire club owners who planned the breakaway league has definitely not gone away. Yesterday, thousands of fans gathered outside the Manchester United Stadium calling for the American businessman Joel Glazer to sell the club. And due to their tactics, they made it impossible to ignore their demands. That was when hundreds of fans invaded the stadium and then the pitch. We're going to show you the moment it all happened, which was live on Sky Sports, beaming out to millions of viewers waiting to watch one of the biggest matches of the season. There are fans who have made their way into the ground and they are now protesting. They've come through the bottom end, the straight foot end is away to my left. They're now heading out onto the pitch to let their feelings be known. This is obviously not what we want to see and the security here at Old Trafford has failed. So they're now on the pitch, we want Glazers out, is the chance and they seem to be coming in in quite some numbers. But now, obviously the balls that have been taken away, this is really unprecedented scenes we have here. They are now in some numbers all over the pitch and they continue to pour into the ground opposite the straight foot end. They're just a handful of stewards. In fact, at the moment the stewards are not intervening. They are severely outnumbered by the protesters who, as I say, continue to pour in, holding up banners. And what started out as a few is now in number and they're starting to make their way towards us and our position. Now, if you want to get attention for a cause, invading the pitch before Liverpool versus Manchester United is probably one of the most effective tactics you can possibly use, something which was unprecedented. The match was also postponed. The Premier League have never postponed a match because of fan protests until yesterday. That wasn't just because of the pitch invasion, that was also because of protests outside the footballers' hotels. The decision was come to apparently the police and the football teams and the Premier League all agreed to postpone the match. Now, you will have heard the commentator say at the start of that clip that we just showed you this is obviously not what we want to see. It's very clear that we at Sky don't condone this kind of behaviour. However, as has often been the case over the past few weeks, Sky's ex-player, Pundits, didn't always agree with that official line. This was Gary Neville commenting on the protest after it was confirmed the match would not be going ahead. I've never thought they were brilliant owners, but I've all seen in football that there are worse owners than the Glaser family. However, I think all football fans should unite today behind what Manchester United fans have done because honestly, what they did two weeks ago was really dangerous for English football. We must not forget that. They tried to walk away and create a closed-shot league that would have basically created a famine, a famine in this country for every other football club. Gary, what are you saying here? Are you saying that all fans should try and get matches called off? Dave, let me finish. Dave, this is not a time to interject and start. They tried to create a famine two weeks ago in English football, in Dutch football, in German football, in French football, all over Europe. Those 15 clubs would have walked away from their leagues with that money and basically destroyed the ethos of the pyramid of relegation and promotion in English football. So the revolution will be televised and it will be televised on Sky Sports. Ash, is that your assessment of the events we saw this weekend? Is this a revolutionary moment in English football? Revolutionary moment, perhaps not, but certainly a disruptive moment and it might set the tone for what we might see in the months and perhaps years to come. I 100% condone the actions of the man United fans who invaded the pitch. One, because they have good reason to be angry at the Glazers and they had very good reason even before this business of the European Super League. The Glazers, when they took over Manchester United, essentially they debt loaded the club. So it was something which was seen as very predatory as something which didn't have the best interest of the club at heart and really disempowered the fans and put football second and subordinate to the business of generating profit for these billionaire American owners. So they've had very good reason to be angry and to demand a change of ownership and maybe even a change in the whole way it's owned as well, thinking about the German 50 plus one rule, which means that fans have a majority stake in their football club. I also think that when you look at the events of the past year with coronavirus meaning that fans are shot out from football, that's obviously part of the reason why these 15 huge clubs felt able to announce the close shop league as Gary Nebel puts it, because the fans, I think they had an awareness, wouldn't like it, but there was the sense of distance because you didn't have them in the stadium. You also didn't have ticket sales contributing to the club coffers for the past year really. And so people have been looking towards global audiences and even bigger broadcast revenues. So I think that the clubs themselves have become insulated from the very people who determined their success and their entire identity. And then I think the third thing, and this is also why I condone it, which is I think with the direction of travel when it comes to the way we live today, the way our culture operates, the way society operates, all the things that we love, the things that give us that kind of crowd experience, that collective sense of joy and coming together, and a collective identity, it feels so far away from all of us. We're consumers in absolutely every facet of our lives. And it's remarkably pacifying and also kind of stultifying. It just sort of, I think, deadens you a bit and deadens your experience in being in a crowd of people. And so I think that when you have a kind of backlash to that consumer logic, that financialized logic going too far, you'll have a backlash, which is being driven by a sense of, you know, caravari, rough music, kind of carnivalesque, you know, people invading the places where they're not quite meant to be. And I think there's something about this energy. Of course, it's not always used for causes, which I think are just, I think that that was part of the energy which drove the capital invasion just this past January. But I do think that it's something which speaks to a real feeling. And that's that the institutions which should be made by us and which should serve us have become out of control and distant. I think it's really important you brought up that longer term context here because, yeah, the immediate context of this pitch invasion and this protest was the attempt by these billionaire owners to start a European super league. The more long term story is that Manchester United fans have been protesting against the glazes for years, since 2005, when they bought the club. And it is one of those stories where you do just think, how is this possibly allowed? Because the way that Joel Glazer bought the club, he didn't have the money. So he bought it for 700-odd million pounds, don't quote me the exact figure, in that ballpark. And to buy the club, he borrowed all of that money, but borrowed it against the value of Manchester United. A bit like, you know, you buy a house, you mortgage, you get a mortgage for a house, you get 100% mortgage for a house, you say, I'm going to borrow 500 grand off the bank and the bank is essentially in one way or another, I'm going to be owed the value of that house. Exactly the same happened here. So Manu, they were in a brilliant financial position. They had no debts whatsoever. This American businessman comes along, borrows money to buy the club, and suddenly the club is in hundreds of millions of pounds of debt. And from the perspective of the fans, the glazes have just been sucking out money ever since. They don't have any interest in football whatsoever. They're based in America. So the Manu fans have been protesting this situation for years. And it is all coming to a head now. I want to look more specifically at what the fans are saying, what they want. And a few of them spoke to a journalist from Sky on that question yesterday. Let's take a look. This is what it means to us. This is what football means to other fans. We won't stop this until we get our football back. Well, we're protesting these parasites that have been on in this club for nearly 20 years now. I think this is great what's happening here now today. It's unbelievable everyone coming together. These glazes don't care. They don't care about the fans of the club. Mind the left. Mind the left. Built this stadium. They've taken out over a billion, and meanwhile just over the city, at the SCR, they've had over a billion put in in that time. And you can see how angry everyone is here today. The club's just been glad to drive out the glazes. It's a cash cow. But for us, it's Manchester United football club, and we love it. I think they should be like 50 plus one year. Definitely, I think it should be the kind of model for all clubs in this country now. So there you saw people. I mean, the banner that really stood for me there I really like was Apology not accepted 50 plus one protect the legacy. So they're saying while these billionaire bosses have said, oh, we're not going to do the European Super League now. We're so sorry. We misjudged the mood. They're saying, look, sorry, but one, we know that you didn't misjudge the mood. You just thought you could get away with it and now you're pissed off that you can't. So you're not pissed off. You're disappointed. You can't. You've come back with your tail between your legs saying, oh, sorry, we didn't really mean it. And they're saying the only way to protect the legacy of these football clubs is to have 50 plus one, which means 50% of the shares of any club plus one are owned by the fans. So there's always majority control in any football club by the fans. As Ash says, it's what they have in Germany. And it is, I mean, there's a real groundswell pushing for this to happen in this country right now. I found it quite exciting sort of listening to people making those arguments this weekend. In terms of people who sort of looked at this protest and said, oh, they're doing it all wrong. Whenever you get an effective protest, you have a lot of people saying they're doing it all wrong. One of those people was Jamie Jackson. He's the Manchester Football Correspondent for the Guardian and Observer. And after the pitch invasion happened on the Observer's live blog, he wrote, whatever the strength of feeling about the glazes or indeed anything, breaking into a venue going on to property where not allowed is illegal and completely counterproductive to the very sentiment behind the protest. And the bottom line is, this will have repercussions. Ash, I want to bring you in. I mean, that's a very strong statement. He's saying breaking into a venue over any issue. He hasn't even, you know, let himself any room out of that. I remember this is the Observer. This is the country's liberal newspaper saying under no possible circumstances for any cause can you ever possibly break into a venue. It's a pretty extreme statement, isn't it? You can't help but wonder how he might have covered, say, the chartists or the suffragettes back in the day of, look, ladies, I know you don't have the vote, but smashing windows is really counterproductive. Absolutely not what you should be doing. I mean, look, as a general rule, a good 90% of people who work in the media are melts. And that goes from people who work in sports media, political media. I mean, look, I fancied him for absolutely years, but Jermaine Genus, my future husband, though he doesn't know it yet, was talking like a complete male on match of the day to last night. Again, condemning the protest is saying it's counterproductive. You don't like to see it. Well, okay, what do you want to see? Because tweeting complaints and keeping everything in the realm of the merely discursive means that essentially it's a manageable form of dissent for these billionaire owners, because you're not using the leverage that you have, which is to interrupt how they make their money. Are you letting the football continue, which means that, you know, it's hugely lucrative, it's got all this broadcasting money flooding in. It means that you don't actually look at what power it is you have available to you. Of course, whenever you get, as you said, an effective protest, which is able to capture the imagination, cause real disruption, and get people to listen more importantly, you have the forces and mouthpieces of the establishment going, this isn't the right way to do it. Now, obviously, when it comes to within movements, there's a lot of different kinds of opinion about what you should do, strategy, organizing comms, all of that kind of stuff. But that's not what we're seeing here. We're seeing just really the kind of gatekeepers of, you know, respectable opinion who achieve that position within the media, precisely because they are largely in line with establishment interests, parroting establishment lines. It's managed opposition, if you will. I want to go to some comments on the Twitch chat. Cameron Wisk says, shake my head, we spend all this time reading theory and discussing tactics, only to have angry football fans effectively protested and act change like damn naturals. Very well. We've talked about this before. The fan mobilization around this is super impressive. I mean, also, football fans are already organized. We often talk on the left, oh, we don't have any sort of sites of community struggle anymore, since the trade unions became weak. I mean, obviously, the trade unions are still at the center of political struggle, but less than they once were. But football teams still are one of the big sites of collective organization. So in a way, it's not a surprise that they're mounting quite effective protests. We've spoken about that before. They've also got quite a lot of allies on side. Ash, what are you going to say? I just wanted to chip in on that really quickly. So the last couple of decades in which you have football exist as a relatively sanitized and depoliticized activity is kind of ahistoric in this country. And when you look at the way in which our fans behave compared to other European countries, for all of the reputation of English football hooliganism, that was largely a thing of the past by the 1990s. But in terms of a lot more volatility of a lot more, I guess, sometimes things getting physical, but also a lot more explicit partisan politicization, that tradition has been kept alive in terms of European football clubs and elsewhere in the world as well. So this idea of football being this kind of apolitical space in which fans conceive of themselves purely as passive consumers, that's really quite new. And I think when it comes to times like these, where fans have found themselves locked out the stadiums physically, and then you have the owners of the clubs using that distance to try and push through a change that the fans don't want, maybe you will see a rediscovery of these much more radical and rowdy football traditions in this country. We like to be balanced on this show, so we're not just going to show you a terrible journalistic take, we're also going to show you a good one. Although this was from a very, very surprising source. This is from the Mail on Sundays, Dan Hodges. So he tweets, if people want to defend what Man United fans did today, fine, but then be consistent, don't complain when BLM do it, don't complain when killed, the protesters do it, don't complain when extinction, rebellion do it. Dan Hodges, I absolutely agree with you. I couldn't have said it better myself. It is also worth saying that just as we oppose police brutality when it's leveled against extinction, rebellion and Black Lives Matter, we should do the same when it's leveled against football fans. Let's take a look at some quite disturbing scenes from Sunday's protest. I saw them drag away someone, punching them while they're down. I mean, people defending it, I saw on Twitter, they're saying, oh, that's a police tactic because they're trying to give them dead legs so he's not kicking them back. I mean, I haven't read the manual, but punching someone repeatedly when they're down doesn't, to me, seem like a particularly reasonable response to whatever that man was doing. And also, I mean, you can tell a lot by how they react to photos, right, by how they react to cameras. That copper really didn't want accountability in that situation. There was some people filming it. He was like, get away, get away. We don't want you to see what we're doing here, which in itself is quite worrying. Ash, how have you, you know, what's your take on the way that these protests are being treated by the authorities? I mean, do you think that they're getting treated differently to how a Black Lives Matter protest would be treated? Do you think they're getting treated the same and that could create some bonds of solidarity? I mean, what do you think the relevance is of the sort of interactions between these protestors and the cops? Well, you know what? I think the way in which people see themselves and the actually existing connections between these different forms of struggle might be a little bit different. Or maybe these connections are still kind of nascent and being formed. And the minute you try and force it and almost impose a political narrative, which says, hey, you're all part of the same struggle here against state violence and capitalism. It all falls apart and you kind of have to let it do its thing. But it's striking that this is going on at the same time as the Kill the Bill demonstrations in London and in Britain and in Bristol and elsewhere around the country. Because exactly these kinds of protests which are, you know, not, you know, they don't have planning permission first. They haven't been okay with the police first. These are exactly the kinds of protests which we criminalized above and beyond the offences which are being committed in terms of trespass or something like that. So I wonder if there will be a sense of connection between the clampdown on civil liberties and the need to express dissent in terms of protecting a community and a cultural asset like football. I'm not sure how that happens because I think that the way in which people perceive themselves and their own politics, it often happens in a way which, you know, the left doesn't get involved with because there are sort of two very different kinds of in-group identity. So it's almost like you're not quite speaking the same language. In terms of how you encourage people to make these connections, one of the things that I guess I would go back to again and again is, well, look what happens when you try and protect the things that you love from billionaires. Whether that's the planet because you're trying to shut down a coal-fired power station or whether it's your neighbours because they're at risk of police violence or stop and search, you will be greeted by state violence often at the hands of the police in a way which doesn't take into account either your lawful rights or human rights or your rights to, you know, politically gather, assemble and protest. And those are things which those are forms of state violence which impact people across the different identity groups. So even if there are differences in terms of how people perceive Black Lives Matter, though looking at the age group of the people at this man United protest, I would say that largely they are likely to be a bit more supportive than older people. That even if, you know, there's something which is missing in translation across identity groups, you can tell that quite a simple story of look what happens when you try and protect the things you love. I want to go to a few more comments. Oliver Kant with a fiver. The LibJournos would have said it was un-ladylike of the suffragettes to smash windows. Hell, they probably did at the time. I presume they did at the time. I'd be good to look at some newspaper commentary from the day. Obviously, the Guardian was around then. Tom tweets on the hashtag Tiskey Sour. Ash Sarkar is one of, if not the most important journalist working today, her discussions on Tiskey Sour are vital. Tom, I could not agree more with you. I'm so lucky and privileged to have Ash Sarkar on the show every Monday evening. And I have a direct question for you now, Ash, to save you from blushing. Charles Black with a tenor. Any chance you can mobilize some direct action from the Spurs fan base now, Ash? You can't let United, Arsenal and Chelsea fans all show you up like this. Yeah, we haven't, why have Tottenham disappointed us, Ash? You know what? There have been a few banners and things like that, but you haven't had as a militant... A few banners. You haven't had as a militant mobilization as you've seen around the Emirates or around Old Trafford. And I kind of wonder if that's because it's about which area you live really close to. And Tottenham fans, lots of them don't actually live in the immediate surrounding area. You've got people coming in on matchdays from Hertfordshire, from Enfield, from Essex, and so on and so forth. And so I wonder if that has in some ways diluted the kind of resistance that you'd expect to see, that there's something about being in such close proximity in terms of the neighborhood itself, which gives you that sense of ownership of we're taking back what's ours. So I wonder if that's got something to do with it. Also, there's been some polling done. You know that YouGuff thing where you can sort of have a constellation of somebody's political identity from the things that they like. And it tended to be that Tottenham Hotspur fans were a little bit more to the right compared to, say, for instance, Arsenal supporters. Here, I'm trying to drag that overton window back leftwards. All right. You know, single-handedly. Don't blame me for it. But yeah, I do think that that's also an element of it. Wow, I can't believe that commenter got you to diss Tottenham so abrasively live on there. Amazing. Ash Sarkar confirms Tottenham Hotspur fans actually quite right-wing. Don't twist my words. See, this is why everyone mistrusts the MSM, Michael. Twisting my words. And the people know. The people can see you do it. People can make their own minds up. Did you think Ash said Tottenham Hotspur were right-wing? So say in the comments. Let's go on to our next story, which is absolutely related. In fact, it's from the same situation before we get on to that. If you're enjoying tonight's screen, tonight's stream, do hit the like button. Now, one byproduct of aborted plans for European Super League is that Sky Sports News has become the home of the most interesting political debates in Britain. And the commentary during the Glazers' out protests was no exception. Now, we're going to talk through one particular exchange. This was between ex-footballer Graham Soonus and ex-footballer Gary Neville, which, you know, and the debate really got to the heart of the ethics of modern capitalism. We're going to show you both sides, obviously. And we're going to start with Soonus who defended the Glazers and put forward the classic capitalist argument that once you own a business, it's your right to do whatever you like with it. We live in a country where you can demonstrate, you can vent your feelings, you're allowed to do it. But I still don't see it impacting on the Glazers one little bit. If they think they can bring pressures to bear on serious business people who live 3,000 miles away across the Atlantic, that will drive them to accept a discounted offer from Man United. That will not happen. They're not ripping the life and soul out of Man United. They're paying themselves a dividend, which is business people having, whether they put money in, they would have to put collateral in. You don't just go to a bank and say, I want to buy Man United. I need 500 million or whatever it costs them at the time without committing some sort of collateral. They risk something to buy Man United. Since then, they have given successive managers fortunes to spend. It was only when Fergie stopped that the success stopped. I think that irritates supporters and they have become the focus of their anger. I think it's directed from what happened last week in the form of Super League, that certainly compounds their aggression and unhappiness towards them. I would not be sticking to blame on Man United's lack of success down to the Glazers. I come back to it. There's no complaints when they're ruining everything and they were in charge of some complaints. But in recent years, because they've dropped from being the number one team in the UK in English football, they've dropped below that and I think that irritates the supporters. There's always been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Glazers and I think it's just come to a head over the last few weeks, but it's been there. They could sell the United tomorrow and make fortunes. If they don't want to, it's their entitled to it. It's their football club. They bought the club. They weren't soccer people. They weren't. Yeah, this is an institution. This is one of the great footballing institutions in the world. They knew what they were buying. They knew, no matter how well the team were doing out there, they would still have a fan base, arguably second to none in world football. So this was a wonderful chance to buy this football club a great investment and they've made a lot of money out of it. And why shouldn't if there is something on day one? And I think they've obviously made improvements in stadium, the commercial department, the success they've had, which goes back through Fergie. In terms of what they think about the fans, I think they proved two weeks ago in trying to form, when we heard of it, two weeks ago, in trying to form a Super League. Not a lot, or what they're saying is we're taking the home base fans for granted, the new markets Asia. Let's talk about it there. Now that was basically capitalist, realist ideology just summarised in two and a half minutes because he's saying not only is they own it, they can do what they like with it. That's just life, it's the law, it's also morality, they bought it. So it's no one else's business, what they do with it. I mean, it was also quite, I think, misinformed because he said, oh, they took a risk. They had to put forward the collateral to borrow that money to purchase Man United. The collateral was Man United. So it was a bit of a win-win for them. There wasn't risk. They said, we're going to, like when you buy a house, you say, I'm going to buy a house, the collateral is the house. All that happens is the bank gets that, it's the house in a way. You're taking a risk with the house as much as with your own finances. Just as significantly in terms of, like I suppose the capitalist realist ideology of it, is that he was saying, not only is this moral and right, but if you disagree, there's nothing you can do. There's no point objecting to it. Why would you bother protesting because the glazes aren't going to care? They're in it for the money. They're in a different country. I think this whole protesting nonsense is pointless because you're not going to change anything anyway. A very, very, I suppose, pessimistic analysis, I thought of the whole situation. For something that was, I mean, in complete opposition to what Sooner said, let's have a look at how Gary Neville responds. I get Graham's point around them paying themselves a dividend. We could walk into the chippy down the road tomorrow, make a bid, they could sell it, and we could own the chippy. And the local public might not be happy with the new chips that they get. I get that principle of a free market. However, the Glazer family two weeks ago, they tried to implement something that would have damaged every single community in this country that's got football at the heart of it. And that is why they're dangerous. Perez is dangerous. La Porte and Yelly, they are dangerous to the concept of equal opportunity and fair play in European football. Let's not forget what we're arguing about here. Today there is anger. I would hope tomorrow it switches towards mobilization, towards reform and regulation and behind the fan led review. And what I would say is I accept and it might be a little bit naive here. But when I talked two weeks about these two football clubs, Manchester United and Liverpool, they should act like the grandfather of English football, demonstrating compassion, spreading the wealth through the family, their experience being fair. They haven't done, they've demonstrated self greed and walked away with all the tried to walk away with all the money themselves and left the family struggling below. That is not what you do at this football club or at Liverpool Football Club. So whether the Glazer family have been good or bad, what they did two weeks ago is not acceptable. And you an apology is not good enough. And Joe Glazer saying that he wants to rebuild the trust with the football fans of this club. He never had the trust. He's never communicated to them. He's never spoken to them. He's never said a word. So let's today we can be angry. The game may not go ahead. The fans are angry, but they protested peacefully. And we have to accept that you are allowed to protest in this country. It's every person's right. But tomorrow it's about reform and regulation because there are six or seven people with an English football who have it under their control. And that control has to be taken away from them. Now that was the opposite of a capitalist realist argument. So I mean, very well articulated actually. So he's saying, essentially, you know, even if free markets can work like this, this institution Manchester United is too important to be treated like a chippy, right? If you've got owners who are acting irresponsibly with this club, then because this is an institution, it's the centre of a huge community, it's not as if you can say, oh, well, I don't like the, you know, if Chippy gets bought up, you say, I don't like the chips here, I'll go shop in a different chip shop. You can't do that with Manchester United because it's an institution, you support, you've lived your life with it. So the idea that it can just be bought and sold like any other commodity is nonsense. So he's saying, you need to take into account the social consequences of ownership. And very importantly, he's saying, and we should take action to change it. Whereas Graham Soonus is saying, oh, there's no point in even bothering to change something. And even if you disagree, Gary Neville was saying, let's get organised. Let's change this. Let's rest control away from these billionaires who don't care about football and who don't care about the club. Ash, I want to go to you. I've got no doubt who you're going to agree with in that particular debate. But it was pretty interesting to see, you know, those big philosophical arguments come out on Sky Sports in a way that, you know, I don't normally see arguments that fundamental or that, you know, that big picture on Sky News, on politics shows. Well, that's because of the nature of football. It goes right to the heart of your identity in terms of what community do you feel yourself to be a part of? When it comes to notions of Englishness, and we talk about this all the time when we're talking about, oh, can you even have a progressive patriotism? Again, and again, what do we come back to? We come back to the English national football team and how we feel about it and who's a part of it and how it's represented in popular culture. Football is still, even though it's been taken away from its grassroots to such a huge extent, still it has this pull over us, which means that when you do have something so flagrant as a small coterie of billionaires, selling it off essentially in order to undermine the principles that made it great and appealing in the first place. Well, of course, it invites a very impassioned kind of political debate because it doesn't seem like the dry and dusty business of policy gets right to the heart of who we feel we are. And I think that's because of the specialness and uniqueness of football, really, when it comes to the national identity. When it comes to who I side with, obviously, no surprises here. I think that Gary Neville got it absolutely spot on. What I felt was so revealing about what Soonus was saying was that it used to be that the case was made for capitalism on the basis of, this is how you will have an improved standard of living and improved quality of life, and it will make all the things that you love the most better. Because the minute you give those things over to people who will be custodians of it for profit, it means the quality of what you get back improves. And that's not actually what he was saying at all. So this is a very negative argument for capitalism. Like you say, it's a capitalist realist argument, which is, look, I'm not saying this is good, but there's nothing that exists outside of it. So what are you going to do? You may as well resign yourself to it now. Well, what we've seen in the past few weeks is that that's simply not true. With the actions of the clubs behind the Super League and Perez, you have a conservative government in the UK making noises about a 50 plus one rule. That's entirely unheard of. If you want to think about different models of ownership, well, you don't even have to look that far. It's different in Germany because the law is different in Germany. And we still live in a democracy here. There's a lot of power with the legislature. And if we wanted to have a different model of ownership in football, it won't be because the glazes look within themselves and they find it within the goodness of their own hearts to hand over control to the clubs. It will be that football fans are deemed such an important electoral bloc in this country that change will happen. And that's actually what people are afraid of here, because it is something which cuts across party is something which cuts across geography. And it's something which to a reasonable extent cuts across class as well. So that's what they're really worried about. So soon as, as well as coming out with I think a very uninspired defense of capitalism, shall we say, is also I think he's talking out his behind. Because what we've seen is that over the past two weeks, just with strength of feeling alone, it forced the richest and most powerful people in the sport into a humiliating climb down. I mean, that's so true. It was so inconsistent his argument, wasn't it? Because he was saying like, oh, look, they're not that bad. They have the interest of the club at heart, whatever, or at least they have the interest of the club enough at heart for us to let them keep it. And he's like, oh, but the European Super League, that was pretty outrageous. And also, yeah, we did stop them doing the European Super League. Just to say fans have no impact. If you've had your eyes open for the past two weeks, it's just, it doesn't doesn't make any sense. It's like internally incoherent. Let's go to a couple of comments that we're going to go very briefly to the Premier League statement release today, which is on their proposals for how things should change in English football. William tweets on hashtag Tiskey Sour. Can't super chat. But if you want to see a site of community struggle in football, please check out my comrades work with Manchester City Football Club Food Bank Support and the fans supporting Food Bank's network in general. They do vital work and really need support. Good tip there. Do check out the fans supporting Food Bank's network. I'm pretty sure I shouldn't make things up off the top of my head when I'm live, but I'm pretty sure that Ian Byrne, who is a Labour MP, sort of came out of the fans supporting Food Bank's network in Liverpool. Another reminder just to say, you can always get in contact with us on the hashtag Tiskey Sour, if you don't want to send a super chat, can't send a super chat or whatever. Eden braid a tan with a fiver. Could I get a shout out to my flatmate downstairs cooking dinner whilst listening into the stream? A shout out to Eden braid a tan's flatmate. I hope you enjoy your dinner. Very quickly, let's go through the Premier League's statement today. So they've announced they will be introducing a football charter, which club owners will be forced to sign up to. Now this is to prevent anything akin to the European Super League being launched in the future. Obviously, the Premier League were very much opposed to it as we spoke about on those previous shows. Now in the statement released today, the Premier League said, the actions of a few clubs cannot be allowed to create such division and disruption. We are determined to establish the truth of what happened and hold those accountable for their decisions and actions. We in the FA are pursuing these objectives quickly and appropriately consulting with fans and governments as a review into the events that surrounded the plan for the European Super League. They're going to investigate that. In terms of their plans for the future, they say in addition, the Premier League supported by the FA is taking the following actions to protect our game, our clubs, and their fans from further disruption and uncertainty. So they will be introducing additional rules and regulation to ensure the principles of the Premier League and open competition are protected. And they will be establishing a new owners charter that all club owners will be required to sign up to, committing them to the core principles of the Premier League. They'll also be ensuring that breaches of these rules on the charter will be subject to significant sanctions. And they add they are enlisting the support of government to bring in appropriate legislation to protect football's own open pyramid principles of sporting merit and the integrity of the football community. And they conclude by saying they'll be working with fan groups, government, UEFA, the EFL, the PFA, and LMA to defend the integrity and future prospects of English football. That's the players associations and the Football Association, not quite sure what the EFL is, European Football League potentially. English Football League, probably. Ash, is this just an attempt by the Premier League to put a lid on this, do you think? Because I mean, the demands that people are making are pretty radical, whereas they're saying what we're going to do is get owners to sign up to something that says if you want to be a participant in the Premier League, you have to not go away secretly and try and start European Superleagues, will doctor your points, will kick you out, etc. Well, the problem for the Premier League is that the big six English clubs were perfectly happy with the idea that they might be excluded from domestic competition in order to participate in the English, in the European Super League. That was priced in as a risk that they would have to accept that as a punitive measure. So no, I don't think that this goes nearly far enough nor does it go to the heart of the problem. And when you think about the Premier League and how it was founded, it was founded by a group of breakaway clubs who wanted more in terms of broadcast revenue. And so you can trace back, I think, the origins of the Super League to the FA's own lack of foresight. Essentially, the Football Association met with the clubs who wanted to break away and form the Premier League and said, yeah, fine, do what you want. You come up with the rules, but nothing to do with us. So even though it still had the extensible blessing of the FA, it really had nothing to do with them anymore. And what it allowed for was a form of football in which, yes, there are some surprises sometimes in terms of who gets promoted or you have a season like where Leicester win the league. But ultimately, it's a way of preserving money for a few clubs right at the top. So if you want to think about, well, where did the blueprint for the European Super League come from? Yes, part of it is emulating a more Americanised model of sport, but also they're just walking in the footsteps that the Premier League did all those years ago. So it's not surprising to me that the Premier League and the FA are incapable of framing demands which would actually preserve football for the fans in this country because it would also mean having a look, I think, in quite a critical way at their own interests and the interests which drive them. And I think essentially it would make football less lucrative overall so that it was able to be enjoyed by more people and in the hands of the fans. The Premier League don't want that. They just don't want the big clubs to be able to walk away with the revenue that the Premier League wants to hold on to. Don't trust the Premier League. All power to the fans and maybe Garon Evel, who is also a fan, I suppose, as well as being a Skypundit. Philly Jim, can I get a coveted birthday shout out from Michael? I started watching at the beginning of 2020 and I've just got a job so I can finally become a regular donor too. Keep up the amazing work, everyone. Philly Jim, you absolutely can have a birthday shout out. Happy birthday to you. Congratulations on the job and thank you for subscribing. We're going to go straight on to our next story. Boris Johnson is a liar and Boris Johnson is an opportunist and Boris Johnson, despite spending his life seeking the highest office in the land, cares little about anything other than himself. Now, these are all claims about Britain's Prime Minister you'll have heard before. Indeed, you'll probably have heard them on this very show. However, the Sunday Times have revealed another angle on the Tory leader I wasn't aware of that we haven't spoke about on Tiske Sour before. Now, this is that Boris Johnson is apparently broke. So in the weekend paper, Caroline Wheeler, Tim Shipman and Tom Calver reported that the background to the scandals over Tory donors paying for an up-ground upgrade to the Downing Street flat is that Boris Johnson, despite earning £157,000 a year, cannot afford his lifestyle. He's getting into debt. So they write on the face of it, the idea that a Prime Minister cannot afford to do the job on a salary of £157,000 is ridiculous. But it is clear that when the bill for the refurbishment overseen by the Boho sheep designer, Lulu Little arrived last year, Johnson was unable or unwilling to pay. The initial invoice was settled by the Cabinet Office. The Conservative Party then refunded the excess amount of £58,000 at the same time. The Tory donor, Lord Brownlow of Sherlock Rowe, gave the same amount to cover the costs. Senior Tory sources say that Johnson has taken out a commercial loan to repay the money he owes to the party. Number 10 refuses to confirm or deny this claim. The Ministerial Code of Conduct stipulates that even bank loans should be registered to avoid conflicts of interest. The register of ministerial interest has not been updated since July last year. Now, this really adds some flavour to what we knew about the story so far. So other journalists have reported that essentially to pay for this extravagant refurbishment of the flat, Boris Johnson had essentially asked for money from the Conservative Party and Tory donors. That was how he was planning to pay for the refurbishment. Then when the newspapers got involved and started reporting on this and saying, this all looks a little bit dodgy, Boris Johnson was like, Oh, no, I'm going to cover the costs. I'm going to cover the costs. And now all you hear from Tory press officers is they basically ignore any question and say, Boris Johnson has actually paid for it. Boris Johnson has actually paid for it. They ignore the fact that someone initially paid for it. And probably Boris Johnson never wanted to pay for it. He just did because of this controversy. What this adds to it is that in paying for it after the row started, the Prime Minister is now in debt. He had to take out a commercial loan to pay this back, which I don't know if it's unprecedented. It's surprising at least, especially when he's earning quite so much money. Now, the report also suggested it wasn't just the flat refurbishment that Johnson was relying on donors to pay for. So they write, senior conservatives say donors have been approached about funding other aspects of the couple's lifestyle. A prominent MP received a complaint from a Tory donor that they were asked to foot the bill for a nanny for Wilfred, Johnson's son with Simons, who turned one last week. The donor is alleged to have said, I don't mind paying for leaflets, but I resent being asked to pay to literally wipe the Prime Minister's baby's bottom. So every aspect of their life, they're asking for wealthy Tory donors to cover, which is quite problematic when you think that, yes, it is also Tory donors who seem to get privileged access to public sector contracts. So whilst Boris Johnson is desperately asking people to pay for various parts of his lifestyle, he is also making big decisions about public money. You can see there's some potential conflicts of interests there. So how did the Prime Minister find himself in such a financial tight spot? Now, the article goes into some detail here. It goes into the ingoings of the Prime Minister, the disposable income they know he has, and then some of the outgoings that every Prime Minister faces. So in terms of the money coming in, they say the income tax and national insurance bill on Johnson's £157,000 salary amounts to about £63,000, which would leave him with about £95,000 a year. But his salary is topped up with royalties for his books, which have amounted to about £25,000 since he became Prime Minister. In addition, he has received £28,000 in personal gifts and donations in that time, according to his register of interest. That includes a £15,000 trip to Mustique in December 2019, courtesy of the car phone warehouse co-founder David Ross, which is the subject of an inquiry by Catherine Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. So some basic math here. He's got £95,000 disposable income a year since he became Prime Minister. He's been Prime Minister almost two years, £25,000 in royalties, so disposable income. He's got at least £110,000 a year to play with if you and hire if you include some of those personal gifts. So, you know, it's quite a lot by any measure. In terms of the costs of being a Prime Minister, the outgoings that one has to subject oneself to, if one leads the country, the Sunday Times reports. However, there are other costs associated with the role of Prime Minister. While he and his family can live rent free in the number 11 Downing Street flat, he must pay a tax liability for heating, lighting and maintenance, which comes to about £7,000 a year. He also pays a council tax bill of £1,655 a year. Johnson covers the costs of any food and drink for personal consumption, even if it comes from the Downing Street kitchens. They go on, as a protected person, he receives taxpayer-funded travel and can stay at checkers, the Prime Minister's official country residence in Buckinghamshire. However, whenever Johnson or Simons entertain guests at the house who are not on official visits, Johnson must pay for their food and drinks, which a guest once estimated to cost £75 per head. So, none of this gets us very close to understanding why the Prime Minister is broke. He earns £95,000 a year. That's after tax, that's his disposable income, and he's also got income on the side from royalties, etc. The costs they've talked about that he has to pay for are food, electricity and council tax, and then some money when his friends come to visit him at his country houses that he gets to stay in for free. Now, not many of us have to pay when our friends visit our country houses because we don't have country houses, but we all do have to pay for food and electricity and council tax. So, this doesn't get us very far. What you probably will have been able to infer by now is that the reason the Prime Minister is broke is because of discretionary spending, because of money he spends that most people don't spend, and most people don't even consider spending. So, on top of the 200 grand refurb for the flat, something not many people would spend, according to the Times, Johnson also hired a personal chef while he recovered from COVID, and then at a £165 per hour personal trainer, his divorce with his second wife is also apparently fairly expensive or was fairly expensive. According to the Times, this all adds up. So, they report Johnson has told friends that he needs to earn about £300,000 a year, twice his salary, to keep his head above water, a former number 10 insider, said it was received wisdom that he is permanently broke. Ash, I want to bring you in on this. Can you relate to our poor dear PM struggling to keep his head above water, because he only makes half of £300,000 a year? You know, I'd play the world's tiniest violin, but I'm afraid I kind of bored it. So, he says that he needs £300,000 a year just to keep his head above water. The median income in this country is around £29,000, the median salary in this country is around £30,000, £31,000. So, a tenth of what he says he needs in order to be able to survive, to have a decent standard of living. So, if he's struggling on his £160,000 a year, his salary as the Prime Minister, then God knows what's expected for the rest of us. And again, when we think about things like living within your means, I don't think that any family should have to struggle to afford the basics. But it doesn't seem to me that Boris Johnson and all his family are struggling to afford the basics. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party were instrumental in trying to push through a two-child limit for recipients of universal credit, which would mean that any further children would have gone unsupported, a really cruel and punitive policy, which essentially punishes children for being born into impoverished circumstances. Boris Johnson doesn't think, oh, well, you know, maybe should I think about how much money I have available to me before I have yet another kid with my fiancé? No, he just does it and goes, well, someone else is going to foot the bill, whether it's, you know, the taxpayer in terms of the lovely grant that they give us to do up our flat for £30,000 every year, or it will be a Conservative Party donor. Essentially, I don't have to deal with this. Does he have to make the kinds of decisions the rest of us have to make in terms of, oh, you know, should I go on holiday this year? Or do I cover, you know, these other costs, you know, maybe your sinks flooded, and you had to get that fixed or something? No, he doesn't have to make that decision because he could take a £15,000 trip to a private Caribbean island because these corporate interests know that they can essentially lubricate their relationship with the Prime Minister with money and gifts and things which are worth a lot because this is a man fundamentally who doesn't have the integrity or the good sense to say no. That's because, quite frankly, he doesn't take the business of government very seriously at all. Because if you did, if you did take the business of government seriously, you would go, you know what, there's a quid pro quo here, and I'm not comfortable with that. I'm not comfortable with you, Lord, you know, Brownlow or you, Mr. Carphone Warehouse man having something over my head when it comes to matters of policy or when you want something from me. Someone who's serious about government wouldn't be up to this kind of stuff, but we know that Boris Johnson isn't. He's in it for himself. He's in it for the glories, entirely venal and self-serving. So when I read stories like this, the thing that pisses me off isn't so much Boris Johnson's behaviour, because what are you going to do? You're going to blame a snake for being a snake. It's part of his nature. It's the fact that you have these so-called journalists, including wife of Michael Gove, Sarah Vine, saying things like, oh, well, what would you want for the Prime Minister to live in a skip? And what that shows me is that you've got significant portions of our fourth estate who should be holding power to account. In fact, treating themselves as essentially, you know, Boris Johnson's human Kevlar, trying to manage public opinion by saying these things, which are grotesquely insulting, not just to our intelligence, because we can see through it, but grotesquely insulting to our own circumstances and the material conditions in which we have to live. So I'm glad that the Sunday Times is doing this kind of work. But, you know, the Lord giveth with one hand and take the way with the other. So I get some good journalism on the one hand, and then I get some fucking awful comment pieces on the other. No, because obviously there's the Sarah Vines of this world who sort of, you know, they don't really know how to not sound incredibly objectionable to say, you know, people can't live in a skip. But I also do see some sort of technocratic kind of liberals and that I follow on Twitter who sort of say, oh, we need to pay the Prime Minister more, because that would be commensurate with the responsibilities that he or she has. I mean, presumably you don't want them to be worrying about money, because that makes them less corruptible. You know, you often get this in, I mean, development studies when they say you need to pay people well, because that disincentivizes corruption. Well, I mean, in this situation, I just don't buy it. I mean, yes, the Prime Minister is busy and he should be busy, you know, but at the same time, that's not an excuse for anyone else. You know, there are lots of people who are both busy and in debt and they would be able to do their jobs and sort of, you know, execute their responsibilities far better if they weren't mined in debt. But we don't just say, oh, well, let's take away all of their debts. I mean, I think we should, but that there should be a policy response, you know, the Prime Minister should understand what it's like to be in crippling debt. And that should, you know, encourage him to bring about reforms to, I suppose, you know, liberate people from, from terrible debt, not have some special treatment because he's Prime Minister, which means he doesn't have to live through any of the problems in life that other people live through, because maybe then he'll get a little bit of empathy. I mean, you know, that's obviously not his strong point, empathy. I want to go to one more story that was in the Sunday Times. And we're going to go through this very briefly, because obviously the background to all of this is the war with Dominic Cummings. He is why we're talking about the flat. He was why we're talking about the bodies piling up last week. And apparently he's going to keep on going. And according to sources in the Sunday Times, because he wants Rishi Sunak to become Prime Minister, he wants Boris Johnson to resign. So some quotes from that article also by Tim, Tim Shipman and others. He writes, they write, Johnson's aides are concerned that Cummings has stockpiled further damaging material to engineer the Prime Minister's political demise in censory claims about Johnson's reaction to the murder of Labour MP Joe Cox as polling day approached in the Brexit referendum in June 2016 are doing the rounds in Westminster. According to those who have heard the story, Johnson was upset at the effect Cox's death would have on him politically aides traveling with him that day, say this is untrue and that he was very somber senior Tories are also concerned that Johnson's private thoughts about his cabinet and fellow MPs could be revealed. Ash, final thoughts on Boris Johnson. I know people do sort of dismiss this as tittle tattle, but I do think, you know, if we have endless stories about the character of Boris Johnson, which I mean, people who follow politics know about people say, oh, it's priced in with Boris Johnson. Actually, people don't follow politics that closely at all. So I think if this is leading the news for a long time, then people might start to get an impression, the true impression that this is a guy who doesn't care about anyone other than himself and is not particularly suited to public office. You know, I think when it comes to these leaks, it's not so much as what's being reported as who's the one doing the briefing. Because I think all of this stuff, whether it's a callous remarks about Joe Cox or callous remarks about letting bodies pile up in their thousands or, you know, venal self serving behavior when it comes to refurbishing his flat, it doesn't tell us anything new about his character, really. But because of Dominic Cummings's links to lobby journalists, political editors, people who are very high up within the world of political journalism, it means that it has a prominence and leads the news in the kind of way that had it come from, say, an opposition politician, it simply wouldn't. It kind of is able to just leapfrog over the usual hurdles, which stand in the way of negative or critical coverage of Boris Johnson in particular. So that's where the damaging potential is. It's that it's getting a hearing amongst media circles, which are usually very protective of Boris Johnson. So obviously includes the Daily Mail, which led on the comment about let the bodies pile up in their thousands. So it's not just tittle-tattle. I don't think you can necessarily dismiss it like that. But it's getting a hearing in a way that other things don't, because it appeals to the very gossipy sensibilities of a cader of elite journalists. Our final story in one moment. It is a very good one. Do stay tuned for it before we do that. If you are enjoying tonight's show and you are not already an Avarameida supporter, please do go to Avarameida.com forward slash support and set up a monthly donation. It is what keeps us going. But of course, we do also appreciate your super chats and we have one from Mikey R. Tottenham Lefty here. Could I get a shout out for my parents, Darren and Talia, who are watching live with me tonight? You certainly can. I think as a Tottenham Lefty, you might appreciate it slightly more from Ash. Come on, give Mikey R a shout out, Ash. I don't know how I'm supposed to shout out, other than like, pick up your mom and dad, innit? I think that was it. That was perfect. It was natural. Yeah, absolutely. Final story. A new advert from the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, has sparked a debate about how identity politics can be mobilized by establishment institutions. The ad is called Humans of CIA and is delivered alongside the hashtags Know Your Worth and Women in Intel. Let's take a look. When I was 17, I quoted Zora Neale-Hurston's How It Feels to Be Colored Me in my college application essay. The line that spoke to me stated simply, I am not tragically colored. There is no sorrow damned up in my soul nor lurking behind my eyes. I do not mind at all. At 17, I had no idea what life would bring, but Zora's sentiment articulated so beautifully how I felt as a daughter of immigrants then and now. Nothing about me was or is tragic. I am perfectly made. I can wax eloquent on complex legal issues in English while also belting Guayaquil de Misamores in Spanish. I can change a diaper with one hand and console a crying toddler with the other. I am a woman of color. I am a mom. I am a cisgender millennial who's been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. I am intersectional, but my existence is not a box-checking exercise. I am a walking declaration. A woman whose inflection does not rise at the end of her sentences suggesting that a question has been asked. I did not sneak into CIA. My employment was not and is not the result of a fluke or slip through the cracks. I earned my way in and I earned my way up the ranks of this organization. I am educated, qualified and competent and sometimes I struggle. I struggle feeling like I could do more, be more to my two sons and I struggle leaving the office when I feel there's so much more to do. I used to struggle with imposter syndrome, but at 36 I refuse to internalize misguided patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be. I am tired of feeling like I'm supposed to apologize for the space I occupy rather than intoxicate people with my effort, my brilliance. I am proud of me, full stop. My parents left everything they knew and loved to expose me to opportunities they never had. Because of them, I stand here today a proud first-generation Latina and officer at CIA. I am unapologetically me. I want you to be unapologetically you, whoever you are. Know your worth. Command your space. Miha, you're worth it. Now that video went viral largely after it was tweeted by some left accounts including Aisha Akhmad or Ahmad, a PhD student at Oxford. Now alongside the video she wrote actual quotes from this new CIA recruitment at I am a woman of color. I am a cisgender millennial. I have been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. I am intersectional. She says, I think it's safe to say the contemporary American left has failed. Aisha, I want to know two things from you. What do you make of that video? And do you agree with Aisha Ahmad that it is proof the American left has failed? Welcome to intersectional rendition, baby. We're going to waterboard you, but we're going to be sensitive of your identity and marginalization while we do it. Only macroaggressions here. Only macroaggressions here. Rest assured, I will not touch your hair as I hook electrodes to your nipples and put your feet in the water. Okay, so what's going on here? Is this a failure of the American left? Is this pointing to the inerrant decadence and individualism of identity politics? Well, a bit yes and no. The reason why this language has made it up to the CIA is because it's already been used in corporate diversity and inclusion measures. So this is something which has already been appropriated and taken very, very far away from the kinds of contexts of grassroots organizing in which it first emerged. And I think that it does speak to some weaknesses in terms of the politics of it. That's something which did come from these radical spaces has been transformed into simply rhetorical and aesthetic gestures which communicate a sense of political identity but actually are completely devoid of political principles or any kind of structural critique. So yeah, it does speak to a certain weakness within the politics that this was able to happen. But look, it's the American Empire. They've managed to appropriate all sorts of progressive movements and languages and discourses in order to further the goals of domination and pursue American foreign policy goals. So cast your mind back to the war on terror. It was absolutely drenched in the language of liberalism and also in some cases, the language of feminism. I remember seeing one of those posters of female American fighter pilots and the tagline was, hey, Taliban, look at the sky, your women can't drive but ours can. So would you say that that means that feminism just needed to be chucked in the bin? No, you can have an awareness of how these things are appropriated and still maintain a sense of, well, no, anti-racist discourses are unbalanced good. So are ones around transgender rights or ones around gay rights and acceptance of marginal identity is generally, that's a good thing. It doesn't mean that it can't be appropriated. It can and it will be appropriated. And the American state is, I think, in some ways uniquely good at that. What this does prove to me is that spoken word is an abomination. And if we are going to have an authoritarian leftist state where we're banning forms of cultural expression, I'd choose spoken word. It's evil. Get rid of it. I think that was very well put. I mean, in terms of, you know, lots of people shared that as a sort of anti-identity politics thing. And I mean, if we said that the moment someone bad uses the framing, you have to drop it. I mean, we don't have to have worked in class long ago because I mean, Donald Trump used that to promote American empire. I mean, he wasn't the first person to do that either. So I think that was a very nuanced take there, Ash, even if that was one of the grossest two minute videos I've probably ever seen in my life. Let's wrap up there. As it is a bank holiday, I'll let you go only 10 minutes after the allotted end of the show. Ash, thank you for joining me today. I've got chicken pie to eat, mate. It's downstairs and I can smell it. Okay, you go and enjoy that. I hope it's not burnt. Ash, we'll be back tomorrow night from 7pm for Downstream where she'll be asking if the TV police drama Line of Duty is propaganda, okay, propaganda. In fact, if you don't want to miss that, if you do stay tuned to this stream, once we go off air, you should be redirected to a page for tomorrow's stream with Ash. Stream with Ash. Once you're there, you can set a reminder for when that goes live tomorrow at 7pm. So no excuses for now. Thank you, everyone, for your super chats and your comments this evening. Make sure to hit subscribe for more. You've been watching Tiskey Sour on Nervar Media. Good night.