361. Gaza, Israel, and Ceasefire

27:17So I think you're going to say that Peter's analysis is that we have to be like them, we have to lie, we have to, you know, he's adjury, we have to bully, and I don't think he is saying that, I think he's taking it to policy. I think on the patron, I don't know, you and I are patronizing necessarily, but I think there is a lot of patronizing, I think there is a lot of, you know, people are stupid if they vote for Trump, people are stupid if they vote for breaks, etc. I've never thought that, and you've got to give respect to people's decisions. I think we are unbelievably complacent. I think we do stump sometimes on the progressive side, I think we do sometimes allow ourselves to speak in very abstract terms.

27:53I think we can be very sensorial. The gullible point is the point I was making about the turd. We crowd, this is Peter, we crowd round the turd, we pick it up, we sniff it, we debate it, we lose focus, we get diverted, we stop connecting to the people we want to serve, we meander away from the mainstream, I think there's something in that, and conservative. I think his big point is that in the modern age where people are looking for blame, where we're divided and so forth, the disruptors are the ones who win. The question I think we have to start thinking about, and the Labour government have to start thinking about, how are you able to be a disruptor in government, to disrupt a status quo that is being rejected?

28:36I kind of, I buy that, so what do you not like about these analyses? Peter Heimann's Brinand Peace is an attack on progressive liberal centre politicians, and I guess that is everything from the legacy ultimately of Tony Blair, David Cameron, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, even Angela Merkel, the general idea that politics is in the centre ground and the fact that it's been replaced by populists and the way in which that emergency populist is partly the fault of the fact that the people from the centre, I suppose the modern equivalence would be the Olaf Schwarz's, the true goes, the macros, didn't manage to take back the initiative, didn't manage to hold them off.

29:16Or didn't want to understand or failed to see why there might be an appeal that they had to challenge. I always felt Bill Clinton had a sense of this, but because he was such a good politician, I think he could always work out how to keep it at bay. I think partly what Peter is saying is that this stuff was building over decades and we just got a bit complacent about the potential for it to become even more powerful than it was back then. I also sometimes worry that I mean I went through a very very dark moment after I was came out of the leadership and Boris Johnson became Prime Minister of thinking the whole world is going towards the populist mayhem, and then I sort of chit myself up through a lot of wishful thinking into thinking maybe Biden had turned this around and Kableharras were going to win.

30:06The problem also for all of us is that we tend to slot in whatever our pet projects are as a solution for stopping populism. So if you're Peter Heim and it'll be a list of three or four policy prescriptions which he thinks the kind of things the Labour government doing, if it's me I will be saying we need more citizens assembly, we need more devolution, we need to think about decentralized industrial policy that's kind of stuff. The truth is that in a world that is so much about social media, so much about weird insults and name flinging and often lies, it may be that just coming up with a slightly smarter technocratic policy solution is almost irrelevant that somebody like Trump can outmaneuver you every time.

30:50Well that's why I've been saying since the American election I think one of the lessons of American election is delivery is not enough. Although I was talking to Tom Boulvin the other day who's written his biography of Keir Starmer and I see the economist picked up on something he'd said. He said to me this thing is that maybe there's what people are not getting about Keir Starmer, we'll talk about Labour more after the break, is that he's like the prime minister for the 80 % of the population are not calling each other genocide or rape apologists on social media. And there's something in that, there's something about a leader who could come along and sort of lower the temperature but you can only do that successfully if you are also being seen to deliver on the things that people want from their government.

31:32Look there's no doubt that we the Liberal Centre are partly responsible for the mess that we're in. So a lot of the criticisms that Trump and others make of the 2008 financial crisis was a massive screw up. Iraq and Afghanistan massive screw ups. So their criticisms of the way the elites behave is correct. Their solutions are in the end becoming more and more nationalists as we talked about in the last podcast more and more anti -Muslim. That's what's going on with me, re -migration, AFD, Austria. And we shouldn't stop saying that, we should not stop saying that. And I think three main things, they're challenging the old ideas of Liberal democracy and human rights which they think are protecting criminals, protecting rapists, not allowing them to get rid of immigrants.

32:17They're attacking the old ideas of free trade and trying to move to more protection. And they're attacking the idea of a world with rules and the United Nations and countries like the US and the UK getting involved in trying to build peace, bring development. And the problem with it is that those three things, democracy, prosperous open borders and these international rules were very hardworn lessons from the end of the Second World War about one prevented war. What brought peace and we're losing our moral compass because we're allowing populists to basically say, and journalists to feed this, oh well, the fact is that we're boring and we're not manly.

33:04I mean, I noticed in a lot of the abuse I'm getting on Twitter at the moment is increasingly about saying, I'm not a real man. So the attacks will be, he's a man child, he's golem, he's got a rubber face. And it's incessant. I get people saying to me, how's your little whimper, Rory Stewart? There we are, you see. But what is worklisters and viewers, I think you've got it wrong. I've seen Rory of various situations. I back him in a fight against a lot of people. I'm just going to put that out there. Thank you, Aleister. But it's revealing, isn't it? Because when journalists get on side of this and say, you know, what fun the writer, how lively they are, what they're not taking into account is that there is an unbelievably unpleasant undercurrent here, which goes well beyond their views on wakery into a very dark conservative vision of how the world should be.

33:59And the key is to find out how you fight back and win without losing your moral standards. How do you fight back and win and still say, actually, we do believe humans are equal in rights of dignity. We're not going to support the idea that British nationals who are Muslims or Austrian nationals who are Muslims are going to be expelled from these countries. And then actually understand that these people may begin by sounding like they're just grumbling about Muslims. But their views on women will be unprintable. Their views on gay people will be unprintable. Their views on anyone who disagrees with them will be unprintable, which is why the challenge is, and this is where I agree with Peter.

34:33I'll finish on this, right? We need communication. We need charm. We could do with a sense of humor. Obviously, part of the point is that the populace are much funnier than the centrist arm. We're just not funny. Kirsta was not funny. Boris Johnson's quite funny. Beppe Grio was funny, right? Even Mille in some mad way is kind of funny in Argentina, right? Yeah. So we need to communicate. We also need ideas. Really clear ideas. We'll get onto that in the second half. We do need a plan for growth. We need to explain how we can sort out the economy, sort out society, and not just sound like we're apologizing for the fact that nothing can be done.

35:05But the one thing that we can't lose is the moral integrity. We cannot lose sight of the values and why they matter. I don't think Peter would disagree with that. But I think what he would say is the way that we discuss that, the way that we the progressives project that, does play into this idea that we're slightly superior. And that's what feeds this sense of elite. Whereas actually, most people feel that there should be a moral compass. Most people feel that there is right and wrong. But if they feel in their own lives that government over a generation has let them down, then don't be surprised if they're prepared to overlook some of the tendencies and the leaders that they do elate.

35:47Because to whatever you say about Trump, he's a disruptor. For ours is a disruptor. Johnson's a disruptor. Millais a disruptor. And Millais is really interesting. I mean, I've been sadly, I don't speak Spanish, sort of a bit limited in this, but I've been following as closely our cameras going on in Tina. And you know, it's interesting. What he's doing is genuinely interesting and not as catastrophic, necessarily. I mean, massive rise in poverty. That's catastrophic. But in terms of how he set himself what he was going to do, I think he's got more steam in his engine. He's got more kind of, you know, legs that he's running on because he came in as a disruptor and he is disrupting.

36:26And the other point that Peter made that I think is really important, this is about kind of intellectual underpinning. He said, so we Trump's the kind of the main guy and Musk alongside him. And it's all about Twitter and its abuse and what have you. But Peter makes the point that we may have railed it when we read it, but they did produce this project 2025. They do have these really powerful well thought through well funded think tanks, America first, Heritage Foundation, this national conservators and movement, et cetera. And what is the equivalent? I think that's the point he's making is that we're just sort of thinking, well, eventually they'll get found out because populism always fails.

37:05Now history suggests that's true, but the damage that can be done while we're sort of sitting there thinking, you just watch, you just watch this go wrong. And I think on Brexit, I feel that that's what we do. You know, we do frankly just sit there saying, look, I told you it's going wrong, it's going wrong. Right. But then we're going to do about it. Yeah, well, here's another one where I think I slightly disagree. Hyman dismisses immigration in one sentence says, you know, we need an orderly approach to immigration. I think the one area which is non -negotiable is we need to absolutely demonstrate that we can control borders and that we can set targets on immigration and that we can hold to it.

37:42Otherwise, I think the centre of Liberals are dead. I think it's very dangerous for Liberals to sound as though they're in favour of open borders and that they're not serious about controlling the numbers. We have to accept that bringing nearly a million people into the United Kingdom in a year is grotesque and we need to be able to reassure the public that that isn't going to continue because otherwise all the other stuff I think comes to pieces. I think Hyman is not giving it enough credit to how central immigration is to the message. Does that mean the end of the European Union? Because when I watched Alice Vidal speech, she kept talking about we've got to bring our borders back, have strong borders.

38:19We decide who comes into Germany, which is, you know, pretty obvious nationalist position to take. But does that then mean? But then when you say to does that mean you want to get out of the European Union? No, no, no, no. Well, of course they think the Austrians and the Germans think they can behave like Orban. They can just flout all the rules of the European Union and they're too big for the European Union ever to expel them. So I think it's probably the European Union may well come and start not formally through a formal decision but just through more and more countries refusing to evade its rules.

38:48Okay, should we take a break and then come back and talk about Labour in Britain? Very good.

38:57This isn't ad from BetterHelp. At the moment we're getting advice from everywhere. You just have to go on TikTok. Could be Alice's cold plunges. Could be my attempts to meditate or the digital detox that I'm doing in Colombia. But of course one of the things that we know is that it can be incredibly valuable to talk to another human being, somebody who's actually been trained as the therapist to work through these ideas calmly, objectively and professionally. And as the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a very diverse variety of expertise.

39:33They've got over 5 ,000 therapists in the UK. They've helped more than 5 million people globally and you can join a session literally at the click of a button. Change therapists anytime. It's obviously not about fixing you but it's about hearing yourself clearly, maybe for the first time. So talk it out with BetterHelp. Our listeners get 10 % of their first month at BetterHelp .com slash rest politics. That's better H -E -L -P .com slash rest politics.

40:05Welcome back to the rest of politics with me, Roy Stewart. And me, Anastak Campbell. And before we hooked up to do this chap, Roy, I was watching Rachel Rees' in Parliament. She was doing a statement on her visit to China. Obviously recent events and the turbulence in the markets was brought up at various points. I thought she stood up to it pretty well. I mean she's definitely got a bit of perseverance there. She was not being pushed around. Okay, well so just to quickly interrupt and do a bit of an explain and then maybe come to you on what options she has. The problem she's faces is that she set herself a fiscal rule, which is that debt was supposed to be reducing as a proportion of GDP by the end of the Parliament.

40:47And in her budget where she borrowed another 30 billion and raised another 40 billion worth of taxes, she left herself a pretty small headroom, about 10 billion pounds worth of headroom. And the headroom in other words is the gap between what she thought her borrowing and spending pressures would be and the amount of money she had. So she didn't, as it were, leave enough money in the virtual bank account. And she's been, in a sense, unlucky. I say unlucky because a lot of the debt burden she's inherited from the Tories, a lot of it was to do with massive spending around COVID and not just massive spending around COVID.

41:24A very strange type of borrowing you did around COVID. So traditionally until COVID, the UK tended to borrow very, very long fixed interest rates, you know, like getting a fixed interest rate 30 year mortgage. Because of complications about quantitative easing in the Bank of England and other things, during COVID, we began borrowing shorter money on more flexible interest rates. So big debt. Then we found ourselves she's faced the second problem, which has been Trump. So because Trump has come in and started talking about massively cutting taxes and splurging economic growth and putting up tariffs, America is very worried about inflation.

42:02And therefore there's an expectation that interest rates are going to go up in the US and the cost of borrowing is going to go up in the US. And the cost of borrowing in the UK basically follows the cost of borrowing in the US. So suddenly now in the UK, she's having to spend much more money to borrow. In fact, on the 10 year borrowing, the highest rates since 2008 on her 30 year borrowing hit 5 .44%, which is the highest since 1998. So almost kind of 30 years. And that means that she is blowing through that 10 billion buffer in her bank account. She's going to find herself potentially getting up to spending nearly 100 billion on debt interest.

42:44And she's just not going to be able to stay within her margins on which over you on what her options might be if she finds herself breaking her own set for school rules. Well, just on the numbers by the way, I think you said 100 billion there, according to the Office of Budget Responsibility by 202930, even before this, they were talking about spending more than 122 billion on debt interest payment. I mean, that is a massive sum of money. Look, in terms of the options and you know, it's all very well for people to say, well, you and I both said, and we could be right about this. We could be wrong about this.

43:20Nobody knows because the election happened on the basis that it did. But the fact is that she did rule out certain tax rises and that box turned to some extent. She and Keir Starmer ruled out other measures to do with Europe, customs union, single markets, you rule those out as well. So she's now got essentially the options going forward to the spring statement, which is on March 26. And that don't ask me why I know this, Rory, but that happens to be Diana Ross's birthday. I just happened to know that. It's just because of those things that I know because I used to say Diana Ross the birthday card every year.

43:56Anyway, so her options then she could change the fiscal rule. Okay. And just to explain that, that's that's basically giving herself a little bit more headroom. So some people said that fiscal rule was always too strict. There should have been a bit more flexibility in it. It's a bit ridiculous because even if she breaks that she's only going to break it by a small amount, so she could just ignore it, do nothing or fudge the fiscal rule and say these are just rounding errors and we're not going to make a big fuss out of it. Right. And Keir Starmer this week, when he was making a big speech about AI, we'll come on to talk about that.

44:26And Rachel Rees and Parliament today absolutely clear, there will be no change to the fiscal rule. So that's one option that they seem to rule down. The second thing they could do, she said one of the other things she did is to say that there will only be one fiscal event. Yep. Her year. Yep. The Tories in recent years have got into a habit of doing more than one. Yep. She could change that and she could say, well, actually, I've had to look at things and I'm going to turn the spring statement into an event which also announces tax changes. She could do that. Exactly. So yeah, to explain that, so your option to is spring budget and the spring statement or budget or whatever it is, will involve announcing more tax rises.

45:06So that's the second option that she could have yet. Yeah. And again, I think politically and for the markets, very, very difficult to do that. The third option is to announce on March the 26th further cuts in spending. Politically very, very difficult goes against all the things that Labour said they wanted to do. So that's pretty tricky as well. And the fourth option essentially is the sort of keep calm and carry on. Tough it out. Part of this is because of the turbulence has been brought in by, as you were saying, related to the arrival of Donald Trump. Let's see if that pans out. Very similar things going on in Germany, very similar things going on in France.

45:44And my instinct would be at this stage to do the last of those to not go overboard, not to do too much. So basically there are four options. Number one, she could change the fiscal rule so that she guarantees that number two, she can have a spring statement where she raises taxes, number three, she can cut spending. Number four, she basically does nothing and hopes through growth or some change in the global economy. Yeah. That she sort of breaks the fiscal rule temporarily, but actually in the long run, she won't really break it and she doesn't need to have to do anything. But there's a risk there of also scaring the markets more.

46:16Why would that scare the markets? I think the thing that would scare the markets is if they, if they overreactor this. Well, the risk is that option four, unless something very unlikely happens, she will break that non -negotiable fiscal rule. And therefore they will start to think what sort of rule was this anyway, if she's so comfortable about breaking it and she's not reacting when it breaks. Right. Yeah. That brings us back to this question of the general question around growth and the economy. So you can look this from so many different angles, but there's a couple of angles I wanted to raise to the one of them is the kind of micro business end of this.

46:51And the second is to return to this question of communication and vision. So on the micro business sense, there's quite interesting statements from Simon Wolfson, who's the boss of next. And he's a really impressive business person. And he's, I think he's booked about a billion pounds of pre -tax profits and his sales are up and his profits are up. But he's pointed out that from his point of view, the problem is that Rachel Ries has brought these taxes on employing people, employing the national insurance, very suddenly, instead of bringing it in gradually. And the result is that it's disproportionately hitting people on 16 hour contracts.

47:30So mothers who are working from home, part -time workers, which retail shops like next really depend on are being hit much, much harder than full -time employees on higher incomes because they've brought down the threshold at which these taxes kick in, hitting lower paid people more. So he's predicting on the basis of being one, I guess, one of the most successful business people in Britain at the moment that next year his profits are going to be there's going to be a big 60 million pound raise in his wage bill. And he's predicting that we'll see this going through the rest of the economy. And so that's going to be, I guess, something to look at the real economy.

48:06The second thing though, maybe just to come back to is this question around communication. So what is the growth plan? It's not that anybody, and by this I don't mean what's the sort of brilliant policy solution because I don't think anybody really knows what the brilliant policy solution is. As you say, the German economies and trouble, the French economies and trouble, British economies and trouble, it's not as if there's a bunch of economists out there with a magic wand sitting in their back pocket. But you do need to say something to the public, which gives them an idea that there's a kind of plan and you're going somewhere and that's what I'm not, I can't articulate yet.

48:39By the way, me saying do nothing, I'm not saying say nothing. I said to you before Christmas and I still stand by this that I feel that there is still the space for them to come along with something that they label the growth plan and they set it out sector by sector region by region, theme by theme. And it doesn't have to be full of whizzbang, new stuff and new rhetoric and so forth, which is this is what we're doing. Now, to be fair, I don't if you're able to catch, you might be on the plane when Kierstarmad did his AI speech. And it was interesting because you know, in the end, it's about choices and he essentially was framing the choice.

49:20We can either see AI as a massive threat or we can see AI as a massive opportunity and he said, I am absolutely in the latter camp and he gave some examples of where it was working already. We should at this stage, by the way, tell listeners who haven't already caught up with our latest leading interview. It's entirely coincidental list, but James Migniki is one of the kind of pioneers of this whole AI world. We interviewed him and it not least about that, what where is the threat, where is the opportunity. But what Kierstarmad was basically saying is this has the capacity to power growth, this has the capacity to bring in the improvements in public services that we need, but only if we embrace it in the way that he was setting out.

50:03So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying do nothing, they have to do lots. But what I'm saying is that I don't believe that they should be spooked into some whiz -bang response on March 26th that nobody's expecting. This is how we're going to get through this. And I heard John McDonald on the airways today, John McDonald who was shadow chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn. And he was echoing the point that you and I make a lot about, you know, they box themselves in too much of this and this. But then his solution was to bring in massive wealth taxes. Now I think we talked about this in relation to Australia before the election.

50:41I think you might have been able to do that right at the start. I think if you did that right now, you talk about spooking the markets, they are going to go haywire with that. So I think this is difficult. I don't think it's the crisis, what crisis that people pinned on Jim Callahan back in the 70s. I think the mail in these papers trying to say this is like the 70s revisited is absolutely for the birds. But it's a genuine challenge born of partly of the international stuff. But also the fact is we've talked before about the budget took so long the economy was being talked down, etc, etc, etc.

51:14For perfectly legitimate political reasons, trying to pin it on the Tories. But now very much people are saying, okay, we want to see this growth plan. And I think there is a case just for, you know, somebody in the Treasury, I hope he's doing it right now, just, master 26 could be the time you do it. You just say, here it is. Here's a 500 page document that sets the whole damn thing out. Gorgiollet, all that you want. So Kier Sam's AI speech, I thought was one of the most interesting speeches he's made and really matters. And really encourage people to listen to the James Minneker interview. James extraordinary Zimbabwean intellectual right at the forefront of development in AI.

51:54Why is it interesting? Well, Kier's fundamental vision is that AI is an opportunity and he's looking at it more as an opportunity than a risk as simplifying. But basically, he's saying we need to wait until we understand what this thing is before we overregulate. Yeah. And in this, he's slightly echoing Reid Hoffman who we've also interviewed on leading and and most of us, Solomon, who I think would agree with quite a lot of what's being said here, which is the problem with what Europe's trying to do, the European unions trying to do, which is going very heavily on risk of Earth's regulation is twofold.

52:27First, see that we don't yet know exactly what the stuff is or what it can do. And therefore, it's a bit like regulating cars at the stage where they're still strapping at 10 miles an hour with someone walking in front of them with a red flag. The regulation is likely to be inappropriate to whatever this thing looks like in two years time. The second problem is a little bit related to what happens in climate change if you start trying to control your own carbon emissions, what everyone else is doing it. So if you're up in the UK, kill off the AI industry, but US and China are just going full guns.

52:59You're not going to make the world a safer place. In fact, you're just going to get yourself colonized by them. And this is always the technological problem. If you think back to the days when people were having debates around railroads or nuclear weapons or any of these kind of things, the reason in the end you push a Heber technology even when the technology can seem pretty dangerous and disruptive to your society is that if you don't, your neighbour does and your neighbour then sits on you in a really big way. So I think Kirstalmer's probably doesn't have many choices. I don't think there's much point to him trying to be pious and super risk averse if the US is going all guns blazing.

53:36I think the thing that really is missing here still is two things. Firstly, a very, very radical change in government. And this is why it's going to be great to get Peter Kyle, who's the Minister responsible for this unleading to talk to him about what they can really do to shake up the civil service who is always never really understands technology well enough, never really understands science well enough never really takes enough risk with new emerging technologies. And secondly, how do you sort out our financial markets because we're still dealing with this problem where Britain has great ideas.

54:06We set up early stage companies and then they slap off to Silicon Valley to get their investment. And that's partly to do with what our pension funds are allowed to do and it's partly to do with a general risk of us culture and Britain. And it's partly to do with the whole surrounding context. So I'm really impressed by this. Any other thoughts on AI from you? Well, I think, you know, you and I when Peter Kyle was appointed said one very good that is an important he's a good appointment. That's a new post science innovation technology. And I think what Peter's done, I think, you know, I've been sometimes I sort of takes from time to time, you know, why have you been so quiet, why aren't you saying anything?

54:40But actually, I think he has been a way getting under the bonnet of this. And I felt when I was watching him doing interviews and when he was talking about this in recent days, I thought this is a guy's really immersing himself in the detail. I remember when Musk started going off on one of his early kind of rants and I first started to think this guy really is a sort of, you know, menace. And I could be being Peter Kyle and messaging and saying, you know, why can't he just take away any security clearance this guy's got? And he said, yeah, what yeah. And so is that so is that we, you know, we sort of shoot ourselves in the other foot where we're trying to sort of build, you know, AI as the centerpiece of the economy, etc.

55:16Now, by the way, I wouldn't underestimate just back to the point about racial reefs, we should be very wary of the potential impact that Musk has with his reach and his volume and so forth. Even though I think eventually he's going to kind of, you know, blow himself up, but that's just maybe a wishful thinking. But he is damaging brand Britain. And I we have to assume he's doing that with other people, the networks that he has access to. So Labour has got a job. Maybe this is peace part to Peter Mandelson's role when he steps in as as ambassador. Labour's got a job to counter some of that because, you know, every country in the world has a brand.

55:55What I liked about the way that Peter Kyle and Keir Starmer presented this, they were basically saying, you know, we're not starting. I think it was one of them said we're not starting at a kind of, you know, an even here's the starting line of a race. America and China are way ahead of everybody, but we're basically next. And that gives us massive opportunities. And the thing is that, you know, when we talk about New Year's resolutions and I said you've got to have any people who are going to know what your enemies are. In a way, they were signaling because when he talked about, you know, the available data in healthcare and how that can lead to better outcomes for people when they're sick, part of me and part of you, I suspect, is going, all Palantir, Peter Tee or blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, we don't really like these people having their hands on our data.

56:40That's a fight. And what I was getting, I think this is probably the reason why you like to as a speech, what I was getting from care, the same as he did a little bit the week earlier when he was given the speech on healthcare was there are going to be fights in this. And I'm telling you, kind of where I'm staking out my ground. I'm on the side of innovation, yes, safety, yes regulation, but that is not going to be the driving force. This has got to be, how do we get better public services? How do we get better economic growth by properly exploiting enhances the benefits of artificial intelligence?

57:13Yeah, let's just, I think maybe conclude just by saying that a lot of the leading figures now in AI, some of whom we know, some of whom we've interviewed are increasingly predicting that things are going to change very, very, very quickly indeed. Leopold Ashembranner has written a paper called situational awareness, which we can share, which is suggesting we could get to artificial general intelligence within a couple of years. Dario who runs Unstropic again is talking that kind of time frame, Demis Hersabis is talking, I think, last time I saw four, five years, which means that you're going to end up with super intelligence able to generate a hundred years of scientific progress in a couple years.

57:56I mean, every single publication in nature and science will be groundbreaking. It's almost impossible to work out how humans are going to be able to read all this stuff or even just work out what's been discovered in mathematics and physics. We can find ourselves in a world where everybody working in call centers suddenly loses their jobs and that will then mean wiping out 10 % of the economies of many low -medium income countries that are relying on call centers to emerge. All of military conflict could be turned on its head because artificial general intelligence would make almost all our armies obsolete overnight.

58:30Britain is very vulnerable because one of the things it could do is take out almost all the people working in white collar jobs, consultants, bankers, lawyers and God forbid even podcasters. The problem is that as usual timelines are out of sync. Governments tend to think, well, I've got four, five years. If these guys are right that the entire technology of the world is changing in a two, three -year period, then the job facing Kierstama is completely different to any job that any prime minister has ever faced in the past. My final point, I'll just end with a question. Do you think Liz Truss was right to get lawyers, to write to Kierstama to say he was seasoned, to assist him saying she crashed the economy?

59:09Was that a good move for her long -term reputation? What was your view of that? I doesn't seem like a very good me. I think saying that your previous conservative premise of crash the economy is absolutely part of the strong 400 -year tradition of British parliamentary politics. I think of this, he definitely, the risk of getting a seasoned disassist letter from Liz Truss, I think is very, very, very fair comment. See you tomorrow.