EVERY Supporting Act On Ed Sheeran Tour PULLS OUT

Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, Ed Sheeran pandered to the Israel lobby and it has massively backfired. Also, an inflation rate spike spells trouble for Burnham. Um, or Tage Ali joins us to talk racism and integration and Nvidia's CEO um has, I think, unfairly ducked the worst of the tech backlash because I think he's actually the worst offender. We're going to talk about Yensen Wang. Um, I'm Michael Walker. I'm joined by Aaron Bastani. Uh, how's it going? >> It's going pretty well, actually. It's my second show co-hosting in in two days. Uh, I did do last week, but obviously had two weeks off before that. I'm I'm enjoying getting back into the flow of things, Michael. >> And I was saying you're looking very hip. You got your Palace t-shirt on. Second child, you're now kind of hip dad. >> That's it. Millennial. Millennial dad. The gray hairs are coming as well. So, the the more gray I get, the younger I'm going to dress. [laughter] It's kind of how it works, isn't it? Uh, it's it's a tradition. It's it's a nice tradition I think we should all hold on to. Um, if you'd like to support our work, if you'd like Aaron Basani to buy more branded t-shirts, um, you can sign up at navarmedia.com/sport. He says it secondhand. Can I just very quickly, Michael, before our wonderful supporters say to themselves, Aaron is wasting all of our money. First point, all of us at Navar Media earn the same. Uh, so it's not like I'm at the the top of some pay scale. I'm just, you know, flushing it down on clothes. Secondly, I bought this from a great guy, actually Merlin. He has a used um clothes shop on Albert Road in Portsmouth. And he said a great thing to me. He said, "What I want to do is make available good clothes that you really like. You enjoy them. You have them for a couple of years and then you can sell them if you like. Maybe for the same price even. That's the kind of ethos I'm trying economy >> instill. And so I thought I'd give actually Merlin a shout out. He's also on Instagram. Great shop. Lovely man. >> Fantastic. Um Aaron's wife is a counselor. So, she's often on Instagram sort of sharing all the local stores. >> That's right. And and you're kind of taking that on board. I like it. Um the sort of the power couple of British high streets. We reported yesterday on Ed Sheeran dropping Mmore from his US tour after protest from a powerful Israel backer. Mackmore became the target of the Israel lobby after saying this at an Ed Sheeran concert two weeks ago. >> I've been trying to figure out a way to say this all day. One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart. Free Palestine. >> So Mmore saying that led to a number of billionaire owners of major US stadiums saying they wouldn't allow the edge here in tour to perform at their venues unless Mammore was dropped from the lineup. Now, chief among those billionaires was Robert Craft, who owns the Gillette Stadium outside Boston. Um, Craft has been pictured with Benjamin Netanyahu because he's funded campaigns to oppose BDS and has been given awards um by the Israeli prime minister who said of him, "Israel does not have a more loyal friend than Robert Craft." This is not very subtle. Um, now, as you'll know, this led to Mmore being dropped from the tour. Um criticism then piled in at Ed Sheeran and he responded um with a statement that included these bullet points. Um and these are the bullet points I'm going to read because these are the ones that really really backfired I suppose. Um so Ed Sheeran said Makammore coming off tour was the promoter's decision. It was not mine. Makammore's contract for the tour was with the promoter, not me. And but then he says I would never let down the fans who had made plans. Nor would I abandon the touring crew and other support acts and musicians who rely on me for work and to make a living. Um so Sharan there saying well it's first of all saying it's not my problem although I presume if you're the main act on a tour you have quite a lot of power if you really care. Um but the thing that I think that's really undermined him is he said there that one of the reasons that he sort of accepted the decision of his management or you know succumbed to the pressure from these uh stadium owners was because he didn't want to let down his support acts and he didn't want to let down the musicians who rely on him to make a living. So he was sort of, you know, doing other people a favor. Um, there was a big problem with that statement though because it turns out his support acts and musicians had a bit more integrity than Ed Sheeran. So Aaron Row, an Irish singer songwriter who had been booked on the rest of the US tour and released this statement on Instagram. So he said, "I have made the decision to withdraw as a support act for Ed Sheeran's The Loop North American tour. I don't take this decision lightly. Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life. I can never thank him enough for this. But as Irish people, we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation. I cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power to silence the rightful voices of those who speak up against Israeli genocide and who highlight the savage murder of children. I would lose all respect for myself to carry on as normal. I need to be true to myself and my ancestors who resisted colonization and fought for a freedom that I enjoy today in Ireland. Then it says free Palestine. Um then his backing band withdrew. So again that statement he says that one of the reasons I'm not going to cancel this tour or move stadium is because of my backing band. Well, one of his backing bands is called Bio Yoga. Um and I hope I pronounced that right. And they withdrew. This was their post. So they said, "We have made the decision to depart as Ed Sheeran's band on the remaining US loop tour following the silencing of Mammore by Zionist lobbies. We are a traditional Irish band who never saw ourselves playing in stadiums of that size, and that opportunity is not lost on us. We have been friends with Ed for over 10 years now and will continue to be. We believe in dialogue as a means of progressing the plight of the Palestinian people. Um the Danish pop band Lucas Graham also dropped out of the tour on Tuesday afternoon. Their lead singer said, quote, "Money doesn't give you the right to own the conversation. Nobody's bank balance should decide who gets to speak or which suffering we're allowed to acknowledge." Um and then the artist Phineas, again, I hope I'm pronouncing his name right. He's Billy Isish's brother. Um, he also dropped out. So, he posted on Instagram, quote, "Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed. I have decided to withdraw from my upcoming tour dates with Ed Sheeran. Um, I stand with Palestine and its people." Um, so that leaves Ed Sheeran with no support acts. Um, and without one of his backing bands. Um, now Aaron, obviously, we're not leading with this story because we're particularly interested in the character of Ed Sheeran. I'm not particularly interested in saying, "Oh, Ed Sheeran, you know, he should have had some backbar, yada yada yada." It's just not my wheelhouse to care about that. What I think is genuinely interesting about this story is that for a very long time, um, people, I mean, especially in America, but everywhere, there's been a real cost if you stand up to the Israel lobby or if you if you don't sort of go along with them when they're persecuting someone close to you. So in this case they were obviously persecuting not edge but someone close to Mackmore and he presumably fought and his management fought well it would be too hard to take a stand here so let's just go with the tour and drop Mackmore and I think what this is proving is that there is a very powerful Israel lobby but there's also a very powerful anti-Israel lobby and this has really backfired for for Ed Sheeran now and this is not just going to be about Ed Sheeran now whenever the Israel lobby demand of a high-profile you have to do what we say, they're going to think, well, I could do what they say, but then there's going to be this >> anti-Israel >> community, which imposes another cost on me. And it does seem like the playing field has been to a large degree somewhat leveled when it comes for advocacy for for Israel and human rights and Palestine in the United States. >> It's somewhat leveled, but it's also very clear which direction things are moving in. Right. I mean, it's somewhat level today, three years after October 2023, but you know, the Israel lobby and its strength in the United States is really on a downward trajectory. Um, I think that's true. So, you know, we talked about Michael Walker's wheelhouse. That's a good place to start, isn't it? Costs. Somebody who doesn't care about the conflict, somebody who doesn't care about personal morality, right, in the abstract, would just simply say, "Well, this position incurs more costs than this position. I'm just going to pursue this position." Which by the way, the Zionist lobby operates alongside those presumptions. They do the things they do because they they speculate quite rightly that most people most of the time will behave like that. Uh with regards to public relations, the electric fence approach is often cited. Nick Davis talks about this um in flat earth news book which includes a lot of um description about the Zionist lobby and how they work in public relations, which is to say if you do something they don't like, you'll just get a little shock, >> right? So rather than going after a sheer, they went after Mlemore. I think it is not more. >> No, I'm pretty sure Michael I don't understand these people. [laughter] Okay. My musical tastes are frozen in time from when I was 24. >> Um they went after him as the kind that's the kind of electric fence, right? And so that's just warning Ed Sheeran. Drop this guy otherwise we're going to come after you too. Now, if you were being very generous to Ed Sheeran before he published his statement, you would say they're putting him in a in a tight spot. Now, hear me out here because I don't think that Ed Sheeran is in any way a victim here. Ed Sheeran's statement was appalling, even if you think that, because it is just true to say that there are costs with both positions here. His statement was appalling. He is objectively one of the most culturally influential recording artists in the world today. The way he was talking about himself was like he had like no power at all, no influence at all. It's quite striking that these supporting acts with far more to lose in terms of their future career and opportunities have taken a more principled stand than the person with way more influence than them and actually far less to lose. That's the first point. The second point is this. Even if Ed Shuran was indifferent to Israel Palestine, okay, and I don't think he should be, but even if he was, the fact you've known Mlemore or Mlemore for he says 13 years, 13 years. And they are treated like this by a political interest group. They're they're defamed and smeared and they're basically they're trying to blacklist them. That's what they're trying to do. If if Mmore McLemore were blocked from this tour successfully and then Ed Sheeran did it and it went really well, then the Zionist lobby, the Israel lobby would proceed to do the exact same thing to Mmore repeatedly and other groups like them. Okay? And he's not stupid. I'm sure you can explain this to him and he'd understand that quite quickly. So purely as a matter of principle, he should have Well, look, hold on. I'm not interested in politics. Well, you are when it comes to Ukraine, but park that for a minute. I'm not interested in politics. I don't have a side here. You should kind of have a side, but again, park that for a minute, but I don't think this is the right way to treat people, which it isn't. >> So, he failed on two counts, Michael. He failed on that statement, which is just sort of vacuous and nonsensical. But also, I think on a deeper level, he failed as a person, you know, like imagine if this happened to me. Imagine if I was blacklisted by the Israel lobby. You're my colleague. You've known me for a long time, a decade or more, and you did this. So I'd say look, Michael, we've known each other does not not count for anything. >> And clearly in the case of Ed Sheeran, it doesn't. So I think he's failed on um two counts. Uh and then finally, Aaron Row. >> Yeah, >> what an amazing statement. What an amazing statement. And without denigrating people in popular culture, musicians, because of course mi musicians have been politically sensitive and and often influential and thought leaders when it comes to politics for decades. The levels of now default political culture on this issue on Israel Palestine are so high, right? You might not like that. We often criticize Instagram and social media. I think quite rightly, right? I pref I would rather including myself I would rather people spend more time reading than doom scrolling. However, we have to give these platforms their dues on this particular issue on Israel Palestine. People are more informed than ever before and it's because of you know the likes of Instagram and social media. That's not to say that those are net positive technologies. I don't think they are. But I think again, if you're going to just listen to one side of this, the pro-Israel side, you've got to understand there are literally tens of millions of people, I'm not going to say hundreds of millions because it's not just the people that are sympathetic. There are tens of millions of people with a very high political ideological understanding of what's going on. And when you do something like blacklist someone, they have a very good explanation as to why you've done that and what to do in response. And I think that's a really really big moment in terms of Israel, Palestine, and the broader cultural conversation. I think I'm like you. I don't really I don't like to get too interested in in stories about celebrities and pop culture. This is huge. >> I mean, obviously, if if the tour goes ahead, I think it's still up in the air, but if the tour goes ahead, I mean, it is quite likely that the stadiums will be full. I'm sure that the amount of interest on Instagram that there is on this story, and it is notable that all of these statements that I don't think they were put out via their press people. They all seem to be sort of initially put out on their Instagram stories, right? So I don't think this sort of chain of events, this chain reaction would have happened without social media. Um, but I mean is it's quite likely that financially not many people are going to try and return the tickets. They bought the tickets anyway. I think that people will will turn up and probably enjoy themselves. But in terms of Ed Sheeran's sort of position as a cultural figure, it's like fatal almost. and that is going to make people really think twice before saying I'll do what seems like the easy thing and go along with what the Israel lobby are demanding I do. Um this has become a political issue. Let's go to um a politician who weighed in. Um this is AOC. >> Hey, if Ed Sheeran comes on the radio while you're driving along, are you changing the channels? >> I am. >> You are? >> Yeah. >> Why is that? I think that um what we've seen especially it's not it's not just what has happened with the act and not just in removing Mmore from the lineup but when you see what Robert Craft did to line up all of the stadiums to censor speech in that one specific way it's become clear that this is not just about one music artist or two music artists but this is about how just a handful of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive um issue, in this case the genocide in Gaza. But it doesn't stop there. It could be speaking out about AI. It could be speaking out about any issue that you can now just get a handful of stadium owners to ensure that an entire person's career um can be jeopardized if they speak out about any issue. >> Someone in the comments said Michael would throw Aaron under the bus. I have to protest that I'm a very loyal colleague and friend. I would never. Um AOC though I suppose adding another element there which was about freedom of speech. Um, it's obviously, you know, very relevant in the United States and AOC making the the point that if this is a billionaire saying you can't perform here because of something you said on stage, then that has some, I suppose, real implications for the first amendment. Um, let's shift to this country because discourse on Palestine is shifting here as well. This was Ed Miban speaking to the rest is politics. >> Terrible what is happening and and obviously I think it is important to say this. All of us condemn in the strongest terms the murder that Hamas did on October the 7th, but nothing can justify what has unfolded in Gaza since then. And actually, you know, it's worth saying since the ceasefire, the so-called ceasefire, 1,200 Palestinians have been killed. >> Yeah. >> You know, that is not much of a ceasefire. >> I thought that was really interesting because again, that's you wouldn't have heard that under Kharma because he's, you know, under Kama people would point out the plight of the Palestinians to him and he would say, "Yes, that is true." but then find an excuse to talk about Israel basically whereas what Ed Milliban he's been asked about October the 7th and he said yes that was awful duh but then said but also we're not really talking enough about Palestine so he he's very proactively bringing Palestine into the conversation whereas under Kisama when anyone was asked about it they seemed embarrassed right he seems like actually this is a good opportunity to talk about this and I think that is a real big difference >> yeah he's the foreign secretary right and he's the one that's saying a so-called ceasefire you know he's not some >> some backbencher trying to make a name for himself he is the foreign secretary. He's the person that represents this country on the global stage. Uh and contrast and compare with David Lami and Kharma. You know, that would not have come out of David Lambiey's mouth. And it's something that I've heard on this show a couple of times, which I think is so true. I think you've said it um as well, which is all of this just makes Karma look like a real cuck. Okay? And I mean that politically, of course, because he's he's basically over the last two years saying, "Look, I'd like to do something, but I can't. I can't because we'll cut ties. The Americans will lose the White House. Trump will impose higher trade tariffs on us. I can't. I'd love to. A bit like Ed Sheeran, right? I'd love I'd love to. You don't know what I'm really doing. I love that part of Sharon's statement, by the way. I haven't said anything. I've not done anything, but we all make change in our own way. Okay. Well, you're doing nothing. Um, and it was the same with what Kia Star and David Lammy was saying really over the last two years. We're all making change in our own way what while not doing anything which also by the way just speaks to a sort of performative affective politics which is designed for the media uh which Ed Shiran and the former government ministers Lami and and Stala all shared and what's really interesting is you have a new government come in a big shift in policy you know there's a recognition now of the illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank they have been subject to a bunch of UN resolutions since 1967 finally We're saying we'll sanction them. We should have done it under Harold Wilson long before I was born, Michael. Long before you were born, but we're doing it now. Better late than never. And guess what? The Americans haven't said a word. They haven't said anything. There's been no negative consequences for any of it. And so that just makes the previous political position of the likes of Lamian Kama look even more profoundly ridiculous. >> So Kama is Ed Sheeran, although less successful and less popular. And Ed Milliband is Mackmore. Is that how we're concluding this segment? kind of I mean kind of uh although I suppose Ed Milliband is now the is now the person in power you know the equipment would have to be MLmore or McLemore I'm pretty sure it's More >> I'm [laughter] pretty sure it was More D but you have made me doubt myself >> MLmore uh you know the equivalent with them you know winning some Grammys or something I guess >> yeah I think they did well they'd had a very successful song once upon a time >> yeah but they need to come back look if Ed Miller can come back then Mackmore can as well okay brilliant let's Hope Andy Bernham is still having a decent honeymoon as prime minister. He came into office with a bunch of cheap but popular policies and Edmund sanctions on Israeli settlers have landed well with the left. But the real threat to this Labor government and pretty much any government anywhere right now is the cost of living. And on that front, Bernham's just got his first set of really bad news. So newly released data shows that the inflation rate rose to 3.1% in August. That's a 0.2% increase on the inflation rate in July. Um, and there are a few signs that the cost of living is about to or sorry, there are few signs that the cost of living is about to improve. Oil is still at over $108 a barrel. That's after the Houthi bombed a key Saudi pipeline. And Bloomberg Economics reckons that energy bills could go up by 25% in January. Um, households with mortgages will also have a keen eye on potential interest rate rises. Um, now this week, the Bank of England is expected to hold interest rates steady. They have a meeting on Thursday, but financial markets are pricing in at least four interest rate rises over the next 12 months, which could leave rates at close to 5% this time next year. And as inflation rises, so does the government's borrowing costs, which in turn make it harder for them to meet their fiscal rules. Um, yesterday as well, this has sort of got lots of people talking. Andy Haldane, who is the former chief economist at the Bank of England and had been advising Andy Bernham, said this to LBC. Do you think there are areas in government spending that Andy Burnham and John Healey could cut without absolute uproar in the labor benches? >> Listen, any step in that direction would would cost you something in in capital, political capital with the backbenches and beyond possibly. Um ultimately um it's only by taking actions uh that come with the political cost that you convince financial markets that you are serious. The Achilles heel, the fiscal Achilles heel of this government thus far has been its unwillingness andor inability to cut public spending. Um, among within financial markets, we've gone from the cautious optimism of the summer months to the studied skepticism of September. >> Show us something real there. >> Show us it's for real. You know, the market now suspects that this is a traditional tax and spend socialist government with better Tik Tok videos. Andy Bam was today denied um that he runs a tax and spend traditional socialist government with better Tik Tok videos. Um let's start on the inflation rate and I suppose interest rates because you know Andy Burnham is having a honeymoon but if within 12 months interest rates are back up to close to 5% then anyone with a mortgage is going to feel a lot poorer and that's not a recipe for winning elections. >> Well, you know, we we talk about um we talk about what Marxists call the superructure. you know we talk about culture and we talk about um expressions of ideas and a good a good Marxist Michael says look this is all an extension of the economic base so some people for instance say that um you know the right will say some people on the right some smart people actually would say that identity politics was a 0% interest rate phenomenon you know actually when you've got interest rates and inflation that go really high people start talking about food prices it turns out that's just a it's being provocative and I'm sure to some extent it's true right what we're seeing now really since 2022 is this up and down process of returning to material politics in a really really hard way. So what do I mean? Obviously energy prices, food prices were central to the cost of living crisis 22 23 but alongside that was a massive shift in government finances because the cost of borrowing went up. That meant that the cost of servicing the national debt also went up. Now don't confuse this with the deficit. The deficit is how much you borrow in order to, you know, make your income and outcome basically square, right? How much you how much you borrowing to to to shore up the books from people who are willing to lend to your country on international markets. That's the deficit. Right now, the deficit in this country is about 110 billion. You know, doesn't matter too much. If you've got good growth and you got a little bit of inflation, a deficit of three or 4%, which what we've got is kind of okay. Okay? You don't want a deficit of 10%. But three or 4% is fine. Historically the costs of servicing the debt are what should really worry people. So I think before 22 23 the the cost of service servicing the national iss about 40 billion and immediately after that those really high interest rates it was about 110 billion a year. So all of a sudden you've lost 60 to 70 billion pounds. You've not done anything right? You've lost that because the costs of borrowing to service the national debt have gone up. And consider this. I think in a three-month period in 23 24 that figure went up by about 30 billion. So all of a sudden you're the government. You're thinking, well, we've got to find an extra 30 billion. Now the policing budget in England and Wales is 16 billion. So in just a few months, >> it's like getting two extra police forces. >> You've lost twice as much. you've got to find twice as much money as you spend on the entirety of policing. So even if you're very prudent, even if you make lots of really good decisions, if that figure goes up in terms of the cost of servicing your debt, you're in big trouble. Um I talked about uh low interest rates and and the sort of political consequences of them. Another really [clears throat] good example is the Tories. Between 2010 and 2015, they do a bunch of unpopular stuff and people are saying there's no way they can be re-elected. They didn't even get a majority before. There was a hung parliament and yet they go from 2010 a hung parliament although they're the largest party to getting an outright majority for the first time as the Conservative Party since 1992. Why? There were 0% interest rates. Okay? It means that people can get cheap mortgages. They can get cheap deals with regards to financing cars. You can buy, you know, cheap beds on tick, cheap furniture on tick. Your John Lewis card is cheap. If you can access credit, you're happy. You're a happy bunny. And so on a bunch of measures. Obviously, we know inflation gets people upset, but so do higher interest rates. And of course, so do higher energy prices, higher food prices. And that is the world potentially that we're going into with Andy Burham. And this isn't speculative. We did this four years ago, and the political consequences were the tries got completely smashed and Labour formed the next government. I know that K star and Labour first think it was because of them, but fundamentally and of course politicians do have to take the opportunities that put in front of them, but fundamentally it was a it was a a fiscal crisis so to speak which was in part caused by these escalating costs of borrowing for the British government >> and you think so Andy Holdane now coming out and sort of sounding quite critical of of Bernham's government where he was when Andy Bernham was sort of first preparing to become prime minister he was trying to reassure the markets by saying I'm being advised by Andy Haldane. I'm being advised by Jim O'Neal. Now, both Andy Haldane and Jim O'Neal are not joining the government. And with Jim O'Neal, it was explicitly Andy Bon wanted him to join in various roles and Jim O'Neal said, "I don't think your policies are credible enough." >> Um, now Andy Haldane coming and saying the same thing. Um Jim O'Neal, by the way, former um I don't know if it was JP Morgan or Goldman >> and he came up with the bricks um acronym for um Brazil, Russia, India, China. I'm sort of testing myself on the go here. Um does this matter? >> Yes, it very much matters. I mean, by the way, that clip at the end where I don't want a tax and spend government, but a Tik Tok, I mean, sign me up, actually. Uh that's that's it's better than a tax and spend government with bad Tik Tok, isn't it? He's back. What's it's it's quite funny. This is a line of attack. Having good comms is now a bad thing. I mean, whether or not you're right, left, whatever your policy gen, having good comms is is quite desirable, isn't it? >> Because to be honest, Karma Ree was a tax and spend government that was pro-Israel and terrible at coms. >> Yeah. >> Which is not a winning combination in this country. So now we got a tax and spend government which is taking sort of more principled foreign policy positions and very good at communications. >> It's not obviously the markets don't care that much. >> Are they even tax and spend? You know, I think Is Andy Bernham and John Healey are Andy Bernham and John Healey ever going to oversee a budget as tax and spend as Rachel Reeves [clears throat] first two? They were they were really big interventions, right? We're going to take loads of money from over here. We're going to put it over here. They were >> um I think he does politics differently. I talked about this on the show last night. Karma would say we are going to increase spending to public transport to local authorities and it'll be an extra 5 billion a year. Okay, you hear numbers and Andy Bernham says we're going to cap bus f2. He's talking about the outcome, not the process, not the input. It's just a different way of doing politics. So, this idea that somehow Burnham is doing things that Reeves and Star weren't doing. >> I don't think he's suggesting that Burnham is doing anything that they weren't doing. I think he's saying it's more of the same, right? Is was the impression I got from from from the interview. I mean, I think where those guys maybe have a point is that Labor needs more money, needs to bring in more money. >> Yeah. >> But because they have ruled out any of the sort of big taxes that tax middle class people, which is how you raise loads of money, >> they're having to tweak the tax system here and there and everywhere, and that probably is having a bit of an effect on growth. So, for I mean, obviously, the big example here is raising national insurance for employers. um because that's the one thing that wasn't quite ruled out in the manifesto, which presumably is one of the reasons why it's quite difficult to get a job at the moment because I think there are lots of companies that have decided they're not going to hire an extra person because that specific tax was was raised. And I I you know, I think a clamoring for cuts would be a bad thing. Although I mean we both agree on the triple lock, but which would raise a lot of money by the way. Um, but probably the way you want to rise taxes is like quite a simple one, which is just say put 2 P on income tax. Put 2 P on something that raises loads of money without dampening growth would probably be the better thing. But Andy, it would be politically dangerous, I'd say. >> So, um, by the way, productivity's had a pretty healthy jump in in in the last two years by the standards of the last 20 years. So, you might argue that well, because the cost of labor went up actually that incentivized, you know, greater investment in technological infrastructure, operational streamlining, etc. Anyway, probably true, right? Doesn't doesn't it's not really a nice thing to hear if you're looking for a job and you just graduated. But there there's some truth to that. >> Um, in terms of where the money would come from, I wouldn't have any new taxes on the middle class. And I'm not just saying that to sound popular. I think they already pay quite a lot of tax. I would get rid of the triple lock. And I and I know our audience don't like this. It's it's a lot of money we're talking about and it's forever. You know, it's not like, oh, well, we're going to keep the triple lock for 5 years, 10 years. You're basically saying that pensioners are going to have an ever larger portion of national economic output forever. [snorts] You know, by 2250 or something, they'll have 100% of GDP. Now, this is only going to be sustainable if they push up the retirement age. So, you're saying, "No, we have to get rid of pension of poverty." Okay, you'll keep the triple lock, but in 20 years time, the pensioner age is going to be 72. Does that seem fair? So, I think there's quite a dishonest conversation going on, right? There's no point in the triple lock existing if it's for people, you know, when when I'm old and gray, for people over 80. Okay, that's that's disastrous, actually. And if it also means, by the way, we don't have a a public funded national care service. So, I would get rid of the triple lock. I talked about what I do with it yesterday. I'd pump a ton of money into socially owned housing for older people because if you're retired and you're a renter and you have a state pension, you're screwed. If you're a homeowner and you've paid off your mortgage, actually, you have a much nicer standard of living. So, I would do that. I would probably Michael, if I was the prime minister, I'd be out before tea time. Okay. I would probably um the threshold which you start to pay tax, I'd lower it a bit. Of course, what they're what they're doing in reality is that threshold, what £12,250, it's going to be there forever. And because of course, we get wage increases just by virtue of inflation. That's that's their plan anyway. But you're going to have to have that at the bottom end. And then of course the top end I'd increased CGT capital gains tax not introduced wealth tax. So I' I'd broaden the tax base in quite a few places. Also in terms of cuts I'd cut Trident doesn't work. Uh military spending we have the most inefficient procurement in the entire public sector in the military. If you want more money you're going to have to demonstrate that you spend it more wisely. I wouldn't increase military spending um particularly significantly. And and then you know there there are some smart ways to maybe cut some funding to some places but we're talking five billion or something. It's not that's not a game changer. But between all of those measures, you know, you got a lot of money to play with there. You could do quite a lot, but the point is you're going to put a lot of noses out a joint. And none of that was in the Labor Manifesto. >> Yeah. So, I mean, it is just going to be plotting along with good TikTok videos probably >> and hoping for the best next general [laughter] election. >> Well, they might they might do a they might do a wealth tax of sorts, >> but that's not going to raise that's not really going to solve the problem. It might it might be good for political positioning. It might be good for inequality, but it's not really going to help with the finances or the markets or anything like that. And also, >> I don't think it upsets the markets. I don't think you might, you can make the argument, >> I don't think it upsets him. I think it just be neutral because no one's pretending it's going to raise that much money. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> markets aren't low tax. Markets, you know, I mean, Gary Stevenson put this really well, right? Markets want low government spending, high taxation. They just want you to be very liquid and have lot and lots of cash. But I think the point is that they're more like the government is going to get more credit if it were to raise sort of 2p on everyone's tax because that's money that's definitely going to come in. What I think isn't going to reassure the markets cuz that, you know, it's sort of silly to sort of compromise it, but I suppose they are just individual humans making a decision. Do they want to lend money to this government is if you say we're going to raise£3 billion in this really optimistic way on this very complicated tax that probably people are going to be able to avoid because I think people see that and think I don't know whether I don't know if they're ever going to get that three billion. >> It's like VATS with private schools, right? Which I think we should have. I think we should have VAT on private schools. But the way that label saying it's going to raise this well with behavioral change and what it may even be negative. >> I think the nondom one is similar as well. Like there was a justice argument for doing it but I don't think it's raised much money. >> But make them pay VAT because it's a it's a service that's being sold in a private market economy. They should pay VAT like anybody else. Make that argument. I love our audience. I love our audience. Um so I I want to know what they're thinking. Um there was a comment from Imma Killip. He was replying to Shywarm 6906. See if we can get this up. Tell I worked till I was 69, commuting my pension for four years. Haven't I done enough? Ian, I get it. My mother-in-law is a wasby woman, right? So, she lost out significantly with her pension as well. Um, there's a few points here. Firstly, the pension is is going to keep on going up. So, if we're saying we think the triple lock is really valuable, which is fine, people can say that. Is that then a fair transaction where we keep the triple lock, but my my kids don't get to retire until they're 75? Maybe you think that's fair and reasonable. Ultimately, there are costs and benefits to both of those decisions, right? Cuz that's ultimately where we're going. We're spending more and more on pensions and healthy related care because we're an agent population. It's just a fact that brings challenges. Um I mean it's also the case that we literally like logically cannot keep the triple up forever. So the question is just when do you is it fairer to get rid of it in 10 years than now? Is it fairer to get rid of it in 20 years? I mean it was introduced specifically because pensioner poverty was higher than non-pensioner poverty. >> Well because new labor had done so well to get down child poverty. That was the big conversation in the late 1990s right child poverty and pensioner poverty. And then of course after the mid 2000s they both kind of creep up again. Well really after the global financial crisis um actually even slightly before the global financial crisis. Basically, new labor starts pretty well on child poverty and it kind of kind of eases off a bit. Uh but yeah, child poverty is less of that central issue and pension and poverty still there and of course many of those people voted for the Conservative party. >> But now pension poverty isn't higher than the rest of the population. In fact, it's lower than the rest of the population. So if it was there to help pensioners catch up, then the logical time to end it would be now. >> So there's a few things. So you're right to highlight this. This is key. It's physically impossible to keep forever otherwise it will literally at some point consume 100% of UK GDP. So that that's the that's the vital question to ask. When do you want to sort of ditch it? And then in response, somebody quite sensible would say, well, hold on. The UK state pension is lower than it is in Germany and Switzerland, etc. A lot more people in this country's rent, by the way. Um, so it should stay that way for another 10 years so we can kind of catch up. That's one argument. It's a decent argument. Okay. But then I would respond with this point which is made by shiny warm um 6906. We can get it up. 20% of pensions do not own their own home. And by the way, that figure is always going up. Um, try being a working-class pensioner with minimal savings living and paying rent on the £12,600 state pension. Very important. And of course, we've seen home ownership collapse again since 2008 really um particularly amongst geriatric millennials and Gen X. Now, it's really showing up as a thing. And this is a time bomb. This is a time bomb. If you have people who are on the state pension in their 60s and they're renting, it's an awful situation to be in. And I spoke about this with Peter Apps. It's on downstream and he puts some numbers on it in his latest book. You know, we're talking in the not too distant future like a million plus people. I don't want to see 75y olds having to move every 2 years in the private London rental market. It's just an awful thought. You shouldn't be living like that. And so I think there should be a sort of guarantee. I'm not I'm not being harsh on older people. Hear me out. >> There should be a guarantee about access to social housing for them. But that's going to cost money. That's a serious thing to do. And I think you you do that by not making pensions worse or making pensioners poorer. You index it to wage increases. That's all I'm saying. >> Pensions go up with wages. I'm not saying that you this is another thing. If you get rid of triple lock, pensioners are going to get poor. You're not going to get poorer. Your pension still goes up every year. It's just not going to go up compound over 10 years as much as it otherwise would have because right now it's either inflation wages or 2.5%. Which is I think crazy actually for >> the reason I just said >> I think helping pensioners who are renting absolutely should be a political priority which will get as you say worse and worse as we go on but it's a very inefficient way of doing that to give every pensioner who are disproportionately homeowners who have paid off their mortgages an everinccreasing share of the pie. This is so sensible and I understand some people will push back because it's like an important state benefit. I get it. And many people in receipt of, you know, the state pension are vulnerable. I get it. But this is it. You know, we're talking otherwise. We we literally don't have a plan for a million plus people in the not too distant future who are going to be up, you know, excuse my French, creek without a paddle. And I think it's kind of and I'm not suggesting this to people in the comments, but there are people who've paid off the mortgage, they've got two cars, and they're saying, "No, I I think I'm entitled to this." So I just think there's a sort of basic lack of solidarity there. And I don't want means tested pensions. That's very bad. That's very bad. I don't like those. So I'm saying we keep pensions. They keep increasing in line with wages. By the way, that therefore creates within within older people, the retired sort of age population incentive. Yeah. A shared interest in a high wage growth economy. I mean, I just think it's such a sensible position. It's crazy. >> The relationship of Britain and its South Asian communities has never been more confounding. In 2010, Sedasi became Britain's first ever South Asian cabinet minister. That was a first in 2010. But by 2026, we've had a South Asian prime minister. South Asians in every great office of state. And across business and the media, the level of visibility in public life of South Asians has never been higher. Compared to most of the West, Britain looks like a paragon of integration. But, and there's a big butt, 2024 also saw the most vicious racist riots in a generation. and reform and even more so restore a reawakening Britain's ethnationalist demons. Now all this means it's a pertinent time to publish a study on the history of Britain's South Asian communities. Come what may we're here to stay is a new book released today by the writer Taj Ali who joined me earlier today. Taj Ali um thank you so much for joining us in the Navar Media studio. Um your new book come what may we're here to stay the story of South Asian resistance in Britain um was released yesterday. Um, so congratulations. Um, why did you write this book >> in this moment? >> So I was 12 years old when the English Defense League marched through my hometown Luton. And I remember being told by one of my teachers, you shouldn't go into the town center because the EDL are in town. And so from a very young age as a British Pakistani Muslim, I was grappling with questions of identity and belonging. And I spoke to my father who told me there were certain roads in the 70s and 80s that you couldn't walk through as a black or brown person because you'd get beaten up by racists. And so we knew these stories of racism in our communities, but we also knew these stories of resistance. And so I felt there was an urgent task both to document history. Lots of the history in Asian workingclass communities is oral histories, things we'd hear from our elders who worked in factories, but it's not really been written down anywhere. And some of these people were getting old. and I felt there was a risk that history could be lost. So that was the first purpose was to record and document history. The second was for us to take inspiration from that history given we are again dealing with an increase in racist violence. Um research from the British Muslim Trust has told us that a mosque in Britain is attacked every 5 days. Two years ago we had the worst racist rioting in living memory. Um, and there were many of the more isolated ethnic minority communities in the northeast of England in parts of Murzyside in Essex who were terrified. And it wasn't just the violence, it was also the fears. I spoke to a Muslim woman who was having panic attacks during that time. I knew of people who take took a whole week off from work. Um, recently I've been reporting in Baseldon in Essex where a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf tells me that when she's trying to cross the road with her kids at a zebra crossing, cars are refusing to stop. people are throwing objects at them. So, racist violence is bad in 2026. We saw what happened in Belfast recently where people were quite literally being burnt out of their homes. And I think there's an entire generation who are grappling with these questions today and trying to figure out well what can we do about it because we can't be paralyzed into inaction. And so the other purpose of this book is to inspire our communities. And when I say our communities, I mean all of our communities because South Asian history in Britain is also British history. Just as history has shaped us, we've also shaped history. So it was about talking about agency and talking about resistance rather than these narratives of South Asians being passive victims of racism, colonialism and exploitation. >> And the title come what may, we're here to stay. So this is a a history of South Asian resistance in in Britain. >> Was that the first sort of demand was that we we get to stay here, right? We're not going anywhere else. >> No, it wasn't. Not at all. Um the first demand was treat us with basic dignity and respect. Treat us like your fellow human beings. We are neither all saints nor all sinners. We are individuals. And South Asians have been present in Britain for over 400 years. Uh there's a great intellectual civandon who says we are here because you were there referring to the British Empire. So most migrants to Britain whether they were seafarers working on British ships, servants in the households of aristocrats in the 17th century uh or other laborers who came here in the 40s50s and of course in much greater number in the 60s they didn't think they were going to stay in Britain. They thought they would earn enough and go back to their countries. There was a second generation, the children of migrants born in Britain, dealing with racist abuse, humiliation by their own school teachers, uh, no basic dignity in the workplace who said enough is enough. We're not going to put our heads down and try and be the good immigrants. We are going to resist this racism and they were forced to do so because they had no other choice. The police were of very little help. There were many, many examples of racist violence, racist murders. This year marks 50 years since the racist murder of Gurep Singh Chuga in South. And it was that experience of racism and violence, relentless racism from both the state and street gangs that led young South Asians in Britain to say we are going to organize. And so come what may we're here to stay was a rallying cry of the Asian youth movements. I believe it originated in the campaign of a South Asian woman called Anwa Ditta who was an anti-deportation activist. She was a Kashmiri woman. She was born in Birmingham and lived in Rochdale. She dressed like our mothers and sisters and she spoke at over 400 public meetings. The Home Office said that her Pakistanborn children weren't hers and she refused to take that as a as an answer. And so her campaigning led to Channel 4 commissioning a documentary which proved that her kids were hers. And she spoke on stages with people like Tony Ben and Arthur Skargill. She linked her struggle with other struggles like the anti-aparttheide struggle. and when she won her campaign, she brought other South Asia Asian women to the front of that campaign. So, it's also about honoring these remarkable individuals whose stories are too often forgotten and ignored. >> And and what's a movement um from South Asian British history or incident that that you think is sort of under discuss that not enough people know about? >> I think just the long presence of South Asians in Britain. We tend to think of South Asians arriving after the Second World War and we've been here for over 400 years and that shocks people when you tell you it. But some of the earliest multicultural communities in Britain are in the British port cities, Liverpool, Cardiff, South Shield. And you had South Asian communities with black communities and Chinese communities living there for so long. So when people talk about, you know, I want my country back, Britain, make Britain white again, it's not been white for that long. >> It's not been that way. And even when we talk about migration, lots of the white working class in many industrial towns and cities, they're also the children of migrants from Scotland, from Ireland, from depressed parts of County Durham in the 20s, they also migrated. So our stories are not so different. I guess the other stories that I think are quite neglected when we think about the history is the self-organizing. You know, we will read the literature about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, but there was lots of informal organizing in our communities, and there were people who never went under banners. They never had organizational names. They were just trying to defend their communities. They were just trying to find a place to live. And so, it's about honoring workingclass history. Uh, one of the stories I tell in the book is of a place called India House. This was a student residence in Highgate, North London, Leafy Street, 65 Cromwell Avenue. You wouldn't think it would be the epicenter of Indian revolutionary activity in Britain, but it was. And the reason I know this history is because the British state spied upon all these Indian students in 1905. So if you go to the British library, they have the India office records and they have all of these detailed surveillance files on all of these radical students who are smuggling weapons into the subcontinent who are doing bomb making workshops in the gardens who were talking to Irish Republicans and who were also working alongside each other regardless of race and religion. And that's another theme we see in the history of South Asians is that we took from other communities. Many of the radical Asian youth movements learned from the Black Power movement. Malcolm X visited Britain on four separate occasions when he visited Smemedic after the worst racist election in British history. The Indian Workers Association described it as a shot in the arm of the anti-racist struggle. Many of us learned from the Irish struggle and we adopted the tactics of the home rule movements. And so I think that's an interesting story there about solidarity and building bridges between other communities as well. The word that's sort of very prominent when it comes to mainstream conversations about Britain and South Asians is integration. >> And that can even happen in in one of two forms. So one sort of celebrating the fact that there are so many South Asian people in positions of prominence and power. We've had a South Asian prime minister, the current home secretary of South Asian. And then also there's this question about a lack of integration or purported lack of integration I should say. Um where different communities are living different lives. And I wonder how sort of like your studies into resistance, how do you relate to to that question of integration? >> Well, it's interesting when you look at the immigrant experience in the 60s, if you went into the houses of the Windrush generation, they'd be portraits of the monarchs. Um, South Asians and West Indians would dress very smart suits and ties. very s very few seeks would grow out their beards or wear a turban because they felt that the racism and the hostility was so bad that they're going to have to uh force themselves to assimilate I guess was the word back then and as the communities grew larger they would certain rights that they would assert so when you think about Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech in 1969 he warned that in 15 to 20 years the black man would have the whip hand over the white man and he was the MP for Walva Hampton which had a growing Punjabi seek community. During that time, there was a dispute on the buses for the right for Punjabi seeks to wear a turban on the buses and this is one of the things he cites and says these people are taking liberties here. They're advocating for their religious rights and this is a problem. And so there was all this hyperbole back then and you see a lot of it today when it comes to the Muslim community. But it's age-old as well. If you think about the Jewish community in East London in White Chapel, you can go through newspaper reports from the early 20th century and they will talk about these people living parallel lives, refusing to integrate, being a problem, being hostile to the majority. And it's the same rhetoric they use today about the Muslim community in White Chapel and Tower Hamlets. I've always believed that we need to work to bring communities together. I have my own critiques of state multiculturalism. I believe in workingclass unity. I believe that if we have racial segregation in Britain, that's a problem. I want us to get to know each other. But there are many historic factors that led to racial segregation in Britain. So, for example, Luton is often cited by Tommy Robinson as a place that's extremely divided. I've never felt that there was lots of hostility between communities, but I've understood that when my dad was growing up, there were certain areas where you were less likely to be racially abused. There were certain estates that you wouldn't want to live because you would regularly get your windows smashed and so migrant communities congregated together. They also went where the work was in the inner city areas. Lots of people who achieved a degree of social mobility or wanted to escape for instance the slum housing of East London in the 70s. They ended up moving to the suburbs and the new towns. And so yes, maybe there were some people who didn't like the newcomers and moved out of anger, but some of them had better quality lives to live in Canada and Australia. When we talk about migration, we don't talk about immigration to all of these countries. So, lots of white working-class people have also moved as well. And a friend of mine often says, you know, we never told anyone to leave that area. We came in, >> we were part of the same industries. We worked in the same jobs and people moved out. >> There's also the convenience. If you're a Muslim who needs access to halal meat or you want to go to a local mosque, you're going to live in an area that caters to your needs. If you live in an area where all the pubs are closing down and you want a nice Friday night out, you might want to live in an area that has those facilities that isn't driven by hatred. >> When we're critiquing the AI industry, we normally focus on Elon Musk, Samman, and Dario Amade as the power- hungry men taking us to the brink of catastrophe. Um, I think it's well warranted to focus on those three. However, I think there might be an even bigger villain in this story who we talk about less. Jensen Quang. Um he's the CEO of Nvidia, which is the company that designs the chips that power data centers and which thanks to the AI boom has become the world's most valuable company. Um he has the strongest interest of anyone in the data center buildout continuing at pace. Um which perhaps explains why as calls for an AI slowdown are growing, he's been the loudest opponent of any new regulation. And that's put him on the opposite side of scientists like Jeffrey Hinton and Joshua Benjio, but it's put him on the same side as Donald Trump. And the cozy relationship between the world's most powerful CEO and the US president was on full display this week when Trump called Hang in the middle of a live podcast show. >> The great thing about life is that Jensen can develop the most complex computer chip in the world that nobody can copy for 10 years, but he can't figure out how to put ME ON SPEAKER. [laughter] THING WE HAVE TO remember this one. So with the AI it's almost this conspiracy >> and the happiest group is China and China is very happy and I could even say in the country a lot of states are happy that weren't going to get anything because they're being uh inundated by people that want to be there. But now all of a sudden you see they're building in Finland. They want to build one. Google wants to build a big one in Finland, which I'm not happy about because they were unable to get permitting. And I'm telling you, it's all a hoax. The data centers are great and they make people wealthy and they make states wealthy and it's the oil of the next 20 25 years. It's bigger than the internet and the AI, you know, much more so. And uh they're just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don't want to see it happen. And that could be political people. It could also be China. And we're not going to let that happen. It's a It's a hoax. And >> you're right. We're not going to let that happen, sir. >> No, we're not going to let it happen. The uh the robots are not going to be taking over the world. And that's not going to happen. >> We're not going to let that happen, sir. Um Jensen Wang has, you know, the evidence of him opposing regulation isn't just that clip. He's been very explicit. He's saying we don't need any new regulation on AI. the companies if they're making anything dangerous, they should just not release it. So, he's saying it should all be left to the companies, dismissing the idea that there is any kind of dangerous race or collective action problem and and basically saying, you know, let's keep this going. Now, there's a good reason why he wants to keep this going, right? Why he's very opposed to regulation. In the latest 3month reporting period, Nvidia's profit doubled to $60 billion. So, that's in 3 months. And for comparison, just 3 years ago, Nvidia's quarterly profit was $6 billion. So the AI boom has increased its profit by a factor of 10. This is not normal, right? Their profit margin is also enormous at 66%. So for every chip they sell, they make a 66% profit margin. That's because they don't really have any competitors. So Trump's current position on AI regulation will be and has been [clears throat] music to his ears. Um so on the same day he sort of had that impromptu conversation with Jensen Wang. Donald Trump posted this. I am the hoax buster and I'm right now breaking another hoax. That AI is going to take over, consume and destroy the world and that robots will be marching into our cities and getting rid of us all. This is even wilder than the Russia Russia Russia hoax or the global warming scam. Thank you for your attention [laughter] to this matter. President Donald Trump. Um, Aaron, I thought this was interesting because I suppose it's because he's not as like weird or maybe duplicitous as like Dario Amade or um Sam Arman or Elon Musk. Maybe not so openly sort of political that he doesn't get quite so much hate, but he is the guy who is profiting the most from the AI boom, most directly from the data center boom. Um, he at the moment is the closest one to Donald Trump. Yeah, everyone seems to give him a bit of a pass. Like he's not public enemy number one. >> Yeah. Is he getting off lightly? >> I think two reasons for that. First, he had a proper job, right? So, when he was a kid, he grew up in the United States, but he worked at Denny's. This is this is a true story. Um I think was it Steven Wit wrote a great book about Nvidia and Yensen Huang, FT book of the year last year. Really well written, fascinating book. He had a real job is one thing. And he's said things in the past such as, you know, there's um the potential wealth tax. There's the referendum on that in or the vote on that I think in November, right, in California. And I think that would cost him billions of dollars if there's a wealth tax. And his position is if people vote for it, I'll pay it. I'm not leaving California, which you know is very different some Elon Musk. So he's got some credit in the bank for for stuff over the years. But you're right, structurally he is benefiting more than almost anybody else um with regards to to this technology. Uh Nvidia, I think at one point passed $5 trillion in terms of its market valuation. And of course, this is the company that designs the chips that AILM are all using for the most part. I think about 25% of the market at the top end is like Samsung and TSMC. Um Samsung and uh >> Huawei. >> Huawei. Yeah. Sorry. The the but Huawei have their own sort of Chinese little acronym. Um but ultimately Nvidia is making almost all of these chips or designing almost all these chips and then of course fabricated in Taiwan by TSMC. Um so I think he's got off lightly for for reasons understandable reasons. Um but it's an interesting one and I also say that for him it's a very dangerous game to be tying yourself to Donald Trump now. I mean the guy is going to have two years left after November. I mean, unless they change the constitution and there's still a big open question. Is there MAGA after Trump? Uh, I kind of feel like both political parties in the US are in this moment of transformation and I I could be wrong. Famous last words. I feel that the Republicans are kind of coming to the end of their transformation a little bit and the Democrats are just starting. Uh we're kind of seeing that with the first story tonight about a Sheeran and the changing sort of political views of of younger and middle-aged Americans sitting on something like Israel, right? I think it's a dangerous game for him to be playing to tie himself so closely to Trump now. Um however, you know, it may be the same reason why he's saying he's perfectly happy to pay higher taxes in California. You're the person in charge. I'll defer to you. And that's just that's just how he does business. It might not be particularly ideological. Whereas with somebody like Musk, it was heavily heavily ideological. Um, but also Trump Trump's position about hoaxes and things. My goodness, you know, uh, Jensen Tuang by all accounts of all of these people is the most intelligent of all these, you know, multi- multi-entillionaires. Um, centiillionaires is the is the technical term, isn't it? And in the case of Muskat trillionaire, he is by all accounts the most intelligent. So, and you're and you're saying we'll stop it, sir, to a guy saying that it's a hoax and comparing it to, you know, climate change is a hoax and co is a hoax. >> Seems kind of myopic. >> I was going to say people prefer people who are doing physical manufacturing because it's real and they think that's a real job, but actually Elon does that as well. So, so it must be that Jensen Wang is yeah, he's he seems less ideological than the others, even though I think he's probably the one who is most driven by his bank balance, whereas the other ones seem to have other weird quirky interests. Um, Sam, I mean, Sam Alman, I think, also wants to be president of the world in a way that Yensen Wang doesn't. Um, meanwhile, anyway, let's go sort of what else we're learning about this story this week. Um, because more and more employees at the big AI companies have been going public with their concerns about the technology. Um Daniel Selum who works at OpenAI published a viral essay this week about two million reads I think this one's gone. Um so he writes I have been working on AI for over 15 years across many different paradigms. I did early work on probabilistic programming languages at MIT. Was one of the early developers on the lean fear improver at Microsoft research. Demonstrated one of the first instances of neural network learning um to reason for my PhD at Stanford and since joining OpenAI almost 5 years ago have helped pioneer chain of for optimization on language models and more recently data efficient pre-training methods. Like many others, I've become extremely concerned about how far language models have come and the risk that future iterations will pose. I am encouraged by the recent proposals by the leaders of the frontier research efforts to require third party oversight and to push for domestic and international coordination to address risks. However, I believe a major consideration has been absent from the public conversation and that merely pacing the frontier more carefully will not adequately limit the long-term risk. The crucial and overlooked problem is that the models are becoming so situationally aware that we are losing the ability to evaluate them in context where they believe they are not being watched or controlled. Future experiments will tell us almost nothing new about how they would behave if they were truly unconstrained by humans. And what we already know about this is alarming. Models will increasingly seem aligned even when they are not. Um, so he's saying they're these experiments that they do on these models are going to become impossible because the models now know they're being watched. And I think he's he's in charge of watching them. So again, it's one of those ones where the person closest to the technology is saying we're all going to be screwed. He ends the statement by saying this. I want the glorious renaissance future as much as anyone. So he's one of those people who thinks that AI is going to give us I mean something akin to fully automate luxury communism. I suppose I have worked for it however torturously my whole career. It breaks my heart to see the potential insight and forgo it. The argument that if we get there by growing models rather than engineering them, we will lose everything in the end seems very strong to me. I am still wrestling with it and its staggering implications. I do not have answers. But as a first step, I wanted to share my present concerns. So that's gone viral because it's someone currently working at OpenAI. Now lots of people saying why are these employees allowed to tweet this? Like have they been given permission by their CEOs because the CEOs want to hype the technology? um why haven't they signed an NDA? Um now Nate Suarez who we've had on this show he made an interesting point on breaking points um where he was suggesting that the statements from the AI companies are actually I mean in a way they're to try and for properly serious regulation but they're also to try and quell possible workers results revolts sorry workers revolts because lots of these people in these companies think this threat is is serious as you're seeing from this guy and so they're trying to sort of appease them with these statements and that's also why they're allowed to speak publicly because otherwise they get poached by one of the other companies. because they got lots of power these workers. Um, and when it comes to these workers, they are an interesting bunch of people. Um, and the Trump administration seems to on one level understand that. So, the AI companies are famously full of people from the effective altruist movement. Um, and the Department of Defense uh this week tweeted effective altruists in shambles. Now, it's not very often um that you get uh I mean this is the Pentagon, right? tweeting about what was once a very I suppose niche philosophical movement coming out of Oxford University. All these quite like nerdy kids who'd read too much Peter Singer. Now you've got the state well it's not the state department it's the Pentagon sort of saying haha you know you've never had before them sort of arguing against canians or any other niche philosophical school but that's what's going on. Um [snorts] so again very interestingly the effect of altruists and their cery have realized they're potentially at risk of undermining the AI safety movement if Donald Trump decides that all of this concern is just coming from this particular ideological sect which he thinks is not aligned with his own interests and politics. Um so this is really interesting because Jacob Coxen so he was the guy who resigned from anthropic. um he appeared on Fox News and I think this was sort of strategically decided um that he wanted to point out that Trump and the effective altruists might actually have something in common. >> And I do I agree with with President Trump's tweet that global warming doomsday scenarios were overplayed. Like it's a very slow process and talking about doomsday is completely absurd. I mean, I also agree that um many other catastrophic panics in the past have been just fear-mongering. The reason this is this is unique is AI is moving so incredibly quickly. We we won't have time to respond to it before it's too late. >> So, that's very interesting because obviously Jacob Cotton keeps going on Fox News, right? Because he seems to want to communicate with Donald Trump and he's recognized that Donald Trump thinks these are just a bunch of like lefty people who I shouldn't trust. they've done all these other hoaxes yada and then he's going Fox News to say actually I don't think climate change is an existential risk I think these you know I'm not the I'm not your bog standard lefty we're a interesting group of people who are difficult to place ideologically obviously it's pissed off a lot of people on the left what did you make of >> yeah I don't think Trump's going to have that much space in his brain for nuance is he firstly climate change is an existential risk although I suppose his point there is the timelines are very different right um of course there'll be lots of extreme weather events and disasters as we'll see over the next few years and decades before we see something really terminal and awful towards the latter half maybe of the century or maybe after the middle of the century. His point though is that this could happen in just a couple of years, a handful of years it may be too late to pull back. Um my personal view is that the biggest exential risk to humanity today is is climate change. But I mean that's a coherent argument, right? And I think you're right. He's going on Fox just to talk directly to to Trump because he knows that Trump at, you know, 1:00 a.m. is sitting there in the White House watching Fox eating his uh his Cheetos, having his uh ultralarge, his venty Coca-Cola. So, I mean, it's a smart strategy and whether or not he believes what he's saying is of course another matter. I should say, um, yesterday I spoke to Daron Asamoglu, who is, I think, probably the world's top economist. If you go on the rep sort of league table of economists, he's number one. that downstream's [clears throat] out on Sunday and he, you know, he's pro AI. He says, "I'm pro worker AI." And this idea that AI can only be LLMs and it can only be um an artificial intelligence of the kind you're getting with anthropic or open AI and it's going to be a monopoly and it's going to swallow up loads of work and loads of value from other industries. Yeah, it can do that, but it doesn't have to do that. And I said to him, or I asked him rather, what could be the future of the UK economy? You know, we've had stagnant productivity for 18 years. He said you should be you should be going all in on pro worker AI. How can artificial intelligence help productivity for people who are already in work rather than destroying those jobs? How can you make those people immeasurably more productive? I think AI can do that with electricians with pharmacists with nurses. He said, "We haven't even thought in these terms because these guys Sam Alolman, Yansen Huang, Elon Musk have basically cornered just the realms of possibility when it comes to this technology." And I kind of agree and that also interestingly does. So if you take the existential risk seriously, which I do, that that gets around quite a lot of that because the risk comes from agents. Yeah. And the reason that it it makes sense, the reason the AI companies at the moment are investing in LLMs plus agents of working together as a unit is because they're specifically selling a story to businesses, which is you can replace workers with this. And you can't replace workers with a chatbot, right? You can't replace workers with something that helps a user that's sort of reading the answers. You can only replace workers with agents. It's agents that, you know, the whole paperclip example, it's agents that potentially threaten to cause chaos, as was the case with the hugging face incident. So, if you sort of move away from agents and towards a very good sort of helpful advice bot, which is what sort of these LLMs could be, then we'd be in a much better position. Um, just some background on what Jacob Coxin believes there, cuz I want to talk sort of more about this on the show cuz it's so interesting because we always, you know, we're often talking on this left right spectrum on this show. I think most people watching it, they know what sort of like the leftwing people believe. They know what the right-wing people believe and they know what the centrists believe. But in Silicon Valley right now, we have this section of people who believe a really specific thing which is really different to what everyone else believes and kind of explains what Jacob Coxin is talking about there because often they're long-termists. And what a long termist is is that there's someone you you spoke to um what's his face? you interviewed him um the Scottish philosopher >> William Macascal >> William Macascal he he wrote the book on this. So long-termists believe >> that the biggest threat we face or the biggest tragedy would be if there were human extinction because they care just as much about people in a billion years as they do now. And they say if sort of 7 billion people were killed but a billion survived they'd still be in a position to create a new fantastic civilization. So it'd be sad but it's not that big a deal. If everyone dies, then that ends civilization and we've let down our future generations. And so a 1% risk of everyone dying is a much more serious problem than like a 50% risk of 7 billion people dying. So it's not it's not an FXI share, but that's why they don't think climate change is existential because they don't think climate change is going to kill everyone. They think it might kill a fair few people, but AI is the only thing that might plausibly kill literally everyone. So that's the one that fortoalls our future potential. And then the other thing I think which explains what Jacob Coxin is saying there. I mean I'm sort of putting words into his mouth. I don't know if he is a long termist but that's why lots of these people say this about climate change when compared to AI. The other thing is they are tech optimist. So they basically think that you know humans are very inventive when we've had problems before. We've invented a technology to solve it. We probably will invent a technology to solve climate change. We've got enough time to do it. But AI is different because you can't create a technology to solve AI because AI is the technology. you've handed over the the role of best innovator in the world to a different species and you can't out innovate them because whatever innovation you come up with to get control over them again they'll just come up with a better one. So that's sort of how how if you're watching that and think what the hell is that guy talking about [laughter] that's the intellectual world these people are coming from. >> Yeah. Uh and if you if you disagree with that sort of proposition about climate change just watch my video with Bill Maguire. uh climate change isn't going to kill everybody so to speak, but it will in the long term create potentially certainly for primates an uninhabitable planet. So I suppose they would say well we can just you know colonize other planets and we can terraform them or we can sort of retraform this planet. I think if your argument to save humanity is based on tech technologies which don't already exist that's that's quite shaky that's quite shaky as a basis to make that argument. Like Bill said, you know, it's very possible that we create a cascade of feedbacks in the next couple of decades which lead to a planet of four, five, six degrees warming. It will simply not be habitable for um for human beings. >> Bill Magcguire's take is also controversial. Obviously the the effect of altruists with their ex- risk take that's very controversial. But the sort of central estimate of climate scientists at the moment is we're heading for something like 2.5 degrees by the end of the century. So obviously I think people should take Bill McGuire's >> I don't think that's true anymore. Michael >> seriously but the central estimate of say like is about 2.7 I think >> even the guy that you were what was his name the other the other guy you were speaking to house father >> yeah even he was saying that with El Nino next year we're going to be looking at potentially 1.7 above industrial pre-industrial levels right so when people talk about two degrees warming they mean two degrees warmer than I think the pre-1850s he's saying that with El Nino next year this is next year we'll hit 1.7 right we're already at 1.5 and people say well 1.5 to stay alive already hit 1.5 5. The point is you have to do it over 11 out of 20 years. That's how it's being measured, right? So really, we've already gone past 1.5. [gasps] Elino takes to 1.7. What he said to you, Michael, is that that number is going up by 0.2 degrees every decade. Okay. In other words, in 20 years from now, that baseline will go up from 1.5 to 1.9. And when you get Elinos, it's already gone past 2.5. And that's in 20 years. So I I just don't think that's um it's a middle estimate, but I I just don't think it's a sensible one. >> I'm just trying to I'm just trying to So if it's 0.2 per decade, then by the end of the century that would be what's 8* 0.2 >> you would presumably say there's going to be some sort of this some sort of ceiling on it or it will decelerate. But right now that's where we are. I mean, so if that's if that's the case, then >> they're looking at the trajectory of electricity. >> By the yeah, by the mid 21st century, we've gone beyond we've gone beyond two degrees quite comfortably. >> But the central estimate is 2.7, right? It's not >> Well, I'm saying by the mid by the middle of the century, not by the end of the century. And then you incorporate El Nino, etc. And then it's very easy to foresee that by the '60s, 2070s, we're already way past 2.5 with El Nino years. This is This is kind of crazy to play this down to me when the guy you were talking to who's not a radical is saying it's going up by 0.2 his central estimate by 20 100 it wouldn't look like Bill McGuire's like I've read his work he's not there's a tension there's he's essentially saying two separate things he's saying it's going up by 0.2 degrees every decade but by the end of the 21st century it won't be as high as you would otherwise infer from my previous statement. Well, well, one >> presumably he thinks crypto technology will draw down CO2 levels or whatever. I don't know. But we're doing what we're doing and it's going up by 0.2 every 10 years. That's what we're doing. >> But he does work on carbon capture. So, I mean, he thinks that that is going to come through. >> Sorry, a little detour there. >> Very interesting. I like this. >> This is serious. This is serious, folks. It's going up by 0.2 degrees a decade. This is serious. This is not some crazy theory. It's happening. >> Yeah, but Bill Magcguire is at the extreme end of predictions. I think that is important to note. just >> it is important to know but bear in mind this guy >> doesn't mean he should be dismissed of course it's not the central estimate of the majority >> he's very credentialed and of course very credential people have been wrong about all kinds of things but he you know he he was a member of sage under the black government he was a a professor of volcanologist and a climate science professor at UCL he's a serious guy you know he has personally moved to the peak district a thousand feet above sea level because he thinks this stuff is real and it's coming in the next 20 to 25 years in this country Yeah, personally moving to I think that might suggest someone who tends towards the catastrophic, but so do many of these people in Silicon Valley that I take very seriously. So I I agree take this guy seriously. I'm just saying the central estimate just as the central estimate isn't that AI is going to kill us all. By the way, like that's I mean the average seems to be in Silicon Valley they think that there's 10% chance that it's going to kill us all. That seems to be the central estimate. >> Well, the central estimate of AI and boy we're going over here. The central estimate of AI is that it's just going to make regional and income inequality crazy. You thought it was bad already. That's the central estimate. You know, the worst case it's going to be the matrix or Terminator, too. You know, middle case, yeah, you know, we'll we'll kind of have inequality repeat what we've seen over the last 25 years. And that gave us Trump and Farage and the AFD. So, God knows where we'll be by uh 2050. >> We could go we could just keep going for existential risks, but we probably should wrap up. >> We're vibing here, Michael. We're vibing. Uh Aaron, thank you so much for joining me this evening. >> My pleasure, Michael. >> Uh thank you for watching tonight. Uh you can come back tomorrow from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Nvar Media. Good night.