Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 7

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 7 · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. I have a very good friend who
0:40
emigrated to the UK few years ago and he sent me some videos.
0:44
Yesterday he went to the beach. Looks like you have great
0:46
weather at the moment. The weather has been very, very
0:51
pleasant. Yes, there are lots of people
0:53
who have suddenly decided that anything approaching 30°C means
0:58
death, but for the rest of us it's it's really pleasant.
1:04
I'm surprised about your beaches.
1:06
They are Seriously neat if if if that video is anything to go by.
1:10
Very clean. That's only on the surface.
1:14
Once you get into the water and you watch the stuff floating by
1:18
then, then that's that's another thing.
1:21
No, our our water companies are appalling at the moment for just
1:24
dumping raw sewage into places where people swim.
1:28
There's a problem everywhere though, isn't it?
1:32
Well, I don't know that it is quite to the same degree.
1:37
I mean, I don't know, I don't know.
1:38
But but in this country we have a really special arrangement
1:42
with, with these big corporates where we basically said we're
1:46
going to privatize water or we're going to privatize
1:49
electricity. And in fact, what all we did was
1:52
privatize the retail side of things.
1:54
So, so or, or at least in, in the water, in the case of water,
1:57
we just permitted them to, to extract profit and and dividends
2:01
for shareholders and we did not in any way require them to
2:04
actually invest in infrastructure in the meantime.
2:07
And sorry to mention it again, but of course it is such a big
2:11
issue because we have increased our population by so many extra
2:15
millions in the last number of years, but we haven't provided
2:19
any additional infrastructure to cope with that either.
2:22
Then things are creaking at the seams.
2:24
And so, you know, instead of treating the treating the sewage
2:30
properly, it just gets dumped in the sea and in the rivers.
2:34
You mentioned private privatization.
2:36
That's an interesting segue because I've been chatting about
2:39
that with some people the last few days and they argued that
2:44
sometimes state ownership of various services is superior.
2:49
It depends. And I think the idea that
2:50
privatisation is what you imagine it might be is
2:53
completely wrong. So for example, with water, it
2:58
doesn't create an open marketplace.
3:01
So if you live in the southwest of England, you have to use
3:05
Southwest Water. I mean it stands to reason, but
3:08
I think a lot of people don't necessarily consider it in those
3:10
terms. So with water, which is what we
3:12
are talking about, the privatising doesn't actually
3:16
change anything for the consumer in terms of what they get.
3:20
The price, well exactly accept the price.
3:22
So that so in every regard or at least the two important ones,
3:26
which is first of all what are you getting and secondly, what
3:30
are you paying for it. The state still sometimes
3:36
actually controls, but certainly on price they have the ability
3:39
to introduce caps or taxes or tariffs.
3:44
So therefore what you're paying for can in large part still be
3:50
dictated by the state and you don't have any choice in terms
3:54
of products. So one big topic at the moment
3:58
in the UK and what should be a big topic anywhere else in the
4:00
world is the introduction of fluoride into the water, which
4:05
has been covered on a number of interviews by UK column.
4:09
And even if you think there's benefit to consuming fluoride,
4:16
which even if you know it's a byproduct of an ammonium
4:20
smelting process, nonetheless, if you think it's a good idea,
4:24
you do still have to acknowledge that it is a a medicine and
4:27
therefore that turns water into a medicated product.
4:30
And of course that's with anything medical medicinal.
4:33
Rather, it has to be done on a dosed basis, which isn't or
4:39
can't be done. If I drink more water than Mike,
4:43
I will end up having more fluoride and that may or may not
4:47
be appropriate. Isn't really is what I should
4:50
say. So there are lots of issues with
4:52
it in that actually handing over what they're describing as
4:55
privatisation is a completeness neighbor.
4:57
And so, so nobody wins except for the people that run the
5:00
companies and receive dividends from them.
5:03
It's, I think it's, it's been a disaster, which was fairly
5:08
obviously going to happen anyway.
5:10
And I'm struggling to think of an example where that in some
5:14
way isn't actually the case. It's the same with the the
5:17
railways to a certain extent in that you don't really have a
5:21
choice, I don't think between different companies to pursue
5:26
the same route. It's the same.
5:29
So if you live in a particular place, you, you have to get the
5:32
water off those people. So yeah, but bit of a joke, but
5:36
I'm glad you raised beaches. So just to just to jump back for
5:39
little bit the beaches, I, I'm biased because I know, I know
5:43
how much you like to a wax lyrical about South African
5:46
beaches with which I totally agree.
5:48
But there are lots of very, very beautiful beaches in
5:52
particularly the Wilder parts of the United Kingdom.
5:55
And luckily many of them are still very under visited.
5:59
But what I would say about those beaches that are visited is that
6:03
they tell quite a tale about the way in which people behave.
6:07
And it's not uncommon to go to a large beach and find that 95% or
6:15
more of the people there are all crammed into one tiny bit of it.
6:19
And that's, I would say, indicative of the way in which
6:24
people do do stuff. And, and I can think of a
6:26
particular beach in South Wales that I go to on occasion and
6:31
it's totally fascinating. The beach itself is actually
6:33
over a mile long and the eastern end of it is always jam packed
6:39
with people. If there are people there, if
6:41
the conditions are are nice enough.
6:43
And then there's a massive expanse of sand and there's
6:45
never anyone there. And and part of the reason for
6:48
that is that the jam packed bit is close to the car park, but
6:51
also there's a sort of de shallow river to cross and
6:57
people don't want to do it. But hold on, they're about to go
6:59
in the sea. Exactly.
7:01
Or not. Or just be on the beach but not
7:04
get in the sea, just get the sunburn.
7:06
I think we're bad at recognising what's around us.
7:10
And often, you know, this has come up before.
7:12
Often it does take going away to a different place that does have
7:16
a different culture, landscape and all the rest of it to
7:19
appreciate what you have at home.
7:20
And I think one of the things about the UK, just before we
7:24
started this call, you were talking about going hunting.
7:27
Obviously, I'm not exactly sure the setup of that area, but by
7:31
and large, one of the comparisons with Africa, let's
7:35
say, is that if you want to go and visit a beautiful wild place
7:40
where you're going to see amazing scenery and wildlife
7:44
mostly, you'll have to pay for it.
7:45
And it's all regulated. You go through gates, you stay
7:48
in official authorized places, and this, that and the other.
7:51
OK, the UK doesn't have the wildlife element in the same
7:55
way. Nothing's going to jump out of
7:56
the Bush and kill you probably, but you can go where you want.
8:02
You don't have to tell anyone and it's all free.
8:05
And I think a lot of people don't appreciate that.
8:08
And OK, the the spaces aren't as big, but there are large parts
8:12
of Wales, north of England, southwest, even where we are,
8:15
Dartmoor, Exmoor and the Highlands, there are huge tracts
8:19
of land which we have at the moment pretty much unfettered
8:24
access to and I think people don't really appreciate that.
8:27
So sorry that I've drifted a little bit from privatisation.
8:30
Well, what, what, what look, let me just say something here
8:33
because because part of the reason that people don't
8:35
appreciate it is because it's so difficult to get out of cities.
8:40
And, and this comes back to infrastructure again.
8:44
So you know that the, the, the roads are usually jam packed.
8:49
So unless you're leaving at 3:00 in the morning, it can be tricky
8:51
to get out. So it does take a bit of effort
8:53
to go to, to these places. I think it's worth the effort,
8:57
but but that's probably one of the things that puts people the
9:00
same way that they don't move more than 100 yards from the car
9:03
park when they get to the beach. But getting back on the
9:06
infrastructure thing again and the question of privatization or
9:09
nationalization, the, the, the main issue with, with basic
9:13
economic infrastructure is things like railways, roads,
9:16
water, power, these kinds of things is you can't have
9:21
competition. You can't have a private sector
9:23
in these areas because you can't have pipes belonging to every
9:29
possible player in the, in the retail market running under the
9:32
street to provide you with your gas or your, or your water
9:36
supply. So, so you've got a, a basic
9:39
infrastructure there which can't really be privatized in the, in
9:43
the genuine sense. It could be handed over to a
9:46
private company for them to operate it in the same way that
9:50
a state owned business would operate it.
9:53
And it's just as inefficient, but it's even more expensive
9:56
because they're trying to profiteer from it.
9:58
But the point here is nobody is then left with the
10:01
infrastructure, with the responsibility for maintaining
10:04
the underlying infrastructure. And so what's happened with
10:06
every major, uh, system of infrastructure that the UK has
10:11
privatized is that they have allowed the infrastructure to
10:14
degrade, not being properly maintained, or at least doing
10:17
them the absolute minimum to maintain it.
10:19
They, they might fix the odd leak, but if we look at the
10:21
water companies, for example, you know, the amount of water
10:26
that's lost every year to lakes that they just don't know where
10:28
they are because they don't know where the pipes go is just
10:31
unbelievable. So, so this is, this is the
10:34
problem that we're left with. We've had the profiteering from
10:37
the private companies. No one has maintained the
10:39
infrastructure. And at some point a decision is
10:42
going to have to be made about who's going to take
10:45
responsibility for repairing or renewing or whatever the the
10:51
current infrastructure. And that's going to fall on the
10:53
taxpayer. And that's when people are
10:55
really going to appreciate that that was a pretty bad deal.
10:57
So, you know, I, I'm not a fan of nationalized industry as a
11:03
rule, but I believe that the basic economic infrastructure
11:07
like that should be a function of the state and the state
11:09
should be held to account for its the the fact that whether it
11:14
operates or not. So, so anyway, that's just
11:17
that's just a a thought. But to add to what you're
11:20
saying, Mike, is the the typically capitalist or free
11:26
market argument that well the state simply doesn't do it as
11:29
well? Yeah, I mean, the, the, the,
11:32
the, the fact that Britain's infrastructure is in state of
11:36
such a state of collapse is, is a perfect demonstration of how
11:39
privatization doesn't work in that context.
11:42
And that doesn't mean that that by default nationalization works
11:48
either. You've got to, it's got to be,
11:50
there's got to be some kind of understanding about how it's
11:53
going to work, where the responsibility lies.
11:55
And the people that are running any business, whether it's
11:57
private or national, have a responsibility to somebody.
12:01
In the case of a private company, it's to the
12:03
shareholders normally. And of course that means to
12:05
maximizing profit. And the only, in fact the only
12:07
interest that the shareholders have is in maximization of
12:10
profit. There should be an
12:13
accountability for a nationalized business as well.
12:16
And certainly there should be a requirement that if, if a
12:20
manager or whatever the CEO or whatever fails to fulfill their
12:25
obligations, that that that they're, you know, they are
12:28
fired effectively or there's some kind of economic sanction.
12:31
And of course that one of the problems of, of nationalized
12:34
industries in the past has been that because it's effectively
12:38
seen as some kind of civil service role and nobody ever
12:41
gets fired from the civil service.
12:42
They've, they just get promoted out of the job that then of
12:46
course that doesn't work either. So, so there's got to be, you
12:50
know, in principle, I think the state needs to be in control of
12:54
this type of infrastructure, but there's got to be a proper
12:57
framework for that so that so there's proper accountability.
13:00
And that's something that's never happened in this country
13:02
at least. Technically, though, the state
13:05
doesn't actually produce anything it outsources.
13:09
Yeah. Well, now it does in the in the
13:12
past it is, it has, I mean, businesses have been state
13:16
owned. So so effectively the state is
13:18
the shareholder. You could look at it from that
13:20
point of view and perhaps if there was shareholder value for
13:23
the taxpayer, then then maybe that's that.
13:25
That might be a good model. That is it's run like a private
13:28
company, but any profit goes to the to the taxpayer.
13:31
I don't know, you know, I don't have, I don't have an answer
13:35
that's guaranteed to work here, but that's what I what was,
13:38
what's absolutely clear is that the current model is insane
13:41
because we are going to be left with a, a bill for a replacement
13:44
of infrastructure that we simply can't ever pay.
13:48
I think you're talking about the point that Jason Kristoff was
13:51
making earlier in the week about a friend of his who built roads
13:55
in Canada. And I totally agree.
13:58
And I think if one winds the clock back, then you look at a
14:03
situation in which roads or railways were built by people
14:07
who had to maintain because that was their business.
14:12
And unfortunately, we've moved into a situation where either
14:16
the infrastructure has been built by an organization or an
14:19
entity that doesn't have control of it anymore because the state
14:22
has taken it over. And that's created either an
14:26
uneasy relationship with whoever provides the service on it,
14:29
which is exactly what Mike's describing, or, and this was
14:33
Jason's point, the state is paying somebody else to to do
14:39
that. And therein lies, well, I mean a
14:42
number of problems, but I think the most obvious one being that
14:47
that organization, having been contracted to do it, doesn't
14:50
actually have any interest in what happens next.
14:55
So, and as an example of that, it's a small scale example, but
15:00
I live in a rural environment and the government's been
15:02
banging on about rural broadband for ages.
15:06
Then something was done and where we are, a fibre network,
15:12
whatever you call it, was was dug into the ground.
15:15
In some places it was done relatively well and others it
15:18
was chaotic. Anyway, the point is that that
15:23
was said to be a project that was owned by the County Council.
15:27
And therefore if used as sort of microcosm of the state, then we
15:30
think OK, yeah, it's a state project.
15:32
But of course it wasn't. It was done by a third party
15:35
commercial enterprise and then they folded and no records of
15:41
what they did, what they put where the infrastructure survive
15:44
absolutely outstanding. And that happened immediately
15:47
the project reached its, well, I think in fact may not have quite
15:50
concluded. So everything that's been done
15:52
so far, IE something I did eventually, reluctantly sign up
15:58
to, if there's any drama with it, no one knows.
16:01
No one has any idea what was done, how it was done.
16:05
So yeah, too far another. Great example of this.
16:08
You mentioned France. France is another great example
16:11
of this actually, because French motorways are generally toll
16:15
roads, mostly toll roads. And so the French government
16:20
commissioned companies, private companies to build these roads.
16:23
They're absolutely brilliant roads.
16:25
They're relatively traffic free compared to the to UK motorways,
16:31
for example. So it's, it's quite easy to move
16:33
over long distances in France. But the original deal was you
16:38
build the road and you can put your toll booths on it for 20
16:41
years. Well, the 20 year period came up
16:45
about 3-4 five years ago, can't remember exactly when.
16:48
And they, they just the, the government then just entered
16:51
into a new 20 year deal with the companies and they just shafted
16:54
the taxpayer. You know, the agreement was 20
16:57
years with tolls and then it was owned by the state.
17:01
Now you could argue that that's fair enough because those roads
17:05
are well maintained and, and so on.
17:08
But nonetheless, you know, at the same time, there's still
17:12
you, you enter into an agreement with somebody and, and it's
17:15
supposed to be for a fixed term and that's it.
17:17
And then suddenly the rules get changed so that there, there
17:20
are, there are things to consider here.
17:22
And, and I'm not sure that there was any, ever any proper
17:24
consultation. It was just done.
17:27
If there perhaps would have been a consultation with the, with
17:29
the, the road user and the taxpayer, then, then it might
17:32
have been a different situation. But that was a pretty unpopular
17:35
move at the time. There's.
17:37
A bridge that goes between mainland China and Hong Kong.
17:40
I forget the name of it now. It's very long.
17:42
I think it's like 20 kilometers or something.
17:44
It is a magnificent piece of architecture.
17:47
It was not done by a private company, it was done by the
17:51
state. Will it become a white elephant
17:52
in 20 or 30 years time? Well, I suppose that.
17:55
Depends on the economic impact that it has.
17:58
If it if it's if that's allowing economic activity to happen,
18:03
which is generating tax dollars, then then it's not a white, it
18:07
can never be a white elephant. It's only if it's if it's a
18:10
vanity project that never had any real economic value in the
18:14
1st place that it would end up that way.
18:17
No, but I think. A lot of Chinese stuff is
18:19
vanity. I don't, I'm not sure that
18:21
that's necessarily fair. I think some, some I'm certainly
18:24
when I look at at wind turbines and the, I think perhaps you
18:29
could argue that because they are selling those products to,
18:33
to other countries. But I mean, you look at some of
18:36
the really big infrastructure projects like 7 Gorges Dam or
18:39
whatever. Is that what it's called 33
18:41
Gorges Dam? I mean, I mean, not that has
18:44
that has changed people's lives. So, so it's not just a vanity
18:47
project. I think, I think they and high
18:50
speed rail is certainly not a vanity project.
18:53
For example, even the Maglev well that certainly was a
18:57
research project and, and, but it's it's still working,
19:00
although they haven't developed built anymore, it's still
19:04
functioning and it's still operational and so on.
19:06
So, so I'm not sure that I'm not sure that much of it is is could
19:11
be just called a vanity project just.
19:14
To be specific, I think don't you mean the bridge to
19:16
Singapore? No Hong.
19:18
Kong. Because Hong Kong is connected
19:21
to mainland Jonas by land. You mean the one that goes?
19:25
Under the sea a bit. There's also that one, but
19:28
there's one that goes over the over the sea.
19:31
Right. OK.
19:31
No, no, I was, I was only wondering about the Singapore
19:36
one, which sorry, this is red herring and sidetracked, but
19:39
there are two ferries a day, 2 hydrofiles a day, which which
19:42
make that route very busy and therefore that that bridge has
19:46
been completely justified. But sorry, I thought you're
19:48
saying that one because that you could say that there was a bit
19:51
of vanity in that, in that it does.
19:53
You may have seen it online, but it it goes under the sea or
19:58
exception in order to allow bigger ships to pass effectively
20:02
over the top of it where there wouldn't be room to go
20:04
underneath the COVID. ERA should have very, very
20:08
blatantly shown us that the dichotomy between state
20:12
ownership and private ownership is a false one.
20:15
It's a fake binary, because technocracy is really not about
20:20
either one of those. It is this merger which which
20:23
Ian Davis refers to as stakeholder capitalism.
20:26
Yeah, I mean. This is the, the global public
20:28
private partnership where you've seen the, the rollout of PPI and
20:33
PPP projects over the last 40 years or whatever.
20:38
And, and, but what we're starting to see now is, is
20:41
something which is, you know, order of magnitude bigger and
20:45
worse. And it's not just, it's not just
20:48
a merger of, of state and corporate, it's state corporate
20:52
and Tony Blair's third way, you know, that all the NGO think
20:57
tank charity sector as well. It is, it is a total merger of
21:00
everything. And, and yes, so it is true that
21:05
in the not too distant future, the whole issue of public versus
21:08
private is going to be moot because there's not going to be
21:10
any difference between them. They're going to be the same
21:12
thing. It is incredible what they're
21:13
building at the moment and how fast they're doing it.
21:16
And that's what Catherine Fitz is constantly warning about.
21:19
You know, if you, if you, if you arguing about red versus blue in
21:23
the States, you, you're being distracted.
21:26
Well. And and increasingly everywhere
21:28
because, you know, we, I mean, I think everybody's referring to
21:32
this idea of the UNI party now, you know, a perfect example was
21:36
was because I only mention it because it's in everybody's
21:41
immediate memories. But you know, Keir Starmer was
21:45
elected here one year ago pretty much on the idea of change.
21:50
It was a change agenda. We've heard politicians talk
21:53
about change. There's always been somebody in
21:54
the last 40 years that's been running on a change platform.
21:57
Well, he ran on a change platform and quick as a flash,
22:01
no sooner had he become Prime Minister then absolutely nothing
22:04
changed. All the same legislation simply
22:07
got rebranded and pursued. The only difference, the only
22:11
change in fact, was the speed. So they, they've attempted to
22:15
run through the same agenda in a much faster pace.
22:20
And so there's absolutely zero change.
22:23
And it's a perfect example of how the UNI party works because
22:26
policy just continues. And you know, the, the question
22:30
is where does policy come from? And, and it's certainly not
22:34
coming from political parties anymore.
22:35
They might, they might pay some lip service to being, you know,
22:40
Labour being a Socialist Party and there's nothing socialist
22:42
about it anymore. They got rid of any semblance of
22:45
socialism in two stages either partly with Tony Blair.
22:49
And then when there was an attempt to move back towards
22:51
being some kind of basically a Socialist Party with Jeremy
22:54
Corbyn, they, they, they pulled the full strength of the
22:58
anti-Semitic card to get rid of him and every Corbynite
23:02
influence in the party. And so the Starmer party is, is
23:07
much even even further away from being socialist in the, in the
23:12
Tony Blair version of it. So it's, it's been an incredible
23:17
operation to, to, to change that.
23:19
So if, if we're talking about a change agenda, maybe that's
23:22
where the change was. But nonetheless, you know that
23:26
the Tories even reform in some respects, but although we
23:31
haven't really had any indication of exactly what kind
23:34
of policies Reform will pursue because they haven't really
23:37
published anything yet. And so the, the, you know,
23:39
they're mainly talking about the issues that are most motivating
23:43
the general public like immigration and so on, but
23:45
they're not actually getting into the gritty or the weeds of,
23:48
of actual policy at this point. But nonetheless, none of the
23:51
mainstream parties have anything different to say.
23:54
So it is genuinely a uni party and, and anybody that's watching
23:58
the news yesterday, the UK column news yesterday will have
24:02
seen us talking about the fact that they've redefined the what
24:07
it is to be an MP in the UK. And they've removed from the
24:11
definition or from the page that describes this, any reference to
24:14
elections and any reference to representation of an electorate.
24:18
And so we're clearly seeing that in the documentation that they
24:23
are publishing, the role of, of MPs changing and therefore
24:28
democracy changing. And we have been arguing for a
24:31
long time that democracy no longer exists, we only have
24:36
dictatorship. And I think the a dictatorship
24:39
run by uni party is exactly the model we're looking at.
24:42
So basically. An election is just moving the
24:46
chairs around on the Titanic. That would be a reasonable way
24:50
to pull it. You think that's unfair,
24:54
Charles? No, no, no.
24:56
I think there's probably a bit more to add to it in that what
25:02
it does is it provides the public with what they think they
25:08
need, which is the opportunity to influence what's going on in
25:14
their country. And therefore they to, to a
25:18
great extent, excuse things that continue to go disastrously
25:22
wrong or to prolong the Titanic analogy, to strike the iceberg
25:29
or whatever it's supposed to have done.
25:31
But so yeah, I think the the election process is a, it's just
25:39
another part of the theatre. If we didn't have elections, I
25:44
think people would far more readily understand exactly what
25:49
is happening. But because we've always got
25:50
this transition, just going back to the plan for change thing,
25:54
it's fascinating. Now you read any government
25:57
document and exactly like Mike says, the policy is the same,
26:01
the legislation is the same, everything that's coming is the
26:04
same, might be dressed up in a slightly different way and the
26:08
and the pace is different. But you see this tagline under
26:14
Labour's plan for change, which is meant to convince the reader
26:19
that this is happening. And it's completely different
26:22
from what would have happened if they hadn't been there.
26:25
And it's the same way in which the changes that were made
26:29
during the 2020 to ever after the, the sort of due to COVID
26:34
bid, you know, due to the change of this and the other.
26:38
So there are many elements to it.
26:42
I had an insight recently. I went to an event that I'll be
26:46
reporting on, but it was a an event that describes itself as
26:50
being about regenerative agriculture.
26:52
Of course it's not really about regenerative agriculture, but I
26:57
listened to a discussion that was chaired by somebody called
26:59
Henry Dimbleby, who's son of one of the broadcasters, I can't
27:03
remember which. He has worked with five
27:07
successive governments to advise them on food and food strategy,
27:12
qualified as he is by having run a restaurant.
27:16
And he was speaking to a former government minister called
27:19
George Eustace and a former boss of Sainsbury's called Justin
27:24
King. And it was fascinating because
27:28
they were all agreed that the government was the problem and
27:33
that farming was suffering because the government wasn't
27:37
providing any long term solutions.
27:40
Then we had the climate staff and all the all the various bits
27:43
that were rolled in to create this very complicated web that
27:48
the government had apparently made a mess of.
27:50
So they seem to be agreed on that.
27:52
And then as a sequitur, they described the government as
27:58
being the solution. And everybody in the audience
28:02
seemed, as far as I could tell, to be thinking, yes, this is
28:06
right. We have absolutely no evidence
28:08
that the government can and will create the right conditions
28:13
because they never have. But we're going to continue to
28:17
back them to have a go. And this seemed to be the theme
28:22
throughout a lot of the talks at this event, which I'm not
28:26
surprised by. I mean, I didn't go there.
28:27
I think, oh, crikey, this isn't what I thought it was going to
28:29
be. I knew exactly what it was going
28:30
to be. But it's very interesting to see
28:31
people sit there and talk about it like that.
28:33
And particularly to hear Justin King, who's at Sainsbury's,
28:37
talking about the way in which the relationship with government
28:40
worked and how government really, especially if they've
28:44
got people like Dimbleby there who's not an expert in how to
28:47
produce food. And again, OK, sidetrack.
28:50
And I mentioned this last year, and it might seem unfair, it
28:54
might seem petty, it might seem personal, but it is true.
28:57
They all sit there and talk about health and highly
28:59
processed food and this, that and the other, and they're all
29:03
considerably overweight. And I know it seems like an
29:06
unkind point to make, but seriously, where does one draw
29:10
the line? You know, there's only so long
29:12
you can talk about this sort of thing without actually doing any
29:15
of it yourself or setting an example.
29:18
But this seems to speak to the wider problem.
29:20
So King at Sainsbury's was talking about a supermarket
29:24
leading the consumer, rather than listening to as though
29:28
there wasn't a situation in which the consumer might know
29:30
enough to be able to demand such and such a thing from a food
29:35
producer. And that in turn is informing
29:38
government policy. And that's very obvious now
29:39
because they've set up something called the Food Strategy
29:42
Advisory Board, which is entirely populated by people
29:46
with big industry interests. So at no point is this ever
29:51
designed to benefit the people at the individual level, or
29:55
actually the people who are supposed to be producing the
29:57
food. It, it is a system that
30:01
perpetuates. And, and this again is the, is
30:04
this sort of public private partnership And, and the, you
30:07
know, the UNI party is, is absolutely a part of it.
30:10
And the way that the civil service is informed and pushed
30:16
by a sort of combination of commercial leaders and so-called
30:22
think tanks means that it's a it's an absolute stitch up.
30:27
So I go back to the point about the the four year cycle, five
30:30
year cycle or you know, or less whatever it is for elections
30:33
where people are presented with a well, totally false choice and
30:39
that being false choice between voting red or blue.
30:43
I mean a false choice as in that they think they're actually
30:46
choosing something. They're not.
30:48
They get no choice. But.
30:49
That's what Noam Chomsky said. You keep people controlled
30:54
within a parameter, and then you encourage lively debate within
30:58
that parameter. Exactly.
31:01
Totally. So, yeah.
31:02
And then this is what's such a joke to see people going to an
31:05
event that's supposed to be about regenerative agriculture
31:08
and letting naked nature take over.
31:10
And yet every single stand there is about letting somebody else
31:14
do the work that nature's supposed to be doing and to have
31:17
some sort of input, whether it's through some government scam
31:22
slash scheme or, you know, commercial enterprise that come
31:26
on and sort this out for you. So, yeah, it's a, it's a massive
31:30
diversion. Red herring a good friend.
31:32
Of mine, Farmer Angus, who I know you know, Charles is a
31:36
strong advocate of regenerative agriculture.
31:39
Yeah, he is. And he, he actually knows what
31:41
it means and he knows how to do it.
31:43
And further, he understands that if you do do it properly, then
31:46
it works as a business and it works for, for the land.
31:50
It does improve the environment. It creates a healthy situation
31:56
for the soil, for the livestock and the people that eat it.
31:58
I mean, it is not that complicated, and it's how things
32:01
used to be done before. As with anything that's been
32:05
tinkered with before, greedy people saw opportunities to
32:09
subvert the way in which things can be done naturally with
32:13
minimal inputs and minimal costs.
32:14
I for the. Longest time was part of the
32:17
sort of free market mindset. I mean, I read Adam Smith and
32:20
Rothbard and and Mises and and Murray.
32:24
No, not Murray. Is it Hayek?
32:26
Sorry, Hayek and a little bit of Milton Friedman too.
32:30
But you come to realize, particularly when you think to
32:35
the thing back to the COVID era that it's just all kind of
32:38
academic wankery. It sounds great on paper, but in
32:43
but reality is is a lot more complex.
32:48
I think, I think, well, I don't know that the reality is more
32:51
complex. I mean, I think, I think the
32:53
wankery as you put it, is, is, is, can be made as complex as
32:57
you like. And, and they often do.
33:00
I think, you know, at, at a very basic level, economy is about
33:09
providing something that somebody wants, producing
33:12
something. I think, I think with respect to
33:14
food production, that the, the, the, the idea of producing
33:20
something that that people can live on has been replaced with
33:22
just profiteering. And you know what it's, it's a
33:26
very interesting conversation. I think with with, with someone
33:30
to, to ask the question, are you producing the food that you're
33:35
producing and the way that you're producing it, which is
33:38
effectively devoid of proper, proper nutrients?
33:43
Because you know that for somebody to get the, the level
33:47
of nutrition that they might need, they have to therefore buy
33:50
more of it and therefore you can profit more from it.
33:54
The problem with regenerative farming as far as this type of
33:58
mindset would be is is that of course, if you're producing much
34:02
less, but it's much more nutrient dense and therefore
34:05
people don't need to eat need to eat as much of it, they can't
34:10
sell as much of it. Now then you get into the
34:13
question of whether you can charge more for that.
34:15
Well, at the moment you can because because it's it's, it's
34:19
a a minority project. It's a niche thing and people
34:23
are willing to pay more for it. But if it becomes, if it were
34:27
ever to, to become once again a sort of the mainstream, then
34:30
then the question is how you make it pay.
34:32
And, and if, if you're, if you're only looking at things
34:36
from a corporate standpoint and you're wanting to maximize
34:40
profit rather than from a, an industry which is based on this,
34:46
on the small family farm where actually people are just need to
34:51
make a comfortable living. And then, you know, it becomes,
34:55
that's where the complexity starts to come.
34:58
I mean, I would, I would love to see more farmers take the risk.
35:04
And because I mean, I, I get it. The, the current farming model
35:08
is it only works if you're massive corporate.
35:12
And so if you're a small farmer trying to play in that, in that
35:16
game, in that pool, you're really struggling and you're
35:19
therefore absolutely reliant on government subsidy of whatever
35:22
form it is. And so they are the small farms
35:27
of the medium sized farms that we're seeing at the moment are
35:30
therefore pulling more and more land out of food production in
35:34
order to get involved in these renaturization schemes, because
35:39
that's where the government subsidy in the UK is at the
35:41
moment. And of course, that then puts
35:45
people more at the behest of the of the big corporate, you know,
35:51
hyper processed factory food industry.
35:55
And this is, this is a very bad place to be going.
35:59
I would, I would like to see some farm into it.
36:02
I've not underestimate the risk. I would like to see more farmers
36:06
take the risk of stepping away from that model and actually
36:10
thinking about how they might produce high quality, nutrient
36:14
dense food that in the short term, medium term at least, they
36:20
can charge more for. And you know, it's going to
36:24
require more people. Sorry that you were speaking to
36:28
Ivor Cummins last night. It was that went out last night,
36:31
wasn't it? And, and the basis of that
36:32
discussion was, you know, if you're not well, you can't
36:35
fight, you can't resist if you're, if you're having to, if
36:39
all you're doing is spending time dealing with your health.
36:43
I sort of touched on this last week as well, but, but you know,
36:46
I, I hope that, I hope there's been a good response, a good
36:49
audience for that discussion. I've been disappointed in, in
36:53
the response that we've had to similar discussions from other
36:55
people in the past. We have got to, this goes back
36:58
to this whole business of looking after ourselves first.
37:01
We've got a, we've got a appreciate that in the past a
37:07
larger proportion of our monthly, weekly, monthly income
37:10
was spent on food. And, and we have got used to the
37:15
trade off between cheap supermarket rubbish that we
37:20
consume that fills a hole, that makes us feel as if we've eaten
37:23
something but doesn't actually do us any good whatsoever.
37:27
We've, we've chosen that so that we can take our two holidays or
37:31
three holidays a year in foreign countries.
37:34
And, and we've, we've got to start making the right
37:36
decisions. And one of those is to look
37:38
after ourselves. And that might mean actually
37:40
supporting farmers and encouraging farmers to take the
37:44
right steps and going towards a more regenerative model instead
37:48
of this mass food production thing that where they're totally
37:51
beholden, you know, let's let's grow some weight.
37:54
Well, actually, how much is weed selling on the global markets at
37:58
the moment? And, and that model has to
38:00
change because those farmers are on a hiding to nothing.
38:03
They're reliant on the state. The state can withdraw the money
38:06
at any moment. And, and they're in fact, at the
38:09
moment, as we know, pulling land out of food production in order
38:14
to get that government subsidy. And as soon as you've got a
38:16
farm, which is no longer its primary purpose is no longer
38:19
food production, then what's the point of it?
38:22
So anyway, that's that's. My thoughts on that, I mean, I
38:26
agree with you. My complexity comment was, was
38:28
more around the idea that public bad, private good, you know,
38:32
that that that dichotomy that we've seen over the years is
38:36
just simply not realistic. And we can certainly see that
38:39
now with the sort of the stakeholder capitalism, the
38:42
public private partnership concept taking taking hold in a
38:46
in a very strong way. Now that that it, it is more
38:50
nuanced. Maybe nuanced is the better
38:52
word, but. Absolutely.
38:54
And part of the problem here is, is that that that one is seen
38:58
because it's so ideological. 1 is seen as being left wing
39:03
communist if you like and therefore no we don't want that
39:07
and the other is seen as being, you know, capitalist and
39:10
therefore good at the extremes. Neither of these things is good
39:14
and and we are being royally shafted by corporate entities
39:20
every single day of the week and it it just beggars belief that
39:23
that nobody is prepared to set aside ideology and have a
39:27
serious conversation about what would be the best thing to do at
39:30
this point. The comparison that Angus made
39:34
was a really good one. He talks about the food to his
39:39
workers and says, well, in actual fact, the beef that we
39:43
sell by weight costs less than the potato chips that you go and
39:50
buy in the shop. And you get a hell of a lot more
39:54
nutrition out of it. And you'd always be surprised.
39:56
You know, we talk about nutrient density.
39:57
What does it actually mean? OK.
39:59
I think in the first instance if you change from a diet of
40:03
largely. Processed food that has to be
40:06
consumed by volume to make you feel full.
40:08
Then switching to say nutrient dense, properly farmed beef,
40:14
you'd probably want to be consuming more of it than you
40:17
necessarily need to. But after a while you adjust and
40:20
then it is quite incredible how little of something you need in
40:24
order to feel full and how long that will keep you feeling full
40:28
for. So I think the the whole way
40:30
that we're, you know, the sort of three squares a day for some
40:34
people, yeah, OK, maybe that absolutely is what they need to
40:37
do. But I think people don't even
40:38
recognise the signs that they get from their body.
40:40
And people can't distinguish between what is hunger and what
40:42
is just a blood sugar low and how long you can be sustained
40:46
for by a particular food. OK, There are there absolutely
40:51
are issues with one size does not fit, does not fit all.
40:56
And I think there are a lot of different things to to look at
41:00
in terms of metabolism and the way your blood type informs your
41:03
digestion and all that kind of thing.
41:04
But the principle of it is that food of the right quality, the
41:11
right type goes so much further than that doesn't.
41:16
And I would say in overall cost, there's no contest.
41:24
Proper nutrient dense food costs you far less because it enables
41:31
you to be in the right state of health and state of mind to be
41:35
able to do all the things you want to do.
41:36
Don't get ill, you don't get tired, you don't miss out on
41:40
this out on the other. You don't have to go to why we
41:43
do anyway, but you don't have to go to a doctor.
41:45
You don't have to engage in all sorts of things that either cost
41:48
you money or certainly prohibit you from making money.
41:52
So I think that's how people need to look at it rather than
41:54
the upfront thing of Oh well, I could buy something and I can
41:56
stick in the microwave for X amount or something next to it
42:01
that I know has been produced properly, which appears to cost
42:05
more. So, but it is a transition.
42:08
I think it takes a while to work that out and to understand your
42:13
body's response to any of these things and, and conditioning
42:16
your way into. Which reminds me slightly of
42:19
what James Walton was talking about with his prepping
42:24
discussion. And because he, I think he, he'd
42:28
been going through something that I can't believe that all
42:32
his family necessarily signed up for voluntarily.
42:34
But he was talking about going through a period of time where
42:36
they would eat for X number of days of the week and then not
42:40
eat for some of them, which people would otherwise describe.
42:45
If you take the prepping side of it, you know, it's just
42:46
intermittent fasting. So, but nonetheless, it's very
42:50
interesting and I think a lot of people, probably a lot of people
42:53
listening, they're saying, oh, there's no way I wouldn't be
42:55
able to do that. I would not be able to go for a
42:56
day or two days without food. Well, OK, this is not advice,
43:01
but if you are interested, then look into it.
43:04
I mean, personally speaking, it's something that I probably
43:07
didn't think I'd really wanted to do, but it's very achievable
43:11
and it is really interesting and I think it does have a
43:14
beneficial effect on the body. But again, that is not medical
43:16
advice. So try these things, but not
43:20
necessarily under the label of prepping.
43:22
You don't have to think. Oh, well, go.
43:24
You just never know. I might have to be stuck in the
43:26
woods for a day or two days rather more.
43:29
Just think, well, why don't you just embrace that as a system of
43:31
life? And then if you do get stuck in
43:33
the wood for a couple of days, you're already adjusted to it
43:35
and it's fine. Yeah, but that's what.
43:37
He says. He says prepping is just a a
43:39
term that was coined years ago, but effectively it's just a
43:42
lifestyle that's about thinking about how to approach certain
43:48
events, which is something that we all talk about anyway.
43:52
It's solutions orientated thinking.
43:55
Yeah, totally. I mean, this is it.
43:59
But I still well he yeah, he markets himself for his product,
44:03
his website and all the all the content as as prepping or you
44:09
know, that they are preppers. And yes, of course, he's, he's
44:12
quite right to go into the, the whole language element of it,
44:15
because I don't think it does describe at all what it is that
44:20
you're doing. To me.
44:23
It's simply a process of living how you should.
44:28
And if one of the consequences of that is that if there is a
44:33
shock to such and such a system, you're, I mean, you might not
44:38
even know about it doesn't make any difference to you.
44:40
Rather than thinking, OK, well, I've got a bagpack for that,
44:43
I've got a freezer for that, and everything's a sort of what if?
44:48
I don't think any of it should be a what if it should be.
44:51
This is how I live my life. Well, I mean, personal
44:55
anecdotes. My wife and I were at a music
44:57
festival, I don't know, a year and a half ago, whatever.
45:00
And and we we camped and while setting up the tent, I
45:05
accidentally slipped and I stuck my knife into my hand.
45:11
So I've got AI mean I've got a scar here now from it.
45:14
Now, if you don't know how to handle a situation like that,
45:18
you're in trouble because there's a lot of blood and and
45:21
you get light headed very, very quickly.
45:23
I mean, the whole thing just becomes very complicated very
45:26
fast. Yeah, but that.
45:28
That's what I mean. I mean that that should be part
45:30
and parcel of life. Everyone should know that stuff
45:33
from the earliest possible time because that can happen.
45:37
I mean, you can do that in the kitchen.
45:38
I wouldn't. Put a label of prepping on that,
45:41
that that is that's, Charles says.
45:42
That's just life. And, and actually a lot of
45:45
people just need preparation. Yeah, but.
45:47
But, but it has this connotation that you're prepping for some
45:50
major disaster. You know, I, I think a lot of
45:54
what is labeled as prepping is actually just living and, and
46:00
something that we should. These, these are skills we used
46:02
to have. They're skills we absolutely
46:05
should have that we have remove from ourselves by giving
46:10
ourselves up to the to automation in many ways and to
46:16
the the state provided healthcare system and big
46:21
pharma. So food, health, these types of
46:25
things. This is again comes back to the
46:29
conversation we had last week to some degree.
46:32
These are things that that we should view as being areas of
46:35
personal responsibility and, and something that we can control in
46:40
our own lives if we choose to do so.
46:43
And, and so, you know, it's, it's a matter of, of choice
46:47
about who we decide is going to be responsible for these things.
46:50
And if we're going to outsource that ourselves to, to, to the
46:54
state, that's perhaps not the best form of public service that
46:59
that we should be encouraging. And we need to, we need to
47:03
relearn these skills, that thing.
47:05
With Facebook and the gathering of data to influence the
47:11
American election, can you remember that whole thing?
47:14
It was about around 2016, yes. Alex created about it and I
47:20
can't remember what it Yes, I know.
47:21
I know what you mean. And Steve Bannon?
47:23
Was part of it. Damn it, I've gone blank now
47:25
are. You talking about Palantir and
47:29
and? No, no, no.
47:30
No, no, no. And Zuckerberg was still held in
47:33
front of Congress to ask about it.
47:35
Does Cambridge Analytica. Sorry, yes, yes.
47:41
Yeah. Well, yes.
47:43
But again, how was that? How is that even possible?
47:49
That was possible because we decided that that's giving our
47:54
data to all these these types of companies is a good thing.
47:59
And instead of having personal relationships just among a small
48:03
group of people, we suddenly decided to, to want to talk to
48:06
the world. There have been, there have been
48:09
plenty of benefits to Facebook, as I've said before, and, and,
48:12
and that's a regeneration of, of Internet service, because ideas
48:19
have propagated amongst people that would never have been
48:22
exposed to them otherwise necessarily.
48:24
But, but I'm not, I'm still very much not convinced that the
48:29
benefits of outweighed the, the negatives at this point.
48:34
I, I would be delighted to see Facebook not exist or Twitter or
48:39
any of them. What, what we're seeing there
48:41
is, is the influence of these guys.
48:43
And, and you know, I'm very, very cynical about any of these
48:48
big tech leaders, Zuckerbergs and Peter Thiel's of the world.
48:53
A lot of these peoples have, OK, some of them have, some of the
48:58
founders have come directly from the intelligence agencies.
49:01
There's no question about that. But a lot of the influence that
49:04
we see coming from the tech sector is from nerdy types that
49:09
were probably bullied at school, that are probably have a very
49:12
anti human view of the world. And, and if we want to see where
49:15
the whole transhumanist agenda is coming from, it's coming from
49:19
them. And when we start seeing them
49:21
ending up at at a level where they are actually influencing
49:26
presidents and prime ministers, that that is something I don't
49:30
think anybody, very few people in the world are even conscious
49:34
of. And, and they need to be
49:37
conscious of it because, you know, if you want to merge with
49:40
the machine, that's up to you. But but the destination ain't
49:44
going to be nice. So, so, you know, if we're
49:47
human, but we consider ourselves human beings to a certain
49:50
degree, we've got to reject this merging with the machine that we
49:56
are, even to the degree that we already have and, and relearn
50:00
the, the basics. And that starts with
50:03
regenerative farming. It starts with taking
50:05
responsibility for own health. It starts with taking
50:07
responsibility for our own navigation from one place to
50:11
another and relearning skills that we lost because we're going
50:15
to end up, you know, with, with a permanent connection.
50:20
You know, wearables are going to be embedded soon.
50:23
And well, exactly. And, and you know, the UK has
50:26
just announced that that every newborn baby is going to be
50:31
genomically sequenced. This is, this is just the next
50:35
step along that road. We, we've seen this, this
50:38
infrastructure building, the disinformation industrial
50:42
complex, if we want to call it that.
50:46
We've seen a building particularly since 20/15/2017.
50:51
And we, we've seen the use of terms like post truth world.
50:56
We've seen the use of terms like trust, who are trusted sources
50:59
and so on. And, and it's very clear to me
51:03
now that that AI is a part of this in a very big way.
51:08
It is there ultimately, in my opinion, to so pollute the
51:15
information space that people are going to be increasingly or
51:19
they're going to be encouraged to rely on the trusted sources.
51:23
And the trusted sources are going to be the BBC, for
51:26
example, or CNN or the Guardian or the Times because they are
51:32
the Orchard GBT. No, I don't think, I don't think
51:36
that's, I don't think that is actually the ultimate
51:39
destination here. I, I think that if, if you have
51:43
an AI system which is hoovering up data from the Internet and
51:48
spitting out answers, the purpose of that in fact is, is
51:52
just to pollute the information space.
51:56
Now what comes next? I, I, I don't know yet, but
52:01
what, what we are going to see is, is the point where it's
52:07
increasingly, it's already increase increasingly difficult
52:10
to know what the truth is. But once we start seeing
52:12
generative AI being seriously used and we start seeing videos
52:17
appearing. I mean, for example, 2 videos
52:19
that appeared recently that got people very excited were the one
52:23
with the the guys on Macron and Co on the train who were
52:30
possibly snorting something white.
52:33
And then Georgie Maloney, who apparently was doing the same
52:38
thing, although the Italian government seems to have said
52:40
that she accidentally took a contaminated medication.
52:44
But anyway, they, they were, there has been, you know,
52:48
evidence of these people effectively being off their
52:50
heads at various Times. Now, in the not too distant
52:55
future, generative AI is going to get to the point of being
52:58
able to produce videos like that, which look absolutely
53:00
convincing. And for somebody that is outside
53:06
of the system, it's going to be very, very hard to work out or
53:10
discover whether that is a real thing or not.
53:14
And I believe that's the main purpose of this version of AI
53:17
that we're seeing at the moment, because we've got to remember
53:19
there's nothing, it is artificial, but there's nothing
53:21
intelligent about it. So this it's, it's a marketing
53:25
exercise And but it's, it's, it's got a purpose at the end.
53:30
And the purpose is to to so pollute the scene that, that
53:33
we're going to not, not us specifically, but people are
53:37
going to be encouraged to rely on the official sources as being
53:41
the only reliable trustworthy source.
53:43
So trust has been something trust coalition, the trust this,
53:47
the trust project here, trust project there that's been trust
53:51
is been developing over the last number of years and we're going
53:54
to see that accelerate. And so so that that's, you know,
53:59
that's that's basically I think where we're going and and we we
54:03
got to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that
54:05
now do. You remember a few years ago
54:08
when Jacinda Ardern said on TV that the government should be
54:15
the primary source of truth? Yes I do.
54:21
Maybe that was a fake video. No, she didn't that that No,
54:25
well, well, you think she did, but maybe it was generatively
54:29
generative there. No, I, I believe she did say
54:33
that and I and I think that is giving an insight into exactly
54:36
what's in their minds. It really does.
54:39
And this. Is this is something that people
54:40
have got to start appreciating that, that that a lot, that
54:43
large proportion of what they see is, is intended to create a
54:49
it is applied psychology being used as intended to create,
54:52
create a psychological effect on somebody who's intended to make
54:56
behavioural change behavioural insights, behavioural this that.
54:59
And the other isn't about encouraging people to take a
55:04
vaccine that that certainly was used for that.
55:07
But it's it's much it's, it's much more broadly used than just
55:10
that rather limited thing. This is something that that we
55:14
are, that we are being bombarded with on a daily basis, every
55:21
minute of the day. And, and the idea is to drive
55:24
people in particular directions. And that applies to the
55:28
so-called freedom movement as much as anybody else.
55:30
That the one of the real issues with social media is, is the
55:35
data collection aspect of it, as you say.
55:38
And, and the, they, they have been for, for many, many years
55:43
now from the, from the beginning.
55:44
That's why it was set up in the first place, pushing out little
55:49
bits of information just to see how people react to those it.
55:52
But it's done in a scientific way.
55:54
It is a scientific dictatorship that we're we're in a
55:57
technocracy if you like. And so we've got to consider
56:01
that every time we see something on on the Internet.
56:04
Yeah, just with regard to ChatGPT, we'll probably only
56:09
have the other AI stuff that you can ask questions to, apparently
56:14
in the belief that it knows something.
56:17
If you know people that do do this and do go to it for
56:20
information that has any nuance to it, rather than, you know
56:24
what colour is the stop traffic light, then ask it a question,
56:30
let it give you the answer and then say to it that's not true
56:35
and see what it does because it is being designed to be terribly
56:43
polite. But it will concede absolutely
56:47
that it hasn't got its right it right.
56:50
So we'll say, Oh yes, of course, I failed to mention this that
56:54
and the other and you just keep going, just keep going.
56:56
That's not true, That's not true, that's not true.
56:59
And see what it does. It's very interesting.
57:02
So that would be my advice if you're tinkering around with it
57:06
thinking is that can't, can this in any way provide information
57:11
that is accurate in any way, a whole view of whatever it is
57:17
you're asking about. But I would also say that if you
57:19
know young people who are being encouraged to use it, tell them
57:24
to do that. Just say that they're aware that
57:27
if you do challenge it, it will just start casting around in
57:29
other directions and try to pull in bits of information that it
57:33
thinks you want. So that the, the whole idea is
57:36
that it's, I've said this before.
57:38
It can be like asking for directions in a place where
57:41
there's not really a common language.
57:42
And you say, is it that way? And you go yes, yes, yes.
57:45
And then you say, is it that way in case?
57:47
Yes, yes, yes. And it's the same thing.
57:49
So it just wants to please and it wants you to continue to use
57:54
it. So so challenge it and see what
57:56
happens. Gentlemen, thank you for joining
57:59
me in in the weekly banter.