07/03/2017 Newsnight

The CIA can apparently do some amazing stuff,

like turn your TV into a microphone and listen in.

But now their secret code has leaked.

This seems to be an incredibly damaging leak in terms of the

tactics, techniques, procedures and tools that were used by the Central

intelligence agency to conduct legitimate foreign intelligence.

If the leaks are real, it's highly embarrassing

We will ask the journalist Glenn Greenwald whether we should be

worried by the CIA's ability to hack, or its inability to keep its

own secrets? Defeat for the Prime

Minister in the Lords. They want Parliament to vote

on the final Brexit deal. Does that make sense,

or screw up the negotiation? Gina Miller and Theresa

Villiers will tell us. The day before the Budget,

we're inside Cumbria County Council We can't go on like this. I don't

think we can continue like this, as councils up and down the country.

And Viewsnight looks on the bright side of life.

Now, imagine we were to treat people the way most of us really are.

Pretty nice. Creative. And more than willing to contribute to the common

good. We've had the Chelsea Manning leaks,

then came Edward Snowdon, and today another huge Wikileaks

data dump - they're calling it Vault 7, and they say it's from a division

at the heart of the CIA. Thousands of documents,

millions of lines of code - and, if it is all genuine,

it shows the extraordinary array of hacking and spying tools

available to the CIA. Some of it's colourful -

the ability to infect a Samsung TV and turn it into a microphone that

records conversations, for example. The British apparently

helped with that. The CIA won't confirm

the authenticity of any of it, Is it reasonable for the CIA

to have these abilities? And the second is, can't the CIA

guard any of its own secrets? If it is incapable of doing so,

should it harbour software that could allow massive abuse by those

with malign intent? The documents are purportedly from

the CIA's centre. Intelligence. 7918 documents with many attachments.

Wikileaks say it is only part of what it intends to publish. The rise

of connected devices has promised intelligence agencies like the CIA a

new golden age of spy craft, where every home is filled with all sorts

of objects that can be enlisted to gather data against their owners.

What Wikileaks have got details of is how the CIA or doing this and the

very computer code they are using. This seems to be an incredibly

damaging leak in terms of the tactics, procedures and tools that

were used by the CIA to conduct legitimate foreign intelligence. In

other words, it has made my country and my country's friends less safe.

For example, the Wikileaks document suggests that the CIA have bypassed

the encryption on android mobile phone messaging apps like WhatsApp,

and collect audio and messaging traffic before it is encrypted.

These are wraps which many people used to relay sensitive information

because they believe they are impenetrable. One technique,

code-named weeping Angel, can turn a Samsung smart TV in a target's live

living room can turn it into a microphone. This was apparently

developed with the help of the UK's GCHQ. Wikileaks say they have got

hold of millions of lines of computer code, the CIA's tool box of

tricks and hacks. But, they say, they won't be releasing what they

call these armed cyber weapons until a consensus emerges on how they can

be dealt with. How they can be a moist and disarmed. If the data in

these documents is verified -- how they can be analysed. It will add to

the damage done to Western intelligence agencies by Chelsea

Manning and Edward Snowden. We don't know how this information got out.

One former director believes that a big danger to secrecy is cultural.

In order to do this kind of stuff, we have to recruit from a certain

demographic, I don't mean to judge them, there is a group of

millennials and they simply have different understandings of the

words loyalty and secrecy and transparency, than certainly my

generation did. And so we bring these folks into the agency, good

Americans I can only assume, but again, culturally, they have

different instincts than the people who made the decision to hire them.

What has supposedly been leaked suggests no limit to the CIA's

ambition, like hacking self driving cars as a future weapon for

assassination. What is likely to be most damaging is that the US

intelligence agencies as yet can't be sure how many of their secrets

have been breached. David Grossman. Our Diplomatic Editor,

Mark Urban, is with me. This leaking is a big issue, Mark.

How and why and how many people have access to all of this staff? Well,

the agencies are caught in this terrible place where they've had to

create huge the violence programmes, let's face it, that's what we're

talking about, in power in awful lot of people to share that information

because of the lessons of 9/11 and other systemic failures, they want

to get across all of that 800,000 plus people are cleared to

top-secret and higher level code in the US. If even a tiny proportion of

those or ideological or opposed, greedy, they want to sell the stuff,

all working for another power, damage can be done. It is getting

harder for intelligence agencies generally to a tribute or track

where different, worth and tools... Why take away from my initial read

of this, the most interesting stuff was this Tom Burridge group, a group

in the CIA that harvest other states's cyber tactics to use by the

CIA in deniable attacks. Add to that that we now know that many of these

cyber attack tools with if you like an American forensic signature are

in the hands of Wikileaks and who knows who else, and the wilderness

of mirrors about attributing cyber attacks, who the hell has done this?

We saw this with the Democrats this last summer, it becomes harder and

harder to work out. Bruce Schneier is a security

technologist and Harvard Fellow. I spoke to him earlier,

and I asked him if this I mean, certainly whenever

classified documents are released by an intelligence agency,

it is a disaster. These are particularly sensitive,

they are hacking tools, And if I was inside the CIA, I would

call this a disaster as well. We have this leak, it

seems to be one thing What's happened to the culture

of secrecy that you would expect It's not the culture of secrecy,

it's the culture of competing. These documents are on computers,

they are on networks, They are vulnerable

for outsiders hacking, they are vulnerable for insiders

taking them and leaving. And we see this against the CIA,

the NSA, a Panamanian law firm, the Democratic National Committee,

climate change researchers, again and again and again -

individuals, organisations and nation states are hacking these

documents, and in many cases, Michael Hayden, former

Director of the CIA, told the BBC earlier that he thought

there may be something about a kind of a culture

of the people who you need to recruit to be kind of working

the computers and devising all these tools in the first place,

that perhaps they just have a different view of their life

and their career that say the old spooks did

say a generation ago. You know, maybe that is

generalising from one example, from Edward Snowden,

maybe from two, This is probably an outsider,

not an insider, like the NSA equation group documents were hacked

by the Shadow Brokers. You know, it's really

hard to generalise. The only thing we know is that these

documents are more vulnerable because there are on networks,

which means that individuals Now, look, how dangerous is it that

a lot of these CIA tools are now out How much damage can those

other people do if those And near as we can tell,

they've leaked for a while. Wikileaks said that they have been

passed around for a while. Now we can start getting security,

now that we know what the attacks are, we can fix these systems

and be less probable. I mean, yes, it's bad that these

attacks are out there, The CIA knew that it was most likely

that other countries did as well. So getting them in the hands

of the public so they can be fixed is really a measure

of making things better. Bruce Schneier, thank

you for talking to me. Bruce also told me he always puts

something over the cameras on his devices to make sure they are not

him. Not because of the Russians or the Chinese, but because of teenage

hackers. And Glenn Greenwald

is the journalist that campaigns Good evening. Have you seen anything

in these leaks that make you think the CIA was doing anything wrong?

Firstly, very significant revelation is that the CIA actively encourages

and at times even pays various companies and organisations to

preserve vulnerability that there are able to exploit and a lot of

these software programmes. So not only they can go through these back

doors that they make sure exist, but so can hackers, or other nations.

The CIA and NSA making the internet Moran says for everybody. I think

that is very disturbing -- more on safe. So maybe they should tell the

Googles and the apples where the vulnerabilities are rather fun

exploit them. Have you seen any evidence that this thing on

televisions or driverless cars, have you seen any evidence that these

have been applied to good people all merry people, as opposed to what

President Trump would call the bad hombres -- ordinary people. Do you

think they have been misusing these tools? One of the problems with

having a massive surveillance state, intelligence community, that

operates almost entirely in the dark is that we know very little about

what they actually do. There is very little accountability war over side,

which is why when we did this reporting, -- or oversight. Even

people on the intelligence committee said, we didn't even know that these

were taking place. So based on the first sort of batch of documents

that Wikileaks have released, we know the CIA have extraordinary

abilities that they are exploiting. We don't know against who they are

using it, but the history of the CIA is one filled with abuse, and we

ought to know more about why they are using get. Have you really seen

any thing that surprises you in terms of a skill or a talent or a

tool that they have? In a lot of ways, this is what you would expect

a really top-class spying agency to be doing, isn't it? I think some of

the methods that they use, and the extent of control they are able to

obtain over people's android phones, the progress that they have made

into people's iPhones has actually surprised people who work in the

security field. It's not shocking that the CIA is trying to do it,

although I don't think a lot of people knew that the CIA has such a

vast surveillance apparatus. They assumed that the NSA with the agency

that uses billions of dollars, so that it is rising. It is not

shocking the CIA is trying, but it has been surprising the way that

they are in able to invade these devices and take full control of the

programmes intended to keep them out. The fundamental argument is, do

we want intelligence agencies who can do clever stuff to spy on people

from abroad, preferably, who are doing or mean us harm, or do we not

want intelligence agencies to do that? We have always come back to

this and I have spoken to you about it before. In the end, if you are

going to have intelligence agencies, you have to let them get on with the

job and you can't expect them to stand by telling you what they are

doing because it isn't going to work if they do that. Yes, I think you

know, there is an absolutist way to look at things, which is very

simplified. Either they get full secrecy or they have none. And then

there's a more sophisticated way to look at it, which we as journalists

ought to be adopting, which is, yes, you need some degree of secrecy, but

in a democracy, secrecy is extremely corrosive and they dress. And for

agencies that we have allowed to operate almost entirely in the dark,

as journalists, our objective ought to be to report on what they are

doing and cheer from one both is transparency, -- for when there is

transparency. That the government try to protect secrecy. As

journalists we ought to be devoted to telling the public what these

people are doing. Some people say WikiLeaks have been

strangely related to Trump, do you think there's anything strange about

the timing of this, another difficult week for President Trump

and this whole fuss about President Obama and did he tap him. Is this a

distraction? It is funny because we always like to look at Russian media

and the Arab world and mock them for conspiracies and yet we in the West

have are conspiracies. There was a weird timing issues with WikiLeaks,

intended to distract, there is always important news going on.

WikiLeaks published this material not in a particularly sensitive

week. I can assure you it takes some time to process this material and

unless we have evidence that WikiLeaks manipulated the timing I

do not think we should be assuming that that took place. I do not know

of any evidence that says anything like that happened.

Theresa May suffered the embarrassment of defeat today.

The Lords voted - with a majority of just under 100 -

to insist Parliament has the final "meaningful vote" on the deal

The PM will whip her MPs to try and overturn this defeat

when the Bill comes back to the Commons - probably next week.

Now Theresa May is hailed as the most unassailable prime

minister we've had for years, a weak opposition, a united party.

But, think a little on it, and you remember she has only

a small majority in the Commons - so she's vulnerable on all sorts

of thorny issues such as Brexit, grammar schools and us

That's why some colleagues - including William Hague

in his Telegraph column today - have said she should call a general

How popular is that opinion amongst conservatives? Downing Street if the

William Hague idea short shrift but something of a debate going on

involving members of the cabinet about whether an early election may

be a good idea. These Cabinet ministers accept and respect Theresa

May? Opinion that an election now would be wrong, they say if you did

it right now it would seem as if you were doing it for the benefit of the

Conservative Party, exploiting Labour Party witnesses at a bad

moment for the Labour Party. But these ministers said that over the

next couple of years you may be able to mount an argument that it is in

the national interest to hold an election before the due date in 2024

the they are identified as when the government seeks to introduce the

great repeal bill, the legislation that will annul the legislation

underpinning our membership of the EU and it will put all that EU

legislation, into UK law and then the UK will be able to decide which

bits of that legislation it wants to keep. I'm told his ministers have

identified a couple of danger points with that legislation. Number one is

when it is in the House of Lords, we have seen the House of Lords this

week bearing their teeth and there was a feeling in government circles

that if the Commons could overturn those amendments Bumble laud them

that the Lords would throw in the towel and not want to be accused of

thwarting the will of the people on Brexit. There will be no such qualms

on the great repeal Bill, they think, and the second danger

identified by ministers is that the Scottish Parliament may say that

under the original devolution settlement that great repeal Bill

would need their consent. As I said, there are a whole series

of issues that the Prime Minister may be vulnerable on with such

a small majority. A busy College Green

here in Westminster is a sign that something

is about to happen in Parliament. Tomorrow is budget day,

which is a day when the government The whole structure of the day

really favours the people in power. It also comes as the Conservative

Party's racking up enormous poll leads, consistently in double digits

over the Labour Party. But might that mean

that we are overstating just how strong Theresa May's

position really is? Critically, take a look at the Lords

where the government does As of tonight, Theresa May has lost

24 votes in the Upper House. Well, we look at issues where we can

make a difference and perhaps persuade the House of Commons

and the government to think again. Things like the Housing Bill,

we've asked the government On trade union legislation,

on education. And indeed some of

the aspects of Brexit. Indeed, just this evening,

the Lords have defeated They've passed an amendment

demanding what they call "a meaningful vote" by parliament

on the terms of Brexit One of two Lords amendments

on the Brexit bill. Everyone in this House knows

that we now face the most momentous And this amendment as the Noble Lord

has so clearly set out, secures in law the government's

commitment, already made to another place, to ensure that Parliament

is the ultimate custodian I am in a minority in this House

because I support the views of the majority of people

in this country. This House is absolutely full

of people who still haven't come to terms with the results

of the referendum. Well, the effect of these

votes is to reopen And so potentially re-empower rebel

Tory backbenchers to negotiate If we take the Article 50 Bill,

there were small numbers of Conservative rebels on some key

issues when the bill went Notably on the rights of EU

citizens to remain in the UK and on the Parliamentary vote

at the end of the process. It is no coincidence that those

are the issues that the Lords has taken up very strongly

and is seeking to throw back to the Commons to ask

the Commons to think again. And what it is doing really there

is facilitating those negotiations If the backbenchers are satisfied,

she will get her way. She may need to offer them

more assurances in order Theresa May will ask MPs to overturn

the peers' amendments. And it is plausible she might not

win both of those votes. And that is why the Lords could

trouble the government so much. They complain oh, we haven't

got the majority, well, this is the first Conservative

government never to have had an automatic majority

in the House of Lords. But no Labour government ever had

a majority in the House of Lords, you win your case, you persuade,

you articulate, you make that case. And that is what the government

needs to understand and needs to do. But some Tories want

a quick election. They say it could mean

a bigger Commons majority. And peers don't pick fights

over items once they've But at least for now,

the government is grinding on. And once the Brexit negotiation

starts, a voluntary election Well, as you heard, one test

of the Prime Minister's strength comes next week, when Remainer MPs

have to decide whether to support her on the Brexit Bill -

or to side with the Lords, The issue is whether Parliament

should get a meaningful vote on any I'm joined by Gina Miller,

who famously brought the legal case for Parliament to have a vote

on Article 50. And Theresa Villiers is here -

former Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers, as we were

watching that Lord Heseltine has been sacked as a government adviser

because he rebelled on the bill. Is that showing a kind of sensitivity

to all this, a bit of brittleness question what Michael Heseltine was

a long serving member of the Conservative Party but he's very

much out line with the majority feeling within the Conservative

Party and indeed within the country. He's not even a member of the

government, just an adviser. But you have two kind of show how tough the

discipline is going to be? I do not know the circumstances but I think

it was always inevitable when he was rebelling on such a crucially

important issue. Gina Miller, the idea of a vote at the end of the

process, is it the case that you would like parliament to have the

option if they do not like the deal Theresa May comes back with, is it

the case you would like them to have the option to say let's just take in

the EU or have a referendum on staying in rather than going through

with Brexit? It is not about what I want, and it is not at the end of

the process but in 18 months. We're not talking about the great repeal

act, it is in 18 months when Theresa May comes back with that negotiated

package. It is only right that Parliament should be involved in

that process, that is what my case was about and what all the

Brexiteers talked about, Parliamentary sovereignty and

parliament having the right to vote and debate. That is what is so great

about the House of Lords, they showed it could be done as a level

that is civilised and grown up and you could respect the point of view

of other people. Are you thinking about another legal case, if two is

a major says I'm not interested and I'm going to eat the House of Lords,

are you thinking another legal case on this would be due? If you go back

to the judgment in my case that the Supreme Court it said only

parliament could take away or diminish people's rights. In 18

months we will not know what whites have been taken away because we do

not have a crystal ball, we do not know what the package will be. If

you look at the judgment there is some thinking that if Theresa May

bypasses the parliament and does not deliver on a promise, if this

amendment does not get in, that there could be a case for us to take

back to Parliament, sorry, to the court and say could she act on her

own without parliament. Theresa Villiers, I suspect that is not what

you want to hear because that would mean a legal argument right at the

climax of article 50 negotiations. That is one of the real anxieties

about these amendments. Any amendment to what is a simple bill

makes it potentially dragging on into the courts. I believe that

particularly the amendment passed today is a recipe for stalemate and

disruption. I'm sure Gina Miller is entirely sincere in what she's doing

but I think many people who backed this amendment today in the House of

Lords in the heart of hearts are trying to frustrate the process.

They have given themselves the power to veto a to veto leaving without a

deal, essentially what they want is to keep us in and this respect the

vote. There is a bit of a puzzle, they said they want to be able to

veto a non-deal or deal, it could end up just in a twilight zone.

Actually the House of Lords cannot do a veto, they can scrutinise and

give their opinion but they cannot actually veto something. But if we

get back, I do not understand why there's so much of this argument

about holding up Brexit because it is the Prime Minister and the

government holding up Brexit. Just putting these one is morally right

and the other is common sense to have a parliamentary safety net. Put

both in and stop the ping-pong between the houses, trigger Article

50 and get on with complex negotiations. It is government

itself holding up this process. EU nationals, I entirely sympathise

with the sentiment of the amendment, but this is not the vehicle to deal

with this question. It has to be dealt with by laterally as part of

negotiations. It makes the end of the process unmanageable, if the

executive does not have the power to save this is the deal or we walk out

which is effectively what Theresa May wants to be able to do this

right with the amendment this evening a key defect is that it

seeks to prevent the Prime Minister from deciding the deal on the table

is not good enough and I will go back recommending leaving without a

deal. Not being able to walk away from negotiations means that Europe

has you over a barrel. I'm afraid we need to leave it there. That is the

nub of the argument that has been raging on. Thank you both.

Well, austerity may have been pushed out of the headlines lately,

but anyone working in a local authority knows that cuts to council

So to help get us all in the mood for tomorrow's Budget,

we embedded Katie Razzall with Cumbria County Council -

one of those hoping for a sliver of help from the Chancellor.

We are in uncharted territory, really, for local government.

Sparsely populated, flood-prone Cumbria.

A county where cuts now threaten real upset,

I think local government is experiencing an existential crisis.

In Cumbria, what we're looking at really is what I would

Stuart Young is the leader of Cumbria County Council.

I joined him this morning at the start of his day.

A Labour politician at the helm as the eighth year

We have already had to make ?198 million worth of savings since 2010.

If there is anything that keeps me awake at night,

it is, how are we going to find the rest of those savings?

Whilst protecting services as much as we possibly can.

The council must cut another ?52 million in the next three years.

An accountant by trade, for Mr Young, the numbers no longer add up.

He agreed to allow Newsnight to accompany him to work

where the Labour group run the County Council in a coalition

Adult social care is now the largest part of our budget.

I mean, obviously, like everywhere else, people are living longer.

The problems are not just in social care.

And the Council has already made cuts across the board,

This is our first proper meeting, I guess.

The Government wants local authorities to

At the moment, it plans to stop its funding grant

I think officers are really keen to see what emerges tomorrow

It is meeting after meeting for the leader.

This with the Councillor in charge of adult social care,

which costs the authority around ?200 million a year.

I think it is biting everyday now when a new referral comes

Can you keep providing a good service to people

I think the answer to that has to be no.

When you've got demand growing year-on-year.

There has to be a limit on how much you can take out without it

being clearly felt by the recipients of that service.

You can tell someone tall has been here, Joyce!

She is only able to stay in her own home with the help

I can get to the cooker, but I can't reach it.

So they do my meals, so I find it about right four times a day.

What does it mean to you to have this care?

I would probably have to go into permanent care otherwise.

I think it's terrible that the cutting is happening.

My mum and dad, what if they don't get care, I can't imagine no one

getting the standard of care that we give to our clients.

Joyce, are you OK if I go through your care plan and just

Heather runs one of the companies contracted

You have male and female carers, and you're happy with all of them?

If you think about it, they haven't got anything I want,

and I haven't got anything they want any more!

The council here is putting up council tax, in part to raise

But in these rural counties, it's more expensive to provide.

The council is keeping its cards close to its chest ahead

But not everyone agrees crisis point is upon them.

When we were in control, we saved ?55 million

There was a lot of fat there to be cut.

And this administration, this current administration has

wasted millions upon millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money.

So there's still money out there to be found,

I think as we look forward to the next three years

and possibly beyond, I think many of us are

wondering really where this is all going to end.

I think local government is experiencing an existential crisis.

And it is difficult to see how some of the services

are going to survive at all in the face

We are briefly going to go back to the breaking news is that we

mentioned earlier that Michael has so kind has been sacked as a

Government adviser after rebelling on the Brexit vote. Why did they do

it, Nick? The man who brought down Britain's first woman Prime Minister

has just been sacked by Britain's second woman Prime Minister! He had

five jobs, apparently. They are absolutely determined that this

bill, which Michael has all kinds or to amend, must emerge completely

clean. -- had sought to amend. If there were any weaknesses to be

exploited by our negotiating partners, and we can turn to the son

of an old ally of Michael has all-time was Mike, Robin Walker, the

son of the Peter Walker, he is saying that if as the lords did

tonight you will allow Parliament to have the right to veto the bill,

that would create all sorts of problems that would be exploited by

Michel Barnier. And tonight, we have the young Dutch

writer, Rutger Bregman to offer us an optimistic take

on the state of humankind. He's a man with a lot of ideas -

the writer of a book called Utopia for Realists,

we'll speak to him It's time to assume

the good in each other. I've got two minutes

to remind you of the most If you start paying attention,

you see it everywhere. Rutger Bregman, author

of Utopia for Realists. The book reflects his optimistic

take - but is a kind of manifesto It suggests a much

shorter working week, and a basic income -

paid to everyone, That's the Utopia bit,

less clear on the realism. Is it? Well, I suppose on the basic

income, a lot of people have tried to make it work and do the maths on

it. You have to leave it so low that you leave a lot of people very poor,

or so high that you can't afford it. I don't think so. Basic income is

the least radical of the ideas in my book. We have a lot of evidence from

the 70s, in Canada they did an experiment for four years, they

found that people got healthier, and didn't quit their jobs. People have

a lot of objections. It was a town near Winnipeg. It was subsidised

from the outside, that one. It wasn't self financing. The

government paid for the basic income. As soon as you have a system

where there isn't an outsider, you know, a Martian to come in and pay

for it all, it is very different, isn't it? I don't think so. If you

look at poverty, for example. It is hugely expensive, in terms of higher

health care spending, crime, high dropout rates. A study in the US

found that it costs about $500 billion, just child poverty, and it

will cost us billions to eradicate poverty completely. It is easier to

get rid of it and keep on combating it. You are giving me a subsidy but

I don't need one. But you are paying for it, don't worry! Then you have

very high taxes, and people like me might say, why am I giving this

money and paying an 80% tax rate? That is why nobody has ever done it.

People have really looked at it and they have come very close. Many

people see this as a leftist idea. Milton Friedman, the neoliberal

economist, was in favour of this. The right-wing government in Finland

is experimenting with it right now. A Conservative senator in Canada is

proposing another experiment. Another experiment is going on in

Kenya Rednall. Especially after 2016, we need new ideas. That

everybody agrees with. We have a lot of evidence from experiments that it

is effective, efficient, and we use the money very well. Health care

costs go down. Slightly narrower experiments that don't necessarily

pay for themselves. You are proposing a 15 hour week as well.

That makes it doubly hard to pay for my basic income, because we are all

going to be working half as much. I think we need to completely redefine

woodworker actually is. So nowadays, according to a recent poll, -- what

work actually is. 70% of British workers think that they have a job

but doesn't need to exist. It is a waste of time, money and energy.

What is going on here that you know, a 28-year-old. Piazon, note that

these jobs are not needed. It is not me saying that -- a 28-year-old

Dutch person know that these jobs are not needed. Somebody is saying,

I'm going to employ these people because it is going to make me or my

company money or my country rich. Why do you think we have a huge

financial sector? They don't create any well. We have so much energy and

talent being wasted right now. What are the bankers going to do? And

what is the process where you are going to work out what they are

doing? What is the mechanism, is its central planning or a market? If it

is a market, they will go straight back into banking. These ideas go

through the political divide lying between the left and the right. The

left doesn't trust people to make their own choices, and the right

things that people have to be forced into work or something else. I think

people know perfectly well what to do with their lives. We are not

going to live in a big giant commune. What is the bankers going

to do, and what is the process going to tell him what to do? It is

interesting, you get the stories in magazines, you have got a very rich

guy who might decide to quit his job and do what he really wants to. We

see it as coming he is a hero coming he's going to do what he really

wants to do. What I'm proposing is in a society where that's just

completely natural, where we are all trying to contribute in our own way

and do what we actually want to do. And that is why it is called Utopia

for Realists. Thank you very much. I'm back tomorrow,

which is of course Budget Day. Hello. A spell of rain tonight will

clear many parts of the UK tomorrow but by no means