Evan Davis reports as Wikileaks appears to release thousands of CIA documents and Theresa May loses a Brexit vote. Plus austerity and the Budget.
Browse content similar to 07/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
Evan Davis reports as Wikileaks appears to release thousands of CIA documents and Theresa May loses a Brexit vote. Plus austerity and the Budget, and a Viewsnight report on why we should be nice.