Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:01]
Matt Ridley
This episode is sponsored by Avocado Green Mattress. They make certified organic mattresses, pillows and solid wood furniture, all created without harmful chemicals and with carefully chosen materials designed to support healthier living and better sleep. I've realized over time how much my sleep affects everything else, from my focus and energy to my mood. During the day, when sleep is off, even small things feel harder than they should. Or what stands out with Avocado is their focus on creating a healthier home environment. Their products use certified organic non toxic materials, which helps reduce unnecessary chemicals in the space where you spend a huge portion of your life resting and recovering. They also design their mattresses to support deep restorative sleep, the kind of sleep that helps your body reset overnight so you wake up feeling steadier, calmer and ready for the day ahead. And if you're unsure, many of their mattresses come with sleep trials of up to a year, so you have the time to decide whether it's the right fit for you. When it comes to what you sleep on. Real wins. Real is better. Go to avocado greenmattress.com trigger to check out their mattress and bedding sale. That's Avocado GreenMattress.com/avocado greenmattress.com trigger capitalism is evil.
- [01:21]
James Delingpole
You hear that all the time these days in Internet clips, on tv, even in real life. But has anyone actually expl or why it's responsible for the greatest increase in human prosperity the world has ever seen? Hillsdale College is offering a fantastic free online course called Understanding Capitalism and I've been watching it myself. I found that the course does an incredible job of making complex concepts like the market economy understandable. In just seven lectures, you'll learn how capitalism works with human nature, why it relies on freedom and private property, and why it's actually a system that rewards virtue and responsibility, not greed. And this is just one of over 40 free online courses Hillsdale College offers. You can learn about the U.S. constitution, the book of Genesis, the Roman Republic, even the history of the ancient Christian Church. Go right now to Hillsdale Edu Trigger to enroll in this course, Understanding Capitalism. There's no cost and it's easy to get started. That's Hillsdale Edu Trigger to enroll for free one more time. That's Hillsdale Edu Trigger.
- [02:38]
Steve Baker
Every government comes in and they say we're going to cut red tape. There's too much red tape. Cut the bureau slash bureaucracy and none of them do like it's just been the story. It just gets worse and worse and worse, red tape, bureaucracy. And it, it's easy to issue this stuff, but when you're a business trying to implement it, it's a nightmare. It makes life a misery, waste time and money and gives you a headache and it's just ridiculous. So we wanted to do something about that. So we had this kind of approach to it which was rather than going in like every previous government and say, well, let's try and find the things that we want to cut, why don't we have a different kind of mindset which is let's look at everything and choose the ones we want to keep and assume that everything else is gone. Just as a kind of. So you set the default at less regulation. And I just remember the first meeting, I just thought we're sunk because it was. They divided all the regulations on the books like tens of thousands. I think it was like maybe 29,000 sets of regulations they went through diligently and put them into. And we had different categories, you know, consumer protection, environmental, whatever. And we had a process for each one. And we had the meeting and I think we started with consumer protection. It was in Oliver Letwin's office, I believe maybe. Yeah, Oliver Letwin. And we all sat around the table and the officials from that department came in with their sort of document which was here, you know, with the list of all the different regulations. And it was supposed to be color coded for the ones we're keeping and the ones we think we can get rid of. And I remember looking at them and most of them were, I can't remember which way it was, round, red or green? I said, oh, so these are the ones that we're getting rid of? No, no, no, that's what we're keeping. There's like two or three that they felt we could get rid of. So I just thought, okay, let's go through it. So we went through. And I remember we had almost the entire meeting just on one one thing, which I remember what it was. It was because it was just. I just thought, I can't believe this. It was regulations about flammable pajamas.
- [04:36]
Matt Ridley
Yeah.
- [04:37]
Steve Baker
And it was. It's specific regulation about flammable pajamas. I think it was, it was either men's or women's, I can't remember. And I said, well, why can't this be covered in a general duty of you? We had this long conversation about it and I remember the official from the department of. Is it trade Industry? I can't remember whatever it was. Said, well, actually we had like half an hour discussion Just on that. Whether we could. Whether we really just on pajamas. And it was one gender. It was either male or female. I mean, I guess today you'd have to have a. That wouldn't even be. You couldn't even have that conversation about male or female pajamas. Too triggering. But it was at the end of this whole discussion about either male or female pajamas, the official. I'll never forget it said, well, actually, to the extent that there is an interest in this from the public, I think the pressure would be to equalize it and to add regulations for female pajamas or whatever. And honestly, we had this whole conversation about the flapping of pajamas and going in front of a. It was mad. It was like a parody. And that was the first meeting. And I just thought, this is it. They know how to sort of grind you down, and there's always more of them than there are of you, and they can always generate more paper and you'll never win this battle. And that's when I came to the conclusion that the only way that you would actually do what all these governments promise, which is to have less regulation, decentralized power, and so on, is to massively reduce the number of civil servants or kill them. That's the only way. And so that led to a whole process which was parodied in the media about me wanting to fire most of the civil service, but kind of, yes, actually, because. Not because they're doing a bad job, but because actually it shouldn't be so centralized. You shouldn't have this giant bureaucracy of just the tentacles reaching into every single aspect of life. It just feeds on itself. Even if they've got good intentions, which they do, I'm not doubting and each individual person that they're bad. I'm not saying they're bad people with bad intentions. Just the cumulative effect is just this nightmare for people and businesses and society as a whole.
- [06:49]
James Delingpole
Steve, you're really smiley and happy. You live in California, of course you are. But as I listen to you as someone who lives in the uk, yes, I'm fucking furious.
- [07:01]
Steve Baker
Well, I think you should be, actually, because this is why, okay? Especially the last few years. Look, I. As you said, I'm here in California. I'm focused on not just US politics, actually, California politics and California, you know, we're the fifth big. We're a bigger economy than the uk and there's a lot going wrong.
- [07:16]
James Delingpole
All right, mate.
- [07:17]
Steve Baker
Technically, California to fix. Do you know what I mean? So it's like a big thing. And that's what I'm focused on. But I obviously keep an eye on UK politics and it seems to me that things are really stuck. That's what it feels like for years now. And I don't want to weigh in too strongly because I don't follow it closely. And so I may be getting things wrong. But it does feel like you just have one Prime Minister after another and it's all what's actually happening. I mean, where's the energy? It just feels very stuck. Nothing really gets solved. Some of the problems seem to get worse rather than better, you know, and I think a lot of it is to do with this fact that the machinery of government is really broken and acknowledging that.
- [08:06]
Matt Ridley
I would imagine that a lot of civil servants are very left wing or left leaning. Again, nothing wrong with that. If those are your political opinions, fair enough. But the problem comes when you see yourself as a protector or a guardian of the UK and someone comes in with a policy that they deem to be right wing and you say you're not gonna enact it, then what you were doing is subverting the will of the people who have elected that government.
- [08:35]
Steve Baker
That's exactly right. And that's what Blair felt. I mean, he said that and so I think he said it publicly. I don't think I'm revealing anything. Sort of, you know, greatly confidential. But it's exactly what you say, because that's the theory. And the theory of governance is that the politicians are elected by the people and the bureaucracy faithfully implements what they do. But if that's not the culture. And again, I don't think it's even necessarily that they may not even be aware that that's what they're doing. But there's this sense of. It's almost grandiosity, I think that like, well, you know, we've been here, we know how it works. You can't possibly do that. There's definitely a lot of that.
- [09:17]
Michael Gove
I remember at the last party conference I made a joke and I said that 10% of civil servants are magnificent and the other 10% should probably be in prison, you know, leaking official secrets, obstructing ministers and so on. And there was this big hoo ha that said I wanna put 50,000 people in jail and so on. But the point I was making, we
- [09:36]
James Delingpole
don't have the prison place for a start.
- [09:38]
Matt Ridley
He'd have to sex offenders before.
- [09:40]
Michael Gove
You're definitely not doing that. But the point I was making is that we shouldn't put all civil servants in a bucket. There are some great people who work in Our civil service. And they are more frustrated than you or I are by their colleagues who are obstructing because they have to live with them constantly. And I remember talking to one official who was so good and she was complaining about the, you know, some of these diversity policies, how they were actually unmeritocratic and how, you know, there was a scene in the civil service that was very worried about self ID and all the pronoun stuff that they needed to get promoted. I said, why don't you speak out about it? You know that I will support you, I will give you cover. And she said, yeah, but what happens when you're gone? The ministers change all the time. What if there's an election and I get a new minister? What's going to happen to me? There's not going to be anyone to protect me. So we need to empower the good people. We need to make sure that when we have stuff that needs doing, we bring the good people forward. And we also need to be able to sack the people who are not good at the moment. Ministers cannot sack because that creates, it affects civil service impartiality. So the performance management system needs to change to one where people who don't perform the do get sacked. I remember asking my department, how many people have we sacked since the department started? And I was told none ever. And I thought that that was extraordinary. You know, people might be encouraged to leave or voluntary redundancies, but actually if there are bad eggs in any organization, and that includes Parliament as well, they should be removed. You need that performance management system. You need incentives. And when you have the right incentives, sometimes the incentives are paying. Sometimes it's freedom to make mistakes. When you have the right incentives, you can have people delivering. But I also think that we need more politics in the civil service because the civil service has already been politicized. All of these impartial and neutral organizations, these quangos, regulators, they've all been politicized and politicians have been giving power away. You know, we'll make this independent, we'll make that independent. And we have so little power now. We certainly did as ministers. I'd want to do things. You can't do that. Bank of England, the Competition and Markets Authority. We've created legislation that's given power away to independent organizations. And it sounded good at the time, but actually what it means is that the democracy is sticky. You vote for things and it's hard to make it happen. If it isn't to a quango, it's a court decision. You look at what we're dealing with on borders, for example, endless court obstruction. You look at this Rosebank and Jack Doyle field issue, that's court saying, no, we want to do net zero, we've got to get some of that power back.
- [12:31]
Priti Patel
Britain isn't really run by politicians, it's run by our civil service. Our civil service is enormous. How's the NHS run? It's not run by a Secretary of State for health consists of 1.1 million people. There are 350 million GP appointments a year. The numbers are kind of staggering. So the only way of running a good country is by improving the quality of those people, how they are recruited, how they are promoted, how they are trained. And that is a 20 year process of investment, of really thinking about how you create a really elite professional civil service. And that also requires some very tough conversations, because a lot of the things that I found as a minister that were getting in the way. I'll give you an example that I don't think I put in my book, but mattered to me and sort of illustrates some of the paradoxes. So when I was the Minister responsible for part of our effort during the Syrian war, I discovered that my Syrian team was moved from London to East kilbride, near Glasgow, 400 miles away. Why? Because somebody thought it would be great for the economy of this depressed area near Glasgow to have these civil servants moved up there. So I say, well, wait a second, we're fighting a war. Who's going to be in the meetings with the Ministry of Defense? Who's going to be in the meetings with the Foreign Office? Well, these meetings are happening in London. Oh, don't worry, Minister, people will always be able to fly down. Sorry. First they say they can do it on Zoom, then I say, no, but that's not the point. A lot of this stuff is happening in the margins of meetings. It's not just happening on the Zoom call. But don't worry, they'll be able to fly down. Then I notice they're not flying down. So then I go up to Glasgow, I'm like, what's happening? And they say, oh, Minister, we've just done a carbon audit and we've discovered that all these people were taking these flights. So we've banned anybody from taking flights down from Glasgow to London instead. People can do all this stuff virtually. Now, there are two very valuable things happening here regeneration, revitalization, employment near Glasgow and climate policy. But what's lacking is what is the point of what they're doing? Point of what they're doing is they're trying to get involved in our biggest national security priority, which is fighting a war in Syria, and they're not there and they're not helping. If the number one question you're asking yourself, which is what is the most effective practical way to make a difference in Syria? It is not to move these people up to Glasgow. But our civil service machine is brilliant at prioritizing secondary issues and taking away from the fundamental question, which is what is the most effective way of delivering what matters to the country?
- [15:29]
Toby Young
The thing that civil servants hate most is when they're named. They never want to be named in stories, they always want to remain anonymous, whether they're senior or junior. Particularly, they say civil servant press officers say to journalists all the time, oh, no, you can't name that civil servant who may have done something egregious, who may have said something outrageous, who may have done something completely against political impartiality or whatever. Oh, you can't name them because they're too junior. And they say, you can't name them because there's a rule or there's some sort of agreement between journalists and the civil service that you don't name junior civil servants. There's no such rule. There's no such law. There's no. There's no regulation that says that it's an ethical judgment by editors to say, does this person really have the responsibility and the authority over what they've done? And how egregious is it, and how much in the public interest is it for us to name this civil servant? And the reason they don't want to be named is because they claim it's because of, you know, they might be bullied or something like that. No, it's because of their career progression. And if an employer, even in the civil service, is googling their name and suddenly they're mentioned in an article, that doesn't look great for them. That looks like they're a bit of a troublemaker, or at least they've done something wrong for us to be reporting on it. And they've got to do something pretty wrong for us to actually name them if they're a junior guy. If they're senior people, it's a slightly different situation because those people have responsibility and authority, and there's a stronger public interest in naming those individual civil servants. So I think as journalists, we can have a big impact, I hope, on some of the decisions that we're making inside various Whitehall departments. But interestingly enough, actually, the fight back within the Civil service is Occurring independent of journalists and independent of pressure from people like me and newspapers. There's an organization called Seen in the Civil Service which represents gender critical civil servants. It was set up in October 2022. It was the first of its kind. And this was following the Maya Forstater case, which I'm sure you guys are very aware of, where gender critical beliefs are now protected against discrimination under law under the equality act of 2010. And this means that civil servants can generate their own network, their own group across Whitehall to talk about gender critical beliefs. And they're enabled to do this because of the Maya Forsata case in law. So the Cabinet Office agreed that they could set up this organization. There's over 700 members of Seen now across the civil Service, which is very impressive. They've run surveys of their members discussing sort of widespread bullying, harassment of civil servants for holding gender critical beliefs. Some of the stories that I've reported on have exposed some of this harassment. For example, a gender critical civil servant was accused of holding beliefs similar to Nazis in a call in which senior civil servants were there and said nothing to defend them. In another situation, a gender critical civil servant in the DWP was in a call about International Women's Day, a sort of discussion about that. And she said there are su. She said, quote, there are two sides to the trans debate. That was used in an official investigation against her. Someone complained that that was bullying and harassment and discrimination, saying there are two sides to the trans debate. And in an official investigation by the department she was given an official warning and that quote was used as evidence against her as harassment. So what seen are doing is they're pushing back against this stuff. They've written to Simon Case, who's the Cabinet Secretary, the head of the Civil Service, to raise their concerns. They're meeting with senior civil servants. They recently met with the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office called Matthew Rycroft, who is what they call this ridiculous name. The gender. No, no, the faith and belief champion of the civil service. Now just a very quick side note. Matthew Rycroft is the man in charge of our police and our border policy. And he spends time being a faith and belief and a race champion in the civil service to talk about trans issues. Why he's wasting any time on that I don't know. But anyway, so seen have done some fantastic things where they've really been pushing back internally against some of these WOKE policies. They found documents that they're upset about. They sent it to senior civil servants, pro trans stuff, for example, and to Give you an example of one of the things they found recently in a letter they wrote to Simon Case, Agender. Now Agender is a network for pro trans civil servants. So there's lots of different networks across the civil service. As I mentioned earlier, there's 93 networks in the MOD specifically for talking about diversity and inclusion, 14 for race. So one all across Whitehall. There are all of these groups which by the way, I don't think should exist, but total waste of time. But anyway, they exist and that's the reality. Agender is the pro trans group in the civil service. They came up with training slides which compared gender critical people to the KKK and racist nationalists. Now that's totally unacceptable. Civil servants should never say that sort of thing. I mean it's discriminatory, it's bullying, it's horrible. So they're again exposing these things internally. They're having those conversations, which is really impressive on the race front. And I think generally, and I know maybe you guys disagree with this, but I think generally the people who are opposed to the critical race theory and the civil service, at least in my experience, the people who approach me about these stories tend to be more conservative minded, less focused on, let's say being feminists and sort of terfs, and more focused on, you know, kind of this anti white propaganda. It could be leftists, could be conservatives, but generally it's conservatives. Those people are far less organized. They don't have their own organization, partly because there is no protection in law for anti critical race theory beliefs yet. And that actually could change soon. There's some interesting legal cases that are going through the system now where that may become a protected belief under law and I hope it will. I think there was a recent success, I can't remember the exact details, but recent success in one of the courts to do with that. So they don't have their own organization, they don't have their own network, the anti critical race theory. But they do speak to each other to a certain extent. They do blow the whistle on a lot of stuff that's going on in Whitehall and again they're having an impact externally through newspaper reports and so on. So I am. That was a very long winded answer. But I am basically hopeful that there is, there are some successes going on. But unfortunately the other side of it is labour about to come into the Parliament very, very soon probably.
- [21:26]
Matt Ridley
So things are going to get better.
- [21:28]
Toby Young
So things I expect will get a lot worse, unfortunately. But you know, there are some brave civil servants out there who are fighting this stuff, and I think we'll continue to do so.
- [21:35]
James Delingpole
Consecutive governments over decades now have absolutely not delivered on the things that they have told and promised the British people. Why is that? I hear various rumors, you know, the Civil Service, ideologically just won't let it happen. You know, the treasury is more interested in growth than delivering on the promises about. We just care about the economy, or rather the numbers that we can then sell to the British public so much that this issue goes by the wayside. You've been there. You've been in charge of the department that is there to control this issue. And you, the government, previous governments have failed to do it. Why? Why is it happening? That's what so many people say to us. Like, we keep voting, we keep saying we want to deal with this issue. Nothing happens. Why?
- [22:19]
Sajid Javid
Well, having. Having served as Home Secretary, I think ultimately there has been a political resistance to seriously grapple with the challenges posed by unprecedented and unprecedented levels of migration.
- [22:42]
Toby Young
So.
- [22:42]
James Delingpole
Sorry to interrupt. What does political resistance mean? Who are you talking about? Is it the Civil Service? Is it your own party? Is it the media? Who is causing this not to happen?
- [22:52]
Sajid Javid
Well, I can speak only from my own experience and what I've observed.
- [22:55]
Priti Patel
Please.
- [22:55]
Sajid Javid
You know, I think that for my part, I've been very eager to deliver on that policy to lower net migration. And technically, it's very easy to do, actually, from a Home Office or Government point of view. You don't need to pass a law, you don't need to worry about human rights or the court in Strasbourg. You don't need to get any new votes on it. You actually just have to take an administrative and executive decision to do it. And I had the hope that I would be able to do that. And unfortunately, I was met with a lot of resistance from around the Cabinet table. And the Prime Minister, you know, didn't want to engage in this subject and didn't want to deliver on it. You'd have to ask him.
- [23:50]
James Delingpole
Why, do you think? Why? You say the Cabinet table, that means more than one person. Right? So we're talking about a Conservative Party elected on the promise to lower migration in 2010 to the tens of thousands. We are so far off that. And yet you're saying people within the Cabinet of that very government are not keen. And I don't think they're bad people. I don't think the people in the labor government necessarily were bad people. So the question is, why? Is it because we just care more about importing cheap labor to staff the nhs and so the other departments are like, well, if you do this, we're not getting enough foreign students, we're not going to have enough of an economic boost. Is that what's happening?
- [24:27]
Sajid Javid
That is effectively the wall of the character of the resistance I came up against. So the economic departments, mainly the treasury, would be very resistant to my proposals to cut net migration. So, for example, on workers, you know, my proposal for over a year was we needed to raise the salary threshold. It was 20, 25,000. That's below the average salary in the UK. It should have been. I put forward 40,000. There was a huge mountain of resistance that I was met with from the treasury itself.
- [25:06]
Matt Ridley
We elect leaders to enact certain policies if those policies can't be enacted because the powers that be, the forces, quote, unquote, refused to let them be enacted. I mean, do we have a democracy, really?
- [25:19]
Nadhim Zahawi
Well, it's not democratic enough, there's no doubt about that, in my view.
- [25:24]
Matt Ridley
But that's a very, very serious problem.
- [25:27]
Nadhim Zahawi
Because it is a serious problem. It's an absolutely serious problem. And the other side of this argument will talk about things like institutions, they'll talk about tram lines that politicians should be operating in. But what they fundamentally mean is that politicians need checks and balances against enacting things that are democratically decided. And what we've seen, and not just in Britain, right across the free world, is we've seen a growth in the power of unelected bodies. There's no doubt in my mind it's not just the Office of Budget Responsibility or the bank of England, it's also the Environment Agency, it's the Climate Change Committee. It's people who are not democratically accountable are effectively making decisions. And I think that's a problem.
- [26:31]
James Delingpole
I don't think it's democratic, it's a massive problem. And I think as an ordinary person looking at this, which I am, I'm going to. I didn't vote for the Civil Service, I didn't vote for the obr, I didn't vote for the bank of England, I didn't vote for the Environmental Agency. So at the same time, I'm also thinking, well, the Conservative government has been in power for 14 years. Surely they would have been aware of all of this. Why haven't they done anything?
- [26:57]
Nadhim Zahawi
I don't think, well, so I first got elected in 2010. And when you get elected as an MP, you assume a lot of things about the level of power and influence you're going to have. These are not always true. And I became a minister in 2012. I was a junior minister. I found it frustrating that it was difficult to get things done, but I assumed it was because I was junior in the organization, that if I was a Secretary of State, it would be easier to get things done. And as a Secretary of State, I was able to do some things. But it was still the case. It was hard going. It was hard going implementing conservative policies when that was not the broad view of the system.
- [27:46]
Matt Ridley
Can you give an example. Sorry to interrupt this. Could you give an example where you had a policy that you wanted to be enacted and then for whatever reason it was scuppered or diluted down to the point where it was simply unrecognisable?
- [28:03]
Nadhim Zahawi
So the first job I had was in the Education Department and I wanted to deregulate childcare to make it cheaper. We've got some of the most cumbersome childcare rules in the world and we've got some of the most expensive childcare. So I wanted to change that. And what you find is that no one ever says, no, we're not going to implement the policy. What they do is they take a long time about it. It's sometimes called consent and evade. So just say, yes, Minister, we'll go and look at that. We need to do a bit more work on this, blah, blah, blah. So what you'll find is it takes a long time to do things and often the civil servants in the department will be in touch with the so called sector, which is generally the vested interest within which other area you're talking about, whether it's environmental NGOs or the nursery sector or whatever, and you find yourself ending up having to compromise to get things done quicker. This is also true of things like appointments as well. But you have to compromise to get things done quicker. You'll find there's a lot of opposition from the sector or the organisation you're dealing with. So in the case of the childcare reforms I wanted to do, before I even got them out, I'd had to make quite a lot of compromises. So they weren't as good as what I would have wanted to do and what I think is right, making them more like the system in France, for example, which is actually better than the system in Britain. So it is hard to describe the process, but it's all very long winded, driven by endless layers of people having to look at things. It just takes a long time. And then by the time I'd finally got the policy out, Nick Clegg had been so lobbied by the childcare sector and by Mumsnet that he blocked the policy, and therefore a policy which would have made lives better for families across Britain would have given them more flexibility, didn't happen. So that's the kind of thing that happens on each policy you were looking at.
- [30:28]
Douglas Murray
There's two very big challenges for Nigel Farage, right? First challenge, win the election. That would be an astonishing thing for him, to win the general election. People are starting to speak about it as if it's normal, obvious. It's not normal, it's not obvious. It's a massive challenge for him the moment it looks like he might be able to pull it off. But the second massive challenge is that he'd have to seize control of the British state and actually impose the sort of change once in a generation, frankly, once in the 100 year level of change, the kind of stuff you saw in the 1940s, a more radical, more compressed period of change than even the 1980s under Thatcher. You'd have to change everything, right? Scrap tons of laws, restructure the constitution, completely change the Civil Service, which is completely broken. You know, get rid of the Human Rights act, quit the echr, quit all these international treaties, right? And you'd be declaring total ideological war on the Blob, on the ruling dominant ideology of this country. And that's going to be very, very tough. So that is Farage's massive challenge. Prepare. How can you prepare? How can you find lots of very talented people outside of politics to bring them in so that they can effectively launch a hostile takeover of the British state after the general election and actually push through change rather than be defeated? Liz Truss came along and she was crushed. She was gone within weeks. How do you avoid that sort of scenario? Trump won in America, was largely defeated by the Blob, by the Civil Service and so on. Trump too, on the other hand, has seized control of the machinery of state. He was very well prepared in advance. You know, he had orders, he was just ready to sign on. Day one, day two, day three and so on. That's how you do it. But you need quality people and there's not enough quality people currently in British politics.
- [32:19]
James Delingpole
So we're looking for a compromise candidate.
- [32:23]
Nadhim Zahawi
Malleable, flexible, likable, no firm opinions, no
- [32:27]
James Delingpole
bright idea, not intellectually committed, without the
- [32:31]
Michael Gove
strength of purpose to change anything.
- [32:33]
Toby Young
Someone who you know, can be manipulated,
- [32:36]
James Delingpole
professionally guided, can't leave the business of government in the hands of the experts.
- [32:45]
Lifelock Advertiser
It's tax season and at Lifelock. We know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one. You need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money in refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now, here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.