 So the speaker's corner has been going on for like more than a century, right? Yes, speaker's corner has been going on since at least 18, the 1860s. But there's a longer tradition which goes back to some people say to the last dying speech of the hanging people before they're executed. But really it's a labor movement thing. It emerged that way in the late 1860s, 70s as part of the movement for the struggle for the right to vote. Because it's funny a little bit that the UK has this monarchy, right? And like the, but still there's a parliament and people want to have their voices heard. I mean, in history, right? In the last 100 years, or I mean more than that, but is it related to democracy, right? It makes democracy stronger. What? You mean having speaker's corner? Yeah, and like having people speak like this in front of people, what's the main concept? Like, is it popular? I mean, up until the 19, maybe 1970s you still had quite a lot of labor movement activists who would go out and speak on street corners, as you also had religious groups who would propagate and discuss in the open air, in open air oratory. But television and then the internet tended to subsume all of that within it and make it much more, you know, make political discourse and ideological, religious discourse into a more sectional thing and also into a more packaged, marketed thing disseminated through electronic means. So as a result of that speaker's corner and speaker's corners, because there used to be many of them, not only in London, but in Britain, not only in Britain, but around the world. And they tended to diminish in the era of electronic communications and television and so on. I think that's, there's just the same as in the internet, there is now a sense of alienation by a lot of people and a sort of urge to, if you're gonna use the internet for it to be a mechanism for real life into communication and interaction, I think that's coming full circle with speaker's corner as well. We're beginning to get a significant amount of interest on the internet. Initially it's the typical sort of fight each other type argument type scenario that gets a lot of attention. But I think it's also, it would also produce positive results. In other words, foster the development of real human communication as well. So I'm quite positive about speaker's corner at the moment. I was really impressed with the content when I found that YouTube channel. So who's running this YouTube channel where I saw you speak, is it a friend of yours or? Young man by the name of Leon and another guy by the name of DJ Riz as they do the bulk of the work. And they began a project about two years ago to record pretty much as much as they can as to what's happening at speaker's corner, more from a sort of anthropological observational point of view. So they don't side with someone, they just video it. And that has its negative elements that you have some, I call them video whores. You know, YouTube whores, they just wanna be on every single video that there is and they just run around from one to another, wherever the camera is they go. But at the same time, it's allowed people an insight into the dynamics that take place both in the situation where you have an orator and an audience and in the situation where people are sort of dynamically interacting and arguing with each other about different themes. Because that YouTube channel just seems to have like hundreds or maybe thousands of hours of content. And the quality is really good. The camera quality is nice and the sound is good. Like there's this wireless recorder and I guess he syncs it up later in post-production to make sure that the, I mean, it's important to have good sound. You need to be able to produce. They're doing a sterling job and for the minimal amount of money that they can get from a couple of adverts. So, you know, they're just living hand to mouth doing this, but it's a project and it's a unique project and it's, well it's unique worldwide because there isn't any place quite like Speaker's Corner. It's chaotic and mad, but at the same time if you look under the surface there's a lot of very interesting dynamics happening there and you can get an insight into which is what content of everything focuses on, you know, observing human psychology in action. But one thing that I did notice is that because it's the tradition of speaking you kind of have to be heard. So there's no like microphone or speakers or anything. So it's like, I guess with all these years you've been doing it, you are used to not really screaming out, but you know, like being loud enough in the way you speak. It's a little bit different than what you're doing right now, for example, which is more relaxed, right? Yeah, oratory is a particular type of communication and you can learn how to, orate to vary your voice to gather an audience, to hold the audience, to interact with the audience. And it's a specific skill at Speaker's Corner because of the particular dynamics of the heckler and the audience there. And it's every Sunday, right? Is that it? You can do it during the week, but it's every Sunday afternoon. And are you there every Sunday? Pretty much. And so in the last video, I saw the brother of Jeremy Corbyn showed up after he was speaking and you also interviewed him on your podcast, right? So what's the name of your podcast? People can find it? Well, it's on my radio show. The radio show is on Resonance FM and you can look up resonancefm.com and then they have podcasts on there. I do a weekly radio show, but I've known peers for more than 20 years basically through housing campaigns. And there's something happening next week in the UK, which is very exciting right now. And well, is it going to be the most kind of like socialist country? I'm not saying this in a negative way at all. You know, like it's more progressive than all the Scandinavian countries, the way they are doing social democracies and stuff like that. So potentially it's, so what's happening? What's happening? Well, the Labour Party elected a, the most radical leader possibly in its history in 2015 and a systematic campaign has been run since that time by the, what you could call the establishment, the establishment labour officials, the establishment newspapers, the establishment political parties and even the military and the church and the religious leaders getting involved because they consider socialism to be a destroyed and discredited ideology and therefore any attempt to transform the Labour Party towards a genuinely socialist party or towards much more socialist ideas has met with the stiffest resistance you could imagine. And I don't remember an election campaign which was so one-sided in the presentation, in the mass media and so on, in its negativity towards the Labour Party and in particular to the Labour leader. And I do think at the moment it is having quite a, you know, it is having quite a lot of impact on the election for a number of reasons, primarily because the national card is being played as the primary card here. And in doing so, they were also attempting to, to present the Labour Party and the Labour leader as against the nation, as sort of saboteurs of the nation, a fifth column against the will of the people. And, you know, it's a very, very, you can't quite call it sinister, but it is sinister, the way in which the establishment have mobilized to attack the Labour Party, not only in this election, but since Jeremy Corbyn was first elected. So it's in this context that you have to see whatever happens next week. But I mean, this is what the way they've been attacking Jeremy Corbyn forever, right? But there are potentially many things that would change in the UK if Jeremy Corbyn wins, right? One thing that I think is amazing, so I'm not British, you know, but I used to live a little bit in London. But one thing that I really like about what he, the kind of announced is that they would bring free fibre broadband to everybody in the UK. So because my channel is a little bit more tech, but it's been my dream forever to have fibre, but it's impossible because these companies don't see it profitable to install this kind of speeds. So that's just one of the things, but I think that's something that the whole EU should do. Just bring... There's many questions in here. Maybe what if Jeremy Corbyn wins and what if Remains wins the second referendum? Is he going to change the EU? Is he going to be able to impact the way the EU is... Like make it more socialist? I think the idea for free broadband internet alongside a raft of other quite dramatic announcements, including the nationalisation of raw mail, energy companies, provision of housing on a massive scale to control over rents. In fact, the transition that is proposed by Labour in the state expenditure and the role of the state and the role of the public sector in Britain would bring Britain into line with countries like Italy and countries like that, which has been presented as quite moderate, therefore. On the other side, you could argue that because of where Britain is now to move to where Italy is in five years' time would be a massive shift. You know, there is in academic world, there's this theory of what's called varieties of capitalism. You know, the Nordic and North European model and the American model. And Britain has always been aligned traditionally more with the American model, much more free market enterprise system than most of Europe. Although it has certain traits like the national health service that has been free, almost like communistically free since the 1940s. So if Labour gets elected, then it would represent the biggest shift of the left in British history, at least since the Second World War, and there would be dramatic changes take place. There will also be, in all likelihood, a major clash with big companies and financiers who would seek to sabotage the economy, possibly do a run on the pound and, you know, try and take their money out of the country. But I think the run on the pound has happened kind of already. If you look at where the pound was versus the euro and dollar before Brexit, the vote, right? Like in 2015 till now, it's kind of 35% down, which is huge. So all these, all these, you know, the Conservatives are talking about 39 billion, right? That number. They keep talking about 39 billion or 10 billion less they'll spend. But if you count up the 35% devaluation of the British pound versus the euro already and Brexit hasn't even happened yet. So I think the run is kind of happening if Brexit happens. I think we've, if the Conservatives win, if they do the Brexit, I mean, we might not barely seen what might happen. Possibly. But, you know, the issue you asked about was Labour. If Labour gets elected, there will be sabotage by big business. And I think there's any doubt about that. On the other side, there is a concern, you know, sometimes the financial times, for example, which is the key journal of international capitalism, particularly international finance capitalism, sometimes they put things like, you know, which would be more scary, a Labour government or Brexit. It depends how Brexit is organised, you know, whether they do actually push for as rapid a possible free trade deal with the United States of America. And if they play hardball with the Europeans in order to achieve such a thing, then that could cause some bit more disruption. Personally, I'm less of a, I'm less certain that leaving the European Union, even without a deal, would cause catastrophic consequences. I think it's about the realignment, the reorganisation, the message, the symbolism as to what it would represent. That's effectively the sort of key area, the key element to it. And then the internal politics in Britain, I mean, these are sort of tied together. Because, as far as I understand, it used to be kind of a left thing to be against the EU, but now it's also more or less like an extreme right kind of view, a little bit like the extremes are against the EU. But isn't there like a chance that if Corbyn wins and if Remain wins in the second referendum that he might have quite a bit of influence and reforming the EU in a very positive way? What do you think that's possible? Well, the idea has been put forward for a number of years. And that's why Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to remain in the last or in the referendum. Although, you know, he was always honest about the limitations within the European Union, because the European Union, you know, certainly the evidence was clear in Greece when Greece had austerity imposed upon it by the European Union, that this was not an institution serving the needs of the people and it was really serving the needs of German and French bankers. And so this has been a longstanding attitude amongst a section of the left, including Jeremy Corbyn himself, for many decades. Having said that, the issue about the potential for unifying left wing forces in Europe, trade unionists and socialist parties in formulating an alternative plan for the development of Europe, I think is a very positive idea. And personally, I supported and would support such an initiative. I think that could still continue, whether we were in the European Union or not, to be honest with you. I mean, look, you've got a general strike taking place in France as we speak. And, you know, that's within the parameters of the European Union. So clearly, and that's about pensions. So clearly there is a battle going on between the social classes. And that's the essence of the question between the main social classes, the working classes, the poor, you know, most of the youth and big capital and big capital is organized into different factions, internationally, dividing more into these factions. On the one side, you have the nationalist faction, which is developing, for example, Front National, the Brexit Party, the way the Conservative Party is going, Donald Trump, Modi, Bolsonaro and many others of that character who are pushing towards national solutions and trying to say they're against this, what they call the globalist faction. In other words, a faction of international capital that seeks to organize worldwide trade relations and organized through a series of blocks, basically, but also promote the development of worldwide trade relations, open borders and so on and the globalization of capital. And there is a clash between these two different forces reflecting different social pressures in society. And that, again, is manifested in the Brexit referendum in Britain in it is a distorted form of this conflict between different between the key forces within capitalism. The way I see what's happening recently, maybe in the EU, versus a few years ago, a few years ago, it kind of was Merkel and the conservative French with Sakhozi and conservative in the UK with David Cameron. So it was very conservative EU just a few years ago. But the way I see that maybe there might be a shift happening now is Macron is kind of a is a spin out of the French Socialist Party. He was he was with what's what's he's called the French Socialist President before, right? So he might potentially be like a hidden socialist kind of, you know, and there's it's hard for the Merkel Party to keep power in Germany right now. They have they have to do coalitions and all kinds of stuff. So if if Corbyn comes in, I think he might they might be like a socialist wave. And in a way that it's been proven recently with the EU elections that were very positive, like there was a lot of participation all over the EU as if, you know, people are the people, the 500 million people in the EU are positive about the future of the EU. Perhaps, but there is an important point about the EU, the EU is not a United States of Europe, contrary to what the Brexit Party and Conservative Party want to make out and contrary to perhaps to what Macron might like it to become. The idea that the European Union will become a force which people will be will feel is their nation any time soon, I think is a mistake. You know, people this guy, right wing theoretician, by the name of George Friedman, he makes a very good point when he says, who is going to go and die for the European Union? And if you ask yourself that question, you really understand where the European is actually at, not where it potentially where the people of Europe potentially could go to if they created mass social movements which unified the interest, for example, of the French workers with the British workers with the German workers, which was the historical foundation for the development of socialist parties in the run up to the First World War and up until really the 1950s. That was how people conceptualized these ideas of pan Europeanism. There was even a slogan by Lenin in the 90s before the Russian Revolution, which was the socialist United States of Europe. Well, not many people believe in that at the moment. It may, however, be endemic to the situation. So I disagree about Macron. I don't believe he's a closet socialist of any type. He's more like Tony Blair type figure, which of course, some people would call a socialist Tony Blair would call himself a socialist. But I don't think within the standard definitions of socialism that counts. But in any case, he had Macron has like visions, grand visions about how he would like big capital to unify together and to create an ideal situation where the market is integrated together, where the laws become relatively common, where the potential for the development of capitalism is there. But I just think that actually the reality of what's happening in France and most other countries is an internal crisis within the system about who controls what is done with investment, what is done with resources. Is it private capital, which has been pretty much since 2008 on a capital strike because profit rates aren't high enough? Or is it the interests of the people manifested through social regulations, rules and state intervention, public sector intervention to defend and advance their rights? And that's what we've got today in the general strike in France is a clash between public sector workers in particular and the agenda of Macron in cutting their pensions, which is in the interest of capital, you see. So I think Macron has got a very confused agenda and it would take quite a breakthrough, which I admit if Labour gets elected would be such an event to shift the balance of power inside the workers' parties. By that, I mean the social democratic parties. But there is, for example, indications that that type of process could happen. The SPD in Germany or the SPD in Germany have just elected two new leaders and this represents a shift away from grand coalitions with the CDU and ultimately would represent the shift away from this idea of being bound to the interests of capital. This is the fundamentals all about this, capital and labour, who controls what and who has the power. And this is the real battleground, I think, and it's underlying everything is this capital-labor relationship. And unfortunately, in modern times, it's become, you know, considered this is an old talk, ancient talk, is not modern language, not modern conditions. But this is the reality of the world. So perhaps Macron is not a closet socialist, but I'm kind of hoping that he's at least much better than what Sarkozy was just before him, right? I mean, before François Hollande. And I think maybe the problem with François Hollande and Macron is that even though in France they are like all powerful when they're president and they have the parliament, they're like they can basically decide to do anything they want. But maybe the issue is that if she don't control if the EU doesn't progress in the right way, then even for president of France is really hard to change things. So maybe what Macron is trying to do is he's trying to get in there, you know, get kind of Merkel out of the way kind of, you know, but kind of push things in a way that might be kind of socialist kind of ways, you know, of course, he's kind of more of a Blairite, what do you call those? Centrist, centrist left wing, but it's better than it's better than Theresa May. It's better than David Cameron, no? But Tony Blair, for example. I think the essence for me, understanding the dynamics of the processes is important, because otherwise you can be thrown off course in misunderstanding the rhetoric and appearances rather than the underlying reality. So I think core to understanding what's happening is this tension I mentioned earlier between the global faction of capitalism, which pretty much represents the period pre 2008 and would like to return to that type of period. They think there was some sort of anomaly within the system, which if you regulated it better would facilitate a more smooth development of the world economy with less speculative capital involved. Then there's a faction which is leaning, like trying to consolidate its internal political position by leaning on the working classes and the dispossessed produced by globalization, if you like, and trying to appeal to them, to their national interest against this, like the bankers and all the rest of these people who are blamed as incarnations of international capitalism. And so this dynamic itself conceals behind it two factions of the ruling classes, in my opinion, and underneath them the mass of working people, which I would say goes up into doctors. And one of the interesting things in this election, actually, peculiarly in Britain is that doctors, professionals, university lecturers, the sort of category who previously perhaps would have been more middle class orientated, liberal, democratic or mildly social democratic or light Tories. Many of them have swung around towards the Labour Party, but actually sections of the working classes, the left behind working classes, the sort of Donald Trump appeal, Brexit Party appeal, working classes, they have been persuaded that Brexit is the is the dividing line between honesty and dishonesty. And and they think it's somehow regaining control over their lives by having a representative who say stuff, the European Union, you know, we'll look after ourselves, our country is good on its own, sort of nostalgia for for for the 1960s or 70s or 50s or some imaginary era where Britain was powerful and the and people in their social strata were were were somehow elevated above the others. And is is the Brexit just a pretext to to reintroduce some kind of extreme austerity like the super capitalism or what you call it, you know, like are there like forces behind the Tory party that are looking forward to be able to, you know, implement some kind of extra, you know, let go of all these EU regulations. And then, for example, about pollution or about caring about the workers and all that stuff. Is this what's happening? Well, that's certainly a component of the process. I mean, the Conservative Party wanted to push through its this was the whole discussion. I mean, that it's been ridiculous in a way because Labour has been blamed by the Conservative Party, I mean, relatively successfully, but not truthfully for hindering Brexit. I mean, Labour had the Tories had a majority and they didn't use that majority to bring carry through Brexit because Boris Johnson and Reese Mogg and this right wing ERG group within the Conservative Party MPs, they prevented Theresa May's deal from going through. She was forced to call an elect, well, she wasn't forced, she called a general election, hoping she'd get more MPs so she could she could ignore some of the other MPs of her own party, the ERG. And then they still had a confident with with the DUP, the Irish Protestants, they still had a confidence to supply arrangement and had a majority, but they managed to lose that. By posturing as some sort of hard Brexit, he is then forced things through, because this was the image that gave, if you like, credence to the idea that Boris Johnson's a determined leader prepared to push through things to satisfy the will of the masses, even though he himself had opposed this only a couple of months before. So it's been a confidence trick that's been carried out. And yes, the right wing in the in the Conservative Party and the reason why this has happened as well is because the Conservative Party wanted to determine the agenda of Brexit entirely itself. So it was the political Brexit carried out by the Conservative Party that they wanted to push through. And this would involve inevitably getting pressure from big business to loosen up on workers rights and to reduce the amount of legislation and reduce the intervention of the state to the degree that they can. I mean, this is this is a perennial theme for the Conservative Party really since the 1970s. So as I said before, I'm not British, but I very much enjoyed the whole Brexit kind of, I call it entertainment, because I think it's, it's really amazing to watch all this stuff every single day. It's just, it's, it's pretty much even more interesting than watching all the Trump stuff. I think this this is, it's like, it's, it's crazy every single day. And now a week from now, there's the election. Somehow, I don't believe Brexit is going to happen. What do you think? What do you think? I don't think it's possible. I think we are seeing the disintegration of old political forms. And I do think Brexit is likely to happen if the Conservatives win majority. If they're deprived of majority, I think there'll be some sort of referendum. I'm not sure how that would come out. But I think there would be some sort of referendum. So I'm not, I'm really sorry, platitudes here, because these are kind of obvious scenarios. If this happens, that happens that have the central behind the whole thing. However, and I think there's a justification for you being fascinated in a way about it. And I spoke to a number of journalists last year, and they will, you know, from all over Europe, and they will say, Oh, we love Brexit, Brexit, that gives us something to write about every day. You know, but the disintegration, and that is a disintegration of the historical political agreement in society. That's essentially what's happening. And I think that's, that's something that's going to happen not only in Britain, but all over the place. I mean, in fact, you are seeing that in Spain a moment with the Catalan nationalist issue dominating, you saw it to some degree in Germany, when the consequences of the European Union's policies, if you like, and of the push from the Middle East and North Africa, poverty push, if you like that, and misery push and war push that led millions of migrants to move to Europe. You know, these dynamics are fundamental dynamics, which are driving the forces of politics. And then behind that all is that is again, this is the interest of major capitalist enterprises, which dominate the economic activity in society. And it is a general crisis, which is manifesting itself as a national crisis. But I do think this same crime, I mean, the yellow vests and the protests in France are also a manifestation of this. So we have some quite universal processes with some peculiar appearances in Britain. But you know, because it looks quirky, you know, the British are doing the ace and the British have always been a bit hostile to the European Union. It can be a kind of entertainment thing as well. But at the same time, I think this very similar processes are driving the dynamics in all the European countries. So as you were saying before, you don't think it would it would hurt the UK too much if Brexit happens? But somehow there's an estimate said to be about about a 9% hit to the economy over 10 years, which is not massive. It would be big. If there's simultaneously a global economic crisis, then it will be bigger in Britain than it would be in most other countries. But but it's not that massive an impact, even that's a no doubt no huge scenario. Yeah, but when you say 9% over 10 years, but what about those 35% over the last three years, just on the devaluation of the British currency, I think that that that hurts everybody who has money in the bank account that every house in the UK is 35% poor is worth less. So it's it kind of amounts to thousands of billions of pounds. But what I'm what I'm expecting, if the Conservatives go through and if they do the Brexit is that you've seen these, for example, Japanese manufacturers, car companies, all threatening the account of leaving already, no matter what happens, you know, and I'm just thinking it might be a cascade of, you know, like what people are calling, what's called the end of the world sayers, what do you call those those people that says that say that what do you call it? Millenarians, doomsday, doomsday sayers, right, the doomsday scenario. But I think it kind of has already happened. And for example, my videos are a lot to do with the British technological arm. So this is the arm CPU processor, which was based in the UK. And the week after the Brexit vote, they got sold to Japanese owners for 32 billion pounds, 32 billion dollars. That was the biggest tech company in the UK. The week after the vote, they just sold off, they became Japanese. I think that there's going to be an avalanche of this happening. So I think the only way if Brexit goes through is going to be hurting the UK a lot. And he was going to make sure they hurt the UK as much as possible. So two or three years later, they'd want to desperately want to join back. Well, one thing about this election has been and the last few years has been this emphasis that Brexit is the biggest decision that people make in their whole lives. I really don't think that's accurate. I mean, if you look at the Labour manifesto, it is the most radical manifesto since the Second World War. If you weigh up, you actually look at what's been proposed in the Labour manifesto and what's been proposed in relation to Brexit one way or another, whether Johnson's deal, May's deal, whether a Labour deal, whose outlines we can try and work out, you know, roughly a customs union and protection of workers' rights, not much difference in relation to the European Union. That's basically what Labour is proposing. But if you weigh them up, you know, the Labour manifesto is a much more radical change than anything being proposed by Brexit in and of itself. So I think the public have been misled, not to negate what you've said about the potential for economic impacts, but the programme put forward by the Labour Party is far more radical in its impact on British society than any type of Brexit would be. And so I think people have been misled and it's been an intentional misleading to make the national question the primary question, maybe because people feel that type of, you know, this delusion about the national question being the central question in their lives. And it's typical, you know, that Dr. Johnson used to say a famous sort of raconteur in England, in British history, he used to say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. And I think that's where we've gone in a lot of places around the world that patriotism has been used or nationalism has been used as an alternative to rational discourse and as an alternative to actually investigating how society is structured, you know, you blame the other. So how about, how about we be a little bit optimistic and because there's all these polls and stuff happening, they're showing on Sky News. I love watching Sky News. I mean, it's just, it's just so awesome with all these like serious people attacking Corbyn and stuff. But also, I mean, they kind of supposedly fair, right? They're showing both sides supposedly and stuff. But let's be optimistic. What if Corbyn wins majority, maybe together with the SMP and stuff like that? What is actually going to happen? You say it's huge. You say it's much bigger than Brexit. Is this more to the left than any other country in the EU? At the moment, yes. I mean, it's certainly the most left-wing political programme being put forward for decades in Europe. And it would represent, in particular, if you take the one example of the nationalisation of the backbone of the internet, the BT Open reach, which I fully agree with. I'm not so certain about the free fibre broadband just because logistically it will be logical to get money out of it and to get resources transferred towards the state from providing broadband connections or high speed connections of one form or another to the population. But okay, that's a sideline issue. It's about how power relations are organised in society and really you're shifting. For example, let me give you one example. At universities, students in the last few years have been paying large amounts of money, £9,000 a year normally to study, which is a ridiculous amount of money. I mean, if the amount of lectures they do, they'll be sitting there thinking I'm paying like £60 for this lecture, £100 for this lecture, £300 for this lecture, because the amount of time they actually spend connected to the amount of money they spend is irrational. Now, once you abolish that and you have students studying for free or effectively for free, in Britain that was abolished some time ago and then under the Conservatives raised up to £9,000. Well, that's a dramatic change in their condition. In Britain, I mean, I am engaged in fights on housing issues, almost on a daily basis now helping people out. And, you know, the attitude in British societies become so subservient and controlled by landowners and landlords that in your everyday lives, you're having tensions and clashes. And every day when you're working, you're struggling to pay the rent, particularly in the London, the Southeast, it's really absurd, you know, you're talking about £1,500 minimum to live in London in a one-bedroom flat. Well, a lot of people don't earn that. And so it's a sort of daily battle for survival that will be suddenly the feeling will be different. And the power that would then be there to be taken by the overwhelming majority of people would shift the balance of social relations. And so, for example, in the last couple of weeks, I've had people literally almost like shouting at me in the street and calling me a communist and stuff like that for no real reason. But it's a manifestation of this fear amongst the section of the landowners of the landlords, which are numerous of businesses, of small businesses and so on, who fear the consequences of electing a Labour government because it would mean that the workers suddenly have something to say and they'll have to be listened to. And that's, you know, it's a shocking change as far as class relations in a society like Britain is where more and more power has been accruing to these landlords and parasites and so on for decades. And really, it's when people say it's a return to the 1970s, they're right in that. I used to work in a bus garage once and one of the guys turned around and he said, we don't have any power nowadays, he goes. But back in the 1970s, he said, if the beans were cold in the canteen, we would bring the whole fleet back in and stop work, go on strike. And so there's a sense, if you like, which is correct, that rebalancing the relations between the working class and the upper stratum of society will really be a fundamental change in society. And and that would manifest itself in many forms. And it's huge, right? The Corbyn is talking about nationalizing the railway, right, nationalizing rail, mail, energy. That's kind of like everything in water. Well, it's not everything. They're going to create one national bank. Unfortunately, the one national bank won't have enough resources to fundamentally steer investment in the economy. But one positive thing about the broadband proposal is that John McDonald said about a year ago, he said, you know, we're not going to nationalize anything apart from rail, mail, post and energy. But but then he changed his position and he said telecommunications will the backbone to that should be nationalized. I agree with that. And I don't think you can have a rule that says you only going to nationalize five companies. It depends upon circumstances if you need to nationalize large companies in order to make into channel investment to meet the needs and the democratic will of the people, then then you should be able to do so. And I don't mean like fish and ship shops. I mean, the largest companies. These are multinational giant multinational companies that are dominating our lives in in ubiquitous forms and they need to be controlled. And this is one of the issue of our era, you know, what is done with the data from Facebook, Google, Yahoo, you know, all these entities, which, you know, they are they are lauding over the entire global economic data infrastructure of the future, which we must have public accessibility to and public control over and also private rights over. So when you make this video, you know, who does it belong to? Does it belong to you or does it belong to them? Well, if it's broadcast on on Google, I'm pretty sure that a lot of it belongs to them. I'm not exactly sure in this particular circumstance, but I'm pretty sure that is the circumstance most of the time. If you're typing something on Facebook, it belongs to Facebook, doesn't belong to you. Well, where does it end? You know, where do where do we draw a line and say we must control the technology rather than private companies which own that technology and own the biggest computers, you know, they control our lives into the ad ad infinitum into the future, which is what they're talking about. So as you were saying before, you you not quite sure about the fire fiber to every home. But for example, right now we're using a fiber is just that I don't think they should make it free because we could raise we could undercut the competitors and raise revenues for the public sector from that. Well, OK, but the way I see it, because I've done videos with some of the companies that do fiber cables, for example, or networking equipment and stuff like that, as far as I understand, of course, it costs money to dig a hole and put the cable in the ground, but just the cable itself per person, per per per home might cost just 20 or 30 pounds. Right. It's not expensive. So it's a one time cost for the cable. And of course, it might be more than two or three or four pounds per year per user to drive this network to give the service. But I mean, right now I don't know how much you're paying, but I guess many people are paying 20 or 30 pounds per month for the internet service, which is something like 50 times slower than what fiber would be, or maybe even 200 times slower than what fiber speeds would be. You know, for example, last week I filmed nearly a terabyte of video. So I have a lot of what's called bandwidth demands in the way I publish my videos because I film everything in 4K 60. And right now we're streaming on this StreamYard, which is really amazing, kind of a Google Hangouts on their kind of websites that has a bunch of cool functions. But we only streaming in 720p. But imagine if we had fiber, this this could be like people could have meetings with their doctors or with their teachers and on their 4K TV. Nearly everybody in the UK has a 4K TV and it could be a full 4K live stream. It could be like being in the same room as a doctor or being in the same room. I think this is a huge... I mean, I'm not British. I'm not living in the UK. I kind of don't want the UK to have this because if the UK gets this, then all the tech companies will be prioritizing all their, you know, investments in the UK. But on the other hand, if you get it, then I think there's a better chance all the other countries in the EU would have to follow suit and also provide fiber, gigabit, multi-gigabit fiber, upload and download to every single home for free. I think that this is... I think it's a no-brainer. I think it's it really needs to be there like electricity or something and it should just be, well, you know, paid through taxes. So it's not exactly free as taxes, but it's not a lot. No, the question is, how do you get there? So as far as I'm concerned, the first point should be the universal provision of free Wi-Fi access. So in other words, everywhere where you go in the major cities, which is the easiest to do, you know, you could introduce free internet almost immediately through Wi-Fi networks. Then you can concentrate on the whole physical infrastructure creation where there are weaknesses and interlink them. And then even then, you know, you can provide fiber connection to one location by digging up a road and putting it to someone and pin it to a to a Wi-Fi connection and allow the sharing of that material until such time as your faster mechanisms, 5G or things like that, if people are prepared to go with that. And so, you know, it's not about the technology. The technology certainly is there. It's about providing it ubiquitously as rapidly as possible to as large a number of people as possible. And one of the most simple mechanisms now would be, you know, if I click on my Wi-Fi access now, there's about 20 people on Wi-Fi where I am, which is just completely insane. And all of them are using the same infrastructure, effectively. And yet they're all paying separate bills to get this. So, you know, if you provide that for free at speeds which surpass the existing speeds, then you've laid the foundation for undermining the existing corporate structure. But the other side to it is is to provide effectively all you're doing with internet provision with the connect connectivity is laying the foundation for the potential use by, you know, for invention, for creativity. So, the essential thing is to is to fund and promote and allow creativity to flourish to the maximum. And that's to do with the arts, to do the investment in science, to do the investment in technology, to do with technology, to do with databases is where you've got a university, for example. All the databases are closed databases or most of them are closed databases. And so it's about opening up through the national education system. For example, we could open up the entire knowledge base, which is presently reserved for university students and so on to the entire world. And the same with the health service. You know, we could provide a health service system because we have one of the largest and most national health so one of the largest employees in the world and as a huge scientific and technical data foundation, if you like, has resources in manpower and knowledge that can be opened up to the entire world. Some of it could be sold as services to other countries or exchanges with other countries. So it's about thinking carefully about what we do with technology. I accept fully that ideally we'd have the maximum speed into internet connections across the entire world. But what are we going to do with it? That's the question which we need to ask ourselves. And those are the questions that we propose once if a labor government is elected next week, those are the questions going to come up and that's where we have to battle to make sure that the resources that we have and the future directions that people take using the technologies doesn't end up in these dead ends, you know, of Facebook and Google enclosing the potential public domain or the public domains that existed in their own hands. We need to, on the one side make the data of individuals private, genuinely private and second thing is to need to do is to make the knowledge base of society and the intercommunication of society public and serving the needs of the people instead of serving like private corporations. Are you still there? Or is that the show finished? I best leave this then, yeah, if you've left. Thanks very much. I'll add up with some glitch by the look of it. But anyway, thanks very much for interviewing and I'll show unless you restart this, I shall say goodbye now. So see who I was watching. Thanks very much for the interview. I don't know where he's gone. He's disappeared. So maybe you want to ask a question if you're online. Oh, you're back. You were talking about the internet and my internet provider disconnected me because he doesn't like this idea, I think, to get free fiber. But you're mentioning, for example, free Wi-Fi. There's 5G coming up and white spaces. But the only way it can be done properly is through fiber to every home because then you know that router you have at home that does a Wi-Fi hotspot. It could actually do a 5G hotspot from your home. Well, exactly. They could use white spaces. That means it would reach much further than the Wi-Fi. It would go like half a kilometer outside. So that means... But that doesn't mean you need Wi-Fi in every home. You could have Wi-Fi spots. You could have fiber in the street and Wi-Fi connected to it, which would allow everybody to access that without having to worry about every single home. I mean, it's just a term. I think, realistically, the mechanisms are the key thing. Then the thing is, if you're building new houses, you have to have pipes in the houses that allow you to run the piping. Otherwise, you've got to build the house and dig a road again and dig a hole again, you know. So it's just about logistics, you know. What's the most effective logistical mechanism for speeding up the internet for free, for everybody? Sure. But if it costs only like 30 or 50 pounds per household to get this stuff, then I think it's a no-brainer that every single house should get it. And it's kind of the only way you get workable because some ISPs are talking about 5G right now. But the way they're doing 5G is they're just updating the 4G antennas and it's barely gonna actually upgrade the network because there's not gonna be enough bandwidth. So as soon as like 10 people connect to the same antenna that, you know, if you go to a football stadium, you can't get any connection, it's not gonna get much better with 5G right now, the way it is, because you need to have much smaller hotspots, basically, and a bunch more of them. Sorry to get too much into this Wi-Fi and fiber kind of thing. No, it's absolutely fine. I mean, I've been working one way or another with the internet and I've discussed these issues out with the so-called cyber expert of the Labour Party. And so I'm kind of familiar with that. I've been discussing and looking into these questions myself for a long time because I considered, and I still consider the internet to be one of the technologies someone on here called Hanif Din has posted, communism doesn't work. Well, the peculiarity of our era is that many of the issues which Karl Marx raised about the technical capacity of man to provide the medium for, or the means to create abundance actually exist now. So for example, I attended a lecture, it was a sort of a tongue-in-cheek title, but not incorrect in many ways. And this Russian professor, I can't remember his name, but he was speaking at the Pushkin Institute in London a couple of years ago and he said, title of his book was Cyber-Communism. And then he turned and he says, well, Google, Facebook, you say, anybody using Facebook here, so everyone puts their hands up and he said, isn't it a bit like Karl Marx, he says, from each according to their ability to each according to their needs, well, certainly to each according to their needs is a fact in searching for information in Google, which you couldn't have done years ago, or connecting with people on the internet, which you couldn't have done years ago, but what you can now. So, and many of those things were previously very expensive, the idea of being able to do that thing if you could do it at all was extremely expensive. Now these things are ubiquitous and free, or at least largely free or almost free. And therefore, the idea that common isn't there, if that could be applicable for other things, food, clothing, shelter and so on, which I don't see there's any reason why they shouldn't be, then of course, you could lay the foundations for the type of, if you're like from each according to their ability, you give what you can, and what you're capable of giving, what your creativity and culture and ideas and sentiment and energy at that time and your interests at that time allow you to give to the world. And you receive from the bounty of the world, equivalent to what other people have put in, which inevitably is more, the collective production is more nowadays because the technologies allow us to do that. If you mentioned doctors that you're on, of course, with 5G you can carry out microsurgery at a distance, you could carry out microsurgery on someone in Papua and New Guinea if you're living in London. And so, the potential exists now technologically, and this is one of the problems of capitalism is that the potential exists now technologically to eradicate the burden of labor, as it was known over the last few hundred years or a few thousand years, and make the machinery and equipment that by which we connect to the world and by which we engage in productive activity, if you like, just instruments of our collective will and instruments of our democratic endeavors. And therefore, the idea of communism and work, I think it's a passe idea. Every social system is connected to a particular technological level and communism really emerged as a theory only with the development of modern technology. And the more modern technology advances, the more likely it is that communism would be a possibility. I mean, communism in the ideal sense, if you like. I think he's run away again. Facebook, communism, Nigel Rhodes, you say that, well, by this I mean this, is that you have access to tools and information which allow you to do things that you're not paying for. That's what I mean by that. I don't mean Zuckerberg got it right because Zuckerberg does the opposite. You see, the Zuckerberg's trick is on the one side, you have one side of communism, access to certain things and into communications. And on the other side, you have the accumulation of knowledge from those people. So your work when you're typing becomes the property of Zuckerberg. And so it's a double-edged sword here. We're not talking about actually communism from Facebook, but there is an element of that revealed by the way in which these companies operate. So that's what I meant and Nigel Rhodes to your comment there. Doesn't understand the internet bandwidth work. So do you want to clarify what you mean by that? I can't quite get what you mean by that, but if maybe I get elected this week, this guy's funnier than the Joker movie. Well, okay, so you're opposed to what I think. But I mean, I don't mind engaging me in discussion about it. I know you're only able to make a comment there, Nigel Rhodes, but if you do want to make a comment and engage, then you're welcome to do so. I don't think you can be drawn into the actual video now, but you can make your comments and I'll reply to them as respectfully as I can. Yeah, I think he's gone to the loo again. I'll make a cup of tea again. Let me look back in your comments and see if there's anything else I can comment on. I would not trust the data, the government to control my data. Well, I think that's a fair enough comment. I trust them even less than Google. Well, the fact that the matter is, however, is that Google did make a deal with the National Security Agency as did Yahoo and so on the whole prism saga, which Edward Snowden revealed, which shows that government and data are increasingly integrated together any case. And so I don't think that's really an issue. The issue is, how do you control your data? And I agree in that respect with what Tim Berners-Lee proposed. And this is actually in the labor's digital manifesto, is that your data should be your data and should belong to you. And then for example, if Facebook wanted to accumulate your knowledge, you could sell it to them, for example, you could sell some of your knowledge, you could allow them access in exchange for something. But as it is, they just receive everything from you. And so, yeah, that's how I see it. Then Robert Snowden commented on my data. So that's about the data. Tim Berners-Lee said, you should all have your individual pods and your pod should then you should be able to release what you want to release and keep what you want private. And I agree with that. So that is an attempt to answer your question about Nigel, about your, about data. And that's it, I think. I don't have any others on here that I'm, Brexit equals countryside versus urban brokers. Well, to some degree, but it's not just that. It's also some Northern cities which are quite strongly historically labor cities, but feel left behind where perhaps the indigenous locals about an influx of, or feel fear and influx of immigrants and feel that their position in society is somehow undermined. There's an element of that to the Brexit vote. Do you want to see anything else? I'll watch the rest. See how others, people's arguments have a good string more. Okay, that's it. ISP crashed again. Charbox ISP crashed. Do you want to come back or not? Unfortunately, he's crashed again. And he's trying to reconnect as we can see. So let's see what happens with that. Do you want to say what, you want to ask any further questions yourself via the text first of all? So I've got something to say rather than just going dead. Facebook feels like the Chinese state. If you say anything against it, they stick you in Facebook jail. I think what's been happening. And I notice this myself with Facebook is that whereas previously I, I see your comment there, whereas previously I had a reasonably large audience for Facebook for some of my videos and so on, because I took a position against extinction rebellion protests, it seems that the algorithms, the AI algorithms like isolate you. And I think as a general process, not just to do with me, but I think what's been happening is people are more and more isolated by Facebook, segregated from other communities, the sort of echo chamber phrase that people use. And I think Facebook has been the algorithms driving these internet social media systems are producing this. How can Corbyn win the election? Well, I've been pondering throughout the election trying to find a way of influencing things. Obviously people go out and campaign and do the traditional things. I do think there is an element of a mistake and that is thinking that social media will have a big impact and so on. I tend to think that's gonna be a lot less than people imagine. And it was interesting that Dominic Cummings a few days ago, he published an article and he's the man behind the sort of vote leave and he's been advising, he's a chief advisor to or was a chief advisor to Boris Johnson. And he was saying, well, the most important thing to do is communicate with your friends and family. Well, I think what people could do is those people who feel firmly that they want to vote Labour, they should make a little video like Facebook video or something like that. And post it, I am voting Labour because and state why. The other thing people should just make their own poster. Don't put up a Labour poster, vote Labour. Make your own poster. Even if it's handwritten and put it out there because people need that human, there's a human behind it, not just a machine. And that I think is a key element. The other thing Corbyn's gotta do is go out to the people, not be led to meetings just with Labour Party activists but out to the people, speak to the people. And unfortunately, he's been pushed around by the mass media to keep pressuring him on allegations of anti-Semitism and so on. I think he does his best when he just stands up to them and says, I don't care what you say. This is what I stand for. And that's where Corbyn's strength lies. The mass media during this election campaign, particularly the news media, the television and radio, have been catastrophic in their approach to the election. In fact, before the election, the election would be or politics was on the news, main item, second item, third item, fourth item, all the journalists were so excited, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Once the election happened, once the election was announced and they're supposed to give equal coverage to the political parties, actually politics have been pushed to third or fourth item on the news, which I find quite astounding. I'd like to see a research done to compare election coverage from of the political parties in the previous election and in this election, because I think it's been a de facto wall of silence about the election actually, in particular about what Labour stands for. And Labour would be making announcements every day and there'd be minor items in the news, if at all. And obviously, during the election, in my opinion, they should be explaining about what's happening in the campaign every single day. But instead of that, they've been talking about other issues as the main issues, which I found quite astounding. But one lives in hope. There is a possibility that tactical voting will have an influence and could deprive the Conservatives of Majority. There's also the possibility that the youth vote, which is very highly in support of Labour Party and also the new registrations. We don't know how many of them, actually real new registrations or moving registrations, but the new registrations are overwhelmingly young people and that that will also shift towards the Labour Party. So one lives in hope. As Antonio Gramsci once used to have this maxim, it was optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect. So we have to fight to try and shift the balance of power in difficult circumstances. Corbyn, to be fair, he thrives in difficult circumstances. And let's see if we can manage to shift the balance of power in Britain. I think we should leave it there as you've not been able to come back in. What do you say to our backs? How they block picks? I don't know how they block the picks, but I think they have algorithms to identify what picks they want to block. And so they can identify things. I mean, like, how likely is it Corbyn? I think a majority Labour government is unlikely now. I think it's a reasonable chance that Labour will deprive the Tories of a majority which could mean a Corbyn government. I think it's a reasonable chance. I would say, if you want me to be honest with you, I would say there's a one in three chance. I think there's a fair chance that the percentage vote would be something like 41% Tory, 37% Labour. And if that was the case, then Labour would probably be able to form a government. And the Tories would not. So that's my guess. Okay, I'll leave it now. I was asked to and thanks very much for welcoming the show. And I'm back right here. Sorry, I disconnected. I'm hoping that the sound is okay. So thanks a lot for, sorry, I disconnected. I came back. I'm back. Sorry about that. But okay, so thanks a lot. Haiko Koo, that was awesome. And thanks everybody for watching. And sorry, I don't have fiber to the home, so I can't quite work. And it was cool to do a Brexit video because I am a little bit obsessed with this Brexit stuff. I think it's really entertainment. I think the best entertainment the UK ever made was Peter Sellers, number one. Peter Sellers is amazing. And the second best probably is Brexit. I think I would put Brexit even above Monty Python. I would put Brexit probably above Benny Hill also. Benny Hill above Monty Python, and then comes Brexit. And then Peter Sellers. I mean, Brexit doesn't beat Peter Sellers. But otherwise thanks a lot for watching. And thanks Haiko Koo for this live video chat using StreamYard and me not having fiber. I don't have fiber.