things economically, there is always huge scope to cut or raise taxes, or spending, and then there is what his room for manoeuvre is within his self imposed targets. we must be clear on this. a government s finances are completely unlike a household finance. we live in a currency where the government issues currency, we cannot do that, ferns cannot do that, whereas the government issues a currency and has a lot more freedom than us. not many of us have a money printing press in our front rooms. of us have a money printing press in ourfront rooms. but of us have a money printing press in our front rooms. but the chancellor must calculate his own self imposed targets so wriggle room is against those, and those are a political judgment. they are based on what the government thinks the markets will wear. just like in the mini budget wear. just like in the mini budget we had last year, there seemed to be no constraints on what the government will blow on tax cuts, for example, so
entries suggest that sir patrick vallance had said that a number of ministers were trying to in essence use science to make decisions so they didn t have to make decisions themselves, and there isn t a great structure in that. the point of the inquiry is to learn how to make those decisions, should they need to be made again. there are questions for scientists as well. we have heard in this inquiry, back in february 20 20, six weeks before the uk finally went into lockdown, that there were those in downing street, particularly borisjohnson, who maybe were not taking covid as seriously as they might or should duff done considering what ended up happening, so there are questions to the scientists, had you understood the scientists, had you understood the virus sufficiently and should you have worn people earlier? that could have had a different outcome in terms of restrictions being made earlier and different outcomes to what happened. h0??? earlier and different outcomes to wh
carlo rovelli, welcome to hardtalk. thank you very much, stephen. i want to begin with a thought about your youth, because when you were young, you were a revolutionary. you wanted dramatic change, to destroy the status quo. i just wonder if you ve brought that spirit into your physics, into your study of the universe. yes. it was not.notjust me. it was a big chunk of my generation that had this dream of changing the world, right? and then making a world better without wars, without borders. we got disappointed. we sort of thought, well, the rest of the planet, the rest of the people doesn t really want to change the world so much. and i think it s a moment of disappointment that i found something else which was revolutionary, which was modern physics. so i shifted from political revolution to scientific revolution. and what sense can you describe physics as potentially revolutionary? because we have a worldview in which we think we know everything. right? this is up, this is
a thought about your youth, because when you were young, you were a revolutionary. you wanted dramatic change, to destroy the status quo. i just wonder if you ve brought that spirit into your physics, into your study of the universe. yes. it was not.notjust me. it was a big chunk of my generation that had this dream of changing the world, right? and then making a world better without wars, without borders. we got disappointed. we sort of thought, well, the rest of the planet, the rest of the people doesn t really want to change the world so much. and i think it s a moment of disappointment that i found something else which was revolutionary, which was modern physics. so i shifted from political revolution to scientific revolution. and what sense can you describe physics as potentially revolutionary? because we have a worldview in which we think we know everything. right? this is up, this is down, the earth is flat, nothing is moving. this is solid, continuous. and then we lea
centre of power, whereas the treasury, foreign policy and national security are overrepresented. just going back to the first sentence, you say you don t remember anyone working in the centre or who was part of those conversations who had a detailed understanding of the way the nhs operated. given all we have heard about the importance of the nhs and notjust in terms of caring for people, but the detail, whether it was going to be overwhelmed or not, thatis was going to be overwhelmed or not, that is very striking statement. yes. it was an observation at the time yes. it was an observation at the time and yes. it was an observation at the time and is yes. it was an observation at the time and is striking in retrospect as welt time and is striking in retrospect as welt i time and is striking in retrospect as well. i think it probably goes to what as well. i think it probably goes to what needs to be different in it should what needs to be different in it should no