Welcome to the World Economic Forum at Davos, where we are discussing the populist wave that has changed the world as we knew it. And it seems that the debate that began in 2016 is going to continue this year, because you know elections are coming up in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, and in all these countries, anti-establishment parties both on the left and right are appealing to voters fed up with traditional elites. Now let me tell you who's on our panel. Well, we have Alexander De Kruhe. He is the Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium and Minister of Development Cooperation. And Alexander, you're also an economist. So that makes you doubly qualified. Eric Cantor from the US Republican Party is a supporter of Donald Trump, even though you did refer to his vulgarity at times. But nevertheless, we will overlook that, Eric. And Eric was House majority leader in Congress until he lost his seat in 2014 and he's now Vice-Chairman of the Wall Street Investment Bank, MOLIS and Company. And from the UK, hello to you, Dominic Raab. He is a Conservative MP and former Tory Justice Minister. And you are also at the heart of the Leave campaign in that Brexit referendum. And we're also joined by the award-winning Turkish writer and political commentator, Elif Shafak, keeping me company as a fellow female too, Elif. Thank you so much for that. So that is our panel. Welcome to you all. And of course, welcome to all of you watching and listening all over the world, whether it's on radio, online or on TV. And we have an audience with us here at Davos and we'll be taking questions from them, as well as from social media. And please don't forget to send us your comments via Twitter using the hashtag BBC World Debate and on Facebook Live. So please do try and listen and give us your reaction and questions. We might be able to take them. I've got my iPad next to me here, so I should be able to listen to them. But now let's start. So we have a new president in the White House this week, the kind of anti-politician par excellence. And he has said of the kind of populist wave that we all discussed last year, we are seeing a movement that has never been seen before. Is he right, Eric Cantor? Zana, first I would say there is a movement. There are no question about it worldwide. I think in the United States it is a movement that frankly of a populist nature that we haven't seen in 70, 80 some years. And it is a movement that is a mix of sort of a discombobulated feeling among the voters. Because you know there is economic change, there's technological change, there's a lot of social change in our country. But I also think that there is this sense that the establishment, the governing class, we've all just sort of gotten it wrong. And I think that's what's pushing Donald Trump into the fore. We'll see how it goes. Alexander De Kru, do we have a movement that the world has not seen before? Well, I think we live in a world where a lot of things have changed, which we haven't seen before. We have social media who are very, very important. We see refugee flows and migration flows, which we haven't seen. And we have a technological change, which is something that has an impact on a lot of people's lives. But he's talking about the anti-establishment protests and the wave that brought in Brexit. That's just a way of calling it. And I do not think that you can say, well, the US situation is exactly the same as the Brexit situation and so on. Underlying what you have is anxiety for a world that is changing. And the whole question is, what we believe that progress is, do people actually still see it as progress? What I see is a lot of people who say, if this is progress, actually don't want it. All right. Elif Shafak, sticking to the modern era, by the way, we don't want to delve back into, you know, dark history. I mean, clearly, some people like to see Donald Trump as an isolated phenomenon and as an American movement. But I think there are amazing similarities when you look at the world on a broader scale, populist movements everywhere, and this is also true in Europe, like to define and describe themselves as outsiders, even when they are political parties, they like to attack the political party system. What we are seeing, in fact, in my opinion, globalization has brought both the best and the worst in us, simultaneously. And the people who benefited from it did not see how some other people did not benefit, but also vice versa. There is a huge gap that needs to be bridged. All right. So just sticking to this opening question, are we seeing a movement that the world has not seen before, which is what Donald Trump is saying? Well, globalization has put huge pressure on people who feel forgotten and left behind. You can look at immigration and the challenges and the pressures. You can look at capitalism and the way that's worked. But I don't think the situation in the U.S. or indeed the answers that the Brexit or the U.S. election campaign threw up all the same. And they're not the same then if you go to the French election or the German election. And certainly, you know, we felt on the Brexit campaign. That actually capitalism is here to stay. Huge benefits. But you've got to make it work for ordinary people. So for example, Donald Trump campaign pretty much, not exclusively, on a protectionist platform. Vote Leave. I was on the campaign board. We all said we want to be a global leader when it comes to free trade. When have you heard a nation stand up, rise up against establishment, but make the case for international capitalism? We'll come to all that. Sure. But actually that was rather a positive message. And I guess what I'm saying is, what happening in France, the U.S., Britain, it's easy and it's a bit lazy to call it a homogenous movement. All right. You've got to have- So he's well. Donald Trump's not right then when he says a movement the world hasn't seen before. Okay. But there is some similarity. I mean, in all of these campaigns, one way or another, you are legitimizing a certain language which leads to outbursts of racism, naming and shaming people. And that type of language, I think up to now was never been used in politics or there was a bit shame of using that type of language. Now, it seems that that language is something which is completely- Do you think a negative phenomenon- And the question is, who are you legitimizing? We are going to have some questions, I know, and social media and what the kind of, you know, political discourse on social media will come up later. But just, yeah, very quickly on- I was going to say, look, I do think there's a common theme. And the common theme is there is no confidence right now in the so-called governments, governing class, those here in Davos who are considered the elite. There's just no confidence because if you look at the institutions of democracy, it's frankly democracy is not under attack. It is liberal democracy in the classic sense of the word of limited government and, you know, free markets. That's what's under the attack. You say elites like those here at Davos, you're here at Davos. So are you a member of the elite?  Listen, if the definition is those of us who have served in elected office, those of us who are in the professional class who believe in capitalism, we are deemed to be that part of the elite. But you can speak for the disenfranchised masses. But listen, I have been a victim of some of the beginning of this movement. When I lost my primary in 2014, again, very unique circumstances in the state of Virginia. We are very different, 50 states, but what I can tell you is there was a sense, no matter what I said about the meaningfulness of what we were trying to do in the Congress, whether it was to cut the deficit, whether it was to try and do something to reform the immigration system, it was, you're the leader, you are Washington personified, you're out. And I think that is the commonality. And that's what saw you lose your seat in 2014, isn't it? That is the commonality. It obviously triggered a period of reflection for you, then, Eric Antle. Well, listen, I think that we all know that our formulas, we believe in free markets. They're not working for everybody. All right. Listen, I think it would be quite nice just for a moment to get out of Davos and let's just hear what some of the masses on the streets are saying, because in fact, we've been testing the mood in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. And this is a flavor of the kind of things that were said to us. I think that people wanted something different. And right now we had a lot of Democrats. And so when we want something different, we just choose the other side. And that just happened to, unfortunately, be where Donald Trump was. It's a disheartening situation that government seems not to have a pulse on Americans and how they feel and what's going on truly.  I think that the people are a little bit or don't trust in the government anymore. And there is a lot of anger in the society. The fact that so many people have been disenfranchised through years of not properly being listened to and kind of an elite serving mainly for themselves, I would imagine, and kind of forgetting vast swaves of the population. Immigration, unemployment, lack of opportunity, feeling of sense of wanting to, a bit of xenophobia or stuff like that. The far-right political views are gaining traction. I think there's a lot of immigration, there are a lot of ethnic minorities who are gaining prominence and with influence. I think it's just a boomerang of Western politics. When we had the crash some years ago with the banking system that we, as a nation, seem to survive things very well and pick up and continue. But I think in the long term it'll be for the benefits because ultimately we're going to be able to deal with you know nations like your China's, your India's, the trade deal with probably America now, with Trump obviously. I think he's going to put Americans back to work. Honestly, I think he has a better sense of business, a better sense of what the working class is looking for. No hope. No hope, especially for our generation. Just a lot of fear. More fear than hope. There's not a lot of direction given to us from the government about where we're going. My fear is that populism is on the rise and that it will extend. And especially since we have an election year in Germany. Is the next four years going to be like a Trump reality TV show or is it going to be you know just like the last eight years where nothing gets done? Well a range of opinions there. Let me just give you a couple more that have come through actually on tweets and Facebook questions. Mitch, it is hilarious that those representing the populist revolt against the elite are just investment bankers and turncoat elites. Sorry he said it, not me. Engelbert and Tober, the world has been dragged into a system. The same system was rejected when Obama won with change. Nicole on Facebook, we're seeing a movement but it's been happening for a few years. What an irony inviting establishment to talk about establishment versus populist endables. Can't get more ironic, can it? Oh dear, I hope that hasn't deflated all of you because we will carry on undeterred discussing what we intend to discuss. Dominic Robb, we heard people there talking about their fears of immigration and not having enough jobs. I mean you know what do you think has been driving this anti-establishment mood? Is it the politics of fear or a rebellion of the forgotten or a bit of both? Well first of all on the whole issue of immigration, of course it was a major part of the Brexit debate but actually the top reason people voted to leave the EU by 50% was to take back democratic control over their laws. All the polling bears this out and I think immigration was at something like 30% named it as a top reason. So actually one of the reasons- But to me it may has said it was very important. One of the reasons I climbed Fantasy Mountain to talk here at Davos amongst the elites is to make sure that this debate isn't insulated from its own prejudices. And you talk about project fear and negativity, actually the feeling, and I was knocking on doors during the Brexit referendum, that actually the fear and the bullying was coming from the international elites, the bankers, the IMF, who all predicted Britain would nosedive, couldn't survive on its own unless it was within the EU. And what do we know? Within six months of the Brexit vote, Britain was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I'm not saying there aren't- So far, yeah. Well, that's true. But actually the fastest-growing G7 economy, record levels of unemployment, footsie- Yeah, but we know that economics goes up and down to when people are worried about inflation in the UK. And all the polling backs this up. The vote leave was the project hope and it was saying in the EU, which rightly or wrongly was characterized as project fear. And I think that at the top of this mountain and people need to understand, that's the way the debate played out in Britain. Elif Shafak, so fear was a driver. But although Angela Merkel in Germany, the Chancellor, has said that fear cannot be the guide for political action. What do you think of what she said and also what you heard people on the streets say? Well, as a writer, I'm very interested in the way we- in the way in which we use concepts so easily, elites, experts, establishment, without necessarily putting too much thought into it. We tend to miss the fact that the people, especially populist politicians and demagogues, who are leading certain campaigns across the European continent today, are themselves also part of the elite. It's just another elite with a different ideology. I am worried that we tend to take things granted too easily, you know, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity. These are things that took decades to build and we tend to forget that at the very beginning of this journey was also shared core values. My worry is history doesn't necessarily go forward all the time. Sometimes it goes backwards, makes zigzags. Sometimes we do make the mistakes that our own ancestors made decades ago. So there is a big emphasis today on tribalism, the idea that sameness will bring safety, that we will all be safer if we are surrounded by... You don't think that's true. In fact, we've just had Ronny on Facebook says no one feels comfortable in an overcrowded room with strangers. We all know what he's talking about there. So that's the kind of sentiment you feel we are now seeing unleashed. Because I come from Turkey. I come from a country that has never appreciated its cosmopolitan heritage. And I think by losing that diversity, by never being able to develop a language of coexistence that also celebrates diversity, we lost a lot. I'm not only talking about economic loss or social, but also in our conscience, that loss is too big. And I don't want Europe to make the same mistakes. Well, she doesn't want Europe to make the first mistake. So let's go to you, Alexander Dekru, as deputy prime minister in Belgium. I think that what we see, and this is common in all those populist movements, is that they are using two tools. One of them is fear, and the other one is identity. And the combination of politics of identity and politics of fear is a very toxic combination because it always ends up with saying, the other ones are the bad ones, and we are the good ones. And this is what in any of these campaigns is coming out.  Now it might not be directly the goal, but it's happening in the US, more or less why supremacists are being legitimized. You see this in France. You see this in the Netherlands. And you have to be very careful with what you do. You talk about people. This naming and shaming of certain groups and saying, you know, those Mexicans, this is who they are. This is just labeling people in a way which I think is a very dangerous way. Let me just step in. Let me just step in and offer a little counter. You can look at him, not me, because he's the one who put the questions. I annoyed you. A counter view, because again, if you're talking about name calling, I think the most well-known name calling incident that had the most significance in the US election was Hillary Clinton calling Donald Trump supporters deplorables. It spawned the incredible sale of t-shirts saying, I am a deplorable and I love it. So let me just say this. So the name calling can go both ways. And so what... Sorry, Eric, because what Alexander said was something different, which is he said the white supremacists are finding a voice. Nobody is suggesting that Donald Trump is a racist. Absolutely not. But the fact is there were white supremacists who did applaud his victory as the far-right group in Belgium applauded Trump's victory too. And let me say this. And Donald Trump has been quick to say, as his campaign folks have said, as his administration folks have said, that they have no tolerance and will not in any way align. I don't differ with you that there was somehow an event where some of these real fringe groups had a moment to say, hey, he's our man. But let's just say what the reality is. The reality is there are people who are afraid. There are people who are very, very fearful and are looking for strong leadership. I know that across these different countries here, we have this sense within the populations that there is a need for us to have national identity again. What do we talk about when we're in Davos? We talk about internationalism. The people here agreeing with you, Eric Cantor, Jens on Facebook, it is vital to understand why populism is appealing. So, you know, there are people who do that. Yeah, just briefly, because I'd like to go to the floor. Elif wanted to speak first and then you, Dominic, sure. It's true that it was a mistake to call Donald Trump's, half of Donald Trump's supporters as such. Deplorable. Deplorable, a basket of deplorables. And it is true that not everyone who voted for Brexit or who voted for Trump, we can't call people racist or put labels on them. There are lots of anxieties. We are living in the age of angst. And the liberals, Democrats, progressives on the whole, we have not done a very good job in terms of connecting with people's emotions. I think it's perfectly okay to have anxieties about the future, the future of our children. Also, anxiety about refugees, immigrants, because everything is changing so fast. What is not okay? You think it's legitimate for people to have worries about refugees and immigrants? It's perfectly okay. We writers are anxious creatures. How can I be little anyone else's anxiety? But what is not okay?  I understand anxieties. I understand emotions. But what is not okay is to be guided by fear. What is dangerous is when politics is guided by fear. And I think nations on the whole have made the worst mistakes in their history when they were guided by fear. Dominic Raab. Well, look, if democratic politicians don't listen, if the elite doesn't listen, you get a far more extremist fringe of politics. The most interesting thing, unreported during the Brexit debate, and that was dominated by, let's face it, mainstream politicians, was that the BMP in the same year- That's the British National Party far right. The British National Party, which in my view is undoubtedly racist, was extinguished from elected office in any council, let alone national office, across the country. And so the thing I take away from that debate is if mainstream democrats aren't dealing with issues ordinary people care about, then you get the kind of far more unsavory extremist politics that we're seeing on the continent. In the Netherlands, in Germany, and in Belgium. Okay, well, we've had on social media on Facebook, April Garlaw says populism is about the concerns of ordinary people. Somehow it seems like America was founded on the idea of populism. I love populism. No more rule by the elite. Candy Bar also on Facebook, a lot of angry people brought into the anger without thinking too hard about what is likely to happen. That's why Trump was elected, despite what he said, and even if he contradicts himself all the time. We will talk about what's likely to happen. You know, the aftermath of the populist wave in the United States and elsewhere in a moment. But first of all, let's just take our first question from the audience. Jake Horowitz, founder of Mike, a news website by Millennials for Millennials. Great, well thank you. My question is, is there anything, as you look to France and Germany and elections this year, is there anything that leaders can do to actually prevent these populist movements from spreading and to regain trust? And specifically to Eric Cantor, another way of asking it is, if you were to rerun today, how would you run differently than 2014 to regain trust of the people of Virginia? And underscoring your question, saying how do you stop populism anti-establishment protests from spreading implicitly your critical of them? Is that what you're saying? Well, for the people who are on this stage who are part of the global elite, how would you regain the trust is my question. How you would regain the trust. Maybe just one first point I want to make, because what the speech is, what I hear here is saying, well, everyone who's not a populist is not listening to the public. I beg that to say that that's not true. I mean, that's definitely not true. I'm not saying that. Well, you more or less imply that. I'm saying democratic politicians that don't listen to mainstream opinion and legitimate concerns on something a sense of immigration. You ignore that, then you get the extremist fringe. Okay, I'm just to say, I don't think we're ignoring that. I think what is different obviously is when you have a complex problem is that it's too easy to just reduce it by saying, you know, easy solution, close the borders, do this, do this, and everything will be solved. That I think does not work. And one of the issues that I think politicians in general have is how do you bring a moderate message in a more radical way? It's very easy to bring a radical message in a radical way. This is very easy to do. But your message is not going through, is it? If you look at Belgium, you've got the centre right, very far right, NVA, which has got about 30%, support in the electorate. You've also got the far right, VAMS Belang Group, which has got about 12%. It's in opposition in all levels of government in Belgium. And these are all very strongly anti-immigration parties. So what Dominic Raab says is that if the mainstream parties such as you are not listening, you're going to see these parties gain traction, aren't you? Look, this is a long thing. The VAMS Belang was first time in the 90s. So let's not reduce it to what is happening here. What I am saying is that I see that it seems some politician have some problems in going and direct dialogue with the population. That would be a big mistake to leave the dialogue with the population to the populist. I mean, the dialogue with the population is for everyone. It needs to be enough openness to do it and a very direct way of doing it and finding a language which is clear enough which is not a radical language. And how do you gain trust with Jake's question? Let me go back and speak about to Jake's question. Let him soak up his applause. So first of all, I think let's set aside the example in Virginia. Very unique circumstance with you would understand as American open primaries. I won the Republicans. It was one-third of the 60-some thousand in the electorate, my primaries setting records that actually came in and sabotaged. We'll set that aside. But how do we regain trust? I can tell you, number one, the immigration issue as was the case in Brexit, very, very central to what Donald Trump's message was about. It's not about changing the message about what we stand for because I get it, it's frustrating. It's frustrating if we think we're doing the right thing. I went very, very hard on and in on trying to affect immigration reform, to do something for the so-called dreamers, the kids who were brought to America by their parents due to no fault of their own. I wanted to do something about it. But you know what happened? I got caught in the middle. I wouldn't support the president, Obama's comprehensive reform. But my side said, hey, he's for amnesty because he wants to do something for the kids. But I think what has to do on that big question of immigration we can hear from the Europeans is like Donald Trump is saying, build that wall. That is a demonstrable item that we can point to to say, you know what, the federal government, those in office are listening and by that, I think you can earn the trust again. Will it just be a symbol? Will it work? Well, no, it listened. I mean, Obama deported lots of irregular migrants and he didn't have a wall. It can work and the laws have to be enforced. Very quickly to answer the point on trust, regaining trust. Absolutely. Because actually what I want to add on there is as well, we often use, we hear the term populist being used in a pejorative way. Whereas actually, we are hearing a message now from Eric and from Dominic that listening to what people say is something which the mainstream parties ought to be aware of and really ought to be doing more of. I think we need to pay more attention to the usage of the word real people as if there are also unreal people after the UK. After the UK voted out of the year, Nigel Farage gave a talk and he said the decent people, the real people in England have, you know, voted. What about the others? So I'm very suspicious of the usage of this emphasis. But you are right. How do we change things? I think all of us as individuals have a role to play. Politics in the conventional sense is changing. It's not about left versus right anymore. There are many more factors. Also the age gap. One thing that can make us more optimistic is that the young people across the board, they do believe in multiculturalism even though it's not a fashionable word anymore. They do understand the value of diversity. So there is hope in that regard that we cannot only expect the governments to lead this. Let's go to another question from the floor. Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, fire away. Thank you. My concern is not with the issues. Clearly there are genuine concerns about job loss, wage stagnation, the cultural change of immigration. Those are real concerns. My concern though is with the ugliness of the populist response. The campaigns led around racism, xenophobia, misogyny. And I worry about how what a poor job politicians have done in standing up to that. They either put their heads in the sand, hoping the winds of change will blow over. Some of them change the subject, talk about Hillary Clinton's deplorable comment. Some of them actually try to preempt the populists with things like Birka bans that end up actually just reinforcing their message of intolerance. Why are we seeing such a poor defense of liberal democracy? Dominic Robb, I'm going to put that to you. Your father was an immigrant into the UK from Czech, what was then Czechoslovakia. And we have seen post-Brexit, the Polish ambassador in the UK, complain to the British authorities saying that they have seen a huge rise in xenophobic attacks against Poles, for instance, because there are about 800,000 of them living in the UK. How would you address Ken Roth's point? Well, first of all, I absolutely zero tolerance of any hate crime. One of the reasons hate crime has been steadily rising well before the Brexit though is because the means of reporting and doing something about it got a bit better. But let me be absolutely clear. Look, you'd say mainstream politicians haven't stood up to it. Judge me by my actions. When Nigel Farage produced an unsavory poster, I made it very clear I didn't want to have anything to do it with it. So did Boris Johnson, so did Michael Gove. Marine Le Pen wanted to come and support Brexit. I put out with Gisela Stewart, the Labour MP, a very clear message saying, do not come. We do not share your values. Our message on Brexit was we want to be a self-governing democracy. We want to be the best of European friends. And at the same time, we want to broaden our horizons. But how do you deal with that fringe of people? Can I just say that? Yes, carry on. But the point about the EU is it's rather a Eurocentric club, right? And one of the points we made, for example, about immigration, my wife's Brazilian, is that the rules on EU immigration, a discriminatory compared to the rules on non-EU immigration. Now, look, it's not my fault if the media don't pick this up at every point because of course they go for the most racy element in the campaign. But whenever I was asked about these things, I was absolutely crystal clear. And so were the leaders of the Brexit campaign. And we wouldn't have been on the board. There's a big fight. But how do you feel? Who controlled the Brexit campaign? We wouldn't have been on it if Nigel Farage had been on it. But look, it was a referendum. Nigel Farage was then leader of the UK Independence Party. But look, this was a debate for the whole country.  What you've got to try and do is be very clear. For my part, I'm confident I was. But how do you feel about occupying that same space of the people who backed that poster you're referring to, which said 70 million Turks coming into the EU? And Boris Johnson, of course, part Turkish ancestry. We talked about your links with the Czech Republic. How did that make you feel when you were in the same camp arguing for Brexit? My point was, at least officially, that we weren't and we made it very clear. But look, I can't censor Nigel Farage or UKIP. All I can do is say, look, I want Britain to be an open, outward-looking country. I want us to be welcoming of genuine refugees, but I do understand the legitimate concerns that mainstream opinion, not the fringes have in the Britain about the volume of immigration, the pressure it has on wages, the impact it has on local communities, the strain on local services. And my point comes back to it time and time again. If mainstream democratic politicians aren't willing, not just to be brave in the sense that you suggested, check the reports, the footage. You'll see what I'm saying is true. But also to grasp the legitimate concerns that people have. If we don't do that, we fuel the extremists. Ken, briefly, vital reply there. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. But if you just look around the world, I mean, frankly, what Eric Cantor is doing, changing the subject to talk about Hillary Clinton's deplorable comment, rather than criticising the not-so-subtle, let me finish, the not-so-subtle racism, misogyny and xenophobia, that was the Trump campaign. And then we see the same thing with Marine Le Pen in France, with Herd Bilders in the Netherlands, with Viktor Orban in Hungary, with Yaroslav Kaczynski in Poland. This is very much of a global problem. If I could respond, I for one, as well as most of the Republican leaders in Washington, who are now in office, spoke out against Donald Trump when he came out and said, and he was going to ban Muslims from coming in our country. I said, that's not American. That's against our Constitution. I was the first to stand up and say this kind of language when you're talking about a judge, a federal judge, being able to offer a fair opinion in the case that Donald Trump was a plaintiff, that it was Trump reading his own book, that that is, and our speaker, the House, Paul Ryan, said that is the classic definition of racism. It is not that we are not standing up. I happen to be a Jew. I will stand up anytime that somebody even tries to go and say anything anti-Semitic. So there is no question that the leaders in the party, as Dominic says, want to stand up and say, we need to be for liberal values in terms of democracy, in the classic sense liberal, to say we believe in individual rights, we believe in, as Americans, in our Constitution. Okay, Alexander Decree. Sorry, just kind of guess it briefly. Eric, just one point. Ken, it is a form of prejudice to start dumping us all in the same category as Victor Orban. And you need to understand that you're being consumed by some of the prejudices we see around Davos in the same way that you're accusing, for example, Brexit or everyone who backed Donald Trump as being in that basket. I think you need to open your eyes to that. I'm not the same as Victor Orban. My point is that you're not responding to the Victor Orban's in your country. And every country has these populace. I don't think you can equate Victor Orban with some of the far right movements we see. This is your own prejudice. You need to get over Ken. Yeah, Victor Orban Democrat, yeah. Just maybe on the question is, what's the value from populists denying something? Because there's been so much flip-flopping. I mean, if you look at the speeches that Trump is giving going this direction, going this direction, it doesn't matter. It's flip-flopping all the time. So if at some point the Trump campaign is denying racism, does it actually have any value? I don't think it has a value because what is being said has been corrected so many times. It doesn't matter. And that's the real problem. So you don't think having this populist politician with his rhetoric and so on in the White House is going to really change the world because he's already talked about some of the things he wants to do on an economic level. You know, obviously America first and making sure that, you know, you can bring manufacturing jobs to the United States and not have goods manufactured in Mexico, China or whatever.  Well, obviously things have changed. I mean, if you are here, you hear China who is actually pushing sustainable energy and campaigning pro-trade and you have the U.S. saying the opposite. So has the world changed? Yes. So what you mean China? Obviously the world has changed. China is going to be the new leader of the liberal... We will have to see what happens, but at least the speech has completely flipped around. So that President Xi's speech, when he said globalization is very important and it's good for people and you shouldn't shut it out and trade it in? Listen, I think I remember the most... Remember that line that Peter Thiel delivered. He's a well-known Silicon Valley entrepreneur. When he delivered in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention and what he said was, you know, the problem is the press is taking Donald Trump literally, whereas his voters and most of the people take him seriously. I think that goes speaks to the Deputy Prime Minister. You know, his... Okay, so to be taken seriously, you should not listen to literally what he said. I get it. That's kind of strange. I get it. I get it. I have to change my style. I get it. Listen, it was a frustrating... It has been a very frustrating time for all of us and anybody who has served in office in the past up until now. Because how do you go and respond to something like that? All we can do is speak out if there's injustice. And so, but the bottom line is Donald Trump was so... He was so out there in terms of his expression, that's what attracted the sort of people who'd never been involved in politics and said, you know what he speaks for me. What does it... Yeah, we've got that, but... Sorry, at least if you want to come in and then I'll come back to you with a point. I can't, Eric. Well, I think that xenophobic language that we have heard over and over again was not a side issue. It was very much at the core of this campaign. Because populist movements, and I agree, there are lots of differences, assuming from one country to another, but there are lots of similarities as well. And we need to pay attention to those similarities. Very much at the core of all populist movements lies this distinction between us versus them. Is that the case? You've got populism on the left and the right. Yes. I mean, Podemos in Spain, Suriza in Greece. I'm going to come to my next... They listen to people. We do make this distinction, or we hear it a lot between, let's say, the corrupt elites and the real people. One implication of this is, and I understand there's a reason behind it, because we have had the Arab Spring, which unfortunately foreign experts did not see coming. We have had the financial crisis, which again, financial experts did not see coming. And then Brexit. So many intellectual people, intelligent people said, no way, it will never happen. And then with Trump's triumph, again, so many people said it won't happen. So the feeling on the part of many people is, well, these experts really don't know anything, and populist movements have been triggering this. What you need is only rely on your gut feeling. My worries, and I am critical of the experts and their own little bubbles and echo chambers as well, I don't honestly believe we need to specialize in it. Okay, let me... Sorry, just to add, interdisciplinary work. But the problem is we are moving towards a direction in which knowledge itself is being underestimated. Anti-knowledge movement. This is very, very dangerous. I agree. So, yeah, I mean, yeah, you're referring... You're referring to something which has been said before about evidence-based policies and thoughts that are more important. What we're getting on Facebook is Hilda. We're legitimizing offensive language for our future generations. Vishna on Twitter is reason of fear of European countries that control over globalization has changed from their hands to Asian countries, echoing your point, Alexander DeKrew, that President Xi made quite an impact at Davos when he talked about globalization. We shouldn't try to turn back the forces of that. Why can't elites accept the results when they lost in elections or referendums? Is Paris born on Facebook? And both in the US and in the EU, people want rules on immigration. So quite a lot of a reaction there from them. But just to go beyond what animated the anti-establishment protest, because we have discussed that before, but what does it actually mean in practice, Eric Cantor? Are we going to see policies put into place which are going to suggest that the United States under Donald Trump is going to be radically different foreign policy? We know he's signaled a closer relation, we think, so far with Russia. He's called the agreement with Iran the dumbest deal he's ever seen. So, you know, people are thinking that things are really going to change. Again, trying to disregard some of that hyperbolic language, because I know how frustrating, believe me, frustrated with that, but number one, all of us here, again, we believe in free markets and individual rights. I am and do believe that we are global, we are interconnected, and we need each other. But we need to listen to the voters after they've spoken. So number one, Donald Trump says, we need to make America great again. That means economy. We have been suffering in America under the policies over the last eight years under President Obama that is, frankly, almost produced and neeming, if any, growth at all. And so, number one, we have got to, absolutely, you look at it, you listen. We're not going back to look at, yeah, let's look forward, not look back. Our economy, our economy is so big that when you lose 1.2% growth rate, that's a lot of money, that's a lot of jobs. So if we can return back to 3% growth, that means a lot of jobs for a lot of people and more wealth to go around. So more protectionism we're going to get. No, no, no, I'm talking about in our domestic policy and tax reform, I'm talking about the healthcare reform that's such a big part of our economy. Secondly, though, secondly, there is a real fear in our country legitimately so about security. The terrorism that has infected all of us. People are afraid when they turn on the TV and they see that. We've got to have leaders who will demonstrate they will call out the enemy when the enemy is known. We understand all that, but what is it going to mean in practice? Because we know that he's talked about imposing heavy duties on imports coming in from China. Could that lead to a trade war with China? No, we don't want a trade war. Yeah, but we're just asking. We talked about populism, this populist wave and so on, but what does it actually mean in practice? What impact is it going to have on the ground? In practice, policy-wise, a lot of support for economic reform. Number two, a lot of support to say, America needs to step up and re-engage. A lot of us have felt that America has not been in a leadership position. It should be over the last eight years. You look at the Red Line incident. You look at the agreement with Iran. These are all things that are wildly rejected by the American people. Overwhelmingly, the polls have indicated the majority say the Iran agreement is, and that's why Donald Trump says that, because he's gotten overwhelming majority. Well, you say that, but there was an election in the United States. Of course, Donald Trump won it because of the Electoral College, but you mustn't forget that 2.8 million voters... Zana, Zana, if you take out New York City and LA County, Donald Trump got a majority of the polls. The fact is that 2.8 million more... Hillary Clinton got 2.8 million more voters than Barack Obama, than Donald Trump did. Okay, very quick. So I'm going to go back to the floor. At Dominic Raab, we talk about populism. What changes in terms of policies are we going to see on the ground? Well, one thing you can't do is stand in front of the forces of globalization and capitalism and just deny it's happening.  But what you've got to try and do is make it work for if you don't like the term ordinary people, then I think specifically lower middle income households who felt the pressure. I can talk to my experience, a conservative government with austerity. We saw 3 million new jobs created, and which was odd, we took 4 million of the lowest paid out of income tax. Inequality during the austerity period in the UK, compared to 2010 when we came in, actually dropped. So talk is cheap for most people when you knock on doors. But what you've got to come up with is tangible answers and make capitalism work for what I regard as the economic little guy. And post-Brexit, do you think that's going to happen? Well, look at what Theresa May has said in the, frankly, far more optimistic and fulsome explanation of what her vision of Britain's post-Brexit future is. It's we want to be master of our own destiny in terms of democratic control. Yes, we want to be good friends with our European allies like Alexander and the rest of Europe, but we also want to have a global horizon and make free trade work. Remember about free trade. It's not just good for Britain and Europe. It's good for the whole global economy. And, of course, the very poorest in the African countries, particularly in sub-Saharan places, which have felt the real plight, the blight of protectionism. So let's make globalism work for not just the Davos crowd, but low and middle-income families and the very poorest in sub-Saharan Africa. Just, Alexander DeCruis, sticking with this thought of what change there will be as a result of the populist wave or the tide that brought in Brexit, it may not be very good for Europe because here you've got this key economy in the European Union. Britain is going to be leaving and it's going to have quite a lot of destabilizing effects. I think that's hard to project what the impact will be. I think what is important is to respect democracy. There's been elections. People have anxiety. I think any politician senses that anxiety. We should stop in saying, you know, populists have seen it. The other ones have not seen it. Everyone sees it. I think the answer to that anxiety is a different answer. And there we have a different opinion and that's fair. I mean, the Brexit team won it. Good for you, that's fair. We have a different solution. We'll see who's right in the end. But the answer is not so easy. I agree with you. Globalization and trade should be something good for the people. And let's be fair, some of the trade flows today are actually not good for the people because we're not fighting with the same weapons. I'm happy to hear the President of China saying I believe in trade, but let's be fair. Some of the trade we have with China is not trade based on a fair playing field because there's dumping and so on. Now, you could say, we're going to solve this and it's going to be great. That's a very simple way of putting it.  So I don't think the analysis is that different. I think the quality and the fineness of the answer is different, but we'll see who's right. We need to go to the floor again. Alberto Alimano, founder of the Good Lobby, which works to get people's voices heard. Your point, please. Thank you. Thank you, Zina. Well, I would like to ask the panelists to forget about the present and to think about the future. Populists are coming to government. This is something quite new. What is going to happen to society? What kind of society populists are going to be able to deliver? What kind of cost this choice might be made? Are we embracing a more divisive society? Are we legitimizing? So if I can push a bit further the Alexander's point and also Elif on this, what kind of society are we going to be seeing in five years' time? Yes, Elif. The word destiny has been used and I think our destinies are interconnected. Whether we like it or not, we are far too globalized to try to disconnect ourselves from the other and to think that by erecting walls or closing our doors, we can be away and aloof from the problems. In a world that has witnessed 9-11 transnational terrorism, refugees, we're all in this boat together.  I totally understand that. But in addition to that, let us not forget, we are world citizens. We are globalists. What will happen if populists stay in power? And I think that is a crucial question because history shows us that when they came to power, they benefited always, enormously, from the state apparatus, from owning the state apparatus. So in other words, they ended up becoming even more powerful. That's why we need to take this very seriously. My worry is populists in one country are breeding more populists elsewhere. Extremists are creating more extremists in another place. We did not talk about the Middle East yet. And it's a huge percent to me. I don't think we can go there yet. But so many people are losing. Their faith in democracy, it's going to be a big challenge because they're saying democracy is not suitable for us. How do we renew people's faith in democracy? The question was, the question was, Alexander De Kruu, looking forward, you know, what its populism going to mean is it going to lead to divided societies? We say, you know, we've got key elections, the Netherlands, Gert Wilders, very anti-immigration, anti-Islam, riding very high in the polls, the alternative for Deutschland, in Germany also, we've got key elections coming up and they are doing very well. Also, we've seen how they've performed extremely well in regional elections so far. So there is a concern, isn't there, from people like you, about what might happen in Europe? Look, I'm very sorry about that. I have no crystal ball. I don't know what is going to happen. But still, there's a few elements. I mean, these campaigns are always built on divisive campaigns. Your campaigns about we good, others are bad. That has an influence. If you see the way the build-up towards the instauration of the new president of the United States, this really is a very divisive view and the approval ratings of Trump have actually been very low. It hasn't even started and the approval ratings are already at the bottom. But that element of divisiveness is, it's a political strategy. I don't agree with it, but everyone's is free to use the strategy that he or she wants. But we have to be very clear on certain rules, non-discrimination, equality of chances. Do we still believe in certain norms that it's not where you come from that is determining, but it's your future that is determining? These are things that we have to be very clear on. And it doesn't matter who's in government. If they're, we see policies that are going in the wrong direction. I think we have to be very clear on that. We've got another question from the floor. Mah Salih, he lives in France and works in communication. Your question, please. First, thank you for this valuable discussion. My question is, can we consider the new increasing wave of populism, which we have been witnessing in the social media as a way of protesting? And how has social media been contributing to the growth of populism? Why don't I come to you, because President Obama and his final speech as president talked about the corrosive influence of social media where we are seeing political tribes. And he's very concerned about that. I think one of the big concerns I have is fake news. And honestly, a lot of this sort of populist wave has been built on some wrong assumptions. And there is really a lot of inability to sort of filter for so many people on them tens of millions of people on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, and other things around the world. So we've got to get used to it. It's a new medium. It's nothing but a medium, but it's about communities being brought together. But how do we ensure that the facts are out there? And this is the problem. I mean, I think all of us have been taken aback by this wave that has hit. And I think Dominic says, look, you've got to listen to the people. And I think all of us would probably share beliefs in terms of democracy and free trade. But social media is also an opportunity for us to expand the argument. And I always go back, Zana, and say this. If we are as individuals believing in an interconnected world with free trade, with democratic institutions like Freedom of the Press and Independence of the Judiciary and free market capitalism, how do we make that work? We've got to make that work not only on social media for everyone, but we take that, you know, that iconic voter in the hollers of the Appalachian Mountains in the United States who've been out of work for generations, honestly. What's the answer? You can't tell a 55-year-old person we're going to go and offer you re-skills, new skills to go into the workforce. Somehow that's not enough. Thank you. I just want to come very quickly on that social media. Good, because it lets ordinary people vent what they think or is it divisive, corrosive? I don't tweet. And my concern, having seen the Brexit campaign online and in town halls, is you have almost like 10 to 15% very vocal campaigning in full socket to the mode. On both sides. And you sit in town hall meetings as well and what I look out for in a town hall meeting is the silent majority, the 60 to 80% who frankly feel uncomfortable about that vicious nature of politics but have a view and the emails I got after the town hall events were fascinating. So let's not forget the silent majority who care about the issues just as much but aren't jumping on to Twitter to speak in the most vicious terms and it happens on both sides this debate. So I think online, you know, IT is a great emancipator. I'm all for it. But I worry sometimes that we think it represents the full debate and the majority of people in the country. Certainly my experience as an elected politician in Britain it's not true. All right, this is a kind of reaction. This is not about fake news. It's about fake arguments. I mean if you use the argument that the money that was going to the EU is going to go to the NHS and the day after you say actually no that's not true that's just a fake argument. It is nothing to do with social media. All right. So that's going very quickly. Let me tell you. Very quickly. We did this to death during the referendum campaign. Lots of people said oh, every time we talked about the budget and everyone got to know the gross and the net contribution the UK mates all the ordinary person heard is hell we put a huge amount millions in to the EU each year and we're not sure we get bang for our buck out. That strategy of calling us all lies did not work for the Remain campaign and there's a very good reason why. Give you an idea of what's been saying on Facebook. Britain is going to lose in many ways including economic did that's Margaret on Facebook. Nicola educate the populace so that they are able to think for themselves. Teach them how to think not what to think and Peter on Facebook fake news is thriving because the population have lost faith. So there's just that the some of the things have been said. Final point really and we have got very little time so all of you anti-establishment movements populism wherever you want to call it a blip or an irreversible trend. Very quickly, Elif Shavak. I think we need to understand that democracy is a fragile thing and it is not a bed of roses but it's the best regime that humanity could come up with. It is however quite fragile when it comes to populist parties that come to power using the means of democracy and once they are in power use that power in order to suppress all other voices. How do we balance that? It's going to be a challenge for all of us. Twenty seconds, Dominic Robb. Dominic Robb, sorry, very quickly. We've all got to take some leadership and some responsibility. I agree with lots of the things people on the different side of this debate have said and we've just left we've taken a decision to leave the EU. We extend the arm of friendship to our European friends like Alexander and it's going to be very interesting to see whether the response is we must punish the Brits or actually whether the positive politics that he's a spouse really comes to fruition. Irreversible trend. We will not punish the Brits just to start off. It will just make a fair deal. Nothing, nothing more than that. But I think that, I mean, this is a moment for a bit being a bit humble. I mean, as a politician, I think we should also stop to pretend that we know everything better and that we will control everything. This is a world that is difficult. There are certain things which we can do. Certain things we might not be able to do. Listen, we've got to get better in making the case for free market capitalism, for individual rights and for the institutions that have supported democracy. Thank you very much indeed. Well, that is the end of our debate. And if you thought that populism was last year's story, then make no mistake. We'll be talking about it and feeling its impact perhaps across the world, especially with a president of the United States who was signalled. He intends to shake things up.  And of course, above all, to our wonderful panel and audience here. That's all from the world debating Davos from me, Zane Abadari and the team. Goodbye.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casewrakes.com. We did it. We knocked out that pristine pack. That's the last filler that unlocks the number block that unlocks the pick your team. A lot of great stuff. Excellent late night rally. I appreciate it. I love these late night rallies that we've been having recently. Big thanks to CJ. Got a big chunk of spots at the end. Thanks to Sean, Matthew, Oliver, Logan, everybody, Travis, Barry, Brian, Anthony. Thanks for making this happen. We pulled seven spots out of here to give away. So we're only selling 23 spots outright. Top seven, you get extra spots. That's pretty nice. Be nice to stumble to a buy one, get one. Top seven after eight, six into two. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eighth and final time after eight. Top seven, CJ, Barry, Oliver, CJ, CJ, Matthew, and Travis. Congrats to the top seven. Got extra spots right here. So you ran into a little buy one, get one scenario, which is always nice. Put those little rooftop symbols, reverse V symbols. A carrot, I think is what they call it. So now we'll do the break. Let's roll it and randomize it. Six into three, nine times for names and teams. And we'll put that in the first tab right here. And then the third and final dice roll we'll leave for the giveaway spots. All right, nine times, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ninth and final time. Six into three, nine times. Nine times for the teams, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ninth and final time. After nine, we've got the nationals down to the Cleveland Guardians. Cleveland, this is for you. There's the first half of the list right here. Second half of the list right over here. It's getting late, getting a little punchy here. Now, let's just alphabetize by team like I just did, print and rip. Thanks, everyone. The break itself will be in a separate video. So if you're looking for that, check out the next video right here. Here's the pristine pack they're going to do. Mike Zuninho and we've got a Luis Gonzalez. Diamondbacks edition to 99. That'll be for Sean Healey. And it's Ernie Banks. Let's play two for the Cubs. Not numbered, but a cool looking card. And that'll be for CJ. All right, now the whole point of this is who's going to win those, the last six random number block spots. So let's grab your names for the third and final time. Third and final dice roll. Top six after seven. Four and a three, seven times. One, two, three, four, five, six, and seventh and final time. After seven, it's just the top six. So from seven on down, it'll be sad times. CJ, I know you got a lot of spots, CJ. I hope you're still up there. But if not, thank you. Thanks to you everybody who gave this a shot. Top six, happy time for you. You move on to the next round. The random number block randomized. There you go, CJ, you got you in. Matthew's in, CJ's in, CJ again. Oh, no problem for CJ and Barry on top. There you go, top six, Barry, CJ, Matthew. We'll see you in the next round. Jaspyscasewrakes.com.


Today I'm sharing all the elegant and timeless pieces I found at and of the stories, wreaths, whistles and H&M with my shop with me. So sit back, relax and let me try to take the effort out of your next shopping trip. For us to my outfit of the day I'm wearing my Massimo DT coat as it's a little bit cold on the train. I've got my jeans on, my lovely silk blouse and finished with my super comfy trainers for on and off the tube. And not forgetting my very chic looking surgical mask. I am actually exempt for medical reasons but I do try and wear it as much as possible. So first up I headed to whistles and found this really lovely very simple cotton jumper. Now tie-dye of course is one of the underdog trends that we saw for summer 2021 and I think whistles have perfectly captured that trend just given a nod to it in a really wearable fashion with this jumper. I think the aqua green tone they've used is gorgeous it's really pretty and I particularly like that oversized fit. I've been eyeing this dress since I first saw it released so I was really tough to spot it in store so I could have a try on. Now I'm not one for tight dresses at all however there are some styles that I much prefer when they fit a little bit tighter and this broderie on glaze t-dress would be one of them. So I sized down to a UK 8 and I think it being a little bit tighter across the chest and upper waist really shows off my shape a bit better and thankfully not getting too tight across my arms in the process. The cotton broderie is beautiful and adds a really pretty detail around the neckline sleeve and hem edges and of course the midi length makes me feel very much in my comfort zone. Capes are going to be one of the biggest fashion trends this autumn winter so when I spotted this green cape sleeve dress I thought it would make a great investment piece not only for the summer season but looking ahead as well. It's been made from 100% viscose and one of my favorite things aside from those cape sleeves is this structured waistband that fits like a glove. Styling wise I would probably add black accessories with this one but if you're feeling brave and you happen to have a pair of neon pink heels and matching clutch in your wardrobe I love the idea of a color clash with this. Now these dungarees are a bit of a bestseller for whistles I've noticed they've been restocked a couple of times on their website throughout the season however I would say I don't really think they're for me. I do like dungarees but I think I personally need a slightly more fitted shape whereas these are definitely on the oversized end of the scale. Next up I headed to the resection for a little try-on dangerously finding far too many pieces I would happily add into my wardrobe. Now if you're wanting to upgrade your loungewear opting for cashmere is of course an elevating option and this hooded top caught my eye because of that beautiful soft pink tone it's just that sort of shade you'd buy for a newborn baby with the softness of that wool and cashmere really shining through. By the way if you're not already subscribed it'd be really lovely if you'd like to do so and at the end of this video you can follow the link in the description box below to find my daily outfit ideas over on Instagram as well. Now if I'm going to do color I will happily do it in anything seafoam. That deliciously pale green shade that of course conjures up images of the ocean. The main feeling I get with a dress like this is just how timeless it is. Something that Reese in particular do so incredibly well with all of their dresses. I just think it's a lovely take on the sorbet trend this season that'll be perfect for summer parties. Another specialty of Reese would be their trousers. Whenever I'm looking for something a little more tailored and polished Reese would always be high up on my hit list to have a look. This pair have been made from a blend of linen and sustainable lyre cell. You've got that lovely pleat detailing down the front pockets and a hook and zip fastening at the waistband. I'd like these as an everyday type of trouser that I'd probably dress down with flats or trainers but they're absolutely polished enough to dress up for the office as well. Have I told you lately that I love a could blazer? Well just in case you missed it it's probably my number one piece I would always have in my capsule wardrobe and this little beauty has been made from a linen blend with contrasting lapel and a tailored fit. You could of course size up if you want in something a little more boyfriend shape but I'm actually quite liking the structure of this one. I was actually keen to try on Reese's camel blazer but I got a bit sidetracked when I spotted this neutral one. Unlike the twill camel version this one has been made from an interesting mix of wool, linen and viscose. I must admit it didn't feel like wool at all. It felt very fresh summer just perhaps more heavy weight that it would cross over well for autumn too which is always a good idea. It's a tough one actually choosing a favorite between the two blazers but I would say this version would probably be the most versatile as I can imagine mixing and matching it into outfits in all the seasons really. Then I hopped on the tube and headed to and other stories and very quickly came across this very cute little cardigan. It's actually quite deceiving in this footage because this is cream rather than the soft pink that it looks on camera. I mean two minds on this one I love that sweetheart neckline I think that's really different and those puff sleeves. However I think it needs to be tighter across the chest to really get the benefit of that shape and then if you went smaller it would become even more of a crop top. So for that reason I would say it's not for me however I think it's a really cute piece that would look lovely on somebody else who's more comfortable with their own tummy. But this next cardigan was definitely much more my cup of tea in terms of its length. In fact I didn't buy it on this shopping trip but since linking everything for this video I've noticed it's come down to 21 pounds in the sale so 62% off so I'm going to purchase that now.  They're made from organic cotton and retail at 65 pounds. My favourite pair of jeans and other stories is ironically called the favorite cut. I find them much more flattering these are probably a little bit too high-waisted for me, a little bit too much of a wide leg. And other stories do do very pretty dresses it has to be said I've bought quite a few from them over the years and I found this one in store although annoyingly I can't seem to find it online after the event. However I did find a couple of really similar linen midi wrap dresses online at the moment so I shall link those in the description box below. I do try and keep an eye on their website regularly because they always have a dress or two that I want to add to basket. Talking of which here is another midi dress this time more of a traditional wrap shape obviously the tie belt on the side of the hip. I don't know if you remember recently I bought that lovely midi dress in the blue ditzy floral fabric which I've worn so many times since I got it. This dress really reminds me of that and it's actually available in a blue shade as well so personal choice really whether you fancy a big bright pop of colour for summer or maybe something a bit more on the pastel end of the scale. I love this next dress which is a printed puff sleeve linen midi made in that very soft very feminine pink floral fabric. Now again like I mentioned before this would be the sort of style I would size down in because of that smocking across the chest you want it to fit quite nice and tight so I sized down in this one and I think it works nicely in terms of the fit. More puff sleeves can you see there's a bit of a running theme going on in today's shopping trip at this time with a little blouse I found. This one's actually just gone into the sale so it's down from £45 to £28 if you do like it as well. Been made from organic cotton I really like the pretty detail on it and obviously you could wear that off the shoulder as much as wearing it on. It's been a while since I popped into store at H&M but I'm really loving their collection this spring summer so it was nice to be able to get into the actual shop and try on some pieces. I've mentioned this blazer a couple of times in my videos so it was nice to see it in real life, feel the quality and obviously try it on. I think it's just a really affordable option for a classic summer staple. Then I found what I think is a really really lovely oversized trench coat made from an interesting mix of hemp and cotton. I'm kind of kicking myself actually because I didn't buy it and thought well think about it buy online later and now there is only the medium and the large left so if that is your size and you like it too I would jump on that straight away. I'm on the hunt for a navy blazer for my capsule wardrobe as I don't actually have one and I seem to be preferring navy rather than black at the moment so I thought this might be a good option. Sadly I didn't originally spot there's quite a lot of polyester in this one 80% in fact and just 20% viscose so this one's probably not for me as it's not exactly sustainable however I do really like the color the fit and that oversized shape. This next dress really stood out in store it's a blend of linen and lyre sale in this very very pale yellow tone. It's a very simple dress but elegant at the same time I think the only thing missing from this one is a beautiful sunny beach. A very basic piece now in this shop with me but equally something that I probably wear an awful lot as loungewear just a great pair of cotton joggers. I went for a medium as I wanted to make sure they'd be quite long in the leg and really dislike joggers when they come up too short so in terms of fit and sizing I would say go on up. I really hope you've enjoyed this shop with me at H&M and of the store's wist and whistles and most importantly that it's given you lots of good ideas about what's on the high street at the moment. Hopefully you agree some really beautiful pieces and I would love to hear your favorites in the comments section below. I'll be back next Sunday with lots more outfit ideas and styling advice so hopefully you will join me then. Have a great week everyone.


Hva odmah, ki to je nega zvedana, umožimo, ki je je počku, da je tudi sjedno začat, način je na mpc veles. Modena se poznikaj da, da se kliče počku, začala Satošić so kot naša začala, čim sem začal nekaj Spark. Čak je laj na VF, There is not time to introduce bitcoin during this short talk.レdži just say what is the basic idea. Well, the users jointly emulate trusted bulletin boards. They call it ledger or blockchain on which they post transactions. So this bulletin boards consists list of transactions and it's right on your details in boards. Transactions cannot be erased and this is a way to prevent double spending. O clear. So what is the main difference when you look at it between the NPCs and the Bitcoin? In the NPCs, we always define a majority of parties in terms of the number of parties. In bitcoin, we have majority of computing power. So there's obviously some difference and it is there for a good reason. The problem that Satoshi faced is how to define majority in the situation that everybody can join the network? The system that works on the internet, everybody can join, the system, there is no way to verify identity. Well, if you have a situation like this.  So defining security in terms of the number of participants in the situation where everybody can join z Joelov, ki njega je. Govoril, ko je... Iroč, da je to, da bo tega, je to, da je kaj zašveloga, pa je to, da je to, da je to, da je to, da je to, da je to, da je to, da je regarde. Pozala, da je to, da je to. Zato, da je to, da je to. Kaj je to, da je to? Slah automače, ki si da se prontožibilo na Haha, začetno je nekaj komputov. zato je zelo ideja, nadal da se priča v bitkojnih. in izgleda je, kaj komputov je vršal. Se Satoshi vzveč, vzveč, ki je dobrovšal, da je inšlo, in da je pristrila in več na različne. ki je pristrila in več na različne. Kaj je pristrila? Pristrila je inšlo. Inšlo je izgleda, ki je pristrila, The solution will denote this proof of work with POW. This is solution s computed on the challenge. He outputs s, and then everybody can verify that he computed this challenge by applying some function verify. And moreover, computing this function POW should take some time. So this is how security is defined, to produce such a proof of work in tudi nekaj nekaj, ki vzajmajo vzajma bila td. Td je napravilo iz tem, da je tudi dve deltje tudi z Narodno orakol. Vzajmajo vzajmaj, da je tudi gleda še pot tega. Tudi pot se cupsite kaj je bolje doljevanje skupnika. Tako tudi obtah nr. t td. Na zdravu se vzajmaj obtah, in v bitkojnih, vzajmi deltje, je tudi bitkojna dvya tudi hr, It's an expected time t, so if you're lucky you can solve it faster. If you are unlucky maybe you need to wait to work more. What we use in our paper, we use proof of work that, we need to always work time. At least t, we construct them using merkeletrees, it's pretty straightforward, and I think standard construction, and I will not go into details of this. So for a moment, that just until the end of the stock, let us remember that proof of work for us is something that takes time t to compute always. Nel. Ha, ha, ha, ne, ne, ne. P tella. Nelne, ne, ne, ne. P tella. Nel. Nel. Nel. Nel. Nel. Nel. Nel. Nel. Kam shoj, ja. To je teda, se što se bilo. Tata, se se bilo. .... No. Jih in pih... Zelo. Tata, ne. Kaj je? ... Ne te vroža, ni taj. Jih. ... Vse so vzružene, kaj je tudi površnje. Že dobro 10 min. Povede se na zelo prejbe, kaj je vzelo v Satoshi, štega z januari 2009. Prejbe je tudi vzelo vzelo. Tudi zelo vzelo vzelo. Naredil doga vzelo vzelo. Prejbe je vzelo. Kaj je bil vzelo vzelo? Ko je, da so končno? Ako se vzelo, ki je tudi vzelo. Ovo je zelo vzelo včak problem, ki se pigača v AR in Cedarje u razčarju. Včak se izgleda, da je izgleda, da je začnila, da se prišlo v satošenju, da je nekaj tržil. In je tudi strategija, kaj in maličske minoritve, minoritve v tom zelo poživanje, nekaj da razvijaj se od nekaj propovedi protokol. To je tudi mašlj, bojo najgorske papper. Zelo, je to nekaj, da je neko pripravil za toši predpravili. Če se pripravila, da je protokol izpočin, tako da se bolj nekaj pripravila, a zato je nekaj, da je ino občin. In zelo neko se odmah da pripravilo. the second thing is the Genesis Block, the thing from which this block chain started, it had to be generated in a trusted way. So Bitcoin security relied on the ability of this block to zero before the 3rd of january 2009. Well, in some sense, now, after so much work was not on this block chain is very unlikely that actually Satoshi was secretly hvaljnega, for example, od 10 razeli s vsem vsložite basement, tako je to ne tukaj nesi v vsebej, ker pri tem, da se več stoveva če režete. Na nekaj tukaj ne se več bez zelo, da ne so našli srednih, je vsebeja, nače pri tristu na pošli, s koncu se da začal, da inšlja blok je generatrunčna in naredil je zelo tako in meneh srče, naredil je to več in tako in uprejdiv chobil,ив, da je jen stavila razložnjenje, da boš lahko zatisteno razložnelje. Jak крidala, da je je bil. Zato je najnorašne, tudi je čest, kaj ga se vse posleda.  Ta bil je, da se ne inžimo, da celo inžimo pločnega dvojba v zelo, ... but as long as he cannot make it equal to some value that he chooses. So something like this would be needed to make this, to get rid of this assumption that ... the zblock zero was generated, the zblock was generated honestly, ... where Satoshi had some heuristic solution for it. So what he did is he hashed the title of a front page of London Times from the 5th of January 2009. So this is the title that he hashed, and To je tako nekaj juristik. Ovolj nekaj idej, kaj bi ste vzivati stock market data, vzivati astronomije, vzivati NIST, Nikon, vzivati BitCoin, vzivati BlockChain, vzivati UnpredictableVicon. Vzivati taj idej, kaj bi ste vzivati, vzivati BitCoin, vzivati BlockChain, vzivati BlockChain, vzivati SignCifiki StreamMan, vzivati Al improvement of ... chocolate, ask if we can construct in this bitcoin model, ... if we can construct protocols, like distributed cryptography ... ... protocol that are provably secure, so we don't have this ... ... hand-waving arguments that Tata Ci made, and do not require ... ... any trusted set up, so without this gener value block. The motivation is, maybe we can improve the existing currencies or propose new cryptocurrencies with better properties, but they're understanding of their security. Another realistic motivation is that actually this POW-based consensus is used for other purposes now, not only financial, okay, so maybe people can use some of this technology for some other non-financial purposes. Or here's a list of some things. Okay, so what is the Bitcoin network model when you start formalizing these things? So, well, there is no authentication in secrecy, so everything happens publicly. There is no secure broadcast channel, but we guarantee that every message sent by an honest user arrives to every other user within some time delta. So it is a synchronous network in the sense that there is some time delta within which every message arrives. It sort of looks like it's needed because we will be measuring computing effort in terms of how many hashes you can compute per second, so then we need some notion of time, okay? Yeah, so every message arrives. It will be also called insecure broadcast, okay? So it's just like broadcast meaning that I send message to everyone, but of course if I'm dishonest, I can send different messages to different people. Okay, so how do we model the computing power? We use the random miracle model. We have a h is a hash function that's modelled as a random miracle and the computing power of a party p is defined and this is also a term from bitcoins called hash rate. So hash rate of a party is the number of times a party p can call h in some given time delta, okay? Okay, and then this is a notation, so we will assume that every, we have some group of participants, we will have some adversary in a moment, so we have some participants, every participant, honest participant has some hash rate denoted pi, okay? So for simplicity, let's assume that everybody who is honest is the same hash rate and the adversary has hash rate pi sub a. And additional assumptions are that, well, the parties need to know when this game starts, okay? And there is some unique session ID that they agree in advance and the hash rate of the honest parties is known to everyone and there is an upper bound on the total hash rate in the system, okay?  And this parameter is known to everyone. Okay, so what are the results? So we show that in case each honest party controls an unnegligible fraction of the hash rate, so this pi is an unnegligible fraction of L times pi, so L is non-negligible, so it can be like the adversary controls the majority of computing power, but this guy still computes some noticeable fraction. We construct a POW-based broadcast protocol and I will tell you in a moment what it is. We construct a protocol for unpredictable beacon generation and they work in time linear in L and, well, in case the adversary controls the minority of the hash rate, we construct a protocol for identifying a group of users with honest majority, a group with honest majority. Okay, so we'll have a protocol that creates a PKI, a public infrastructure, such that we will know that the majority of public is controlled by honest users and hence we can do any MPC in this case. Because then you can just use known results. Okay, so what is our main tool? Our main tool is this POW-based secure broadcast protocol and has the following properties. Okay, so it has standard properties like validity that every message always arrives to everybody, consistency that everybody gets the same message and, well, that's not standard. The last property says that the adversary can send a bounded number of messages. So what we mean by this is we assume that, well, it all happens at once, everybody is broadcasting something and the adversary cannot send more messages than his fraction of hash rate, okay? So this is pi sub a is his hash rate and pi is a hash rate of honest guys. Okay, so just look at how many times stronger he is than a typical honest guy and this is the number of messages that he can send. Which is anyway something that obviously he can always make because he can always pretend he's honest and simulate these honest guys. So if you have, this is what the adversary controls, this is what the honest guys are, then this, like if we start counting one, two, three and so on, this will be the number of messages that he can send. Okay, it's easy to see that if we have such a broadcast then we can have an unpredictable beacon by simply asking everybody to broadcast random nouns, right? And then hashing everything. So as I said, beacons should be just unpredictable. The adversary can influence it in particular, he can choose his randomness after he saw the randomness of these guys, but if you model this h as a random oracle and his influence is limited and in particular he cannot make it equal to the value that he chosen, okay? So it would be like a good genesis block, for example. It suffices, of course, for at least one of those arse was chosen random. It's also easy to show that if we have this POW based broadcast then we can create PKI. So simply everybody creates in his head public key, private key pair and broadcast the public key, okay? Then, well, everybody will receive the same because it's a broadcast protocol, so the party can be identified by its public key. So as a result, everybody will agree on a set Y of n parties that participate in the protocol and we will know that every honest party controls one public key and the number of parties that are controlled by the adversary, so the adversary knows that corresponding secret key is bounded by this number succeeding from P sub A divided by pi, pi sub A divided by pi, from the properties of the broadcast protocol. Okay, so this means that if you have this POW based broadcast then we can compute any secure functionality because we already have PKI and in case the number of these guys controlled by the adversaries is smaller than m where m is the number of honest parties, then we can compute any secure functionality with guaranteed output delivery and well, if we forget about the ceiling here, so if we assume this is a natural number, then this becomes P sub A divided by P has to be smaller than m, the number of honest parties. So if we multiply by pi both sides, we have the pi sub A, so this is the hash rate of the adversary has to be smaller than m times pi, so this is the total hash rate of the honest guys. So this is exactly the assumption that the majority of computing power is honest. So this is what I was telling before that in case we control a majority of computing power, we can compute any functionality. Okay, so basically the whole thing is like how to construct this POW based broadcast, again it was a protocol that allows everybody to send a message, but the number of messages that are sent, that are broadcast, should correspond somehow to his computing power. So if the adversary controls 10 times the computing power, the hash rate of a normal guy, then he should be able to send 10 times more messages, or 10 messages simply because we assume that everybody sends one message. Okay, so how to construct such a protocol and unfortunately there is no time to present the protocol in detail, but let me just tell you what is the main problem. So the main problem is that that we had to address is that proof of work, so supose we have a proof of work, that requires some work t in terms of the course to hash function, and consider the following protocol for sending a message, so supose there is a receiver here and he wants to receive a message with the proof so that he is not flooded by a large number of messages. So everybody with a message who wants to send a message attaches the proof of work to compute it on this message m. So that was one of the original applications of the proof of work to prevent spam. So the problem is that this protocol doesn't make much sense the way I wrote it, because even a sender with a very small hash rate can send a lot of messages to the receiver if he starts to work very early. He can compute the solutions very early. If m's are not fresh, he can start computing now in a month he will have a lot of solutions and then he can start sending. So that's not what we need, we need that this messages are fresh and of course this can be in a two-party case it can be done very easily, so just send a random challenge r when wait time delta, so this is the time, this unit of time that we defined earlier and then the proof of work has to be computed on m and r, right? So this is a very simple observation and it's a simple solution in the two-party case and it's easy to see that in this protocol the sender with hash rate t can send at most one message. The problem is how to do it in a multi-party case. So natural idea is to ask every player to send a random, to broadcast via insecure broadcast, some random nones, and then to securely broadcast a message, each party m would compute p o w on h together with r1, r2, r3, and so on. So every party pi would accept only if this p o w is correct on everything and his nones is in the set. So I'm receiving messages from all of you, all these r's, I'm concatenating it with my m, I'm computing hash on it, and I'm sending it back and each of you believes that this proof of work is fresh if his nones is there. But then for the broadcast, and then it's easy to see that it will work, but the problem is that for the broadcast, it doesn't really work because say, what if the adversary ignores r2? So if the adversary ignores the nones coming from this guy p2, then this two will accept and this one will reject because his r2 is not there. So there is a problem because we need consistency for broadcast. So at the end of our construction is not that simple, and we need it to work to, it requires several rounds, where is our solution, and there is no time to show it, I will just tell you what are our methods. So we construct a weaker primitive called ranked keys that assigns a rank to every key to describe the quality of the key from the point of view.  And then we also take into account some annoying facts that where communication takes time, so we will take it into account, and the second thing is the verification of puzzles takes time. So even very simple proof of work, where the work done by the prover is much longer than the work done by the verifier, but still the verifier does some negligible work. And this means that if you need to be careful,


Oppa, in a quick first-round victory with the black pieces, tell us how the game went. Well, I put quite a rare line in Italian and it looks like my opponent wasn't really well prepared for it and that G4 move was probably a way too risky. And after that, NB1 was obviously a big mistake because it was a way too much time and I just can do everything and get all my pieces into a spray. When he played G4, was knight into G4 the sacrifice, the first thing that came to your mind? Yes, of course. It's quite typical for this type of positions. Yeah, and often we see the same motive that white does when he takes on G5 and NB1, like you said, was really bad. Did you see a better defense for him? Yes, there was move King G2 and the idea is that after F5 there is bishop E6. I have other options like Qd7 or Qc8 just preparing F5. But it's not that clear anyway. I think white have some defensive resources. Right, and always good to start with the first-round win. How are you going to spend the rest of the day? Yes, it's great. I'll probably watch some other games and walk around. Alright, well good luck for the rest of the tournament. We'll see you soon. Thank you. Thanks.


Okay, my name is Gottson Iroh and I'm a chartered accountant, a certified fraud examiner, a certified forensic accountant and a certified information system audit and host of them. I am the managing partner Iroh Gottson and coach of other accountants where just as I said earlier, we're into a lot of professional consulting activities. I had interest in developing my financial modeling skills and prior to joining the brand consulting financial modeling academy, I had actually little experience, even though I had been doing jobs, you know, that one would say had aspects of financial modeling inside because we've been doing a feasibility studies, we've been doing advisory services to clients. But to give our services a notch higher, we decided that we need to get a handle on in terms of certification on financial modeling. And when I saw the advertoria by the brand consulting, I quickly grabbed the opportunity. And yes, my eyes have been, you know, enlightening more on financial modeling, procedure steps and expectations. And I think the firm and their clients would be better for it because of what we have learned from the financial modeling academy as organized by the brand consulting. In terms of the experience I had during the, you know, the training, yes, the brand consulting, you know, the really did a good job because the way it was structured, you know, put pressure on every participant to make sure that, you know, you follow the, you know, the lead trainer, the brand himself. And the little challenge I had was because of my task was a busy executive. It was not so easy to join, given the timing, you know, the period they were done. But then it was, you know, a good right for me. I had to squeeze out time to be able to participate and I think I'm better informed now. And I thank the brand consulting. In terms of whether my expectations were met, yes, my expectations were substantially met.  So I'm happy that I joined and I give kudos to the brand consulting that organized the financial modeling academy. That's my experience and that's my appreciation message. Thank you all. Thank the brand consulting team. You all have some in terms of what you are doing. Keep it up.


Kids, don't you know that if you already know how to count from 1 until 10, you can easily count big numbers by grouping the objects by 10. Let's try that with numbers 21 until 30. If you have a set of 10 and another set of 10, that's 20.  And 20 plus another 10 equals 30. See, all you have to do is add the extra ones. Now, can you tell me what number is this? Right, 23. 21, yes. 24, correct. 28, yes. 26, correct. 30, right. Now kids, try to count the sets with 21 to 30 objects in your book now. That's all for today. Thanks for watching.


So when I represented the artists, I was like one thing for certain, always keep your publishing. Someone representing the record companies or the production companies is like always get the publishing. Publishing has nothing to do with the sales of records. You can't even get into the game unless you give them your merchandise. You give them your tour money. All these things that have nothing to do with selling records, but I get it. It's the way business is right now because record sales aren't the driving force right now.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com coming at you with 2018 Panini Prestige Football, a little fat pack break, number 12, 2018 edition, and the whole point of this is that giveaway at the end. We're giving away five 2016 National Treasures football spots for a fraction of the price. As always, we're going to do the break itself first, make you sweat it out a little bit. Thanks everyone here for making this happen. All 32 teams are in. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it. Three and a six, nine times for names and teams. Different dice roll for the giveaway. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine times exciting basketball game here. Oh, the lights just went out. Wow. A minute 58 seconds left in the fourth quarter. This is up by a point 94, 93 in Atlanta and the lights just turned out. The advertising lights on the sides are still on. Everyone's got like their cell phones on, cell phone lights on. Like the scoreboard, like all the scoreboard lights are still on. That's crazy. So Tre Young drives, steps back, hits the three. It's crazy. All right. There's Matthew down to Jared. Nine times for the teams. This game has everything. Six, seven, eight, and nine and five times. 2018 rookies. Blanking on that. Josh Allen here? Corbett, Josh Allen. All right. There's the first half of the list here. It's the second half of the list. And let's just note trade windows in these things. Let's alphabetize. And this is the first half of the list. This is the first half of the list. Here's the first half of the list here's the second half of the list and let's just no trade windows in these things Let's alphabet ties it by team and let's just dive into it. All right, here's the final printout These are just the vet commons All right, we've got a Patrick Mahomes his second-year Patrick Mahomes going to Matthew Shearer and KC We've got a Jalen Samuels Juju Smith Schuster Powerhouse Derek Henry Joey Bosa Baker Mayfield Dalton Schultz really like these NFL passport cards Those look pretty sharp that goes to Don All right, so nothing too crazy here Let's flip back to the other screen Let's grab everybody's names from Matthew down to Matthew and everyone in between There's some new dice. There's the new list and once again top five After After three we're gonna be in that NT break Good luck one two and three So from six on down sad times But as always I appreciate everybody trying So from Daniel on down to Jared. Thank you Happy times though for the top five. They're very happy. They're in the NT break Terry Steve Chad Chad and Jose Congrats to the five of you. You are in that NT football break. I'm Joe for Jasper's case breaks calm I'll see you later for that one. Bye. Bye