Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

As the 2026 local and regional elections draw nearer, the spectre of Trussonomics looms large over the British political landscape. From the Conservatives to the Greens, parties are unveiling extravagant fiscal promises that they claim can be funded by cuts elsewhere or additional borrowing, while insisting the broader economy will remain unharmed. Critics warn that any adverse effects will inevitably be shifted onto people and businesses outside the parties' core constituencies, effectively socialising the risk. Only Keir Starmer and his Labour cabinet appear to resist the pressure to re‑engineer the economy without acknowledging inevitable spill‑overs or extra costs. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss famously pledged £45 bn of tax cuts, financed through extra borrowing and so‑called welfare “efficiencies”. The plan was pitched as a catalyst for an entrepreneurial surge that would lift the UK out of a prolonged period of low productivity. Heading into May’s local polls, the Conservatives are touting a new “big‑spending” agenda after recent welfare cuts, highlighted by a headline pledge to shrink the welfare bill by £23 bn. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride declared that the “culture of ‘something for nothing’ must end, now”. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has softened some of his party’s more radical proposals, yet the manifesto remains vague. Earlier drafts featured a litany of “free lunches”, signalling an ambition to raise taxes by **more than £170 bn a year** by the end of the next parliament. Key components of the Green plan include a £90 bn annual carbon tax and a matching increase in day‑to‑day public spending, alongside a proposed £90 bn boost to the capital‑spending budget (raising it from £160 bn to £250 bn per year). Reform UK has embraced Trussonomics with gusto, promising to raise the income‑tax threshold from £12,570 to £20,000 – a move that would cost the exchequer **over £40 bn each year**. Underlying many of these pledges is a belief that the UK can reverse a century of economic decline with a “magician’s wand”, ignoring potential repercussions for financial markets, trading partners, and a rapidly disintegrating global order. While the article briefly references the United States and France, the French electorate’s recent rejection of similarly flamboyant policies in local elections serves as a cautionary tale: voters in key cities like Paris and Marseille opted for centrist candidates over the radical platforms of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and Jean‑Luc Mélenchon’s LFI. The broader context is a decade marked by two major wars, a quantum technological shift, and accelerating climate change – none of which offer quick‑fix solutions. Labour’s economic strategy, championed by Rachel Reeves, hinges on an early‑parliament spending surge intended to generate growth before the next general election. However, the damage inflicted by the previous government is still being reassessed, with the public‑finance gap now appearing larger than the £22 bn initially highlighted by Reeves. Labour still holds considerable funds earmarked for investment, but bureaucratic inertia in Whitehall hampers swift action, and Starmer bears responsibility for this paralysis. Demonstrating tangible returns on public spending – with HS2 currently the sole benchmark – could justify future tax increases on higher earners, provided the money is not wasted. In an uncertain world, the article argues that rational, evidence‑based governance is preferable to “outlandish initiatives” that create a multitude of losers. Ultimately, the piece concludes that Truss’s experiment was a disaster not merely because of the misguided belief that tax cuts can drive sustainable growth in a mature economy, but because it relied on an imagined “escape hatch” to propel the UK to a higher economic plane.

The moon is becoming a focal point for a new era of space exploration and exploitation, with multiple companies and countries racing to harness its resources. Interlune, a Seattle-based company, has raised $18m to fund its efforts to mine the moon for Helium-3, a rare gas that could become vital in quantum computers and nuclear fusion.Helium-3, deposited on the moon's surface over billions of years by the solar wind, is used in medical imaging but is in extremely short supply on Earth. Rob Meyerson, founder of Interlune, believes that extracting this resource could be economically viable due to its high value.Private access to space has become more feasible through companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX, making lunar mining a possibility. Interlune plans to send a multispectral camera to the lunar south pole to assess Helium-3 concentrations and is working towards a future mission called 'Prospect Moon' to gather samples.The lunar mining initiative raises questions about environmental impact and the ethics of extracting resources from the moon. Critics argue that history has shown pioneers rushing into unknown frontiers and causing irreparable damage. There are concerns about preserving the moon's pristine environment and protecting sites of extraordinary scientific importance.Legal aspects of moon mining are also unclear, with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibiting national claims of ownership but making no reference to commercial activities. Despite these challenges, Interlune and other companies are pushing forward, with China also actively exploring the moon's resources, including Helium-3.

The UK's position in quantum computing has been hailed as a success story of long-term investment in fundamental science. However, the current approach to science funding, particularly by UK Research and Innovation, has raised concerns among experts. The abrupt discontinuation of the Quantum Technologies for Fundamental Physics initiative has resulted in the loss of dozens of early-career researchers trained in a strategically important area. Moreover, there has been no clear vision for what replaces it, nor any meaningful consultation on how such crucial cross-disciplinary programmes should be organised. A similar disconnect is emerging in artificial intelligence, where many techniques driving impact were developed and deployed in fundamental research communities, such as particle physics. Undermining this base risks cutting off the pipeline of ideas and skills that the wider economy depends on. Experts stress that if the UK is serious about long-term leadership, prioritisation must be done with care, transparency, and a credible plan for sustaining the full ecosystem, from fundamental science through to application. Prof Ruben Saakyan, chair of the STFC particle physics advisory panel, emphasises the need for a well-thought-out strategy. Dr Simon Williams also highlights the importance of sustained investment in people and fundamental science, stating that ambition in quantum computing cannot succeed without it. Prof Sheila Rowan, director of the Institute for Gravitational Research, points out that the PPAN area is a training ground for expertise in various engineering and technical skills, which are in short supply and crucial for driving a bright future in quantum computing and quantum technology.

Google has issued a warning that quantum computers could potentially break most existing encryption systems by 2029, posing a significant threat to current cryptographic standards. The tech giant is urging banks, governments, and technology providers to prepare for this emerging threat.In a blog post, Google stated that the encryption currently used to keep information confidential and secure could easily be broken by a large-scale quantum computer in the coming years. The company, owned by Alphabet, emphasized the need for post-quantum cryptography migration to protect sensitive data.While quantum computers are still a nascent technology, Google, Microsoft, and universities across the UK and the US are actively building systems that harness the physics of quantum mechanics to perform extremely sophisticated mathematical calculations. However, constructing a powerful quantum computer with hundreds of thousands or even millions of stable qubits remains a significant technological challenge.Leonie Mueck, formerly the chief product officer of Riverlane, a Cambridge-based quantum startup, noted that Google's statement does not necessarily mean a working quantum computer capable of breaking encryption will definitely exist by 2029. Most timelines for a cryptographically relevant quantum computer range from the 2030s to the 2050s.Despite this, governments and organizations are already preparing for the eventuality that data stored to today's encryption standards would be exposed when the technology sufficiently advances. The UK's cybersecurity agency, the National Cyber Security Centre, has urged organizations to guard their systems against quantum hackers by 2035.Google's timeline suggests that engineering teams across the technology industry should consider measures to protect sensitive data by migrating to more advanced encryption systems now. Certain kinds of attacks predicated on the future availability of quantum decryption – “store now, decrypt later” – may currently be being deployed across the field.

The UK's ambition in quantum computing is being backed by sustained investment in people and fundamental science, with a focus on building a strong foundation for the sector. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has been instrumental in supporting hundreds of academics and building the infrastructure needed for the industry to thrive.In the last 10 years, UKRI's councils have made significant investments in physics research, including support for 100 PhDs in quantum technology launched in 2024, quantum computing industrial doctorate awards, and funding 14 early-career fellows in the last 18 months.The investment is paying off, with the quantum sector showing promising growth and potential to create 100,000 jobs in the next 20 years. The government has signalled its recognition of the opportunities in quantum computing with a further £1bn procurement programme, making the UK one of the most exciting and well-supported places in the world for quantum computing researchers, companies, and students.Prof Charlotte Deane, UK Research and Innovation, highlights that the UK's advantageous position in quantum has emerged through sustained long-term public investment into fundamental physics research projects, and the best people, infrastructure, and partnerships.

Have you ever felt like you're racing against the clock, constantly chasing appointments and deadlines? This relentless pursuit of time is a universal experience, but what is time, really? Is it a physical phenomenon or just a tool we use to coordinate our lives? Time is often seen as an independent, physical entity that ticks by relentlessly, but emerging scientific evidence suggests that this isn't the case. Time is more like a mathematical tool, useful for coordinating our interactions, but it doesn't have an independent existence of its own. Just like money, we've become dependent on it, but it's not a physical reality. The pressure to be 'on time' is instilled in us from a young age, and we're constantly surrounded by clocks and digital alerts that divide our day into smaller pieces. This has led to a phenomenon known as 'time famine,' where the more efficient and productive we try to be, the less time we feel we have. Studies have shown that people experiencing time famine are less likely to engage in activities they enjoy, eat healthily, or seek medical attention when needed. Our brains don't have dedicated areas for tracking time, and our experience of it can vary greatly. Time can seem to drag or fly by, depending on our circumstances. For example, people with certain conditions, like akinetopsia, experience time in sudden jumps or frozen moments. The psychedelic drug mescaline can also distort time perception, making it seem like hours or even centuries have passed. Quantum physicists have found that time is not a fixed, physical flow. The famous double-slit experiment shows that a physicist's choice of measurement can influence the behavior of a particle. In a lesser-known variant of this experiment, the physicist's choice at the point of measurement can even influence the particle's past behavior. This suggests that time is not a fixed, linear concept, but rather a flexible and subjective experience. Some indigenous cultures, like the Aymara people of Chile, experience time differently. They see the future as hidden behind them, unseeable and unknowable. The Amondawa people of the Amazon have no clocks or concept of time. Instead, they live in the present, experiencing 'lived time,' which is a personal, malleable experience of change. Lived time is different from clock time, as it's not defined by numerical counters or seconds. Each moment is like a tapestry, woven from changes on multiple timescales. When we focus on lived time, it expands and becomes richer, rather than narrowing or contracting. It's a flow that carries us and connects us with others, rather than something we chase and never catch. To combat time famine, we need to remind ourselves that the clock is a tool, not a master. We should beware of digital alerts and alarms that divide our day into smaller pieces and instead focus on the rich pattern of changing connections that wire us into each moment. By doing so, we can tap into the creative process of lived time and experience a more fulfilling and connected life.