I was a very fortunate kid. My dad's GP surgery sat between the Dell and Hampshire's County Ground, so at weekends I could go to a game and get a lift home afterwards. It left me with a passion for both sports and a belief that sport opens a window onto who we are. When I was growing up, the Tebbit test was a matter of intense debate. Which side did you cheer for at the cricket? For all the criticism it received, it was a test anyone could pass. If you supported England because you saw it as home, you were part of the team regardless of the colour of your skin. Born in Southampton, 10 year old me passed it without even knowing about it. Giving the @MCCOfficial's Cowdrey Lecture on Thursday made me think about cricket's place in our national life and the current arguments about identity. In Britain we've built the world's most successful multi-faith, multi-ethnic democracy. I was a beneficiary of it. Whatever issues people had with me as PM (and there was no shortage) my race and religion weren't among them. I could read a lesson at the King's coronation or light Diwali diyas on Downing Street with my daughters without controversy. Foreign leaders assumed these must be huge symbolic moments. For most Brits, they just weren't that big a deal. But Britain's democratic achievement is now under strain. Some of the challenges are ones I've written about before, like Islamism, and the failure of governments, including the one I led, to adequately control immigration. But something else is going on - a risk that we start equating skin colour with nationality. After I left office, a debate kicked off here on @X about whether I was English at all, because I was a "brown Hindu". During the election campaign I'd been shocked when footage was broadcast of someone calling me a "Paki." It was shocking precisely because it was so unusual. That kind of abuse had simply not been a feature of my political life. But the Englishness argument was stranger still. Call it the reverse Tebbit test. If you're not white, it no longer matters who you support at the cricket, because you can never be English. It's a test no non-white person can ever pass. I have no truck with people who offend our sense of fairness and come here illegally; I spent half my premiership trying to deport them to Rwanda. I think the bar for legal migration should be high. It is entirely possible to want a radical reduction in immigration and a far more robust approach to integration, and still totally reject the attempt to turn Britishness into a DNA test. If you're born and brought up in England and view it as home, what are you other than English? Denying people their Englishness or their Britishness because of the colour of their skin is a recipe for alienation and a two-tier society. How are children who hear this meant to feel? Sport can play a small but significant role here. Cricket is played by nearly every major ethnic group in this country. Ask what my largely white rural constituents in the Dales and the British-Asian kids in Bradford have in common, and the answer is cricket. If cricket can produce England teams in which every kid can see themselves, the impact reaches far beyond the boundary. As I write in @thetimes today, we must all be on the same side, cheering for the same team. We cannot allow race to be reintroduced into our politics. We cannot allow Briton to be set against Briton.

When we put "loss of control" on the agenda at Bletchley in 2023, I worried it sounded like science fiction. This summer shows it no longer is and, like Dario points out, we may be far closer to that moment than anyone realised. AI agents are now being used to build the next version of themselves. As I argue in tomorrow's Sunday Times, recursive self-improvement will supercharge the rate and leave us with less and less certainty about what the models are doing and why. I'm an AI optimist. After all, I'm a senior adviser at Anthropic. We're barely using the capabilities we already have, and none of this need slow adoption. But the decision on how fast frontier research advances is too important to be left to the labs. Governments, starting with the US, have to step up; just as they do for nuclear power or advanced biology. That means independent verification that the research is being done safely, an honest picture of how close the labs are to recursive self-improvement, and proper protection against models being stolen. Voluntary testing before release was right for 2023. It isn't enough now. Dario is right to call today for slowing the pace of frontier development so that safety can keep up, and it is good to see a consensus starting to build on this across the industry. When the labs themselves are asking for speed limits, governments should listen. There's a trade-off with maintaining the advantage over China and it has to be faced honestly. But even as the US and China compete, they urgently need a frank conversation about how to avoid catastrophe.