TALKING POLITICS

An extra episode in our climate season: we talk to Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British government, about what's now known about the scale of the threat and the urgency of the need for action. What has happened since the Paris agreement? What is the Chinese government most afraid of? What is the meaning of Extinction Rebellion? And is it time to start talking about refreezing the poles to repair the damage already done?

We talk to Paul Mason about his new book Clear Bright Future - a radical defence of the human being in the age of digital transformation and a call to political action. The book covers a lot of ground and so do we: Trump and Nietzsche, machine learning and network effects, climate change and neoliberalism, secular humanism and Christian Enlightenment. But no Brexit! A conversation about the biggest political choices we face and the deep philosophical questions that lie behind them. With Helen Thompson. Talking Points: How do we demystify technology? - In his first book on mechanics, Galileo described machines as things that harness the forces of nature. - Likewise, Adam Smith emphasized that labour produces value, not machines. - Modern science often likens reality to a computer; but we’ve created them, not the other way around. AI has the potential to fundamentally transform industrial societies. - Civil society needs to have a say in how this technology evolves. - How do we introduce ethical questions earlier in the process, instead of building first and asking questions later? Information has never been more abundant, yet we feel relatively helpless because we have so little control over network effects and the information environment. - Information wants to be free, but everywhere it is in chains. - Information technology has not created the fourth industrial revolution; it has created social relations of production that are designed to suppress the fourth industrial revolution. Is there still space in our political discourse for difficult choices? Are we willing to lose things we value if we want things to be better? - Paul thinks that civil society needs to refocus on moral philosophy. - Paul takes Nietzsche to task and argues that there is a biological basis for universal human rights. Paul is critical of the effect of neoliberal practice on the human self. - He argues that in America, the problem, as Arendt put it, is an alliance of the elite and the mob over “access to history.” - The thing to fight for is not just the truth but the possibility of truth. According to Paul, the left needs to harness the power of the state. - He calls himself a “radical social democrat.” - He thinks that the left’s failure to project a holistic answer and theory of reality has left the right possessing all of the momentum. Mentioned in this Episode: - Paul’s new book, coming out in May 2019 - Red Star by Alexander Bogdanov - TP with Yuval Noah Harari Further Learning: - David’s review of Paul’s earlier book, PostCapitalism - Green New Deal? - Google, Deepmind, and ethical dilemmas - The Talking Politics Guide to… Machine Learning And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David gives the third in his series of talks about the future of democracy. This one uses an idea from cosmology to work out where we might be in the story of democracy: are we at the beginning, in the middle or near the end? It all depends when and where we think the story starts. From Stonehenge to Les Miserables, from ancient Athens to Facebook, a simple idea turns out to have some surprising applications, and some important lessons for contemporary politics. Talking Points: The Copernican Principle is based on the idea that we are not the center of the universe. - Because we are not inherently special, most of the time, we encounter things without a natural life expectancy somewhere in the random middle. - If something has been going on for years, it will likely keep going for years. If something has been going on for weeks, it will likely keep going for weeks. What does this mean for democracy? It depends on which story you think we’re in. - The long story is about 2,500 years old, going back to the principles articulated in ancient Athens. This is the idea that humans are equal in political terms and no one is uniquely capable of rule. - The middle story is about 250 years old. This is the story of representative democracy. Democracies exist to protect against misrule and are based on a division of labor between professional politicians and everyone else. - The short story is at most 100 years old (and in many places, shorter). This is the story of mass enfranchisement, mass communications, and administrative democracy. It’s unlikely that all of these stories will end at the same time, but it also seems fairly likely that there are people alive now who will see at least the short story end. - In Eastern Europe, the short story is only 30 years old. - The second story is also under pressure. People are getting tired of the safeguards, and the division of labor appears increasingly unsustainable. - The old story, however, still stands. These may be the ideals that are better suited to tackle the current challenges. David on Democracy: - Democracy for Young People - How Democracy Ends Further Learning: - Martin Rees and the Talking Politics guide to … Existential Risk - The Talking Politics Guide to … Deliberative Democracy - TP talks to David Wallace Wells about The Uninhabitable Earth  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We try to draw some wider lessons from the nightmare that the Brexit process has now become. What have we learned about the relationship between parliament and the executive? Is there any way that the Article 50 process could have worked? And what conclusions will other countries reach about how hard it is to leave the EU? Plus we talk about the recent report from the Hansard Society indicating that the British public is more open than ever to the idea of a 'strong leader'. With Helen Thompson and Kenneth Armstrong. Talking Points: The Cooper Act has been rushed through both houses—but has it really changed anything? - Very little in this act actually constrains the government. - No deal isn’t off the table. - Even if it didn’t change much in substantive terms, in constitutional terms, Parliament may have set something in motion. The relationship between the executive and the legislature is under fire in a lot of places. - Executive power tends to be more unrestrained on the international stage. - Treaties take important issues out of the realm of national politics. Legislatures only get to say yes or no. - The EU raises a lot of these issues because it is a treaty-based union. By all objective measures the May government should be on its last legs right now. - But the Fixed-term Parliaments Act means there’s no real mechanism for getting rid of the government. - Could the May government just stagger on? - A lot of MP’s don’t want a general election. - Even if the Labour leadership does, the parliamentary Labour party doesn’t. - At every turn, Parliament seems to be trying to escape responsibility for its own actions. What is the lesson others should take from all of this? - Is the problem Ireland? - Or is the problem the UK parliamentary system, and coalition governance? - ... Or is it just really hard to leave the EU? A new report from the Hansard Society shows that a lot of people in Britain seem to have a taste for authoritarianism. - What people really want is a politician who can cut through politics. - There may be a substitution effect between process and personality. When process breaks down, people want a charismatic leader. Mentioned in this Episode: - About that Hansard Society report - The FT on Macron’s De Gaulle Moment Further Learning: - Kenneth’s Brexit Time blog - May rolls the dice - On the Fixed-term Parliaments Act  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We catch up with Gary Gerstle in the US to assess where the Trump presidency stands after the Mueller report appeared to give him a pass.  Are there more revelations to come once the full report is available?  Can Trump take advantage of his good fortune? And who in the crowded Democratic field currently looks best placed to beat him in 2020? With Helen Thompson.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David and Helen talk through the latest twist in the Brexit tale: Theresa May's offer to work with Labour to get some version of Brexit over the line. Can the two parties ever agree on what that version is? Could any agreement be made to stick? And if they can't agree, what happens next? Plus we talk about whether May's offer to stand down is still in effect and we ask what all this might mean for the ERG, the DUP, the SNP and the EU. Talking Points: On Tuesday night, Theresa May changed strategies: instead of courting Brexiteers and the DUP to get her withdrawal agreement through, she’s seeking Labour Party support. - But she can’t form an understanding with Corbyn about the future while also promising to step down as PM if the withdrawal agreement is passed. - Labour fears run deep: Since the late 80s, parts of the party have seen the EU as a constraint on the ultra-right wing side of the Conservative Party. There are only two ways the Parliament can stop no deal: pass the withdrawal agreement or revoke Article 50. - The EU could still refuse another extension. - Whatever the calculations Macron or Merkel might make, the European Parliament elections are a short-term contingency, and Brexit has the potential to cause chaos. - The EU keep saying that they want clarity about what the UK is going to do—but British domestic politics cannot provide that right now. The only way an agreement with Labour will work is if they believe that May’s government will continue through the end of the year. Is that possible? - What about the Labour leadership? When Corbyn seems to move toward accepting Brexit, he gets pulled back. - In the last general election, the most irreconcilable remainers voted for a Labour party that was committed to voting to leave the EU instead of the party that represented their views (the Lib Dems). A lot of difficulties followed from this. What about the DUP? - They’re more worried about betrayal at the hands of the Conservatives than a Corbyn government. - Arlene Foster has admitted that the Union comes before Brexit. - There is no constitutional or institutional channel for English nationalism. - If Brexit is thwarted because of Northern Ireland, there will probably be some kind of backlash. The basic fact of British political life is that there is no transmission mechanism from the legislative to the executive of an expression of will. - Parliament wants to say they have no confidence in the government to conduct these negotiations, but they aren’t willing to bring the government down. - Could the constitution assert itself? Could the government fall? - The easiest way out might be if the EU denies an extension, leading to a binary choice between the withdrawal agreement and no deal. Mentioned in this Episode: - Richard Drax’s statement on the withdrawal agreement - On EU pessimism and transmission mechanisms Further Learning: - Adam Tooze on Europe - The last time we talked Brexit - ...and the time before that And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As parliament finally gets the chance to indicate its Brexit preferences - if it has any - we discuss the real choices now facing MPs and government. What is the sequence of events that would actually prevent a no-deal Brexit? Can the Withdrawal Agreement be separated from the Political Declaration? And if it can, will MPs eventually have to vote for it? Plus we ask how long we can avoid another general election and we discuss whether Theresa May's survival to this point tells us more about her resilience or about the dysfunctionality of British politics. With Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton, and Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU Law. Talking Points: What is the relationship between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration? - The political declaration is about the future; the withdrawal agreement is about wrapping up the past. - Article 50, which is the basis for the withdrawal agreement, does not allow discussions about the future. - Anything about the future is done under separate legal provisions. The only feasible options now are no deal, May’s deal, or revoke article 50. - Are we underrating the possibility of no deal? How does parliament prevent it if it can’t do anything else. - Both sides seem to be sticking to the same strategy, which is to put their party first. - The only thing parliament can do unilaterally is revoke Article 50—everything else depends on the EU. This is the nuclear option. There are divisions within the EU over Brexit: Merkel doesn’t want a disruptive Brexit; Macron doesn’t want Britain in the EU. - A disorderly Brexit poses economic risks for Europe. - It’s hard to predict what the EU would do about another request for an extension. Any form of compromise doesn’t work: it’s either too little for remainers or too much for leavers. - The middle ground, which may be economically sensible, doesn’t work politically. Have we learned something about the office of the prime minister in all of this? - It’s really hard to throw people out of office. - Becoming prime minister now—the risk is enormous that your legacy would almost immediately be one of dramatic failure. - If the withdrawal agreement passes, people will want the job. But now? - The underestimated explanation of Theresa May’s resilience is the fixed-term parliament act. This is a fundamentally different constitutional arrangement. Mentioned in this Episode: - Catherine Barnard on “Question Time” Further Learning: - The Fate of Theresa May - Adam Tooze on Europe - More on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - Catherine Barnard’s podcast And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to David Wallace-Wells about his bestselling - and terrifying - new book on the coming hellscape of climate change. When will it arrive? When will we face up to it? And what can we do about it now? ' We don't have time for a revolution.' https://www.londonreviewbookshop.co.uk/  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We take the wider European view this week, catching up with the latest developments in Italy and France. A year on from the Italian elections, who is up and who is down in the coalition between the League and Five Star? What is China up to in Italy? Has Macron really got his mojo back? Plus we ask the big question: between chaos at Westminster, riots in Paris and rabble-rousing in Rome, whose democracy is in the biggest trouble? With Lucia Rubinelli and Chris Bickerton. Talking Points: What’s going on in Italian politics? - In regional elections, the Five Star’s votes collapsed. - The PD, the centre-left party, now has a new leader, but at the time of the regional elections it was in transition and still beat Five Star. - The League has doubled its share of votes to 33-34%. - The new leader of the PD got elected on a platform that would bring the party further to the left. But the Renzi faction is still quite powerful. What about France? - There is something taking place in France that the national conversations don’t seem to have addressed. - France has been through a lot of turmoil during the Macron presidency. Yet the polling is remarkably unchanged. It’s a very divided electorate, but it’s divided in basically the same ways as it was a few years ago. - The gilets jaunes protest is targeted at Macron and the emblems of the state. Stepping back: In Italy, the anti-establishment parties are in power; in France, the centrist government is now facing radical street protests; and in Britain, you have Brexit. Which of these is the dominant crisis for this period in European politics? - Brexit is a peculiarly institutional crisis. It’s not that it isn’t important, but in France, there is a more self-evidently class-war element. - The Italian case is substantially different than both: it’s not an institutional crisis, at least for now. And unlike France, there isn’t opposition to what the government is doing—in fact, there’s a lot of support. - In Italy, the main divide isn’t education or age, but region: it’s North vs. South. Mentioned in this Episode: - Adam Tooze on Europe - Roberto Saviano on Italy Further Learning: - Italy vs. Europe - On the PD’s new leader - What is China up to in Southern Europe? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

At the start of another momentous week, David catches up with Helen to explore some of the long term implications of the Brexit crisis. Is lasting damage being done to constitutional government in the UK? Can the Brexiteers still have their cake and eat it? And is the story of Theresa May ultimately a tragic one? You can also hear Helen and David this week on the 538 politics podcast https://53eig.ht/2FaPkJz *Recorded Monday the 18th March, before John Bercow's ruling on the 3rd meaningful vote*  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We try to cut through the Brexit fog and see what's really out there, from new deals to no deal. Plus we ask some bigger questions: What is the true role of lawyers in politics? Does the EU want regime change? And how will future historians explain this extraordinary period? With Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton and Kenneth Armstrong. Talking Points: The concessions Theresa May secured made some difference, but if the fear on the Conservative side was about remaining “trapped,” the ways out remain limited. - There’s no exit unless the EU acts in “bad faith.” - The good things that came out of this were attempts to provide a path forward that would make sure the backstop is never triggered. - But the problem remains: ‘What happens if you wind up in the backstop?’ - Finding a way to unilaterally leave the backstop was probably an impossible task. - There’s a major expectation management problem here. If this were a free, anonymous vote, the deal would probably pass. But MP’s, particularly Labour MP’s aren’t going to expend political capital on a deal that won’t pass. - There has to be a tippling point. The Cox letter killed the chances of that happening. - Plus, no one believed that this was the last chance, in part because Juncker said there could be an extension. Politics and law keep clashing into each other. - What should the role of the attorney general be? - Cox was both the negotiator and the person who had to turn around and say that that this was undoable. - He once said that he cares more about his reputation as a barrister than as a politician. No deal remains the default, and also the thing that Parliament will not accept. - The ERG thinks this deal is worse than staying in the EU. - If no deal looms into view, the government will fall. - Is the EU line hardening about the terms of an extension? In 20-30 years time, will we understand what’s happening now? - Chris thinks that this shows that the British political system lacked the capacity to deliver on the referendum. - Helen thinks how we frame this moment will depend on two things: what happens to the EU and what happens to the UK as a multinational state. - It’s about structural forces, but it’s also about contingencies. Mentioned in this Episode: - Kenneth’s blog on legal clarifications - Geoffrey Cox’s letter - That Cox quote Further Learning: - The last time we talked about Brexit - Helen on the EU - The Fate of Theresa May And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We discuss the challenge posed by the Independent Group and by Tom Watson inside Labour to conventional two party-politics in Britain.   Can the system hold together? If not, what might replace it? And where are the new ideas going to come from? Plus we talk about what the ERG  wants on the Tory side: is it simply Boris? With Helen Thompson and Mike Kenny. Talking Points: The Independent Group is inching toward becoming a party. What will their platform be? - The only thing they seem to have in common is wanting a second referendum. - They’re pitching themselves as something new, but these are all career politicians. - They have to show that they can win votes. But where? How did we get here? Two major drivers: - The Second Referendum issue—especially after what happened with the Cooper and Brady Amendments. - The Labour antisemitism issue—especially around Luciana Berger - It’s not surprising that there are major tensions in the party system at the moment that Britain is leaving the EU, but it’s also happening at the same time as a crisis in the Labour Party. What is Tom Watson up to? - Watson thinks there needs to be space for the social democratic tradition within the Labour Party. - This marks the end of accomodation with Corbyn and may be a bigger threat than the Independent Group. - The real point of departure between Watson and Corbyn is foreign policy. - The social democratic brand is in trouble around the world. - But the countries where the centre left has done poorly in Europe are eurozone countries. The centre left in Britain moved to the left in response to 2008. It might be hard for Watson to distinguish himself from Corbyn on the economic front. Mentioned in this Episode: - The Independent Group’s Statement of Independence - Luciana Berger on antisemitism in the Labour Party Further Learning: - Labour’s Fault Lines - Socialism in this Country? - Chris on the decline of the social democrats - Big moments in the history of the Labour Party And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We weigh up where we've reached with Brexit, now that the big choices can't be avoided for much longer. Is a second referendum any more likely than it was a week ago? What terms will the EU demand for an extension of article 50? And can May finally prevail? With Helen Thompson and Chris Bickerton. Talking Points: - Are we finally approaching the endgame on Brexit? The sequence became more clear this week: 1) a vote on May’s deal; 2) A vote on no deal; 3) A vote for an extension - The case for an extension remains unclear: the EU states will want something concrete. - Kenneth Armstrong thinks that the key question around an extension is whether it would last 3 months or 2 years. What the extension would mean is also an open question. - What would happen if May’s deal went down? Neither side has an alternative. - David thinks that there are only two possible outcomes at this point: May’s deal or a general election - Although Helen argues that this logic leaves the EU out of the equation. - Even the Financial Times is talking about a second referendum, but how would you actually get the legislation through Parliament? - Chris says that Corbyn’s strategy seems to be to edge Brexit over the line while distancing Labour and himself from it. - The withdrawal and the political agreement still contain a lot of possibilities for a harder or softer Brexit. Mentioned in this Episode: - Kenneth Armstrong on the Cooper-Letwin Article 50 extension proposal Further Learning: - The last time we talked about Brexit… - The Fate of Theresa May - Who is Jeremy Corbyn? - The Next Referendum? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A break from Brexit this week: we talk to the novelist Richard T. Kelly, author of Crusaders and The Knives, about what makes great political fiction. We discuss the research needed to make a political novel authentic, how to get inside the head of a politician and we ask whether May or Trump would make good fictional heroes. Plus we pick some of our favourite political novels, with literary critic Kasia Boddy.  Don't worry: more Brexit soon! Talking Points: How does a novelist know what it’s like to be a Conservative Home Secretary? - It’s about research and empathy. - Novelists should understand and contain forces of both revolution and counter-revolution within themself. The best political novels often extend forward into dystopia but also backward into history to explain how you got to that outcome. - Writing the present is extremely difficult. - Political novels need human drama and conflict. - The human elements allow you to get beyond Washington or Westminster. - The challenge is to capture both powerful and ordinary people with equal verisimilitude. - Politics today are increasingly schematic, which presents problems for the novelist. At their core, political novels are political because they deal with question of the legitimate and illegitimate use of force. - Controlling the killing machines is what makes a politician’s job different. What does it mean to live with the consequences of that kind of power? Books come and go because of things that happen in the world. - U.S. publishers are currently reprinting a lot of old dystopias—but not many new novels. - Fiction sales are down. People are too engrossed in the daily news cycle. The Panel’s Favourite Political Novels: - All the King’s Men, Robert Penn Warren - The Book of Daniel, E.L. Doctorow - American Wife, Curtis Sittenfeld - The Palliser Novels, Anthony Trollope Also on the TP Bookshelf: - The Knives, Richard T. Kelly - Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Charles Moore - The Line of Beauty, Alan Hollinghurst - The Information, Martin Amis - La Comédie Humaine, Honoré de Balzac - Harlot’s Ghost, Norman Mailer - The Great Melody, Conor Cruise O’Brien - Crusaders, Richard T. Kelly - The Ghost, Robert Harris - The U.S.A. Trilogy, John Dos Passos - Middle England, Jonathan Coe - “Tell the truth but tell it slant—,” Emily Dickinson - The Secret Agent, Joseph Conrad - Demons (or The Devils), Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Plot Against America, Philip Roth - Gilead, Marilynne Robinson - Corridors of Power, C.P. Snow - It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis - The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week we talk about another side of capitalism: the innovation economy. Can capitalism deal with climate change? How much depends on the role of the state? And who will pay? We compare the Green New Deal to FDR's original version: does history show us how to get this done? With Bill Janeway, author of Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy, Diane Coyle and Helen Thompson. Plus: David and Helen catch up with the latest comings and goings in British politics: are the two main parties starting to break apart? More - much more - next week. Talking Points: The basic idea behind the Green New Deal is that an innovation economy faced with an existential crisis will need massive state investment. Is it being pitched right? - Putting climate change on the agenda is an important first step. - How do you make this a legitimate political mission? The language of war has been debased; you can’t use that. - We don’t have the technologies needed to allow 50% or more of the grid anywhere in the world to be supplied by intermittent energy sources such as solar and wind. The mission needs to allow the state the latitude to experiment and build this technological base. The state has longer time horizons and has to be a part of fundamental investments in technology. - The time horizons for venture capitalism aren’t appropriate for tackling climate change. - The idea of industrial strategy/industrial policy is coming back. - State coordination is also necessary to set technical standards and figure out how infrastructure will be funded. Eventually, the productivity benefits of technical changes comes through, but it can take decades. Are we on the cusp of that with digital technology? - It’s not just about using a new technology to do what you’re already doing, but using the new technology to change what you’re doing. - This requires infrastructure investments and corporate reorganization. - It can take a long time to see the full benefits because it’s not just about technical change, it’s also about social change. These are all international issues, but the frameworks are still domestic. - To what extent will politics constrain progress? - Technological innovation has been heavily politicized: there is no way to do this kind of innovation on a global scale that would escape geopolitics. What about the independent group? - When it was just the Labour MPs, it was more a critique of Corbyn’s leadership. - With the defection of 3 conservative MPs, it looks more like an anti-Brexit formation. - It may be more difficult for Labour MPs to defect now. - But these groupings don’t change the parliamentary arithmetic. Mentioned in this Episode: - Bill Janeway’s book, Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy - Diane Coyle’s blog, The Enlightened Economist - Simon Wren-Lewis on funding the new deal for The New Statesman - The Solow productivity paradox And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.