TALKING POLITICS

We catch up with Tara to reflect on what her experience of being educated without going to school means for a world where so many kids are being kept out of school. Should we be trying to replicate the education they are missing or should we be trying something new? And will the current crisis bridge or deepen existing political divides in the US? Plus another chance to hear the interview we recorded with Tara in February 2018 about her extraordinary book Educated.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to the historian Richard Evans about the history of cholera epidemics in the 19th century and what they can teach us for today. How did contemporaries understand the spread of the disease? What impact did it have on growing demands for democracy? And who tended to get the blame - foreigners, doctors or politicians? Plus we discuss whether the political changes being driven by the current pandemic are likely to outlast the disease itself. Talking Points:  Massive epidemics are a normal part of human history, even if they are infrequent. - You can see this with the Plague, syphilis, and, in the 19th century, cholera. Cholera hit Europe in the beginning of the 1830s, and like many epidemic diseases, it was spread through increased communications. - The conquest of North India opened up trade routes, and that’s how cholera traveled. - The terrifying thing was the death rate: it was 50%, much much higher than coronavirus.  When cholera hit, the response was heavily shaped by knowledge of the plague. - ‘Quarantine’ comes from 40 days, which is the period of isolation that the medieval Venetians imposed on incoming ships. - It took a long time for people to realize that cholera spread through water. - Cholera struck the poor. The wealthy lived on higher ground. This led to a lot of moralizing around the disease. Cholera spread through trade. Measures to stop it would also affect trade. - Merchants in cities such as Hamburg suppressed the news of the spread of cholera because they were worried about the economic consequences. - This is also a period of medicalisation. Doctors go from being on the front lines, politically, to being more or less neutral. What is the relationship between pandemics and xenophobia? - The Hamburg cholera epidemic of the late 19th century was clearly brought by migrants, but it didn’t lead to a significant xenophobic or anti-semitic backlash. - But in earlier epidemics, this was not the case. For example, conspiracy theories about The Plague led to mass pogroms of Jews. The widespread disease can trigger the possibility of social and political change. - In Britain, the spread of cholera led to widespread criticism of the government. But a lot of the impetus for reform was short lived and died away until the next epidemic. The impact of cholera was differential because of wealth. Coronavirus seems to strike the old. - The vulnerability of the old is medical. - Yet this virus still sparks conspiracy theories. - One of the main reasons for serious epidemics is the breakdown of the state, for example, Haiti in 2010. Mentioned in this Episode: - Richard’s book, Death in Hamburg: Society and Politics in the Cholera Years, 1830-1910  - Richard for The Guardian about the public consequences of epidemic diseases - Lucia tells TP about the view from Italy Further Learning:  - Richard’s interview with the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner on pandemics - Richard’s lecture about state responsibility and epidemic disease - More on Haiti’s 2010 cholera epidemic 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 try to assess whether the Covid-19 pandemic is driving the world together or pushing it further apart. From US-Chinarelations to tensions within the EU, we discuss how coronavirus is exacerbating existing tensions and how it might overcome them. Are we going to see new forms of international co-operation? What does it mean for globalisation? And is the politics of competence making a comeback? With Helen Thomson and Hans Kundnani from Chatham House. Talking Points: The crucial issue between the US and China right now is supply chains.  - A huge percentage of antibiotics used in the US involve supply chains that include China.  - Helen thinks it’s unlikely that we will continue to live in a world in which the production of pharmaceuticals is so integrated. - Will interdependence push towards cooperation or conflict? - Two big things have changed since 2008: Trump is in the White House, and central relationships (US-China, US-Europe) have deteriorated. There are different degrees of globalization. There is, for example, a more moderate version, and what Dani Rodrik calls ‘hyper-globalization.’ - If you think of globalization as consisting of movement of goods, capital, and people, you might have different degrees in all three areas. - The thing that’s come to a sudden stop in this crisis is the movement of people. China does have a dollar problem. Right now, the Fed has provided swap lines to a number of states, but not the Chinese Central Bank. - At the moment there’s no need for it to do so. - But this crisis may have opened up a possibility that wasn’t a possibility a month ago. - Could that then become a problem for the United States? You would need to think more about exchange rate cooperation. Does Europe need to pick a side between the US and China?  - We were already moving in this direction already; look at the battles over 5G. - The more competition there is over supply chains, the more European countries will have to choose. - Transatlantic rifts tend to become intra-European rifts as well. The current crisis is an emphatic demonstration that, in the Eurozone, the coercive power of states remains the prerogative of member states.  - Different states use power differently. Orban is willing to go much further, for example. - If some EU states deal more effectively with this than others, what happens to freedom of movement? Mentioned in this Episode:  - The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik - Hans’ book, The Paradox of German Power Further Learning: - Hans’ piece for the Observer, ‘Can a nation be both open and in control? The UK is about to find out.’  - The FT on Peter Navarro’s remarks about supply chains and bringing home manufacturing - Our most recent episode with Adam Tooze 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 Lucia Rubinelli, who is locked down in Northern Italy, about what life is like there and what politics is like too. Do people still have faith in the government? What do they think of the British approach? How have attitudes to China switched in recent weeks? Plus: whatever happened to Salvini? More from Lucia soon.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We catch up with Adam on the latest twists in the crisis: from the ECB's change of heart to new threats in emerging markets. What is happening in Germany? How vulnerable is the UK? Can anything shake the hold of the almighty dollar? Much more in the weeks to come.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to Adam Tooze in New York about the possible impact of coronavirus on the global financial and political system. How does this crisis compare to the financial crisis of 2008? What are the implications for the future of the Eurozone? And what have we learned already about the shift in power from the US to China? Plus we talk to Helen Thompson in London about how it intersects with the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. The first of a series of conversations about the biggest event of our times. **Updated overnight** Talking Points:  This crisis has revealed the fundamental weakness in the Eurozone. Lagarde’s initial comments re-exposed this fundamental faultline.  - The central question facing the ECB is ‘what is its role with regard to spreads?’  - But over the course of the day, the panic in the markets seems to have led Frankfurt to reevaluate: they’ve come forward with a remarkable bond buying program steered towards buying both sovereign bonds and corporate debt. - The ECB is now saying that it will lift caps if necessary. This is an effort to take the sovereign risk for the Italians out of the equation and also relieve pressure on the French and the Spanish.  The fundamental weakness in the Eurozone is one of the continuities, but no one really expected it to be exposed. - Italy wasn’t a causal driver of the crisis of 07/08, but it became collateral damage. It has not recovered. That failure is being exposed. - There are also novel elements, for example, the explosion of corporate debt since 2008.  - The Eurozone banks aren’t in great shape, but it’s better than ‘07/’08. The question is whether the Eurozone has the stomach for another round of collective efforts. The inequities in the US health system are severe and will be exposed in this crisis. - The current crisis is happening on a much shorter timescale than ‘07/’08. - The impact on working life has been even more rapid. The spread of this disease from China is not unusual but the ability of the Chinese government to bend this curve so quickly signals the power of state capacity. - Beijing’s fiscal and monetary stimulus in ‘08/09 should have been a wake up call. This was a key turning point. What happened to oil prices?  - OPEC Plus broke down, in particular, the relationship between Russia and Saudi Arabia.  - The big question is the politics: the US shale industry can’t cope with prices this low.  - A lot of things that have been destabilizing over the last decade are crashing into each other right now. Mentioned in this Episode:  - Adam talks about Crashed with David and Helen (full transcript) - Lagarde’s second statement Further Learning:  - More on the recently announced ECB bond buying program from the FT - Adam on Europe (from January) - Adam on the global shutdown  - Lucia’s piece for the New York Times on Italy and bond spreads - More on oil prices from Planet Money - Helen’s book on oil and economic crisis 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 special extra episode with Rachel Bronson, president of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, about their decision to move the Doomsday Clock 20 seconds nearer to midnight, closer that it's ever been. She explains why the world is more dangerous now than even at the height of the Cold War and what are the risks that keep her awake at night. How close really are we to the end? Scary but essential listening. Recorded at the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. Extra listening: Aaron Rapport on Nuclear Weapons https://play.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics/db9732a4-8e39-4f8f-bb30-cf6f862036cf   See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to David Spiegelhalter, Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, about the science of forecasting. Who or what are the superforecasters? How can they help governments make better decisions? And will intelligent machines ever be able to outdo the humans at seeing into the future?  From Cummings to coronavirus, a conversation about the knowns, unknowns and what lies beyond that. Talking Points:  Tetlock discovered that some people make better predictions than others. - Some of the qualities that make this possible are deeply human, such as doggedness, determinedness, and openness to new information, but others are mathematical.  - Superforecasters are highly numerate: they have a sense of magnitude. Good superforecasters isolate themselves emotionally from the problem: you have to be cold about it.  - Think about George Soros shorting the pound.  There’s a difference between having more superforecasting and more superforecasters.  - How do you integrate people like this into existing institutions? - These people are often disruptive.  - Probabilistic information is finely grained: what does this mean for political decision making? Superforecasters aren’t decision makers: they give you the odds.  - But they are better than the betting markets. - Betting markets reflect what people would like to happen rather than what they should think will happen. They aren’t cold enough. Tetlock’s book places a huge emphasis on human characteristics.  - Algorithms can do superforecasting only in repetitive, data rich restrictive problems - Tetlockian problems are much more complex.  - People often make a category error when they think about what AI can do.  Mentioned in this Episode:  - Superforecasting, by Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner - David’s book, The Art of Statistics - Radical Uncertainty by Mervyn King and John Kay - The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb - Risky Talk, David’s podcast Further Learning:  - Philip Tetlock’s lunch with the FT - Dominic Cumming’s review of Superforecasting - Are you a fox or a hedgehog? 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 special live edition recorded on the morning after Super Tuesday: we try to make sense of where the Democratic race now stands. How did Biden pull it off? Is there a path back for Sanders? And what role was Obama playing behind the scenes? Plus we ask which strategy now makes sense for the general election and whether Trump has got the candidate he wants or the one he fears. With Helen Thompson and Gary Gerstle, recorded at the McCrum Lecture Theatre in Cambridge. Talking Points Biden, the comeback kid, is now the overwhelming favourite to be the Democratic nominee. - Bernie has attracted more young people and Latinos, but does his coalition have a ceiling?  - Biden’s coalition seems to be bigger than Bernie’s. Turnout was up—for him. - People were too quick to write off Biden. He was always going to do well with African Americans in the South. Party discipline kicked in: did the Democrats learn from what the Republicans failed to do with Trump? - What was going on behind the scenes? And what has Obama been up to?   There will be bloodletting on the left.  - If all of Warren’s votes had gone to Bernie, he would have won more states.  - But Warren is a different kind of candidate than Bernie and her coalition includes a lot of college educated voters who may choose Biden over Bernie.  What’s next for Biden? - All eyes will be on his VP pick. - His campaign was phenomenally weak for a leading candidate.  - He’s going to get more staff, more money, and more endorsements. - Biden’s path to victory runs through suburbanites who can’t stomach voting for Trump, bue he’s also going to have to appeal to the left of the party.  - Trump does well against establishment politicians, but he also seems to fear Biden. - The Hunter Biden story isn’t going away.  Mentioned in this Episode: - The real clear betting odds  - The full transcript of the New York Times’ Biden interview - The Party Decides, by Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller - James Carville on Elizabeth Warren, and a lot of other things for Vox - Caroline Fraser’s article on Warren and the gender trap for the NYRB Further Learning:  - A breakdown of the results from our friends at 538 - Gary’s guide to the history of monopolies in America - More on Hunter Biden 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 and Helen catch up on the state of British politics, from Blair's advice to the Labour party on its 120th birthday to growing divisions in Johnson's Tory party. Is there really a liberal progressive coalition in Britain? Can Brexit deliver both free trade and levelling up? And what does Cummings really want? Plus we talk about Helen's lecture on Britain, the EU and geopolitics: Listen here → http://bit.ly/3a25Bya On the 120th anniversary of the Labour Party, Tony Blair gave a speech encouraging the Labour party to 1) Move away from identity politics 2) Rebuild a progressive-liberal coalition and 3) Work out a plausible account of the future.  - What is Blair’s interpretation of history?  - Blair never reimagines the political system itself.  - A lot of the more compelling visions of the future are coming from the parts of the Labour party that Blair disparages.  Blair did not substantially discuss Brexit, but Brexit is the most pressing future question - Can the government really reconfigure the economy? Or is the government at the mercy of forces it cannot control? The UK will have to simultaneously negotiate trade deals with the US and the EU in a moment in which trade is becoming a more geopolitical question.   - China has changed things—this is now part of the lens through which the US is thinking about both trade and its relationship with the EU. - For the UK, using security as a bargaining chip is a risky strategy. - How much leverage does Macron have in the trade negotiations? He’s sounding a lot like De Gaulle, who said no to the UK application to join the EEC.  - The overall geopolitical context is less advantageous to Europe, including the UK, than it was in the 1960s. Mentioned in this Episode:  - Helen’s Chatham House lecture - Tony Blair’s recent speech - Our episode with Paul Mason on the future - Our episode with Esther Duflo - Our most recent episode on French politics - Macron’s interview with the Economist - Adam Tooze on the US vs. China If you’re in Cambridge next Wednesday, join us for a live recording the morning after the Super Tuesday primaries. Tickets available here. 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 special live edition recorded in front of an audience in Cambridge: David talks to writer, broadcaster, academic and politician Michael Ignatieff about his personal experiences of democratic politics. From his bruising time as Liberal party leader in Canada to his recent confrontations with the Orban government in Hungary, from climate change to populism, from Johnson to Trump, we discuss what's happened to democracy and where he sees the grounds for hope. A wide-ranging conversation about the good and the bad of contemporary politics. Mentioned in this Episode:  - Michael’s book, Fire and Ashes, Success and Failure in Politics - Our episode with Roberto Foa on his new report on global satisfaction with democracy  - Max Weber’s essay, “Politics as a Vocation” - Isaiah Berlin, The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and their History Further Learning: - More on Orban and the Central European University - More on the Centre for the Future of Democracy - David’s book on political hypocrisy - How wealthy countries export their waste 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 talk to Shahin Vallee, former economics advisor to Emmanuel Macron, about the state of the Macron presidency: from the gilets jaunes to the pensions protests, from dealing with Merkel to facing off with Putin, and from now to the next presidential election in 2022. Did Macron save the centre of French politics or has he destroyed it? Can he really be sure he'll beat Le Pen next time? And what is his plan to rescue the West? Plus, we discuss what the Griveaux and Mila affairs tell us about the state of French politics. With Helen Thompson. Talking Points: How should we relate the gilets jaunes and the pensions protests?  - The pensions reform is a more traditional opposition to neoliberal reforms; the gilets jaunes is different and it includes a number of people who do not regularly express themselves politically. - The gilets jaunes crystallize a more profound opposition to the French political system. Macron has centralized the French system to a remarkable extent. - This is in part because of the collapse of the main parties. - But Macron’s majority is composed of people with a limited power base.  - What you have is a presidential system with a weak cohort of parliamentarians.  - Macron has also empowered the technocrats. Macron’s claim to competence was that he was going to get reforms done. - But the way he won power made it hard to achieve economic reform. - Macron forgot the importance of the unions in mediating public opinion. Before Macron’s presidency, the hope was that France could get its house in order in exchange for favours from the EU. - But there wasn’t much reason to believe that Europe would budge. - Macron lacks a theory of change for Europe. Macron initially presented himself as above political divides, but that didn’t last too long.  - He chose a right-wing prime minister and then made domestic policy choices that signaled that he was on the right. - For example, he ended the State of Emergency law but then brought its provisions into standard legislation. - Macron destroyed the centre and divided and conquered the left, but he does have competition from the right.  - In the next election, left wing voters might abstain rather than vote for Macron.  - Macron presented himself as order versus chaos. The risk is that he now looks like the source of chaos. Mentioned in this Episode:  - More on Macron’s Munich speech Further Learning:  - Commentary on Macron’s Munich speech from the European Council on Foreign Relations - Background on pension reform in France 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 talk about two countries going through dramatic democratic change: Ireland, where Sinn Féin came top of the vote in last weekend's general election, and Italy, where the Sardines are the latest movement trying to shake up the system. What does the Irish vote tell us about the collapse of two party politics? Does Sinn Féin's success suggest that the party has changed or that the electorate has changed? And in Italy, who or what now stands between Salvini and power? Plus we discuss whether the age of 'grand coalition' politics is now over. With Niamh Gallagher, Lucia Rubinelli and Chris Bickerton. Talking Points:  In 1997 Sinn Féin got only 2% of the vote, in the recent Irish general election they got almost 25%. What explains this shift? - In the 90s, the party was still connected to the IRA and the politics of Northern Ireland.  - Sinn Féin voters today skew young (under 45). Their major concerns are issues such as the cost of living, rent, and healthcare.  - The party ran and won on a leftist platform. - The leadership has also changed. Gerry Adams stepped down in 2018. The new leader, Mary Lou McDonald is less connected to the past. - The electoral system also makes a difference. Sinn Féin ‘won’ with 25% of the vote; Labour lost with 40%. - Brexit did not feature heavily in this election, even though Leo Varadkar had a ‘good’ Brexit by most accounts.   Meanwhile, in Italy, movements and parties are again in turmoil. Is Five Star done? - A movement has less institutional heft than a traditional political party. This is both their strength and their weakness.  - What about the Sardines? They started as a flash mob in Bologna and call themselves a ‘phenomenon,’ rather than a movement or a party. Their objective is to counter images in the media put forward by Salvini. - Meanwhile, Salvini is still inching closer to power on his own.  Are we seeing the end of grand coalition politics? - Coalitions today tend to destroy one of the partners (for example, the Lib Dems). - Sinn Féin certainly doesn’t want to be a junior partner, but it might want to prove that it can be a party of government.  Mentioned in this Episode: - The David McWilliams Podcast - Niamh’s book, Ireland and the Great War Further Learning:  - A profile of the Irish political parties - More on the Sardines - David’s lecture, Democracy for Young People 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 try to peer through the chaos in Iowa to see who won, who lost and what it means for the future of this presidential race and for American democracy. Are we heading towards a Bernie vs Bloomberg showdown? What might happen at a brokered convention? And how much damage has been done to the Democratic party brand? Plus we review Trump's State of the Union address. Great theatre - but was it great politics? With Helen Thompson and Gary Gerstle. There were no winners in Iowa.  - We still don’t know who actually won. - Pete didn’t do well enough to break out. Bernie did well, but not as well as many people thought he would. Warren had a mediocre showing. It was really bad for Biden.  - It was also a bad night for the Democratic Party itself.  Who benefits from Biden’s collapse? - Can Mayor Pete hold the center? He would need to win New Hampshire and he probably won’t. - Bloomberg is going all in with an unusual strategy: gambling on a brokered convention and focusing on TV spending and mayoral endorsements.  - His organizational strategy may be clear, but what is his substantive strategy? It looks like Sanders will win the fight for the left. - But can he translate this momentum into votes. - David thinks that the problem is that there still aren’t enough young people. - All the craziness has distracted from the fact that turnout in Iowa was much lower than expected. The Democrats want to frame the election as order versus chaos, but that’s hard to do when the first thing you do is produce chaos. - Meanwhile, Trump delivered a fairly conventional State of the Union, the economic numbers are good, and his poll numbers are up. - Can Trump stay in order mode for long? Mentioned in this Episode: - Democracy for Realists by Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels Further Learning:  - The Iowa results - David’s lecture on Democracy for Young People - More on the (absolutely wild) 1924 Democratic Convention  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 talk to Roberto Foa about some of the findings in his groundbreaking new report 'Global Satisfaction with Democracy'. Where are people most dissatisfied with democracy and why? Is it being driven by economic factors or is something else going on? And why does democratic satisfaction divide Europe north/south and east/west? Plus we talk about what might happen to satisfaction with democracy in the UK post-Brexit. With Helen Thompson. Talking Points:  Dissatisfaction with democracy is up by about ten percentage points worldwide. - Northern Europe is more satisfied with democracy than Southern Europe. - Perhaps more surprising, Eastern Europe is more satisfied with democracy than Western Europe. There has been a meltdown of satisfaction in Southern Europe since the start of the Eurozone crisis. But in Germany, satisfaction levels went up after the crisis. - The internal story is more complicated: the German system was responsive to the interests of German banks, but not German savers. Backlash led to the rise of the AfD. - The Eurozone constrains the ability of some governments to be responsive to popular demands. Satisfaction with democracy is not the same as belief in liberal democratic principles. - People living under populist leaders, for example, in Hungary, report rising satisfaction. - The majority is happy but minorities are being oppressed.  - Satisfaction also rose after the pink tide in Latin America, when popular lefist governments came to power. Is satisfaction a good proxy for democratic health? - It can tell us something about the legitimacy of the political system: sustained dissatisfaction appears to be a harbinger of democratic failure. The new report focuses on trends from the mid-1990s to the present day. But what if the 90s are the real outlier? Is this ‘decline’ actually a return to the norm? - The biggest concern in the 90s was that too much democracy leads to inflation.  - But the technocratic systems that emerged in this era are less responsive and create inequality. Mentioned in this Episode:  - Read the full report here - Roberto and Yascha Mounk’s piece on the report for The Atlantic Further Learning: - From the TP archive… Italy vs. Europe - David on How Democracy Ends - More on the Centre for the Future of Democracy and the new report 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.