TALKING POLITICS

Latest Episodes:

Uninhabitable Earth Mar 24, 2019

Show notes

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/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Italy vs France vs Brexit Mar 21, 2019

Show notes

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:

Further Learning:

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can This Go On? Mar 18, 2019

Show notes

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*

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Impasse Mar 13, 2019

Show notes

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:

Further Learning:

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Party Splits Mar 07, 2019

Show notes

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:

Further Learning:

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Endgame? Feb 28, 2019

Show notes

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:

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Best Political Novels Feb 28, 2019

Show notes

Green New Deal? Feb 21, 2019

Show notes

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:

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Nightmare of Surveillance Capitalism Feb 14, 2019

Show notes

We talk to Shoshana Zuboff about The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, her game-changing account of what's gone wrong with the world of big tech and how to fix it. What is surveillance power and why is it destroying the things we value? How have we allowed this to happen? Where will the resistance come from? Plus we ask whether the real problem here is technology or capitalism itself. With John Naughton.

Talking Points:

In her new book Zuboff writes, “"surveillance capitalists know too much to qualify for freedom.”

What is the relationship between knowledge, freedom, and capitalism?
The neoliberal argument is that markets must be free because they are so complex that they are ineffable. No one knew anything, so everyone must be free.
Today, the major tech companies are claiming the same thing. But in fact, these same arguments are the opposite of what Hayek and Smith intended because surveillance capitalists make it their business—literally—to know everything.
Surveillance capitalism is a radical asymmetry of knowledge, and this knowledge creates a new and unique form of power.

Surveillance capitalists have succeeded in part because of an ideology of inevitablism. Blame the networks, this is just how they are.

This is insidious because it threatens free will and human autonomy.
Democratic society is impossible without the notion that individuals have the capacity to choose their actions and shape the future.

What can be done?

Lifting the veil: naming what’s going on allows us to deem it intolerable. We need a sea change in public opinion.
Building better systems: people do not want to be trapped in the current environment. There is space for someone to forge an alternative path to the digital future.
Collective Action: Power is not just exerted in the economic domain—it’s everywhere all the time. How do we come together to tame this kind of capitalism?

Will this be enough? The excesses of raw capitalism during the Gilded Age were tempered by the World Wars. The historical conditions today are different. Democracy was in trouble before Facebook.

Thomas Paine says that every generation needs to fight for democratic values. These principles are never won for all time.

In surveillance capitalism, we are not the customers or the employees. This is rogue capitalism that is cut loose from society.

Are predictions of human behavior legitimate products that should be sold in the marketplace? Should we have markets that trade in human futures?
Information technology always produces more information. Who gets to know, who decides who knows, and who decides who decides who knows?

The Chinese state sees in surveillance capitalism the means to its own political ends.

The conflation of authoritarian power and instrumentarian power is the ultimate nightmare—and this is a realistic prospect for the future of humanity.
A happy ending is not inevitable, nor is it impossible.

Mentioned in this episode:

The Wall Feb 07, 2019

Show notes

This week David talks to John Lanchester about his new novel depicting Britain after a climate catastrophe and encircled by a vast wall that must be defended at all costs. Where does this nightmarish vision come from? How closely does it track what we know about climate change? And what does it tell us about our political choices now and in the future? Plus we discuss the relationship between climate and capitalism. https://amzn.to/2Sx7PAD

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.