TALKING POLITICS

In a special live edition recorded at the Bristol Festival of Economics we discuss the impact of the technology revolution on democratic politics. Has the rise of automation contributed to the rise of populism? Is China winning the AI wars against the West? And do any democratic politicians - from Elizabeth Warren to Jeremy Corbyn - have the policies to get big tech back under control? With Rana Foroohar, author of Don't Be Evil, and Carl Frey, author of The Technology Trap, plus Diane Coyle, founder and programme director of the Bristol Festival of Economics. Next week: the Facebook election.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk about the current election by talking about two previous ones: the February and October general elections of 1974. A lot of 2019 politics started back then, from the rise of the SNP to Liberals getting squeezed by the electoral system. But it was different too and we have stories of campaigning by landline and hovercraft, MPs on acid, naked civil servants and experts being taken seriously. Plus we discuss how the 1974 elections led to the rise of Thatcherism and changed British politics forever. With Helen Thompson, Chris Brooke and Peter Sloman. Talking Points:  The election of February 1974 was the last winter election. - The Conservative Edward Heath called the election, and tried to frame it as ‘Who governs Britain?’ - The election took place amid the National Union of Mineworkers strike, increased oil prices after the Yom Kippur War, and concerns about inflation.  - Heath’s policies were not aligned with the kind of election he wanted. The bigger backdrop was a deep sense of political uncertainty.  - Sir William Armstrong, the head of the civil service had a nervous breakdown. - Enoch Powell encouraged people to vote for Labour. This act was at least informally coordinated with Wilson.  - Europe was also in the background. ‘74 was a Liberal surge election under the leadership of Jeremy Thorpe. - The Liberals broke the two party stranglehold on voters. - Northern Ireland and Scotland also became electorally distinct.  - The SNP significantly increased their vote share. The election, which was set up as a binary choice, created an even more fragmented government. - Heath got the first go at forming a government, but he miscalculated. - Wilson knew this, and called the Liberals’ bluff. - Wilson and his cabinet were incredibly experienced. Corbyn and his team are less so.  - Wilson had the luxury of waiting for a majority, but the Brexit timetable makes this impossible for today’s Labour party. Mentioned in this episode: - “A Very English Scandal” (on the Thorpe Affair) - That Christopher Mayhew interview - “This House,” a play about the 1970s British Parliament by James Graham Further Learning: - Peter’s book on the Liberal party - What happened in the 1974 election?  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 have a first look at what's happening in the election campaign by asking whether it's really one election or many. Do national vote shares mean much any more, given all the regional variations? How is the Remain Alliance meant to work? Is this a Brexit election? And is 2015 or 2017 (or neither) a better guide to 2019? Plus we discuss the recent election in Spain and explore parallels between gridlock there and possible gridlock here. With Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton and Mike Kenny. Talking Points: One month out from the election, what do we know?  - Why do commentators still rely on polls and betting markets?  - What is the appropriate unit of analysis for this election? Is it regional? National?  - The rural/urban divide seems to cut across the regional effects.  - But tactical voting pulls things down to a more granular level: you have to look at particular seats. Many people thought this would be a Brexit election, but it doesn’t really look like that. - The big theme seems to be spending.  - The anti-Corbyn factor also complicates things. Corbyn has generated both a new base, and a backlash.  - The Lib-Dems tried to capitalize on this. But they’ve backed down on their anti-Corbyn stance in favour of the Remain alliance. - If you look at polling on the fundamentals, Johnson is outstripping Corbyn. - Conservative remainers say they won’t vote for Labour. Will this election be more like 2015 than 2017? - Wider forces might overcome local variation.  - Lib-Dem voters in the Southwest are generally closer to the Conservatives than Labour.  - The SNP are now proactively in favour of a referendum, and Labour has essentially pulled out of the Unionist position. Who will speak for the Scottish unionists? There’s little scrutiny of Johnson’s deal. - Farage won’t be fighting Johnson on this point. And Labour doesn’t want the election to be just about Brexit.  In Spain, instead of breaking the deadlock, voters entrenched it. Could this happen in the UK? - Catalonian independence also hardened far-right support.  - Could Scotland drive English nationalism or increase support for far right parties? Mentioned in this Episode:  - Betting odds for the next UK general election Further Learning:  - Mike’s new Bennett institute report on townscapes in Scotland - More on the Spanish election 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 talk to Nobel Prize-winning economist (the youngest ever!) Esther Duflo about how to do economics better. From investing in left-behind places to helping people adapt to change, we discuss good and bad economic ideas about some of the biggest challenges we face, and how it all connects back to politics. Plus we talk about what some of the world's richest countries can learn from some of the poorest. Esther's new book, with Abhijit Bannerjee, is Good Economics for Hard Times https://bit.ly/33q6uOm Talking Points:  Why do economists believe “Invest in People not Places?” And why are they wrong?  - The idea is that it’s better to target interventions at individual people than places, in part because people will move. - But research shows that people are remarkably sticky. They don’t really move. - Even faced with really high costs, and the complete freedom to move to another place, people don’t. During the Greek financial crisis, very few people left. - Mobility is easier at younger ages. Why do people stick? - In the U.S., one of the biggest factors is real estate. Wages may be higher on the coast, but housing is much more expensive. - People are not driven only, or even primarily by financial incentives The U.S. has not treated people who were left behind by manufacturing very well. - There is an implosion of economic activity in one place because people don’t move. The class and place categories are marred. The people who can afford to live in the big cities tend to be relatively well off. - This was at the root of the Yellow Vests movement in France.  - Although there is also a lot of poverty in big cities. - Class is no longer defining political lines in the same way. How, as a society, can we prepare better for transitions?  - It starts at birth: an excellent preschool education, followed by an excellent primary and secondary school education, and finally equal access to University.  - When shocks happen, being willing to spend. - Some people will never move and we should make their lives honorable where they are. Mentioned in this Episode: - Esther’s book, Good Economics for Hard Times - “The Gift of Moving” (more on the Iceland case) Further Learning: - Esther and Abhijit Banerjee in The Guardian - And on economic incentives in The New York Times 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.

On the night the UK parliament voted for a general election, David and Helen talk to former Conservative leadership candidate Rory Stewart about the state of our democracy. Is the constitution broken? Can the Union survive? Has the Tory party changed for good? And why does he want to be Mayor of London anyway? Recorded in front of a live audience at Church House in Westminster, near enough to parliament for Rory to run out halfway through our conversation to vote, and then run back in again to carry on talking. It's all here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

After two significant votes in the House of Commons pointing in two different directions - one towards a Brexit agreement and the other towards a general election - we discuss where we might be heading. Does Johnson have enough to persuade the wavering MPs he needs to get his Brexit deal over the line? Do his opponents have enough to stop him? Can European leaders still force the issue? And if there is an election, does it all change again? Plus we ask: what's actually in the WAB? With Helen Thompson, Catherine Barnard and Chris Brooke. Talking Points: Last night was the first time since the Brady amendment that Parliament voted positively on something. - The stop Brexit MP’s seem to be implementing tactics without a strategy. - Are there any conditions under which the 14 Labour MPs would vote for Johnson’s deal for real? - The Labour whipping operation is still working. So it seems unlikely that a WA will go through this House of Commons. Johnson’s deal is mostly Theresa May’s deal, with the exception of some really complicated legal points around Northern Island. - Until people are given an either/or choice, they’ll probably keep dancing around. Where is the EU on all of this?  - They are unlikely to renegotiate another deal. - Macron could still force a choice between no deal and revoke, but he doesn’t want to be blamed for the UK crashing out. At some point, an election is going to become inevitable. - Can anything pass without an election? - Things have changed for Johnson: now he’d be campaigning with a deal. - Christmas could put a wrench in things: would a winter election be bad for Labour? How effective was a Benn act? - Perhaps more so than people originally thought.  - A shorter extension could reveal the weaknesses in the Benn act. But Macron probably won’t force the issue.  Mentioned in this Episode: - Keir Starmer on trap-doors - Kenneth’s blog post on the Withdrawal Bill  Further Learning: - Catherine explains the Brexit deal in less than five minutes - Where do the EU leaders stand?  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.

In a special live edition as part of the Cambridge Festival of Ideas, David talks with journalist, comedian and former special adviser Ayesha Hazarika and Helen Thompson about the state of British politics. As three years of Brexit torture (maybe) reach a climax, we explore what it feels like on the inside, for politicians and for voters. What's been the psychological toll?? What's going on inside the Labour party? And is politics really worse than it's ever been? Recorded live at the Cambridge Junction on the evening of Weds 16 October, to celebrate our 3rd birthday. Talking Points:  UK politics today feels different—but what explains this change? - Labour’s collapse in Scotland changed the dynamics. Labour now needs the SNP to govern. - Another change is that there are no longer fiscal constraints on government spending. Brexit has brought Parliament into people’s lives in a whole new way. - Although, it’s important to note, that not everyone is obsessed with Brexit. - Discourse within Parliament has gotten nastier. The old norms no longer seem to be holding. - We are no longer in an era of interchangeable leaders. Is British political rhetoric dead?  - In the past, resignation speeches could bring down governments.  - But despite heightened public attention, the rhetoric surrounding Brexit is largely unremarkable. Mentioned in this Episode: - Ayesha’s book on PMQ’s - Geoffrey Howe’s resignation speech - Robin Cook’s resignation speech - Lewis Goodall interviews Dominic Cummings Further Learning:  - More on Labour in Scotland - Boiling Point 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 catch up with Gary Gerstle and Helen Thompson about the state of the Trump presidency, from impeachment and cover-ups to Syria and Ukraine. We ask what it would take for Republican senators to desert him and what the collateral damage is likely to be for the Democratic presidential candidates. Plus is Hillary really - really?! - back in the game? Talking Points: What are the grounds for impeaching Trump? - There’s a legal argument: Trump breached campaign finance laws. - There’s also a constitutional argument: that Trump is trading American interests for personal gain. More specific charges are less open to counter-attack. Politically, it may be advantageous for the Democrats to focus on Ukraine.  - But a too narrow charge might not resonate. The Democrats need to make the case that this matters morally and link it to a broader American narrative. - Elections are a sacred event in American democracy.  - But the U.S. electoral system also depends on a certain amount of corruption to work. - Is fear of foreign interference really just displacement? The chances of a successful conviction that passes the Senate are next to nothing, but they’re not nothing. - The latest polls show a modest rise in Republican support for impeachment. - Republicans might see Pence as the best way to secure the interests of the party. A foriegn policy crisis may be what dooms Trump. - Republican Senators are furious about what Trump just did in Syria. - The Republican establishment can’t pull Erdogan back. - But during foreign policy crises, people usually rally around the president. Biden’s campaign may be collateral damage in all of this. Elizabeth Warren now appears to be the front runner. - There doesn’t seem to be a centrist candidate capable of picking up Biden’s banner. - Warren poses an existential threat to the Silicon Valley titans.  - But she fits into a long American tradition of anti-monopoly dissent.  - If Warren runs, and wins, as a candidate from the Democratic left, she would make history. Mentioned in this Episode: - The New Yorker piece on Hunter Biden - Tickets to David’s upcoming event at the Cambridge Union Further Learning: - Our friends at 538 on American support for impeachment 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 edition recorded in front of an audience at the Podcast Live festival in London on Saturday: David, Helen and Chris Brooke discuss what we can learn from the early twentieth century about holding elections in the depths of winter. Constitutional crises, threats of civil breakdown, broken coalitions and very grumpy voters: we may have been here before.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David and Helen take a step back to unpick the tortuous history of how we got to the Brexit referendum in the first place. Does the justification Cameron offers in his new memoirs stack up? What was he trying to achieve? And why did we end up with an in/out vote when the political risks were so great? A conversation linked to David's review of Cameron's book in the current 40th anniversary issue of the LRB. https://www.lrb.co.uk Talking Points:  Why did Cameron call for an in/out referendum? - He wanted to reconfigure Britain’s relationship with the EU, not abolish it. Let’s take the story back to 2004-2005 and the new constitutional treaty. - The key question was consent. - In Britain, there was a push for a referendum. Although Blair was initially opposed, he made a u-turn.  - But the Dutch and the French voted the treaty down before it could happen. Then came the Lisbon Treaty.  - Brown decided that this was different than the constitutional treaty and he ratified it without a referendum. - This creates a political problem. The Conservative Party opposed both the Lisbon Treaty and the way it had been legitimated. The constitutional treaty made the EU wary of using referendums to legitimate treaties. - But Cameron thought there would be another treaty—was this a mistake? - The European Union Act of 2011 required a referendum for any treaty that would increase the power of the EU. By December 2011, Cameron had two issues: the domestic politics of consent, and the risk of being a permanent minority on financial service matters. - In 2011, it became clear that the ECB would pursue a policy that would make it more difficult for London’s clearing houses to be the center of European trading.  Ultimately, Britain could not fundamentally reconfigure its relationship with the EU.  - Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate became a perfect example of British weakness and fueled the Leave campaign. For what is Cameron personally culpable? - He knew that Leave could win, but he didn’t make contingency arrangements for leaving. - When Leave won, the UK entered a constitutional crisis and Cameron just walked away. Mentioned in this Episode: - David’s review of Cameron’s memoir - Cameron’s Bloomberg speech - Macron’s 2017 Sorbonne speech - More on Chirac 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 novelist Ian McEwan about his new Brexit parable, The Cockroach, and a lot else besides: counterfactual history, Labour party conferences, eighteenth-century satire, humanising judges and turning the economy on its head. But yes, it's all about the Brexit nightmare. Further Learning:  - You can buy The Cockroach here - An extract from The Cockroach Mentioned in this Episode: - Selected quotes from Johnson’s UN speech - The Children Act - A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift - Machines like Me Upcoming Events: - On 5 Oct. David, Helen, and Chris Brooke will be LIVE in London. Tickets here! - And on 16 Oct. David and Helen will be LIVE at Cambridge Junction with Ayesha Hazarika. Get your tickets 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.

David and Helen try to lower the temperature by looking at the strategic choices behind the vitriolic clashes in the Commons this week: from the date of the next election to the prospects of a coalition government. Plus they consider the fall-out from the Labour party conference and ask what price a second Scottish referendum.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A packed episode: we catch up with Catherine Barnard on the Supreme Court's unanimous decision against prorogation and we discuss what's going on in Italian politics. Plus we explore the links and differences between the two, from fears of an election to the role played by presidents and monarchs. Boris, Berlusconi, Baroness Hale and politics on the beach: it's all here! With Lucia Rubinelli and Chris Bickerton. Talking Points: Is it surprising that the Supreme Court’s judgement was unanimous? - There’s a strength in unanimity—it also makes it harder to attribute political motives to individual judges. - This is only the beginning of what could be a series of contentious judgments, but because the decision was unanimous, it’s hard to read the room. The Supreme Court didn’t want to get into motive… or monarchy, so it focused on the effect of prorogation. - If the power to prorogue were unlimited, it could be used for unconstitutional purposes. - But Parliament did have an opportunity to hold the government to account and it chose not to. Are there parallels between what’s going on in Italy and the UK? - The government has broken down, and the opposition is scared of an election. Both Johnson and Salvini are polling at around 30% and facing divided oppositions. - But in Italy, the opposition has behaved very differently. Despite extreme contempt for each other, Renzi and De Maio are in coalition. - This is in part because of Mattarella, the President, and the EU. Does going into coalition with Renzi mark the end of 5 Star’s anti-establishment credentials?  - They might go forward with a new leader, Di Battista, who is more left wing.  Renzi is trying to position himself as a Macron-like figure. - The dominant feature of Italian politics is fragmentation: if you can get even 5-10% of the vote, you can be the kingmaker. - Renzi thinks he can sweep up Berlusconi’s voters. - But unlike Macron, Renzi isn’t an unknown entity. And the next election might be fought in the midst of a recession. Further Learning: - Our video guide to thinking about the future of Labour leadership - Catherine on the Supreme Court’s decision - More on Salvini Upcoming Events: - On 5 Oct. David, Helen, and Chris Brooke will be LIVE in London. Tickets here! - And on 16 Oct. David and Helen will be LIVE at Cambridge Junction with Ayesha Hazarika. Get your tickets 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.

David talks to Brett Frischmann about how so-called 'smart' machines may be producing more machine-like humans. From GPS to Fitbit to Alexa to the Internet of Things: what is our interaction with new technology doing to change the kind of people we really are? https://www.reengineeringhumanity.com/  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the middle of the epic prorogation battle at the Supreme Court, we ask what's at stake: for the government, for Brexit, for the constitution and for democracy. Is this a case of legal precedent, common law practice or higher constitutional principle? Is the UK constitution becoming more European in the act of leaving the EU? And what are the things lawyers on neither side can say? Plus we ask how Jo Swinson's case for revoking article 50 is going and we discuss whether we could really have a 2nd referendum without another general election. A packed episode! With Catherine Barnard, Helen Thompson and Chris Bickerton. The prorogation case has reached the Supreme Court. - Traditionally the courts are reluctant to second guess political decisions.  - The high courts of England and Wales ruled that the case wasn’t justiciable. The Scottish court took a different line. - This case is really looking under the bonnet of the constitution. If there is no judicial control, the right to prorogue could be abused—this could trouble the courts.  - But according to the UK constitution, the recourse to the abuse of power is supposed to be political rather than legal.  - The current executive is a constitutional zombie: it doesn’t have the support of Parliament.  How does the court see its role?  - What Boris did may be outrageous, but it’s not clear what he gained by doing it. He squeezed options but he didn’t wipe them out.  - Maybe they just did it to be provocative ahead of a general election. But neither side can say that. Who are the justices on the Supreme Court?  - Most of these people have worked their way up the judicial hierarchy. - This is only the second time that all 11 are sitting. They know this case is a big deal. - The big question is legitimacy. Common law has been seen as a central part of the UK’s constitutional history, and common law ultimately is meant to rest on an appeal to experience.  - What happens if it is used to assert an abstract principle? Across the board, politicians are no longer abiding by conventions. - If Parliament were functioning properly, it would replace the executive. - Parliament chose to legislate against no deal instead of calling for a general election. - The Fixed-Term Parliaments act has been a game changer.  Further Learning:  - The Talking Politics guide to… the UK Constitution - The Supreme Court and politics vs. the law - Who is Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson?  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.