What is happening in Hong Kong? We talk to a professor of Chinese history and a Hong Kong journalist about the recent wave of protests there and try to discover what is really at stake on all sides.  Who are the protestors? What are their core demands? Can these be met? And what will happen if they aren't? Plus we explore the parallels with other protest movements around the world and look at the possible knock-on effects, from Beijing to Taiwan. With Hans van de Ven and Angus Hui.Talking Points:The protests in Hong Kong are now in their second month. As many as half a million people have taken to the streets.There is also a smaller group of much younger people who occupied the legislative council chambers last week.The initial protests were about repealing an extradition law. But the protest now seems to be about the entire system.This is the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The protesters want to show that Hong Kong is not China.Is this a threat to one country, two systems? The Umbrella Movement in 2014 was about suffrage and democracy. Is this going beyond that?One country, two systems was meant to last 50 years. We are now 22 years in. What would the protesters count as success?Independence is an unrealistic goal. The protesters want three things: 1) The withdrawal of the extradition bill 2) An independent investigation committee into police violence against the protesters and 3) protection from prosecution for the protesters.A real win would be a genuinely elected chief executive and a genuinely elected legislative council. This would involve negotiations with Beijing.Even if these protests fade, the issues remain and will only get more serious.What is happening in Hong Kong is the building up of a tradition of protests that will feed on each other.There is a broader breakdown in trust between mainland China and the people living in Hong Kong, including the fear that the social credit system may be introduced in Hong Kong.Mentioned in this Episode:English language news sources on the situation in Hong KongFurther Learning:Background from the NYTimes on the protestsMore on the umbrella revolutionMore on Christianity and the Hong Kong protestsAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

What does it mean when Facebook says it wants its own currency?  We explore the power, the potential and the pitfalls of Libra. How does Facebook plan to make money out of making money? Can anyone stop it? And does this represent a fundamental shift in the model of surveillance capitalism? Plus we consider some of the rivals it faces: Bitcoin, WeChat and the good old dollar. Finally, this week we pay tribute to our dear friend and regular Talking Politics contributor Aaron Rapport (1980-2019) with some memories of his many appearances on the podcast.Talking Points:What is Libra?A digital currency that Facebook unveiled in a White Paper last monthIt aims to be a global currency that will bring the unbanked into banking and make certain transactions, such as remittances, easier.Libra itself would be managed by an association of members, including big finance companies, big tech companies, and NGOs. But Facebook would control Calibra, the wallet that would allow people to actually use the currency.How is Libra different from Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?Unlike Bitcoin, Libra would be pegged to a basket of currencies. This would make it less volatile, but more centralized.What would it mean if Facebook started issuing money?If Facebook were a state, it would have more subjects than any country on earth.Regulation remains a huge question.What will happen if Facebook has leverage over both social and economic capital?If Libra isn’t stopped before it launches, it could quickly become indispensable.There are huge potential benefits, especially in terms of facilitating remittances and increasing the efficiency of payments.But there are also risks: this could allow Facebook to go even further in accumulating new kinds of data and monetizing human behaviour. Mentioned in this Episode:Facebook’s Libra white paperJohn’s column on Libra Further Learning:TP talks to Shoshana Zuboff about Surveillance CapitalismThe Talking Politics Guide To … FacebookAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

We talk with Gary Gerstle about the big issues roiling US politics with likely aftereffects that will long outlast Trump's presidency. First up: the fight over the census. What's a stake in the citizenship question? How has American politics been shaped by people-counting in the past? And what is the Supreme Court likely to decide? Plus we look at constitutional reform, the environment and impeachment. These are the battles that could have consequences for decades to come. With Helen Thompson.Talking Points:The Trump administration wants to put the “citizenship question” on the U.S. census.Lines are being drawn between personhood and citizenship.If immigrants avoid the census, there could be consequences for Democrats.The Republicans know that demographics are against them.Trump probably wouldn’t have won the Republican primary without the backlash against immigration.The United States was the first country to put a census in its constitution.  The census is not connected to citizenship: it’s connected to personhood. Counting for the purposes of elections becomes complicated when you have a significant number of people in the country who are not citizens.The census gives you the numbers, but what happens is up to the states. This is why state-level offices are so important. If Trump wins a second term, he will likely appoint two justices to the Supreme Court.He has promised that he will only appoint people approved by the Federalist Society, which promotes an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.There can still be meaningful differences when people get on the court: Gorsuch, for example, has been more willing to side with liberal justices than Kavanaugh.But Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both are unlikely to uphold environmental regulations. If a Democrat wins, he or she will have to contend with a court that opposes the regulatory state.What about the impeachment question?Is there a principle at stake here? If not now, when?The Mueller report is damning—it emphasizes that the fact that they are not indicting the president does not mean they are exonerating him.Mueller’s July testimony will be significant: if impeachment is going to happen, the next few months are crucial.Mentioned in this Episode:The GOP gerrymandering architect and what his daughter found when she died.Further Learning:What are the conditions at the U.S. border?President Bernie?Trump after MuellerAmerica First?And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

The current crisis for the Conservatives is often described as the worst since the party split over the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. So we talk to historian Boyd Hilton about what really happened back then and what it meant for British politics. Why were the Corn Laws so divisive? How did public opinion impact on the politicians?  Did Peel betray his party or did he do what needed to be done? And what are the real lessons for Brexit and for the Conservative Party today?  With Helen Thompson. * We have extra show notes below, with a guide to the historical timeline and some further reading suggestions.Talking Points: What were the Corn Laws? From 1815-1846, a series of tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported grains kept prices artificially high to favor domestic producers. The laws were controversial from the beginning (but there wasn’t sizeable, collective opposition until later). The Corn Laws benefited those who owned land, but they increased food prices and the costs of living for most of the British public. Manufacturers also opposed the Corn Laws, which they saw as inhibiting free trade.Scarcity and self-sufficiency were part of the motivating ideology behind these laws. But in practice, they made Britain vulnerable to bad harvests. In 1846, under increasing pressure, Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel went against his own party to repeal the Corn Laws with the support of the Whigs. This split the Party, and kept it out of power for almost a generation.A Corn Laws Timeline:1815: Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the first Corn Laws were introduced to protect British grain production from outside competition.1832: The first Reform Act partially extends the franchise to include certain segments of the population who do not own landed property. It also redistributes seats from the agricultural south and west to the industrializing north. 1834: A new poor law is passed, establishing workhouses and leading to the effective criminalization of poverty.1836: The Anti Corn Law Association is founded (in 1839 it becomes the Anti-Corn Law League).1841: Peel’s Conservatives take control of the House of Commons. This is the first time that a majority government is thrown out by the electorate since 1708.1844: As part of Peel’s deflationary program, the Bank Charter Act restricts the powers of British banks and gives the Bank of England the exclusive right to issue banknotes. This act creates a ratio between gold reserves and currency circulation.1845: The great famine in Ireland begins.1846: The Corn Laws are repealed, leading to a split in the Conservative Party and Peel’s resignation.1848: A series of revolutions and uprisings take place across Europe, including, most notably, in France. Anxiety over revolution leads to the repression and ultimate destruction of Chartism.1850s: Britain enthusiastically embraces free trade, this appears to be validated by the economic boom of the 1860sKey Terms and Figures:Sir Robert Peel: The two-time, technocratic Conservative Prime Minister who repealed the Corn Laws. Although he was elected on a protectionist platform, Peel played a key role in Britain’s embrace of free trade. In 1846, he bucked his own party to join the Whigs and the Radicals to repeal the Corn Laws. This led to his resignation that year.Benjamin Disraeli: A two-time Conservative Prime Minister who played a key role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party. He clashed with Peel over the repeal of the Corn Laws.The Anti-Corn Law League: A highly successful, predominantly middle-class political movement that opposed the Corn Laws. Chartism: A working class parliamentary reform movement...

We try to work out what the current favourite to be next Tory leader actually stands for. Can his time as Mayor of London tell us what kind of PM he might be? Will his journalistic past come back to haunt him? Does he have a political philosophy beyond 'doing Brexit'? Plus we discuss whether the Johnson-Trump comparisons really stand up. With Helen Thompson and Chris Brooke.Talking Points:What does Boris Johnson stand for?He’s emphasizing is his experience as Mayor of London, especially his ability to assemble a good team (of course this can be debated). But the other side of his pitch is about Brexit, and the politics of that are going to overshadow everything that a Johnson cabinet could do. He would need a chancellor to do a lot of heavy lifting. Who would that person be? And is Johnson self-aware enough to see this?Johnson wallows in imperial nostalgia. This puts him in direct opposition to Corbyn. Could this lead to more public sparring over foreign policy?Could Johnson’s journalistic past create problems for him? On the one hand, the people he offends aren’t likely to vote for him anyways. It’s hard to imagine a skeleton that would cut across political divides.Michael Gove is clearly being held to a different standard right now. In some ways, Johnson has set himself outside of the traditional boundaries of political morality.At the end of the day, however, the Conservative Party needs someone who can appeal to the Brexiteers, even if it might lose them some support elsewhere.Does Johnson have a political philosophy?He’s not particularly ideological.His best pitch might be tax cuts plus Brexit, which looks a lot like Trump.A lot of Conservative MP’s don’t like Johnson at all—they think he’s only out for himself.Hunt is saying that the one thing we cannot have is an election; Johnson is saying the one thing that we cannot do is stay in the EU. Which is riskier?The Conservative Party is in a bind, and it’s not clear how it will get out of this crisis.But the problems run deeper than the Party.Part of the reason for this impasse is that politicians keep postponing the moment of reckoning. Nothing that has happened so far has changed the fundamental issues.Mentioned in this Episode:Johnson recites Kipling in MyanmarConstitutional BreakdownFurther Learning:Brexit LessonsMore on Boris Johnson, political satire, and “Have I Got New For You”On Johnson’s mayoral recordAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

We ask whether the UK constitution is cracking up - and if so, where's the breakpoint going to come? Is Brexit at the heart of the current crisis or does it go deeper than that? What's the role of the Supreme Court? And the Queen? Could the Bank of England play a part? And where does Scotland fit in? We try to piece it all together with Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton and Kenneth Armstrong.Talking Points: The British constitution is under big strain right now, and not just because of Brexit.The British constitution is a political one, and If there is a crisis it is a crisis of politics. Fundamentally, this is about representation.What happens if the next Conservative leader doesn’t command the confidence of Parliament?Right now, the constitution is facing multiple sources of strain including the Fixed Term Parliament Act, Brexit, and problems within the Union.To survive, the constitution has to adapt to all of these things simultaneously.Would things be better if the constitution were codified?If elections have been played down as a political tie breaker because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, is there space for something else?The rise of the Brexit party could create a real complication.At a certain point, it becomes difficult to disentangle the party dynamics and constitutional issues.Where are the pressure points in Scottish politics now?The most immediate one was the other week when the Scottish government published the referendum bill. It doesn’t provide for a second referendum.This is a way of trying to corral politics toward a second referendum without pushing a button immediately.Scotland is itself a vexed constitutional question.Mentioned in this Episode:The Economist on Britain’s constitutional time bombPoliticalBetting.com on the odds of having four prime ministers in four yearsFurther Learning:David’s series on rethinking representation for the BBCDavid on representation in UK democracyAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

We talk to the author of Guns, Germs and Steel about his new book on nations in crisis. Jared Diamond argues that personal crises are a good way of thinking about national ones. He tells us about one of his own personal crises and we see whether the lessons really apply to politics. Plus we discuss what's gone wrong with political leadership in the US and we explore what it would take to tackle the global environmental crisis.Talking Points:The premise of Jared’s new book is that the outcome predictors for personal crises can also be applied to national crises.How much does timing matter? Are early life crises different from late life crises?National crises, like personal crises, might begin with a sudden shock or unfold slowly.Individuals are biased: that can make thinking about the arc of a life hard. But collective action problems do not necessarily map onto personal crises.A key example is leadership: it matters for nations, but not individuals.In a globalized world, we don’t have the luxury of an isolated collapse.What happens when the system that needs change also has to affect that change?It’s impossible to get away from politics.Jared thinks that this is where leadership comes in. Leaders make a difference under some (but not all) circumstances.Democratic politics has a tendency to defer difficult decisions. But the world does have a track record of dealing with really tough problems.Mentioned in this Episode:UpheavalDemocracy for Young PeopleFurther Learning:Jared Diamond on his new bookTalking Politics with Yuval Noah HarariAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

David and Helen catch up with the European election results and the Tory leadership race - there's lots to talk about. How can the Tories compete with the Brexit Party? Are the Liberal Democrats a real threat to Labour? What does it all mean for Ireland? And for Scotland?  Plus, is the surge in support for Greens across Europe a signal that it's time to take environmental politics seriously?

As Theresa May's premiership gets very close to the end, we talk about who and what might be coming next. Can her successor re-establish the authority she has lost? Can anyone govern in this parliament or do we need a general election? Is the age of long-serving prime ministers also coming to an end? Plus we discuss what lessons can be drawn from the recent election in Australia: what does it tell us about the politics of climate change? With Helen Thompson and Chris Brooke.Talking Points:Theresa May’s prime ministership is nearing its last week. She has no authority left.Is it about her and her mismanagement, or has something happened to the office?Will her successor have any more luck? (It seems unlikely)It doesn’t seem like there was any realistic scenario in which May could have peeled off significant numbers of Labour MP’s. But the fight over the people’s vote within Labour could have turned out differently. If the leadership had succumbed, Labour MP’s in Leave constituencies might have done something different. October will be a month of high drama: both the Brexit deadline and the party conferences.Also the three options will look more like two: everyone has to take no deal seriously at that point. Could there be a general election in the autumn?If Labour doesn’t want to define itself according to Brexit, is there a plausible case for the Lib Dems to become the opposition?A revival of the Lib Dems hurts the Conservatives much more than Labour. Both main parties have a clear interest in having both Remain and Leave voters in their party. The problem is it means that neither of them can deliver Brexit.The long premierships of Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair are historical exceptions. A lot of what’s going on is the absence of a parliamentary majority: that’s the norm in British politics.But on the Conservative side, it’s also about the particular way they elect a leader. In parliamentary politics there’s a pressure towards a soft Brexit, but the Conservative leadership is in the hands of the members. We don’t know that much about them, but everyone seems to think that the membership is very Brexity. That sets up the instability.There are also substantive issues that have historically driven instability in UK politics: difficult questions about the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world, and difficult questions about the UK as a multi-national state.Did Australia just have a Brexit moment? Or is this something more familiar?There are parallels to the Major/Kinnock election in 1992.But there’s also the risk that the takeaway will be that going big on climate change is not a great strategy.Mentioned in this Episode:Paul Mason in The New StatesmanFurther Learning: The End of the Party?More on Corbyn and Labour’s strategyOn climate change and the Australian electionSocialism in this Country? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here:

We talk to historian Tom Holland about the fall of the Roman Republic and the parallels with today. Why does Roman history still exert such a strong pull over our imaginations? Are politicians like Trump and Berlusconi recognisable types from the ancient past? And is contemporary democracy vulnerable to the same forces that brought down the Roman Republic? Plus, we discuss Putin's claim that Russia is now the Third Rome. What is he getting at? With Helen Thompson.