An extra episode as David and Helen try to work out where we've got to with Brexit after this week's votes in the Commons. Can Tory unity hold? Can EU unity hold? Something's got to give - but what?  And when?Talking Points:Is there a contradiction in offering to renegotiate the backstop?If a no deal means a hard border and economic chaos, then maybe there is a good argument for reopening the backstop?If you’re sitting in Dublin right now, you might be nervous because the chance that Britain leaves without a deal seems higher than it was.Would the other EU states abandon Ireland? The big loser of the week was the second referendum. There does not seem to be stomach in parliament for stopping Brexit.The massive tactical problem that May now faces is that Feb. 14 is way too soonAn extension of Article 50? For what purpose? 60% of the UK electorate sees extending Article 50 as stopping Brexit.Does this mean that events are leading toward either a deal or no deal Brexit?A general election seems like the logical way out.But both Labour and the Tories would have a lot of problems in a general election.There could be some common group between the ERG position and the EU position if all parties could be 100% confident that the backstop would not materialize.But it is also possible that we are totally trapped.Mentioned in this Episode:New numbers on the EU economyFurther Learning:The FT on Germany’s current positionOur recap of Theresa May’s crushing Commons defeatCan May get her deal over the line?And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

This week marks the 100th anniversary of one of the most influential lectures ever given on politics: Max Weber's 'Politics as a Vocation', first delivered in Munich on 28 January 1919. David and Helen talk with Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, about some of its lessons for the age of Brexit. Where have all the good leaders gone? Is the party system to blame? Are we suffering from an excess of conviction or a lack of conviction? And who will be responsible if we see a return to violence? Recorded before a live audience at Trinity Hall, Cambridge.Talking Points:The British two-party system, which Weber admired, was intended to organize political divisions; however the plebiscitary politics of the Brexit referendum introduced another set of divisions.Divisions over Brexit cut across the parties.This demonstrates the danger of mixing different types of politics. Another problem is that the UK is a multinational state.Is the current failure of leadership about the leaders we have chosen or the dilemmas they face?Right now, there doesn’t seem to be an opposition that is ready to take over. Does this suggest the need for a new party, or parties? In many ways, Tony Blair represented Weber’s ideal of charismatic leadership. But he also discredited that model for many people.Regardless of what you think of May or Corbyn, it’s clear that neither of them is in it for the money. May and Corbyn are a generational step back; right now, there aren’t any new leaders emerging.When Weber wrote his lecture, the stakes of politics were remarkably high—there was a real risk of civil war. In a world in which large-scale violence is unlikely, is charismatic leadership still the answer?Mentioned in this episode: Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation”Jonathan Powell’s essay in the New Statesman, “The Rise and Fall of Britain’s Political Class”Further Learning:Jonathan Powell on the backstop David on how divisions between the old and the young are threatening democracy.The Talking Politics guide to… the 1970s, in which Helen explains the turbulent decadeWho is Jeremy Corbyn? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

With the US government still shut, we compare this standoff to shutdowns of the past and try to work out what happens next. What is Trump's game? Can the two parties hold together? And why aren't the workers taking to the streets? Plus we weigh up where things stand with the Mueller investigation, the race for the Democratic nomination and Trump's shifting policy on Syria. It's all connected! With Helen Thompson and Gary Gerstle.

Adam Tooze, author of Crashed and one of our most popular previous guests, discusses the wider political and economic context of Britain's Brexit crisis, including Italy, France, Germany, China, and the US. Topics include the Italian economy, Macron's position, the relationship between the Federal Reserve and the US government under President Trump, the current situation in China and its potential global effects, China's nationalist aspirations and their impact on Chinese-American relations, British politicians' choices in the Brexit era, and potential solutions for Brexit.

After the crushing defeat for Theresa May's deal in the Commons, we try to work out where we go from here. How and when can Article 50 be extended? What would it mean for parliament to take control of the process? Do we need another general election? Can this government survive? It's all connected and we search for the path through the maze. With Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton and Kenneth Armstrong.

David talks to Martin Rees about how we should evaluate the greatest threats facing the human species in the twenty-first century. Does the biggest danger come from bio-terror or bio-error, climate change, nuclear war or AI? And what prospects does space travel provide for a post-human future?Talking Points:Existential risk is risk that cascades globally and is a severe setback to civilization. We are now so interconnected and so empowered as a species that humans could be responsible for this kind of destruction.There are natural existential risks too, such as asteroids. But what is concerning about the present moment is that humans have the ability to affect the entire biosphere.This is a story about technology, but it’s also about global population growth and the depletion of resources.There are four categories of existential risk: climate change, bioterror/bioerror, nuclear weapons, and AI/new technology.Climate Change has a long tail, meaning that the risk of total catastrophe is non-negligible.Bioterror/bio-error is becoming more of a risk as technology advances. It’s hard to predict the consequences of the misuse of biotech. Our social order is more vulnerable than it used to be. Overwhelmed hospitals could lead to a societal breakdown.Machine learning has not yet reached the level of existential risk. Real stupidity, not artificial intelligence, will remain our chief concern in the coming decades. Still, AI could make certain kinds of cyber-attacks much worse.The nuclear risk has changed since the Cold War. Today there is a greater risk that some nukes go off in a particular region, although global catastrophe is less likely.These threats are human-made. Solving them is also our responsibility.We can’t all move to Mars. Earth problems have to be dealt with here.There are downsides to tech, but we will also need it. Martin describes himself as a technical optimist, but a political pessimist.Mentioned in this episode:Martin Weitzman on long tail risks and climate changeThe Stern Review on climate change, 10 years onA review of Jared Diamond’s Collapse. Further Learning:Martin’s new book, On the Future: Prospects for HumanityThe Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at CambridgeThe Talking Politics Guide to Nuclear WeaponsWho wants to colonize Mars? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

David talks to Helen Thompson about the economic order that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War.  What was agreed at Bretton Woods, how did it work, why did it eventually fail, and can any of it be revived?Talking Points:The Bretton Woods system:Established a system of fixed exchange rates with the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency (other currencies were pegged to the dollar, and the dollar was pegged to gold)Created the IMF and the World BankEstablished capital controlsOn the surface, Bretton Woods is a success story. The following three decades were a period of economic growth and relative stability. But there are other parts of that story too, such as low oil prices. The system had to be patched up many times from 1961 onward, in part because of the misaligned role of dollars and gold. Bretton Woods also created a problem for U.S. presidents who had to balance domestic and international pressures on the dollar. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of the end for Bretton Woods.Nixon didn’t like Bretton Woods because it imposed domestic constraints that were at odds with his protectionist message. In 1971, Nixon ended dollar/gold convertibility. By 1973, it was clear that there was no longer the will to sustain Bretton Woods.The Bretton woods system was a function of American power—there’s no going back now.A system like Bretton Woods needs an anchoring power. China doesn’t have a currency that is convertible in the same way and the Chinese are wary of the domestic pitfalls of becoming the international currency.Further Learning:  In the Talking Politics Guide to… the 1970s: Helen discusses the decade in which the Bretton Woods system broke down.The panel speaks to Oliver Bullough about “Moneyland,” and how a handful of London bankers helped break Bretton Woods.Why did the architect of Bretton Woods spy for the Soviets? David and Helen talk to historian Adam Tooze about the global financial crisis.And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talkingSet your alarms… for Thursday when David talks to Martin Rees about how we should evaluate the greatest threats facing the human species in the twenty-first century.   

David talks to Matthew Taylor about whether more deliberation could remedy some of the defects in contemporary democracy. What can deliberative democracy add to traditional forms of political representation and how might it actually work in practice?Talking Points: The key feature of deliberative democracy is the idea that in order to fully tap into citizens’ views of an issue, you need to give them the time, information, and range of opinion to make an informed choice.The deliberative group should be a mini-public—it’s the same principle as a jury.Deliberative democracy allows you to see the process as well as the outcome. Many citizens change their minds.Deliberation can legitimize representative democracy and make it possible for politicians to take difficult decisions.But there are drawbacks too: it takes a lot of time and it can lead to polarization.Deliberation leads to more long term thinking and creates a sense of shared responsibility between citizens and the government.Some people are suspicious that deliberative democracy is simply an attempt to get progressive politics in by another route.So much of contemporary politics is about crowds, charisma, and slogans. Deliberative democracy is slow and informed.There should have been some kind of deliberative process before Brexit. There was a deliberative process before the Irish referendum, which made something that could have been incredibly divisive into a positive. But it might be too late for Brexit. Politicizing deliberative democracy could undermine it.Deliberative democracy needs to be a habit in order to work properly.Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that is attractive and uplifting. It could be an antidote to the ugliness of contemporary politics.Deliberation is a gateway reform: if you make it a habit, you can use deliberative methodologies to explore other kinds of democratic reforms. The main barrier is ignorance, not hostility. Once people understand what deliberative democracy is, they tend to be interested.Mentioned in this Episode:Cass Sunstein on polarization and deliberative democracy.Deliberative democracy in Ulaanbaatar.How a citizens' assembly broke Ireland’s deadlock on abortion.Further Learning:David discusses the future of referendums with Gisela Stuart, Jenny Watson, and Alan Renwick.Matthew gives the RSA Chief Executive’s Lecture on citizens' assemblies.And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talkingSet your alarms… for Sunday, when David talks to Helen about the economic order that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. What was agreed at Bretton Woods, how did it work, why did it eventually fail, and can any of it be revived?

David talks to Ella McPherson about whether digital communication is making it easier or harder to hold human rights abusers to account. What has been the impact of the social media revolution on reporting human rights violations and does anonymity help or hinder the pursuit of justice?Talking Points:Human rights activism is about analyzing information, processing it, and turning it into evidence.New technologies such as smartphones and messaging services have fundamentally changed the process of information gathering.Analysis has also changed. For example, Google Earth or new forms of modeling can help activists verify reports.Technology has also widened the human rights project. Many groups, including Amnesty International, now outsource some forms of analysis to amateurs. This allows them to process far more information and gives concerned citizens a way to get involved.For a few years, the story about technology and human rights was mostly positive, but there are drawbacks too.Activists had an early adopter advantage (e.g. civilian witness videos), but states are starting to catch up.Technology makes it easier to organize, but it also makes activists more visible and trackable.Today, many activists are limiting or opting out of digital communications.New developments such as “deepfakes” also make it harder to verify information. States can sow doubt by flooding the zone with misinformation. Anonymity in human rights reporting is a mixed bag because it runs against our social understanding of how to produce knowledge.Anonymously provided information may alert fact finders to a problem, but it will rarely be sufficient.Knowing where information comes from is important in the verification process.Unfortunately, this means that vulnerable people are more likely to be silenced.Mentioned in this Episode:Amnesty International’s digital verification projectAnd their open-source investigationsThe Forensic Architecture agency at Goldsmiths, University of London Further Reading: “Anatomy of a Killing:” the BBC uses open-source information including Google Earth to identify and verify a horrifying video circulating on social mediaWhat are “deepfakes” and can we still trust what we see?On blockchain and deepfakesWhat happens when war crimes are recorded on social media?Set your alarms… for Thursday, when David talk to Matthew Taylor about whether more deliberation could remedy some of the defects in contemporary democracy.

How did Facebook get to be so powerful and what, if anything, can we do to take some of that power back? David talks to John Naughton about the rise and possible fall of Mark Zuckerberg’s social media monolith. Talking Points:Facebook is a data extraction company claiming to be a social network.If the service is free, your data is the product.Advertisers, not users, are Facebook’s real customers.How do we reconcile this reality with the fact that people value it as a public service?In some parts of the world, Facebook has become the internet.People who wouldn’t be able to afford data charges can access the internet for free via the Facebook app.If you are a monopoly platform for information, what kind of responsibility do you have?2018 has been a tough year for Facebook, but is it really vulnerable?Investigative reporting has revealed the darker side of the social network.So far, they’ve been pretty inept at handling these scandals.This is creating a morale problem, which could affect their ability to recruit.But the company’s services have inserted themselves into people’s daily lives.We don’t have the right analytical framework for analyzing how Facebook does harm.Facebook has become the corporate extension of Mark Zuckerberg’s personality.He has absolute control, and this means that his vision dominates.Zuckerberg appears to believe that the world would be better if everyone were on Facebook.For Facebook, it’s all about growth. What if they embraced a more self-limiting strategy?A massive revolt by a significant portion of people might shift the narrative and cause investor panic.But it’s unlikely that Facebook will be out-competed. The barrier to entry has become too high.Mentioned in this Episode:Carole Cadwalladr’s groundbreaking reporting on Cambridge AnalyticaThe New York Times’ investigation into how Facebook handled revelations about Russian interference in the 2016 electionHow Facebook enabled a genocide in MyanmarFurther Learning:From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg, John’s book about the internet.The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos profiles Mark Zuckerberg.From our archive... David unpacks the Cambridge Analytica story with John and Jennifer Cobbe.Shoshana Zuboff’s new book on the age of surveillance capitalism.The U.S. Senate’s report on disinformation and Russian interference.And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talkingSet your alarms… for Sunday, when David talks to Ella McPherson about...