Podcast: Talking Politics

UnHerd political editor Tom McTague and Cambridge professor Helen Thompson team up to investigate the history of today’s politics — and what it means for our future. Each week they will explore the great forces, ideas and events that led us to where we are, whether in Britain, the United States, Europe or beyond. It’s a politics podcast for those who want a deeper, historical understanding of the news, to understand what has really shaped our world and why. We hope you enjoy! Don’t forget to please rate, like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts — and, of course, to get in touch with all your questions and comments so we can respond in future episodes. Email us at thesetimes@unherd.com or tweet us at @thesetimespod

Past Present Future is a new weekly podcast with David Runciman, host of Talking Politics, exploring the history of ideas from politics to philosophy, culture to technology. David talks to historians, novelists, scientists and many others about where the most interesting ideas come from, what they mean, and why they matter.Ideas from the past, questions about the present, shaping the future.Brought to you in partnership with the London Review of Books.New episodes every Thursday. Just subscribe to Past Present Future wherever you get your podcasts.

We talk to historian Chris Brooke about ideas of a united Europe that long pre-dated the advent of the European Union. Since the eighteenth century philosophers, lawyers, diplomats and revolutionaries have constructed schemes to bring Europe together economically, legally and politically. How do these plans compare with what actually happened?Talking Points: Where does the idea of a union of European nation states come from?The conversation about union predates the consolidation of European nation-states.In the 18th century, Britain and France are long-established, but much of the rest of Europe isn’t really what we would call nation states.The common threads in these earlier projects are the notion of “perpetual peace” and commerce.How do you create a union when some states are much more powerful than others?You can’t escape geopolitics. From the 18th century onwards a widespread theme in arguments for European union are fears of growing Russian power.The European integrationists often take themselves to be critics of the balance of power, but at some point they realize that they’re actually trying to produce a new balance of power on the global level in response to the rise of America and East Asia.The Europeans want to both counter and copy America. The key predecessor to the customs union was the German Zollverein, which linked together the Western states in the German confederation.Union became a live political issue in the 1890s after the American tariff walls.In the end, these earlier projects failed because of animosity between the French and Germans over Alsace-Lorraine.The early legal conversations about union have disturbing racial and imperial subtexts. The First World War gave rise to the League of Nations, but this was not a purely European project.To understand the contemporary European union, you really need to look at the end of the Second World War.It’s hard not to think of the 18th century schemes and 19th century proposals as antecedents to what actually happened.But many things were still contingent. For example, the French were interested in cooperating because they wanted to shore up their empire in Africa, which collapsed soon after the Treaty of Rome.Further Learning: Follow Chris on Twitter @chrisbrookeA blog by Chris on the 18th century debate on European unionJeremy Bentham’s plan for “an universal and perpetual peace”On Napoleon and the European UnionRosa Luxemburg denounces “The United States of Europe in 1911And 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

David gives another in his series of talks about democracy. This one draws on the theme of his new book Where Power Stops: The Making and Unmaking of Presidents and Prime Ministers. From Lyndon Johnson to Boris Johnson, does power reveal the true character of politicians or do politicians reveal the true character of power? What sets the limits to what presidents and prime minsters can do? And how do we find them? https://profilebooks.com/where-power-stops-hb.htmlThe books that have had the single largest influence on modern Western politicians are Robert Caro’s biographies of Lyndon Johson.These books are a love letter to politics: the glory, the grind, the graft.Johnson’s life is a tale of redemption: he was a terrible man, but he did some great things.Johnson’s life shows that individual politicians can make a difference. This is a story that a lot of politicians want to hear.Caro says that the lesson of Johnson’s life is that power corrupts, but power also reveals. David disagrees.Johnson wanted to dominate. Compassion was not who he really was, it was just another tool at his disposal.To show he deserved power, Johnson had to do what Kennedy couldn’t do: civil rights and the great society.It’s not that power reveals the person, but the person reveals the nature of the power. Politicians don’t really change. And they often don’t really hide who they are. When they get to the top, you see not who they are, but what that kind of person can do with power. Are Trump and Boris Johnson part of this pattern?We haven’t discovered anything about Trump we didn’t know before.Much more has been revealed about the institution of the presidency than the man.What makes Trump different is that he doesn’t seem to believe that his power is subject to any constraints. This could actually change the institution.Boris Johnson is different. For one thing, he is capable of shame. But he is also willing, potentially, to treat the limits of office as if they aren’t there.Further Learning:David’s new book, Where Power StopsThe Caro biographies of JohnsonCaro on chasing Johnson’s paper trailYuval Noah HarariMichael Howard on Talking PoliticsAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

David and Helen try to make sense of where we've got to, though things are moving fast (*episode recorded before the Scottish court judgment*). Can parliament force Johnson's hand in the Brexit negotiations if he is still PM? Will Labour hold together now that it's become a second referendum party? Could the revocation of article 50 become a real prospect? Next week, on to the Supreme Court. We also pay tribute to our dear friend and colleague Finbarr Livesey, who very sadly died last week.Talking Points:People have claimed moral victories and rhetorical victories this week, but what actually happened?Boris is still Prime Minister, and the opposition organized behind legislation that requires him to ask for an extension.But the EU will want a reason. And Boris wouldn’t be breaking the law if he said there was no reason, or that it was purely political.Is it possible that all this turmoil actually gives Johnson more leverage with the EU?Unless there’s movement from the Irish government, it will be extremely difficult for the EU to move.The DUP’s position is weaker now, but a Northern Ireland only backstop would be a massive crisis for the Union. There appears to be a new centrist group in Parliament with Stephen Kinnock and others trying to rally in support of a deal. But the numbers are very small and they’ll have to defend the fact that they voted against the withdrawal agreement before.What about Labour?Labour has now become the second referendum party but there are still a lot of questions.If Corbyn weren’t the leader of the opposition, would a vote of no confidence have passed?Did Labour make the wrong call on an election?Meanwhile, the Lib Dems seem to be moving towards a “revoke” position. The constitution is in uncharted waters: there’s a government with no majority that wants to call an election and Parliament is saying that the electorate cannot have a say.Do the courts have the authority to reconvene Parliament?Further Learning: How Would a Second Referendum on Brexit Work? Helen on bending the constitution for the New StatesmanIs it Legal? The Talking Politics guide to… the UK constitutionAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

We talk to historian Jill Lepore about the idea of nationalism in America, from the birth of the Republic through to Trump. What defines the nation? Why does the illiberal version keep getting the upper hand?  Are there any politicians in America who can rescue the idea of liberal nationalism? Plus we ask Jill what she thinks of Johnson, Brexit and nationalism in the UK.The Union won the American Civil War, but the South won the peace.The South won the peace by persuading the North both to undo the terms of Reconstruction and to remember the war as being about something different than it actually was.The Confederacy was founded on the premise of racial hierarchy.Reconstruction began as essentially a military occupation of the South to reinforce the new amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing equality for all peopleBut it was ended prematurely and the federal government wound up conceding the constitutionality of the Jim Crow laws that reenforced racial hierarchy.When did cities stop being a part of “the nation?”To some on the right, there’s no such thing as a liberal nationalism or liberal patriotism. Trump sets the nation against the government.Historically, the term “globalist” is code for antisemitism. The environmentalists may have replaced the old “internationalists.”The classic error on the left is to speak to either subgroups or the world.Looking at the Democratic presidential candidates, you don’t really see anyone talking about what the nation is.The concept of the “nation” is now one of the things that divides generations.Obama did talk about the nation a lot—this is part of what made him so powerful rhetorically.There are competing notions of nationalism. On the one hand, you have an enlightened, liberal nationalism, which is about guaranteeing equal rights to citizens. On the other, there is illiberal nationalism, which is premised on exclusion. Right now, illiberal nationalism seems to have the upper hand.Further Learning: Jill on why America needs a new national storyWhat if Reconstruction hadn’t failed?David Blight on the Civil War and Reconstruction, 1845-1877 (Open Yale Courses)America First? 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

Helen Thompson and Adam Tooze take us beyond Brexit to look at the global situation and the bigger threats we face. Italy, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Russia, Trump vs. the Fed, the US vs. China, Hong Kong, the dollar, the euro, climate change, oil: an amazingly wide-ranging conversation that somehow manages to connect it all up.Talking Points: Christine Lagarde will take up her post at the ECB relatively soon. Does her most recent speech fit into a narrative of a French victory in the euro struggles?Lagarde has clearly asserted the necessity of continuing the Draghi agenda, but augmenting it with fiscal action. That’s the big question mark.There are still fundamental, unresolved issues: banking union and Italy’s sovereign debt.The condition for making Italian fiscal activism safe would be some agreement to collectivize a large portion of Italy’s sovereign debt. How that’s accounted for, and whose balance sheet it would fall onto is the real issue.Do you really want to activate a major fiscal stimulus in the German economy?This might be a good moment for a political deal between the North and South because the engine of German manufacturing is slowing down.What’s happening in Germany is less to do with the Eurozone and more to do with China and to some extent the Eurodollar system. The Germany economy is export-centric. It won’t respond to stimulating domestic demand.If we accept that the status quo is dangerous, then fiscal policy has to be more transformative.Trying to figure out what is actually causing the weakness in the world economy is perhaps more important than the confrontation between Trump and the Fed.Something weird is going on in global capital markets, which means that the Americans are suffering basically no bond-market punishment despite extraordinary dysfunction. At the same time, interest rates have plunged.This allows Trump to politicize things further.It’s both a return of the past, and something entirely new.The eurozone does appear to have a disciplinary role. The idea of a euro-state leaving the eurozone still seems unconscionable.  China clearly wants to escape a dollar world. Could this deal with Iran make it possible?They want to be able to buy oil in their own currency.But the dollar and the U.S. banking system are still America’s ultimate weapons.How big is the risk of a major global economic slowdown? It’s already happening in Germany, Latin America, South Africa... The question is scope: it hasn’t yet spread to the services sector. There’s a variety of different economic ailments, but this is a real risk.Mentioned in this Episode:Adam’s recent article in the NYTimesFurther Learning: Why is Trump attacking the Fed? Adam Tooze on EuropeAdam Tooze on the US vs. ChinaAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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/33q6uOmTalking 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 incentivesThe 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 GuardianAnd on economic incentives in The New York TimesAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

Special cross over episode with the FiveThirtyEight politics podcast from America, hosted by Galen Druke.On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that he had asked the queen to suspend parliament in September, reducing the amount of time lawmakers will have to debate legislation related to Brexit. John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons ,called the move a “constitutional outrage.” In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Helen Thompson and David Runciman discuss what qualifies as a constitutional crisis and whether they think Britain has reached that point. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

We talk to public policy expert Dennis Grube about the changing character of the civil service, from Victorian mandarins and Yes, Minister to the current battles over Brexit in the age of Twitter.  Senior civil servants increasingly find themselves in the public eye, expected to communicate their views. Has this politicised the advice they give? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

For our last pre-election episode we talk with Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe, about what might happen to Brexit once the vote is done. What choices does Johnson face if he wins? What paths are there to a second referendum if he loses? And what will remainers do if Britain does finally leave the EU? Plus we discuss what the rest of Europe makes of it all. With Helen Thompson. Tomorrow, we talk about the result of the election as it happens.Talking Points: There are basically two scenarios: Johnson gets a majority and the withdrawal bill passes, or there’s a hung parliament.The first is slightly more probable, but the margins are getting closer.If Johnson has a majority of even one, the UK will probably leave.But we still don’t know what Johnson wants. Will he be a prisoner to the ERG or will he be a one nation Tory and go for a softer Brexit?The next crunch point will be the end of June with the extension for transition. EU leaders have been assuming a Johnson victory.There’s a conversation in Brussels about how flexible the EU should be, given Johnson’s comments on European trade.Relations within the EU have gotten more fraught.What about the UK’s security relationship with the EU? Would a hung parliament inevitably lead to a second referendum?It’s not clear that a Corbyn minority government could legislate for a referendum. You might actually get another election.The gap between Labour and the Conservatives is as wide as it has been in recent history.The Lib Dems have again fallen behind.The public seems to be uncomfortable with revoke. It’s not a vote winner.If the UK leaves, where do the remainers go? It doesn’t seem that project rejoin would have much steam in the short term.If Johnson wins, it will be on less than half of the vote. And the likelihood of a fifth Conservative victory is unlikely. There is a reason for Labour to believe that next time is their real chance.Mentioned in this Episode: On the tension between Macron and MerkelRobert Tombs in the Spectator.Further Learning: Follow Anand on Twitter hereAnand on negotiating a trade deal with EuropeAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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 BidenTickets to David’s upcoming event at the Cambridge UnionFurther Learning:Our friends at 538 on American support for impeachmentAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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.ukTalking 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 memoirCameron’s Bloomberg speechMacron’s 2017 Sorbonne speechMore on ChiracAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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 electionFurther Learning: Mike’s new Bennett institute report on townscapes in ScotlandMore on the Spanish electionAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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’sGeoffrey Howe’s resignation speechRobin Cook’s resignation speechLewis Goodall interviews Dominic CummingsFurther Learning: More on Labour in ScotlandBoiling PointAnd 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

David and Helen talk to bestselling author Michael Lewis about the effect that Trump's presidency is having on the workings of the US government and the risks we are all running as a result. From wilful ignorance to breathtaking corruption, we explore the different ways that one man can change the character of an entire political system. Plus we ask what, if anything, can be done about it.https://bit.ly/2M1yzVk See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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 ConstitutionThe Supreme Court and politics vs. the lawWho 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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.

We talk to lawyer and constitutional expert Alison Young about the current pressures on the UK constitution, from Brexit to devolution to political polarisation. Is parliamentary sovereignty still the linchpin of the system? What changed with the arrival of the Supreme Court? Can the constitution survive in its current form?Talking Points:How should we think about parliamentary sovereignty in the UK constitutional order?The idea is that legislation enacted by parliament is the highest form of law in the land.Unlike most other systems, the UK does not have a written constitution that is above legislation.What does this mean for the Union? In a nutshell, Westminster can still override other parliaments. The civil convention is the idea that Westminster won’t legislate in the devolved areas or change the devolved structures without the consent of the devolved bodies.But this can’t be legally enforced, and Westminster doesn’t always comply with it.  The UK doesn’t have a federal system: there aren’t the same legal limits on Westminster but there are legal limits on the devolved bodies.In short, the institutions are permanent but their powers aren’t.Did Parliament limit its sovereign powers when it created the Supreme Court?Parliament could still abolish the court, but that could also trigger a constitutional crisis.It’s not necessarily the Supreme Court that has limited parliamentary sovereignty. EU law has primacy and direct effect. This is a restriction on parliamentary sovereignty.Another tension is how the courts are beginning to interpret legislation.Brexit has led to renewed focus on parliamentary sovereignty. On the one hand, we see the reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty against the executive. On the other hand, the Brexiteers see themselves as this very principle from the EU.The Gina Miller case revolved around the tension between the government and parliament—whether the government could trigger Article 50. This case actually reinforced parliamentary sovereignty. The referendum created a tension between the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of parliament.This is the problem that has not been resolved.Further Learning:The UK Constitutional Law AssociationAlison’s article on populism and the UK constitutionAlison on “The Briefing Room”Jonathan Sumption’s Reith Lectures on “Law’s expanding empire”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. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/talkingpolitics.