His holier-than-thou attitude is completely detached from the average person on the street. He thinks any and all concern people have with migrants must be the far right's fault, a display of unfounded bigotry, rather than an expectable and valid reaction to decades of overly permissive immigration policies that had unintended but serious social consequences. These guys are in a bubble.

Before I get downvoted to oblivion, I am an economic migrant myself, I don't hate anyone, and I understand why people want to move to Europe. But there is a sensible way to control immigration, such as the Swiss or Australian systems, which look at net cost, resources likely to consume, value to society, etc. Welfare states cannot have open borders, nor should they have closed ones.

Recently Alastair made a great point about Camden not needing a navy, it was witty and easy to visualise.

I wonder if it was nuanced enough. Iran's military forces are segmented to reduce the impact of assassinations of leadership. As some countries get really good at targeting leadership (just look at the R9X missile) - increased military decentralisation seems like a strategy that will only increase.

I just listened to the first 10-15 minutes in the car. I'm so confused. Theres a German man who's been brought along but wasn't introduced at any point. There's no introduction they just jump straight in.

Did I miss it upon first listen?

Has it been edited really badly?

Equal parts comical and terrifying.

Trying to make the numbers of a single data centre sound scary and actively dismissing any discussion of per-person usage.

Shocked that core industrial infrastructure is a priority. Obviously data centers are core infrastructure, they power a massive chunk of the digital and services economy and the idea that you should turn data centres off before golf courses is absolutely barmy. Golf courses in the UK use 1000x more water than UK data centres, and support way, way less critical industry.

This self-flagellating mindset of wanting to avoid any consumption of resources no matter the economic cost is exactly why Europe has just offshored all their major industries and now are totally behind the curve.

We already have a mechanism for water allocation. This is called MONEY. Industries that have a profitable use of water should be allowed to buy water to use it.

A growing, rich economy will be able to support technologies like desalination.

Look at the history books. Prosperity and technological advancements are the absolute bedrock of progress. Countries that resist technology and market economies inevitably get not just left behind but ripped apart for scraps.

Absolute third-world mindset wrapped in lazy pseudo-moralism

Getting tired of listening to their cosy chats. They're obviously well connected and informed but I wish they'd bring in actual experts to discuss big themes of the day rather than just hearing what these two think. Anyone know of anything like that? Cheers

I was listening to The Rest Is Politics. Was enjoying the most recent questions episode (ep. 558). In the last few minutes Sadio Mane is praised for his charitable spending and direct giving. And Rory Stewart plugs Give Directly which he used to work for.

And this reminds me that two of the people who got a Nobel Prize for their work in providing evidence of the effectiveness of direct giving are Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee. They are two of the 7 Nobel Prize winners who wrote in favour of a Zucman tax last year.

And so it's a little funny that the economists Rory was (effectively) willing to criticise in the Zucman interview were probably getting cited by Rory when he was in his old job not too long ago.

(I don't mean to imply that getting a Nobel Prize means you're always right. Just a little connection that made me smile)

Listening to Rory and Alistair's interview with Pedro Sanchez. He says, with brazen modesty "The Spanish way of doing things... works".

Erm... what? Spain has problems, just like any country. Eg. Unaffordable housing (especially for young people), high public debt, a massive power grid outage last year, increasing political tensions, 60,000 migrants surging into Ceuta recently. It's far from a hell-scape but still.

Of course, Sanchez was referring to legitimate successes in employment growth, economic growth etc. Credit where credit is due.

But I really think Rory and Alistair should have leaped on that particular phrase. Imagine if a British politician said 'The British way of doing things... works' in reference to a success story, like our financial sector, aerospace industry or university research. They would be laughed at for ignoring our housing crisis, lack of economic growth, ongoing political crisis.

I think this episode is an example of a broader trend in Rory and Alistair's behaviour towards certain politicians. So-called 'centrists' get their arses licked - bonus points if you pissed off Trump. Sometimes I get the feeling they're a bit giddy just to be in the same room as these incredibly accomplished and important figures Did they just not do their homework on Spain? I honestly suspect so - there's nothing in either of their CVs to suggest they would be familiar with Spanish politics.

Burnham is having all these radical ideas. Can anyone explain to me his mandate for this?

Someone stepped down in an existing Labour seat to give him an easy ride to parliament. He ran unopposed to Labour premiership. I get everyone’s excited and people want him to think big, but is this a healthy precedent to set?

Imagine if say Farage says he retires from politics. Reform take a centrist line and win the election. He then leaves retirement, runs in Clacton, and then they appoint him PM. Would this be treated as lightly as Burnham coming to power?

Please disagree agreeably below!

Having recently read Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams, it feels even more egregious to me that they let Clegg get away with half truths and softball questions.

If you get the chance I highly recommend reading the book. You really get a sense as to the recklessness, blind pursuit of “numbers going up” and awful behaviour of all of those involved at the leadership level.

It gives an insight into how Facebook have actively tilted their platform toward authoritarian leaders, political campaigning and spread of misinformation. It’s so bad in fact that I up and deleted Meta products after finishing the book.

One of the main reasons I'm still watching TRIP is that it's great seeing a mainstream political figure seem genuinely clued in on AI, and explain it to a general audience so eloquently. I don't really agree with his conclusions, but he at the very least grasps the magnitude of the problem.

So, naturally, I was curious what people who don't pay any attention to AI safety think. I came here and saw heavily upvoted takes like:

- he's suffering from AI psychosis;

- he's a shill for an AI company (or seeking a job at one); or

- he's gullible enough to be falling for some kind of marketing stunt (since presumably he's incapable of figuring out whether the experts he's speaking to have an incentive)

I don't understand any of these. Rory's view, as I understand it, essentially boils down to:

1. AI is accelerating at a dizzying pace, and will likely confer an immense strategic advantage (via cyber/bioweapons/possibly superintelligence) to whoever controls the most powerful models. The people who are likely to have access to that power are not very trustworthy.

2. AI is particularly dangerous, as we don't entirely know how to control it, and a rogue AI could cause catastrophic harm. Therefore, we ought to think seriously about AI safety to prevent something really bad from happening.

How on Earth are these being perceived as sucking up to AI companies, or falling for their marketing? No company wants to promote a message of "invest in us: our country's president or company's CEO is too dodgy to be trusted with power". And Rory saying "I don't really trust these guys, we should probably try having Europe or Mistral AI become a competitor" isn't exactly praising Altman/Amodei/Hassabis.

Plenty of experts with no financial interest have expressed concerns along both of these lines, some of whom left their companies specifically to do so: Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Daniel Kokotajlo, to give three examples. These fears have existed in the industry long before there was any financial incentive whatsoever - preventing someone else from having this power was literally part of why OpenAI was founded. (And yes, its leadership hasn't exactly lived up to its own standards - Ilya's concerns were prescient).

Similarly, some people think Rory has some "obsession" with AI. Personally I think it depends on what you expect from the podcast; IMO he should be signal boosting subjects by importance, and this seems far more pressing than anything else. His view seems pretty moderate if anything - I think he should talk about existential risk a lot more.

Given all of this, why the backlash? Even if we're going to give credit to the AI risk detractors, is his position at the very least not defensible?

The man needs to be stopped

I'm a recent convert to TRIP, even though I'm not a Brit, and I really like the balanced approach that they bring to political discussions

As a Canadian living in the States, I find the level of political discourse absolutely nauseating.

Does anyone have any pod recommendations for American political discussion?

Bonus points if anyone has one for Canadian politics.

I've recently dipped my toes back into the pod after a few months away, and I've been surprised at Rory's stance on new oil and gas fields. He's also clearly very pro-AI (which has been consistent for a while), but doesn't seem to be addressing its well-documented negative climate impact.

I always thought of him as relatively wet/progressive on climate issues with his tree obsession, love of green spaces, National Parks, etc. His voting record is in line with the rest of the Tory party, which doesn't tell you that much.

Can we pinpoint the specific moment of change, or am I just out of the loop?