It’s been a big week for politicos, with Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer both reshuffling their teams. The Sunak government does – and a Starmer government would – spend billions trying to make the world better, so their ministerial appointments matter. Let’s delve into what the reshuffles mean for key global priorities like animal welfare, international development, and artificial intelligence governance.
Also: Alternative proteins funding and attitudes to eating animals; nuclear policy and more AI stuff.
This is part of my ongoing attempt to justify the ways of Westminster to effective altruism, and effective altruism to Westminster. If you find this interesting, please subscribe and share with a friend!
Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet mini-reshuffle
Sunak went first:
Defence Secretary: Ben Wallace → Grant Shapps
Energy Security and Net Zero Sec: Grant Shapps → Claire Coutinho
Children, Families and Wellbeing Undersecretary: Claire Coutinho → David Johnston (backbencher).
Remaining in place: Thérèse Coffey at DEFRA (responsible for animal welfare), Andrew Mitchell as Minister for Development and Africa, and Michelle Donelan at DSIT (responsible for AI governance).
Nonetheless, the reshuffle matters for global priorities. The Energy Secretary shapes the UK’s climate change policy; that’s the government portfolio most motivated by concern for future generations. And the Defence Secretary will play an important role steering the British response to international conflict, including the Russo-Ukraine war – an ongoing moral catastrophe, and a war that could go nuclear or spiral into a great powers conflict.
We’ve known that Wallace wouldn’t be continuing at Defence for a few months now. The last holdover from Boris Johnson’s government, Wallace was generally seen as a steady hand. He could have run to succeed Johnson, but opted to stay at Defence; he wanted to run NATO, but the Americans preferred to keep Jens Stoltenberg in post. Wallace, who attracts something like the centrist fawning that has swirled around Rory Stewart since 2019 or so, will remain well-respected but will not be running for re-election.
What can we expect from Shapps at Defence? He’s pledged full, continuing support for Ukraine. He’s an experienced Cabinet Minister, but doesn’t have a military background. The BBC quote an anonymous minister saying Sunak chose “media over capabilities” and calling Shapps the “minister for the Today programme”. Sky News call Shapps’ elevation a “risky move”.
Shapps is succeeded in the Energy Security and Net Zero post by Claire Coutinho, the first MP from the 2019 intake to make Minister. Coutinho assumes the role as Sunak’s decision to “max out” British oil brings his commitment to net zero into doubt. Politico suggest Coutinho is a green Tory:
She hailed the U.K.’s status as a leader in offshore wind (“one of the most remarkable success stories in the U.K. today”); welcomed the “green measures” in the upcoming budget, and paid particular tribute to another of her East Surrey predecessors, Peter Ainsworth. Coutinho called him a “green giant.”
Before becoming a minister, Coutinho was an active member of the backbench Tory green caucus, the Conservative Environment Network, and campaigned for “wild belts” — areas of land left aside for nature in planning decisions.
(She probably won’t be talking to Brian Tomasik about the wild animal suffering implications there.)
Keir Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet reshuffle
Sunak went first, but Starmer went bigger. Inspiring original headlines like “The winners and losers” from The Guardian, “The winners and losers” from Politico, and “The promotions and demotions” from Sky, Starmer went for a full-fledged reshuffle to properly establish his government-in-waiting. This Shadow Cabinet seems set to be Starmer’s election team: Starmer says, "Britain deserves a government that wakes up every morning determined to improve the lives of working people. That's what my Labour government, with the team appointed today, will do."
I’ll pick out some changes that seem important for global priorities.
Steve Reed has become Shadow DEFRA Secretary, including responsibility for animal welfare. I’m not very familiar with Reed. His comments on animals include wanting to crack down on dangerous dogs ten years ago, but nothing much on the horrors of factory farming.
Lisa Nandy moves from Shadow Levelling Up Secretary to Shadow International Development Secretary. Journalists are pretty unanimously calling this a demotion for Starmer’s one-time leadership rival. But from an EA perspective, International Development could be one of the most important roles in the Cabinet. In government, Nandy would have the power to direct funding to some of the world’s most cost-effective (neartermist) ways to save and improve human lives. One key measure of success would be restoring the commitment to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on foreign aid. The commitment was cut to 0.5% in 2020; Minister Andrew Mitchell is understood to want to restore 0.7% but is politically constrained. Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy has previously aspired to restore 0.7%, but indicated he too will be limited by the UK economy (Devex; account needed).
Peter Kyle has become the Shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. Formerly Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (where he’s succeeded by heavyweight Hilary Benn), Kyle now shadows Donelan and, in a Labour government, would be responsible for governing emerging technologies including AI. I’m not aware of previous public comments from Kyle on AI, or science/innovation policy. His first Tweet as Shadow DSIT Sec was written by AI.
Last week, I described Darren Jones as Labour’s loudest voice on AI and a contender for the science position. Jones has joined the Cabinet, but as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Let me quote Eliot Wilson’s Substack on Kyle and Jones; his overview of Starmer’s reshuffle was insightful:
Steeped in third sector policy [... Peter Kyle] is squarely in the post-Blairite tradition [...] Kyle has no obvious background in technology or science [...] some on the Labour benches may feel a degree of disappointment at a somewhat generic nomination to a critical policy area.
[In July, I] suggested [Darren Jones] could shadow either business and trade, or science, innovation and technology; as a solicitor with a specialism in technology law, and a former adviser to BT on data, privacy, cyber-security, telecommunications and consumer law, he seems to be slightly miscast as number two to Rachel Reeves. He brings political nous to the shadow cabinet but I think Starmer has wasted an opportunity.
I’ll limit my discussion there. Other big stories for political geeks that I’m downplaying here because they aren’t EA stories: Rayner’s position as Deputy Leader has strengthened, Blairism is in and the soft left are out, Rosena Allin-Khan criticises Starmer for failing to treat mental health as a Cabinet-level priority, …
New funding to make UK world leader in alternative proteins
The UK will develop an Alternative Proteins Innovation and Knowledge Centre (IKC) to foster alt proteins research. The “pre-announcement” was made by UKRI, the public science funding organisation, and funding is coming from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Innovate UK.
The grant will be worth £15 million and last for five years (2024 to 2029).
How much is £15 million? How does that stack up against what’s already been invested? I’ll compare with public investments in Europe in 2022, as tracked by the Good Food Institute (p.85); let’s say £15 million ~= $18 million (although I’m not adjusting for inflation). The UK lags Denmark’s 2022 commitment of $100 million, which was in addition to a 2021 commitment of $190 million; Denmark explicitly wants to be a world leader in alternative proteins. $18 million seems roughly on par with several EU programmes, like $12.3 million to develop 16 new alternative proteins or $14.3 million to investigate health benefits of plant-based fermented foods. But these programmes have much narrower scopes than the Alternative Proteins IKC.
The wide scope is what makes the Alternative Proteins IKC so exciting. An IKC is a way to “convene industry and academics to co-design, develop and drive the adoption of transformative tech”. What does that mean, exactly? It’s a response to market failure: an academic/research institute leads on early R&D for an emerging technology, and partners with industry to get the innovation to market.
Call it a Manhattan Project for alternative proteins, if you like.
What to watch now: grant applications will be submitted this Autumn, and reviewed by UKRI procurement staff. A research institute (or consortia) will be selected to lead on the project, and a project director will be announced.
UKRI describe these areas as in-scope for the Alternative Proteins IKC:
cultivated meat
fermentation systems for algal, bacterial or fungal fermentation
plant based alternative proteins
novel aquaculture systems
new food production systems including insect production, seaweed cultivation and other alternatives to traditional animal production systems.
It’s difficult to overstate this as a success for the alternative proteins theory of change. Greater public investment has been a key target of alternative protein advocates; this is £15 million directed at solving critical blockages. If alternative proteins can displace meat consumption, this could address intense animal suffering, climate change, antibiotic resistance, and food security.
One note of caution from me: insects might not be the most charismatic animals, but we should take seriously the possibility that they’re sentient – and so the possibility that they can feel pain. Transitioning from today’s animal agriculture to industrial-scale insect farming could be trading one moral catastrophe for another.
How does the UK feel about food?
This good news for alternative proteins comes at a time of renewed public criticism of ultra-processed foods. Criticism of ultra-processed foods often becomes an attack on plant-based meat. Last week, I linked to this Guardian report on new studies linking ultra-processed foods to poor cardiovascular health. There have been a few op-eds following on from this, and The Guardian are running “Ultra-processed foods: the 19 things everyone needs to know this morning”, but I would highlight this clarifying piece (paywalled) from Tim Hayward, the FT’s food critic:
[T]he current furore doesn’t represent the discovery of a dangerous new food group or health threat. Instead it reveals the timeless philosophical truth that selling food, possibly the oldest and simplest human transaction, is depressingly zero sum. “Processing” is a continuum from some local artisanal baker, through businesses that preserve or enhance basic foods to companies whose profit endangers the health of millions of consumers. UPF is simply a new way to describe the extreme end of the spectrum.
A political definition is the only useful one here. It might contain unpalatable truths but it’s less woolly and leaves a far better taste in the mouth.
As a country, we need a nuanced discussion about whether our food is healthy and where it comes from. That includes alternative proteins advocates listening seriously to public concerns about over-processing and nutritional value. But it also means consumers, the meat industry, and the government waking up to the public health costs of meat consumption, including individual risks (heart disease, some cancers, etc) and global risks (pandemics, antibiotic resistance).
Speaking of… The Social Market Foundation have published new research on the UK’s attitude to food. They found the UK cares about farmed animal welfare (83% care about this, and 61% have some discomfort with the way farm animals are treated) and, perhaps more surprisingly, that the UK is comfortable with meat reduction: 57% believe the country should eat less meat, and 58% have taken steps to eliminate or reduce their own meat consumption.
The SMF point out that politicians are out of step with the public here: no politician is talking about meat reduction, and some are trying to confect a hypothetical “meat tax” into a culture wars talking point. But the hard truth is meat reduction needs to be on the agenda.
The report can be found here. (Full disclosure: I participated in a roundtable to inform part of this project).
The Daily Mail’s take is “The RSPCA are DELUDING themselves': Fury of meat-loving Brits after their survey claimed nearly six in ten are ditching roast beef dinners for plant-based alternatives - as charity is accused of 'cooking' stats”. Genuine question: why do tabloids have the longest headlines?
Academics call for 100% plant-based meals at universities. More than 650 academics have signed an open letter organised by Plant-Based Universities which links eating animals to the climate crisis, and calls on vice-chancellors, catering managers and student union presidents to back 100% plant-based catering.
The message is that we should change systems, not blame individuals: “Not vegan? That’s okay. We’re not asking for individual dietary changes. [...] What we are asking for is institutional divestment”.
Nukes are heading for the UK (but not like that)
It looks like the US might be positioning nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in fifteen years.
H/t to Matt Korda and Hans Kristensen, who write “Increasing Evidence That The US Air Force’s Nuclear Mission May Be Returning To UK Soil” for the Federations of American Scientists. The smoking gun? The United States Air Force had to justify to Congress the $50m (£39m) spent on a 144-bed dormitory at RAF Lakenheath. The justification is that a “potential surety mission” will need additional personnel. Per Korda, speaking to The Guardian, this is a “buzzword” for nuclear weapons.
Other evidence includes the US adding the UK to a list of countries with investment in “special weapons” infrastructure.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament called on Sunak to refuse to host American nuclear weapons on British soil, and said their presence would make the UK a likely target in nuclear wars.
AI Safety Summit ambitions published
The government have shared five key ambitions for the AI Safety summit:
a shared understanding of the risks posed by frontier AI and the need for action
a forward process for international collaboration on frontier AI safety, including how best to support national and international frameworks
appropriate measures which individual organisations should take to increase frontier AI safety
areas for potential collaboration on AI safety research, including evaluating model capabilities and the development of new standards to support governance
showcase how ensuring the safe development of AI will enable AI to be used for good globally
This all seems reassuring! In particular, existential risk from frontier AI is clearly in-scope.
Trade Unions Congress launches AI taskforce
The Trade Unions Congress (TUC), which brings together the majority of trade unions in England and Wales, has said the UK is “way behind the curve” on AI employment regulation and risks becoming a “wild west” on use of AI in the workplace. It’s establishing a taskforce of “lawyers, academics, politicians and technologists” to look into the issue.
The taskforce will be overseen by a special advisory committee, jointly chaired by Kate Bell (TUC Assistant General Secretary) and Gina Neff (long job title alert: Executive Director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge). The committee will include David Davis MP (Tory), Darren Jones MP (Labour), Mick Whitley MP (Labour), and Chris Stephens MP (SNP). Jones was appointed before his promotion to Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I wrote last week about the looming threat of AI labour displacement, referencing a previous TUC white paper and speculating that the Labour Party would take a position in relation to its Future of Work agenda.
The 2021 white paper focused on AI-powered employee monitoring, and firing-by-algorithm. The Guardian’s coverage of the new TUC taskforce focuses on these problems. It seems possible to me that the taskforce will unearth bigger threats to labour – i.e. mass jobs displacement – and The Guardian is over-indexing on a prior publication.
It’s worth flagging that Neff frames threats to workers’ rights as “real”, in contrast to “science-fiction of the future”. She says: “We can’t let existential risks blind us to the challenges we face today. Those challenges are real.” This framing seems unhelpful: we can worry about workers’ rights and existential risk. There should be opportunities for political collaboration here.
Thanks for reading
I bet this is of interest too…
Will MacAskill writes an introduction to effective altruism for The Guardian’s “The Big Idea” series, as part of a promotional push for the paperback What We Owe The Future
Here’s a timely piece of institutional decision-making research: How to appoint a cabinet from the Institute for Government
I’ve written previously about whether the UK will engage China on AI safety. Here’s a relevant, interesting new blog – AI Safety in China
I feel like there’s been a steady drip-drip of solar geoengineering pieces recently. Here’s one more (FT; paywalled)
Stephen Bush writes “The new scramble for space requires a fresh set of rules” (FT; paywalled)
Emergent capabilities: I’ve not spotted anything this week, but I’ve enjoyed Mustafa Suleyman’s interviews promoting his The Coming Wave.
A newsworthy vegan: Thangam Debbonaire, who has just been promoted to Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary. Congratulations! She’s been vegan since being elected in 2015.
London vegan restaurant recommendation: Keren View Vegan Plus, Holloway Road, has the friendliest atmosphere :)