It’s important not to ignore that this speech is to the general public. While I agree that “in the most unlikely but extreme cases” is not accurate, it’s not clear that this reflects the views of the PM / government, rather than what they think it’s expedient to say.
Even if they took the risk fully seriously, and had doom at 60%, I don’t think he’d say that in a speech.
The speech is consistent with [not quite getting it yet], but also consistent with [getting it, but not thinking it’s helpful to say it in a public speech]. I’m glad Eliezer’s out there saying the unvarnished truth—but it’s less clear that this would be helpful from the prime minister.
It’s worth considering the current political situation: the Conservatives are very likely to lose the next election (no later than Jan 2025 - but it often happens early [this lets the governing party pick their moment, have the element of surprise, and look like calling the election was a positive choice]). Being fully clear about the threat in public could be perceived as political desperation. So far, the issue hasn’t been politicized. If not coming out with the brutal truth helps with that, it’s likely a price worth paying. In particular, it doesn’t help if the UK government commits to things that Labour will scrap as soon as they get in.
Perhaps more importantly from his point of view, he’ll need support from within his own party over the next year—if he’s seen as sabotaging the Conservatives’ chances in the next election by saying anything too weird / alarmist-seeming / not-playing-to-their-base, he may lose that.
Again, it’s also consistent with not quite getting it, but that’s far from the only explanation.
We could do a lot worse than Rishi Sunak followed by Keir Starmer. Relative to most plausible counterfactuals, we seem to have gotten very lucky here.
It’s important not to ignore that this speech is to the general public.
While I agree that “in the most unlikely but extreme cases” is not accurate, it’s not clear that this reflects the views of the PM / government, rather than what they think it’s expedient to say.
Even if they took the risk fully seriously, and had doom at 60%, I don’t think he’d say that in a speech.
The speech is consistent with [not quite getting it yet], but also consistent with [getting it, but not thinking it’s helpful to say it in a public speech]. I’m glad Eliezer’s out there saying the unvarnished truth—but it’s less clear that this would be helpful from the prime minister.
It’s worth considering the current political situation: the Conservatives are very likely to lose the next election (no later than Jan 2025 - but it often happens early [this lets the governing party pick their moment, have the element of surprise, and look like calling the election was a positive choice]).
Being fully clear about the threat in public could be perceived as political desperation. So far, the issue hasn’t been politicized. If not coming out with the brutal truth helps with that, it’s likely a price worth paying. In particular, it doesn’t help if the UK government commits to things that Labour will scrap as soon as they get in.
Perhaps more importantly from his point of view, he’ll need support from within his own party over the next year—if he’s seen as sabotaging the Conservatives’ chances in the next election by saying anything too weird / alarmist-seeming / not-playing-to-their-base, he may lose that.
Again, it’s also consistent with not quite getting it, but that’s far from the only explanation.
We could do a lot worse than Rishi Sunak followed by Keir Starmer.
Relative to most plausible counterfactuals, we seem to have gotten very lucky here.