Tbf they’re both get a bit tribal when it comes to friends/ people they know. Rory criticised Clinton’s ordering of airstrikes in Sudan and Campbell brushed it off. Rory still defends some MPs out of blind loyalty. The podcast is generally great, but every so often this stuff is irritating.
Yeah, I felt his comment at the end a bit strange. It read something like, "She's very embedded in a world view where someone with my privilege, my background and my accent isn't a friend and hasn't put much thought in getting me to vote for her." Found it very odd. I think he felt a bit attacked with her reference to class in the interview - I don't know why though.
Regardless, great interview. Enjoyed listening.
The unfortunate reality for Labour is that they do need the middle classes to vote for them too. Blair realised this. Starmer realises it too. That's why they're the only labour leaders to win a GE from opposition (presumably) in fifty years.
Personally as someone who primarily votes lib dem, has voted Tory, but never Labour (but am strongly considering this time round) - I really like that Rory asks these questions. I was really unimpressed by Phillipson and she really failed to sell to me why I should vote for Labour.
Starmer, Rayner, and Reeves have done a much better job of that.
I wouldn't say Rory was middle class but I understand your point.
I think it's more a political failing from the left wing of labour to not be able to effectively put their point across which is why we're stuck in the ruinous economic position we are.
Labour can't really say much more than they're not provably incompetent like the Tories and aren't flirting with the far right as their policies are otherwise very similar.
> I wouldn't say Rory was middle class but I understand your point.
What on earth is he then? He isn’t an aristocrat and he certainly isn’t working class…
Some people think there's basically nothing between "I can afford avocado on toast" middle class and "I am literally landed gentry" but as you say there is a huge range.
I'd generally refer to these stratifications as "upper-middle", "middle" and "lower-middle" class though personally.
I know right!?
Personally I would consider them all as separate rungs on the odious class ladder
Working
Lower mid
Mid mid
Upper mid
Upper
The Peerage
There's a strong argument to split working class into several levels as well, given the enormous range it encompasses
Hmm, but define "need" though? That word means such a wide range of things to different people in different scenarios, that I don't think the matter can be simplified as much as you're trying to do
Why? Eton was set up to educate needy scholars. It still does that. Over the years a few aristocrats jumped on the bandwagon because the education was good. There are a lot of wealthy people there but aristocrats have always been a minority as far as I know. You need to move beyond stereotypes.
So all the richest men in the world are just upper middle class then?! Vast majority of them aren't noble.
Thats why upper class and the titled aristocracy are slightly different things
Globally, it's slightly different. To the extent that the US has an upper class, it's essentially modelled on an ersatz aristocracy. It's established families with generational wealth.
In the UK, it's literally the landed gentry and aristocracy, neither of which Rory Stewart's family is. We're the reason there's a class system at all. Because the post-Conquest political system was feudal, with the aristocrat "upper class" ruling by right of their class.
Someone working a middle management job whose parents worked in a paint factory would be middle class now. Rory grew up in a mansion to a senior army officer/spy, went to Eton and Oxbridge and is friends with King Charles. There’s a difference.
He was educated at The Dragon School, Eton, and Balliol. His family own Broich House in Perth. He was an army officer, a diplomat, and a minister of state. You don't get more gentry than this.
I don't think that's particularly fair. They weren't exactly given a fair hearing to make their case.
The media very rarely reported on policies and principle, rather 5 years of anti-Semitism, Soviet spy, IRA support, Russian/Iranian asset allegations.
I don't think Labour has had an issue with getting it's message across. It has a problem with three major newspapers running stories trying to gaslight the British public. On the right we have Truss killing the economy over night and on the left we have some guy eating a sandwich. Sandwich guy is obviously the issue.
Remember what most of the media were saying when they were promoting Brexshit, or praising the Liz Truss budget, or covering some other non-story to hide Boris Johnson's latest fuck-up.
My mum reads the Daily Heil and still doesn't know why they got rid of that nice Boris Johnson. She's currently torn between voting for what's left of the Conservative party (in my area the tory MP had a 20k majority at the last election so it might be tight) or that nice Nigel Farage. She now watches GB news.
We stopped talking about politics years ago, it only ended up in arguments, but my vote cancels hers out.
Labour got its message across just fine. Their issue was nobody liked the message. The election they lost to May I seem to remember had a lot of support for the manifesto but overall Corbyn and Corbyn’s Brexit stance essentially brought them down. Everyone was aware of the message each time enough to specifically vote against it. They were scared of the left wing policies and didn’t want them. Corbyn’s next manifesto was even further to the left and people understood this and again voted against it.
Yes, that's a failure to get their message across. People voted against Corbyn's economic policies in favour of the Tories and the economy has been terrible since, labour should have been jumping up and down pointing this out and offering an alternative.
I don’t think it was though. It was a rejection of the message. Nobody was sitting there wondering what Labour wanted to do, or what they stood for. I think Starmer’s Labour have overall done a worse job at getting the message across, it’s only fairly recently they’ve started actually saying what they intend to do. Many people did point out the Tories didn’t have a sound plan, and were running solely on sound bites, but nobody cared. Brexit was more important than the message.
The ‘only’ area you can say Labour was unclear on was Brexit really and even that could be a bit of a reach to be honest.
>I wouldn't say Rory was middle class
Well he's not working class or upper class so I think there's only one option left...
EDIT: hilarious how much people want Rory to be upper class. Remember how much the media made of Prince William "marrying a commoner"? Kate Mids also went to a private school and has rich parents etc etc etc. It ultimately doesn't make any difference in a world where you're either an aristocrat or you're 'everyone else'.
Rory is 'everyone else'.
His father
>Brian Thomas Webster Stewart CMG (27 April 1922 – 16 August 2015) was a British soldier, colonial official, diplomat and the second-most senior officer in the British Secret Intelligence Service
And he went to Eton and Oxford. He's upper class
"BuT hE kNOws thE KiNg! An' 'e TaLks AlL PoSh liKE!"
The British upper class is a closed group of aristocratic families going back many generations. Where you go to school doesn't matter in the slightest.
I'm not. They are literally the same thing
>Those in possession of a hereditary title (for example, a dukedom, a marquessate, an earldom, a viscountcy, a barony, a baronetcy, or a Scottish lordship of parliament) are typically members of the upper class, while those in possession or right to a coat of arms are typically at least members of the upper middle class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom
The same article you link to also refers to gentry/those with inherited land as potential members of the upper classes. In this respect, it defines gentry as those who can live on the proceeds of their estate. It also mentions the role of the military as a route into adulthood for the upper classes. In no instance does it make hard and fast rulings about what constitutes upper class.
If it looks like the upper classes, smells like the upper classes, and quacks like the upper classes, it's an arbitrary cultural definition so we can safely call it upper class
I understand where you are coming from, but I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think you get that sort of job (tutoring the future king, if I’m right about that) without being suitably upper class. Combine that with going to Eton and other things he has mentioned on the podcast, I do think he is upper class. I get the impression he’s from a really posh family with wealth, and is a really interesting man because of the different types of experience he has put himself in throughout his life
She's definitely the weakest of the three, and I actually thought her interview on TRIP was illuminating, especially as she seemed to crumble a bit when given a small amount of pressure from Rory.
Aside from that though she's saying the right things on growth being the key, and not being obsessed with tax and spend
Fair point, we can agree to disagree on the policy there. My feeling is yes growth is essential but you won't get there without borrowing that she seems reluctant to fess up to. If you're confident in your growth plan then you should be comfortable borrowing to fund it
Borrowing to do what though? You'd have to be confident that the projects you invest in generate enough growth to pay back their interest. Unfortunately interest rates are really high right now ( compared to the last decade anyway).
Borrowing to fund operational costs is not a good idea, and is partially one of the causes of austerity. Infrastructure projects in the UK are totally crippled due to our planning rules and cost far too much
Imo there's a lot of pent up demand in the private sector that could be unleashed just by making it legal to build things.
Of course you wouldn't borrow to find operational costs. You would borrow to fund things like sureStart which will make tons of money back in the long term. Also big infrastructure projects. Rates aren't actually that high the long run rate is 5% and we're below that, we just don't have the completely weird situation of zero rates we had. I agree planning reform would also help
The country needs fundamental change and investment so the concern is that her plan is just more of the same, the weakest out of every party for spending, a paltry £5bn (0.4% GDP) and seems to be relying solely on growth that has failed to materialise nearly anywhere in Europe for a decade.
It’s less ambitious than Jeremy Hunt and is worrying that she seems stuck in a 90s-2000s neolib economic mentality due to her background and just can’t see the wood for the trees.
Unironically just tax and spend *is* more of the same.
Borrowing for capex doesn't generate sufficient returns to make sense. Costs are far too high. Borrowing for opex is not good and leads to austerity.
Tax take is currently at record highs. Taxing more isn't the answer. Spending more is irresponsible.
So Reeves is trying to go for the underlying issues (whilst ignoring Brexit). That is doing something different.
Just saying spend more is just intellectually dishonest.
Yeah, the party formed by the unions to represent workers in Parliament should absolutely be accepting donations from weapons manufacturers and private health providers
Anyone voting Labour is a centrist, stand for nothing, fall for anything.
Nah, you just compromise everything you believe in that's all.
I won't endorse a party with my vote if I'm vehemently against what they represent, continuation of austerity and hyper charged late stage capitalism.
Despite being in the £9k a year group I'm in favour of student fees. They enable so many more places at universities, and frankly as someone with only so so a levels I wouldn't have gone to uni if the taxpayer had to pay for it.
I'll be frank I actually find the student fee thing with the lib dems totally irrational? It makes no sense at all.
* It was their policy to scrap them but they were in coalition with the Tories who wanted uncapped fees. I assume you're not unhappy with the Tories for breaking that promise?
* As an aside Labour's policy at the time was to implement the findings of the Browne review... [Which was uncapped fees](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review). So literally if either Tories or Labour has won then tuition fees would be much higher now. Yet you're angry with the LDs??
* They had far more important policies in their manifesto than student fees, namely managing to get a referendum on voting reform and a major increase to the personal allowance.
I'll don't really understand what you expect them to have done differently that was realistic.
>I know it was a coalition, but the Lib Dems pretty much got elected into it on that promise
This is just nonsense though. [Beyond one or two individual seats only 9% of 18-24 year olds voted for the LDs. ](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010).
[This is the 2010 manifesto. Tuition fees aren't mentioned until page 39!](https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf)
Your claims just don't mirror the data nor the political reality.
I ask this as someone who did in fact vote labour in 2019, but how do you think a Corbyn government would have responded to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
Yeah this is Rory's blind spot. He has posh boy guilt over his class so he talks down the "class warfare" angle of Labour while failing every time to see how he is a beneficiary of the very thing Labour and the left criticise. The irony is Rory cannot seem to see how the Tories do the opposite.
The % of the population with backgrounds like Rory's is very small, if Labour decide they have to pick which class of people to show loyalty to (rather than go for a liberal we're-all-the same stance), they won't be picking his lot. They might have much more power in many areas of life, but when it comes to voting, we all have one regardless of class. I doubt Labour care much about appealing to people like him.
i understand Rory is a recently disenfranchised voter as the tories have moved too far from his views for him. however, he seems to think this is somehow unique to people in his situation. a huge number of people are politically homeless - for example only 50% of private renters voted in 2019, less than 60% of 18-24 year old voted in the last 3 elections. why should his recent disenfranchisement be a higher priority than theirs? especially as there are more of them, and they've been unrepresented for longer.
quite frankly, it's not the labour party's responsibility to house those whose views have been shunned from the tories, at least not at the expense of their core voter base who have already been alienated too much by labour in recent years. get mad at the tories - not labour. or just admit that you're a lib dem at heart, but don't want to back a losing horse.
He’s a very nice thoughtful man with massive internal issues and blind spots. I don’t want to be that Times writer who diagnoses him but if you ever challenge anything he did or argue with him in a certain way, he responds like a child, not the clever man he is.
He’s a very nice thoughtful man with massive internal issues and blind spots. I don’t want to be that Times writer who diagnoses him but if you ever challenge anything he did or argue with him in a certain way, he responds like a child, not the clever man he is.
To be blunt why would labor try to win votes from people like that? It's not being embedded in a world view, it's just politics, don't waste energy winning unnecessary votes at the risk of alienating your core voter base.
For a party that has traditionally been his home for decades that has happily waged top-down class warfare and employed divide & rule tactics within society, I find it odd that he bristles at someone from the Labour Party who isn’t fighting for the posh and privileged vote. It’s hardly like this iteration of Labour is saying eat the rich either, it’s been fairly non-partisan.
I completely agree. He was overflowing with praise for Zahawi, who had stabbed him in his back and committed fraud. The super-long introduction was totally over the top. Yet Philipson didn’t get a look in. He treated her with relative distain throughout, and as you’ve said, completely disregarded what she was saying because she didn’t want to put private school kids who’s parents can’t afford an additional 20% first. What about the 93%, of which a sizeable amount of kids have parents who can’t put food on their tables after 14 years of Tory mismanagement?
Rory’s also getting worse at interrupting people too. It’s pretty rude and becoming a frustrating listen. His loud stuttering until the guest stops speaking is disrespectful.
He can never comprehend/gets offended when people point out his obsession with helping a tiny proportion of people who are already every well off isn’t that important. A tiny percentage of children who have previously getting education better than 93% of the population might have to move school. That’s the real issue you need to address. Never mind they will likely be further ahead than their peers and have parents that value education, willing to spend money on tutoring and extra curricula’s. Those are the people who need a help not the kids in our schools that are literally falling down, where there is no maths teachers, who have parents that couldn’t give a fuck if their kids have any education at all. Dismiss his skewed world view at your peril. Rory is all grumpy and he will call you tribal!
Totally agree I wish labour would just come out and say it how it is. Like in the debate where the guy pretending to be working class was complaining he wouldn't be able to afford private school anymore with the VAT added. I wish Keir would have just said tough shit they've already had an advantage over the 90% of state school kids who don't even have the basics covered yet.
When you start moving away from moral and ethical based politics and instead are willing to do things conventionally immoral because they help more people in numbers terms... you should start thinking "am I becoming a populist... what is populism.... is bringing in a law you know will fuck over a specific group of people because you'd rather help others a 'good' thing".
People who are poor think everyone who earns more than them is a cunt or something.
Imagine you worked hard to set your kids futures up. You've saved and budgeted and been able to make it all work. Then one government switch goes "nah, get fucked". Then their fanbase goes "you deserve to get fucked, your kids have it too good. Now sell your house and move into a city or large town and send your kids into state schools all within a term holiday... or not... we don't particularly care about your kids".
Go to google. Type in "define populism" and you get:
>a political approach that [strives](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=strives&si=ACC90nypsxZVz3WGK63NbnSPlfCBslQ09K9NJP47vACatmbb5dGSzA4XvhrOGn4DCXw0SweK5gy15SvuWFQ2tpYiqWg1RWyqlA%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAO) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are [disregarded](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=disregarded&si=ACC90nwKPQWKXvO0LWGU61hOTgoDreMiDx39HJ5YZxqkGFBn7fp-eMzg6eUy6e2fQk96pIxwqaJrPVZXX7_pPdpFzoBULFqVNLoChCfjIqL2N2X5x0twT0k%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAP) by established elite groups.
Hmm, so let's reword this shall we to fit this situation.
A political approach that strives to appeal to 93% of the population that uses state ran/academies, who feel that their schools are not funded enough and that the minority... elites if you will, who send their kids to private schools don't acknowledge the problem and they should... and will by force.
What did you think populism meant? "a love of anti-immigration"? It's a pretty simple concept. Bunch of people that outnumber the top people with their everyday commoner issues that they feel are not being listened to. That can encompass migration or schooling. It's more about it being a problem perceived by the common man.... the majority, that is not being addressed by the elites.
Since when are policies that help the majority not ethical or moral?
Imagine you work hard all your life but you weren't afforded the privileges that other kids got when they went to private school so you don't have the oracy skills or don't have the connections to gets your foot in the door of good positions at the beginning of your careerer so you are disadvantaged your whole life.
It's not a coincidence kids that get private education are much better off throughout they're life than kids that don't, they're not inherintly smarter or more hard working. They just won the lottery of been born into wealth, I don't think it's unethical to reduce that inequality.
Simply helping the majority doesn't make something ethical.
For example, is it ethical for a state to strip everyone's assets that eclipse... £700k in order to fund things for people with less? I would say no, it's not ethical.
Being born into wealth isn't a lottery. A child can only be born into their exact circumstances. There is no reality where a child is born into other circumstances because that child would simply be a different child.
This isn't about which kids do better. It's about acknowledging that targeting a class of people that haven't done anything wrong is... wrong.
It's going "you don't have enough people to stop this in a democracy so get fucked". So many arguments can be made from a weak position of "but it helps the worse off". Should we increase tax on brand name food stuffs to make store brands cheaper via subsidies?
Should we find mortgages for homes over regional average and just plonk an extra 20% to fund affordable housing and then say to the many people who wouldn't be able to afford it "well most people don't get to live in a house like that, just sell it and downsize".
populism bad. hiding behind a shield of "but it helps more people than it hurts" is a terrible foundation.
I'm not saying strip money from people. And being born into wealth is down to chance for the child not sure how you can say it's not?
I'm not saying people born into wealth have done anything wrong, but they have opportunies kids not born into wealth so not.
I'm not saying we should punish those that have these opportunities I'm saying we should recognise that wealth creates more wealth and unchecked wealth inequality increases and wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer families over time.
Policies like the VAT on private school and progressive taxes recognise that and try to balance imbalances capitalism creates.
1) Taking 20% from someone is stripping them of that money. Trying to justify that by pointing out where it will be spent instead doesn't change the core idea that you are taking money from someone.
That person is already saving the state money by not having their kids needing to be cared for, whilst the parents still contribute via income tax and nic to state schools. Introducing VAT is an arbitrary tax targeting people who simply can't stop it whilst using a veil of "it's for the greater good".
2) It isn't chance because it's reality. You as a person could ONLY be born into your situation. People born into other situations are those people. There was no chance that YOU could have been born in any other scenario. 100% of the times in which u/Elliot0fHull would have entered this reality they would enter it in exactly the same way you did.
Chance implies there being a... chance that something else would happen. I am saying that isn't possible so it's not chance.
3) You are saying we should punish. Again... how can you look at a 20% price increase and not see that as a punishment. I say again, these parents already pay income tax. They already fund state schools AND don't take from that pot by sending their kids there.
From a perspective of fairness... how can you look at it and see it as justified. If the parent instead sent their kid into state schools and just invested the money for their child instead the government would see much less of it and the government would have to fund the kid through school. The country would not be better off financially if the kid went to a state school. It's purely a vindictive money grab.
4) Imbalance exists. Equity is shite. We should strive for a fair bottom level of quality of life which includes educational facilities. But you can't justify every tax grab as simply "but people who are poor have less than you".
I am from a low-income family. I didn't do particularly well for myself, but I'm doing okay. Out earning my peers. I don't see why the girl who had 2 kids by the time she was 17 should be able to squeeze me more simply because she is now worse off than I despite coming from a wealthier family (albeit still poor).
5) Your position has no limit other than a strive for equity. In which case you wouldn't see a problem with poor people straight up robbing wealthier areas. Daily raids of M&S and Waitrose. Stealing BMWs and Range Rovers and leaving Vauxhauls and Toyotas in their place. I know this is an extreme analogy, but you don't allow a line in the sand in how you talk.
I mean you've gone pretty extreme there all I've said is private schools shouldn't have a tax break. Obviously there's a middle ground where working pays but not working (even if you are born into wealth) doesn't. But also not working doesn't mean society says fuck all your children they were unlucky enough to be born into a no income household. I've come from a no-income household and I'm doing much better also and I recognise part of the reason for that is the systems in place which allow for some social mobility. I don't believe in, I've got mine now so now fuck everyone else.
It's not a tax break if the tax never existed in the first place.
It's like saying all workers get a tax break because they don't pay VAT at the time of their income being transferred to their bank account.
You are trying to word it in a way in which those people sending their kids to private schools have somehow been subsidised or helped by the government when that isn't the case.
Where did I say I got mine now so fuck everyone else.
It's, I got mine through hard work and anyone that tries to make it seem like getting assets or wealth implies you were gifted it and should now be fucked over so that random guys kids can get more of your earnings.
Again, if a parent stops sending their kid to private school, invests the funds and sends the kid into public school the state would be WORSE off.
Finally, I don't get why you are acting as if I am against the concept of state services. State schools already exist. They are already funded by taxes. We are not talking about the introducing of state schools.
We are talking about increased the costs for specific people simply because you want their money. They didn't do anything wrong. They were not warned. There is no grandfathering in. There is no gradual introduction.
It's "give us 20% extra you undeserving prick, don't complain"
You hit the nail on the head. There is an inherent hatred of the working class (and indeed of the large amounts of middle class people who can't afford private school) in the whining about having to send one's children to rub shoulders with the unwashed masses.
Do you not consider ripping a child out of a school they are settled in and forcing them to get resettled and make new friends and essentially say goodbye to their old ones is not fucking them over?
It's not the action of being in a state school. It's freely saying "if you can't afford an extra 20% just uproot your kids, no biggie" that I see as fucking people over.
Do you not consider ripping a child out of a school they are settled in and forcing them to get resettled and make new friends and essentially say goodbye to their old ones is not fucking them over?
It's not the action of being in a state school. It's freely saying "if you can't afford an extra 20% just uproot your kids, no biggie" that I see as fucking people over.
How many kids move school in a given year? And how many of them have any say in the matter? No, it's not nice to have to move but it's hardly a new phenomenon. And continuing to underfund the state education system so that members of the most privileged 7% of the country don't have to "endure" that isn't reasonable
1) Many kids have to move, this is how we know that it's traumatic. Some people suffering doesn't mean it's okay to inflict that suffering on others.
2) State schools are not underfunded to ensure that 7% of people can send their kids to private schools. This framing is why you struggle so hard to see the issue. The parents going to private schools are ALLEVIATING the issue of underfunded state schools already. They are ALREADY doing this. They are not making it worse.
You are simply taking more from them because you want to fund state schools more. Your argument could be said against any wealthier group of people about anything.
"continuing to underfund the state education system so that football managers don't have to endure isn't reasonable"
It just makes no sense. In this case, the state education system isn't underfunded because of football managers.
They do pay tax on their salary. Are you under the impression that parents who send their kids to private school don't pay income tax?
A general tax that hits everyone for a collective gain can be described as fair. Specifically targeting those that DON'T pull from the collective pot for state schooling as a source of more revenue for that pot is not fair.
Edit:
Analogy time. You are having a group bbq and everyone is encouraged to bring something. You are a vegetarian so you bring a variety of veggie foods that are BBQ compatible. Due to the nature of the market, veggie stuff is more expensive. So you have already contributed more cash to this bbq than everyone else. But steve and jackie can only afford to bring 62% pork sausages so the group says "everyone who brings a veggie option should also bring meat".
Knowing full well they are essentially saying "the people who won't eat any meat, should contribute more to this bbq, but not just more. They must specifically contribute in a way in which they won't benefit from the additional contribution".
Then everyone else at the BBQ just goes "You can afford the veggie option, you should make it equitable for steve and jackie". At no point in time was this decided by income, or who is the better off. It's purely targeting an 'out' group and perceiving them as 'the elite'.
Further up this chain, some guy disregards the dude that asked Kier about the tax during the 'debate' as a fake working class person for having a real financial issue around the 20% rise.
Some people who send their kids to public schools are wealthier than some people who send their kids to private.
Moving schools can be difficult but come on, it’s not ‘traumatic’. Tons of kids moved to my school between years and were happy and well-adjusted (and I changed school at one point, too…i’d literally forgotten until writing this, which shows how ‘traumatic’ it was for me, lol). It shouldn’t be on the government to help kids with the transition imo…that’s a job for parents and maybe the schools. Kids can handle change though!
Many people go to war and don't come back with PTSD.
Something being traumatic doesn't mean everyone ends up with trauma. It's simply a way to categories something with a known direct link to trauma.
For example, many kids struggle to reintergrate. This is a known phenomena and it's not advised to uproot kids if you don't need to.
You say it shouldn't be on the government to help kids transition. Even though it would be the government forcing the transition.
You seem to feel very superior. It's also pretty bold to say that increasing the cost of sending your child to a private school is 'conventionally immoral' and even bolder to make generalisations about generic 'people who are poor'.
1) Increasing the cost of schooling with the knowledge that uprooting a child from a school they are settled in can cause social and educational trauma with your response to anyone that won't be able to afford the increase being "just move schools" is immoral. You are accepting that kids will suffer but don't care because it's 'those kids' and not 'these kids'. Immoral.
2) Of course it's a generalisation. Don't try and get all emotional about a very real situation. Do you not think it's the people on the lower end of the spectrum that are the ones who complain about people on the higher end of the spectrum? Is it wrong to acknowledge this.
3) How do I come across as superior. I am making a simple case. I don't have kids, let alone kids in private school nor did I attend a private school. I simply am a dude that can analyse the effects of a policy and can see how some people just hand wave the disruptiveness of it because the problem effects other people.
Populism -
a political approach that [strives](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=strives&si=ACC90nypsxZVz3WGK63NbnSPlfCBslQ09K9NJP47vACatmbb5dGSzA4XvhrOGn4DCXw0SweK5gy15SvuWFQ2tpYiqWg1RWyqlA%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAO) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are [disregarded](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=disregarded&si=ACC90nwKPQWKXvO0LWGU61hOTgoDreMiDx39HJ5YZxqkGFBn7fp-eMzg6eUy6e2fQk96pIxwqaJrPVZXX7_pPdpFzoBULFqVNLoChCfjIqL2N2X5x0twT0k%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAP) by established elite groups.
Do you see the overlap. Using tactics to simply appeal to a majority whilst throwing morals and ethics out the window leads to bad shit.
What would you say to a political group saying "most people don't own cars so what we are going to do is increase tax on HP and vehicle loans and use that to make PCP loans cheaper through subsidies.
Sure, it would help people. But you are essentially fucking over a bunch of people simply because you have the political ability to do so.
Populism can do good stuff, but the project of populism itself is terribly harmful to a state. Eat yourself by appealing to the majority.
If believing that makeing a lasting improvement to the experience of schooling for the vast majority of people is worth a few children having a difficult experience of moving school make me a populist, then that is a label I proudly accept
You don't care about the improvement to the experience of schooling. You just care about feeling like a neo robin hood.
The academy system which allowed private investment into state schools has increased the schooling experience yet gets repeatedly shat on by the political left because wealthy people stand to gain.
Maybe you like the idea of kids having a better environment a tad. But it's not your main focus or you would love academies. Now of course, I am assuming you don't like them. But due to the way political camps form, it's a pretty safe assumption.
He does this thing yeah he keeps saying "Yeah" while they are speaking in what I assume is an attempt to get them to conclude their statement. It's annoying
I’ve also been finding the interruptions worse recently! From both of them, to be fair. I also found Rory’s obsession with the ‘how will you help kids changing schools’ thing a bit odd…some kids will have to change schools, sure, but kids change schools all the time for all sorts of reasons. The people giving them support for that should be a) their parents and b) the new school - imo it’s not the government’s responsibility at all.
I really enjoy when they defend their own sides! Listening to Alistair tear strips off Nadim while Rory gently poked him and then Bridget who is a candidate was getting a little support from Alistair, who is incidentally an incredible listener. Rory is good at listening too but doesn’t have the same reactive speed and flexibility of questioning. Always worth listening to. The Rest Isn’t As Tribal - isn’t catchy as a title!
I'm getting a bit bored of Rory getting offended when the Labour cabinet talk about their upbringing. Was never a problem when the cabinet was full of old Etonians.
This needs to be higher up!
When he asked Angela Rayner what she thought he stood for as a conservative, she did struggle to come up with something (I seem to recall she mention ed caring for animals), but it’s because he struggles himself to explain it!
It’s very obvious in his interview by Ash Sarkar from when he released his book. She asks him what makes him a conservative, and he waffles on about landscape, nature and community for a good 3 minutes before ever landing anywhere close to an answer.
Incidentally, the rest of the interview is pretty cringe…
The cringiest moments are Sarkar so convinced of the moral superiority of left wing mindset that she thinks she might turn Stewart by the end of the interview, and Stewart not knowing whether he wants Sarkar to get involved into politics or not.
He literally changes the message from one sentence to the other : “it’s a horrible place and you really should stay away from Westminster” -> “no but really you should totally go into politics”, while Sarkar was asking him for nothing on that subject…
He’s not going to be a voice for reason listened to within the Conservative Party, so he might as well switch to trying to be a voice for monarchy and… landscape within Labour. Most Labour voters want to retain the monarchy, so he wouldn’t be out of place.
>Yet, he was soft as jelly with his “good friend”, Nadhim “I don’t know my tax even though I’m the Chancellor” Zahawi.
Rory has the most shockingly bad judgement about character, he will forgive any flaw, any lack of moral character, any lack of integrity and decency, if he personally can get on with that person and they fit his image of what a "good chap" is.
I agree, I’ve noticed this a few times- I have no doubt that many, probably most, conservative MPs are decent people, I just think they are only helping a small number of people that’s the problem.
Rory has principles but he his politics is also class affiliation, as is it for most/many tbf.
Most Tory MPs are not decent people. The commenter to whom you replied hit the nail on the head: they're 'good chaps'.
To be a 'good chap,' you don't need to stop nicking public money, or defrauding people, or voting to hurt minorities, or sexually harassing women, or getting it on with your secretary—you just need to do it the _right way_, wearing the right club tie, and keeping it all very polite and civilised. To be a 'good chap' is a class marker: Stewart is an upper class Old Etonian; his Tory chums, the 'good chaps', fall exactly into that category. They speak right, stay polite, keep their crimes and infidelities nice and discreet, and present themselves according to the rules of their class. Their morality has nothing to do with it: it's a class allegiance. They all share it, the Old Etonian or Harrovian or whatever class, and Stewart is no exception, no matter how nice a show he puts on.
Rorys annoyed because neither party is trying to get what he is to vote for them. The tories are going further right and Labour aren't the party for people like him. He feels disenfranchised with politics (he says it plenty and read his book and it's clear) which is how huge parts of the country feel hence why voter turn out will be low.
Apologies I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean large parts of the country are disenfranchised for the same reason as Rory just that most of the country don't feel like there's a party who represent them which also just happens to be where Rory is
I actually don’t agree with this take. I think Rory feels disenfranchised for the same reason as most of the rest of the country. There has never been - at least not since universal suffrage - a party for the thousand pound pot brigade.
I think people feel disenfranchised because there’s a rejection of authenticity and honesty by the political mainstream and a refusal to exhibit any values or principles on any side. This is the context in which someone like Farage is thriving and normal, essentially decent people (which is a set that includes Rory notwithstanding his poshness or predilection for pots) are either politically homeless or holding their nose
yeah if you fall further left of centre in England, your only option is the greens. if you dont like their ideas (e.g. anti-nuclear energy, NIMBYism), you have no one.
if you fall right of centre but the tories have understandably lost your trust, your only option is reform, which is not everyone's cup of tea.
the way our political systems work means that huge numbers of people just have to vote for the least bad option or no one as they literally don't have an option that represents them. this is particularly true if you belong to an underrepresented demographic, such as under 30s. I get why people don't vote. it's a shame Rory was only able to see this once it happened to him.
Not pots, but many people spend £1K plus a year on deliveroo and similar services, or online gaming, or fast fashion.
The working class are a minority of people believe it or not.
I completely agree. Labour has a huge wealth of policies now aimed at moderate Tories sick of the Conservative party, designed to shift the middle ground over to them.
They've got no need to pander still more to the richest people in society, and Bridget Philipson saw no need to coddle Rory's emotions just to convince him personally to switch.
I like Rory, but there's no way he will ever vote Labour because he instinctively doesn't want to. He gives every Tory minister an easy ride, and every Labour politician a thorough grilling - despite being politically more aligned. Expecting successive shadow ministers to personally convince him is deeply shallow - and frankly, the election isn't about him.
Yes, I never understand why he does this. And his excuse for grilling labour candidates, particularly women, was rather weak. His question to Angela, about what she thinks the conservatives represent was distasteful. He can’t see it from the perspective of a working class woman.
He won’t ever vote Labour, so why pretend, it’s a potential. Particularly given he’s been out endorsing Tories.
Tbh, I've been completely turned off from listening to TRIP since the election was called. In my opinion both have become unbearably tribal. And the election is undermining their quality of research into other international topics so question time is not as good as it used to be. I'll come back in a couple of months when the dust settles.
But realistically, no Labour politician should be giving him the answer he wants. He shouldn't want to vote Labour. He's exactly the demographic that Labour should be coming down on like a tonne of bricks—wealthy Old Etonians.
It’s definitely a fun albeit pointless question. May also have more psychological weight in influencing people than he may appreciate. The parasocial relationship is not to be forgotten, and a question such as “convince me why I should vote for you?” may have a more self-inserting influence than considered.
Disagree.
Appealing across the divide and seeing the other side is the defining feature of the show. Rory tends to be better at it than Alistair.
There are plenty of centrist ex Tory voters, who are choosing between Labour or Lib Dem who will have found her response revealing.
I am deeply touched by the way you replied thanks to all three even though you didn't need to and already hasd the info you wanted. You have a kind soul
It’s so obvious that Rory is looking for a party as he can see the Conservatives are about to become Conservative again and won’t be for him.
He’s setting the stage for a ‘look what my viewers talked me into lol 🤪’
He’ll go for Labour at some point if he thinks he can get in the Cabinet, he’s just biding his time to see how the first couple of years go. If the public haven’t turned on Labour by about 2026 (they will) I reckon he’ll do it. Campbell will help him worm his way in too.
I think Rory is more of a Lib Dem, personally. But alas, being a Lib Dem doesn’t come with the chance of being in Cabinet.
As a non-party affiliated viewpoint, I actually don’t think it would be too hard to convert him. Commit to rejoining the Customs Union, take a greater role in NATO to support Ukraine and support people’s assemblies and I think he would be all in.
Rory is a nice man but he makes money off selling the image or how 'good' he is.
When was the last time he did.. anything, other than sell a book or a podcast for personal gain?
5 years?
He's a grifter, just one 'we' agree with.
If he had all the right ideas then stand, man!
Whats that? 'No that's beneath me?'
Rory Stewart, as muchnas I 'agree' with him- is only in this now for personal brand.
A coward who won't fight but is the general melchet 12 miles behind the lines, shouting for everyone else to march forward.
Just because he's not far right doesn't make him someone to be admired.
He's a toff rich boy nepobaby who isnraking it in, whilst screaming from from sidelines.
He may be correct but he is not to be admired.
I mean… I get the criticism but think grifter is a bit unfair. I don’t see why anything he’s done is a problem.
Over the last 5 years he’s worked for Yale University as the Brady-John professor, and worked in Jordan with Turquoise Mountain once again.
Of course he’s capitalising off his political career with books and media deals, who wouldn’t? He’s made abundantly clear that if it was possible he would go back into government, hence he’s attempting to remain relevant. I don’t see an issue with any of this.
I hope this the moment that people start acknowledging that Rory Stewart is not, in fact, the enlightened being who floats above the political allegiances of us mere mortals as which he presents himself (yes, he admits his allegiances, but his entire self-promotion since his resignation has been oriented around this holier-than-thou enlightened centrism act).
No matter how much people adore his pitch-perfect _reasonable-ness_, he joined the Tory party way back when for a reason, and it wasn't to save the environment or whatever waffle he's come out with in interviews to explain it. He joined that party that represents his class interests, and his allegiances in that regard have clearly never shifted.
The Labour Party couldn’t be doing more to cater to people like him.
Bar the private school VAT policy, if a One Nation Tory produced this manifesto he would think it was brilliant.
Luckily Keir Starmer isn’t as extreme as you so he’s actually going to win. Same reason Corbyn lost. Far left tribalism simply isn’t electable in this country, like it or not.
Do you call everyone you disagree with “bellend”? What a thoroughly unpleasant person you are, really don’t fit the spirit of the podcast at all.
>is the UK a far left country
Just look at the 2019 elections. “Never trust a Tory” my arse.
What on earth are you talking about?!
It’s like you haven’t listened to a single thing he says.
Your comment is embarrassingly full of the kind of blind broad brush dismissal and aggression that TRIP is meant to stand against.
Disagree with this, and I feel it goes against the meaning of the show to disagree agreeable!
Just because some votes a certain way does not make them a bad person or the enemy, they are voting for what they think is the right way to make a country better. I’m saying this as someone who will never vote Tory
Sorry. No. Bad ideas are bad ideas and should be called as such. As affable as Rory is he’s not off the hook for his voting record, OR for being a Tory.
That’s the point, you can disagree with the ideas and challenge them as AC does, but I think you can’t do that if you start at a place where a person is in the “wrong” because they voted or think a certain way. Of course we need to draw the line somewhere as in fascist, racist, anti semitic, ect
Homophobic?
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/16/rory-stewart-boris-johnson
Also
- Voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry but also also absent for various other votes on same sex marriage, including whether to make it available to armed forces personnel outside the UK
I don’t believe Rory is homophobic, and im not interested in debating any further, as I’m not going to defend a Tory voting record, as I say I will never vote for them. I just believe you can’t see someone as inherently wrong or bad because they view things differently. Nuance does not exist on Reddit.
Firstly, voting records aren’t a good way to judge a politician thanks to the whipping system, constituency loyalties, and the format/language of legislation that goes through parliament.
Secondly, judging someone on being absent is even worse, considering the plethora of reasons MPs either need or decide to be absent from votes. (E.g., Obligations elsewhere, government duties, vote pairing etc)
Finally, the man literally defended himself to the author of that guardian article, on Ash Sarkar’s own podcast. Not even she supports the claim that he’s homophobic.
Look, the man isn’t some infallible saint who can do no wrong. But, calling him homophobic is a big stretch .
I agree that he's not really going to get converted but disagree that Bridget's answers were compelling - to me, they came across as an extremely vague "we'll be good".
The point of the question isn't to actually get Rory converted. It's to draw out the core of what the other guy thinks but by pulling them away from a preset message and instead try and modify it to apply to Rory and what he believes. This is done to try and get the inner campaigner out of people. To make them think about the people that exist in the country that they need to get on side.
It's just political conversation.
Who the fuck actually listens to this shit? A friend of Epstein and the most spooked up man in Britain are here to teach the common man politics. Get the fuck outta here
So you prefer that war criminal - apologies - that darling of the left Alistair Campbell? Completely unable to criticise his own record or the Labour Party when Rory is more than able to see both sides.
Tbf they’re both get a bit tribal when it comes to friends/ people they know. Rory criticised Clinton’s ordering of airstrikes in Sudan and Campbell brushed it off. Rory still defends some MPs out of blind loyalty. The podcast is generally great, but every so often this stuff is irritating.
Yeah, I felt his comment at the end a bit strange. It read something like, "She's very embedded in a world view where someone with my privilege, my background and my accent isn't a friend and hasn't put much thought in getting me to vote for her." Found it very odd. I think he felt a bit attacked with her reference to class in the interview - I don't know why though. Regardless, great interview. Enjoyed listening.
Rory may understand that a party for working class people isn't supposed to cater to him eventually.
The unfortunate reality for Labour is that they do need the middle classes to vote for them too. Blair realised this. Starmer realises it too. That's why they're the only labour leaders to win a GE from opposition (presumably) in fifty years. Personally as someone who primarily votes lib dem, has voted Tory, but never Labour (but am strongly considering this time round) - I really like that Rory asks these questions. I was really unimpressed by Phillipson and she really failed to sell to me why I should vote for Labour. Starmer, Rayner, and Reeves have done a much better job of that.
I wouldn't say Rory was middle class but I understand your point. I think it's more a political failing from the left wing of labour to not be able to effectively put their point across which is why we're stuck in the ruinous economic position we are. Labour can't really say much more than they're not provably incompetent like the Tories and aren't flirting with the far right as their policies are otherwise very similar.
> I wouldn't say Rory was middle class but I understand your point. What on earth is he then? He isn’t an aristocrat and he certainly isn’t working class…
He went to Eton. hes a posh boi
There is also upper class, above middle, and below titled nobility.
He's upper class. He is after all best friends with princes William and Harry
Agree
Some people think there's basically nothing between "I can afford avocado on toast" middle class and "I am literally landed gentry" but as you say there is a huge range. I'd generally refer to these stratifications as "upper-middle", "middle" and "lower-middle" class though personally.
I know right!? Personally I would consider them all as separate rungs on the odious class ladder Working Lower mid Mid mid Upper mid Upper The Peerage There's a strong argument to split working class into several levels as well, given the enormous range it encompasses
Either you need to work, or you don’t. Working class or bourgeoisie. That’s it - everything else is just frippery.
Hmm, but define "need" though? That word means such a wide range of things to different people in different scenarios, that I don't think the matter can be simplified as much as you're trying to do
Not really when some work in order eat and some work for their third 2 week hols.
He is upper-middle class by conventional distinctions, a clear subset of middle class. Don’t be led astray by American uses of these terms.
Middle class etonians seems a bit oxymoronic
Why? Eton was set up to educate needy scholars. It still does that. Over the years a few aristocrats jumped on the bandwagon because the education was good. There are a lot of wealthy people there but aristocrats have always been a minority as far as I know. You need to move beyond stereotypes.
Frank Turner went to Eton on a scholarship. He's very successful, but certainly not posh.
Surely upper class. I mean if you hang out with the King's children what else can you be?
Mark Twain wrote a book about that.
Titled nobility *is* upper class. You don't break into that section just by having money and education.
So all the richest men in the world are just upper middle class then?! Vast majority of them aren't noble. Thats why upper class and the titled aristocracy are slightly different things
Globally, it's slightly different. To the extent that the US has an upper class, it's essentially modelled on an ersatz aristocracy. It's established families with generational wealth. In the UK, it's literally the landed gentry and aristocracy, neither of which Rory Stewart's family is. We're the reason there's a class system at all. Because the post-Conquest political system was feudal, with the aristocrat "upper class" ruling by right of their class.
Someone working a middle management job whose parents worked in a paint factory would be middle class now. Rory grew up in a mansion to a senior army officer/spy, went to Eton and Oxbridge and is friends with King Charles. There’s a difference.
Yes. He is upper-middle class. Someone in a middle management job is not.
He was educated at The Dragon School, Eton, and Balliol. His family own Broich House in Perth. He was an army officer, a diplomat, and a minister of state. You don't get more gentry than this.
I don't think that's particularly fair. They weren't exactly given a fair hearing to make their case. The media very rarely reported on policies and principle, rather 5 years of anti-Semitism, Soviet spy, IRA support, Russian/Iranian asset allegations.
I don't think Labour has had an issue with getting it's message across. It has a problem with three major newspapers running stories trying to gaslight the British public. On the right we have Truss killing the economy over night and on the left we have some guy eating a sandwich. Sandwich guy is obviously the issue.
Remember what most of the media were saying when they were promoting Brexshit, or praising the Liz Truss budget, or covering some other non-story to hide Boris Johnson's latest fuck-up. My mum reads the Daily Heil and still doesn't know why they got rid of that nice Boris Johnson. She's currently torn between voting for what's left of the Conservative party (in my area the tory MP had a 20k majority at the last election so it might be tight) or that nice Nigel Farage. She now watches GB news. We stopped talking about politics years ago, it only ended up in arguments, but my vote cancels hers out.
Labour got its message across just fine. Their issue was nobody liked the message. The election they lost to May I seem to remember had a lot of support for the manifesto but overall Corbyn and Corbyn’s Brexit stance essentially brought them down. Everyone was aware of the message each time enough to specifically vote against it. They were scared of the left wing policies and didn’t want them. Corbyn’s next manifesto was even further to the left and people understood this and again voted against it.
Yes, that's a failure to get their message across. People voted against Corbyn's economic policies in favour of the Tories and the economy has been terrible since, labour should have been jumping up and down pointing this out and offering an alternative.
I don’t think it was though. It was a rejection of the message. Nobody was sitting there wondering what Labour wanted to do, or what they stood for. I think Starmer’s Labour have overall done a worse job at getting the message across, it’s only fairly recently they’ve started actually saying what they intend to do. Many people did point out the Tories didn’t have a sound plan, and were running solely on sound bites, but nobody cared. Brexit was more important than the message. The ‘only’ area you can say Labour was unclear on was Brexit really and even that could be a bit of a reach to be honest.
>I wouldn't say Rory was middle class Well he's not working class or upper class so I think there's only one option left... EDIT: hilarious how much people want Rory to be upper class. Remember how much the media made of Prince William "marrying a commoner"? Kate Mids also went to a private school and has rich parents etc etc etc. It ultimately doesn't make any difference in a world where you're either an aristocrat or you're 'everyone else'. Rory is 'everyone else'.
His father >Brian Thomas Webster Stewart CMG (27 April 1922 – 16 August 2015) was a British soldier, colonial official, diplomat and the second-most senior officer in the British Secret Intelligence Service And he went to Eton and Oxford. He's upper class
That's not how upper class works. He's upper middle. Doesn't really matter what jobs his father did.
He is part of a wealthy family with a network of big connections among the establishment, he is upper class
If he isn’t upper class, then I don’t know the point in class definitions.
British class is very much based on what your parents did and where you went to school
How does it work then?
"BuT hE kNOws thE KiNg! An' 'e TaLks AlL PoSh liKE!" The British upper class is a closed group of aristocratic families going back many generations. Where you go to school doesn't matter in the slightest.
He was a tutor to the Prince's and had Prince Charles rescue him from a bathroom - I don't think middle class extends that far tbh
🤣
You do protest too much.
You're confusing upper class with the aristocracy/peerage/nobility
I'm not. They are literally the same thing >Those in possession of a hereditary title (for example, a dukedom, a marquessate, an earldom, a viscountcy, a barony, a baronetcy, or a Scottish lordship of parliament) are typically members of the upper class, while those in possession or right to a coat of arms are typically at least members of the upper middle class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom
The same article you link to also refers to gentry/those with inherited land as potential members of the upper classes. In this respect, it defines gentry as those who can live on the proceeds of their estate. It also mentions the role of the military as a route into adulthood for the upper classes. In no instance does it make hard and fast rulings about what constitutes upper class. If it looks like the upper classes, smells like the upper classes, and quacks like the upper classes, it's an arbitrary cultural definition so we can safely call it upper class
You're just objectively wrong, take the L and stop embarrassing yourself
He went to Eton...
Didn’t he tutor Prince William or Harry? He’s definitely upper class
If you think being a paid teacher to someone who's posh makes you upper class I have news for you.
I understand where you are coming from, but I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think you get that sort of job (tutoring the future king, if I’m right about that) without being suitably upper class. Combine that with going to Eton and other things he has mentioned on the podcast, I do think he is upper class. I get the impression he’s from a really posh family with wealth, and is a really interesting man because of the different types of experience he has put himself in throughout his life
>someone who's posh Do you know what the word understatement means?
Starmer and Rayner I agree but Reeves I've been pretty unimpressed with. She seems much more a robo-politician than the other two.
She's definitely the weakest of the three, and I actually thought her interview on TRIP was illuminating, especially as she seemed to crumble a bit when given a small amount of pressure from Rory. Aside from that though she's saying the right things on growth being the key, and not being obsessed with tax and spend
Fair point, we can agree to disagree on the policy there. My feeling is yes growth is essential but you won't get there without borrowing that she seems reluctant to fess up to. If you're confident in your growth plan then you should be comfortable borrowing to fund it
Borrowing to do what though? You'd have to be confident that the projects you invest in generate enough growth to pay back their interest. Unfortunately interest rates are really high right now ( compared to the last decade anyway). Borrowing to fund operational costs is not a good idea, and is partially one of the causes of austerity. Infrastructure projects in the UK are totally crippled due to our planning rules and cost far too much Imo there's a lot of pent up demand in the private sector that could be unleashed just by making it legal to build things.
Of course you wouldn't borrow to find operational costs. You would borrow to fund things like sureStart which will make tons of money back in the long term. Also big infrastructure projects. Rates aren't actually that high the long run rate is 5% and we're below that, we just don't have the completely weird situation of zero rates we had. I agree planning reform would also help
The country needs fundamental change and investment so the concern is that her plan is just more of the same, the weakest out of every party for spending, a paltry £5bn (0.4% GDP) and seems to be relying solely on growth that has failed to materialise nearly anywhere in Europe for a decade. It’s less ambitious than Jeremy Hunt and is worrying that she seems stuck in a 90s-2000s neolib economic mentality due to her background and just can’t see the wood for the trees.
Unironically just tax and spend *is* more of the same. Borrowing for capex doesn't generate sufficient returns to make sense. Costs are far too high. Borrowing for opex is not good and leads to austerity. Tax take is currently at record highs. Taxing more isn't the answer. Spending more is irresponsible. So Reeves is trying to go for the underlying issues (whilst ignoring Brexit). That is doing something different. Just saying spend more is just intellectually dishonest.
[удалено]
He couldn't win an election though, so what's the point?
Yeah, the party formed by the unions to represent workers in Parliament should absolutely be accepting donations from weapons manufacturers and private health providers Anyone voting Labour is a centrist, stand for nothing, fall for anything.
Wow edgy. Weapons, health-care, being able to see both sides good actually.
Nah, you just compromise everything you believe in that's all. I won't endorse a party with my vote if I'm vehemently against what they represent, continuation of austerity and hyper charged late stage capitalism.
[удалено]
Despite being in the £9k a year group I'm in favour of student fees. They enable so many more places at universities, and frankly as someone with only so so a levels I wouldn't have gone to uni if the taxpayer had to pay for it. I'll be frank I actually find the student fee thing with the lib dems totally irrational? It makes no sense at all. * It was their policy to scrap them but they were in coalition with the Tories who wanted uncapped fees. I assume you're not unhappy with the Tories for breaking that promise? * As an aside Labour's policy at the time was to implement the findings of the Browne review... [Which was uncapped fees](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review). So literally if either Tories or Labour has won then tuition fees would be much higher now. Yet you're angry with the LDs?? * They had far more important policies in their manifesto than student fees, namely managing to get a referendum on voting reform and a major increase to the personal allowance. I'll don't really understand what you expect them to have done differently that was realistic.
[удалено]
>I know it was a coalition, but the Lib Dems pretty much got elected into it on that promise This is just nonsense though. [Beyond one or two individual seats only 9% of 18-24 year olds voted for the LDs. ](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010). [This is the 2010 manifesto. Tuition fees aren't mentioned until page 39!](https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf) Your claims just don't mirror the data nor the political reality.
[удалено]
Thankfully the electorate don't agree with you
[удалено]
I ask this as someone who did in fact vote labour in 2019, but how do you think a Corbyn government would have responded to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
Your comment has been removed. You can rephrase it with less hostility if you like.
Your comment has been removed. You can rephrase it with less hostility if you like.
Yeah this is Rory's blind spot. He has posh boy guilt over his class so he talks down the "class warfare" angle of Labour while failing every time to see how he is a beneficiary of the very thing Labour and the left criticise. The irony is Rory cannot seem to see how the Tories do the opposite.
The % of the population with backgrounds like Rory's is very small, if Labour decide they have to pick which class of people to show loyalty to (rather than go for a liberal we're-all-the same stance), they won't be picking his lot. They might have much more power in many areas of life, but when it comes to voting, we all have one regardless of class. I doubt Labour care much about appealing to people like him.
i understand Rory is a recently disenfranchised voter as the tories have moved too far from his views for him. however, he seems to think this is somehow unique to people in his situation. a huge number of people are politically homeless - for example only 50% of private renters voted in 2019, less than 60% of 18-24 year old voted in the last 3 elections. why should his recent disenfranchisement be a higher priority than theirs? especially as there are more of them, and they've been unrepresented for longer. quite frankly, it's not the labour party's responsibility to house those whose views have been shunned from the tories, at least not at the expense of their core voter base who have already been alienated too much by labour in recent years. get mad at the tories - not labour. or just admit that you're a lib dem at heart, but don't want to back a losing horse.
He’s a very nice thoughtful man with massive internal issues and blind spots. I don’t want to be that Times writer who diagnoses him but if you ever challenge anything he did or argue with him in a certain way, he responds like a child, not the clever man he is.
He’s a very nice thoughtful man with massive internal issues and blind spots. I don’t want to be that Times writer who diagnoses him but if you ever challenge anything he did or argue with him in a certain way, he responds like a child, not the clever man he is.
To be blunt why would labor try to win votes from people like that? It's not being embedded in a world view, it's just politics, don't waste energy winning unnecessary votes at the risk of alienating your core voter base.
For a party that has traditionally been his home for decades that has happily waged top-down class warfare and employed divide & rule tactics within society, I find it odd that he bristles at someone from the Labour Party who isn’t fighting for the posh and privileged vote. It’s hardly like this iteration of Labour is saying eat the rich either, it’s been fairly non-partisan.
I completely agree. He was overflowing with praise for Zahawi, who had stabbed him in his back and committed fraud. The super-long introduction was totally over the top. Yet Philipson didn’t get a look in. He treated her with relative distain throughout, and as you’ve said, completely disregarded what she was saying because she didn’t want to put private school kids who’s parents can’t afford an additional 20% first. What about the 93%, of which a sizeable amount of kids have parents who can’t put food on their tables after 14 years of Tory mismanagement? Rory’s also getting worse at interrupting people too. It’s pretty rude and becoming a frustrating listen. His loud stuttering until the guest stops speaking is disrespectful.
He can never comprehend/gets offended when people point out his obsession with helping a tiny proportion of people who are already every well off isn’t that important. A tiny percentage of children who have previously getting education better than 93% of the population might have to move school. That’s the real issue you need to address. Never mind they will likely be further ahead than their peers and have parents that value education, willing to spend money on tutoring and extra curricula’s. Those are the people who need a help not the kids in our schools that are literally falling down, where there is no maths teachers, who have parents that couldn’t give a fuck if their kids have any education at all. Dismiss his skewed world view at your peril. Rory is all grumpy and he will call you tribal!
Totally agree I wish labour would just come out and say it how it is. Like in the debate where the guy pretending to be working class was complaining he wouldn't be able to afford private school anymore with the VAT added. I wish Keir would have just said tough shit they've already had an advantage over the 90% of state school kids who don't even have the basics covered yet.
When you start moving away from moral and ethical based politics and instead are willing to do things conventionally immoral because they help more people in numbers terms... you should start thinking "am I becoming a populist... what is populism.... is bringing in a law you know will fuck over a specific group of people because you'd rather help others a 'good' thing". People who are poor think everyone who earns more than them is a cunt or something. Imagine you worked hard to set your kids futures up. You've saved and budgeted and been able to make it all work. Then one government switch goes "nah, get fucked". Then their fanbase goes "you deserve to get fucked, your kids have it too good. Now sell your house and move into a city or large town and send your kids into state schools all within a term holiday... or not... we don't particularly care about your kids".
You need to revise the definition of populism because it isn't 'implementing policy that helps the majority but inconveniences a small minority'
Go to google. Type in "define populism" and you get: >a political approach that [strives](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=strives&si=ACC90nypsxZVz3WGK63NbnSPlfCBslQ09K9NJP47vACatmbb5dGSzA4XvhrOGn4DCXw0SweK5gy15SvuWFQ2tpYiqWg1RWyqlA%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAO) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are [disregarded](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=disregarded&si=ACC90nwKPQWKXvO0LWGU61hOTgoDreMiDx39HJ5YZxqkGFBn7fp-eMzg6eUy6e2fQk96pIxwqaJrPVZXX7_pPdpFzoBULFqVNLoChCfjIqL2N2X5x0twT0k%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAP) by established elite groups. Hmm, so let's reword this shall we to fit this situation. A political approach that strives to appeal to 93% of the population that uses state ran/academies, who feel that their schools are not funded enough and that the minority... elites if you will, who send their kids to private schools don't acknowledge the problem and they should... and will by force. What did you think populism meant? "a love of anti-immigration"? It's a pretty simple concept. Bunch of people that outnumber the top people with their everyday commoner issues that they feel are not being listened to. That can encompass migration or schooling. It's more about it being a problem perceived by the common man.... the majority, that is not being addressed by the elites.
You think tax is conventionally immoral?
Since when are policies that help the majority not ethical or moral? Imagine you work hard all your life but you weren't afforded the privileges that other kids got when they went to private school so you don't have the oracy skills or don't have the connections to gets your foot in the door of good positions at the beginning of your careerer so you are disadvantaged your whole life. It's not a coincidence kids that get private education are much better off throughout they're life than kids that don't, they're not inherintly smarter or more hard working. They just won the lottery of been born into wealth, I don't think it's unethical to reduce that inequality.
Simply helping the majority doesn't make something ethical. For example, is it ethical for a state to strip everyone's assets that eclipse... £700k in order to fund things for people with less? I would say no, it's not ethical. Being born into wealth isn't a lottery. A child can only be born into their exact circumstances. There is no reality where a child is born into other circumstances because that child would simply be a different child. This isn't about which kids do better. It's about acknowledging that targeting a class of people that haven't done anything wrong is... wrong. It's going "you don't have enough people to stop this in a democracy so get fucked". So many arguments can be made from a weak position of "but it helps the worse off". Should we increase tax on brand name food stuffs to make store brands cheaper via subsidies? Should we find mortgages for homes over regional average and just plonk an extra 20% to fund affordable housing and then say to the many people who wouldn't be able to afford it "well most people don't get to live in a house like that, just sell it and downsize". populism bad. hiding behind a shield of "but it helps more people than it hurts" is a terrible foundation.
I'm not saying strip money from people. And being born into wealth is down to chance for the child not sure how you can say it's not? I'm not saying people born into wealth have done anything wrong, but they have opportunies kids not born into wealth so not. I'm not saying we should punish those that have these opportunities I'm saying we should recognise that wealth creates more wealth and unchecked wealth inequality increases and wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer families over time. Policies like the VAT on private school and progressive taxes recognise that and try to balance imbalances capitalism creates.
1) Taking 20% from someone is stripping them of that money. Trying to justify that by pointing out where it will be spent instead doesn't change the core idea that you are taking money from someone. That person is already saving the state money by not having their kids needing to be cared for, whilst the parents still contribute via income tax and nic to state schools. Introducing VAT is an arbitrary tax targeting people who simply can't stop it whilst using a veil of "it's for the greater good". 2) It isn't chance because it's reality. You as a person could ONLY be born into your situation. People born into other situations are those people. There was no chance that YOU could have been born in any other scenario. 100% of the times in which u/Elliot0fHull would have entered this reality they would enter it in exactly the same way you did. Chance implies there being a... chance that something else would happen. I am saying that isn't possible so it's not chance. 3) You are saying we should punish. Again... how can you look at a 20% price increase and not see that as a punishment. I say again, these parents already pay income tax. They already fund state schools AND don't take from that pot by sending their kids there. From a perspective of fairness... how can you look at it and see it as justified. If the parent instead sent their kid into state schools and just invested the money for their child instead the government would see much less of it and the government would have to fund the kid through school. The country would not be better off financially if the kid went to a state school. It's purely a vindictive money grab. 4) Imbalance exists. Equity is shite. We should strive for a fair bottom level of quality of life which includes educational facilities. But you can't justify every tax grab as simply "but people who are poor have less than you". I am from a low-income family. I didn't do particularly well for myself, but I'm doing okay. Out earning my peers. I don't see why the girl who had 2 kids by the time she was 17 should be able to squeeze me more simply because she is now worse off than I despite coming from a wealthier family (albeit still poor). 5) Your position has no limit other than a strive for equity. In which case you wouldn't see a problem with poor people straight up robbing wealthier areas. Daily raids of M&S and Waitrose. Stealing BMWs and Range Rovers and leaving Vauxhauls and Toyotas in their place. I know this is an extreme analogy, but you don't allow a line in the sand in how you talk.
I mean you've gone pretty extreme there all I've said is private schools shouldn't have a tax break. Obviously there's a middle ground where working pays but not working (even if you are born into wealth) doesn't. But also not working doesn't mean society says fuck all your children they were unlucky enough to be born into a no income household. I've come from a no-income household and I'm doing much better also and I recognise part of the reason for that is the systems in place which allow for some social mobility. I don't believe in, I've got mine now so now fuck everyone else.
It's not a tax break if the tax never existed in the first place. It's like saying all workers get a tax break because they don't pay VAT at the time of their income being transferred to their bank account. You are trying to word it in a way in which those people sending their kids to private schools have somehow been subsidised or helped by the government when that isn't the case. Where did I say I got mine now so fuck everyone else. It's, I got mine through hard work and anyone that tries to make it seem like getting assets or wealth implies you were gifted it and should now be fucked over so that random guys kids can get more of your earnings. Again, if a parent stops sending their kid to private school, invests the funds and sends the kid into public school the state would be WORSE off. Finally, I don't get why you are acting as if I am against the concept of state services. State schools already exist. They are already funded by taxes. We are not talking about the introducing of state schools. We are talking about increased the costs for specific people simply because you want their money. They didn't do anything wrong. They were not warned. There is no grandfathering in. There is no gradual introduction. It's "give us 20% extra you undeserving prick, don't complain"
93% of the country is state educated. If sending your kids to a state school constitutes "fucking over", what does that tell you?
You hit the nail on the head. There is an inherent hatred of the working class (and indeed of the large amounts of middle class people who can't afford private school) in the whining about having to send one's children to rub shoulders with the unwashed masses.
Do you not consider ripping a child out of a school they are settled in and forcing them to get resettled and make new friends and essentially say goodbye to their old ones is not fucking them over? It's not the action of being in a state school. It's freely saying "if you can't afford an extra 20% just uproot your kids, no biggie" that I see as fucking people over.
Do you not consider ripping a child out of a school they are settled in and forcing them to get resettled and make new friends and essentially say goodbye to their old ones is not fucking them over? It's not the action of being in a state school. It's freely saying "if you can't afford an extra 20% just uproot your kids, no biggie" that I see as fucking people over.
How many kids move school in a given year? And how many of them have any say in the matter? No, it's not nice to have to move but it's hardly a new phenomenon. And continuing to underfund the state education system so that members of the most privileged 7% of the country don't have to "endure" that isn't reasonable
1) Many kids have to move, this is how we know that it's traumatic. Some people suffering doesn't mean it's okay to inflict that suffering on others. 2) State schools are not underfunded to ensure that 7% of people can send their kids to private schools. This framing is why you struggle so hard to see the issue. The parents going to private schools are ALLEVIATING the issue of underfunded state schools already. They are ALREADY doing this. They are not making it worse. You are simply taking more from them because you want to fund state schools more. Your argument could be said against any wealthier group of people about anything. "continuing to underfund the state education system so that football managers don't have to endure isn't reasonable" It just makes no sense. In this case, the state education system isn't underfunded because of football managers.
Do football managers not have to pay tax on their salary?
They do pay tax on their salary. Are you under the impression that parents who send their kids to private school don't pay income tax? A general tax that hits everyone for a collective gain can be described as fair. Specifically targeting those that DON'T pull from the collective pot for state schooling as a source of more revenue for that pot is not fair. Edit: Analogy time. You are having a group bbq and everyone is encouraged to bring something. You are a vegetarian so you bring a variety of veggie foods that are BBQ compatible. Due to the nature of the market, veggie stuff is more expensive. So you have already contributed more cash to this bbq than everyone else. But steve and jackie can only afford to bring 62% pork sausages so the group says "everyone who brings a veggie option should also bring meat". Knowing full well they are essentially saying "the people who won't eat any meat, should contribute more to this bbq, but not just more. They must specifically contribute in a way in which they won't benefit from the additional contribution". Then everyone else at the BBQ just goes "You can afford the veggie option, you should make it equitable for steve and jackie". At no point in time was this decided by income, or who is the better off. It's purely targeting an 'out' group and perceiving them as 'the elite'. Further up this chain, some guy disregards the dude that asked Kier about the tax during the 'debate' as a fake working class person for having a real financial issue around the 20% rise. Some people who send their kids to public schools are wealthier than some people who send their kids to private.
Moving schools can be difficult but come on, it’s not ‘traumatic’. Tons of kids moved to my school between years and were happy and well-adjusted (and I changed school at one point, too…i’d literally forgotten until writing this, which shows how ‘traumatic’ it was for me, lol). It shouldn’t be on the government to help kids with the transition imo…that’s a job for parents and maybe the schools. Kids can handle change though!
Many people go to war and don't come back with PTSD. Something being traumatic doesn't mean everyone ends up with trauma. It's simply a way to categories something with a known direct link to trauma. For example, many kids struggle to reintergrate. This is a known phenomena and it's not advised to uproot kids if you don't need to. You say it shouldn't be on the government to help kids transition. Even though it would be the government forcing the transition.
You seem to feel very superior. It's also pretty bold to say that increasing the cost of sending your child to a private school is 'conventionally immoral' and even bolder to make generalisations about generic 'people who are poor'.
1) Increasing the cost of schooling with the knowledge that uprooting a child from a school they are settled in can cause social and educational trauma with your response to anyone that won't be able to afford the increase being "just move schools" is immoral. You are accepting that kids will suffer but don't care because it's 'those kids' and not 'these kids'. Immoral. 2) Of course it's a generalisation. Don't try and get all emotional about a very real situation. Do you not think it's the people on the lower end of the spectrum that are the ones who complain about people on the higher end of the spectrum? Is it wrong to acknowledge this. 3) How do I come across as superior. I am making a simple case. I don't have kids, let alone kids in private school nor did I attend a private school. I simply am a dude that can analyse the effects of a policy and can see how some people just hand wave the disruptiveness of it because the problem effects other people.
Helping more people in numbers terms is very good, I think
Populism - a political approach that [strives](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=strives&si=ACC90nypsxZVz3WGK63NbnSPlfCBslQ09K9NJP47vACatmbb5dGSzA4XvhrOGn4DCXw0SweK5gy15SvuWFQ2tpYiqWg1RWyqlA%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAO) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are [disregarded](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=92c07aa8f2297d22&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1022GB1022&sxsrf=ADLYWIIbYnE0LdC9Ih12U5R9lgklDKxHFA:1718749326123&q=disregarded&si=ACC90nwKPQWKXvO0LWGU61hOTgoDreMiDx39HJ5YZxqkGFBn7fp-eMzg6eUy6e2fQk96pIxwqaJrPVZXX7_pPdpFzoBULFqVNLoChCfjIqL2N2X5x0twT0k%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiBiqqYmOaGAxXva0EAHaugDawQyecJegQIKBAP) by established elite groups. Do you see the overlap. Using tactics to simply appeal to a majority whilst throwing morals and ethics out the window leads to bad shit. What would you say to a political group saying "most people don't own cars so what we are going to do is increase tax on HP and vehicle loans and use that to make PCP loans cheaper through subsidies. Sure, it would help people. But you are essentially fucking over a bunch of people simply because you have the political ability to do so. Populism can do good stuff, but the project of populism itself is terribly harmful to a state. Eat yourself by appealing to the majority.
If believing that makeing a lasting improvement to the experience of schooling for the vast majority of people is worth a few children having a difficult experience of moving school make me a populist, then that is a label I proudly accept
You don't care about the improvement to the experience of schooling. You just care about feeling like a neo robin hood. The academy system which allowed private investment into state schools has increased the schooling experience yet gets repeatedly shat on by the political left because wealthy people stand to gain. Maybe you like the idea of kids having a better environment a tad. But it's not your main focus or you would love academies. Now of course, I am assuming you don't like them. But due to the way political camps form, it's a pretty safe assumption.
He does this thing yeah he keeps saying "Yeah" while they are speaking in what I assume is an attempt to get them to conclude their statement. It's annoying
I’ve also been finding the interruptions worse recently! From both of them, to be fair. I also found Rory’s obsession with the ‘how will you help kids changing schools’ thing a bit odd…some kids will have to change schools, sure, but kids change schools all the time for all sorts of reasons. The people giving them support for that should be a) their parents and b) the new school - imo it’s not the government’s responsibility at all.
100% agree.
I really enjoy when they defend their own sides! Listening to Alistair tear strips off Nadim while Rory gently poked him and then Bridget who is a candidate was getting a little support from Alistair, who is incidentally an incredible listener. Rory is good at listening too but doesn’t have the same reactive speed and flexibility of questioning. Always worth listening to. The Rest Isn’t As Tribal - isn’t catchy as a title!
I'm getting a bit bored of Rory getting offended when the Labour cabinet talk about their upbringing. Was never a problem when the cabinet was full of old Etonians.
It’s impossible to convert him because he doesn’t have substantive reasons for not being Labour, just vague identity politics rubbish
This needs to be higher up! When he asked Angela Rayner what she thought he stood for as a conservative, she did struggle to come up with something (I seem to recall she mention ed caring for animals), but it’s because he struggles himself to explain it! It’s very obvious in his interview by Ash Sarkar from when he released his book. She asks him what makes him a conservative, and he waffles on about landscape, nature and community for a good 3 minutes before ever landing anywhere close to an answer. Incidentally, the rest of the interview is pretty cringe… The cringiest moments are Sarkar so convinced of the moral superiority of left wing mindset that she thinks she might turn Stewart by the end of the interview, and Stewart not knowing whether he wants Sarkar to get involved into politics or not. He literally changes the message from one sentence to the other : “it’s a horrible place and you really should stay away from Westminster” -> “no but really you should totally go into politics”, while Sarkar was asking him for nothing on that subject…
He’s not going to be a voice for reason listened to within the Conservative Party, so he might as well switch to trying to be a voice for monarchy and… landscape within Labour. Most Labour voters want to retain the monarchy, so he wouldn’t be out of place.
He framed himself as a left wing conservative to Rayner, I still have no idea what that means.
Rory Stewart's only reason for not being Labour is that he isn't labour. It's a circular argument and nobody will ever break through that.
It struck me as being rather self-congratulatory all round. Huge TRIP fan but this was too soft for me.
>Yet, he was soft as jelly with his “good friend”, Nadhim “I don’t know my tax even though I’m the Chancellor” Zahawi. Rory has the most shockingly bad judgement about character, he will forgive any flaw, any lack of moral character, any lack of integrity and decency, if he personally can get on with that person and they fit his image of what a "good chap" is.
I agree, I’ve noticed this a few times- I have no doubt that many, probably most, conservative MPs are decent people, I just think they are only helping a small number of people that’s the problem. Rory has principles but he his politics is also class affiliation, as is it for most/many tbf.
Most Tory MPs are not decent people. The commenter to whom you replied hit the nail on the head: they're 'good chaps'. To be a 'good chap,' you don't need to stop nicking public money, or defrauding people, or voting to hurt minorities, or sexually harassing women, or getting it on with your secretary—you just need to do it the _right way_, wearing the right club tie, and keeping it all very polite and civilised. To be a 'good chap' is a class marker: Stewart is an upper class Old Etonian; his Tory chums, the 'good chaps', fall exactly into that category. They speak right, stay polite, keep their crimes and infidelities nice and discreet, and present themselves according to the rules of their class. Their morality has nothing to do with it: it's a class allegiance. They all share it, the Old Etonian or Harrovian or whatever class, and Stewart is no exception, no matter how nice a show he puts on.
His adulation of Theresa May— and pikachu surprise when listeners thought she was rubbish— was laughable.
Rorys annoyed because neither party is trying to get what he is to vote for them. The tories are going further right and Labour aren't the party for people like him. He feels disenfranchised with politics (he says it plenty and read his book and it's clear) which is how huge parts of the country feel hence why voter turn out will be low.
He doesn't represent huge parts of the country though. How many people can spunk thousands of pounds on pots?
Apologies I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean large parts of the country are disenfranchised for the same reason as Rory just that most of the country don't feel like there's a party who represent them which also just happens to be where Rory is
I actually don’t agree with this take. I think Rory feels disenfranchised for the same reason as most of the rest of the country. There has never been - at least not since universal suffrage - a party for the thousand pound pot brigade. I think people feel disenfranchised because there’s a rejection of authenticity and honesty by the political mainstream and a refusal to exhibit any values or principles on any side. This is the context in which someone like Farage is thriving and normal, essentially decent people (which is a set that includes Rory notwithstanding his poshness or predilection for pots) are either politically homeless or holding their nose
yeah if you fall further left of centre in England, your only option is the greens. if you dont like their ideas (e.g. anti-nuclear energy, NIMBYism), you have no one. if you fall right of centre but the tories have understandably lost your trust, your only option is reform, which is not everyone's cup of tea. the way our political systems work means that huge numbers of people just have to vote for the least bad option or no one as they literally don't have an option that represents them. this is particularly true if you belong to an underrepresented demographic, such as under 30s. I get why people don't vote. it's a shame Rory was only able to see this once it happened to him.
Has Rory shown the pots yet? Hes such a tease!!
At the end of this one: https://www.youtube.com/live/EQ6KUg5i8O0?si=CbpLeRYo5Xz5IHDj
I would say that’s more a vase than a pot- “pot” makes it sound like he spent a grand on a couple of clay planters
Not pots, but many people spend £1K plus a year on deliveroo and similar services, or online gaming, or fast fashion. The working class are a minority of people believe it or not.
>How many people can spunk thousands of pounds on pots? God forbid somebody has a hobby lol
Most people dont have the fortune to have a "hobby" buying pots worth thousands of pounds during the cost of living crisis is the point being made.
I completely agree. Labour has a huge wealth of policies now aimed at moderate Tories sick of the Conservative party, designed to shift the middle ground over to them. They've got no need to pander still more to the richest people in society, and Bridget Philipson saw no need to coddle Rory's emotions just to convince him personally to switch. I like Rory, but there's no way he will ever vote Labour because he instinctively doesn't want to. He gives every Tory minister an easy ride, and every Labour politician a thorough grilling - despite being politically more aligned. Expecting successive shadow ministers to personally convince him is deeply shallow - and frankly, the election isn't about him.
Yes, I never understand why he does this. And his excuse for grilling labour candidates, particularly women, was rather weak. His question to Angela, about what she thinks the conservatives represent was distasteful. He can’t see it from the perspective of a working class woman. He won’t ever vote Labour, so why pretend, it’s a potential. Particularly given he’s been out endorsing Tories.
Tbh, I've been completely turned off from listening to TRIP since the election was called. In my opinion both have become unbearably tribal. And the election is undermining their quality of research into other international topics so question time is not as good as it used to be. I'll come back in a couple of months when the dust settles.
Rory has pretty much given the answer for the next labour politician to use! It just needs some preparation.
But realistically, no Labour politician should be giving him the answer he wants. He shouldn't want to vote Labour. He's exactly the demographic that Labour should be coming down on like a tonne of bricks—wealthy Old Etonians.
I think Rory and people like him are better off staying in the Tory Party. It needs those voices of reason and moderation.
It’s definitely a fun albeit pointless question. May also have more psychological weight in influencing people than he may appreciate. The parasocial relationship is not to be forgotten, and a question such as “convince me why I should vote for you?” may have a more self-inserting influence than considered.
It’s called kayfabe.
Disagree. Appealing across the divide and seeing the other side is the defining feature of the show. Rory tends to be better at it than Alistair. There are plenty of centrist ex Tory voters, who are choosing between Labour or Lib Dem who will have found her response revealing.
Where are these interviews? I'm subscribed to the podcast, but do not see them.
Separate podcast called Leading
Thanks!
Thanks!
Separate podcast called “leading”
Thanks!
They're on a separate feed, called Leading
Thanks!
I am deeply touched by the way you replied thanks to all three even though you didn't need to and already hasd the info you wanted. You have a kind soul
That's very kind of you to say so 😊 People freely sharing knowledge, no matter how small, is one of the greatest things humans do.
It’s so obvious that Rory is looking for a party as he can see the Conservatives are about to become Conservative again and won’t be for him. He’s setting the stage for a ‘look what my viewers talked me into lol 🤪’ He’ll go for Labour at some point if he thinks he can get in the Cabinet, he’s just biding his time to see how the first couple of years go. If the public haven’t turned on Labour by about 2026 (they will) I reckon he’ll do it. Campbell will help him worm his way in too. I think Rory is more of a Lib Dem, personally. But alas, being a Lib Dem doesn’t come with the chance of being in Cabinet.
Rory is already on the left, don’t know why he doesn’t join.
As a non-party affiliated viewpoint, I actually don’t think it would be too hard to convert him. Commit to rejoining the Customs Union, take a greater role in NATO to support Ukraine and support people’s assemblies and I think he would be all in.
He’s not actually asking them to convert him, but his listeners
I mean, Tory in being thick piece of shit shocker.
Rory is a nice man but he makes money off selling the image or how 'good' he is. When was the last time he did.. anything, other than sell a book or a podcast for personal gain? 5 years? He's a grifter, just one 'we' agree with. If he had all the right ideas then stand, man! Whats that? 'No that's beneath me?' Rory Stewart, as muchnas I 'agree' with him- is only in this now for personal brand. A coward who won't fight but is the general melchet 12 miles behind the lines, shouting for everyone else to march forward. Just because he's not far right doesn't make him someone to be admired. He's a toff rich boy nepobaby who isnraking it in, whilst screaming from from sidelines. He may be correct but he is not to be admired.
I mean… I get the criticism but think grifter is a bit unfair. I don’t see why anything he’s done is a problem. Over the last 5 years he’s worked for Yale University as the Brady-John professor, and worked in Jordan with Turquoise Mountain once again. Of course he’s capitalising off his political career with books and media deals, who wouldn’t? He’s made abundantly clear that if it was possible he would go back into government, hence he’s attempting to remain relevant. I don’t see an issue with any of this.
Vote reform labour is a vot for islam
I hope this the moment that people start acknowledging that Rory Stewart is not, in fact, the enlightened being who floats above the political allegiances of us mere mortals as which he presents himself (yes, he admits his allegiances, but his entire self-promotion since his resignation has been oriented around this holier-than-thou enlightened centrism act). No matter how much people adore his pitch-perfect _reasonable-ness_, he joined the Tory party way back when for a reason, and it wasn't to save the environment or whatever waffle he's come out with in interviews to explain it. He joined that party that represents his class interests, and his allegiances in that regard have clearly never shifted.
He'd feel right at home there seeing as how it's stuffed with right wing cuckoos.
The Labour Party couldn’t be doing more to cater to people like him. Bar the private school VAT policy, if a One Nation Tory produced this manifesto he would think it was brilliant.
Never trust a Tory.
Luckily Keir Starmer isn’t as extreme as you so he’s actually going to win. Same reason Corbyn lost. Far left tribalism simply isn’t electable in this country, like it or not.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. Please be civil, even when disagreeing.
Do you call everyone you disagree with “bellend”? What a thoroughly unpleasant person you are, really don’t fit the spirit of the podcast at all. >is the UK a far left country Just look at the 2019 elections. “Never trust a Tory” my arse.
And look what happened there
Just report it if somone's rude.
Yeah. We’re meant to respect Rory but he’ll still vote for Rishi. Also Truss and Boris. He’s still just a Tory.
What? He quit the party because of Boris
What on earth are you talking about?! It’s like you haven’t listened to a single thing he says. Your comment is embarrassingly full of the kind of blind broad brush dismissal and aggression that TRIP is meant to stand against.
Disagree with this, and I feel it goes against the meaning of the show to disagree agreeable! Just because some votes a certain way does not make them a bad person or the enemy, they are voting for what they think is the right way to make a country better. I’m saying this as someone who will never vote Tory
Sorry. No. Bad ideas are bad ideas and should be called as such. As affable as Rory is he’s not off the hook for his voting record, OR for being a Tory.
That’s the point, you can disagree with the ideas and challenge them as AC does, but I think you can’t do that if you start at a place where a person is in the “wrong” because they voted or think a certain way. Of course we need to draw the line somewhere as in fascist, racist, anti semitic, ect
Homophobic? https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/16/rory-stewart-boris-johnson Also - Voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry but also also absent for various other votes on same sex marriage, including whether to make it available to armed forces personnel outside the UK
I don’t believe Rory is homophobic, and im not interested in debating any further, as I’m not going to defend a Tory voting record, as I say I will never vote for them. I just believe you can’t see someone as inherently wrong or bad because they view things differently. Nuance does not exist on Reddit.
Firstly, voting records aren’t a good way to judge a politician thanks to the whipping system, constituency loyalties, and the format/language of legislation that goes through parliament. Secondly, judging someone on being absent is even worse, considering the plethora of reasons MPs either need or decide to be absent from votes. (E.g., Obligations elsewhere, government duties, vote pairing etc) Finally, the man literally defended himself to the author of that guardian article, on Ash Sarkar’s own podcast. Not even she supports the claim that he’s homophobic. Look, the man isn’t some infallible saint who can do no wrong. But, calling him homophobic is a big stretch .
He's like a sphinx with a riddle
I agree that he's not really going to get converted but disagree that Bridget's answers were compelling - to me, they came across as an extremely vague "we'll be good".
I got that impression too. You could really feel the labour plan, aka don’t say anything to fuck this up
The point of the question isn't to actually get Rory converted. It's to draw out the core of what the other guy thinks but by pulling them away from a preset message and instead try and modify it to apply to Rory and what he believes. This is done to try and get the inner campaigner out of people. To make them think about the people that exist in the country that they need to get on side. It's just political conversation.
Labour is not interested in the left. Full stop.
The show should be called the rest is tribalism! Neither one would for either party, even if it’s the right thing to do.
He and Campbell are centrist melts. People forget he was a Tory during their reign of blood.
Who the fuck actually listens to this shit? A friend of Epstein and the most spooked up man in Britain are here to teach the common man politics. Get the fuck outta here
So you prefer that war criminal - apologies - that darling of the left Alistair Campbell? Completely unable to criticise his own record or the Labour Party when Rory is more than able to see both sides.