Big respect to both Rory for the heated challenge on customs union and health inflation, but also to Rachel for how she handled it. These kind of moments are exactly why this podcast is so interesting.
Although she was allowed to totally confuse the customs union vs the single market. She clearly didn’t know the difference and was allowed to brush over it.
@@George-gf6lxJust playing devils advocate here, but she could have purposely responded that way because the general public doesn’t know the difference between them (and doesnt want misinformation to spread)
I’ve never voted labour. The reason being I just don’t trust them economically. This detailed interview and the way it was conducted with challenge but space to allow Rachel to speak has won me over. I think I just might vote labour this time. Rachel knows her brief.
This was excellent. Too often media just give politicians an easy ride in interviews and by grilling her, it’s actually won me over to show her resilience and intelligence in a way a soft fluffy typical media interview wouldn’t.
100% - whilst it got a bit tetchy at times, I'm glad the interview gave the space (and time) for Reeves to move away from some of the rehearsed lines and I found myself much more impressed with her than I had been previously when I'd only seen her using the same pre-written talking points again and again. All hail the longform interview.
comments about her 'lack of personality' are irrelevant, she's the chancellor of the exchequer and it is her job to be an intelligent and competent economist, I couldn't care less about whether she talks in a manner that might be more appealing. I feel as though this requirement of 'personality' for cabinet minister is a bit American and presidential. People also don't seem to like her aggresiveness in the comments, she was getting grilled by Rory over multiple questions, it's a bit bewildering to see people be alienated by some combatitive debate in response.
I think that’s really being quite unfair. Maybe we’re looking at different comments but the fundamental issue people are catching onto is that frankly she just does not seem to be particularly intelligent or competent, which is a real concern when we’re talking about the position of Chancellor in a critical economic moment. It was all rehearsed, all simplistic, she displayed no ability to think on her feet or discuss the larger problems thoughtfully. She’s objectively in a bind - unable to raise taxes, unable to borrow, unable realistically to aim to grow the problem away, while public services, defence, and industrial investment demand more money than ever. Rory is completely right that she needs to be able to acknowledge this and take the line ‘it’s a mess we inherited and we’ll do what we can, but it will be tough and you have to bear with us’ - that however is not her message at all; her message is ‘growth, growth, growth and it will be fine’ and that’s not enough. She can avoid being nailed to the wall on this during the campaign if she wants I suppose, but if she doesn’t have a great plan that she’s secretly hiding somewhere, she’s going to get a reality check and it will be messy.
Of course Rory is right about health inflation, but any party leadership that publicly acknowledged that would take a huge electoral hit. The most he could hope for was that she would acknowledge that things are going to be tough for a while, and that Labour aren't going to wave a magic wand and make the country's problems go away. In fairness, she did that.
Totally agree. Unfortunately very few of the electorate are as intelligent as Rory so won't understand the detail. Also he doesn't have to worry about a tiny soundbite being played back by the opposition. Plus of course she cant blame a big chunk of the current mess on the true evil of Brexit. They've got to win first and then start rebuilding. So with that caveat that Labour cant currently be completely honest about what they really think about Brexit, I thought she came across as pretty trustworthy which is what the UK had been lacking for way too long!
If your “plan” is UK economic growth is going to be consistently better than the US, when historically that hasn’t happened since WW2, that is basically the same as waving a magic wand and making your problems disappear - its a fairy tale. Not only does she say that, which Rory is rightly incredulous about, she also doesn’t give any details about “how” a Labour government will make that happen.
I think as the future chancellor she should have been able to answer Rory's question better than having to resort to "I wont be lectured by you" defensive response followed by the scripted non-answers.
I love that Rory picked up on her sounding scripted, it's the first thing I thought once the personal introduction was out the way. She even sounds like Starmer the way she pronounces certain words.
She was definitely on a script to a large degree, but you can't blame her for that in the lead up to a GE. Plus, you want your Chancellor to be a good economist, I couldn't care less if she's a great podcast guest and can tell funny, novel anecdotes.
@WS12658 my issue is that when someone is scripted like that you don't feel like you're speaking to a person and it doesn't feel honest. And when he challenged her, she went into evasion/whataboutery
@WS12658 the Angela Raynor interview on the other hand was much better, she didn't come off as scripted at all, she was very much shooting from the hip and she came off very well as a result
Found the defensiveness of Rachel and combativeness with Rory very off putting. Still would rather labour running the ship but health inflation and future funding of NHS and care are huge questions she should have thought about deeply and have a carefully constructed answer ready. Not jumping down Rory's throat about the tories...
To be honest I want a labour party, especially senior ministers, that is robust in their response to Tory criticism and hypocrisy. It's nauseating constantly having them beat on Labour and have labour roll over when Tories have consistently done poorly on the economy, and governance in general.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 I agree. She clearly has the confidence to stand by what she's said and if she's wrong she pays the usual political price. Here's hoping she is correct
I look forward to her running the ship. I think she balanced giving off very competent and reassuring vibes whilst also not saying anything disasterous about NHS funding, EU relationship, or immigration that would be seized upon by labour critics. Hopefully she can do what needs to be done to tackle those major structural, inescapable issues in power.
Rory, with respect, I get your passion for customs union but this may be a rare field in which you might delve deeper. There are benefits and drawbacks. 1. Notably, the way the EU structures its customs unions with third countries differs from *the EU* customs union. The EU has never made the common commercial policy (its external trade deals) available to third countries and you appear to be labouring under a misapprehension on this point. It is held distinct by the EU, in third-country-EU customs unions, from the customs union itself. And it is unlikely that they would wish to do that with a competitor state. Why would they want to allow a large competing economy to piggyback on their trade deals and milk them dry because the competitor can undercut them on regulation? That is not in the member state interest. There has been discussion of looking into different arrangements with Andorra and San Marino on this front. But the UK is not a microstate. So a customs union means the UK is bound to apply the tariffs set by EU trade deals on imports into the UK (the defining feature of a customs union is a common external tariff on all imports into the customs union area), but is NOT guaranteed that British EXPORTS will be treated the same way as EU exports by the third countries. They may be, they may not be. That is up to the third country. This is a problem that has bedevilled Turkeys partial customs union with the EU, with some EU trade partners refusing to extend equivalent trade benefits to Turkey. Overall, would it be beneficial to the UK? It's hard to say without anyone doing serious analysis, including the political risk of third countries refusing to reciprocate. 2. There are alternatives to customs union, such as customs facilitation agreements, that with a degree of goods regulation alignment can provide substantially the same level of cross-border process smoothing as a customs union would, and your interest seems to be more on the processes than on the trade deal impacts of customs union. Switzerland, which does not have a customs union with the EU, has very deep customs facilitation agreements with the EU that allow for effectively seamless cross border goods transit. The tradeoff is in regulatory alignment. The level of coverage of this in UK media was staggeringly poor and effectively non-existent, so I'm not surprised it hasn't been featured in debates, but customs union IS NOT the only way to address border processes and alternatives have not been adequately and objectively explored. Reeves, incidentally, is correct on the veterinary agreement. It is one form of process that would appreciably affect cross border trade (not least because a non-food lorry waiting behind a food lorry is a delay for BOTH lorries). For you to dismiss the point out of hand suggests a lack of granular understanding of the issues. 3. As things stand, membership of a customs union with the EU would prevent the UK from ever joining the single market. Why? Because as things stand, the only mechanism to join the single market clearly available is the EEA Agreement. During the Brexit negotiations the EU did not offer any other route and actively declined to offer the UK the Swiss approach of partial/sectoral single market participation. But to join the EEA Agreement any country that is not a member state must join EFTA. To join EFTA, even if the EFTA member states were amenable, the EFTA agreement requires countries to sign up to EFTA'S trade deals with third countries. These are DIFFERENT trade deals than the EU'S. Accordingly, membership of a customs union with the EU is incompatible with leaving open the possibility of the UK joining the single market. You cannot sign up to completely different trade deals to the EU's AND have a common external tariff with the EU. And you might say that the UK could negotiate some different form of single market participation later on if it liked. And yes it might. But that is up to the member states to decide and, remember, they lose less than the UK does from the current arrangements. Essentially, I'm saying that if you want to commit to customs union as strongly as you do you need to explore more fully the impacts of doing so and the available alternatives. You also need to be careful of assuming that Labours sole reason for avoiding the point is political. It is also, potentially, economic. That customs union does not fit as a long term trading arrangement between the UK and the EU given the size and complexity of the British economy. Customs union was the right first arrangement after withdrawal (most especially because, for instance, the infrastructure to deal with a sudden switch from high speed cross border supply chains, such as adequate warehousing space, plain did not exist at the time the withdrawal agreement was being negotiated). That does not mean it is the right arrangement in perpetuity. The Tony Blair Institute a while back did a paper looking at the possible future relationships. It is well worth a read as one of the very few serious pieces of British research looking more objectively and what might work and looking, importantly, at relationships at a level of detail and understanding that was completely absent during the Brexit debates. The vast majority of British coverage has been seemingly completely ignorant of the mechanics of the different trading relationships beyond the headline issues, and the complexities of each. Looking to the future we need to be doing better than this. Trade is a complex subject. What works for EU-UK trade is also a complex subject. Discussion needs to get beyond executive-summary levels of analysis.
Perhaps don't mention the struggle to import £1000 pots again, Rory. Very nice to hear Rachel discuss industrial policy and diversification. We should be building wind turbines.
I totally agree with the tone deaf comments. The problem is we ask our leaders to be authentic as possible and we cringe when they try to be (I'm thinking of sunaks mcdonalds order). The reality is we want them to be more like us and lie convincingly to us about it.
@Fiiifiiiii786 fair point. My comment was more tongue in cheek than anything. I like Rory and how authentic he is. Of course he buys £1000 pots. Just made me chuckle that his experience of customs issues was so particular and like you say, not the typical experience of the common man.
What Rory and Alastair forget is that you were both in government in the era of cheap money and that the pound has been drastically devalued since Brexit.
And Rory was treating her as if he was somebody in the cabinet trying to score points off her so no wonder she reacted as she did. But she came off very well, nevertheless.
It was very clear immediately from her eyes, and the way she looked at Rory Stewart, or rather didn’t and preferred to look at Alastair Campbell instead, that Rachel Reeves was on the defensive, and wary of Rory. Not surprising at all that she should feel vulnerable. Under the circumstances, I thought she handled herself reasonably well. But the contrast between her scarcely veiled hostility towards Rory and her obvious friendliness towards Alastair grated on me, nevertheless. But definitely, if achievable, the follow up should be a similar interview with Jeremy Hunt, current Chancellor and, prior to that, long term Secretary of State for Health (later “and Social Care”), to explore his suggested solutions. Quite apart from having been left an economy in a good and improving state, by the outgoing Major Government, last time there was an incoming Labour Government, wasn't the first thing that Gordon Brown did, at a time when prices were a good deal lower than they were not long afterwards, was to sell a good part of our gold reserves? And wasn't it true that, in their first term of office, Labour did very little, certainly on the Economy, to alter anything the previous Tory Government had done?
Actually I’m a Tory voter but Reeves seems like a safe pair of hands. We need somebody who is boring but competent. People like Rory and Alastair are the problem - looking for big ideas all the time because it appeals to their sense of intellectual superiority. We need more practical people in politics and Rachel seems to be that. The challenge she and Starmer will face is that they will be surrounded by Labour colleagues who don’t think like her.
I’m a Labour voter but 💯 agree with this comment. Competence over radicalism everyday of the week for me. The problem with Rory is he thinks he is the he cleverest person in any room he walks into. He was my MP for 10 yrs and I can vouch this is certainly not the case.
I don’t think they were looking for big ideas at all, Rory simply asked a VERY reasonable question about future NHS funding which is a very very important
I've got completely hooked onto your podcasts. Right now I'm paused 22.55 mins into this episode and am riveted by the conversation going on mainly between Rory and Rachel and it already is the best interview done till now. I'll post again after watching the whole interview.
Alistair Campbell is responsible for starting the Civil War heated exit before the exit deal wasn’t negotiated just because he didn’t get his way. Well done AC
She was graceful and in good form until the 30min- mark. Once the brexit and NHS questions came her answers got incredibly robotic, dull and uninspiring.
She will care about Brexit when Ireland wants to get together again then she will stop acting like a tool about Brexit. Rory 's face shows how stupid she is.
I want Labour to be in government. I think Rachel will be a good Chancellor. But the stupid red lines over EU relationships are a weak point - the EU referendum was not sold by the leave side as something that would impact the economy at all - that was a lie. If Labour continues to be stubborn about EU relationships there won’t be the growth they want.
It beggars belief that any real socialist would want to stay in the EU, which is the biggest institutionalized conspiracy against the working class that has ever existed. Punitive duties on imports, especially food, pushing up food prices for workers, free movement of labour pushing down workers' salaries and housing costs up.
Respectfully disagree - if Labour talk about stronger ties with Europe in the run up to the General Election, they will lose half the electorate. It’s a subject to broach once you are in power, not before.
I know The Left are not renowned for their intelligence, it takes a special kind of stupid to believe in a political creed with a 100% failure rate, but this is exceptional even for them. Leaving was never about the economy, it was about sovereignty and not being the vassals of a protectionist anti-worker racket. The problem is that our Remainer government and parliament have done nothing to take advantage of leaving.
I am a Labour supporter, and although it won’t change how I vote, I share those criticisms. The nervous energy, talking faster and faster, not waiting for the question to be finished but presuming to know what was going to be asked, and the defensiveness drove me mad. Shutting down questions with, “I simply don’t agree,” left the questioner with no option but to move on. I felt that she was someone who didn’t handle questioning or having her ideas challenged well.
Rory did turn many of his questions into mini lectures and the one time I heard her intervene to get to the nub of his question while he was taking too long, was welcome and shows an astute mind. We all know and love Rorys bouts of teaching us the background of things but not really appropriate in a face to face interview. We’re not all as thick as he sometimes implies.
Oh Rory how many times have we heard the same stuff and stories from you. I had no idea she came from a non political family. I voted for Kinnock and if my children announced they had voted the same it’s the sort of remark I would say to them. In fact after thirty years I still am.
This is pretty much the Left in a nutshell "I felt that she was someone who didn’t handle questioning or having her ideas challenged well." As a group they completely lack the necessary intellect to be able to construct coherent ideas and then to defend them without resorting to playground bullying.
You can't guarantee growth. You can guarantee billions from a 1% wealth tax on over £10 million, and 2% on £1 billion. Do both! And change capital gains. Just do it and be honest.
No you can't. You can probably guarantee some money from the quite wealthy. But the truly wealthy have the means to avoid almost any tax. Some will pay it. Many will not. It's hard to predict how it will pan out. But it's never going to be very much money in the broad scheme. The only reason to do it is for symbolic impact, which is fine. It's just dishonest to predtend anything else.
I have to say I am completely with Rory on this, she came across as perfectly competent and somewhat realistic which is much appreciated considering the disaster that has been the tories for the last 14 years. However she didn't come across as very personable (which to be frank I'm not bothered if the chancellor of the exchequer is), nor did she seem to actually answer Rory's question about health inflation. This is a terrible comparison but it's the best I can think of, I thought she came across very slightly Liz Truss-esque, not particularly answering difficult questions, not personable and quite defensive when it was simply not necessary. That is of course not to compare their competence, I think Rachael Reeves is far more respectable, competent and intelligent than Truss but in interviews their demeanour is slightly similar.
I'm inclined to agree. As others have pointed out though, her job as Chancellor isn't really to be personable or likeable. I think it's a bit of a symptom of the fiscal situation we are in now (high cost of borrowing, inflationary pressure, high taxes squeezing living standards) that she can't really afford as an incoming chancellor to commit to things. I got the impression that she has some big ideas but just can't really share them right now because of the situation in which she finds herself.
Tbh I don't really care how robotic she is. Think of the idiots we've had in the last 14 years who aren't robots and the disaster of a country we live in now. A bit of boredom and dull politicians is what I want
@@georgesotiriou7051 I don’t want Ronaldinho I want someone to run the counties finances somewhat competently. If she can’t do that AND she has no charisma/skill/personality then I guess I hold my hands up
@@georgesotiriou7051 Why? David Cameron was extremely skilled at political interviews and yet was probably one of the most hollow PMs this country has ever seen
I didn't feel she answered the questions at all well, if she answered them at all. Sadly, I was left feeling she was wishing and hoping for it all to turn out right rather than there being a clear plan. I'd heard such positive things about her and was left disappointed 😞
Rachel, you don’t have to accept things as they are. The whole point of getting into government is to change the way things are, surely ? The damage of Brexit for this country, both in the short term and the long term, is there for all to see, both within the UK and abroad. It’s incredibly frustrating that the elephant in the room is just not being seriously discussed and I find it impossible to comprehend why.
This interview shows the difference between a politican seeking to win an election vs one that is reflecting on the past (however recent). Labour's message discipline is very much on show.
Agreed. It's a very dangerous time for her to be making big statements and being very open and honest, so it's hard to blame her for being a bit cautious and sticking to the Labour messaging too much.
" Labour's message discipline is very much on show." As it should be. They have to stick to it like glue for the next ten years. No ridiculous marriage scandals, dodgy expenses messes or taking odd gifts from odd people. Keep your noses clean, rely on ethics not ego and you will be ok.
Very disappointed with her EU views. Her responses are frankly embarrassing. No interest in debating it. It just seems so weird and wrong. There no party to vote for who want to rejoin.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Remember that 5 years is a long time and opinions can change and you have a far better chance of that happening under labour than the conservatives who pushed for it because it gave their base a hard on.
She’s not an idiot. Why risk an antagonistic sound bite when a majority win is almost locked in now? I think it’s much more likely that rather than a massive change like rejoining the single market or customs union, lots and lots of bilateral agreements that unwind the worst of Brexit are more likely. Bit like how Switzerland isn’t in the EU but virtually might as well be now. Salami tactics that progressively improve things
I'm a labour member and Reeves seriously needs to improve, you can't snap like that and get so defensive, you just look petulant. She's going to get far worse than Rory when she's in power.. She 's going to get people who are openly hostile and want to bring her down.
@@additionaddict5524 If you want to deliver change, embracing facts about the world "as it is" should be the first and most vital stage of deciding what actions would really help reshape things in the manner that you want to acheive. You cant manage change based on social and political fantasies. Facing facts does not inhibit ambition or imagining and creating change. In relation to Brexit, I think Labour are probably right to rule out opening this debate again at a time there is no realistic prospect of reversing the decision .... probably until the EU can see the major political parties in the UK have a common agenda about seeking reentry to the Single Market!
Rory was a slightly tough on Rachel especially in comparison to Kwasi Kwarteng who he was very kind and relaxed with. Kwasi of course trashed the economy with Liz Truss and is one of the reasons why British households have struggled in recent times due to their financial black holes. Rachel is not yet in Government but was treated as though she is whilst being pushed on her ‘chancellor strategy’ which will have been carefully structured in a sensitive way to support the mess the Conservatives have created of which she will likely inherit. Rachel was defensive at times, but I think it was because she felt as though she wasn’t being listened to as she answered the questions put to her. Yes, the solid detail was missing but she provided insights and let’s face it the opposition are never clear with their strategies or policies at fear of them being used by the acting Government. Great listen. Rachel definitely came across as a pair of safe hands who would act professionally with great efficiency and determination.
I think the reason Rory pushed back more against Rachel than Kwasi was because it was obvious how much Kwasi fucked up. Rachel impressed me here because of how well she responded to Rory’s tough questioning.
Rachel was treating this like a televised politics show interview to plug her position, rather than as the podcast it is. I've actually turned off her after this, especially with how belligerent she got with Rory's very reasonable lines of question. I found it much less interesting to follow than a normal episode of leading as I can listen to election pitches anywhere else.
You're completely right. She came across like an automaton . Every question: look at how bad the Tories are. Look at what last labour govenement did. It's so boring
Definitely a great interview. Really really enjoyed. I find it so interesting that politicians ARE willing to do these - why can’t things like this replace Sunday Kuennsberg rubbish etc
Nasty? Rather she was very assertive, showed her tough side, confidence from someone on top of her brief, peppered by frustration. Even some justified anger that these questions came from a man who supports a party that caused the huge mess she will inherit and having to find solutions and ways to turn this beleaguered country around. I think for electoral reasons she is being very very cautious about joining the customs union. Once in power for few years they may well put their foot in the water to test the countrys reaction to rejoining the customs union because of course it makes perfect sense and essential to a closer trading partnership with the EU.
@@rory4605 regarding what. We need practicality, sound economic solutions, years of experience in the banking and financial sectors. Her legacy is a country on its knees, still reeling from the effects of Brexit, the pandemic, huge hikes in energy prices, Trussenomics, Sunaks incompetence and a cabal of knutty headbangers on the right of the tory party. She hasn't had sight of the books yet. I suspect they tell a very dire story and she has a huge mountain to climb to even start restoring some stability. We need a pair of very safe hands. I was very heartened that Mark Carney has been brought in to encourage private sector investment and to stimulate growth. They will make a good team.
She said “We have to accept the world as it is, not how we want it to be”. She said this twice as well as if it was some kind of zinger quote. Isn’t the point of politics the complete opposite of this? It’s only one statement, and I imagine she means that you need to be realistic, which is fair enough. Just seemed a poor choice of words.
Rory gets himself into a pickle by not knowing his figures quite enough here. Labour grew healthcare spending over the 1997-2010 period by 5.5% every year in real terms, well above the rate of GDP growth. Debt/GDP went from 37.2 to 64.8 - had the tories grown it in the same way it would be 112.9% of GDP right now. Reeves could only counter with the GFC and then Stewart would counter with Covid. Luckily RR is making different noises from Brown and MIGHT just be what we need. Beats the hell out of Kwasi and those efforts that much is very obvious - better than Jeremy Hunt? Let's see. Unlocking the international investment/co-investing with the private sector sounds absolutely great - will it work out that way?
I LOVE it when Rory gets spicy. However he is right how will these things get funded? Labour said they won't do a whole lot of things and then things won't change that much. Where will this immense growth come from? There is only so much people can believe.
One interesting thing is within Rory's questioning there at one point was a tacit admission that borrowing for investment in infrastructure and even nationalisation were valid routes to economic growth - very much in contrast to his consistent endorsement of austerity while in office - while Rory's history on the subject is largely irrelevant at this stage, Reeves' (and Labour's) avoidance of this point is putting me in the unenviable position of really really hoping that the politicians are lying.
No one asks "how will this get funded" when the Tories come up with their policies. Rory has been a part of the Tory party that gutted the country. He's very well mannered but is a hypocrite. All guff and no solutions.
@@sonicwingnut I think they are lying. Starmer made out to his party that he would be more left wing in order to get elected, now he's making out to the public he's more right wing in order to get elected. I'm of the belief once he's in power common sense will prevail. Not saying I agree with this approach btw
Can you tell me one right wing policy Sir Keir Starmer and Labour have come up with to get elected? Wait until the manifesto has been released if you want to but I am eager to know!
@@user-gu1un7pb7k Yeah it depends what he sees as "common sense" I suppose - it's not a term I'm particularly keen on since given the calibre of politician that tends to use the term "common sense", I suspect what we need is a level of sense that is in fact, very uncommon indeed.
Interestingly the so called bigoted side has given us 3 female PMs and the so called wonderful side Rachel is on has never given us a female PM and is awful on other points in the front benches.
Rory towards the end came across as a pompous Tory, Reeves seems grounded and sensible and I support her views and her party. I don’t think any Tory is in the position to lecture about economy or anything, Tory incompetence has ruined this country,
@@RAF1998-l3c She is attacking the person, not the argument. Rory made a completely valid argument. in 1997, the fiscal position was far better. Instead of attacking Rory's argument, she begins to attack him.
at 42.32 Oh Rachel, that was not an answer. You were asked a straightforward (but difficult) question and instead of trying to answer it, you created an argument instead. Exactly what we do NOT need in modern UK politics at the moment.
Yeah, he asked a reasonable question. Pointing out in response that the debt has increased more under the Conservatives is irrelevant. Debt-to-GDP ratios of UK, France, US, etc, etc all shot up significantly in the decade after 2008 as a result of the financial crisis.
@@astalavista_84 I think that saying the Tories are BAD is a good argument for campaigning to be elected, however it is a terrible baseline for actual Government. Imagine going to the Americans or UN and saying,' Well, we're a bit rubbish, but the Tories were much worse.'
@@lukedaniels7750 I meant more that the cause of the Debt-to-GDP ratio increasing so much is (1) 2008 crisis and (2) Covid, rather than necessarily what the Conservatives have/haven’t done. The mess caused by Truss is something to criticise them for, but the aftermath of the 2008 crisis (which happened under a Labour Government’s watch) is more a people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones situation.
@@astalavista_84 Ok, I see where you are coming from now. I admit that I am pretty ignorant about economics, but I don't know how much blame you can put towards New Labour for the 2008 global financial crisis. (But as you say, it did happen under their watch.)
Probably large, ceramic pots. I know people laughed at the expensive of them, but those sorts of things can get pricey very quickly. A little bit tone deaf though.
Great podcast, probably one of the best IMO. That's the first time I have really watched Rachel Reeves, and I was very impressed. I'm sure that she will be a great chancellor. Maybe not relevant, but NHS spending was the only topic that I tended to be unsure about. I'm 75YO (pushing 76). I'm on daily Losartan, Statins and Allopurinol. This would be free for an old man like me on NHS, but they have deducted me, probably because I spend most of each year in the Philippines. Three months supply of this medicine costs me about £15 in the Philippines. Whereas if I was paying for prescriptions in the UK it would be about £90 for three months. Something doesn't add up. Anyway, really good podcasts, Alistair and Rory, I watch regularly from the Philippines, keep up the good work.
Have to say, I'm really impressed with Rachel Reeves here. I thought she was well-informed, detailed and handled herself really well, even when under a little pressure from Rory's line of questioning. £1000 for pots! Talk about out of touch with the masses.
I'm disconcerted by the amount of magical thinking displayed by Rachel. There's no realistic chance in the universe the UK will turn into the fastest growing developed economy. She's right there's a lot of catching up to do... But it won't happen without a customs union which she vehemently rejects for ill-defined reasons. If that's supposed to be the biggest source of funding for the public services, I remain hopeless for the future of the UK.
This. UK has a historical problem of relatively low productivity and low investment and the latter has fallen off a cliff after the Brexit referendum. She gives zero details on how they’ll look to solve those two problems which is essential for the economic growth levels she’s aiming for, unless they borrow to fund govt spending, which she said they won’t
I don’t agree. The global investment community are very fleet of foot - it’s a race remember, and by plucking the right strings they can very quickly turn their attention and get things moving. It is what investors do best, especially if the planning system is favourable. This is why things like the Docklands exploded in the 90s, and then life sciences in the Oxford - Cambridge arc.
I agree. Even if the UK joined the customs union it would be a Hugh challenge to meet the NHS costs that Rory highlighted. Trying to do it outside the world biggest marker seems impossible.
I think these podcasts are fantastic. They give a greater insight to politicians as people, which I think is really important. I wish the mainstream media outlets would do something similar to reach more of the general public. With regards to this interview with Rachel Reeves, it is good to see someone with the right credentials taking on the role of chancellor. In terms of the ambitions for economic growth, which of course is the starting point for improving things for the whole country, I think that she doesn’t seem to have considered that the last Labour government was successful in growing the economy (until the global financial crisis) because it was able to take full advantage of the benefits from being in the single market which started in 1992. My biggest beef with the Labour Party policies is regarding the introduction of VAT on public school fees. In an ideal world, there would not be a requirement for private schools, as everyone would have access to excellent schools which enabled all young people to thrive. We should invest in education as one of our fundamental key policies, raising tax if necessary to do it. The labour policy for private education will make it most challenging for the middle income people who have worked hard and made great sacrifices to give their young people a better education. This generation of young people has been the hardest hit from austerity. Many middle income people, who already pay tax for state education and who save the country £6,000 per young person out of the state education system, will be forced to make very difficult decisions on whether they manage to pay the further increased fees. An influx of young people returning to state education will stretch the current resources even further, making things worse, not better. I really wish that they would rethink this policy.
I assume that the audio only listeners massively dwarf that of youtube. Buuut.... please can we get at least 1080p for these. It looks so bad in 720p on a larger screen.
Rory was 100% correct to challenge her on the NHS, Labour's legacy of PFI debt demonstrates the levels of borrowing. At the moment Labour want to promise a lot with no tax raises or borrowing, it's just not realistic. Her focus on private investment just sounds like more of those gold plated long term deals for the private sector in exchange for quick cash upfront. Rory's wasn't buying any of this, the pre-prepped stories etc its like being a magician and knowing how the trick works. His comment about it being a cunning ruse may have been a little too far though haha
Rory's question about the NHS and his statement about Brown was factually incorrect. Labour inherited a debt to GDP ratio of around 40%, which dropped to around 36% by the financial crisis. The uplift in NHS spending was paid for by a national campaign by Blair and Brown to raise NI.
I'm just reading Rory's book so I was very interested in the way he interviews current high profile politicians. I respect him a lot for his intellect but to be honest he belongs in the bubble of academia. His arguments are very statistical, detached from reality and dismissive. We must remember that ALL political arguments and projections are based on theory and conjecture so when someone comes along with another model it's easy to trash it. The proponents think that it will work in theory and so let the voters decide if it can work in practice. We must also remember that Rory is himself a marvelous example of undertaking projects/theories that everybody else predicted would end in disaster. By all expectations he should have been killed in his walk across Afghanistan but look what happened to him ... he became a minister😊😊
Planning Reform + perceived competence = growth meaning we will be able to spend and fix everything. The problem is that this plan seems incredibly, simplistic, and ultimately unrealistic (apparently a problem the left have!!!). It's simplicity makes it easy to critique. If this is all she's got, we're in real trouble and the far right will be the beneficiaries.
" His arguments are very statistical,". I take it you mean he is referring to an evidence base and facts, not making shit up? He is interested in history and learning. None of these are insults.
@@FireflyOnTheMoon I don't really understand what you are trying to point out. I'm just passing a comment on what I see as his shortcomings ( and I have a lot of my own😊)
It was espacially interesting and informative to watch the "spiky" exchange between Rory and Rachel - two people who I think are really impressive and reasonable politicians. I'm not surprised they have such a different understanding about the nature and reality of the challenges and opportunities that might deliver growth in the UK. One is a disciple of Thatcher's neo-liberal economics and the other is a passionate rebel fighting against those concepts.
Rachel Reeves studied at LSE & worked at the central bank. i don't see how she's going to be much different. i don't see her regulating the mortgage market and decentralising/ breaking up the 5 big banks for example.
Rory is right. Rachel doesn’t understand that he speaks from experience, not that he’s trying to belittle her. I worry that his genuine advice may have gone over her head.
When Reeves says Brexit was won because people disliked Freedom of Movement, what she doesn't say is that FoM acted as a euphemism for immigration. But when people objected to immigration, it was only marginally to do with Polish plumbers, Spanish nurses and Italian waiters and much more to do with immigration from non-European countries. Brexit, ending freedom of movement, may have stopped European immigration to the UK but it has exacerbated immigration from outside of Europe. Now that people have seen that ending freedom of movement had nothing to do with non-EU immigration - people really believed that the two were connected - then why insist that freedom of movement continues to be a reason to maintain Brexit.
Can we just acknowledge that Jeremy Corbyn was in the same situation as Rishi Sunak is in now, in that he was fighting an election that was stacked against him, it was the Brexit election and he had as his adversary the most charismatic politician of our age who also had only just very recently got into power so he hadn’t been tarnished yet , Jeremy Corbyn had a huge uphill battle. And I don’t think Starmer would have won that election either. Jeremy Corbyn in desperation, when it became clear that they could not win easily via traditional labour policies , along with a less popular Brexit policy, as they had won a lot against Theresa May in 2017, they became desperate and started throwing out policies, which is Rishi Sunak doing now after a period of doing nothing but general basic governance. Sunak is finally having ideas and throwing them out there in the hope it will win back pockets of support. This does not mean that Jeremy Corbyn under normal circumstances would have been such a hapless spendhappy . I’ve been hearing a lot about How Theresa May had At the start a 20 point lead in the 2017 election and yet the results under Jeremy Corbyn was actually very close and I don’t think that that is reflected. enough. I do think that The staunchly Blairite factions of Labor Party basically spin against Jeremy Corbyn unfairly, by using the 19 election against him when I really don’t think Keir Starmer would’ve won the election at all. Let’s consider what Starmer is up against in this election which makes it so much easier: he’s up against a very very unpopular, disconnected leader who hasn’t got even any mandate from the public to start with, he’s up against a weary, crumbling and divided government that Has just had the crisis of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and has failed in delivering any positivity since Brexit and he’s up against Scotland’s SNP at their weakest point for years... this is all massively in his favour rather than the whole country suddenly thinking that Centrist Blairism reheated is what they always wanted. .
I’d still vote for her but I agree with Rory’s challenges entirely. I don’t think she handled them well by attacking instead of answering. Perhaps the least likeable, imho, of the interviewees I’ve watched. Hopefully she’s still a good Chancellor.
This interview has really knocked my confidence, can someone please reassure me about the next 5 years? As Rory would say, let me play devil’s advocate here: in July, Starmer will have a majority dropped into his lap by the non-stop unforced errors of the Conservatives since 2022; as a consequence, his cabinet is full of people who would be perfectly fine as caretakers, but now these people are going to govern the country, people who are simply untalented. Reeves is the most glaring example - Chancellor of the Exchequer with zero charisma, zero dynamism, not even meeting the baseline of being able give a half decent speech, unable to communicate a vision, and no real capacity at all to inspire or energise people about our economic future - but this is almost universally applicable, even in the other ‘Great Offices of State’ - she is a laughable candidate relative to Gordon Brown, as is Rayner to Prescott, Starmer to Blair, Cooper to Jack Straw, and so on and so on. No one in this current cabinet seems to command any respect. Does anyone know if there’s even a single member of the 2024 Labour shadow cabinet who you could say is more talented or a more preferable choice over their 1997 equivalent? Would Alastair back in the day honestly have suffered Labour ministers with the skills (or rather lack of them) of the ones now? But this 2024 cabinet, with its dearth of talent, will inherit a much, much worse financial situation than in 1997, with allies like the US more protectionist, much less willing to alleviate anything with a special relationship bail out - and it now seems that Trump is going to take the White House, who will have no time for KS. They will govern a public who voted against the other guys rather than for them, who will have little patience for the blunders that always occur sooner or later. The easy economic option of immigration is increasingly politically untenable, things are more pessimistic, the international competition is much more unfavourable, the population is older than ever which is straining welfare and the health service in a negative feedback loop. When the shine of ‘they’re not the tories’ wears off, what do they have? I want the best for the country so I hope I’m wrong and they knock it out the park, but every instinct of mine is screaming imminent disaster. Am I being too pessimistic?
43:41 this exchange we’ve just had is just one more thing on the pile for staying home rather than following my natural instinct to vote labour. And I live in a marginal, that’s redistricted more Tory. She is completely disinterested in engaging with the reality that money is the solution to some problems. And 5billion is a very small amount of money for the government, it’s 0.5% given the current expenditure is just over 1,000billion. And particuarly small in the context of Rory correctly pointing out, inflation @2% = 5% healthcare inflation per annum, unless growth exceeds 5% (an utterly ludicrous thing to expect given the long run trend for half a century is 2.5%, which we’ve failed to meet for a decade) healthcare will consume a larger share of even a growing pie becuase it grows faster. It’s so frustrating that the Labour Party is so politically stunted that’s centre-right liberal like Rory can better point out an implicit need for tax and spend and be argued against by the shadow chancellor and just make a wierd soundbite about dept-gdp which she should know is important but a pretty dangerous tool to wield before she assumes the treasury portfolio where it’s used to prevent any change to tax or spend.
She has no charisma and is a poor public speaker, but I don’t care about that, I want someone who can effectively manage the economy. I don’t need her to be entertaining. I don’t trust Labour with my money, but I will give her a chance. My husband and I are the squeezed middle. Flogged our guts out working and raising a family and struggled to keep our heads above water for decades. If she fails with the economy there will be no second term for Labour.
I agree with Rory. Rachel Reeves came across as very inflexible and defensive. I was not impressed. If she wants to be trusted she needs to be far more personable.
The fact that Rory and Alistair genuinely think the British public want to reopen free movement of people with Europe just shows how incredibly insulated inside their own upper class bubble they are.
Everyone wants a common market so that UK can improve GDP. You can't have growth by trading with Tazmania. It's not an immigration issue but a trading/red tape/customs union issue
It was prickly because he flat out lied about Brown crashing the economy through borrowing. And she - as a former BOE economist - could see right through it.
What is forgotten with all these "Jobs" in EU is that the guys building "green" energy equipment were either building non green equipment and they transitioned their factories (not closed down 20 yrs ago like UK) or its bespoke and high end gear and they will not move, or the banks and clients will not accept anything that is not proven with references with performance guarantees. so Labour will have to subsidise all of these factories and jobs for 10 yrs to make the brand names manufacture here or make copies and take the risk on all of these installations. Then you still have to buy most of the components, copper or steel from asia and eu.. so all you are doing is adding transport costs, set up costs, training costs and CO2 etc to a wind turbine that already needs 100% power generation back up and subsidies? If you want to make a real ground breaking change then do Biogas, Methanisation, SMR or "safe" fracking, H2 and CCS, you will have 10 yrs before china catches up there. A hybrid grid with synthetic gas and stored weather renewables, nukes, SMR's is a viable solution. The rest is nonsense
Excellent interview. Intelligent and well-intentioned lady, but she failed to respond convincingly to Rory's searching and clear data-based questions on how she would resource public expenditure, beyond guesstimates of immediate revenue from taxing private schools, non-doms etc. Lots of hope and prayers without solid plans. Sound familiar?
Unfortunately Reeves gave the impression of a precocious prefect, rarely letting them (usually Rory) finish their questions, cutting in with scripted responses delivered with more than a little smarm. Stiil - I'll have that over Tory chaos any day.
Rory's right, she didn't come across as very natural, but sadly most politicians these days aren't. They either seem to be job-interview-nervous and come across as rehearsed - or overly comfortable in their self importance. Alastair's right when he says you're very different when you're out of power to when you're about to go in power, but Rory was always more open, honest, comfortable and natural than most (more so now he's not an MP). Current politicians like Angela Rayner and Darren Jones are standout examples of the sort of straightforward, honest (as far as they're allowed to be) and logical politicians we need. They give the impression that they might actually get stuff done. Sadly they're a minority. Imagine if the majority were like that...
On multiple occasions, hearing leading and TRIP. The question of Jeremy Corbyn comes up and there seems to be an implication that everyone implicitly understands his negative impact on the labour party and the country. When it comes to quantifying this referring to policy or specific actions it all starts to get a bit vague. I would love to hear Jeremy on the show!! Or at least more in depth analysis of his leadership of the party.
It's really good to hear Ms Reeves being given the time to talk at length without interruption by two respectful interviewers. I won't be voting Labour, but when they win, they will have a very capable Chancellor.
We should be allowed to have a grown up reassessment of Brexit now that everyone is aware of the lies that were told, the facts that were hidden and the results of the decision to leave. If that means another referendum, then that's what should happen. I have high hopes for a lot of plans Labour have, but they will struggle to achieve a lot of their goals without changing some things.
As someone who is not British, Rory Stewart is a breath of fresh air. He skillfully asked the right questions and I think Reeves did come across as a decent person. Her answers to both Brexit and growth leave a lot to be desired.
it's really interesting to hear about the new Chancellor's background and her thinking on some key issues. She clearly has a good grasp of her brief and whilst I have not found her to be up to now the most captivating of speech makers, it gives me confidence that she will perform her new role well. Great podcast.
I find Rachel to be a bit of a disgrace and Rory was right to go hard on the attack. There’s no way Labour will raise the amount of money they claim but she has to keep up the facade so people will vote for her. A lot of this podcast listeners hate lies in politics and want it to be illegal but if we do we’d catch a lot of Labour MPs to!
