When Gove and AC discussed Brexit, Gove said something along the lines that we take a financial hit now but long-term regulatory freedom could be a much bigger upside if we make the right decisions. And then went on to say we'd made some right but not all.
That left me none the wiser - anyone know what he was referring to? It sounded to me like at worst flummery and at best taking your money out of the high interest deposit account, putting it all on number 7 in the Cheltenham gold cup and hoping it wins. But I'm coming to this with a stack of bias.
I'm not supporting Gove or any other tory. I'm probably more leftwing than Campbell but this is not what I would listen to the podcast for.
I want to better understand the UK's politics and simply Rory fails to enable that as he's not aligned to current Tories. Even when he was a MP he was so far on the liberal left of the party he's not representative of historic Tory thinking.
I don't they showcase disagreeing agreeably but showcase agreeing on most topics. What do they actually differ on?
I'd be interested to hear if I'm missing anything. This misses the fact that there are huge choices to be made concerning how the country is run with Burnham vs Badenoch showcasing vastly different ideals not to mention Polanski, Farage, etc.
Personally I find Gove obnoxious but I'm sure there's a centre-right tory who'd balance Campbell's centre-left Labour mentality?
What's more it's clear that Campbell has the ear of Labour insiders which makes his views interesting and informative. On the flip side it's clear that Stewart is the last person Badenoch's team would be speaking to.
Anyone else somewhat shocked at his return this week - as a stand in for Rory. Given how toxic he went on to be about Stewart in the Spectator after his Leading episode, sort of a shock to hear him back and I wasn’t displeased by it either.
To be clear too I’m no fan, but I am endlessly fascinated in the most totally neutral way possible by him. The sort of person I’d love to see psychoanalysed, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a politician be quite so erudite yet simultaneously untrustworthy in every sense.
Obviously Gove has quite a strong public presence regardless, but I'm unsure why the TRIP producers and hosts decided to invite him onto the show and explicitly give him platform to share those views.
Gove is obviously a very intelligent man, and it is genuinely interesting to hear what someone of his political viewpoint thinks about some issues. Gaza however, is not something we should be able to disagree agreeably about. This level of defence and blatant misinformation about another genocide, be it Holocaust or Rwanda or a number of others, would result in a blacklisting from the mainstream of political industry.
In the latest Q&A, Rory said that Taiwan was historically under China as a 'contiguous island' or something of similar nature.
I think this statement is factually and dangerously incorrect from my knowledge unless someone who is more knowledgeable can educate me.
To my understanding, Taiwan (or Formosa) was historically an island settled by indigenous people from at least 2,000 years ago. Only few centuries ago starting with the migration of Japanese and Chinese peoples and several colonial periods only it became non-Indigenous. Indigenous populations were removed to the central mountain ranges where they concentrate today.
Simply, it is not a country of exiled Kuo Ming Tang members.
If I'm correct, hope this is just an oversight and is not something that is believed by the wider Western thought leaders.
I've always wondered if the questions they are sent in are actually from genuine people and not just fabricated to let them discuss what they want to talk about.
I know that sometimes they have voice notes and those are obviously genuine questions, even if they only come from people with some form of political status.
It wouldn't make much difference to me if they were making it up - I enjoy the range of topics on the question time podcast. Just curious about the process.