"Who Knows Keir Starmer's Economic Policy? Rory Stewart on the Election (Part 3)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- Over the course of a decade, Rory Stewart went from being a political outsider to standing for prime minister - before being sacked from a Conservative Party that he had come to barely recognise.
Uncompromising, honest and darkly humorous, this is his story of the challenges, absurdities and realities of political life. Instantly praised as a new classic, it is an astonishing portrait of our turbulent times.
To watch the rest of the event see below.
Part 1 - Politicians Become Creepy and Dishonest https :// • Politicians Become Cre...
Part 2 - Are Tories Still Conservative? | Rory Stewart on the Tory Leadership • Are Tories Still Conse...
Part 3 - “Who Knows Kier Starmer’s Economic Policy?” • "Who Knows Keir Starme...
Part 4 - Rory Stewart on Ukraine, Russia, Brexit, Scottish Independence and Northern Ireland. • Video
#RoryStewart #DavidCameron #BorisJohnson #LizTruss #TheresaMay #UKPolitics #politics #election #labourparty #conservative
Could you put a date on this, please? Not the date of upload, the date when the discussion took place. Also the venue.
Based on a quick search it looks like it took place on Mon 4 Sep 2023. Happy to be corrected.
Forgive me if it is obvious… Who is the interviewer… Interesting character
Famous UK Historian and author. He does a sister podcast to Rory Stewart; called the Rest is History.
Tom Holland ... he's a Julius Caesar groupie
Tom Holland but not the Spiderman actor.
I think there's a PhD discussing Gary Lineker's role in the creation of a new Jerusalem
The interviewee is picking both sides in the Burmese Civil War.
Help your plausibility if you could spell the guy's name
All changed, thanks for the heads up!
🔶️LIB DEM🔶️
🔶️LIB DEM🔶️
🔶️LIB DEM🔶️
Dont understand why you should take in Asylum seekers that take boats from Africa to Europe. The solution should be to develop the African countries so nobody runs in the first place.
Asylum seekers are people who seek asylum. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but definitions matter. An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country. Whether they are running from a war-torn region where war crimes are committed, or escaping a totalitarian regime that violates their rights because of their nationality, political views, sexuality etc, this has nothing to do with helping in the economic development of the country they left. There is little that can be done by the international community (even if we disregard their unwillingness) to mitigate this, other than imposing sanctions or outright invading another sovereign nation and/or directly intervening in a war.
What you're talking about is economic migrants, who are people who flee their country to escape poverty. And yes, helping those countries with their economic development would make a difference (although certainly it wouldn't altogether stop the migrations). However, nobody wants to pay for this. Rich countries would rather guard their borders to try and stop those immigrants than actually do something to help their situation improve locally. The fact that their countries of origin are often failed states, with no stable government and no economic policy to speak of, or high levels of corruption, doesn't help either.
This is compounded by the fact that asylum seekers and economic migrants arrive together, and it's very difficult (and a very slow process) to tell who is who (and all of them will obviously claim they are asylum seekers). Regarding incoming boats to Europe, stopping them is impossible, at least without Europeans being moral monsters. As soon as the coast guards spot the incoming boats, the people on board puncture and sink them, risking their lives and hoping that they'd be rescued (a gamble that is too often lethal). Once rescued, the countries they came from refuse to take these people back, and there is no alternative than to bring them to shore. So, in most cases, not taking in those people (asylum seekers and economic migrants alike) would mean watching them drown.
Once on shore, people are usually trapped in camps in the periphery of the EU, since the rule is "asylum seekers apply in the first EU country they land", a rule obviously pushed by the central European states who prefer giving money to the border states to deal with this than deal with it themselves. It's a shitty situation, and there are no easy solutions.
"Develop the African countries" is of course very easy to do as we in the west are, it must be said, very good at willing functioning, prosperous states into existence by sheer force of our thoughts. We have such a rich history of doing this successfully that it is hard to understand why none of our trusted leaders come to this simple conclusion.
Another Wet drip of a politician,. sorry ex politician. The interviewer should have asked him what he did when he was a member of the trilateral commission. Look it up folks. This guy is not who you thought he would was.
Yawn he is so grating mr know all pound shop Lees got no chance 🤡.