The Rest Is Politics and the Status Quo

As hosts of the largest political podcast in the UK, Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart hold considerable sway over the British political consensus. They consistently interview political figures of the same gravitas that one would expect on the BBC and Channel 4, and sometimes pose them challenging questions. They sometimes do live shows, but mostly provide analysis of current affairs from their cleanly-decorated studio, wearing expensive suits, and speaking with an air of confidence that evokes a humble curiosity but does not undermine their supposed expertise.

The image that both Stewart and Campbell have cultivated for themselves since The Rest Is Politics aired its first episode in March 2022 has been nothing short of remarkable. They champion the ‘disagree agreeably’ approach to political commentary that is so in vogue with centrist podcasters these days, and as a result are generally perceived to be rational, good-faith, rightminded political commentators by anyone whose views align with the political mainstream. Given both men’s chequered political past, Campbell being guilty of manufacturing consent for war crimes in Iraq and Stewart being guilty of supporting a policy of austerity which killed 250,000 people since 2010, it has been incredible to witness the whitewashing of their legacy.

This is not a critique of Stewart and Campbell’s history as political actors, however, but a critique of the influence they hold in politics today, and what they decide to do with it. To be clear, I don’t absolutely dislike Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell. They have been surprisingly uncompromising in their distaste for Nigel Farage and particularly Tommy Robinson, even going so far as to use the term ‘fascism’ to clarify the gravity of the situation. Similarly, they have stated unequivocally that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, and have challenged the pro-Israel figures they have had on their show.

This is what I believe makes The Rest is Politics so attractive to viewers, and why the show’s influence is so pernicious. It gives them a point of view to defend which is just challenging enough to signal that they are an informed free-thinker, but not radical enough to invite any real challenge they would have to respond to.

It is precisely for the slightly challenging, and by extension ostensibly objective, image that they have cultivated for themselves which allows Stewart and Campbell to be staunch defenders of the status quo without being seriously challenged for it. Both presenters are open about the problems they perceive to be plaguing the country, Rory Stewart wrote a book detailing his experiences in government for this purpose, but when they are presented with radical solutions to Britain’s problems, they are swiftly dismissed by these self-appointed arbiters of political sense.

This was most visible in Stewart and Campbell’s interviews of Gary Stephenson, an economist and ex-citi trader who advocates for a wealth tax to curb inequality, and Zack Polanski, the recently-appointed leader of the Green Party.

In their conversation with Gary Stephenson, Rory Stewart in particular dismissed Stephenson’s concern that those who wield political power are unwilling to engage with his ideas because he comes from a working-class background. Tellingly, little time was spent talking to Stephenson about what conversations he had actually held with politicians. Instead, Rory presumed it was Gary’s ‘class anger’ that stood in the way of building a political movement with MPs in the Labour Party. I do not need to spell out the irony in a man who owns a manor house by virtue of his family lineage telling someone from a working-class background that they are blinded by their class anger.

Putting aside Stewart’s lack of self-awareness, it is an even greater disappointment that neither presenter engaged with the policy positions that their guest was putting forward. Gary Stephenson’s proposal of instituting a wealth tax to reduce inequality is a contentious one, and it would have been interesting to see how he responds when directly challenged on his views by two presumably informed individuals. Instead, the conversation veered towards whether Gary’s critiques of elite policymakers are patronising or not. It is possible that Stephenson could have worded his criticisms more mildly, but were they so egregious that it required setting aside a conversation about reducing inequality to discuss whether he had hurt the feelings of the most powerful people in the country?

This trend of sidetracking the conversation towards inane subjects as opposed to the fundamental ideas being presented was repeated by Stewart and Campbell in their interview of Zack Polanski. Around midway through Polanski’s interview on Leading, Stewart and Campbell’s show dedicated to interviewing political figures, he is quizzed by Stewart on the exact quantity that the UK government pays in interest payments every year (£100 Billion). To this challenge, Polanski responds by saying that the UK government’s debt does not require settling in the way that a household has to pay its debts, one of the core tenets of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and an interesting point to follow-up on.

Rory Stewart is not interested in having that conversation, however, and Campbell does not bring up the point later on. Instead, Stewart presses Polanski to give him the specific figure of the government’s debt interest payments to see ‘how good he is on the numbers’. When Polanski emphasises that governments can borrow from their central banks as opposed to issuing government bonds to cover funding, Campbell cuts him off with the age-old lecture on gilt yields and fiscal prudence.

Both Campbell and Stewart reaffirmed their unwillingness to engage with new ideas when they questioned Polanski’s ‘intellectual influences’, avoiding once again the ideas being presented, but this time going a step further in their ignorance. Stewart seemed unimpressed by the lack of people with graduate degrees in economics backing up Polanski’s economic views, despite the fact that two of the people he named, not to mention countless political economists, have postgraduate degrees in economics and have been engaged in economic thought for years. 

Once again, Rory Stewart’s obsession with social status and class prevents him from productively examining the ideas placed in front of him. It is as if for him, an idea is not worth investigating if it does not have the backing of academic institutions. Such prejudice is particularly peculiar coming from Stewart, given his critique of the failures of out-of-touch Ivy-league graduates in their attempts at nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost as if all capacity for critical reasoning vanishes whenever he is faced with an idea that seriously challenges any of his beliefs or class status.

I use both of these conversations because they point to the problem at the core of The Rest is Politics; it fundamentally serves to protect the status quo. Both Campbell and Stewart will pay lip service to the problems affecting British and global politics, but when they are faced with new ideas and a radically different outlook on how to solve said problems, they dismiss them out of hand.

It is not that The Rest is Politics does not challenge the status quo at all, but that with the few instances in which its presenters do, they position themselves as rational free thinkers and thus claim the legitimacy to ignore more profound critiques of their positions. This is arguably more perverse than solely defending the status quo, as Campbell and Stewart’s audience is prevented from questioning fundamental issues by the satisfaction they derive from being slightly subversive on a few points. Points which, by the time Stewart and Campbell have adopted them, public opinion has shifted sufficiently in their favour to make their enlightenment meaningless.

Campbell’s working-class upbringing and ‘down the pub’ attitude, along with Stewart’s performance of integrity and cerebral introspection, should not fool anyone tuning in to The Rest Is Politics. For challenging and enlightening conversations about the largest problems facing society, and the options available for fixing them, it is better to go somewhere else. Fortunately, taking a look at the comment sections of the interviews I have described, it appears their audience are doing just that.

Image: Flickr/Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Licence.

No image changes made.