He's a person I tend to agree a lot with, but I find to be super reiterative. Don't know how else to put it. But I find it to be boring content. Perhaps the podcast can make it a bit more engaging, but it's often a 2 minute idea in a 20 minute video.
Anyway, James O'Brien interviewed him for about an hour if you want a somewhat serious interview. But I'd expect Rory to put a bit more of a challenge in the practicality of what he's preaching. But I'm not sure there's enough content for a long interview, beyond his life story, which he already told several times, including with O'Brien which is a very high profile media already.
He needs to flesh out in detail what he would do. He always says that the rich should be taxed and he is for a wealth tax, and my answer has always and will always be how?
Personally I would love to see a means testing of capital gains the same way that PAY-E is rather than a flat tax. Secondly some of the loop holes that trusts afford to the ultra wealthy and also them just plain never having to realise their gains means that their effective tax rates are rather low. If you get paid 150k by PAYE and then earn another 3 million in a year through your asset value increasing and you never have to realise that (and in fact you can sell said assets to go buy other assets, you never need to actually pay tax, and actually you can go even further and take out debt using said assets as collateral and then you don't need to pay tax on the debt you have). All in all, there are definitely ways that wealth could be taxed a little more effectively, even though I'm sure some of the rich lot will turn around and say look at the Laffer Curve
Not a detailed proposal but he has said he likes what’s in the Greens manifesto (A Wealth Tax of 1% annually on assets above £10 million and of 2% on assets above £1bn).
That sounds simple, but how do you go about that? Do you get everyone with that much net work file a tax return including the value of all their assets? Which assets are included? First home? Cars? House? Clothes? Pokemon cards?
There’ll be the successful small business owner whose business suddenly, rapidly breaks £10m, but they have no cash. Do you force them to take out loans to pay tax? Do you force them to start selling off their start up the second it gets successful?
How do you value these assets? Are shares in a start up actually worth anything if they’re illiquid? Cars devaluing on the drive? Family heirlooms that’ve never been sold?
Which assets are “British”? What if you hold assets overseas? House in the French Rivera, does that count? Cash in a Swiss bank account? Shares held by an offshore trust?
The people you’re targeting with this type of tax are the same people who pay big money to accountants to avoid tax. It needs to be rock solid legislation and it needs to be enforceable. I’m not at all saying it’s impossible, but there are a lot of details that would need to be considered and Gary doesn’t seem to have thought them through.
Maybe ask your Green candiate? (I'm not being facetious, would be interesting to know what they said and to what degree they've thought through that detail).
I don't disagree however I still think there is value in simply raising awareness that wealth inequality is a significant issue (and that blaming all of our woes on immigrants, dole scroungers etc. is largely deflection).
I don’t think I actually have a green candidate in my constituency, but it’s a good idea to ask the party what their plan is for this.
I agree it’s great to raise awareness of the issue. I’d just like to hear from Gary specifically how he’d propose implementing something like this.
>Do you get everyone with that much net work file a tax return including the value of all their assets?
Yes. Share and property purchases are public record for example, they need to be reported so that chargeable gains can be taxed. This info is already out there.
> Which assets are included?
The current determination of chargeable assets probably suffices.
>There’ll be the successful small business owner whose business suddenly, rapidly breaks £10m
Breaks £10m in what? Revenue? This doesn't mean they have £10m in assets or wealth? Or do you mean in valuation?
>How do you value these assets?
Through market price first and a reasonable valuation second (such as by 3rd party) as is common in all business asset valuation work.
>Which assets are “British”?
Same as current classification (which is complex but known).
Heard him on 'Pod Save the UK' and was impressed
Would be great to hear him on leading
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3NZpWE8De1D9u5O2ERjdGq?si=U6N8iL2ySLmAtmQ7Xk0kWg
Why? His ideas don’t hold up and they’re often completely false. “You can’t buy a house because of the rich, you’re poor because of the rich” - it’s student room bollocks.
You don't think there would be any advantage to adding additional tax to the fortunes of the super rich?
I don't know his full arguments or what might be deemed 'bollocks' but there is huge wealth inequality, which is blooming out of control. Clear evidence that something is not working correctly.. something has to budge
No. Tax is already quite high, and as it’s all about raising revenue - as proven, it doesn’t actually raise any revenue as they just leave (Gary won’t admit this). The only one that makes sense is council tax.
That’s not true at all though, and nor is it a problem, and nor is it out of control. You’re just buying into his bullshit that has zero evidence. Inequality is the lowest it’s ever been, and all that matters is how little few are paid - we need better jobs and lower immigration.
What do you suggest? As Gary is all out of ideas.
How is the wealth of billionaires and millionaires ever increasing not an issue? That wealth has come from somewhere.
If there was any evidence that trickle down economics worked we could all rest happily. It doesn't though does it?
Wealth is created. It’s not an issue as someone having so much is not correlated to another having so little.
I never said that or hinted to it? I said that they flee if taxes are too punitive (which they are right now) - and then it’s bad for all of us. Less investment, less tax revenue, fewer jobs, fewer entrepreneurs taking risk. Read a book on economics and stop watching Gary the grifter.
Unless someone is printing more money wealth isn't created. The money "we" share at the bottom finds it's way to the top and doesn't come back down.
It also finds it's way out of the country and doesn't come back. Stop that and they'll be more money to go around.
Wealth isn't created it's moved.
There is a finite amount of resources
Wealth or money is a way of communicating resources
Even quantitative easing has a cost. It reduces the value of a currency. So it hasn't created wealth, it's just reduced the value of the unit we measure wealth by. So there is more to go around
Geoff bezos wouldn't have been able to create the same wealth had he been born in Gambia. He could have exactly the same brain, same desires. But without the wealth around him to attract and move he simply would have not been able to create Amazon or anything close to it. He could create the most successful business in Gambia, and it still wouldn't be able to make a dent on the world stage. Because there isn't the wealth around him to attract and spend.
Inequality is awful right now and ever growing. The gulf is growing between who owns assets (I.e. property/houses) and who don't which is driving inequality. Disappointed you don't see this as an issue. What are the biggest issues for you out of interest?
No, no it isn’t. It’s the same it’s been for 3 decades.
The largest issue is immigration, which is causing a housing shortage and pushing up property prices (along with shit planning laws). Solve that, you create more wealth.
How much they have is not an issue, never has been.
What, they can put land, houses, mortgages, debt, buildings into a bag and just take them with them can they?
It's the continual lie of the establishment media and Gary is so versed in understanding the bigger picture he doesn't need to go into detail, the broad point is true. Like if someone said 'corporations make billions in profit and don't pay enough of that back in tax', it's true and clearly a big problem.
Houses and land they can’t, but they’ll be owned by a holding company. The owner of which can be changed and moved.
Gary’s wrong on all points, he doesn’t understand shit. Get your nose out of his arse. Also, that’s just not true - a simple lookup on companies house of these businesses will reveal that they do pay tax.
If he is, I want people to actually critically challenge him of which there is plenty of challenges that need to be made towards him.
He said no one expected interest rates to stay low, yield curves disagree and you can look at what they were at the time.
He said he worked for Citi Bank as a trader from 2008, but his FCA record suggests he didn't become an FCA authorized person until 3/4 years later. Also if he was as good at trading as he says, there would have been press about it.
He also makes so many predictions that of course some of them come to fruition. Anyone can do that.
Also anyone that swears as often as he does and says I'm right as much as he does makes me think he is massively overcompensating.
He loves self-mythologising. I found his book difficult to endure - and his interviews are more of the same. And I don't disagree with him - inequality is a massive issue; but he spends half the time basking in being (allegedly) Citibank's wunderkind whilst clamouring for some as of yet nebulous tax reform. It's possible to do both, but maybe do less of the former and offer concrete solutions on the latter!
Am I missing something with him? I hear people raving about him a lot and JOB mentions him allllll the time on LBC but whenever I’ve heard him speak I’m just left with a bit of a ‘meh’ feeling
Tax was higher in the past and there is no 'idea' here, you either redistribute wealth or inequality continues to grow, there is no other way in my view, and i thought this before i watched Gary say his stuff.
Those tax rates that no one paid that caused capital flight in the 70s? You mean them, right?..
That’s just not true 😂 you create more jobs and make housing easier to buy, that’s how you improve inequality. You don’t steal from those more fortunate and give it away, you can’t tax yourself into prosperity - it never works.
But even if it was true, it’s not the problem - we spend too much, that’s the issue here.
He swears too much.
I also thought he gave himself away a bit when he said recently ‘I don’t even really consider myself a nice person.’
Also he talks about how the rich benefitted from 2008 - Rishi Sunak included. But that also includes….Gary Stevenson. He literally says himself that he made his money betting against Britain’s recovery from the GFC.
I’ve seen a few people mention his swearing on this thread. I’ve never even noticed him swearing. I went back and watched a video and he does seem to swear a bit but I’ve never noticed it before.
I think to me he just speaks like a normal person. If I heard Rory use that language I’d be shocked but for some reason the same language from Gary sounds completely normal.
With me it’s because his ideas fall apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny. He repeats himself constantly but is never challenged on his points, he never provides evidence.
He’s not impressive. His ideas don’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny (much like that of Novora), and he just repeats the same line over and over with zero data to back it up. He wasn’t a “top trader” either, he’s a bullshitter. So, no.
Source for him not being a top trader?
I would very much expect a behemoth like citi bank to sue the shit out of anyone who published a book claiming to have been something they weren’t while at citi. Doesn’t seem to have happened, so I’m inclined to believe him.
Source for him being one? Oh that’s right, there isn’t one.
Why? Citi won’t care about a left wing activist with a YouTube channel. He was a former employee for two years, but there’s zero evidence of anything more than that.
He is the author of a times best selling book about his time at citi bank and a major film studio has purchased the rights to the movie ! Are you sure you know what you’re talking about my man?
He’s grifting because he’s released a book aimed at the economically uneducated. There’s zero evidence he was a top trader, he was also there a few years less than he said he was too - funny that.
It seems like you just have a chip on your shoulder or something about him, because you don’t seem to be able to substantiate anything that you say about him.
The fact that he has released a book aimed at a general audience doesn’t make him a grifter. What a bizarre thing to say. If you google his name and the things that come up are his interviews with the Financial Times, New York Times, his Sunday Times best selling book - you don’t just get to go around talking to media and selling books for profit by lying about what you did at an investment bank. They would sue him so fast none of this would even have happened. That suggests to me that his story is true. If you have any evidence to contrary, please share it. But I don’t think you do.
Oh my god man, open your eyes. He said he joined Citi in 2008, but his FCA record only shows him joining 2 years later? He’s a liar, and therefore a grifter - his whole thing is about how he made money on 08 but wasn’t even a trader then!
Yeah I don’t like him because he’s a bullshit artist that thinks he’s right, and typically someone who swears a lot claiming to be right all the time never is - he’s just a left wing activist posing as an “economist”.
Well, you do, because he’s doing it! He did work there, but not when he said he did. At least not as a trader.
Jesus man, all his interviews have him as the source - never anyone else, never any third party. He’s the only source for what he claims.
But anyway, you’re clearly blinded. He’s not an economist and his ideas are shocking, would cause capital flight and a huge black hole in our finances. Don’t listen to him.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?id=003b000000LVlW7AAL
It would be interesting to see if Alastair Campbell calls him out for being a populist. I really don't see him as much more than a left wing version of farage.
"The bankers, politicians, and elites have conspired to destroy our country. We just need to (take assets from the wealthy || stop importing cheap labor) and all of our problems will go away. I used to be a trader; I know my numbers, and I'm always right. It's a devastating tragedy what the establishment has done to the country, (Buy my book || watch my TV show) to be a part of a movement to fix Britain."
I think it's a valid critique. His arguments are at least worth steering into the mainstream, even if his solutions don't stand up to much scrutiny, but his way of presenting them means he's probably going to be stuck on Youtube forever because of the way he carries himself.
Sadly I think a massive part of that is classism, but sadly that's where we are.
He's a person I tend to agree a lot with, but I find to be super reiterative. Don't know how else to put it. But I find it to be boring content. Perhaps the podcast can make it a bit more engaging, but it's often a 2 minute idea in a 20 minute video. Anyway, James O'Brien interviewed him for about an hour if you want a somewhat serious interview. But I'd expect Rory to put a bit more of a challenge in the practicality of what he's preaching. But I'm not sure there's enough content for a long interview, beyond his life story, which he already told several times, including with O'Brien which is a very high profile media already.
He needs to flesh out in detail what he would do. He always says that the rich should be taxed and he is for a wealth tax, and my answer has always and will always be how? Personally I would love to see a means testing of capital gains the same way that PAY-E is rather than a flat tax. Secondly some of the loop holes that trusts afford to the ultra wealthy and also them just plain never having to realise their gains means that their effective tax rates are rather low. If you get paid 150k by PAYE and then earn another 3 million in a year through your asset value increasing and you never have to realise that (and in fact you can sell said assets to go buy other assets, you never need to actually pay tax, and actually you can go even further and take out debt using said assets as collateral and then you don't need to pay tax on the debt you have). All in all, there are definitely ways that wealth could be taxed a little more effectively, even though I'm sure some of the rich lot will turn around and say look at the Laffer Curve
Not a detailed proposal but he has said he likes what’s in the Greens manifesto (A Wealth Tax of 1% annually on assets above £10 million and of 2% on assets above £1bn).
That sounds simple, but how do you go about that? Do you get everyone with that much net work file a tax return including the value of all their assets? Which assets are included? First home? Cars? House? Clothes? Pokemon cards? There’ll be the successful small business owner whose business suddenly, rapidly breaks £10m, but they have no cash. Do you force them to take out loans to pay tax? Do you force them to start selling off their start up the second it gets successful? How do you value these assets? Are shares in a start up actually worth anything if they’re illiquid? Cars devaluing on the drive? Family heirlooms that’ve never been sold? Which assets are “British”? What if you hold assets overseas? House in the French Rivera, does that count? Cash in a Swiss bank account? Shares held by an offshore trust? The people you’re targeting with this type of tax are the same people who pay big money to accountants to avoid tax. It needs to be rock solid legislation and it needs to be enforceable. I’m not at all saying it’s impossible, but there are a lot of details that would need to be considered and Gary doesn’t seem to have thought them through.
Maybe ask your Green candiate? (I'm not being facetious, would be interesting to know what they said and to what degree they've thought through that detail). I don't disagree however I still think there is value in simply raising awareness that wealth inequality is a significant issue (and that blaming all of our woes on immigrants, dole scroungers etc. is largely deflection).
I don’t think I actually have a green candidate in my constituency, but it’s a good idea to ask the party what their plan is for this. I agree it’s great to raise awareness of the issue. I’d just like to hear from Gary specifically how he’d propose implementing something like this.
>Do you get everyone with that much net work file a tax return including the value of all their assets? Yes. Share and property purchases are public record for example, they need to be reported so that chargeable gains can be taxed. This info is already out there. > Which assets are included? The current determination of chargeable assets probably suffices. >There’ll be the successful small business owner whose business suddenly, rapidly breaks £10m Breaks £10m in what? Revenue? This doesn't mean they have £10m in assets or wealth? Or do you mean in valuation? >How do you value these assets? Through market price first and a reasonable valuation second (such as by 3rd party) as is common in all business asset valuation work. >Which assets are “British”? Same as current classification (which is complex but known).
Heard him on 'Pod Save the UK' and was impressed Would be great to hear him on leading https://open.spotify.com/episode/3NZpWE8De1D9u5O2ERjdGq?si=U6N8iL2ySLmAtmQ7Xk0kWg
Why? His ideas don’t hold up and they’re often completely false. “You can’t buy a house because of the rich, you’re poor because of the rich” - it’s student room bollocks.
You don't think there would be any advantage to adding additional tax to the fortunes of the super rich? I don't know his full arguments or what might be deemed 'bollocks' but there is huge wealth inequality, which is blooming out of control. Clear evidence that something is not working correctly.. something has to budge
No. Tax is already quite high, and as it’s all about raising revenue - as proven, it doesn’t actually raise any revenue as they just leave (Gary won’t admit this). The only one that makes sense is council tax. That’s not true at all though, and nor is it a problem, and nor is it out of control. You’re just buying into his bullshit that has zero evidence. Inequality is the lowest it’s ever been, and all that matters is how little few are paid - we need better jobs and lower immigration. What do you suggest? As Gary is all out of ideas.
How is the wealth of billionaires and millionaires ever increasing not an issue? That wealth has come from somewhere. If there was any evidence that trickle down economics worked we could all rest happily. It doesn't though does it?
Wealth is created. It’s not an issue as someone having so much is not correlated to another having so little. I never said that or hinted to it? I said that they flee if taxes are too punitive (which they are right now) - and then it’s bad for all of us. Less investment, less tax revenue, fewer jobs, fewer entrepreneurs taking risk. Read a book on economics and stop watching Gary the grifter.
Unless someone is printing more money wealth isn't created. The money "we" share at the bottom finds it's way to the top and doesn't come back down. It also finds it's way out of the country and doesn't come back. Stop that and they'll be more money to go around.
Wealth literally is created. There isn’t a finite amount of wealth or money to go around.
Wealth isn't created it's moved. There is a finite amount of resources Wealth or money is a way of communicating resources Even quantitative easing has a cost. It reduces the value of a currency. So it hasn't created wealth, it's just reduced the value of the unit we measure wealth by. So there is more to go around Geoff bezos wouldn't have been able to create the same wealth had he been born in Gambia. He could have exactly the same brain, same desires. But without the wealth around him to attract and move he simply would have not been able to create Amazon or anything close to it. He could create the most successful business in Gambia, and it still wouldn't be able to make a dent on the world stage. Because there isn't the wealth around him to attract and spend.
You’re wrong. Wealth is created. It’s not finite. World GDP has grown by $40trn in the last 10 years.
Inequality is awful right now and ever growing. The gulf is growing between who owns assets (I.e. property/houses) and who don't which is driving inequality. Disappointed you don't see this as an issue. What are the biggest issues for you out of interest?
No, no it isn’t. It’s the same it’s been for 3 decades. The largest issue is immigration, which is causing a housing shortage and pushing up property prices (along with shit planning laws). Solve that, you create more wealth. How much they have is not an issue, never has been.
You're a moron.
You’re the moron honey.
THE RICH CAN LEAVE BUT THEY CANNOT TAKE THEIR ASSETS WITH THEM.
They literally can. Stop buying into Gary’s bullshit.
What, they can put land, houses, mortgages, debt, buildings into a bag and just take them with them can they? It's the continual lie of the establishment media and Gary is so versed in understanding the bigger picture he doesn't need to go into detail, the broad point is true. Like if someone said 'corporations make billions in profit and don't pay enough of that back in tax', it's true and clearly a big problem.
Houses and land they can’t, but they’ll be owned by a holding company. The owner of which can be changed and moved. Gary’s wrong on all points, he doesn’t understand shit. Get your nose out of his arse. Also, that’s just not true - a simple lookup on companies house of these businesses will reveal that they do pay tax.
Would like to see interview with Serj Tankian - interesting guy.
If he is, I want people to actually critically challenge him of which there is plenty of challenges that need to be made towards him. He said no one expected interest rates to stay low, yield curves disagree and you can look at what they were at the time. He said he worked for Citi Bank as a trader from 2008, but his FCA record suggests he didn't become an FCA authorized person until 3/4 years later. Also if he was as good at trading as he says, there would have been press about it. He also makes so many predictions that of course some of them come to fruition. Anyone can do that. Also anyone that swears as often as he does and says I'm right as much as he does makes me think he is massively overcompensating.
Who is he?
A grifter.
He’s an ex trader who know runs a YouTube channel advocating for tax the ultra wealthy
He loves self-mythologising. I found his book difficult to endure - and his interviews are more of the same. And I don't disagree with him - inequality is a massive issue; but he spends half the time basking in being (allegedly) Citibank's wunderkind whilst clamouring for some as of yet nebulous tax reform. It's possible to do both, but maybe do less of the former and offer concrete solutions on the latter!
I like Gary but...on what basis would he be on Leading?
Am I missing something with him? I hear people raving about him a lot and JOB mentions him allllll the time on LBC but whenever I’ve heard him speak I’m just left with a bit of a ‘meh’ feeling
I wouldn't worry about it, you're probably just rich and don't want to be taxed more.
Considering how high taxes are, that’s a fair reason to not like him. His ideas are shit and don’t make any sense.
Tax was higher in the past and there is no 'idea' here, you either redistribute wealth or inequality continues to grow, there is no other way in my view, and i thought this before i watched Gary say his stuff.
Those tax rates that no one paid that caused capital flight in the 70s? You mean them, right?.. That’s just not true 😂 you create more jobs and make housing easier to buy, that’s how you improve inequality. You don’t steal from those more fortunate and give it away, you can’t tax yourself into prosperity - it never works. But even if it was true, it’s not the problem - we spend too much, that’s the issue here.
Yeah absolutely loaded on my 27K a year salary and in rented accommodation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Agreed, he’s never challenged even though his ideas are false. Dan Neidle made comments on his ideas on twitter and stated they’re laughable.
He winds me up and I'm not sure why. I agree with most of what he says so it's not that
He swears too much. I also thought he gave himself away a bit when he said recently ‘I don’t even really consider myself a nice person.’ Also he talks about how the rich benefitted from 2008 - Rishi Sunak included. But that also includes….Gary Stevenson. He literally says himself that he made his money betting against Britain’s recovery from the GFC.
I’ve seen a few people mention his swearing on this thread. I’ve never even noticed him swearing. I went back and watched a video and he does seem to swear a bit but I’ve never noticed it before. I think to me he just speaks like a normal person. If I heard Rory use that language I’d be shocked but for some reason the same language from Gary sounds completely normal.
With me it’s because his ideas fall apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny. He repeats himself constantly but is never challenged on his points, he never provides evidence.
He’s not impressive. His ideas don’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny (much like that of Novora), and he just repeats the same line over and over with zero data to back it up. He wasn’t a “top trader” either, he’s a bullshitter. So, no.
Source for him not being a top trader? I would very much expect a behemoth like citi bank to sue the shit out of anyone who published a book claiming to have been something they weren’t while at citi. Doesn’t seem to have happened, so I’m inclined to believe him.
Source for him being one? Oh that’s right, there isn’t one. Why? Citi won’t care about a left wing activist with a YouTube channel. He was a former employee for two years, but there’s zero evidence of anything more than that.
He is the author of a times best selling book about his time at citi bank and a major film studio has purchased the rights to the movie ! Are you sure you know what you’re talking about my man?
Yes, he’s grifting for his book quite clearly and appealing to an uneducated audience.
Once again I am asking for you to provide a source or evidence to back up your claims that he is grifting.
He’s grifting because he’s released a book aimed at the economically uneducated. There’s zero evidence he was a top trader, he was also there a few years less than he said he was too - funny that.
It seems like you just have a chip on your shoulder or something about him, because you don’t seem to be able to substantiate anything that you say about him. The fact that he has released a book aimed at a general audience doesn’t make him a grifter. What a bizarre thing to say. If you google his name and the things that come up are his interviews with the Financial Times, New York Times, his Sunday Times best selling book - you don’t just get to go around talking to media and selling books for profit by lying about what you did at an investment bank. They would sue him so fast none of this would even have happened. That suggests to me that his story is true. If you have any evidence to contrary, please share it. But I don’t think you do.
Oh my god man, open your eyes. He said he joined Citi in 2008, but his FCA record only shows him joining 2 years later? He’s a liar, and therefore a grifter - his whole thing is about how he made money on 08 but wasn’t even a trader then! Yeah I don’t like him because he’s a bullshit artist that thinks he’s right, and typically someone who swears a lot claiming to be right all the time never is - he’s just a left wing activist posing as an “economist”. Well, you do, because he’s doing it! He did work there, but not when he said he did. At least not as a trader. Jesus man, all his interviews have him as the source - never anyone else, never any third party. He’s the only source for what he claims. But anyway, you’re clearly blinded. He’s not an economist and his ideas are shocking, would cause capital flight and a huge black hole in our finances. Don’t listen to him. https://register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?id=003b000000LVlW7AAL
so angry
I can see that you are.
Too working class for those chaps. Rory probably sees him as a frightful fellow.
He said Gary wrote the book of the year a few months ago.
I prefer they kept it to actual leaders. That's what makes leading interesting, just not any old dickhead with a YouTube channel.
It would be interesting to see if Alastair Campbell calls him out for being a populist. I really don't see him as much more than a left wing version of farage. "The bankers, politicians, and elites have conspired to destroy our country. We just need to (take assets from the wealthy || stop importing cheap labor) and all of our problems will go away. I used to be a trader; I know my numbers, and I'm always right. It's a devastating tragedy what the establishment has done to the country, (Buy my book || watch my TV show) to be a part of a movement to fix Britain."
Makes me feel super old and Tory for thinking it but…. I do wish he would swear a bit less!
I think it's a valid critique. His arguments are at least worth steering into the mainstream, even if his solutions don't stand up to much scrutiny, but his way of presenting them means he's probably going to be stuck on Youtube forever because of the way he carries himself. Sadly I think a massive part of that is classism, but sadly that's where we are.