Okay.

Welcome back to Garys Economics.

Today, we are going to ask the

question, can Labour be saved?

Okay, so this is the first ever part

two of a two-part video this week.

So last week, we discussed the question of

whether Labour have been unlucky and whether

global center-left political parties have been

unlucky, and that is why they were very unpopular.

And the conclusion that I came to is they're not

unlucky in the way that they like to say they are.

They like to say they have inherited bad

economies from the right, from the center-right,

and that's nothing to do with them.

In reality, the weakening economies were

predictable long before Labour came into power.

I've been predicting them for five years.

I tried my best to let Labour know before they

came into power that there was going to be big problems

of government spending, government funding, big

problems with inequality, and they ignored it.

So they are not unlucky in the sense that

the economic problems were unpredictable.

But where they are unlucky is that the economic

problems that Labour are facing and the

UK economy is facing is not at all unique.

This problem of weakening economy, falling

living standards, has basically been experienced by

every government in the UK for the last 15 years.

It brought down Rishi Sunak for the same reason

that it would... that it's bringing down Keir Starmer.

It will bring down Nigel Farage

if and when he comes into power.

The same thing is happening to Donald Trump in America.

The same thing is happening to the German

government, the French government, the Spanish

government, the Italian government, even the

Japanese government, the Australian Government.

This is happening to governments all over the world.

It's not a Labour-specific problem.

And what this is, really, is more of a broad

intellectual failing where our economists

and our politicians are simply unable to

recognise that we have a structural growing

problem of growing wealth inequality, and

that is the cause of the economic crisis.

Okay, so once we accept that, that what we

have is a broad intellectual failing,

that raises the question of, what do we do?

We're in a situation here where

inequality continues to rise.

That means that living standards will continue to fall.

It's important that we recognise that

that is like, really, really serious.

That means people not being able to heat

their homes, feed their kids, buy houses,

have families, have financial security.

It's going to be really, really serious

here and across the world.

So we need to ask ourselves, what can we do?

How can we get governments to change

policy to stop inequality from rising?

Which basically means policy on taxation, wealth taxes.

And here in this country, and I think in most countries,

you basically have two choices, assuming you don't

get anything on inequality and taxation from the right

and the center-right, which I think is probably true.

You have to either build a new political party

or try and influence your centre-left parties.

Here in this country, under our first-past-the-post

political system, which I think is a

bit of a stupid system, it is very, very

difficult to displace political parties.

So we need to figure out, can we save Labour?

So that raises the big two questions of this video.

Why have Labour failed to recognise inequality as

the core central message, and can they be saved?

Okay, so, you know, I speak

about why they've failed a lot.

I spoke about it a lot in last week's video.

This is a misdiagnosis of an economic problem.

Economists don't look at inequality a lot.

We have a crisis of falling living standards

being caused by growing inequality, and

economists are missing it, and that's causing

political parties, including Labour, to miss it.

Why that is happening, I think...

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure.

I've got a lot of theories.

And We're going to run through them.

It's important that we understand why

these guys are missing it if we want

to move into a more sensible position.

A big part of this, in my opinion, is coming from

problems in the academic discipline of economics.

So economics in the way that it is

understood and taught at universities.

I've spoken about this in some past videos.

Maybe we'll flash a link up to 'Why economists are

always wrong' which is a cool video of me walking around

Oxford years ago when we used to do things like that.

When you study economics at university

nowadays, it is a very complicated and

difficult and extremely mathematical subject.

You spend an enormous amount of time doing

complicated algebra, complicated calculus.

If you take it to post-grad or PhD or post-doc level,

you are going to spend 10 years doing complicated calculus

and algebra on very, very mathematically complicated

models, almost all of which contain no inequality.

This is a very, very effective way

of training economists not to think

about the economy in terms of inequality.

If you have spent 10 years locked in stuffy,

windowless university library rooms doing simultaneous

equations and complicated algebra and calculus, when

you see a real-world economic problem, you are going to

have a very strong temptation to try to apply the

things you learnt and things you studied at university.

If you spent 10 years studying very, very complicated

mathematical models that include no inequality,

you are very, very unlikely to look at an economic

problem and think, "Maybe this is being caused by

inequality." I think there's also a kind of

hothouse, very competitive culture within economics

specifically, although I do think it's happening in

lot of academic disciplines, which really, really

aggressively rewards students for studying and

writing papers on kind of fashionable ideas and not

really stepping outside the box and writing about

things which are unfashionable, like inequality.

You know, a good example of this is Ha-Joon Chang,

who is a Korean economics professor who I

think is really smart guy, really thoughtful.

I've got a lot of time for him.

We had him on the channel earlier this year.

He writes a lot of great books about things like

how Korea went from being poor to being rich.

He has a lot of things to say about how

countries can improve living standards.

And yet, because he does not talk and write

in the way which is approved within economics,

despite the fact that he is the best-selling

economics author in the entire country, he is

largely shunned and ignored within economics.

Another great example is Thomas Piketty. French

economist who had a very prestigious, illustrious,

successful economics career, who decided in 2011, "I'm

going to start talking about inequality." Probably because

he was smart enough to recognise what a big deal it was.

And since then has been kind of criticised,

attacked, shunned, and sidelined a

lot within the economics community.

So, within economics as a whole, you have a

discipline which is not able really to look or

think in terms of inequality, and tends to

punish people who think outside the box, who

are willing to think in different terms.

I think COVID is a great example of this.

We had the crisis, which from the very

beginning it should have been obvious was going

to cause a massive increase in inequality.

And yet basically nobody in academia, in the think

thanks, the central banks, which are kind of extensions

of academia, was ever able or willing to think about it

in terms of inequality, in terms of distribution.

You then have the additional factor that

specifically within economics you have this other

optional career path, which aggressively

rewards people who think outside the box and

challenge conventional wisdom, which is trading.

So, I have studied at the London

School of Economics and at Oxford.

I can tell you with a very high level of

confidence the vast majority of economics undergrads

really, really want to work in finance jobs like trading

or perhaps other jobs nowadays, like tech or AI.

They're not trying to get into government.

But they know that in trading, trading is quite

interesting in that it really, really heavily rewards

people who turn around and say, "Everyone around me

is wrong" as long as you get proved to be right.

When I was a trader, I was a very heavily

counter-trend trader, so I liked to really bet

aggressively on things that everybody thought was wrong.

And if you do that, you get paid a lot of money.

So, you have one side of economics, which is the kind

of public-facing side, which is the universities, the

governments, the think tanks, which really, really

punishes people for stepping outside the sort of

acceptable box and saying, "I think everybody is wrong.

I think something different." And then you have

another much better-paid side of economics, which

really, really aggressively rewards people who do that.

So obviously, if you are the kind of person who

wants to challenge conventional wisdom in economics,

there are very, very strong reasons why you might try

and go into finance and trading rather than economics.

But even if we accept this that economics as a

discipline kind of slightly brainwashes its students

into not really breaking the rules and then really

pushes the students who are a little bit more inventive

in their thinking out of academia and into trading,

we're now in a situation where in the last 17 years,

living standards have been falling quite consistently.

Existing political parties have

been losing again and again.

They've been consistently failing on the economy.

The far-right is growing all across the world.

There's this outrage against popular economists,

popular politicians, against the status quo.

It's like really obvious that

the status quo is failing.

We have in the Labour Party a government

that is phenomenally unpopular, looks

very likely to lose the next election, is

desperately in need of money and new ideas.

And yet despite this, like, very long-term track record

of quite consistent failure, this really powerful

demand for new ideas from the public, economists and

politicians have still been really, really stubbornly

ignoring and, and unwilling to talk to people like me.

And it's not just me.

We have other people like Thomas Piketty...

Gabriel Zucman in France saying similar

things and meeting really strong pushback, even

from politicians who are supposed to be on the

left, who you might imagine would be more open to ideas

like taxing very rich people, reducing inequality.

So, why is it that economists and politicians have

been so stubborn in ignoring these ideas about

inequality in spite of the massive popular demand?

Now this, to be honest, is something which

I'm not 100% certain on, and it's something,

which I think about a lot, because obviously

we're at a point now on this channel where

we've had a huge amount of cut through with the public.

And what we are kind of coming up against is

we're hitting this wall of politicians

and academics and kind of this intellectual

middle class who are refusing to accept it.

And if we want to actually get this into power, we

do need to try to understand why these guys are so

unwilling to listen to us, so unwilling to work with us.

So, I've been thinking about this a lot,

speaking to a few different people and

we're trying to understand what it is.

And I've got a list of ideas here, which might

be what is stopping them from listening to us.

I'm going to go through them and you can

let me know if you think any of these are

right, if you think any of these are wrong.

If you think there's anything

I'm missing, put it in the comments.

But I'll go through the list of ideas I've got here.

So, number one is, I've

got here the far-left theory.

And this is that me and my ideas have kind of

been branded in the eyes of the political class,

the politicians, maybe the media as far left.

And a lot of politicians don't like the

far left, and they are unwilling to

countenance anything that is branded as far left.

This is very frustrating for me because

I don't come from a political background.

I don't come from the far left.

My background is I studied economics at LSE.

I was very successful.

I got very good grades.

I went on to become a trader.

I was very successful and made

a lot of very good predictions.

I went to Oxford to do a two-year master's.

Again, I did very well.

Classic, classically trained economist.

And then I've been out here speaking publicly,

making very good predictions as well.

Like for me, I have never tried to be far left.

I don't come from a political background.

I have a very, very good track

record of being right.

And this is the kind of thing which

gets you a long way in the financial world.

People will look a lot at what your

track record of predictions are like.

If you don't believe my track record of

predictions, go and watch the video from...

first ever video from this channel in June 2020.

You'll see how good the predictions

were just at the beginning.

But it does seem like this might be one of

the reasons why Labour are not listening

to us, that they think we're far left.

We need to think about how can we

try to rid ourselves of that brand.

Honestly, you know, I

don't... I'm an economist.

I don't think of economics

as left or right, you know.

When I look at the economy... When I first

started making these bets in 2011 as a trader,

because I was heavily financially incentivised to

bet on what's right. I've been betting

on these things since the beginning of COVID.

I've made a huge amount of money.

I don't say these things because

I have some political motive.

I say these things because I have a very

good track record of accurate predictions.

My current forecasts are for

a collapse in living standards.

I don't want living standards to collapse even further.

But unfortunately, this, this branding as far-left is

perhaps one of the things which is about stopping us.

I've got here the Zach Polanski theory.

I went on a podcast with Zach Polanski,

the new leader of the Greens.

I asked him, why is there so much resistance?

And he just basically said, like, they're all bought.

He goes, "This is it. Like, they're all

bought, they're paid for by the rich.

Their donors are very, very rich.

They go and work for rich people."

Which some people might say is quite conspiratorial

and quite negative but I think there

might be some element of this involved.

You know, when we were looking at the Conservative

Party, we had Rishi Sunak, who was phenomenally wealthy.

We had David Cameron, who went on to make a

huge amount of money after leaving office.

Before that, Tony Blair made a huge

amount of money after leaving office.

I don't know what Keir Starmer's plans are, but it

does seem that part of the problem may simply be

the political class, especially at the top level, is

people who are very rich or are about to become

very rich and are often funded by the very rich.

That could be an element.

That could be an element to it.

If that happens, that will be tricky.

We have to think about how we can work around it.

Okay, I've got here the class theory.

This is the theory that basically the kind

of intellectual class... I wanted to...

Thomas Piketty, the French inequality

economist, calls them the Brahmin class.

So he uses the term the Brahmin class, which refers

to... The Brahmins were the top caste in the Indian

caste system, and they're basically priests, and

uses this term to talk about this kind of, this

kind of group of intellectuals who... High-level

economists, high-level academics, high-level

journalists, high-level politics, media, high-level

perhaps business, who sort of determine what

the public think and control a lot of the media.

I've had this theory for a while.

And when I first started this channel, it was... I

didn't know at the time it would become as big as it

has done, but a big part of it was I felt that there

wasn't really any sort of economic news source that felt

just accessible or understandable to ordinary people.

And I was writing for the Guardian at the time

and I really thought because I come from a working-class

background, and I look and I sound working class,

I thought ordinary people would appreciate having

somebody from an ordinary background talking to them

about economics in a way that they could understand.

And that was a big part of the idea of this channel.

And that means that really ever since the beginning,

I've always been trying to talk to the public

rather than trying to talk to the politicians.

And I'm obviously English and this is a country which

has had a long history of a class system, and

I do think there is a problem that when especially

more middle-class people see or hear somebody from a

working-class background, they perhaps make assumptions

that this guy is maybe not smart or maybe not honest.

And I do think that sometimes is

one of the reasons why I'm not taken that

seriously by these senior Labour politicians.

Again, it's very, very frustrating because, you

know, I was a very successful, very well-paid

trader and I was taken very seriously in that space.

And it's very frustrating to not be taken

seriously by people who would very, probably

very happily give me their money to manage.

I think a great example of this is when

I went on The Rest Is Politics, which is,

for those who are not in the UK, the most

popular politics podcast here in the UK.

It has a couple of presenters, one of whom is from a,

a very posh, you might even say aristocratic background.

And I made this case to him

that I felt like one of the reasons why

I'm not taken seriously by politicians is because

I'm from a working-class background and because

of how I talk and because of how I sound.

And he replied, "You know, I don't think that's right.

You shouldn't patronise politicians.

I think it's because of your class anger."

Which is, Well, it's a wonderful thing

to say really, because it's... What he's saying is

it's because of my class and the way that I speak,

which is, which is exactly what I what I said,

in a way, so... I put the case to him that posh

people don't take me seriously because of my class

and how I speak, and he said, "No, it's not that.

It's because of your class and how

you speak." I do think it's a problem.

I think the way that we get around this is really

I need yourselves and people like you to try as

much as you can to infiltrate those elite spaces.

So, get yourselves and your kids into fancy

universities, fancy jobs, media, politics, academia,

banks, finance, civil service, central banking,

and get those ideas that way.

I would never tell anyone to change the way you

speak but we do need posh people with posh

voices, I think, to be taken seriously.

The next one I've got here is the Gary is a dick theory.

And this is basically the fact that, like, from the

beginning... So, I've made all my money basically

by betting on the fact that economists are wrong.

And my whole career history

since 2011 is aggressively betting on

the fact that economists are wrong.

And I do believe, I say it all the time,

that I think we have a problem in economics where

economists are just failing to recognise this very,

very serious problem of growing wealth inequality.

And because of this, you know, sometimes

I... The way I speak about economists or

politicians or economists in

politics is perhaps a bit disrespectful.

Last week's video on, on whether Labour

are unlucky or not was actually originally

scheduled to be called Why Are Labour So ****?

And and this, I think kind of typifies, I think

a problem that I have, which is I'm very, very

frustrated with this political and economic class.

And I spoke with Oscar, who's the manager of

this channel and he sort of talked me off the

cliff edge and said, "Listen, if you want Labour and

Labour politicians to listen to you, you can't be

saying Labour are ****." And the truth is, the

history of this channel has been quite a lot of me

sometimes in somewhat flamboyant ways saying that

I think economists and politicians are a bit dumb.

And that perhaps worked very well in making this

channel very popular, but it's maybe not the

best way to get Labour to listen to you.

And I've got here attached to this is that

Gary is a classist, which relates to the previous

issue that people don't like that the middle class,

the sort of intellectual class don't listen to

me because I'm a working-class background.

I think I do have accept that to a degree I am

frustrated and a little bit angry with this sort

of upper middle class, intellectual class that

are allowing the economy to fall off a cliff

while in many cases, they themselves get richer.

This is probably best typified by a video

I did really, really early on called Elite Idiots,

saying the economy is being ruined by rich idiots.

The fact is, the way that I communicate,

the way that I talk about economists and the

way that I talk about politicians is perhaps

a bit rude, and that has probably p***ed them off.

And we need to think about that because yeah,

we do need to figure out ways to speak to these guys.

The last one I've got, which is about me personally,

is the Gary style of approach theory, which is that

basically they don't respect me because I'm coming

up through YouTube, and they need you to be coming

up, you know, the sort of acceptable way you go

and you get your PhD and you work your way through.

Just to be clear, I did go and do a

two-year master at Oxford before I started

doing this, and it was just so bad.

The quality of education was just unbelievably bad.

I felt guilty for having paid for such a poor education.

And I could also see, you know, the economy

was going to get worse quickly, and I didn't

think I wanted to do another six, seven years

wasting my time getting locked in libraries.

But this is the truth, right?

You know, I think the way that I've come through,

through YouTube, through trading

being a bit rude about posh people was

never going to endear me to posh people.

So we do need other people to go in,

push these theories, push this understanding,

not using my face, not using my name.

It helps if you got a posh voice.

Just don't talk about me.

Take the ideas, take the ideas and run with them.

But, you know, criticisms of these last

ones, all of these ideas are sort of based

on Gary specifically is doing it wrong.

The thing is, we've got another guy.

There's a guy called Gabriel Zucman, French economist,

who is doing great work pushing for wealth taxes in

France, and he's come at it a very different way,

very academic, got his PhD, very prestigious academic.

You know, didn't go through trading, didn't go

through YouTube, went direct to the politicians

and he's doing a really, really good job and we

hope he gets it, but he is also getting pushback.

And if the problem was just specifically me,

then you would imagine that other people in other

countries would be doing a better job of wealth taxes.

So I'm not really sure whether these

ideas that focus very much on me are the real answer.

I've got a couple more ideas here.

One is the small C conservatism theory,

which is basically just that because this

Brahmin class, this intellectual class is largely

richer people from richer backgrounds getting paid

quite well, they are just very comfortable with the

status quo and they don't want things to change.

They don't like ideas about taxation

because they see themselves as rich.

They don't want to pay higher taxes.

Next is the big picture thinkers

are all in different jobs theory, which is basically

what I said before, which is, if you are the kind

of person that wants to challenge the status quo,

think strategically, you are going to get rewarded much

better generally in business or in finance or in

trading than you will do in places like politics.

You do see a few... Well, the most obvious

counter-example to that is Dominic Cummings, who was

a kind of very radical guy, who became very senior in

government here before being publicly defenestrated,

Which means thrown out of a window.

Not literally.

And the last one here is the social mobility theory,

which is basically that, you know, I think back

in the day, this country, with young kids like

me, it would often, like very smart young kids

from poor backgrounds, would send them to grammar

school and they would bring them into places

like the civil service or like in government.

And you did have a situation where a lot

of the smartest young kids ended up in

some sense or another running the country.

Great example of this is John Major, who

was the prime minister in the early '90s, who I

believe came from a very working-class family.

I think his dad was a clown or something, wasn't it?

Something like that.

Worked in the circus, I think.

But went to a grammar school

and ended up running the country.

And I think if you look at countries like China

or like Singapore, they do still make sure that

a lot of the smartest kids in their country or,

you know, the kids that do best in exams, end up

working in government, end up running the country.

So what you see is, in the UK in the past

and in countries like China and Singapore

now, they make sure that the best people, or

at least some of them, end up in government.

Whereas now having been to sort of some

of the best universities in the country, I can

tell you the truth is not many of the smartest

kids aspire, especially from poorer backgrounds,

aspire to work in government.

Just simply because it is really, really

not a financially competitive job with

things like finance, with things like tech.

And what that has led to, I think, is really

just basically not a lot of great people in

government really, and which I think is,

is connected to the collapse of the country.

But of course, I have to be careful about saying

things like that because as we've established, me

loudly saying that I think politicians are not very

competent is probably not the best way to win them over.

So maybe forget that one.

So I'm fascinated to understand why it is.

I'm going to go on a bit of a break soon

and I'm going to really try to think about why.

If you have ideas, let me know.

But I think the theory which I think, I

think is most likely to be true, in my opinion, is

this last one, which is called the bubble theory.

And this is just that basically as the economy has

become more divided, we have really divided the

lives of richer people, you know, the sort of

middle class, upper middle class, from the poor.

And now we have this situation where

most elite jobs, including politics, have a

very high over-representation of people from

richer families, from private schools, from

this kind of elite, upper middle class space.

There are still some working class people in

politics, but they're less likely to be at the

top and they are a minority in that group, which

means the overall culture of the space, elite

level, politics, media, banking, academia, all

of these spaces are very, very middle class.

And what it means is you end up in a bit of a

bubble where most of the people in this space

went to elite schools, come from wealthy families,

went to elite universities, end up in elite well-paid

jobs, and simply do not have a good understanding

of or connection to life for ordinary people.

And I see this so often when I interact with people

from richer backgrounds and try to tell them what's

happening, this real unwillingness to even accept

that life is getting worse for ordinary people.

You see this all over the media.

When I went on Rest is Politics, you had...

you had Rory Stewart saying, "I think,

life is getting better in America." And then when

I went on LBC the other week, you had Tom Swarbrick

saying, "Oh, but things are okay in Australia."

Or we saw so much in the US press the last few years,

this idea that the vibes are off, which is actually

life is getting better and it's the working

class just don't understand their own situation.

Or there was the... the fantastic

piece by, was it John Burn-Murdoch?

Is that his name?

John Burn-Murdoch, the Financial Times journalist

saying, "Life is unambiguously getting better for

the poor." I think we have this problem now as

inequality is increasing and as social mobility is

decreasing, that when you go into elite spaces like

politics, they are really just full of wealthy people

who, because we exist in a crisis of inequality

where life is actually getting better for richer

people, they simply cannot see or understand

that life is getting worse for ordinary people.

And I think probably this is the biggest problem

we have, the bubble theory, that the people who

are in charge of power are stuck in this bubble.

Okay, so what do we do?

How do we win them over even though

they're stuck in this bubble?

Well, actually, in a bizarre way, we have a great

opportunity here because these guys that have been

stuck in this bubble have been willing and able to

ignore us for a long time, but the reckoning is kind

of coming for them because unless they start taking

these ideas seriously, they will continue to fail

on the economy and they will lose to the far right.

And I think a lot of these people, this intellectual

class, really do not want the far right to win.

So we do have a really good opportunity here to

really keep banging the drum, really make sure these

people know if you don't move seriously on inequality

and the economy, you will lose to the far right.

I think that that is a really good message to

have because that intellectual class specifically,

that Brahmin class, I think a lot of them don't like

the far right, so we have a good opportunity here.

But I have to be honest, I'm going to do

everything I can to win the next Labour leader.

I think we will get a new Labour leader next year.

I think probably we won't win them.

If we don't, then that leader will fail on the economy

and Reform and Farage will win the next election.

And they will fail on the economy

for the exact same reason.

So, you know, I know this is not the best case scenario

because that would then mean nine years of no wealth

taxes, because I don't think we'll get anything

from Reform, but it will only strengthen our case.

Yes, that might be a bit depressing, the idea that

if we don't get the next leader, we can't stop Reform

from winning and then it's nine years of no wealth tax.

But don't lose hope entirely.

I think there's a good chance that if Reform win

in four years, it could be a very small majority.

It could be even a hung parliament, so a minority

government, that I think they would also become

very unpopular very quickly because it will be seen

that they're going to fail on the economy and there is

a good chance that that government will fall quickly.

And it will strengthen our case even further.

One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty

is every single government you see in this

country or wherever you are for the next

20 years will do either one of two things.

Either they will give us something serious

on inequality and taxation or they will

fail on the economy and living standards.

So basically, we can only get stronger until we win.

So that's it, basically.

We need to keep banging the drum again and again.

We need to do everything we can do to de-radicalise

this brand, to de-leftise this brand, make it

clear that this is not about left or right; this

is about do you want the economy to fail or not?

As much as we can, we need to separate the

brand from me as a person, which means I need

you guys to run with these ideas yourselves.

I need you guys to use these ideas in your everyday

lives, with your communities, in your job if you can.

But look, I know the situation looks bad,

but we are actually in a very strong position

because whoever wins, either they give us

what we want or they fail on the economy.

And every time another idea fails, we will move closer

and closer to being the idea that takes power next.

And even if Reform do win here and

it's nine years with no wealth taxes

we're not the only country in the world.

This same thing is happening everywhere.

You know, I got Chlöe Swarbrick on from New Zealand

really largely because I wanted to show you, especially

to our British viewers, this is happening everywhere.

I think a lot of people think, oh things

are fine in Australia or in Sweden.

I was in Sweden earlier this year.

Same thing's happening there.

Same thing's happening across Europe.

Same thing's happening in Japan,

which is a country know very well.

This movement... one of the reasons why I've

been traveling around the world is I'm trying to

plant this seed everywhere because if it doesn't work

here, you know, it could work in another country.

There's great work being done

by Gabriel Zucman in France.

We just need one country to manage it, get a

wealth tax seriously, and show it can increase

living standards, and then we have a much better

chance of getting it here or wherever you are.

Okay, so I'll keep doing it.

You keep doing it.

I want to answer the opening question of

this video, which is, is Labour saveable?

And the honest answer is I don't know.

I don't know.

I hope that it is.

If we don't win Labour over, if we don't get the

next leader, then Labour will lose the election

and Farage and Reform will win the election, living

standards will fall, and we probably won't get

anything for nine years on wealth taxes here.

That would be serious.

Poverty will get worse and politics can get worse.

But look, things will change.

I think Labour will get a new leader next year.

I know we haven't heard much from Labour

in the last few months, and it's disappointed

me as much as it's disappointed you trust me.

But you know, Labour have a lot of very

new MPs that have only been there one year.

They're not very powerful.

They're finding their feet.

I think next year there will... there'll

probably be a push to push out Starmer

and a new man or woman will come in.

And I think a lot of these new MPs

will start trying to find their feet

and establish themselves more seriously.

You know, we did a call-out to Labour MPs

a few months ago and we did get a lot back.

We got, you know, we got I think more than 10 MPs

have asked for meetings or have given them meetings.

And we're trying to meet with all of them,

as well as some Liberal Democrat MPs.

Look, there are people in there and we're

going to try the best we can to work with them.

They're not all d**kheads.

They're not all idiots.

I've had some good meetings with some good

people and I'm going to try my best to build on it.

And I know there'll be people out there

saying, you know, "Forget Labour, they're rubbish.

Work with Zach Polansky, work with the Greens."

I'm talking to Zach, I'm talking to the Greens.

We're not ruling anybody out.

This is not football.

This is serious.

Things will get really bad if we don't do it so

I'm going to try my best to build something with Labour.

And I want to do a message to Labour MPs

because I know I've spoken in ways that are

perhaps a little bit disrespectful sometimes,

and I'm sorry if I've done that.

I'm frustrated, you know.

I see living standards falling

in this country, in my country.

I come from a poor background.

I know what it's like growing up poor,

and I don't want that to grow.

I don't want that to grow.

And I've been betting on these things for 14 years.

I've been making a lot of money on them.

I don't want them to get worse

and I'm frustrated at the lack of

support I've been getting from Labour.

But I keep turning up, I keep doing these

videos because I want to make things better.

And you guys, you're in there, you're

in the seat of power, your job is supposed

to be to protect the British people.

You're unpopular, you need money, I'm here to help.

I'm here to help.

And I don't, I don't mean

to say that in a disrespectful way.

We will always be open to speaking to Labour MPs as

long as the situation is as it is, which is we need

you to help us stop this country from collapsing.

I don't want the country to collapse,

you don't want the country to collapse.

Let's try and fix this together.

But you need to be open-minded about the economy.

You need to be open-minded about the idea that there

might be big economic problems that need fixing.

You need to be open-minded about the idea

that it might not be just about looking at

next year's budget and next year's budget.

You need to be willing to consider the idea that there

might be a big problem of large-scale wealth inequality.

You need to be able to consider that distribution

might matter, that wealth inequality might matter,

that government wealth-holding might matter.

And I know if you're an economist that these

ideas might be like outside of what

you were taught and outside of what you

studied and that might be, like, scary.

But look at what's happening. I know if

you're from a rich background you might not see

it, but I encourage you to go and speak to

people, and get into people's lives, and look

at what is happening to poverty, and look at how

much harder it's becoming for people to buy a home.

You know, I know big new ideas are scary,

especially if you've got like a background in economics.

And I know you might think that I'm just some working

class chancer or some kind of idiot, but look,

I've got the qualifications, I've been to LSE, I've

been to Oxford, I did very well, I've got a very,

very good track record of predicting as a trader.

In The Public you can look at my predictions from 2020.

They were very, very good.

Work with me here.

Work with me.

We need to do something.

If we don't take action on growing

inequality, I absolutely guarantee you that

living standards and poverty will get worse,

and worse, and worse, and worse in this country.

And I don't say that lightly, I don't take that lightly.

And I'm not just saying it, I'm betting on it,

I've been betting on it for a long, long time.

I've made a lot of money betting on it,

but I'm trying to stop it.

If you do not do anything about growing inequality,

poverty in this country will get worse, and

worse, and worse, and it will be your fault.

Okay, so that's it, right?

I'm here, I want to work with Labour.

I'm sorry if I've been

disrespectful in the past, you know.

I speak with my heart sometimes.

I'm worried about the future of this country.

I know I need the political parties to help me.

I will be here to speak to you

when you guys want to work with us.

People out there who say I should forget Labour and I

should work with the Greens, I'll be here, you know.

I'll be speaking to the Greens, I am speaking

to the Greens, I am speaking to Zach Polansky.

I don't rule anybody out, you know.

Politics is not football.

This is serious.

This is your life, this is your kids, your grandkids.

Can they buy a house?

Can they afford a family?

This is too serious to say, "I only like this

guy, I only like that guy." I will work with

whoever I need to work with to make this happen.

But look, if we don't win Labour and Reform come in,

we keep fighting, we don't give up.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

And I want to finish this on a quote which

I've used before on this channel, but since it is a

quote from a somewhat legendary Labour MP, I thought

I would use it again as an olive branch to the Labour

Party, who I've said a million times I'm willing

to work with to make this country better, which is

a Tony Benn's quote that, "There is no final victory

and no final defeat, only the same battle to be

fought again and again and again. So toughen up,

bloody toughen up."

I think that's how it goes

Look, thank very much, for all your support.

I know it's a tough time but we keep fighting.

I'll keep fighting if you do.

Good luck.

Tax wealth not work.

Thank you.