Skip to content

I watched Gary Stevenson’s Channel 4 documentary, How to Get Filthy Rich With Gary Stevenson, last night. I have a recommendation for you. It is that you do not waste your time.

This programme is deeply embarrassing. Gary shows himself quite unable to make the argument he sets out to deliver and, in the process, undermines the case for any form of increase in tax on wealth by failing to win any of the arguments with any of the people that he interviews, whilst emoting extensively, blubbing occasionally, proving himself to be all heart and no head, and someone lacking the expertise needed to make his case.

Well, OK.

My conclusion? It is the same as that which I supplied to Channel 4 when they asked me whether I thought they should make this programme before it was commissioned. I told them that if they wanted to make a programme on the subject, they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.

I never heard back from them thereafter, and that does not worry me.

Ah.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Andrew C
Andrew C
1 month ago

“My conclusion? It is the same as that which I supplied to Channel 4 when they asked me whether I thought they should make this programme”

Does he seriously expect us to believe that Channel 4 consulted him?

Martin Near The M25
Martin Near The M25
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew C

I bet the newsreaders talk directly to him every night.

Henry Crun
Henry Crun
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew C

Yeah, they run all their program commissioning ideas past Professor Kartoffel dontcha know.

Grikath
Grikath
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew C

They actually did. As part of a wider survey of Experts™ from the “Influencer” sphere to see whether the idea for the programme had merit and whether it *might* be commercially viable.

So not because he was the Sage of Ely, but simply because he is one of the people ventilating his ablutions on a subject in the Public Sphere.

BraveFart
BraveFart
1 month ago

Diddums didn’t get the gig with Channel 4 – the familiar pattern repeats itself, doesn’t it?

No-one maintains a personal or work relationship for long with Murphy. And many do not follow up their first contact with him.

Is there, do you think, a lesson that could be learned here, if one were a reasonable man?

That one is a repellent, sociopathic, irascible and intolerant bore? Who has by now probably started to smell of fish.

Martin Near The M25
Martin Near The M25
1 month ago
Reply to  BraveFart

Stevenson comes across as a fairly unpleasant character in his own right. Nowhere near the master of course.,

Deveril
Deveril
1 month ago

Looters and moochers.

A hive of villainy and scum.

Van_Patten
Van_Patten
1 month ago
Reply to  Deveril

You beat me to the punch!! I was thinking exactly that! ‘These aren’t the tax experts you’re looking for!’ KEK

Van_Patten
Van_Patten
1 month ago

In other Ely related news – he has confirmed his status as one of the leading anti-semites in the UK.

He did not apologise for Labour’s support, explicit or implicit, for Israel during the early months of the war.

Which implies therefore that you, explicitly or implicitly support the other side of the conflict – that would be Hamas. So you are a terrorist. Good to see you admit it.

He did not apologise for Labour’s failure to oppose the siege of Gaza.

A siege that could have been lifted overnight had Egypt or Jordan been willing to take Gazan civilians – one wonders why they didn’t? Any idea?

He did not apologise for Labour’s failure to call for a ceasefire immediately.

A ceasefire that would have been impossible for any leader in Israel to offer at that stage with the greatest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the holocaust – a loss of life you seem to , implicitly or explicitly, approve of

He did not apologise for the tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths that occurred while Labour maintained its initial position.

I’m no fan of Burnham taking over from the worst government in British history unopposed but why should he apologize – are you implying he’s some sort of accessory – are you that insane?

He did not apologise for Labour’s repeated refusal to describe Israeli actions in stronger legal or moral terms by calling its actions a genocide, which he still will not do.

Because to call it such would be inherently libellous – and would demonstrate profound and deep ignorance – which is your stock in trade

He did not apologise for Labour’s reluctance to recognise Palestine until very late in the conflict.

Again your recognition is irrelevant – Palestine is an entirely artificial construct with no basis in reality. Trying to make it so doesn’t make it legit.

He did not apologise for Labour MPs and members who were disciplined or marginalised after speaking out on Gaza.

He felt Hamas sympathizers shouldn’t be encouraged – that seems pretty sensible to me.

He did not apologise to Britain’s Muslim communities, many of whom felt abandoned by Labour

Many of whom explicitly support the murder of every Jew in the world. You approve of genocide in that instance it would seem?

He did not apologise for Labour’s loss of moral authority on questions of international law.

He didn’t apologize for the criminal acts committed by Starmer in the last 24 months either but we can’t always get what we want.

He did not apologise for continuing British military or diplomatic support that critics argue enabled Israeli military operations.

Because Israel remains an key ally in the region – and one which cultivating good relations with makes sense. Rather than pandering to a deeply regressive and reactionary faith which discriminates against non-adherents and wants women subjugated and homosexuals murdered

That is not good enough, not by a very long way, I say.

Your posing as a paragon morality, is, if that’s at all possible even more odious than your masquerading as an expert on economics and tax.

I can only echo the conclusion of the great BF – a truly odious, utterly repellent c%$^ who, at least for me, represents the pinnacle of evil.

dearieme
dearieme
1 month ago
Reply to  Van_Patten

Palestine is an entirely artificial construct” So is almost every other country in the world.

Gamecock
Gamecock
1 month ago
Reply to  dearieme

Artificially constructed. Systematically maintained.

john77
john77
1 month ago
Reply to  dearieme

Iceland, or Jamaica or Madagascar or …
But Palestine is not just an entirely artificial construct – it is an imaginary one. There is no state of Palestine; there is no government accepted, let alone appointed, by the people within the imaginary borders. There is a terrorist organisation (that the Mafia would disown as not meeting their standards) claiming control and several other small terrorist organisation with actual control of small fiefdoms.
Hamas wants control of Jerusalem: Gerry Adams will control London before that happens.

dearieme
dearieme
1 month ago
Reply to  john77

Jamaica is just one island in an archipelago – so it’s essentially an artificial country, separate because it was a British possession rather than a Spanish one.

Iceland is a better case but even there the population’s ancestors expelled the previous inhabitants.

As for Madagascar that too would be a decent case if the original Malay inhabitants had kept it for themselves. But they let in (or slaved in?) lots of Bantu which weakens the case.

So: “almost every other country” is right.

Van_Patten
Van_Patten
1 month ago

Also from the comments:

Richard Murphy says:
July 10 2026 at 11:26am

There is an exercise going on here this morning on this idea…..
James, and pout intern(sic) , Sam are hard at work
We are separating text and image generation to make sure things like this are right

He’s got an ‘intern’? Ye Gods….

Sam Jones
Sam Jones
1 month ago
Reply to  Van_Patten

I suspect a lot of his blog is now written by his sons. ‘Debate Ammunition’, ‘My view on…’, ‘Glossary entry’, all seem to be cut and pastes of his previous work, probably using AI.

Interested
Interested
1 month ago

I’m in the unfortunate position of having to agree with both Murphy and the Guardian, at least in respect of their reviews of this wanker and his televised bag of shite.

The first is that Stevenson is not an appealing presenter. He has an adolescent bullishness about him that comes across badly on screen, raising a sort of fight-or-flight response in the viewer instead of encouraging engagement. The strident idealism that infuses his speech and style is hard enough to take from the young, where it at least belongs, but it sits less well on a 39-year-old – adults should have the confidence, the experience and the wisdom that offers more.

The second is that he is outdone and undone by almost all of his interviewees.

rhoda klapp
rhoda klapp
1 month ago
Reply to  Interested

Such a pity that the Guardian’s style guide does not allow the word gobshite, twould have saved much ink and effort.

Agammamon
Agammamon
1 month ago
Norman
Norman
1 month ago

Stevenson has always struck me as an attention-seeking cock so I’ve paid him no attention. But I thought his schtick was that he was the hard-bitten trader who knows how things work from the inside. To then reveal that he’s actually a 39-year old girly sentimental idealist may be a re-brand too far.

Last edited 1 month ago by Norman
jgh
jgh
1 month ago

I told them … they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.

And they took his advice! He must be so proud. 🙂

Chris Miller
Chris Miller
1 month ago

Gary shows himself quite unable to make the argument he sets out to deliver and, in the process, undermines the case for any form of increase in tax on wealth by failing to win any of the arguments

And that’s my speciality! 🙁

Mr Womby
Mr Womby
1 month ago

In an alternate universe, Professor Spud actually appeared on the show instead of Gazza and proceeded to make exactly the same arguments.

Hallowed Be
Hallowed Be
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Womby

Gary “we need a wealth tax or we’re all doomed doomed i tell yer.”

Richard. “Government can never run out of money (so long as they employ me) and candidly i’m always right so don’t fret so much my lad,”

Gary “Inequality will get us all in the end, yer mark my words”

Richard ” you neither have the academic accounting training, real life provision of accounting services to small business experience, the raw brute intelligence, the requisite elocution nor candidly the good looks to understand taxation matters. Neither, i might add, do you live in Ely or married to a Doctor”

Gary “I’ve gambled millions of other peoples money on the markets and was right”

Richard ” Gambled?,Markets! Undeniable proof of your neoliberalism. We Spend, Tax and Print. If you knew anything about double entry book keeping or had taught political economy in one of the top 900 higher education institutions in the country you’d know that but you don’t. ”

Gary: I did graduate from LSE and Cambridge in economics.

Richard: Gary we’ve been through this. In order to truly understand economics at a deep level you need to do it for a week or two then drop out and do something else. Furthermore if you weren’t taught by me or at a push Steve Keen, you learned total rubbish. Look it’s not your fault, subscribe to my youtube channel and we’ll get you up to speed in no time. 300k subs can’t be wrong. You may also like and comment, but beware any neoliberalistic utterings i will come down upon from a great height.

Gary Err i have 1.6m subscribers on my channel.

Richard: (going pink). i will be writing to the Crown Prince Andy Burnham to address this outrageous inequality as a matter of national urgency.

Gary- Twat.

Swannypol
Swannypol
1 month ago

“they should commission it from somebody who knew about economics, tax, and the way government finance worked.

I never heard back from them”

To be fair, Spud did ask them not to contact him.

Tim would have been a great choice though.

24
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x