Labour's Shocking New Housing Plan, Government Efficiency & Why Growth Stopped in 2008 | IEA Podcast

In this episode of the IEA Podcast, we analyse Angela Rayner's surprising new housing proposals, which include redefining "grey belt" land and changing how housing targets are calculated. Our panel discusses why these market-friendly reforms are coming from an unexpected source and whether they'll be enough to tackle Britain's housing crisis.
We then dive into economist Tyler Goodspeed's fascinating analysis of what's really holding back UK growth. While planning restrictions and energy costs play a role, Goodspeed highlights how post-2008 banking regulations have created a credit crunch for British businesses that helps explain the sudden drop in economic growth. The discussion explores why the US banking system, with its many smaller local banks, has proven more resilient.
The conversation wraps up with a look at the government's latest push for 5% efficiency savings across departments. Our panel examines whether these targets are realistic, how bureaucracies tend to respond to such demands, and the deeper challenges facing civil service reform - from pay compression to the difficulty of measuring productivity in the public sector.
We bring you a public affairs podcast with a difference. We want to get beyond the headlines and instead focus on the big ideas and foundational principles that matter to classical liberals.

[@tomburroughes9834]

A good conversation as usual: thoughtful, incisive and focused on long-term issues. Exactly what the IEA should be doing.

[@timwilliams9003]

None of the people in government or on this talk have ever worked for developers. I have and worked as senior advisor to government. The private sector will not respond to all this by building. Its model is wrecked. We need more diverse private sector business models in the market and a shedload of non market housing from government. end of.

[@iansinclair8905]

Just so, housing designed by a cabal of developers and politicians is not going to solve for children and community

[@rjScubaSki]

That’s why appropriate incentives need to be introduced that make building the least painful option, ie absolutely massive swingeing taxes on undeveloped lots.

[@jamesbendon6496]

Kristian is always cooking! Kristian is the Heart of IEA. The best mind is the organization.

[@jasonhaven7170]

That's AAVE.

[@DaveMorris-o9h]

900 or so homes a day in this country is a pipe dream, there are not enough skilled people to carry it out. Even if Labour somehow manage, which I doubt, to persuade even young people to take up a trade skill rather than IT the time required to train them will mean this one term government will be long gone. And that's not taking into account the number of days lost to rain etc .

[@christinemurray1444]

Immigration needs to be discouraged for low income people. Right now we're lagging by 4M housing units and the bigger problem is that this number keeps growing. The situation is desperate and it's completely destroying a generation much more deeply than most people imagine. The social changes to being unable to emancipate are huge.

[@thecrankster]

France also has easier access to trading with markets very close to it. The U.K. population which is further from major European markets has lesser opportunities to trade and so is poorer. Take Wales, North England, West Midlands, Cornwall. High transaction costs of trade. Lower trade. Poverty.

[@davidmanning7912]

And then there's Brexit to make it all significantly worse

[@andrejota1151]

I do hope that if we do have the housing revolution we build beautiful spacious houses. The UK has some of the ugliest housing in the modern West.

[@davideyres955]

Good luck with that. Developers will build what they can as cheaply as they can to maximise profits.

[@simonpapworth8974]

It's not just about 'housing growth ' which is and has been needed for decades. It's about enabling and incentivising growth in the right locations. My concern is that achieving the mandatory growth metric becomes the driving force, and this overrides due consideration around supporting infrastructure, in particular this applies to rural locations. In effect the target risks driving housing on a random basis, simply because it's more immediately deliverable on a given plot. The further out from existing infrastructure networks, the more costly it will be to provide said infrastructure. Who is going to pay for it? The developers won't give a toss, if they're forced to contribute, the will be passed on to the purchaser. From decades of work in economic development, I know that it's very difficult for certain local authorities and/or regions to secure adequate funding to pay for infrastructure, and too often decisions taken by successive governments look to the political, rather than economic CBA. This is where you over simplify the NIMBY objections, in many instances, it's not that local populations object to housing as such, but they have legitimate objections when housing is dumped into locations, where the infrastructure is already creaking, and as a result of a further influx of people, certain aspects, I.e. health provision actually breaks down and stops functioning. Of course home building needs to shared across urban and rural locations, but, the delivery of supporting infrastructure - health, education, transport, comms, access to centres of employment etc. Are all so much easier to extend or link in to, the closer you are to larger urban conurbations in the majority of instances. Hence the need to the get the balance right.

[@RichPober]

20:24 These % growth rates are impacted by the changing demographic of the UK. Since 2008 the Baby Boomers have begun to retire, with the peak of this cohort being 60 this year. They are dropping out of the workforce at present and are unlikely to ever return. Then we have the new people settling in the UK, bringing with them their own interests and ways of living that do not necessarily align with the businesses that have historically supported a static UK demographic. These changes in the population are impacting their spending power, which appears to be declining rapidly. Banks are correct to be cautious about lending money into a contracting economy, when that debt is unlikely to generate growth and is more likely to be unsustainable, i.e. the borrowers will not be able to pay it back. On top of declining demographics, the UK along with the rest of the world, is going through a transition is energy use. This has driven up costs for businesses to such an extent that they are no longer viable. So debt driven growth in this economic climate is not the answer. Growth will come from investing in our people first, so that they can be employable and in turn form families and grow the nation. The world over seems to have become corporatised and a harsh environment for ordinary people to exist in.

[@RenegadeContext]

You do need to get councils to approve more numbers but you also absolutely have to spread it out. Turning small villages into towns by doubling the population is not fair on the locals. The responsibility has to be shared out over greater areas

[@Casper-we3dq]

I feel sorry for those who paid extra for their homes to live in the countryside only to find themselves amid urban sprawl. Unfortunately, they are the victims of the mass immigration policies implemented by successive governments since 1997. We now need houses, but many people who could see the issues that mass immigration would cause are suffering as a result of it. Environmentalists are aggressive advocates of saving the environment but are also often the people who celebrate mass immigration and demand houses built all over the environment. I often wonder if their true motives are a desire to protect the countryside and the environment, and inside is something else dressed up as something noble.

[@jasonhaven7170]

Move on

[@Casper-we3dq]

@ Read what I said again, I don't need to.

[@jasonhaven7170]

@@Casper-we3dq Move on, nobody cares

[@Casper-we3dq]

@@jasonhaven7170 What a ridiculous comment. You don't care, because that's who you are, but fortunately you don't speak for everybody and millions of people aren't like you and do care!

[@jasonhaven7170]

@@Casper-we3dq those millions are 14% of the electorate. Irrelevant.

[@davidcull9181]

GROWTH also is sue to high taxes - Investors moving to better enviroments such as the usa - delpletion of the british stock market - too many regulations. we ned to create a more friendly business environment and lower taxes to incentivise consumer spending

[@m0o0n0i0r]

The problem with videos like this is they dont do the basic math. Labour want to build 1.5 mil houses over 4.5 year. Thats about 913 homes per day without any breaks in work. Not going to happen IMO. We dont even have that many skilled trade people to deliver.

[@WinstonFahrenheit]

There is enough housing in this country, the problems are that it's all in the wrong places with terrible transport links and inflexible working patters, housing is overpriced, and there is mass uncontrolled migration.

[@chriswest3952]

Current thinking on the housing market is completely wrong. It is entirely focused on supply. No -one looks at demand. Lazy thinking assumes that if you build more houses then ordinary people will be able to buy. People conveiently overlook the fact that there are about 1 million empty properties (ONS). if more houses are built, then these will be bought as investments and rented out because the landlords are able to out compete owner-occupiers wanting to buy.. this just drives house price inflation and bank profits, nothing more. In order to fix the housing market a basket of measues need to be implemented.: council housing to compete with private landlords, tax on rentall income, tax on empty properties, making banks liable for lending failures. Until houses are made much less profitable as an investment, new owner-occupiers will never be able to compete with investors. Owner occupiers can only benefit from lower house prices. Investors benefit from increasing house prices, and unfortunately the entire system is geared towards ever increasing prices. Relaxing lending regulations will only make things worse.

[@arthur1670]

33:55 unless your selling a house … what percentage of the population has more than £85,000 in a bank account ?

[@goydivision]

This guy has a lovely effective communication style.. Naturally and enjoyably camp , rather than some kind of one-man activist festival.

[@Phillip_Reese]

Make it without apartheid, all types.

[@photoman3579]

Thank God for President Trump, who is stopping buying their oil !

[@advocate1563]

Ah the woman who says we have more than enough houses but we need to build 1.5m homes over the countryside; without any supposed impact of her govt's planned 2.9m immigrants by 2029. Well done Trevor Phillips for exposing the stupidity of Rayner - we all knew she was thick, but amusing to see her exposed to the media glare.

[@stephfoxwell4620]

That's net immigration. They expect 5.4 million arrivals and 2.5 million departures. The 2.9 million require 1.2 million homes.

[@jasonhaven7170]

Nobody cares

[@piotrwojdelko1150]

flats prices are going down what is the point of building new when materials costs have doubled

[@jasonhaven7170]

@@piotrwojdelko1150 why is a pole here

[@arthur1670]

Don’t build housing that’s going to flood in a flood plain tho

[@davideyres955]

This is an idiotic plan. It’s not a question of nimbyisim. What people object to is the vast amount of inappropriate housing for the massive profits developers can squeeze out. In my area the traffic has increased massively because it massive house building. I can’t get a GPs appointment, these are problems already caused by too many houses being built. This needs to be fixed before more housing is bulldozed over the green land, but it won’t. If you believe that houses being built will reduce house prices to a very significant amount you are imbeciles. You describe central government overriding local views which is entirely undemocratic. The green belt was classified because planners understood that massive urban sprawl creates huge social problems. Look at London or Manchester areas where stabbings are not even news anymore. Your example of driving licenses is idiotic. If you have a driving license then drive on pavements killing people’s then people do have business in that because it will effect their lives. What should be happening is they should have planned training academies in the northern areas and build new towns and cities in the north and good infrastructure links to the south. Balance them with a good deal of social housing and private housing and slow down housing sprawl in the south. Leaving it to the market will mean areas are ruined and why should people who have invested in their area have it destroyed to line the pockets of the private house builders.

[@Incognito-turnip]

Is this a Corrupt think tank?

[@frmcf]

Let's look at the evidence: • Vague but authoritative-sounding name - Check! • Claims 'charity' status and pays no tax - Check! • Opaque funding, but clear ties to tobacco, alcohol and oil industries - Check! • Office on Tufton Street - I'll let you guess

[@olivercadman3595]

Not corrupt just extremely biased towards "free market policies" which basically means they only look out for the interests of rich people.

[@tomburroughes9834]

​@@olivercadman3595 You really think that state central planning, steep taxes and and the rest of it generate a prosperous public? Well, we are under a socialist government, so you can get to test how well this all works. (Spoiler alert: it does not.)

[@brianarmstrong3731]

Bullshit.