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.
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.
That’s why appropriate incentives need to be introduced that make building the least painful option, ie absolutely massive swingeing taxes on undeveloped lots.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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 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.)
Kristian is always cooking!
Kristian is the Heart of IEA.
The best mind is the organization.
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.
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.
Just so, housing designed by a cabal of developers and politicians is not going to solve for children and community
That’s why appropriate incentives need to be introduced that make building the least painful option, ie absolutely massive swingeing taxes on undeveloped lots.
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.
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.
And then there's Brexit to make it all significantly worse
A good conversation as usual: thoughtful, incisive and focused on long-term issues. Exactly what the IEA should be doing.
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.
Move on
@ Read what I said again, I don't need to.
@@Casper-we3dq Move on, nobody cares
@@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!
@@Casper-we3dq those millions are 14% of the electorate. Irrelevant.
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.
That's net immigration.
They expect 5.4 million arrivals and 2.5 million departures.
The 2.9 million require 1.2 million homes.
Nobody cares
flats prices are going down what is the point of building new when materials costs have doubled
@@piotrwojdelko1150 why is a pole here
This guy has a lovely effective communication style.. Naturally and enjoyably camp , rather than some kind of one-man activist festival.
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.
Is this a Corrupt think tank?
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
Not corrupt just extremely biased towards "free market policies" which basically means they only look out for the interests of rich people.
@@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.)
Bullshit.