The excessive cost of housing seems to be a blind spot all round. It would be hard to turn the clock back and make housing more affordable but something needs to be done to control house price inflation if the economy recovers. The rental sector needs better controls too. Both second home-owners inflating rural house prices or foreign investors pushing up prices and rents in London need to be stopped.

@1. Cherub: “It would be hard to turn the clock back and make housing more affordable but something needs to be done to control house price inflation if the economy recovers.”

If house purchase for a contemporary 30 year old is to be as affordable as 20 or 40 years ago, the conundrum is more than just ‘hard’. Perhaps UK should endure huge general price and wage inflation, or house prices should be hugely deflated. Both propositions are electorally unappealing and create massive collateral damage.

Somehow, some way, more homes have to be created — houses which ordinary people can afford to buy or rent — without creating a community of losers (people who have a home, for which they have not fully paid or which they perceive as an asset). Somehow, some way, some people have to acquire a home without others feeling that they have lost out.

Space for the creation of 200,000 homes per annum can be found. Even on our small islands, we can find the space; but not always in the compressed bit of the south east of England. There is a relationship between where people live and work that needs to be considered. Does UK undersell — often to itself — job creation outside SE England? Does centralisation exacerbate problems? Do we have a clue (eg mistakes learned from BBC move to Salford Quays) about how to decentralise?

@OP, Don Paskini: “Firstly, a recognition that we need to build more homes at a time when there is a lack of capacity – far fewer firms, fewer workers with skills and so on.”

I’m not sure about all of that. If there are fewer firms, look at trade contract rules in local and national government which deny opportunities to newer or small companies. Regarding fewer workers with skills, you know the answer to that, Don: employ ‘retired’ workers to improve the skills of younger ones. Enhancing the ability of workers may increase cost of a first employee contract, but on future ones the employer is winning.

I acknowledge that there are limitations in skill training; local authorities that relinquished employment of skilled workers and managers should not build council houses because council management does not know how to do it. But it bloody well should do.

targeted policies which will make this increase in supply possible – a ‘right to grow’ to stop Tory-run councils from vetoing new homes

How does this square with Labour’s intention to scrap the Coalition’s planning reforms?

“Local communities should decide where they want new homes and developments to go and then give their consent in the form of planning permission,” Mr Benn said. “It’s the difference between having a say and having it done to you.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10104786/Labour-would-scrap-the-Coalitions-planning-reforms-minister-indicates.html

Which is it? It’s basically a fact of life that all local communities oppose new development. If you’re putting local communities in charge, then you’re blocking new development. If you’re stopping local authorities from vetoing new development, then you’re not putting local communities in charge.

This is the thing that irks me about Labour at the moment. They cheerfully face both directions at once. Energy bills are too high! We need to de-carbon our energy! We’re not building enough houses! The Govt are riding rough-shod over local communities’ wishes!

Don, I think you miss the point of the Coalition’s policy “- spending billions on state-backed mortgage guarantees”

The policy is an unprincipled attempt to generate a feel-good factor ahead of the next general election.

By encouraging new entrants (generally, those that can’t raise a decent deposit, or afford the mortgage payments at historic interest rates) to the housing market will generate higher volumes of house sales, higher house prices, and for those 60% of us that are owner-occupiers a feeling that we’re a little better off. It also takes a large number of owner occupiers out of negative equity, again another, temporary, feel-good factor.

A more practical thing to do would have been to stop mortgage lenders lending to new buyers who don’t have a 30% deposit. The chances of that happening under any administration is nil.