Its unlikely that housing policy will be central to the imminent

general election campaign, probably to be lost in a blizzard of

figures relating to immigration and promised about the NHS. But
housing policy is far too important an issue and affects too many
people to be ignored entirely.
The recent announcement by the prime minister to double the
number of affordable new homes to 200,000 along with a 20%
discount for first time buyers under the age of 40 is a bold claim.
That said, before the other parties get into a numerical bidding war
for positive headlines, its worth reflecting on the current position to
bring a little realism back into the debate.
The term housing crisis is a popular one with politicians and the
media alike. While both are prone to regular hyperbole when the
situation suits; a cursory glance at the numbers suggests that on
this issue, there is some substance behind the headlines.
Take home ownership amongst the age group 25-34. In 2003 the
percentage of that age group who owned their own home (albeit via
a mortgage) approached two-thirds, by 2014 that number had
dropped to just 36%. The combined effects of rising prices,
particularly apparent in London and the South East, combined with
much more constrained lending criteria in the aftermath of 2007
crash has put the notion of home ownership beyond the means of
many. The somewhat predictable effect of this is that the
percentage of that same age group which now rent from private
landlords is nearly 50%. Of course renting is not a bad thing, per se,
but the numbers have shifted so dramatically and in such a short
space of time so as to distort the market dramatically, meaning that
the capital for the much-needed new homes promised by the
Conservatives will be more difficult to release based on a much
reduced ability to secure the finance with which to pay for them.
The promises of politicians are one thing; the statistics quite
another.
As Campbell Robb of the housing charity shelter recently argued this
trend cannot go on. Lack of affordability at one end of the sector
has a pernicious affect on the rest; if young people cannot get on
the housing ladder and start to build equity, then those further up
will have no one to sell to. Over time, the danger is that we will be
left with an over preponderance of owners who have paid off their
mortgages sitting on huge assets, but with insufficient activity
beneath, further exacerbating undersupply.
Despite some progress, it is apparent from the latest figures that
whatever progress has been made is not enough, or perhaps that
societal and economic changes are outstripping progress; in indeed
perhaps most accurately, a combination of both of these factors.

The upcoming election is an opportunity to reassess and reset

commitment; the vague promises of previous elections must not be
repeated.
Perhaps this is a time to under promise and over deliver rather than
making wild and exaggerated claims on overall numbers.
Building on what already exists, with a commitment to further
unlocking some of the longstanding problems associated with land
availability, planning and importantly (but often overlooked) public
opinion would make a meaningful rather than unrealistic
contribution to dealing with this challenge over the course of the
next parliament.