Cities like Manchester had seen home ownership levels fall from 72 per cent in 2003 to 58 per cent this year. They suggest that house price increases are outstripping incomes. Although for some it may be a lifestyle choice, for the majority it seems, restricted access to mortgage finance seems to prevent people getting on the housing ladder. So if easy access to credit isn’t driving up demand and neither are incomes, what is the problem?

Supply of housing stock is always seen as the root cause. If fewer homes are being built, then demand outstrips supply and prices rise – all classic economics. And on the face of it, house-building levels have contributed to the problem. The Independent recently published some interesting stats on this. They showed that when Harold Wilson was PM (1965–69) on average 351,008 new houses were built each year in England and Wales. Compare this to 2010–15, with 123,560 new homes built on an average year under David Cameron. The timeline is telling, Callaghan built more than Thatcher, who built more than Major, who built more than Blair, who built more than Brown who built more than Cameron did. Obviously, I mean saw homes built under their Premiership rather than building themselves. But perhaps, here is another telling picture.

Our good friend at CPA, Noble Francis, split the housebuilding into public v private. What he demonstrated is that from the 1950s to today, private completions have been between 100,000 and 200,000 a year. But public completions have nosedived. From 200,000 a year in the late 1960s to around 50,000 a year since 1980. That gap is one that is in the hands of politicians. And new homes being built is good for the economy. At a time of uncertainty post the EU vote, what better way is there of bolstering the economy across the UK ,by utilising historically low interest rates, to build new homes? Make them energy efficient, for buy or rent, and provide a real benefit to society.

Best wishes

Mike Foster, CE