There’s a ridiculous article in the Telegraph today. It clearly demonstrates how well-off Tory voters in the south-east of England regard the housing situation in Britain.
As some of the comments points out, the jobs available are to a large extent in or around London, so building houses elsewhere won’t solve the problem, and even if some greenfield sites are used, there’s still plenty of countryside left.
I remember that my mate Simon once told me that a colleague of his (a mathematician) had calculated that lots of England’s problems (house prices, congestion, water, pollution etc.) could be solved by moving the British parliament to the north of England. It’s sounds very tempting, but I’d like to see more details. For instance, does it matter whether it’s moved to York, Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle?