Can anyone explain to me please:

I totally agree ethelbags1 I think succesive governments are guilty of working backwards and instead of forcing companies out of the South East and therfore easing the housing/services shortages they just keep on encouraging London growth with the need for ever more housing, faster trains, more overcrowded road networks etc. I wonder how overstretched and under resourced London and the South East would have to be before the lightbulb would switch on and someone might actually realise that spreading the work around the country might encourage growth in other areas and therefore ease the overcrowding and spread the wealth around a little?

I agree with companies etc moving away from SE. Lovely parts of the country to live - beautiful countryside- good transport links - lovely people - just the work missing! Joined up thinking maybe required and probably more older ladies in the government!!

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/may/21/six-reasons-to-build-on-green-belt

My feeling is that treating the Green Belt as sacrosanct is one of the main reasons why land prices, and therefore house prices, are so high. British house prices have grown faster over the past 40 years than in any other major economy. But new homes become smaller and smaller because of the soaring cost of land.

Much of Green Belt land is not particularly attractive and is not accessible to the public.

The Green Belt has pushed housing development further out into rural areas, thus requiring people to commute longer distances.

Some, like Boris Johnson, say that more land within the cities should be used for housing but this means that parks, playgrounds and playing fields are likely to be sacrificed.

When people are asked what percentage of England is built on, most of them think it is in the region of 50% - it is actually 10.6%, and that includes gardens, parks, allotments and sports pitches. Surrey has more land devoted to golf courses than housing.

England has a severe housing crisis, at its worst in London and the south-east – the area that also has the most Green Belt land. In Greater London, building on just a quarter of it would provide over a million homes.

The Green Belt restricts supply and forces up land and house prices. Cities that are heavily constrained by the Green Belt such as Oxford, London and Cambridge have some of the most unaffordable homes in the country. Using public money to help first time buyers has fuelled demand but has not addressed the issue of supply - therefore pushing up property prices even further.

Can I invite you Printmiss to get a plane from Luton that heads across to Waterford as I have done several times. You won't fly over any towns or cities at all - just a few distant glimpses to the south maybe of cities along the M4. This overcrowded island is a myth.
People in the SE complain about overcrowding but they also, generally, benefit from living in a very affluent area where there are lots of jobs.

I think that the Southeast has problems because of the culture of many people living south of Watford! Some seem to think that anything north of there is all 'flat 'ats and braces'. Its not, some of us are quite civilised! . I am speaking as someone who has lived in different areas and therefore feel qualified to have my opinion.

There is all the discussion about where to put a new airport but why not Birmingham? It is the centre of the country and has excellent access. No, it won't happen because all the decision makers are London-centric. Many felt that the new National Football Stadium should be built in the middle of the country but it was built in London. The same for the Millenium Dome, Birmingham put it a well thought out bid but it was built somewhere difficult to get to and was not very successful. No, I don't live in Brum but I do like visiting it.

I think housing policy dictates that sites over a certain size have to have mixed housing which is excellent. That is what has happened here but it has not brought in enough people for the jobs available. We have 1.1% unemployment and far more people come into our town to work than live here.

Market forces pretty much dictate house prices and salaries so I don't suppose it makes a huge amount of difference where you live as a general rule. If those in the southeast saw what their money would buy in other areas of the country and got over their reluctance to come and see how lovely we all are they might be pleasantly surprised. But do we want them? There are a lot of people living here who have lived in London and don't want to go back!

As a parent of one who is getting divorced I agree that many extra homes are needed because couples split and they have to be small and cheap as only one salary is available.

I am sure you are right Jessm. I speak from personal experience having lived in the south east all my life, and can only speak for the area in which I live, (and love). I have seen land which was supposed to be green-belt, swallowed up by housing, and towns gradually being joined together with the ever encroaching roads which have to be built to accommodate this. We are not all affluent in this part of the world, and yes the job situation is, I believe better than it was, but seasonal of course, and we pay the price.

Don't knock the north of England, we have big companies here. DS left London and bought a big house with what he sold his flat for. For those qualified there are jobs, no member of my family or any friend has ever been unemployed. I know several people who relocated from the south east to Northumbrian villages and commute, not on a daily basis though.

My daughter considers herself to be fortunate to at last have a job again paying her similar salary to which she had gradually worked up to over a number of years - the fact that the job is in a very nice town and she can walk everywhere and the most wonderful countryside is on her doorstep is an added bonus.

I wonder, how many second homes are there that are unoccupied most of the time

They're building about 1600 new houses in the small town where I live. Think the population was only about 6000 to begin with so that's a huge percentage.

Nonnie There are more things to be considered than the price of houses. Most people have roots in a particular area - friends, family, a support network - and may feel that those considerations are important too. There will always be people who strike out on their own and adapt well to any environment - good luck to them, but it's not for everyone.

When we lived in Blackburn, I was very homesick for London. I missed all our friends and my family and, although I made some good friends at work, as a mixed race family we felt very isolated. I remember getting into conversation with a young woman who was visiting her family in Blackburn. She had moved with her husband and child to somewhere in the south-east (Berkshire I think) and she said how much she missed living in Blackburn and that as soon as they could they would move back.

By the way, calling people "spoiled southerners" as someone did on this thread doesn't sound very friendly to me. Not everybody living in the south leads a life of luxury. Houses are very expensive and renting is correspondingly expensive, with many people paying a huge proportion of their income just for somewhere to live.

I agree that London and the home counties are too dominant and that there should be more equality of distribution of resources and that the situation where the City of London with its financial sector has become the "powerhouse" of the UK is dangerous. We are now far too reliant on the financial sector. Small and medium sized businesses that produce things rather than provide services are what we need but there seems little political will to achieve this.

I agree re "spoiled southerners" Eloethan, not helpful at all. My children have jobs in London, both pay hefty amounts in fares and rent. It's all very well saying there is plenty of room in the rest of the country, particularly Scotland, where I believe the population is only 5 million, but people are governed by where there job is, and as you say their support network. Successive governments have lagged behind in house building for years, I believe I read that the McMillan government built something in the region of 400,000 council houses and that was before we had the level of immigration that we face today. The old adage, Pint and quart pot spring to mind.

should have typed "their" job not there.

Isn't it about time our Parliament was relocated to a less southern location, somewhere more central?
If that were to happen, I imagine that it would help encourage some larger businesses to do the same and go some way towards reducing the dominance of London and the South-East.

As long as a suitable transport infrastructure was made a priority and put in place early on, it would then make good sense for most of the much-needed new houses to be built further north, where they could be spread out widely enough to have a much smaller impact on existing communities than would be the case in the already overcrowded south.

While we were at it, we could make sure that the new parliament buildings included basic bed-sit-type accommodation for every single MP, so doing away with the need for expensive second homes or hotel accommodation.

Well, I can dream, can't I

I'll join your dream MamaCaz

I nominate Liverpool. It could do with the business.