Can anyone explain to me please:

I have actually been to Newcastle. I truly loved it!

It's the big businesses that need to move up North. But it won't happen. The fact that we are nearer to Europe probably makes a difference (business trips etc)

jingl I hereby invite you to visit Newcastle so I can show you why you are completely wrong in your assumption that 'no-one wants to live and work in the North of England'
We just keep fairly quiet about it because we don't want to be inundated with you southerners we're not given to bragging.

jing peel back the layers of the Conservative party and you will find that they are not so keen to limit immigration as you may like to think. I t suites them for a number of reasons to have a goodly number of migrants who will work for low wages. Their rhetoric will of course say what they think the voters want to hear, but look at their record.

With regard to land, brown field sites need much more exploiting and land banking needs tackling. Social housing is probably one of the main areas that will alleviate the problem as the line where housing is affordable is gradually creeping up the income scale.

soon why would a firm moving up North have to attract immigrant workers when people already in the North complain there are no jobs to be had?
Just wondered.

I agree with riverwalk- plenty of room here in the East Midlands

Ps some are on a brownfield site but most are on greenbelt land which has already been encroached.

It's not just houses, though, is it. It's roads, schools, hospitals, services, all the infrastructure that goes with more housing.

If I have been to the south-east recently I am aghast at the amount of traffic we encounter and I am always thankful to escape to our backwater again (although there are proposals for hundreds of new homes to be built near us with no mention of schools, etc).

The various articles I've read jings make the point that there is much more land available than we think - I assume the statisticians take into account land that would never be built on like parks, and forests, etc.

So even taking out those places still leaves a lot of land for houses - even in sparsely-populated areas there is a shortage of affordable housing.

Are you including the New Forest there Riverwalk? Hyde Park? Windsor Great Park?

Or farmers' fields? Woodlands?

91% undeveloped in the South East?

I agree about the living alone part.

I think that many more would choose to live in the North of England, if there were good jobs there.

But on the other hand, I know someone who works in a place that needs many skilled immigrants. But to get them, the firm has to be in or near London to attract them.
If say, the firm moved to Bath or York, or anywhere else at all in the country, they do not get people agreeing to come.
So London it has to be, purely for the address.

I understand that 91% of land is undeveloped so there's plenty of space for everyone, even in the crowded South East - we just need to build more houses.

They will slowly eat into the green belt.

What is the answer? It is the Southeast that suffers most. I sometimes wonder what is the point in the North of England when no one really seems to want to live and work there!

The ever expaning "European" Union doesn't help either. I, personally, think we are better off staying in for trade reasons, and to keep Europe a united front, but it does mean we have to accept immigration from poorer countries. David Cameron has been doing his damnest to change the rules regarding this and for that reason alone I hope to see another Conservative government so he can continue his efforts. Be careful who you vote for.

Also, tbh, I agree with Princess Anne when she said the huge rise in people living on their own has got a lot to do with the need for more houses.

Dont ask me. I no longer understand housing policy and housing in general in this country.