Owning one's own home is part of British national identity. It is something successive generations have aimed for and believe they have a right to achieve. Despite this, today it is becoming more of an aspiration which is moving further from the grasp of the vast majority of young people.
Owning one's own home is not the desire or case across much of Europe. In many countries renting a property is considered by many the most expedient way to live. Nonetheless, 'an Englishman's home is his castle', and it is therefore incumbent upon the Government to ensure that owning a property is an obtainable dream.
But getting a foot on the first rung of the property ladder is now not so much a dream as a pipe dream for so many young people up and down the country. Indeed, the idea to most people of my age - mid 20s - of owning their own home is laughable. Despite having what I consider to be a very healthy number of friends, only one married couple have their own property. And they had to fight tooth and nail for it, despite them both being on very good salaries.
This, in my opinion, simply will not do. We have heard the Prime Minister goad the unions, price-up our forests, tinker with our NHS and, more recently, react to the mess of the phone hacking scandal, but we have heard him say next to nothing in regard to the shortage of housing - one of the main concerns facing young people.
The main reason for the housing crisis is that, over decades, consecutive governments have not built enough of them. But while a lack of house building is the main culprit it would be simplistic, naive and plain wrong to assume it was the only one. It is my belief that the growing culture of owning a second home, and sometimes a third home, is also having a detrimental effect upon the ability of the young to buy their first.
This is a sensitive issue, because an Englishman's right (and more latterly, in historical terms, an Englishwoman's right) to acquire property is a historical and jealously-held one. John Locke, the father of British liberalism and author of Two Treatise of Government, argued very strongly that the ownership of property was a natural right and such ownership was derived from one's labour. To précis: if you have worked for it you have a right to enjoy it.
This thinking is still very much in vogue today with right wing politicians, but I firmly believe it needs to change. And so, too, would Locke. Unlike right wing, small state conservatives and libertarians today, Locke believed there was a limit to one's right to own property. In a nuance to his political thought that has so conveniently escaped so many of the wealthy nowadays, Locke argued that man's capacity to produce should not outweigh his capacity to consume. In essence, the fruits of one's labour have to be efficiently consumed; otherwise it is an offence to nature.
And it is as a result of my empathising with Locke's thinking that I believe drastic measures now need to be taken. I think it is unsustainable and inherently unfair that while some people may enjoy the use of two, three, or more houses, so many young people cannot afford one. Moreover, by owning more houses it reduces supply and therefore increases the value of the remaining stock.
Therefore, I suggest new legislation be brought in to stipulate that one can only own a second property if it is used a minimum of six weeks per year, with much tighter controls on the ownership of third and subsequent properties.
I do not propose that second homes be outlawed altogether, because I believe it would unduly attack aspiration and harm the quality of life of too many people. Indeed, one has to remember that it is not just millionaires who own second homes. My uncle, for example, owned a flat on the south coast for many years. He and his wife were both teachers, who had inherited little, but had worked very hard for what they had. They spent many joyful, relaxing weekends at that flat and they thoroughly deserved it and so too do many others in a similar position.
So, as with all good legislation, a balance needs to be achieved. Therefore, I reiterate my call - ban second homes unless they are put to good use and occupied for a minimum of six weeks per year. This, I believe, would strike the correct balance between freeing-up properties for young people to make their own, while also respecting the rights of older, more affluent people to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
It is a whole different debate, but it is also worth considering the fact that if second homes are used fleetingly, areas can turn into ghost towns and local businesses can suffer a loss of trade. This is a fate which has already befallen many picturesque little villages in the West Country, for example.
Going forward, the Government needs to tackle, head on, the plight faced by millions of young people - not being able to envisage owning their own home. And for the naysayers amongst you, I say this - if good progress is made in relation to this issue there is no reason why the legislation could not be revisited.