I speak for the Conservatives in Basingstoke & Deane on 'Forward Planning' which includes the SE Plan, the Local Plan, housing and related matters.

Consultation on the South East Plan brought into wider focus a debate that rages in Council chambers across the South East. Amongst the verbiage about all sorts of other matters the questions that excite most attention are:

• how many houses should be built?
• where?
• what types?

and

• what to do about 'affordability'?

While not claiming to know all the answers to any of these, I do have some pretty clear views.

First, I think we in the South East are right to to oppose (as Basingstoke & Deane has done, echoing a similar decision by the South East Regional Assembly) a massive increase in house-building targets. I don't think it needs a PhD in economics to discern that Kate Barker's conclusion - 'the way to reduce the price is to increase the supply' - is a ridiculously simplistic answer to this deeply complex issue. For starters, even current levels of building are exhasuting our supplies of water and bringing congestion on our roads and railways, unnacceptable levels of pollution and the loss of the very qualities that make this such a good place to live. No thanks Mr Prescott!

Second, there is a serious Catch 22 in the proposition (from the South East Development Agency) that "companies need more staff, locally there is a shortage of skilled labour, therefore we must build houses so that people can move here from the rest of the UK and elsewhere". Plausible, yes. Sound economics? No. This was the basis on which the 19th century magnates built the great industrial cities and towns of the North - the very places that now have a surplus of labour (ie high unemployment), and a surplus of unwanted homes that local authorities are having to demolish. The world of industry and commerce now evolves more quickly than ever before and the most successful companies and industry sectors are the ones that are most footloose - able to shift their operations from one country to another in months rather than years or decades. Don't let's get caught in that trap. Security in our future prosperity will come from building up the skills of the workforce we already have, investing in better education for our children - the workforce of the future - and fostering enterprise, not from bringing in people who are - by definition - mobile enough to come here, and mobile enough to depart as quickly as they arrived.

Third, we have a known problem in the shortage of (in today's jargon) "affordable housing", which means houses for rent or sale at below local market prices - a comprehensive explanation would take several paragraphs, but this is the gist. Basingstoke & Deane has a long waiting list for 'socially rented' houses (I was born in a council house, but that is no longer the politically correct label!) and the list isn't getting shorter. Meanwhile my own children and other young people who are ready to spread their wings have to remain with their parents because their incomes won't stand the kinds of mortgages needed for even a small flat. Not clever when the parental home may be small and crowded, an atmosphere conducive to family rows and part of the reason why some young people choose to spend too much of their lives 'on the streets'. Again, the Government's current answer to this makes no sense - the idea that we can only build 'affordable' homes if we build a much larger number of 'market price' houses (ie unaffordable ones). A moments thought for the future shows the problem: if we increase the rate of building houses for sale in the open market, families move into them from other parts of the country (including from London, where they are now trying to stem the flow!) and their children in turn will add to the numbers of young people looking for affodable places to live. A vicious spiral. Again, no thanks Mr Prescott!

Now I'm not among those who say "leave it to the market" - an approach that can be just as daft in its own way as Ms Barker's "supply more and the prices will come down". But what I do know is that none of these simplistic, immediate "fixes" will do. What's needed here is a new and radical appraisal of "what is right for Basingstoke & Deane", followed by a sustained campaign to get the right answers adopted. This isn't - or at least shouldn't be - a party-political matter; we are all in this together. Of course we may well start with different views, but if we all listen to each other it won't do any harm to try to find concensus. Sadly, all we get at present is a knee-jerk reaction from our Labour colleagues, who automatically vote for as many houses as possible, supported by the LibDems - except as we approach an election, when the latter move rapidly towards that uncomfortable position on the fence.