The Topic

When it comes to talking about home ownership in this country it quickly divides in to the "have's" and "have not's." According to the OECD fewer than half of low to middle income families are now able to afford to buy a house and some campaigners estimate that, by 2020, families earning the National Living Wage would be unable to afford to buy homes in 98 per cent of the country.

The answer, according to many, is radical deregulation of the planning laws and building on the greenbelt. 8 million new family homes could be built if just 2% of the greenbelt was handed over to developers. To those threatened with the prospect of bulldozers arriving in a field near their home, it will mean urban sprawl and the destruction of large swathes of natural countryside so that builders can make a quick profit.

Economists argue that when the greenbelt was created in 1955 it arbitrarily distorted the market for building land. But the current housing crisis is about moral issues too and in such a polarising debate it's vital that we're able to identify them to get the root of the issue. How do we draw the line between legitimate self-interest and Luddite nimbyism? People talk a lot about inter-generational justice, but do we have an absolute moral duty to provide for the next generation whatever the cost? How do we choose between conflicting moral goods? We all love a beautiful pastoral scene, but does the physical landscape have a moral value beyond how it can be used in the service of mankind? Obviously, having somewhere to live is a fundamental need, but is home ownership a moral good and even a human right?

“ For my generation, home ownership has been a one-way ticket to prosperity. Some have made more from their houses than from a lifetime of work. For the generation that form our audience here at Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, it will likely be an increasingly impossible dream.

House prices have tripled in the last 20 years. If general inflation had increased since 1971 at the same rate as house prices, a chicken would cost £51. There are many reasons for this, but the most important one is the shortage of building land. Small island, crowded at this end, tight building regulations, and the green belt - preserved with the best of intentions to stop urban sprawl, protect our beautiful countryside. But shortage of building land means fewer homes get built. Short supply, increasing demand, higher prices.

70% of the cost of a new home is in the land it stands on. It was less than 25% when I was your age. No wonder there's a growing clamor to unlock the green belt. No wonder there is such vested interest to protect it.

The moral argument is much deeper and more complicated than drawing a line between environmental protection and selfish NIMBYism. Does our physical landscape have a moral value beyond what use it can be put to by humans? What about intergenerational justice? Do we have an absolute moral obligation to provide for the next generation, whatever the consequences? And provide what, by the way? Adequate shelter may be a basic human right, but is home ownership? Arguably, more successful countries, like Switzerland and Germany, prefer to rent. Is home ownership a moral good at all, or merely the symbol of a society whose only moral is materialism? ”

Argument Map

This is the complete map of the debate, showing over 700 utterances, but not showing the links between the to-and-fro of the dialogue and the arguments that were presented (showing everything leads to diagram spaghetti!). To drill down and look at the detail, have a look at the corpus or some of the individual maps created in the analysis tool OVA+. Use the mouse to navigate the map.