To solve the housing crisis, parties must be willing to take some electoral pain

A renter buying an average first home in London needs more than £65,000 in savings and a salary of £120,000.

- Rachel Wolf

The average renter has about nine grand in savings and earns less than £30,000, according to a Public First report.

The numbers are absurd to type. Of course the only rescue package is the bank of mum and dad; without that, less than one in 20 young Londoners can buy a first home. And when I say young, I mean under 45.

This is a catastrophe. We rightly bemoan the inability of Britain to build anything - hospitals, train lines, nuclear power stations – but it is with housing that you see the clearest accretion of misery. Housing is now more unaffordable than at any time since the 1870s.

The situation is becoming much worse. The number of new homes started in London has dropped 75% in the past year. Just over 1,000 were begun in the first quarter of the year – one-twentieth of the government's target, which was already much lower than needed to keep up with rising housing demand.

A fifth of the government's parliamentary time is gone, housing takes years to build, and nothing is happening. This is not inevitable. In the 1930s we built well over 50,000 homes in London a year.

London deserves special attention. It is where much of the housing demand lies and affordability is worst. It is where people are most open to new housing. By building in London you could avoid the expansion of villages and small towns that cause such rage.

Why has housing collapsed?