We are living in a society which has been carefully encouraged to view stable property prices as a bad thing. If your property doesn’t rise in value between breakfast and lunch well, there must be a problem, mustn’t there? It’s bad for the economy, isn’t it?

The British people have been conned ever since the 12th century into thinking that the man referred to in the phrase ‘An Englishman’s home is is his castle’ refers to the common man.

This is not true- a mortgage on a three bed semi in Carshalton does not make a man a Baron- and the Barons were the only ones who benefitted from the Magna Carta.

I would contend that in law prior to the early 19th century Inclosure (Enclosure) Acts the common man had more rights than he does now.

Common land, with the right to graze animals upon it disappeared from rural villages as a result of the foul Enclosure Acts and thereby made the commoner totally dependant for a living once again on the local landowner. Hardly in keeping with the Enlightenment movement… it was a subtle reintroduction of serfdom.

Another thought- in the rental market I’ve been seeing reports of deposits being withheld from students by unscrupulous landlords and these reports have been commonplace for decades. Those who legislate in Britain never seem keen to attend to this problem- one wonders why?

The British property rental market is under-regulated, which benefits the unscrupulous landlord. Many MPs and members of the House of Commons are private landlords.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. But I do know how to analyse dynamics and when the dynamics start to bend around regulatory corners I know its because there is something causing the dynamics to bend that way. And with British land and property regulation in general it doesn’t take long to find the silent, landed Rump Parliament that determines the lifestyle the average Briton can afford.