Time & Perspective Quote by John Prescott

Prescott’s question weaponizes “why can’t we” as a form of public shaming: if affordability, density, and brownfield building are so obviously sensible, then the only thing standing in the way is political cowardice, bad incentives, or both. It’s a classic New Labour-era move: present housing not as a culture war about “concreting over the countryside,” but as a managerial problem that yields to “a more intelligent policy.” The phrase flatters the listener into agreement while implicitly accusing opponents of being irrational or captured.

The triad is doing heavy rhetorical lifting. “Affordable” appeals to voters squeezed by rents and prices. “Higher densities” signals modern urban planning, fewer long commutes, more sustainable infrastructure. “Brownfield sites” is the moral alibi: build more, but don’t touch the pastoral postcard. Each clause pre-emptively answers a different veto player - first the public, then planners, then suburban conservationists.

The subtext is about Britain’s permanent housing deadlock: demand is national, but permission is local; the benefits are diffuse, the backlash is immediate. Prescott is also speaking from the era when government believed it could choreograph markets with targets, regeneration schemes, and planning reform. His question is less a request for ideas than a dare to abandon comforting scarcity. It implies that the crisis isn’t inevitable - it’s a choice maintained by a system that privileges incumbents, land values, and political risk-aversion over building enough homes in the places people actually need.