David Cameron famously quipped that he "would rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown". He was very deliberately trying to invoke the memory of one of her most electorally successful policies with his revival of Right to Buy at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.

His leader's speech last week promised to bring 'a new Tory housing revolution' of the magnitude of the Iron Lady's. However it is the other, more tangible, aim of creating 200,000 new affordable homes that has the potential to really transform our economic and social landscape – but a promise that he cannot keep if he carries on the present course.

The real 'children of Thatcher', those 21-31-year-olds born while she was in power, exactly make up the demographic that is most victimised by the housing crisis in the UK today. The vast majority of the ten million odd between 21-31 do not fall within the threshold of social housing, so the expansion of Right to Buy will not benefit them at all. On the other hand, they are finding that the first rung of the housing ladder in the open market is disappearing out of sight. In fact, it is speeding out of reach even for their older siblings - the 'kids of Callaghan' perhaps – with the average age of the first-time buyer without parental support reaching 37, and on course to pass 40 in the very near future, a milestone that would seem ridiculous if it did not have such serious consequences.

This trend thwarts the aspirations of people who did everything they were told to by Thatcher: they went into education, moved to the cities and into new industries or public service, saved up for a deposit – but who cannot now own their own home and are suffering in the private rented sector. That was not what the Iron Lady promised. It also impacts on their parents, and this is perhaps why the political winds are changing, as the baby boomers, who benefitted hugely from the property boom, are now finding their assets squeezed from both ends, providing increasingly expensive care for elderly parents as well as the education fees and housing deposits of their offspring.

So, belatedly and some might argue almost accidentally, the government has stumbled unto housing reform because it meets its need for a quick fix growth strategy. And the government should be congratulated for at least taking some crucial initial steps. Taking on the byzantine planning system to simplify an encyclopaedia of regulation into a pamphlet, introducing a presumption in favour of development, and aspiring to release some of the astonishingly underused stock of public land for housing. These are the sorts of moves that demonstrate courage in taking on vested, static interests in favour of growing the economy and, more importantly, providing homes for our children.

But it won't be enough, not nearly enough, if we want to really bring sanity to our housing market, never mind hit that ambitious figure of 200,000. For that, public land release must not simply free a few unusable acres of Ministry of Defence shrubland, it has to catalogue all public land in a 21st century Domesday Book, for how can we use our resources wisely if we are in the farcical situation of not knowing how much land our local council owns? It also needs to offer tax incentives to parents and offspring alike saving up for that and crucial initial deposit (call it a DISA for aspiring homeowners) and it needs to remind politicians that whilst space standards are fine aspirations, we cannot play politics with design in overcrowded cities where the supply of homes is wholly inadequate to the task of bringing some kind of equilibrium to the market place.

It may also be surprising that, as a developer, I do not fear localism, but in fact want to give it more teeth than Eric Pickles has so far articulated. If Localism means that neighbourhoods develop a professional plan that takes into account all of the area's needs – not just the vocal minority – and one that is given the democratic mandate to set long-term strategy, then that is a win-win for developers' certainty and local community democracy. It is these kinds of moves that could help Cameron hit that magic figure of 200,000, and help the larger group of Thatcher's children to truly enter her property-owning democracy.

Marc Vlessing is the co-founder of Pocket, an organisation for affordable home ownership

Tags: David Cameron, Home ownership, Margaret Thatcher