Personally, I don't think there is any right to buy your own home, and the way the market is now, a lot of people are going to have to realign their expectations.
However, there is IMHO a right to a home - and clearly the housing market isn't working for lots of people.
Personally, as a landlord, I would be in favour of some reforms to the current system - the difficulty is in striking a balance between tenants and landlords' interests. For example, I would be quite happy to give my tenants a longer tenancy if I could still be reasonably confidently of evicting "bad" tenants (and, yes, I count rent arrears as being a bad tenant). Most tenants seem to like the flexibility - or maybe they are just happy to rely upon my word that I'm in it for the long term, and consider it to be their home. If some one is looking after the property, and paying the rent, then I don't hike the rent. That way, I avoid voids and everyone is happy.
I don't think renting out properties is anymore selfish than buying shares or earning interest on savings. If anything it's more ethical, as I put a certain amount of time and effort into maintaining the property, finding tenants, keeping on top of legislation, the finance, and two of my three properties have also needed some serious renovation - one was a total uninhabitable wreck, the other was a repossession and had been gutted, trashed and booby-trapped by its previous owner.
So I don't really think selfish enters into it. It's a business/investment like any other. And that cuts both ways, so landlords should be ready and able to comply with legislation and to provide a service.
Rent controls haven't worked in the past. But, again, personally, I wouldn't necessarily be against some form of rent capping - it really depends how this would work, and if it is anything like the old Rent Act tenancies it won't work. The result would be far fewer houses going onto the private rental market - and there is just not enough social and council housing to cope with the demand. Prices may drop, so some more people would be able to afford to buy, but there would be a massive problem with those who still could not, or who wanted to rent for other reasons.
Concreting over swathes of countryside isn't the answer either. And in my experience (of the South) is that it is the wrong types of home being built - lots of executive homes, very little social housing, bungalows or starter homes. It is all about maximum gain for the developers. Likewise, a lot of existing housing stock becomes less affordable, not just because of general house price inflation, but because of people extending.
More council and social housing is needed, in cities and brownfields, and limited affordable rural housing. This should be kept in council/social ownership on long term tenancies, with additional low cost housing to buy (with some restrictions on how it can be sold on - though that will always have issues with lenders and so you end up back in a Catch 22 situation). Local authorities should be free to reinvest sale proceeds in new housing (and their inability to do this was the major flaw in Thatcher's right-to-buy legislation).
Personally, I would not be opposed to a minor increase in tax to put more money into put more money into social housing provided it is kept in the public sector for those who need it and not seen as a way to climb up the housing ladder (which is pretty much what has happened around here - I noticed same house as OH's old affordable starter home initially occupancy condition that limited it for local residents in estate agents for a mind-boggling amount of money that clearly now marks it as a commuter home for the well-off).
Not sure reforms to buy-to-let will have the desired effect, as many landlords will pass on the cost to their tenants. Likewise, the reforms to letting fees - as I am sure many of these will just get absorbed and passed on. I have mixed feelings on these. I personally don't charge fees for renewals, as I do think these are unfair but I have had a number of prospective tenants lie on their application forms and personally don't see why I should bear the cost of a fraudulent application - pre-screening I guess. But, yes, the cost of fees and deposits can clearly mount up and there should be a better solution to it - some countries have an insurance based product that covers, and that may be the answer here. But with a safety net for those who wouldn't qualify.
So, yes, clearly some reforms are needed. But renting out your old home when you buy a new one isn't a bad thing. Selfish, maybe. But then so is putting the money in the bank, or blowing it on a round-the-world holiday. But that's a different thing from saying the housing market is rotten, and needs reform. Selfless would be giving the proceeds to charity, or a homeless person, and I don't see many home-sellers doing that.