The FT is annoying me, once more, this morning with an article by somebody referred to as Neil Hudson that opens with this:

There’s a line in regards to the UK property market that you just hear so usually it barely registers any extra. Politicians trot it out on the radio, charities put it of their studies and journalists write it in newspapers on a regular basis. You could even have mentioned it your self. It’s: demand for brand spanking new houses exceeds provide. It is an apparent truism, other than one tiny element: it’s fully mistaken.

To summarise the remainder of the article:

1. Builders do not construct houses they cannot promote.

   • They assemble new housing solely on the tempo at which consumers can afford it.

   • Excessive mortgage charges and deposit hurdles have crushed affordability, leaving completions caught round 120,000 houses a yr.

2. Builders refuse to chop costs.

   • Decreasing costs resets market benchmarks and damages future valuations.

   • As an alternative, they provide “incentives” — assist with deposits or charges — to disguise what are successfully reductions.

3. Rising prices make issues worse.

   • Inflation in supplies and labour, increased borrowing prices, and stricter rules have squeezed profitability.

   • Many builders now choose to wait out the market slightly than construct.

4. London and the South are particularly caught.

   • Solely flats make monetary sense — however consumers now not need investor-grade flats.

   • Land costs stay too excessive for brand spanking new initiatives to be viable, making a self-reinforcing spiral of stagnation.

5. Authorities coverage is chasing the mistaken finish of the issue.

   • “Construct, child, construct” planning reform assumes building alone fixes affordability.

   • In actuality, the difficulty is the dearth of consumers, not builders.

6. What might work as an alternative?

   • In previous downturns, governments purchased unsold houses for reasonably priced or rental use — stabilising the market whereas sustaining capability.

   • An analogous technique might work once more, however it could require public funding the Treasury resists.

7. What’s seemingly as an alternative?

8. Briefly

   • The UK would not face a provide scarcity of houses; it faces a scarcity of reasonably priced demand. Builders will not construct what individuals cannot purchase — and until authorities intervenes on to reshape the market, we’re heading for yet one more cycle of false hope, failed targets, and rising inequality.