Tbh I was on leave when that was published so I dunno.
Looking at it, itâs mostly economics. It does, at one point, praise the new ONS method for predicting household formations, which has⊠proven controversial in some quarters, partly because (as I understand, for valid reasons) it uses the 2001 census as a starting point, rather than 1971. But as itâs now based on an era when household formation has been suppressed, it has some weird anomalies, eg Cambridge is going to experience almost no household growth through to 2041.
But beyond that nerdery, Iâm not sure the policy implications are saying a whole lot that isnât widely known - that housing is a complex subject, and that simply building a lot without looking at the feeder issues (wages, mortgage markets, alternative options) is going to lower prices.
I would say that this isnât a reason why government shouldnât be trying to boost supply. More new housing can offer benefits for carbon reduction, improve fuel poverty, and support local / regional economies. Diversifying the house building sector could drive up quality without necessarily driving up prices. Supporting the build to rent sector to expand could improve the PRS. More retirement homes can free up larger existing stock. There are lots of reasons why government can support more housing, it doesnât just have to be about prices.
