The new PM is putting all the skills he learned as a PR to work in preparing us for his deficit reduction measures

By the time the axe falls we’ll probably be hoping it will bonk us on the head, thereby saving us from the years of pain he has promised. Meanwhile, the construction industry is still pouring millions into bidding for public sector work with absolutely no idea if there’s any point. Even the budget on 22 June won’t provide all the answers - we’ll have to wait until the autumn spending review and the great public consultation for those.

One thing, at least, is clear: firms that have continued to prosper on public work need to find a plan B. The energy sector is one refuge, as was shown in our issue two weeks ago, and this week Willmott Dixon sets out its plans to become a developer. For others, plan B could be merger or, sadly, a forced exit - and architects working for large practices might want to take a look at Gus Alexander’s comments on what happens then. If reinvention were not a big enough task in itself, there’s the stress of operating in what one contractor described this week as the most aggressive tendering conditions in 30 years, with prices driven down by those willing to bid at a loss to build up a track record in new markets.

The industry is still pouring millions into bidding for public sector work with absolutely no idea if there’s any point. Even the budget on 22 June won’t provide all the answers

The clock is being turned back 15 years. But is this free-for-all inevitable? Latham’s partnering agenda may have been buried (only to be dug up later - we love archaeology in this business) but perhaps it’s time to dust down the old Egan doctrines of integrated project teams and supply chains. Last week, Paul Morrell, the chief construction adviser, wrote a column arguing that the industry has to find ways of doing more for less, and that is one way of doing so. And, faster than you can say “Building Schools for the Future” we have to work out why public (that is, private) schools can build facilities more cheaply than the state.

So, more for less is a mighty challenge. And it can’t be achieved by the industry alone - unlike Sir John Egan’s Jaguars, buildings do not come off a state-of-the-art production line. Dave and George are clearly keen get the public to buy in to (and share the blame for) how the government spends, or rather doesn’t spend, its money. If we are to ameliorate the pain by any degree at all, we need a transparent and constructive dialogue on cheaper building. And PDQ.

Denise Chevin, editor

Topics