ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

Suddenly, a late run of form redeemed things to the extent that the team finds itself not just safe from the drop but, miraculously, in the cup final and poised for greater things.

Has the housebuilding industry ever known such volatile times? After the profits bonanza at the beginning of the decade, when housebuilders made money for fun, the sector was facing Armageddon as economists and Bank of England bigwigs queued up to argue not whether the housing market would crash but when.

And now? Not only no crash, but a surge in share prices in the last quarter of 2005 which has the City of London anticipating a frenetic year of mergers and acquisitions.

One event has caused this flurry of share activity: Persimmon's acquisition of Westbury. The £643m deal propelled Persimmon above Barratt as number one in the sector and gave the FTSE 100 index its first housebuilder for 15 years.

Without question, it is a big deal and, given the £40m of synergies Persimmon believes it will achieve, is enough on its own to justify the speculation about wider consolidation. Redrow for Bovis? Bovis for Redrow? What about Crest Nicholson, Bellway, Wilson Bowden, Taylor Woodrow, Wimpey …?

There are, however, countervailing factors. For a start, it is hard to gauge how well the City of London really understands the housebuilding sector. For some unknown reason, the FTSE has just decided to group housebuilders with companies selling household goods rather than those in construction and materials.

The Square Mile is scouring the horizon for any sign of a deal: every week seems to bring a possible takeover here, a bidding war there. But though related sectors such as construction have seen some consolidation, notably Carillion's victory over Balfour Beatty in the race to buy Mowlem, there are as yet no discernible patterns shaping this M&A activity. The fact that one housebuilder buys another does not in itself mean other deals will follow.

Share hikes across the sector also reflect the extent to which investors may have undervalued housebuilding stock. That was in part due to the doom-laden warnings about housing bubbles, which encouraged investors to steer clear of the sector. Now that those warnings appear to be diminishing, investors are more than willing to jump back in and feel the benefit of long-term investments that yield comfortable year-on-year profits.

But the biggest doubt over consolidation is the still-fragile state of the housing market. Housebuilders have spoken almost as one in reporting a gradual pick-up in the market at the turn of the year following the static and "challenging" 2005. That has given a knee-jerk boost to the sector, but those who talk of the tide having turned are being hasty.

It is hard to gauge how well the City understands housebuilders – it now groups them with companies selling household goods

Growth this year will be marginal, 1.5% or 2% at best, analysts say. Conditions remain tough, sales incentives are still prevalent, and longer-term prospects are little brighter. True, that may leave some mid to low-ranking housebuilders ripe for takeover, but that may not necessarily affect listed companies.

Your team may be in the final, the game may even go into extra time, but don't be too disappointed if at the end of a long and arduous season, you're just glad to have survived.

Last month, this column wondered whether David Cameron would have the courage to take on his own party and commit the Tories to a new approach on housing policy. We did not have too long to find out. George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, used a speech to a property audience on 9 February to signal a rethink "to look with fresh eyes at the development opportunities that exist".

What emerged was nothing short of sensational. Seeking to establish the Tories as "the champion of affordable and sustainable home ownership", Osborne said the planning system was damaging the economy and housing affordability and should be reviewed, as should the definition of greenfield sites. The most dramatic suggestion, which received little attention in the media, was that developers should be forced to bring forward their landbanks for building. Even his rejection of the planning gain supplement acknowledged the need to find some alternative to the current Section 106 system.

The new Tory leaders are taking a calculated risk with their membership and their natural bedfellows. They will face internal resistance from within their shire heartlands, where opposition to the government's housebuilding plans is fierce, while the housebuilding industry will review its traditionally warm relationship with the party.

The real issue, however, is how the government responds. Will it see an opportunity to push for more radical and more rapid change? Or will it shirk from a confrontation with the housebuilding industry?

Politics has suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.