Paul makes his case well. I'm not convinced that part-buy is a bad idea in principle, although introducing the scheme at the top of a housing bubble seems like bad timing as the government will incur a lot of bad debt while encouraging irresponsible borrowing from potentially borderline borrowers. If the housing market crashes, these are the people most likely to default, costing the taxpayer a great deal more than just the devaluation of government debt. The government needs to consider only activating the scheme temporarily at times when house prices are below trend to smooth irrational pessimism. Introducing it when house prices are high, becuase they're high, is madness.

Broadly though the main problem is supply and the system we enjoy in this country, that protects us from the kind of housing disasters Labour imposed in the 1960s, also protects us from more housing.

I strongly suspect that Gordon Brown's primary motivation introducing part-buy now is staving off the collapse of the housing market for a few more years. Enough time for Labour to survive another election on his economic record or setting a bear-trap for the incoming Tory/Lib Dem administration.

Anyone who has spent time on the doorstep discussing this issue with actual voters will know that supply is not usually identified as the problem, but rather demand. It may be regrettable, but the fact of the matter is that housing policy and immigration policy are now fused in the public mind. Any serious attempt to address the former must also say something about the latter, or risk being considered out of touch and irrelevant.

We generally proceed on the basis that the only way to purchase property is to borrow. Similarly that Governments must borrow in order to invest in public assets.

However, a recent innovation in partnership law - enacted for the wrong reasons - has had unintended consequences now emerging in the commercial sector, but with general application.

It is now possible for pension investment in property without the "gearing" arising from bank-created credit which is the root cause of asset price inflation in land/property prices.

Similarly pension investment in public assets using this model can dramatically cut the cost of finance - a sort of "non-toxic" PFI which does not involve borrowing or returns to private shareholders.

New "Asset-based" tools for investing in housing - as opposed to the current "Deficit-based" but "asset-backed" mortgage we are accustomed to- are now possible.

I have been working with Jock Coats, Bill Powell and Antonia Swinson (all Lib Dems) to develop a simple new "Community Land Partnership" mechanism to achieve this.

see

www.opencapital.net/coownership.htm

Best Regards

Chris Cook

A voter would articulate the problem as 'house prices are too high', 'I can't get on the housing ladder' or as you note, 'immigrants are taking our homes'. The main problem behind this though is supply or rather lack of it. Most parties choose to make the link between the two by talking about providing more affordable homes.

The immigration and homes issues is also slightly different as it tends to impact social needs-based housing much more than the private sector. Low income domicile familes quite reasonably object to what they see as newcomers getting available council housing due to higher need while they can't move and their children can't get on. It also cuts across race. While the problem is predominantly expressed by a BNP vote I also got a lot of the same complaints from black families in a predominantly black area while out talking to voters.

At the root of that issue is the fact that mass public housing schemes, while raising quality of life for millilons have also created an entitlement culture where a council house is seen as a life-long right and inheritance rather than a helping hand in times of need. One of the motivations behind the right to buy was to provide opportunities for the aspirational to break that cycle.

It would be glib though to suggest that there are easy answers to any of those problems.

I am responding from across the big pond, where we have a good deal more land for people (even in our cities, some of which have quite low densities and huge areas of vacant land).

Immigration is a serious political and social challenge for any society. People who live in poorer neighborhoods and who live from paycheck to paycheck (or on government assistance) often feel very threatened by immigrants.

Here in the U.S. what has happened historically with housing is that properties that were owned and lived in by one family are acquired by investors who (legally or illegally) divide the property into small apartments in order to maximize cash flow. They make few repairs to the property, and over time, the entire area declines. Crime increases, public services deteriorate, and we end up with slums. When things get bad enough, our cities send in demolition teams to tear down abandon buildings and prepare the area for "urban renewal."

Until recently, it has taken several generations for immigrants to adopt the language and customs of their new country -- but these changes have taken place. Today, we are experiencing multiculturalism under one system of law, and the stresses this creates are of a different order than previously. Immigrants come to sections of cities that are, in effect, isolated enclaves where interaction with the "native" population is infrequent or nonexistent -- particularly for those without higher levels of education and specialized skills associated with the global economy. Even here, however, while people of differing cultures work together on a daily basis, their homes are increasingly in ethnic and cultural enclaves where English is not spoken.

On principle, I believe in the right of people to migrate freely to any part of the world they choose. Yet, there are no societies that have figured out how to achieve and maintain full employment, so that existing populations do not feel threatened by new arrivals.

This, by the way, also applies to internal migrations as well. When, for example, rural populations come to cities seeking opportunity, this results in very similar conflicts.