Back at my desk following three rather listless days at the Lib Dems conference wondering what it was all for.  Not that it was awful or anything: it was at least a good chance to catch up with the usual conference suspects and the chats with the Lib Dem politicians themselves were pleasant enough.  But, with everything that is going on outside the political bubble, what with Lehman Brothers going under and HBOS in trouble, you have to ask how far anything done in Bournemouth over the past 72 hours will have any impact on the future of housing policy in the UK.

And even inside the bubble, it is tempting to ask questions about how far the Lib Dems matter at this point in the political cycle.  Today’s Times carries a typically acerbic piece by Danny Finkelstein arguing that the divide between Labour and the Lib Dems was now entirely artificial.  Discarding the piece’s obvious party political bias, his argument that the Lib Dems are largely irrelevant to the current debate has a certain force.  Even in Bournemouth among the faithful, it felt that the controversy over Nick Clegg’s tax-cutting proposals was merely theoretical.

But just because no-one at Bournemouth seemed to be expecting the party to mount a significant political challenge to the established order at the next general election does not mean that what the Lib Dems do is meaningless.  Not only does where they position themselves influence the positioning of the other main parties; on an individual level, as Finkelstein argues, Vince Cable is hugely admired across the political spectrum.  More important, Lib Dem administrations control a sizeable number of local councils, including strategically important urban centres such as Liverpool, Newcastle and Hull and rural areas such as Somerset.  If the worst impact of the housing crisis is to be alleviated and much needed supply continue to come forward, leadership at a local level is vital.  In many areas of the country, only the Lib Dems are poised to provide such leadership.

It is an interesting sport, watching the Conservatives in action.  Since the advent of David Cameron, groups such as Shelter and the issues we are involved in have been picked over by Conservative politicians in search of sticks with which to beat the Government.  It is a somewhat discomforting experience being out-outraged by a Tory frontbencher.

But their current approach, politically effective while it may be, has clear limitations when it comes to influencing policy.  Today’s report about the difficulties experienced by homeless people being discharged from hospital is a good example.  The issue is undoubtedly a real and important one: not only is the lack of secure housing for people on discharge from medical treatment a personal tragedy for the individuals themselves, it’s also a net cost to the taxpayer, who has had to foot the bill for treatment which is likely to prove ineffective for patients without a stable and decent place to convalesce.

The trouble is the Conservatives are very careful not to commit themselves to the sort of policies that would actually solve the problem.  Yes, there are some promises about tinkering with the system administratively.  But the real problem is not the difficulties of joining up health and housing or even of solving the sometimes intractable issues presented by homeless people themselves, but the shortage of homes to give them.  Even if the systems worked perfectly, even if people in need dealt with the problems that may have been the immediate cause of their homelessness, the simple truth is there are not enough houses to go round.

And this is where the danger for the Conservatives lies.  Picking on street homelessness as an obvious symbol of the failings of modern welfare is all very well.  But sooner or later, someone will start to draw the connection with the rise in housing need and the resistance of Conservative local authorities to the building of new homes, particularly where those homes would go to poorer, less popular groups in society.  Already, since the Conservatives have taken control of London boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, and Boris of City Hall, we have seen a reduction in the targets for social housebuilding.  That pattern is repeated elsewhere in England.

Perhaps that disjunction between words and actions will not be sufficient to halt their seemingly inexorable march towards power in Parliament.  But it should give closer observers cause for concern.

Finally a quiet few minutes to reflect on this morning’s events following the - appallingly early - briefing at No 10 and the usual round of media calls to follow.
 
So, now all the excitement is over, where are we?  On the one hand, feeling pretty chipper.  A few months ago, we sent out a press release detailing a series of steps we thought the Government should take.  Today’s package ticks off many of those on the list.  We are pleased too that our plea that the new changes should not be at expense of money earmarked for social housebuilding has been heeded.
 
On the other hand, if I’m honest, I am left feeling somewhat depressed by the day.  There is no issue with what Government has announced (excepting the estimated £600 million on stamp duty – a high price to pay for covering your political flank).  It is the scale of the crisis which sticks in my head. 
 
One of the intriguing cameos at this morning’s briefing was carefully rehearsed duet between Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling about how much stronger the British economy was than during any of the recessions of the past few decades (Crisis?  What crisis?  It was almost as if the Chancellor who had spoken so gloomily about the worst economic crisis in 60 years was somebody else entirely).  But that was put into perspective by the warnings from the Council for Mortgage Lenders that conditions in the market were continuing to worsen, with the risk that next year will see even fewer new mortgages approved and even more people at risk of repossessions.
 
As I blogged yesterday, it is perhaps beyond the powers of any Government to turn back the tide.  How could they?  We now live in an age of small, not big, Government presiding over a largely privatised housing system but have not really adapted our expectations of their role.  This is largely a market-driven crisis.  Government can act but, in the end, the market will decide.

Word is that tomorrow is the day.  Over the past few weeks, we have had different versions of when the Brown relaunch will go live and exactly what he will say.  But the choreography now appears clear.  Housing tomorrow and energy (subject the last minute hitches about the deal with the energy companies) on Thursday.
 
So much for timing.  What of content?  Some of what he is likely to go with is already fixed.  Actions on repossessions will be a centrepiece: the long-overdue - and, in Shelter terms, long demanded - reform of ISMI (support for homeowners on benefits) and a national mortgage rescue scheme aimed at the most vulnerable homeowners.  And money will be announced (or, to be precise, re-announced) to allow councils and housing associations to buy unsold stock. 
 
The doubts are around what he will do to try to entice first time buyers back into the market.  While the policy wonk in Brown will know that any change in stamp duty will be hugely expensive and produce little benefit, the politician in him will be very tempted to introduce a stamp duty holiday, if only to cover his flank against an attack from the Conservatives.  In addition, he is likely to want to announce another one of the Government’s clever home ownership wheezes, probably an equity loan system whereby buyers are given a Government loan to act as a deposit on a first home.  These ideas will have formed a large part of the negotiations with No 11 which attracted so many column inches over the weekend.
 
All of this is perfectly sensible and all (except perhaps the stamp duty stuff) good news.  The problem is, however, that it will have at best a marginal effect on the housing crisis, let alone the wider economic meltdown.  Take the reform of ISMI.  Welcome though such a change is, the number of home owners who will benefit is small.  The current repossessions crisis is not about a steep rise in unemployment (although this may change if the economy tips into recession).  It is about accumulated debt and rises in household costs, particularly mortgage payments, fuel and food.  Moreover, with mortgages now increasingly tied to two rather than one income, unemployment will not hit in the same way as it did in the last repossessions crisis where ISMI was more important.
 
Having trailed this as his personal relaunch, where he seizes control of a faltering economy, the danger is that the Prime Minister is again going to promise more than he delivers.  Turning back the housing tide risks Canute-like humiliation.  The scale of the crisis is a huge one and demands a huge response.  The changes he is planning need to be accompanied by a huge injection of resource into the housing market to keep building activity going, restore confidence and offer hope to the thousands of people who will be desperately looking for a promise of affordable housing while the crisis works itself out.  As a starting-point, rather than raiding the £8 billion earmarked for new social housing to pay for the relaunch measures, add to it and embark on an aggressive strategy of buying up land (which should be cheaper than for some time) and setting housing associations and councils to build.  Seize the initiative, Prime Minister.  What have you got to lose?