Here it is then.  The long-trailed, politically critical response to the crisis.  What is the verdict?
                       
Let’s start with the positive.  Given the scale of the tax giveaway, and the tightness of Government spending, housing could have got missed out.  After all, many other areas of public spending got nothing at all – indeed, the commitment to achieving a further £5 billion of Gershon savings probably signals bad news for some.  The fact that housing was a major theme is a really good sign that, at long last, the issue is back at the heart of British politics.
 
And there is some good news in there.  The measures to support home owners are sensible enough: a rise in the threshold and interest rate payable for ISMI; an agreement with the lenders to delay repossessions action; an increase to the scope of the mortgage rescue package; £15 million more for debt advice.  The moves to push new social housebuilding are also welcome, with nearly £800 million spend brought forward and a promise of more to come.  Altogether, it is difficult to quibble with an £1.8 billion total.
 
That said, there is much in here which is as much presentation as substance.  Take the agreement with lenders to wait three months before taking action on repossessions.  That sounds like a good thing, and indeed it is.  But in practice, few lenders actually rush straight to court on only one or two months arrears.  It is only when arrears reach three months when they begin moves to repossess.  The new promise may help at the margins but will do little to address the generality of repossessions.
 
And the moves to increase spending on social housebuilding raise similar questions.  In his statement, the Chancellor was careful not to promise an increase in overall spending, merely a bringing forward of spend.  We were already facing a drop off in investment in social housing towards the end of the three year spending period.  This new move will help matters now but is no substitute for an increase in the overall social housing package between now and 2011.
 
Let me repeat.  This is welcome news.  But if the Government had moved to amend the banking bill to beef up the watered-down pre-action protocol; if it had announced a real increase in social housing grant; if it had come up with real moves to stimulate investment in expanding and professionalising private renting – it could have been so much more.

I cannot have been the only person who spent a few idle minutes yesterday scanning the list of BNP members helpfully available on various websites (and no, I’m not posting any links – find ‘em yourselves) wondering whether I would come across any names I knew.  Not that I expected to: indeed, nothing would surprise me more than finding that anyone connected with Shelter, let alone anyone I knew privately, had ever flirted with such beliefs.  But enough of the members’ names listed have vaguely respectable professions attached – town planner, vicar, doctor, former Green party candidate – that it does raise some doubts.

What I’m not sure about, of course, is what I would do if I did recognise any names.  Friends are easy – they would simply cease to be friends: I am entitled to make my own moral judgements about who I chose to spend time with in my private life and I would draw a line at that.  But what about people at work?  If police officers and prison officers are banned, and trade unions are seeking to expel BNP members, what about charity employees?

In one sense, this should be simple.  Charities are banned from any type of party political affiliation and should not therefore be discriminating against anyone on party political grounds.  It is a deliberate policy at Shelter that we work with all parties in areas where we have common goals.  It is part of our value set to oppose all types of discrimination and we fight hard on behalf of people who many regard as entirely beyond the pale.

But Shelter has a proud record on issues to do with race and immigration.  We were the moving spirits behind the successful legal challenge to Section 55 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, which tried to withdraw from some refugees any type of state support.  And we are the first charity in the country to have gained official recognition that we meet level two of the Equality Standard.  As I say, I am absolutely confident that no-one in Shelter supports what the BNP proposes on such issues.  But it would be very difficult for a charity like us if we found someone within our ranks someone who did.

To Cardiff to take part in a discussion at the annual meeting of FEANTSA (stay with me…), the European network of homelessness organisations.  Four of us, each representing one of the nations in the UK, had an hour to explain to representatives from 21 countries how devolved Government in the UK impacted on the chances of us ending homelessness.
 
But what struck me was the extent to which we all accepted that the areas which had been devolved to national governments were dwarfed in importance by those which lay outside the power of the Governments in Belfast, Edinburgh or Cardiff to decide.  Benefits policy, taxation, broader economic management - these were what mattered.  And, arguably, what is now playing out on a global economic scale has more of an impact on homelessness than most politicians would care to admit and housing campaigners like ourselves recognise every day.
 
That said, teasing out the vagaries of approach to homelessness in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (the last particularly interesting in a nation where effective administration is still split between the power-sharing executive, Westminster and a national housing body) was a fascinating exercise.  In both Scotland and Wales, moves to extend the right to housing were being balanced with changes to the duties of the local authority. 
 
In some cases, this carried real danger.  In his welcome speech to the conference, Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan gave a broad hint that moves to extend homelessness legislation might be accompanied by changes to make greater use of the private rented sector to provide settled housing for people accepted as homeless, fine if that is accompanied by a wholesale reform of the sector, but really worrying if it means vulnerable homeless people being dumped in expensive, ill-run private houses with just six months security of tenure.
 
But, whatever the attitudes of national governments, it is the broader market which matters more.   The building industry, banking, the attitude of employers are all more critical to causing – and arguably solving - solving homelessness than Government.  In this context, the decision of Gordon Brown in Westminster to seek to acquire shareholdings in Scottish-based banks such as RBS and HBOS not only is perhaps of greater significance than any of the policies we were discussing but also raises some far trickier questions about the limits of the existing constitutional settlement between England and Scotland.