This is totally and completely vacuous. I thought at first that it might be the way the BBC had reported the story, and so visited the Conservagive party website, but it really is totally and completely lacking in content.

The suggestion to extend Right to Buy further in social housing is almost completely irrelevant to the problems facing first time buyers. As I understand it at present, few potential first time buyers are looking at social housing as an alternative - they are typically moving into the private rented sector - so what Cameron is suggesting is irrelevant.

But the following quote is the worst part of the whole thing:-

"We will improve local neighbourhoods and communities. People know there is a need for new homes - they don't want their kids to be priced out of the market, they don't want their local school to close, they don't want to live in dying communities.

"But nor do they want to be overwhelmed by a rash of ugly, insensitive developments built on the back of some bogus consultation. People need a sense of ownership over the planning process."

Well obviously. But how are you going to do it? It's trite, shallow and meaningless.

If you live in an area where house prices are abnormally high (I do) if you live in an area where there are many second homes (I do) this policy is idiotic. Social housing is the only way many people will have a decent home, it may not be ideal, but its a reality. I know life long Tories in this area who will oppose this idea. Does he know how resentful some 'locals' are at seeing council housing being used as second homes? Cameron has said he 'wants rents to be converted into mortgage payments' many people in social housing are on such low wages, they receive housing benifit. How is he going to explain to all those Daily Mail reading supporters, that they will be subsidising tenants to buy their own homes! Labour must attack this policy at every opportunity. What will he be advocating next, selling of sheltered housing?    

Essentially, Cameron wants the tax payer to act as a property developer - selling existing houses and building more to sell on again etc. Only there is a huge competitive private sector that already exists for this. The tax payer shouldn't get involved in flipping houses. And they most certainly shouldn't be involved in building and selling houses for a loss (which is what this plan seems to involve).

Council houses should be a sort of reserve housing, so that the council can fulfil their duty to take care of neediest in the area who arn't catered for either by private rentals, housing associations or private owner-occupation.

PS As an aside - very few people want to buy their council houses now, because they arn't of the same quality as ordinary houses (most of them were knocked up very quickly in the 60's to provide adequate but urgently needed housing). People who've bought the council houses in the 1980's find it difficult to sell them on, as building societies are leery about lending for them. They are also usually not in the best areas, so again difficult to resell as people don't in general volunteer to move and buy into bad areas. So buying a council house means being stuck with a lemon. Perhaps Cameron isn't au fait about the housing market.

Since originally posting, in some irritation, I've tried to find out a bit more about whether there is anything concrete behind this. The more you scratch, the worse it gets.

Firstly, the comments above about extending right to buy are correct; it does not address any of the real problems in the housing market. I don't know if there is any academic work on the impact of RTB on local communities, but my impression as a local councillor is that it has been very mixed:-

Well maintained council housing where it is part of a relatively small development in mixed communities have generally been a good deal for people under RTB. For example, small estates of around 100 properties in villages and suburbs. These, of course, are the areas where the loss of social housing has had the worst impact on affordability and alternative housing for young people and families on low incomes.

On more troubled, large estates, RTB has been a nightmare. As hinted above, prices have not increased in the way purchaseers might have hoped and some people have had great difficulties selling their apparent 'asset'.

In many areas, there has been a drift for these properties to end up as 'buy to let' purchases, sometimes with not particularly high quality landlords. Indeed, on a number of estates in Halifax, we now have a serious problem that when the social landlord takes action against anti social neighbours, they will quickly relocate into a privately-rented property round the corner.

Secondly, Cameron also talked in his speech about provision of new housing and here he frankly talks more complete rubbish. I'm concerned I am going to run out of space in this comment, though, so am posting this as a separate entry!

I worked as a housing policy adviser to local government in the 1980s when this policy was first proposed. There's nothing particularly evil about it, but it simply doesn't work,so therefore it's a publicity stunt.

If you cannot afford to buy under the right to buy then you are unlikely to be able to afford rent-to-mortgage either and it is also the case that if you can afford to buy under the RTB you won't be interested in RTM.

That is why the Labour government scrapped the Tory RTM - it cost much more to administer than anyt sums it generated.

I think this may be an own goal.

Right-To-Buy - despite its social implications, which are an important but slightly seperate issue - was generally pretty good for the people doing the buying in its heyday but that was because there was lots of social housing that was well placed to increase in value, often dramatically.

As has already been mentionned buying a house - even at low cost - that you then can't sell if you want to and/or that, due to the surrounding has being subject to the attention of buy-to-letters who don't care who they end up letting to, is pretty catastrophic.

What is Cameron going to do, if anything, to help people whose Right-to-buy homes are now worth considerably less than what they bought them for?

And more important what's he going to for the hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in temporary and insecure housing?

Most marginal voters own their own home already. This is just a sop to the Thatcherites that still form the backbone of the party. He's try to turn people who live in social housing into hard working families.