I oppose the subsidisation of mortgages by the state but there is just too much in that letter in terms of assumptions and analysis that different people will disagree with.
e.g., I am not concerned to make sure that people lose their homes, I think the banks should make a commercial decision on what to do with their commercial agreement. To make them do something else is to interfere with the market. There is no such thing as bankruptcy where you keep your home. The reason foreign banks are not entering the market is not because of any perceived difficulty enforcing mortgages. Not everybody who is in default was imprudent - many lost their jobs. Many were prudent by nature and tried to stay well within their means, but did not understand the nature of the bubble.
If you want to get support then you should formulate a simpler proposition, i.e. the State should not further subsidise the banks by paying towards mortgage debt and the state should not subsidise individuals by paying towards mortgage debt. I agree with that.
I also support a reform of the bankruptcy laws to shorten the bankruptcy period to allow borrowers to put a gun to the bank’s head and say go ahead and bankrupt me and take the property. This would lead to banks having to sh*t or get off the pot and would reactivate the market (very belatedly).
I don’t agree with a campaign to force banks to foreclose rather than restructuring loans. I think there is an very unpleasant sentiment underlying such a campaign. I know where it comes form but I think that those calling for others to be punished should examine the real psychological reasons for their position.