Are our views always entrenched?

I see open-mindedness as part of a process to analyse and understand that can't, for me, be separated from the process of gathering more information until the cognitions we have about many issues become more certain. Psychology has thousands of theories to suit all situations, and explain behaviour. Cognitive dissonance theory (Leon Festinger and others) explains how we deal with things that don't marry up in our heads. So, saying that I am politically left-leaning and believe that we should share the wealth, pay back according to our means, and give a leg up to those less fortunate, doesn't marry up in my head with sitting back and accepting that change means shifting people out of the homes they were given to settle in, bring up their families, and if they choose or need to, end their days there. Being poor does not mean undeservng, and being wealthy because you were born that way does not entitle anyone differently.

Why don't we tell the weathy that, if the poorer section of our society must think of the greater good and move from their extra-bedroomed house that they legally pay rent for, then they, too, must move out of their 20-bedroomed mansions, surrender their second and third homes, and live a more modest lifestyle? Now THAT would marry up in MY head!

I have no problem at all with both my parents and my mil having had to spend their hard saved money on they care, leaving us with very little at the end. I've said that again and again on other threads. My dad was furious about it because it made him feel like a fool for being so careful all his life, always doing without repairs to house or other things, like helping us when we needed it for instance - to make sure he would never be dependent on State help - then realised (too late in his opinion) that others did not! He said often I should have blown the lot... I am not angry about it, and always said it was fair enough - so please I am not with Frank at all on this one.

Now I was not brought up in the uk in the post war period - but were families allocated larger council houses to bring up their children in, told that they would be able to keep them for life? I have said again that the present bedroom tax is unfair and unworkable as there is not sufficient smaller and suitable flats available for those who want to downsize. As said earlier by another poster, building has to be a priority, and part of the money could be found by charging tenants who can afford it higher rents. People could then be ENCOURAGED NOT FORCED, carrot rather than stick, to look at the possibility of taking up some measure or other, be it taking in someone in need of accommodation, or moving to a smaller new flat or bungalow, etc - with some form of compensation.

Again, and for the last time - I am not looking at demonising council tenants, but saying that to solve the housing problems we have, especially with young families in bedsits and b&bs, which has a hugely detrimental effect on the children, we need to have cross party determination to find sensitive and yet effective ways of going forwards. Judging from many of the responses here - this is going to be very difficult- as many people are not listening at all, but only 'demonising' anyone who is trying to find ways to solve problems and labeling them as 'Tories'. I have never been and never will be a Tory - NEVER, but something has to be done- and the Labour party knows it just as well.

So what are you going to do with all the families living in bedsits and b&bs? Leave them there to rot. That is fair - you tell me.

We were certainly taught that at Grammar School, and my parents were big on debating and questioning issues.

Yes, that could be true - but most of my slightly more mature friends seem as open-minded as ever. Perhaps we are of the generation that was taught to question and debate.

I thought the point about closed-mindedness being a defence mechanism by the brain was the interesting new point. It could explain why as we get older some people become more close minded simply because of physiological changes in the brain.

Thank you, Aka. Nothing there with which I would disagree but I am not sure it adds much to our discussion. I think we all know what open-mindedness means.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_mind

That link didn't work so trying this

Aka - I tried your link but got no joy from Wikipaedia.

What an inspiring story of courage, Joan. I bet it was your support and encouragement that got him through.

Open-mindedness the psychological view

Yes, he is a fighter Greatnan

During that black time he once got the worst job in the world - selling used cars on commission. He soon saw the utter and dangerous dishonesty around him, such as removing warning lights from the dashboard to hide dangerous faults, and mentioned his worries to a supposedly friendly supplier. The supplier advised him to keep stumm as there were rumours of a whistleblower having been killed. My husband said not another word, but a couple of days later he was driving a company car home, when he found himself hemmed in the central lane, with a greyhound bus bearing down on him, with failed brakes. He is an advanced driver, and knew how to protect himself, but the car was a write-off. The greyhound driver was on his first day at work. He was sacked. There was no investigation: this was a time of entrenched police corruption.

He never went back to that job, knowing the accident was no accident really, and a few weeks later was in hospital with an unrelated matter. I looked at him there, in pain and despair, and asked him what he really would have wanted from life if he had the chance. 'To go to university' he said.

So I investigated ways this could happen, he agreed to do it, and found talents and abilities he never knew he had.

So that evil Tory ex boss, and the murderous used car boss, actually enabled him to fulfill a lifelong dream.

You couldn't make it up!!

This thread was about entrenched views - I wonder if anybody has revised their view in the light of the informative posts?

Well done to your husband, Joan, he must be a real fighter. One purpose of Trade Unions was to fight the employers, who used to black any employee who dared to speak out against their unfair or unsafe practices. It happened to my father. In effect, they operated their own trade union, against the workers. How they loved the Union-bashing propaganda and now, of course, the threat of redundancy has reduced the power of many employees again. Not all business owners are benign.

Sorry for not being clear - firstly, I meant profits on houses whether right to buy or not should be taxed - why not? As for Help to Buy - govt scheme which gives 20% deposit interest free for 5 years for new houses upto £600000 - when resold, only loan repayable - none of increase in value. Why?

Elegran said it all: "I think it DOES come down to demonising council house tenants....."

We owned our own home in Queensland, Australia, but it took both our incomes to pay the mortgage, bring up two lads etc. DH worked for a Tory-owned company - the boss was president of the local Liberal (ie Tory) party. In 1993 there was an election that the Liberals 'could not lose', and the boss brought in a Lib candidate to address the workers. DH saw this as a legitimate political forum and expressed the opposite view.

Then the Libs lost the 'unlosable ' election and in a fit of sour grapes the boss fired DH, calling it redundancy. Everyone was horrified as he was a terrific worker, had trained all the juniors, knew his stuff, was professional. We were horrified too, but DH was a good worker with a good record, so he thought he'd get another job. BUT...unknown to him the boss had blacked him - every time someone rang the firm to check DH's work record, he badmouthed DH, who did not find this out for 3 years, when the old boss sacked the personnel manager who rang DH and told him. She had no proof though.

In the first 2 years we'd struggled on, on my relatively low clerical income, but had to sell the house in the end and we got a council house equivalent ie a commission house. We've been here since 1995, and a new State government - Liberals again - are starting to threaten our tenancies. Our lads have long since left home. We have a permanent lease, but all the carry-on has deeply affected DH's health - he has arthritis and agoraphobia. We cannot feel secure here any more. We save every cent we have, so that we can buy a permanent caravan on a permanent site, if the worse comes to the worse. I think we are OK while there are two of us, but when one of us dies - who knows?

The shortage of council houses/commission houses is the fault of governments NOT tenants. If a family is short of a house it is the fault of the authorities, not the people already permanently settled in a house.

When we first got this house we paid full market rent, and have always paid a sizeable rent. It is always a quarter of income, up to a ceiling of market rent. We look after the place, cause no bother, and our rent has already effectively paid for the place, and more.

A Tory (now dead)caused our problem, and Tories are trying to ruin our solution.

PS
After DH realised he would never get a job - he was still blaming ageism at the time - he enrolled in Open University, then his good marks got him into the prestigious University of Queensland, where he got a BA in Political Science. His last job was as electoral officer for a State Labour MP.

He spent a fair bit of time getting desperate people into commission houses.

I don't know anything about that, Bluebell

Crossed posts.

I don't understand Bluebell's question either. Do you mean there is no tax on the profit made by reselling a "Right-to-buy" council house?

Ah but Elegran - what about Help to Buy? Nanaje. - sorry for not explaining properly, no I meant that any increase in value when you sell a house ( unless its a second home) is tax free. Why?

Just found out that one of my brilliant ideas is already in place:-

"Paying back your discount

If you sell your Right to Buy home within 5 years of buying it, you’ll have to pay back some or all of the discount you got.

If you sell within the first year, you’ll have to pay back all of the discount. On top of this, the amount you pay back depends on the value of your home when you sell it. So, if you got a 20% discount, you’ll have to pay back 20% of the selling price.

If you sell after the first year, the total amount you pay back reduces. You pay back:

80% of the discount in the second year
60% of the discount in the third year
40% of the discount in the fourth year
20% of the discount in the fifth year"

also:-
"Selling your home

If you sell your home within 10 years of buying it through Right to Buy, you must first offer it to either:

your old landlord
another social landlord in the area
If the landlord doesn’t agree to buy your home within 8 weeks, you can sell it to anyone."

bluebell is the house banding system for council tax a way of addressing house value? Is that what you meant?

As do all earners of course except the super rich who manage to avoid it

Can someone explain to me why there is no tax payable on the increase in house value but if a council house tenant EARNS money , they pay tax and NI on it?

I think it DOES come down to demonising council house tenants, althought Granjura does not believe that she does that. They are seen by those who own their homes as somehow feckless and unwilling to work hard to earn the money to buy a house. They are seen to be living in houses built by the local authority, repaired and decorated by the local authority, all for nothing, in fact they are seen as getting benefits from the state as well. In truth, they are seen as living there on sufferance - that is why I do not like the term social housing, it is too like charity housing.

Well, that is not true. They are people who, for one reason or another, do not own a house of their own. They pay rent to live in a home of their own. Not one from which they can be evicted at any time for someone more deserving. They have rights, they have a contract, and as long as they keep to their side, they expect to keep those rights. They personalise them, they fill them with memories, they live, love and die there. When they die the tenancy can be taken over by a son or daughter. How can they not believe that it is their home? how can anyone grudge them that belief?

Rents are set at different levels by different councils, but they are not peanuts, and that amount is then not available to save for a deposit on a bought house.

I think Jura is on the same wavelength as Frank who thinks that the only reason anyone has just the basic pension when they retire is because they have not paid into a scheme to get it higher or worked harder at their job. No Frank, no Jura, it is because they did not have the money to start with.

granjura ask why shouldn't home owners have to do that?

The many people I know who are council /housing association tenants would love to own their own homes and have more choice in where they live. The jobs they do do not allow them to do this: TAs,NNEB, care assistants, nurses, retail workers, admin/office workers, light industry etc. and their OHs have similarly low paid and/or temporary work in the building industry/ fire fighters/car mechanics are the one I know. I live in SE where property prices/rents are high and even any London weighting in pay does close the gap.

Should these people have less protection (home wise) because they earn less money even if they they work as hard?

I think that is what your arguments boils down to – you appear to resent the fact that some house owners (better off people) may have to sell up to pay for care when people who don't have a house to sell (poorer people) get their care provided by the state. Which suggests to me that you are not in favour of to each according to his need and from each according to his ability.