Are our views always entrenched?

Elegran you ought to be on a Government Think Tank.

Comparatively large, Bags Three bedrooms instead of two! Two instead of one! Everything is relative.

Three bedroom council houses may well be small by comparison to some privately owned homes - although no smaller than the 3 bedroom semi we used to live in. But certainly too large for a single person (not OAP but perfectly able 50ish year olds with empty nests) and certainly MUCH bigger and more suitable for families than a bedsit or b&b.

Indeed, which is why I've always said that the current bedroom 'tax' (not a tax as you can't be taxed something that is not yours btw) - is poorly thought out and rushed. But that changes have to happen, and that (I'll say it again) all parties need to work together, and think outside the left/right box, frankly and sensitively to find solutions. Never ever have i said that the current policy is right.

Bags that's terrible about your brother and most of us accept that those who cannot work, or find work, need all the support that's available.
But it's those who could work but milk the system who are eating up available funds, money that ought to be used for the genuinely needy, people like your brother.
There are jobs out there, unfilled. Yes, many of them are dirty, unsociable and minimum wage I agree. And many short term or part-time too. Even so they are there. I recently had a French student staying with us. He wanted to come back to improve his English so he got himself a job on a local farm, tomato picking. His girlfriend came with him and is working in a Curry House. Vacancies the locals don't want.
Perhaps Granjura sounds tense because she can't get her point across???

elegran, I agree. If anyone is to blame, it is councils and national government.

Are there any 'large' council houses? I thought council houses tended to be on the small side even when they do have three bedrooms.

They should have approached it from the other end - built some smaller ground-floor houses, at attractive rents, and said they would ONLY be let to people over a certain age with no children living at home. Then they should have interviewed those who wanted to move and made it seem a privilege to have one of these, offered to those of more mature years and commonsense.

There would have been a queue of people wanting to live in a more manageable house with a smaller garden, away from large families and NOT in a flat in a tower block beside a lot of youngsters just escaped from home and living it up.

But that would take some planning and imagination. Instead they said that these people were blocking those who needed larger houses and they ought to yield place to the next generation. Much the same as saying that the elderly are filling up hospital beds and should be more considerate in how they choose to be ill.

Your poor brother, because of his disability, is exactly the sort of person who we need to look after, and it is wonderful that the UK social system provides and care for those who need it. My brother is not. To pretend that there are not many people who are not prepared, rather unable, to look after themselves and take responsibility is naive beyond belief.

I am neither angry nor jaundiced, you are right. Although I am angry at those who decry prejudice via different prejudice. I have nephews in public school and I feel it is wrong that they should be forever despised by some for the school choice their parents made - and automatically dismissed as toffs and baffoons, only successful because of their private education, and their ideas and beliefs automatically dismissed because of the school they went to.

But yes, I am sick and tired of people saying that because tax evasion is worse (ad I totally agree btw) not taking responsibility and expecting to stay in large council accommodation with lots of space forever, whilst families live in bedsits, is right. and that we should not try and find solutions which transcend the right/left divide.

Tut, tut, Bags - there you go - talking about a close relative.

When there aren't enough jobs, it doesn't matter how determined some people are. My brother gave up the full time job of looking for a job after years of trying and went to do voluntary work for CAB to regain his self-esteem. His physical health had been damaged by a massive road accident (ruptured diaphragm, burst lung, punctured liver, crushed arm, broken ribs – shall I go on? – not to mention the total shaking up of his brain). He got some temporary jobs as an accountant, but because his speech was slurred and his manual coordination not as good as it had been. He had a hard time. Eventually he gave up.

It's OK to give up sometimes. My brother is not weak, nor did he exploit any loopholes.

Forgive me, jura, but your posts come across as very cross with the world and even a little jaundiced. I'm sure you are not cross or jaundiced.

If my mum has to sell her house to pay for care in her very old age, I think that's perfectly fair. People who haven't got a house to sell, who have been paying rent all their lives, obviously can't pay for their own care because they haven't got the capital from a house sale. That kind of 'wrench' can't be avoided. Other wrenches – booting people out of their homes because of bad planning on the part of government – can be avoided and should be in my opinion.

There is much truth in the points you've raised Granjura and a lot of common sense.

Perhaps if he had been a wealthy banker he would have been one of the ones looking for loopholes to avoid paying his taxes! Sadly there are just some people who don't believe in taking on the responsibilities of being part of society whatever place they have in it.

And this is truly appreciated and respected nanaej, thank you.

Thing is, when there are few jobs - it makes some more determined, and gives others a good excuse for giving up, and saying 'why bother' and they are not necessarily the weakest. My brother is certainly NOT weak, but very clever at exploiting all the loopholes and watch others do the hard word. Laughing his head off too!

granjura I don't think anyone has disagreed with you that people who can work should do so (if there are suitable jobs to go to), that if you earn enough not to need subsidised housing you should rent privately or buy (if there are suitable properties to go to) and that people/companies who earn a healthy salary or have a large income should not avoid paying due taxes.

Where we disagree, as a diverse group on a forum, is on ways to resolve the scarcity of appropriate accommodation and how to improve the management of the welfare system. We also have strongly differing views on the rates for taxing the wealthy.

This is why I am on a forum..to debate by putting forward my views and opinions and to read and respond to others' views and opinions. Sometimes I might modify my opinion sometimes my opinions are validated and confirmed.

No, those who can, often choose not to - for all sorts of reasons. Sad, tragic but true.

My Oh's family went through terrible hardship as immigrants. OH could easily have said can't cope with education, because i've moved so many times, and changed primary school 5 times and secondary 3. And made all sorts of excuses because of his circumstances (that I won't go into here obviously) and then because of his serious health issues. But all 3 children beat all odds and became very successful. Many of our best entrepreneurs and professional indeed come from very humble and difficult backgrounds- which gave them the absolute determination to succeed and never again be at the 'bottom of the pile'. Others will use any excuse- and others are genuinely weak and totally need our support. There would be plenty to go round if we only had to look after those.

Which is why we are not talking about 84 year olds, nor those who are not in social housing.

My parents were in their 70s when they had to sell a huge house, full of stuff gathered over 2 generations. It was a massive wrench, physically and emotionally - I don't think my mum ever recovered from it.

I totally agree and believe that weaker members of society should be supported - but that it according to need at the time, and not necessarily for life and in exactly the same way forever. But to say that all people work their hardest to achieve their best is naive and more. We all know sibblings from the same family, brought up in exactly the same way, with the same opportunities - and some will work hard to reach their potential, and others will not. I have 2 brothers - one who has overcome huge difficulties to study for a PHD, and one who has spent the whole of his life behaving as if my parents and then the world, owes him a living. He's been on social benefit all his life on and off, and sees nothing wrong with sponging on society- he laughs about it, and says if we are stupid enough to work hard, it's our problem. And there are many many more like this in UK, because the system allows it. Benefit fraud as such is indeed relatively small, but the number of people who take advantage of the system is ginormous. And that is the plain truth.

Those who can, do. Those who can't need support. Simple principle. People who have managed to buy their own homes, at least as I understand it, have generally been better off all their lives than people who never manage it because of only being able to do low paid jobs.

I don't think anyone – certainly not me – is saying should or should not about any of the ideas, jura. We are just acknowledging complexity.

And the problem remains that there don't seem to be enough small places for single old people to move to even if they wanted to. No point saying it's not fair when it isn't even possible.

My mum lives alone in a five-bedroomed house. She has been there forty-eight years. She is blind but has managed for years on her own because she knows the house. She is the kind of person who couldn't cope with a move physically. At 84 I'm not sure she'd cope mentally either now and yet as a young woman she moved house very competently several times with five kids.

Whatever solutions there are have to be flexible and accommodating (no pun intended) of frail humanity. No shoulds. No should nots. At least that's what I think.

Exactly and the only time I mentioned a relative was to give a huge compliment, after said relative was mentioned as an example- but was strongly criticised for this, being told 'it must be a Swiss thing' How rude! Whereas someone here as given my location and my OH's occupation - which was totally inappropriate, and we were described in such detail on another site that we were immediately recognised by friends who go in touch to say someone's been talking about us on that Forum!! But we digress - this is a totally different issue.

Yes, people are not cattle to be moved at whim by the government, but neither a private owners who often do not have the choice. And what about the choice of large families living in bedsits and b&bs- what is THEIR choice?
My mil like my parents HAD TO downsize, for financial reasons and also for practical ones has she was unable both physically and financially to maintain her house, and then later sell the flat she'd moved to pay for care - just like my parents had to. Why should they have to do so, whilst people in social housing are protected for life?

My parents were the only ones to pay for their care in the OAP home they were in, and it used to insense him so much that their care and diligence + sheer hard work meant that they had to spend all to pay and have nothing left for us (which was fine by us but made him so cross and sad).

I once took a group of children, from a school in Waterloo, to St James' park for a pic-nic. We walked up to Buck House to look for the queen.

'Which is her flat then?' rang out the question.

Perhaps those families in bed sits could lodge with her maj??

Of course we could always try Roosevelt's solution and enable investment in building and development progammes: creates jobs and homes!

Too true.

No easy solutions to complex problems.

The only answer is to get building then. There are massive project afoot in many regions to build so-called 'affordable housing' and various schemes for shared ownership. But there is obviously a need for small houses/apartments etc to add to the social housing stock too. Unfortunately there is talk of encroaching on green belt which is not such a happy thought.

I agree in principle, stansgran, but the problem stated by others is that there aren't enough small houses for people to downsize to.