Are our views always entrenched?

Especially if a child has a life-threatening condition it makes sense that they are being cared for, in their own house, with everything to hand. So a nanny, if affordable, is a good choice.
I do see your point about paying for and the allocation of social housing Granjura and of course the family in your example should have the three-bedroomed house. Sadly it's not always as easy to reorganise what is frankly a total shambles. No one party is to blame, though the party system does only allow for short-term thinking ruled by the need to get re-elected.

Not everyone in their own home downsizes.

Have a small one for me , white for preference , I am off to watch a little more racing .

jura, I answered your question about the allocation. Here's my answer again: if the house to be allocated is empty, it should go to the family. If the house is already (still) lived in by at least one of the people to whom it was allocated in the past, then the answer is not so simple however many times you argue that it is. You cannot just shift people about like cattle.

I do think that posters are underestimating the ability of people to move house. Fifty is nothing in the great scheme of things when it comes to moving house. Why are people who own a house more capable of moving / downsizing than people who live in social housing? Do th posters consider people in social housing as incapable?

Nonu, why should it be - I can't be wrong about everything!

The sun is over the yardarm (it gets dark early here) so I am off to have a glass or two. Keep my seat warm.

That is so sweet , do you think it a one off ?

Good heavens, Nonu, we are in complete agreement.

Why on earth should anyone have a problem with people hiring nannies ?

Whatever floats your boat , I say .

Nonu - I have no problem in people hiring nannies, my own daughter did it in Malaysia. It gives employment to other women, which was crucial in that country.

But not from Conservative voters, apparently!
Granjura, but you did criticise me for mentioning a relative, even though you had done so yourself. Otherwise, I would not have spoken of your own mention of your daughter.
And don't worry about my sister - I am quite sure than none of her friends are members of Gransnet and even if they were they would certainly not be able to recognise her. Nice of you to worry though.
I do get annoyed when people refer to my family on forums without my consent.

Granjura, good on your DD if she can afford a nanny , nothing wrong with that in my book .

Several of my DD"s friends have nannies , they have to , so that their children can be taken care of , they can then go to work to support these huge mortgages some of them have .

One size does not fit all .

Another unfairness of this new arrangement is that it only applies to people on benefits, living in social/council housing. It doesn't apply to people on benefits, living in privately rented accommodation. BTW, it looks as though Greatnan may be getting an answer to her OP.

My family are also very successful and happy !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And my daughter was also successful, but I don't like to boast...

Agreed Anno - however I'd say that mentioning relatives with so much detail that they could be easily recognisable for people living in the area, may not be fair on said relatives.

And if relatives are mentioned in a post or thread, then one should not criticise others for mentioning them in their reply. I'd always choose not to mention someone's relatives - the only time I've done so was to say that that person is not comparable to other examples, as s/he has been totally responsible with their situation and not asked for others to pay for their decision- which was a true compliment.

Granjura - you said I should not mention my relative - I was merely pointing out that you had mentioned yours several times. Sauce for the goose...................

Thank you Movedalot.

So the words 'successful and a nanny' - almost as bad as 'Etonian' I can hear the scorn and prejudice from here- talk about prejudice! If a mother has a responsible and very time consuming job, with a long commute, and a child with a life-threatening condition, a nanny is the only safe solution. And it is a huge sacrifice, as a large part of salary has to go towards paying for nanny. So should I apologise for my daughter being so successful and wanting her children to be safe? I don't think so, thank you.
Why should one be 'ashamed' for having worked so hard and become a partner in a successful firm, and the only woman, the only woman with children too. And that is part of the problem in the UK now, being successful is a dirty word - never mind the fact they work so hard in the little spare time they have to support their state school and community acitivities, instead of opting out to the private system.

Agreed, people are not 'given' a council house- and that is the very point in fact. It is allocated according to need, at a much reduced rent compared to the market, and should not be considered as an allocation for life - but dependent as said above, on need. Organ donation is a relevant example of how need is decided upon and allocated.

So if you had the two groups in front of you and the decision to make about the allocation of that 3 bedroom house - the 50 year old single person, or the family with several children. Come on - come off the fence and make the decision. This is what councils have to decide day in, day out. In my book, it is a no brainer. Keeping families in bedsits whilst 50ish year olds stay in 3 bedroom family houses with gardens is not on.

And yes, life is not fair. If you are dependent on social help and benefits, you just won't have the same choices as people of independent means and house owners- that is just a fact of life.

BTW talking about those post war bungalows. One of my best friends in Leicester lives in one of those, 5 on one side of a grassed area and 5 on the other. Small lounge, small bedroom, tiny kitchen and the bathroom has been made into walking shower room for her OH as he has real mobility and other health issues. She has turned the communal gardens into a wonderful garden worthy of a top garden magazine- a haven of peace. Impossible to have any of her French family to visit, as it is so small - and if they come they have to stay in a b&b. She says it would be totally unfair to have a spare bedroom for the purpose, as families need the room so much more. Good on her.

There is nothing wrong with citing one's own experience or that of a close relative if it is relevant to the topic under discussion. One's likely to know more of such cases than of a stranger's experience, after all.

Exactly my point earlier, moved – you are not an expert on that person's health. Diabetes is not obvious but it can be limiting. That's just one example; I, like you, haven't a clue what the man's problem is and therefore I, like you, have no right to judge.

Re moving isn't a big deal – where's that empathy you mentioned? Not everyone finds the same things easy.(BTW, I've moved loads of times too).

granjura what you say makes so much sense to me, I said much the same in a previous thread but did not put it as well as you do.

I don't understand why it would be hard for someone in their 50s to move, it is hardly old! These days with so much movement it is unlikely their neighbours have all been living close by for generations as it may have been for our parents. Would a few miles make that much difference to someone of such an age? I think that would depend upon the amenities near to the new home. It is quite possible they could end up nearer the health centre or shops.

I don't know anything about the contracts for social housing but in the private sector it seems to me you don't have as much right to stay in the home as if you were buying it.

The person I was talking about lives alone in his own home. He has said that he is too ill to work and lives on benefits. It does look to me as if he could work but I'm no expert.

Who has said 'we won't consider any changes'? Nobody on Gransnet. If anybody came up with a reasoned argument for government policies I would be delighted to consider them. So far, nobody has.

'Why make this personal by stating (citing?) a relative?' Because it is my sister who is my concern, and considering the amount of information you have given us about your successful daughter, and her nanny, I didn't think mentioning relatives was forbidden.
I hope we can leave the organ donation discussion for another thread - let's try to keep vaguely on topic.
Does anyone else remember the prefabs which were erected very quickly in the 1940's to replace houses destroyed in the blitz? They were supposed to last ten years, but in Salford families were still living happily in them in the 1970s. Constructing and erecting them would provide plenty of employment and I am sure builders could adapt to the new techniques. It would give whichever useless government is elected time to initiate the long talked about programme of building 'affordable' housing - 'affordable' apparently being around £150,000. Building permits were granted to large builders on the proviso that a certain proportion of houses fell into this somewhat dubious category, but it seems many have failed to comply, or have found a loophole. Not demonising big business, just telling the facts.

Yes, elegran. If people pay their rent according to the rent contract, then they have a right to stay in the house they are paying rent for in just the same way people who pay for their house via a mortgage have.