Are our views always entrenched?

My daughter runs her own consultancy and lives a very busy working life too. She cannot afford a nanny so she has to do a large amount of her work in the evening, sandwiching around childcare. My other daughter's partner runs his own business so I am aware of the hard work that is involved.

It is frustrating if you live close by to someone who makes an active choice to undermine the welfare system but these are the minority (1/6 vs 5/6) and most people reliant on benefits are doing so out of necessity and not by choice.

But it did not say how much the other 5/6 earned!

I agree that if someone can afford to rent privately or buy then it would be the right thing to do and if the household income is £60k + they should be able to though not buy in many areas of London.

I remember years ago having a debate with a communist friend who did not want to buy a house even though the family could afford to do so because he did not believe in private ownership of property. It took a lot of debate to get him to accept that in England he was using up a property that another less well off family could have. He did buy a house eventually!

I don't agree completely with your last statement though! I have seen loads of hard work to support schools from families who have to rely on benefits. Often some poorer families felt intimidated by the better off families who wanted everything at the school fair etc to be more 'middle class' and trendy so they felt their contribution less welcome. It took a lot of work on the part of staff to ensure everyone had an opportunity to contribute and to feel equal.

Aka - on the BBC news tonight - not my figures.

Ana, some will say that what I said makes me a raving and uncaring Tory.
The funny thing is, because of the diversity of our family and friends, most of them think I am a raving socialist. This is one thing I always found difficult in the UK, is that people are so often either one, or the other- and that anything proposed by one group is automatically rejected by the other, and vice versa- with no hope of ever finding solutions for the great majority of people. If people like my daughter, who have so much to offer, the only woman partner in her firm, and one of the only ones in her field- one day decide to leave the uk because they have had enough to be seen as the permanent milking cows of uk society- I am not sure I could blame her, and others like her. She would be paid twice as much or more here.

If those figures are correct that is truly shocking Granjura

I share your frustration, granjura. My daughter is in a similar position to yours, yet is supposed (by some) to feel compassion towards her neighbour, who has never worked, has no disability and has everything provided for her and her children by the council (i.e. the taxpayer).

Heard on BBC News tonight - 1 in 6 of council tenants in London earns more than £60.000!!! And social housing in London = 25%.

The Government is looking at charging more realistic rents for people in social housing with salaries over 50.000 - so they can build 3000 new homes for families. A taxi driver who earns 60.000 said it would not work, as it 'would not incentivise him to work hard'. So my daughter, who is a business woman, with 2 children, and goes to work at 5.30 am 2 mornings a week, and returns home at 9pm or later twice a week - commutes and has to pay a nanny- screams when she hears this. Are we to be surprised that 'middle-class' young people with families are totally fed up with working their guts out to pay for others. They believe in fairness, they spend their week-ends supporting their community despite working so hard all week - support their local school- and again and again they have to organise events, fetes, fund-raising - whilst other parents who do not work and with many in social housing and with benefits of all kinds - do not do anything to help.

And I would have never privatised key services like water, electricity, railways, etc. Never. But it is hard not to agree that the Unions had got a strangle hold over the country, and that something had to be done. Again, because of the extreme left and right factions in the UK, the first past the post election system, etc, it was very difficult to find solutions. But privatising was NOT the way to go. I am btw not a Conservative, and never will be - but that does not mean that I cannot see that the benefit system does need reforming in some ways, and that solutions for housing for families have to be found, in the short and the long term, with sensitivity and creativity- but needs must.

nanaej - me a business person? I've been a teacher all my life, teaching in multicultural comprehensives! I am totally against privatising any part of the education system- I would personally abolish all faith schools and academies - and take away the charitable status and tax relief for private and 'public' schools.

I go back to a previous point I have made on another thread..if key industries had not been nationalised but run efficiently by and for the government then we would have had an income that is now owned by private companies!

I guess you may be a business person granjura so I ask your opinion of why a private company would want to run a state school ( ie Academy) What is in it for them? I can only assume it is profit.

If there is money to be made out of state education why is it going to private companies and not the schools?? I really do not see why the government is allowing state money to make private profit!

Again, agreed. And yet - we have to stop tax fraud and evasion, close those loopholes - but at the same time cannot tax entrepreneurs, etc, fairly. We cannot just keep putting up taxes for the better-off in a way that will stifle business and scare people away. Not an easy balance - I am fully aware.

In this global economy, there are plenty to countries like Hong Kong, Singapour, and many more who would be VERY happy to welcome UK businesses and banks, etc. I know many young people who are working so hard, and feel that whatever they gain by the sacrifices they make in many ways, are just wiped out by more tax.

Meant to ask a question about the suggestion that the entrepreneurs and financiers would simply walk away from UK if the taxes got too high and then the country would lose out. That is how I understood the post.

That sounds pretty much like 'holding the government to ransom' which is what the Trades Unions were always accused of doing and so they were demonised but it seems the view is that we should not upset the bankers and moneymakers..do they have us by the short and curlies... ??

Just to let you know that the good ideas some posters are proposing already exist & have done for a long while. A friend of mine worked for an organisation who put people in need of housing with a person in needs of some level of care. My 88 yr old aunt currently has a young SA singer living with her at a reduced rent as she does shopping for my aunt and it makes my aunt feel secure that there is someone in the flat overnight.

I agree that it is not helpful to look back all the time and we have to consider the context of a situation but we also have to look back to learn from history, to avoid mistakes that were made previously etc!

I also come from an ethnically, politically, religiously and socially mixed childhood. I found it helped to give me an insight and empathy to others persons perspectives but know many people with very monocultural experiences growing up who are open minded, thoughtful and reflective people. I guess as my old mum used to say 'It's not the experiences you have it's what you learn from them!'

And so we end up, as has become the norm in UK - with Tories on the one hand saying 'you have to do this- no discussion, just tough, get on with it' and the socialists who say 'NO we will not even discuss this or look at better more sensitive and creative solutions. NO'

I so wish Labour will get back in power at the next elections - but I can assure you they are going to find it a lot harder to be in a position to have to sort this mess- as tough choices will have to be made.

Excellent post Whenim, thanks. I know exactly what you mean, but am trying to illustrate that many house owners, especially as they get older, find themselves not as well looked after as many who have not worked so hard and feel badly let down. Many who did not necessarily get the support but still succeeded through sheer hard work and tenacity - and now see this not rewarded, whilst others who did not, are. Illustrating that there are two sides, and maybe 100s, to the same story.

Why should so many who own their own homes have to downsize as they can't afford to keep their homes - whilst others do not, and on top of that get all the maintenance, posh kitchens and bathrooms put in, etc. - without lifting a finger or paying for it? I am NOT looking for scapegoats here - but social housing is about need, security, a net- and as there are currently not enough larger family houses, I'm afraid families should have priority- for so many excellent reasons. Agreed though that sensitivity is required to re-house older people/couples with empty nests, that creative solutions need looking for (as I've proposed above), etc. We keep talking about the feelings of older people asked to leave 3/4 bedroom houses - and yet NOBODY has mentioned the dreadful hardship of families living in bedsits with several children and the impact this has on them all. Why?

I suppose it comes down to our view about welfare. I own my house and the cottage next door is rented by an elderly man who has never worked. He is illiterate and not interested in the upkeep of his house. He has never learned how to pay utilty bills - he lived wth his mother for 50 years till she died, then he took over the house. His cottage has had new windows, kitchen, bathroom, pointing, fencing and the garden done for him. He lives on pension and pension credit, and has never had a holiday, is clothed by handouts, and he fritters away his money on beer and cigarettes. He's never had the education and support to do any different.

I appreciate that social services and his social landlord help him to live to a relative standard in his own home. It would cost more to place him in a care home. He potters about doing no harm to anyone, and I feel the more vulnerable people in our society should be entitled to be part of it. Some people would begrudge him this lifestyle that he hasn't contributed to, but I believe that our welfare state is there as a safety net and we shoudn't start rounding up the more needy people when the going gets tough. Let's round up the tax avoiders and benefit frauds who are able to contribute, and we would have less of a housing crisis to manage, not the people who are sitting targets because of their vulnerability.

Agreed Whenim - but instead of some groups just saying NO, we could instead look at intelligent solutions, that could in fact be positive for those who would become hosts, for instance.

A friend of mine is struggling to keep her privately owned home, which she has worked so hard to buy and keep - and yet sees her cousin in council housing getting a new kitchen, a new bathroom, re-decorated throughout every couple of years, etc, and she does feel that many who have worked so hard are hard down by, whilst others get all those worries dealt with - often those who have not been quite so hard working and careful all their lives. Many house owners who downsize do not do so out of choice - but because they have to- as my parents did for instance. They neither could afford, nor have the energy, to maintain a larger home.

We intend to stay in our large home - but intend to share it with a young family in exchange for help with maintenance and care.

Yes, granjura those who feel the need to move to relieve expense can feel more positive about shaking off something that has become a burden. I was happy to downsize from a large house to my little cottage when my children flew the nest. It's all about having some power, control and choice over our own future. If I had been forced out by a council, I would have felt very different. There's room for flexibility in these things.

I'm glad I was not the only one confused by Greatnan's post.

granjura I only heard part of a programme the other day but someone was suggesting that instead of having to pay out a huge amount in care fees, perhaps a student of some sort of caring could move in and have accommodation in exchange for 10 hours a week of care. Do you think that would work? It sounds good to me.

I hadn't thought about that side of social housing, that there is no worry about maintaining the property but we will certainly have to move out of our (owned) house when the housework, maintenance and gardening get too much for us. Perhaps it will be easier for us than for some as we have moved lots of times and don't have the long term ties which some have but I am pretty sure we will stay in this area, just perhaps move to a bungalow with a level garden.

I don't understand your post Greatnan- nobody is misreading, misinterpreting, no insults. So why give up?

Whenim64, I totally agree that it is a wrench for older people to give up over-large homes. But this happens in the private sector - I know 100s of people who have had to sell up, either to get money in the coffers, or more often, because the place has got too big for them to manage, and too costly to maintain. This happened to my parents - yes, it was a wrench, and in many ways a liberating thing too. No more big bills, no more constant maintenance - more time. So why should people in social housing be protected from having to dowsize more than people in private sector.

But social housing is SOCIAL and in many senses meant to cater for those more in need. Ideally I agree it is not 'nice' to set one group 'against' another - and yet, we have to work with what we've got NOW, and work hard and quickly to lessen the impact. Looking at it impassively and impersonally- it is hard to not see that families have greater need than oler people with empty nests, surely. So yes - sensitivity must be used to try and re-house communities and groups together, with proper support and infrastructure. One of my friends who lived in a Council Estate in Leicester actually asked to downsize, and she had to move across town to new council bungalows, adapted for their needs. A wrench to move away from the community where she had brought up her children - but in many ways she loved the change and found herself with couples of same age, instead of being surrounded by noisy families with rowdy children. After a couple of months, she regretted not moving earlier and just loved it.

The idea of putting together a register of young people needing housing, or single families - and allow older people to take them in with proper compensation and support - could be a disaster, in some cases, but absolutely wonderful in many. This is happening in towns here, and the reason I mentioned it. And, as said, many people in the private sector take in students or other lodgers, in order to make ends meet, so why not. As said, we did and it was a very positive experience.

Why you should see discussing this as 'distorting' etc, I do not understand. Sad.

Cee , I like your post .

Iam64 you explained my point about it being distressing for people to be ousted from their family homes much more vividly than I could.

The MP John Reid was being interviewed recently on TV and made a very sensible comment. He was talking about how easy it is in Opposition to propose all sorts of wondeful policies and strategies, many of which cannot be implimented once the reality of being in government brought with it the need to make difficult decisions.

His sensible comment......'When you decide, you divide'

But it is clear Lily that some feel it necessary to take sides outside the polling booth. I realise that we have to make such decisions if we are public spirited but surely then we can acknowledge the good done by the party/ties in power whilst disliking the bad? I agree with granjura that it doesn't help to keep talking about whose fault it is but to deal in the here and now. Yes, sometimes we need historical context but keep going over old ground doesn't necessarily help us move forward. Just taking the one issue of housing, it is the current situation which needs to be sorted now, whilst also making future provision. The fact that social housing has been sold off may be one of the reasons we have the current crisis but it will not solve it.

I think movement into smaller accommodation should involve choice and compensation, and there will be plenty of people who haven't invested their whole lives into the homes they want to stay in, that would be prepared to move to smaller homes. Moving away from neighbours, friends, communities is distressing for people if they are forced out because their rent has risen by an unreasonable amount when they have a room no-one is currently sleeeping in. People have relatives to stay, friends visiting from afar, the need to move to single beds/rooms - why deprive and uproot them from what many of us take for granted simply because they are in social housing? They pay their rent and have tenancy agreements.

Setting young familes against people who have lived in their houses for a long time is not the way to resolve it. It needs a multi-pronged approach. More single and family houses and flats to be built, compulsory purchase of abandoned houses that can be repaired, choice and compensation for those who don't mind moving, no penalising of those who are happy and settled in their council houses, stop placing familes in exhorbitantly priced private rented accommodation, and make attractive offers of accommodation in areas where unemployment can be addressed and new businesses enouraged. We have lots of examples in the north-west where accommodation has been increased to meet need.

Local authorities are sitting on lots of buildings that could be converted to desirable housing. In the last few days, I have passed massive derelict buildings in Manchester and Stockport, on brownfield sites if they can't be restored and converted, up for sale for commercial ventures like hotels. We have thousands of hotel rooms and don't need any more, but they want profits. Good social housing is do-able, but bureaucracy gets in the way.