Are our views always entrenched?

I am baffled. All I have done is invite people to a debate about which policies they embrace and which they don't like. I have stated my own personal viewpoint as honestly as possible. I wasn't pretending to have the answers to the problems of the world, although I do think that reducing the top rate of tax whilst cutting benefits was misguided.
There must, surely, be some Conservative voters who don't have a personal vendetta against me and can voice their own opinions in the same courteous manner in which I have voiced mine?

Good post granjura

ceesnan

I'm quite sure that I'm not the only person who is of the opinion that politics and religion are the two subjects that cause the majority of "heated debates" which then result in unpleasant exchanges. Far better to keep your own council.

But there are also out there some labour voters and socialists, humanists, etc, who can see that savings have to be made, that we are in a mess, and that somebody has to pay- and that constantly attacking anyone with entrepreneurial ambitions is not helpful. We need people who will pay high taxes, because this is what pays for the NHS, education, welfare, etc. So it is essential that we tackle tax fraud and evasion, and close the loopholes - but if has to be done carefully has in this world economy, it is easy for big business to just go elsewhere - this is already very apparent and clear. We must strive to keep banking and big business in the UK, but also ensure that fair taxes are paid. Again, I do find it hard to hear people criticizing those big businesses, and then not hesitate to use them for convenience???

And it is difficult to discuss those issues if people take everything said on a personal basis. Take the bedroom 'tax' (which is NOT a tax at all btw) - irrespective of one's personal or familial circumstances - we have to take stock of the PRESENT situation and weigh out difficulties. We can all argue about who was wrong to sell council housing and not replace, and not forecast future needs, etc. But we are now suck with what we've got in the short term - and irrespective of personal or familial situtations - weigh out all the facts. And yes, including costs. So, would it be more detrimental for a few older people (and the ruling does NOT even consider this for OAPs) to have to move to smaller accommodation - or for families to have to stay and live in bedsits and B&Bs - which is awful and unbearable for them (and yes, COSTS A BOMB)? If we take personal friends and family out of the equation, and reply cool headedly and with a heart, the answer has to be that families with young children should be given priority. Of course, ideally and in longer term, older people should be moved into newly built and suitable accom. together as a community - but as tough as it may seem for some, families and children come first- and at the moment they do not, at huge social and educational cost. Just one example.

We just need to stop thinking in boxes - Labour or Tory - it is outdated, divisive and gets us NOWHERE.

I did hope we could have a mature discussion without personal animosity creeping in. I ran a small business and certainly said nothing against them.
Unclaimed benefits amount to much more than is lost to fraudulent claims.
Nobody has suggested we print money - just that the usual targets of single mothers, large families, the unemployed and the sick/disabled should not bear an unfair share of the burden.
Billions are still being spent on arms procurement - much of it wasted. More is spent on an army of advisors and consultants. Contracts are awarded to companies that are manifestly inefficient but presumably have the right contacts.
The cutting of legal aid in family disputes will mean that the party with the most finance available, usually the husband, will have better access to justice.
The bedroom tax is just another way of punishing those in social housing - they can't downsize because there are not smaller units available.
Even the right wing press regularly prints stories of people whose lives have been ruined by the wrong decisions made by ATOS.
If I am wrong to object to these policies, will somebody please tell me why - without resorting to personal insults.

Another good post granjura. The decisions which need to be made are hard, whoever makes them, and perhaps an overview is necessary for those decision makers as they would never make the decisions if they got bogged down in the detail. It does all seem much more difficult than it used to be because so many attitudes have changed over the years and not always for the better.

What an interesting thread this is. I'm definitely with others who say let's discuss everything, and it isn't goading to encourage discussions on faith or politics. We only need to join in if we want to, and to a level with which we're comfortable - at least that's my impression of gransnet so far. (I was a bit shocked by the level of anger/vitriol on some of the posts on the LTB site.
Granjura, lots of good points in your post for me. I agree we need to talk about how we manage the money as a society. Whilst I'm more cross with multi national tax avoiders, I have been exposed to rather more benefit exploitation than I would have liked.
I am uncomfortable with what seems like a growing expectation that older people should move out of their family homes because of under occupation. We need more social housing, more affordable and supported housing. My sisters and I managed to support mum in my parents 3 bedroom family home until 3 weeks before she died, despite frailty, failing sight, hearing and other age related difficulties. She'd been widowed for several years by then. The comfort of living in the family home, with her memories of family life, my father's impression still somehow around her, the furniture, garden and most importantly, her elderly dog were all important in helping us maintain mum in the home she loved. When she had to go into a nursing home for assessment, we felt she simply gave up. We took her dog in to visit and the way they greeted each other brought tears to her daughters, as well as to the staff. She died within 3 weeks of going in for assessment. One of my sisters believes that mum gave up, as she understood she couldn't manage at home any longer.
As a generic social worker for many years, I have memories of elderly people, determined to remain in their own homes, despite the anxiety of their relatives who almost always felt residential care to be the safest option. None of the people I visited wanted to leave their own homes, which were what would now be called "under occupied" but were homes in which long and full lives had been lived, so held important memories.
I love our family home, so many memories of family life, the children growing up, my parents alive and well, dogs dogs and more dogs, my garden full of plants given to me by people I love. I'd be the mad woman barricading herself into her home if some bright spark politician decided our much loved 4 bedroom and therefore under occupied home was to be taken from me. I'm lucky, we've been able to buy our home. If it was privately rented we couldn't afford to stay here. If it was social housing we would have to move out to make way for young families who are waiting for a place big enough for them. Complicated isn't it

No personal animosity, and no personal insults in my post Greatnan. And if you perceive such, then it might explain why many posters would hesitate to post.

We are printing money, right now, and by the bucket load, day in, day out. And it can't go on.

So who comes first- families or older people when it comes to social housing? I know the reply should be neither, I totally agree - but what do WE DO NOW FOR ALL THOSE FAMILIES LIVING IN BEDSITS?

One solution for people who want to stay put in larger houses (and we are NOT talking about OAPs here- can we at least agree about this) - would be to encourage people with extra room to take on a lodger, or a mum with a child- sensitively of course, matching people carefully and with support. It could actually be great for those people to have company and help around the place, and solve 2 problems. We certainly had to do this when our girls went to Uni- we took 2 lodgers to pay for their studies and accom elsewhere - and it was great fun. Some of our lodgers are still good friends to this day. We have to think outside those boxes - and stop this constant, divisive and destructive swing between left and right which get us nowhere.

As i said before, the majority of us perhaps come from backgrounds where one party, one culture, one religion - etc prevailed. I am very glad to say that right from birth, I had to grow up surrounded by people from different religions, different backgrounds, different everything - where you just cna;t grow up saying 'THE rich are bad' THE poor are lazy scoungers', 'THE Catholics are such and such, and the Protestants are blablabla. No insults - nothing personal - you asked, I answer.

granjura, couldn't agree more, not all socialists have the monopoly on caring and being magnanimous, not all Tories are hard hearted capitalists, not all Christians behave in a Christian like way, being an atheist doesn't mean you will care less about your fellow man. These parameters are too narrow. I suspect those who haven't jumped into this discussion just aren't around this time of the day. I'm only here at the moment to look at Denise Knowles comments. For me engaging in on line discussion depends entirely on my mood. Sometimes if I feel strongly about something I will post, but don't always want to be drawn into arguments on the political and religious spectrum when you know you aren't going to agree on what is often a personal opinion, it can be futile. For example, I completely understand why some here are atheists and respect that, it makes just as much sense not to believe, but it's not for me, that's it really.

The nature of party politics and the electoral system in the UK forces us, the electorate, into taking sides when possibly most of us aren't wholeheartedly committed to one party rather than another.

BAnanas - I did try to get a pleasant debate going. I am giving up now, as I can see my posts will be misread in the usual way.
Pity - I would really have liked to hear from some members why they feel the Conservatives have got it right - perhaps they are all at work.
It was precisely to get away from the stereotyping that I wanted to hear the other side's views.

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.

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.

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'

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

Cee , I like your post .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!'