Are our views always entrenched?

In the current economic climate.

Well I gave the example given on the BBC news last night - charging market rate rents for council tenants who earn a good wage- of course should have some flexibility for different parts of the country - easy to do based on average property prices. That would release a lot of funds for a building programme.

Many towns have seen a huge private building programme of flat buildings - with so many sitting empty now. Why not make it a condition of building permit to set aside a % for older people (again we've already agree with are not talking about the elderly). Or as said before, match people with extra room with people who need said room - with some compensation extra.

Flexibility of rent does sound like a good idea, but whenever this kind of flexibility is suggested for dealing with some other problem, it turns out after some research into the matter that organising and applying such flexibility is going to be more costly than not being flexible. And there will always be real and perceived unfairnesses in such a system because it cannot be made really fluid – there will be step jumps so that someone on £1 more than £X has to pay a great deal more rent than someone on £1 less than £X.

Keeping families in bedsits, hotels and b&bs is HUGELY expensive, both in monetary terms and social/educational terms. How can trying to find humane solutions be seen as utopian - wouldn't you say that keeping older (not elderly) people, whose families have flown the nest and who find themselves with several spare rooms - in those homes, be seen as utopian indeed. When people were given council houses for their families to grow up, and quite rightly, surely they knew it as according to need?

Nobody, not one person - has replied to the point I made about the comparative human cost to keeping families with children in bedsits, as compared to older people being asked to move into smaller accom? (yes I know ... not sufficient of those, this has been agreed, again and again).

granjura, you seem to think that the 'bedroom tax' has still to be implemented but in fact it has been with us for several months and is already causing a good deal of anxiety in those who have had their housing benefit reduced but have not been offered the option of moving.

Imagine having a house with 3 bedrooms and a garden you have to allocate and in front of you 2 groups:

a person in their 50s, no children

a family with 3 children

who would you give it to? I really do not know of many who would say 'the 50 year old, no children' as much as you would feel sorry for them, the priorities would be clear.

Agreed Anno - and I've said many times that this is NOT the way to do it. But just digging heels and saying NO WE WON'T CONSIDER ANY CHANGES AND WHATEVER YOU DEVISE THE ANSWER IS STILL NO - is not the way to go forwards either.

Which is why I say we need to think out of the box, and certainly out of the left versus right box- divisive, destructive, non-sensical.

That's not the discussion granjura- a complete red herring.

I'm not sure the human cost that you mention is comparable, jura. Old people have different difficulties to deal with from those of younger people – less adaptability and ease of adjusting to new thingspossibly being one. Then there is the having lived in a place for a long time thing and having to move away to where they know no-one. I don't think a solution that relieves the stresses of one problem only to cause new problems is really a solution.

In practice, I don't think the things you have suggested would be easy to implement without causing more social problems.

I meant about the choice

Small point - no-one is given a council house. Unless their rent is being paid for them by benefits, they pay rent. And council tax and other taxes.

The answer to the allocation you mention is easy so long as the house is empty. As soon as someone is living in it, it's no longer easy.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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...................

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.

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

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

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.

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 .