Are our views always entrenched?

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.

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.

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

Whatever floats your boat , I say .

Good heavens, Nonu, we are in complete agreement.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Not everyone in their own home downsizes.

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.

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

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.

No easy solutions to complex problems.

Too true.

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

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??

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.