Should people raised in countryside expect to be able to stay there?

when I do understand the issues and agree they are very complex and solutions, far from ideal. True to type too, I would suggest the shortfall in school places might have something to do with the immigration policies of the preceding government

when I agree that previous governments have a lot to answer for but we do need to deal with the situation at the moment as we cannot undo what has been done. What would you propose?

moved I did say or restrict. ration or whatever.

As for taking an entrenched position as left or right wing I am a bit confused?

I think I just get angry when those with the most power and influence seem unable to understand how lucky they are and would ask them to have some compassion for the plight of those who are not so fortunate.

Given that most of these powerful and influential, rich industialists and land owners etc obtained their wealth from the hard work (?exploitation) of the very much less well paid, labouring classes.

Now does that make me left wing or right wing?

Sel So you do believe that political discussion on gransnet is anachronistic and stereotypical left and right and that the grannies taking part in it are out-of touch with modern life and contemporary political thought– is that correct? Do you also find them a source of hilarity? Incidentally, in case your last comment was pointed at me, I would remind you that I have never reported any of your posts although I am aware that some that were specifically addressed to or referred to me were deleted.

absent I so love the way you interpret my beliefs

Sel I have often felt that others were 'interpreting' my posts too! In fact I have challenged their versions of what I have said and suddenly they have stopped posting on the thread! Whatever. Some people are never wrong.

Nellie you sound rather like me, I get very upset about injustice at whatever level. On the other hand I do know people who have become rich by working very hard. I have a friend who has bought ailing companies (started with one small one) and turned them round into successful businesses. I admire him and am happy about all the jobs he has created. I don't object to people being rich just because they are successful. I am not so sure the same applies to the powerful though.

Sel "The left feel an entitlement ..."

I think this is a very simplistic representation of left wing views. I am not ashamed to say that I would describe myself as fairly left wing. I think it is naive to suggest that the concepts of "left" and "right" can be abandoned when discussing political issues. The labour movement arose in response to the needs of the majority of the population that were not being met - for decent housing, access to medical care, safe working conditions, etc., etc., and many of those of the left believe that the state still needs to protect those gains. Those on the right tend to believe that there is too much interference by government, too many taxes levied, too much assistance given to "non-productive" citizens, etc., etc. Given these very different viewpoints it's inevitable that there will be disagreements.

I consider myself to be a fairly conventional member of society and not of a particularly revolutionary bent. I have worked all my life and neither myself nor my husband has ever claimed benefits I do not condone abuses in the benefits system, but our newspapers aren't exactly unbiased in these matters and they seem to find the sort of extreme cases that I have never come across in my own life.

But, as others have said, that's getting away from what the subject was originally about. I don't think people have a right to stay where they were brought up but I think there should at least be a possibility that they can do so. I think the suggestion that no more housing should be built in the countryside is unacceptable and I suspect it emanates largely from those "emigres" from the towns and cities who don't want their newly acquired rural idyll interfered with in any way. Villages can change and adapt without being ruined and they need to do so if they are not going to become lifeless museums, entirely for the benefit of the better off.

Moved I think it hinges on employment. A programme of building social housing in the form of starter homes needs to be the priority, both in rural areas and on brownfield sites. This would provide varieties of employment. We have huge tourism potential in this country, scope to expand this industry, and how about bringing back some of the lost industries like steel and ship-building? Child care as a larger network of carers, not individual childminders, looking after children in school campuses - more schools are needed, so it makes sens to build them in the heart of starter home villages, with shops, health centres, leisure rovision etc. Young families can travel further for work than they did when the rural villages were self-contained, so they can live in the countryside and still commute if they don't have employment nearby. Countryside development needs to be the preserve of all of us, not just those who have grown up in rural areas and the wealthy or second home owners.

When I said that about the employment somewhere at the beginning! Then there were comments about having to commute where we had different views on what a commute was. No point building houses where there are no jobs within reach. No point building schools where there are no children.

Presumably there was a reason we lost our heavy industries, is it still relevant?

Heavy industries were lost because our costs were undercut but we had other employment so didn't fight to save it. Short term gains and lack of vision. People can and do commute with more ease now. We do need more schools now, there has been a baby boom. Makes sense to build homes and schools together. Maybe we need a bit less farmland for cows and sheep!

Eloethan 'the left feel an entitlement' OK, I generalised To go back to your original post, I really don't think it is a left/right issue. I think everyone agrees that new homes are needed but, simplistically, those homes need to be near jobs and most jobs are to be found near cities and towns. I don't see many thriving villages or rural communities unless they are within a commute of a decent sized town. Life changes though, most now drive to a local supermarket, pubs have been priced out of business and post offices closed. I'm not sure building large amounts of rural housing would change that - unless there was employment. People have often upped sticks and moved where the work is.

The employment issue is important but surely most larger villages (as opposed to hamlets) are within a reasonable distance of a town or city? I've lived in several areas of the country and that's my experience anyway.

It's obviously not realistic for houses to be built where there are no basic transport links, but most larger villages do have transport links, at least during peak working hours.

And if the nearby town/city has no employment, it makes no difference whether people live near it or not - there aren't any jobs anyway - but people still need to be housed.

True, Eleothan! People need homes...

The deregulation of public transport like buses led to many non-profitable routes being abandoned, and many people who could not afford cars were left without an reasonable means of getting to work. Private profit with no consideration of the public good. We all know how the owners of certain bus companies undercut local firms until they went out of business, and then put up their prices.
Do we have statistics on the numbers of families living 10 to a two bedroomed house? Sounds like a 'scare' story to me. There are very few large families around in relation to the total population. Of course, some of them may well be immigrants, but that is another story.

I am happy to be thought of as left-wing, if it means caring for the less fortunate members of society, rather than throwing them to the wolves in pursuit of bigger profits for a tiny handful of people. Some politicians have climbed the greasy pole and then want to chop it down behind them - Thatcher was a prime example.

It is always the 'comers-in' to a village, especially those with weekend homes, that want to preserve its rural charm - the natives would probably prefer employment and cheaper housing.

From another thread, but still apposite - "to each according to his need". Makes perfect sense. As does "from each...."

Eloethan there are many villages without good public transport and there are many rural areas where the nearest towns have little employment to offer. It is just as bad in firmly industrial areas where large new villages sprang up and towns were developed to house workers for the local industries. Do you know what has happened to heavy industry and manufacturing in this country in the last forty years? Or to farming and food production?

Formerly not firmly. Thank you over-eager predictive iPad.

Agree wholeheartedly greatnan

Quoting Ana:

staunch left-wing members of Gransnet seem to be very blinkered whenever the subject of large families, single parents and/or immigrants and their entitlement to various benefits is discussed.

But you see Ana, what really upsets me is that 'staunch right-wing members of Gransnet seem to be very blinkered..... too'

My point was that we need to try and find solutions, not reactions. Solutions that go forward rather than backward with blame of past Government, etc.

So if one of the problems is that rural areas are no longer properly served with transport- let's re-introduce transport to those areas. And if older people with larger properties cannot move due to losing social networks, etc- then let's build suitable properties with the proper infra-structure and public transport- and move people in social groups. I do not have the answers - but we must stop this left-right extremes of one side saying that nothing can be done without it being a disaster, and the other side saying the less fortunate can lump it. It is clear that things have to be done to cut deficit, whether we like it or not (and whomever is responsible in the past). ARe you saying that the Greeks, Spanish and Cypriots are the only ones to have to try and find solutions? Best if I leave this Forum really - going round and round holding to one side of the duvet or t'other and pulling until the whole lot explodes is so pointless.

Public transport would need to be subsidised - I can't see the present government going for that! Privatisation was a body blow to many people. It is true that many nationalised industries were inefficient and over-staffed, but surely the solution was to improve their management, not to hand them over for private profit. The issue of water is a particular bugbear of mind - such a basic necessity should not be subject to the whims of profiteers - especially when they are not even UK companies.

If people would use public transport, it would pay for itself after a while - so incentives need to be put in place. But as said, to achieve this you need to stop this 'left/right' stupidity - but used common sense. Switzerland is hardly a socialist country, but the decision was made to continue to underpin trains and public transport - as it is key to so many issues.

And I totally agree about Thatcher and others being responsible for many of the problems we have now (and many would say the 'other' side was responsible) - but saying it again and again does not solve anything NOW - onwards and forwards, with common sense. It is because the UK social system and housing is so amazing and an example for the whole world - that we owe it to those in real need to not allow it to be abused or taken the off- even if they are a minority. I can see that there is a lot of scare mongering from the present government to tar the whole system and justify cuts - but this does not mean that intelligent and fair solutions need not be sought in the present mess we find ourselves in (and I think we agree Greatnan about who is to blame, as said, others would disagree- but we have to live with the current situation, somehow).

granjura I do agree with you about positive action - forming communities with proper infrastructure, transport and facilities. But Conservative philosophy is based on the principles of competition and profit, rather than co-operation and service. So, if a bus company has routes that aren't very profitable, it either withdraws those routes or it goes bust.

Lilygran I agree that most traditional work has disappeared. So, where are all these people supposed to move to to "be near work"? Isn't it the case that, unless money is invested in construction and infrastructure projects, the private sector will not be able to create the huge number of jobs needed. And if people are going to be unemployed, they might just as well be unemployed in the countryside as anywhere else.

granjura left or right, this country has been badly run for decades. We have squandered revenues from North Sea oil, sold off gold at the bottom of the market and entered into crippling PFI contracts. All to keep the electorate, of whichever persuasion, happy. National Debt is in excess of a trillion pounds and close to 90% of GDP. Yes, the UK social system and housing is amazing, the envy of many countries and a magnet to many. It does, however cost a great deal of money and without natural resources we have to rely on business to generate that money.

I think we all care for less fortunate members of society, whatever our political persuasion, it is not the preserve of the left. The question is how to generate the revenue to provide that care.

Having read through this thread again, it appears that a number of us are actually saying the same thing in answer to other people saying the same thing, some of us more than once. Me included. There isn't enough cheap housing where the jobs are. There aren't enough jobs where the cheap housing is. Rich people can afford to pay for expensive commutes. Poor people need to be near enough to a job to make it financial sense. 'Public transport' includes trains as well as buses and train fares are actually very high. What we need is incentives for employers either to stay put in areas of low employment or to move to ditto. London is not the centre of the universe but I think many of our policy makers and the chattering classes think it is. Look at the BBC move to Salford. It was reported as though they were caravanning to Timbuktoo or sledging to the Antarctic.