To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

People calling for less state involvement are the very first to moan when they find they ve a SEN child, a parent who needs social care or find themselves injured and cannot live on £93 per week.

The time bomb heading towards us is the millions in rented accommodation who then retire.

Even with a decent private pension, they simply will not be able to afford the rent, which could easily be as much as the SP alone.

It wasn’t intended to be temporary. The thousands of council houses built post war were built to be homes for life. Social housing tenants aren’t second class citizens to be moved about on the whim of their landlord.

We need more flats to prevent the countryside bring torn up for housing.

Nice flats, in a square to create a community, with a playground, outdoor space, allotments.

Social housing should always be temporary though. As soon as your children leave home you should be moved to a flat.

Thank you, and I wish the same for you.

I agree older people often need a spare bedroom. We need more social housing in the UK, and that needs to include accessible homes that take into account mobility needs.

I do not agree for ordinary sports. I do think with dangerous sports there is an argument for compulsory insurance. These tend to be costly sports anyway, so an insurance policy on top should be fine.

I think the state should pay for some things. One area that put a strain on the NHS is people playing sports and their sports injuries. I think sports or pastimes, hiking, cleaning moving etc, should have to be insured separately to cover the costs of injuries. Eg break a leg playing amateur football and a person gets emergency instant NHS treatment. Need a hip replacement? Wait 2-3 years. Or be a woman needing pain management? No chance.

Elderly people are better off having a spare bedroom. When we downsize as we get older we will buy a 2 bedroom place. This gives a bedroom where a carer or family member can stop over occasionally if needed. Or a place to store medical equipment.

And as mobility declines with age a tower block would be impractical unless it was ground floor and then where do you store a mobility scooter if you need one.

Ironic that some posters on this thread are saying some people shouldn't have children. I don't think a housing system that possibly encourages some people to have children is a good idea. Of course children need decent homes and families should be housed, but there should also be help for childfree people. Single people and childfree couples pay tax too and have every right to housing.

The only 1 bed social housing in the City I live in is in tower blocks where they put people coming out of prison and who have drug and alcohol issues. No elderly person with any sense would downsize and move in there. Even local people do not walk under the tower block because people chuck things out the windows.

I assume that's the only option for any single person who needs social housing? Seems really inappropriate to house disabled people, DV victims, and elderly people in the same block. I think people with drug and alcohol issues, and people coming out of prison should have help. Housing, but also support and rehab services (because even if someone thinks they don't deserve help, it saves money to rehabilitate people) but there should be separate housing schemes.

Actually thinking about it, many disabled and elderly people wouldn't manage well in a tower block even if it was a luxury private one. They need accessible homes.

The only 1 bed social housing in the City I live in is in tower blocks where they put people coming out of prison and who have drug and alcohol issues. No elderly person with any sense would downsize and move in there. Even local people do not walk under the tower block because people chuck things out the windows.

Exactly I was told on another thread that i shouldnt be in social housing as i dont have children (child free by choice)

I think the downsizing thing was so badly thought out. It doesn't solve the problem, which is not enough social housing of all sizes. I knew someone, a pensioner, who wanted to downsize from her 2 bedroom flat. She couldn't find any 1 beds for ages. Also where do single people and childfree couples live if everyone downsizes?

@OldPerson Asylum seekers need to be given accommodation. The standards are very basic. There is no reason why they need to be in hotels. That is a government decision that costs a fortune.
And no immigrants do not get an interpreter for every GP appointment. In reality people take along friends or family to interpret. You may get an interpreter for serious appointments e.g. someone telling you you have cancer.

There’s a post about someone whose son hit a boy who was bullying him on the school bus and the parent said ‘should they not have someone keeping an eye on the kids on the bus?’ and everyone jumped on her saying’why don’t you volunteer?’ but to be fair a parent volunteer or in a crazily ideal world a teach or sna accompanying isn’t a bad idea as a lot of kids wouldn’t try it on with an authority figure on the bus.

@Againname Replicated several times over but there are STILL people who will insist its lone pensioners rattling around four bedroom council houses who are causing the shortages.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/3647056-George-Clarkes-Council-House-Scandal

@JenniferBooth That's really awful. What happened to the residents? Were they moved out of London? I wonder how many had to give up their jobs if that happened.

It's another nhs in waiting for the amount of invisible expense.

An ideal is adopted, and then the tax payer pays for it, without ever being consulted. Nor is that ideal being measiured up against other competing needs.

It's why refugees are being put up in hotels - because a basic level of care has been stipulated - and needs to be fulfilled at inflated levels of contract cost and tax payer expense.

NHS? You know how hard it is to get a GP appointment?

Once a person gets a GP appointment, who does not have English as a first language, they can get a tax payer funded interpreter for every visit.

You would imagine if they can't speak English well, they would not be able to get an appointment in the first place. Nope, they always find intepreters for that part.

There is no such common sense rule as "If only there was enough money to give every single person their sense of utopia and meet their every desire" BUT there is not.

Education and NHS needs to be brought back to basics - This is what we can and will provide.

Everything else falls under the category of competing needs. And only if the money is available this year to pay for it.

I am glad there is someone else happy with the simple things in life. I also don't care what people think, I grew up in a family of high flyers, managing directors and doctors etc, all totally money focussed and they were all astounded at my life choices, but I never had the drive and ambition they did and that is okay. I wish you all the best and may you have a long and happy life.

I am much the same. I've never had an ambitious bone in my body, and wasn't passionate enough about anything to want to make a career of, so went into basic office work at 16. I did own a house, but due to the timing of a separation when house prices were skyrocketing I am now renting, and will do for life. After taking voluntary redundancy from my last full-time job, I worked part time or temp jobs for a few years, and then retired a year early. I don't travel, have holidays, expensive hobbies etc. but I am happy and content, and my mental health is very good. I prefer a simple life and always have done, but so many people seem to think that is not a desirable way to live anymore. If people wish to look upon me as a failure that is fine, but I like my life and don't actually care what others think.

Plus some adopted children

If only - I have my GC for almost all holidays and half-terms. There are a very few short (4-5 hour) days of clubs that are free but a waste of time for a working mother, my DD gets some of these but obviously isn't free to collect them, so I do it.

@Againname

From an older thread.

The Elephant and Castle neighbourhood is being physically, socially and ethnically transformed. This started with the demolition of the Heygate estate, a classic for stigmatised perceptions of council housing and the people who live in it. As the local 35% Campaign has meticulously documented, a succession of promises to Heygate residents were broken to arrive at a situation where 1,214 council homes were demolished, to be replaced with 2,704 new homes, of which only 82 (3%) are for social rent. The HA partner was London and Quadrant. To be eligible for the cheapest one-bedroom home built by them on the Heygate site, people needed a minimum household income of £57,500. The average household income in that part of Southwark is £24,324

I just happened to see an example of false economy and Shit Happens in Active when I logged on to check on this thread. A woman needing to flee DV with her child. She might have to give up her job and claim benefits to go into a refuge. Why? Because of the lack of social housing. Apparently her housing association and her council say there's no homes available for a transfer. So there you go. Someone forced to be dependant on the state, through no fault of her own. When instead there could be investment in social housing, so people in her situation wouldn't have to give up their jobs and need to claim benefits.