Not moving an inch

I hope I never have to move home again. It's such a complicated and exhausting business. I just want to stay put and enjoy the home I have right now.

I've lived in 13 different homes in my lifetime, and that's quite enough uprooting and re-settling, thank you very much.

Every so often Jenny and I ponder the possibility of downsizing, but we always conclude it's not worth the enormous upheaval unless there's some really urgent need.

Having lived in a fairly spacious house for 16 years, it would be very hard to adjust to somewhere much smaller. I'm sure we would feel cramped and restricted and it would take quite a while to attune to our reduced territory.

People who think those of us who live in "over-sized" houses should sell up immediately and move to somewhere smaller are missing the point. There are over 260,000 long term empty houses in the UK that should be brought into use rather than quietly rotting.

I'm staying right here until something drives me out. Hopefully it never will.

Downsizing

Every so often someone suggests giving people in so-called over-large houses some sort of incentive to downsize to a smaller property.

It happened again yesterday on the TV programme Question Time, when someone debating the possibility of reducing the state pension proposed that if more people downsized they could manage on a smaller pension.

He suggested that people in very spacious houses like our own could be given an incentive to move to somewhere smaller - presumably some sort of financial grant.

Well, I enjoy living in a large house and I don't see why people like us should be singled out for our preference, especially when there are thousands of empty houses around the country that could be targeted instead. And how could you ensure that an "over-large" house went to a family and not another space-loving couple like us?

In any case, even a sizeable financial grant wouldn't make up for all the upheaval and hard work and stress of moving house.

We space-lovers are being turned into scapegoats for the continuing shortage of new homes. We're supposed to feel guilty for not "making do" with a much smaller house.

And if family-size houses are so badly needed, how come so many tiny apartments are being built?

Less is more

Buying things is so normal we're quite used to our homes being crammed with pretty bits and pieces, the latest gadgets, twenty handbags and a mountain of paperbacks. But suppose you were limited to just 100 personal possessions?

An American couple dissatisfied with their hard-working, hard-spending existence decided to take up the "100 items" challenge and drastically reduce their huge stack of belongings.

Tammy Strobel, who worked long hours for an investment business, was so unhappy being "caught in the work-spend treadmill" that she resolved to totally change her lifestyle. Her husband Logan Smith, a doctoral student, decided to do the same.

They gave lots of their possessions to charity. They got rid of their TV. They got rid of their two cars and bought bikes. They moved to a smaller studio flat with less room for stuff. Eventually they reached the target of just 100 items each. And they say they really do feel happier.

The sudden brake on spending has led to other unexpected benefits. They've paid off debts of $30,000. They have more money to travel. Ms Strobel has changed her job and works fewer hours. And she has time to volunteer for a non-profit organisation.

I'm impressed by their determination and their ability to change their way of life so radically. A houseful of stuff may be unnecessary but for most of us it's cosy and familiar and reassuring. The thought of losing practically all of it would be most alarming. Particularly the hundreds of much-loved books and the fabulous paintings and all the CDs that are virtually glued to my ears.

A smaller home would be hard to adapt to as well, now I'm used to so much space to stretch out in. Jenny and I would once again be tripping over each other and intruding on each other.

I suppose it makes a difference that we've never been the sort to keep up with the Joneses. We buy things because we genuinely want them and think they'll genuinely improve our lives. Which means it would also be harder to part with them. So we won't be taking up the "100 items" challenge just yet. Less is not yet more.

PS: Some brave souls have even given up their homes and now base their lives entirely on a few bits of technology like laptops, iPads and Kindles.

Pic: Tammy Strobel and Logan Smith