Brokenshire to stamp out ‘poor doors’

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 23/07/2019 - 21:46
We mustn't worry though cos' Boris will sort it all out. mmm

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 23/07/2019 - 21:46
We’ve certainly seen a breakdown of morality and traditional family values that have held our country together for thousands of years. When I was younger it really was not the thing to shack up together unless you were married first. A child outside of wedlock was frowned upon. Now absolutely anything goes. The sad fact is this is promoted by the media, the establishment and now the Church. Just look at the McCain’s oven chip advert on TV. Lovely old comforting voice telling us that “families come in all shapes and sizes” and there are “sisters from different Misters”. Isn’t it wonderful nowadays that we’re not all the same, single Mom, two Dads as parents, as all the family gathers round the table to tuck into those lovely nutritious oven chips. Whilst outside there’s another young teenager stabbed to death !! Must be me.........getting to be a grumpy old man.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 23/07/2019 - 22:00
Join the club but as a friend keeps telling me "don't let the old man in"

Brokenshire is, .... " Out of the 'door'
In record time, he must have been one of the first, if not The first that BoJo fired.
Good decision.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 23/07/2019 - 22:00
Careful, you'll have the liberal left onto you for presuming to judge others' lifestyles! Thank God they are not answerable to us. The results, however, are evident all around us and we are all payng for them in various ways, not least the need for more housing to accommodate fractured families and those who have chosen to live alone (a choice not really available for most in previous generations). My point about council estates though was more about the fact that in the second half of the last century when I guess you were growing up, at least one member of the household had a job because much more manual labour was needed in that economy.
I haven't seen the ad. you mention but am only too well aware of the pressure to affirm the social changes which many of us see as so damaging to society. At least our outgoing Prime Minister had moral integrity if not enough of the other attributes necessary for that office. By the way, as long as you haven't lost your marbles it's quite possible to be old and not too grumpy - happy even - but it does make one despair seeing the same mistakes being made over and over again by politicians, with the same predictable results!

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 25/07/2019 - 00:41
Brokenshire seemed to be more of a figurehead in that office, with all the action being undertaken by Heather Wheeler to whom it fell to implement the policies he had dreamt up. Wasn't it Wheeler who promised she would swiftly put an end to rough sleeping or at least resign if the numbers weren't reduced?

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 25/07/2019 - 07:27
I have just seen that Esther McVey will be a Housing Minister attending cabinet, so presumably Heather Wheeler is also out. No Housing ministers in the last decade have been in post long enough to really master the brief and have a real understanding of the way policies enacted by other departments impinge on housing demand, supply and distribution. They seem fixated on increasing new-build and home ownership while courting the votes of generation rent by screwing private landlords and favouring their donors in the build to rent sector.

I think everyone was singing to Thereasa May's tune. She made a mess of the Home Secretary and P.M role. The country is well shot of her.

In theory having ‘one door’ and shared facilities like playgrounds is what a lot of us would agree is how our society should operate.

However the issue here is actually about service charges - who pays for the upkeep and maintenance of the shared facilities.

The point that seems to have been missed here is that the privately owned flats generally pay a high service charge to cover the cost of the concierge, lifts, gym, parking, playgrounds etc.

As someone mentioned, often the building for rent is sold to a housing association (or sometimes the whole site is originally developed by the housing association who use the profits from the private sale to fund building their stock). The housing associations does not contribute to the service charge or has their own much smaller service charge to cover the stripped back common facilities to keep the rents at the low affordable levels.

The subtext here is that the private homes should indefinitely subsidise shared facilities for the housing association homes. People should just be honest about the reality of the situation. If that’s what ends up being the law, then those buying can decide if that’s what they want to do. Personally whilst I have no problem with sharing facilities, I would have a problem having to pay a high service charge so I’d just buy somewhere that didn’t have this...

If others feel the same, then these developments wouldn’t be viable just as another commenter on here has pointed out.

I supect developers will adjust to this by having a common entrance door into a secure lobby leading to the concierge, common grounds/play grounds whilst requiring residents card access to seperate lifts serving different floors/areas and offering an annual subscription for concierge services/gym/additional areas also accessed by residents card to social housing residents who do not have that paid for in the service charge. So they have the option of these extras but in reality are unlikely to take it up as they can't afford it.