Daily Archives: March 8, 2017

At the end of the Northern line in London is a block of new-build flats but it's not your average, overpriced new build, it is a spacious and affordable haven for older women.

It's not a commune, nor is it sheltered housing, but a new phenomenon dreamed up by women in the Netherlands: co-housing for women.

The building, around a ten-minute walk from High Barnet station, is called New Ground and it is run by Older Women's Co-Housing (OWCH), a group of women over 50 who created their own community as an alternative to living alone.

It all started when Maria Brenton, a former university lecturer, realised the needs of older women living on their own when she was researching old age.

Women live longer than men and many have fewer resources because of a variety of factors, from the cost of childcare responsibilities to lower-paid work.

Taking inspiration from the Netherlands, where the idea for co-housing originated, Brenton found a group of women in London were interested in the project and it took off from there.

Co-housing is about keeping women active and engaged, while tackling the loneliness and social isolation felt by so many older women who live alone. "What we basically believe is that this way of living, where people have this sense of agency, where they feel in charge of their own lives, keeps people more motivated, happier and healthier.

"Someone will bump into someone at the front door and say 'I'm off for a fish and chip supper at the pub down the street' and they'll say, I'll come I'll get my coat!"

The building, complete with landscaped gardens and an orchard, was finished towards the end of 2016. It offers 17 flats for sale, the largest of which have three bedrooms and cost around 400,000, alongside eight for social rent. The landlord for the rented flats is a small housing association called Housing for Women.

For the social housing, none of the money comes from public money it is from the Tudor Trust, which supports voluntary and community groups in the UK. It also receives financial support from the Hanover Housing Association.

"This is a mixed tenure group there are leaseholders and social renters," Brenton says. "The group was adamant from the beginning that it shouldn't just be for women who had housing wealth, but for women who couldn't afford to buy their own homes."

"Often people say, isn't it the same as sheltered housing for older people? It really isn't. The difference is that it's the group that's in charge here. We run it, we manage it. All the decisions are taken by the group together."

When Clare Martin moved into New Ground Co-housing at the beginning of January, she reaped the benefits of living in a close-knit community immediately.

"It was fairly hellish for the first few days because my heating wasn't working but immediately my neighbours lent me their electric heaters. One of my neighbours cooked a meal for me. You feel so supported it's fantastic. I love it."

Like others in the group, Martin joined OWCH because she found things hard on her own. "Things like, who will take you for a hospital appointment and who's going to look after the cat," she says. "And I really liked all the women when I met them I just thought they were wonderful and I wanted to be there with them."

Having lived in her house for 27 years, it was understandably difficult to leave but Martin isn't the only one to have benefited. "I left my house, which was a four bed house, and it was freed up and there is now a family with three kids there. So I think it's an idea that's time has come now that there is a housing shortage."

To be considered for a place at New Ground, membership is mandatory. It costs 60 a year and newcomers are approved by existing members.

The ages of residents ranges from 50 to a sprightly 87-year-old woman called Hadie. Some people are still working including Hadie, who tucks away confidential papers when we arrive at her spacious flat. Those renting flats tend to be younger and two of them are refugees from Iran.

There is a mix of women living at New Ground Co-housing. "Two are a married couple, the rest of single, widowed, divorced, never married, some lesbian, a right old mix really," Brenton says.

There are some rules that can't be broken namely, that only women can live there. If a resident was dating a man, he could come a stay but couldn't move in. "If they wanted to set up together permanently, she would have to move out," Brenton says. This decision was made by the group.

Each flat is large and has a kitchen and bathroom, but the building has a common room and a dining room, as well as a communal kitchen. There are several policies to keep everything running smoothly, such as a mutual support document and a conflict resolution policy. Everyone pitches in when it comes to looking after these communal areas and there is a task force for the garden.

Most importantly, each woman is independent. "They look out for each other not after each other," Brenton says. "If somebody needs personal or professional care, they need to get it from the right place. But day to day, someone needs to take the dog out for a walk, someone to bring you lunch, or do shopping they do all that for each other."

"It's about keeping their autonomy. And they're a group of women who don't like being done unto."

Vivien Sheehan, who used to work as a PA, moved into New Grounds in mid-December. She heard of OWCH three years ago when visiting a friend in the area.

"I'd had a period of illness and I realised at that time that I didn't have close friends living near me," she says. "I was lucky that friends came to help me out, but no close neighbours. This seemed an ideal community and I liked the idea of we all look after each other and we can do things for each other."

The best thing about women's co-housing? "I think being with like-minded people when you want to be, you can join in with what's going on, but you can close your door and be on your own. I think also some of the tasks we do last week we had an open day for the neighbours it was really fun, like preparing for a party.

"And just sharing things, I used to get fed up with gardening but when you're doing it with other people, it's just more fun. I think we'll all just keep going a bit longer than we would have done otherwise."

View original post here:

A modern utopia: Inside the UK's first women-only housing community - International Business Times UK

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Just how pathetic is the contemporary Republican Party?

So pathetic that it voted dozens of times to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having any coherent idea of, or consensus about, what it wanted to pass as an alternative (despite repeated claims to the contrary).

So pathetic that it committed itself to passing a replacement bill on an arbitrary deadline that ensured the end result would be filled with flaws that experts on its own side could identify within a few hours.

So pathetic that it appears not to have realized that an army of conservative activists and right-wing health-care wonks, along with a bevy of Republican politicians, would respond to the American Health Care Act with open disdain.

So pathetic that some liberal commentators have speculated (in a half-serious way) that House Speaker Paul Ryan must have intended for the AHCA to go down in flames, since he couldn't possibly be inept enough to oversee such a debacle of a rollout. (For the record, I don't think Ryan is anywhere close to being clever enough to pull off something of that scope.)

On health care, Republicans know one thing: They despise the ACA with a blinding fury. But beyond that, they have no idea what to do.

How do we know that? Because the AHCA is a sloppy, muddled mess of a bill that's seemingly designed to please no one, except for rich people who want their taxes lowered. (In which case it's hard to understand why the House didn't simply pass a deficit-financed tax cut for upper income families and leave the ACA alone.)

Aside from the perfunctory tax cut, there's really nothing in the bill to satisfy the desires of the hardcore libertarian faction of the GOP that very clearly does know what it wants namely, a "free market" system of health care for everything except bare-minimum catastrophic coverage. That's been the notional goal of Republican reformers at least since the ACA passed in 2010.

The only problem is that the transition to a more market-based system would inflict enormous pain on many millions of Americans who carry forms of insurance that are made available and affordable by the heavily regulated and subsidized system we currently have. Now, some of the Ayn Rand-quoting libertarian true believers who make up the House Freedom Caucus would undoubtedly vote for a such a bill, no matter how much suffering it imposed. Ideologues are like that. But most politicians are far too self-interested to willingly die for a cause.

And so we have the bill unveiled Monday, which, as several commentators on the right have pointed out, keeps the general architecture and assumptions underlying ObamaCare intact while merely fiddling with a lot of the details. Don't get me wrong: Those adjustments will likely hurt plenty of people, though probably a lot fewer than a switch to a genuine market-based approach would have done. But it's hard to estimate precisely what the AHCA's real-world costs or fiscal effects might be because Ryan has decided to move ahead with marking up the bill without first getting it scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

So this is where the Republicans find themselves: trying to pass a bill that's unpopular with the right for compromising too much with ObamaCare and unpopular with moderates for inflicting too much pain on voters. And they're doing all of this while groping around in the dark because Ryan wants to keep the CBO out of the loop (no doubt partly out of fear of provoking even more opposition from the party's deficit hawks, for example).

It's a mess and a completely self-inflicted one.

And that's without even mentioning the extra-large serving of Republican mess that is Donald Trump.

The president described the bill as "wonderful" in a tweet, but he can't possibly be happy with how the rollout has unfolded so far. That's not just because he craves praise and bridles at bad press. It's also because, in the scheme of the contemporary Republican Party, Trump is a radical leftist when it comes to health-care policy.

One reason many rank-and-file Republicans and conservative-movement intellectuals originally denounced Trump as a closet liberal is that he once supported a single-payer system an option so far out in the direction of outright socialism that even Barack Obama and his Democratic majorities didn't dare seriously consider it back in 2009. Trump doesn't explicitly advocate such a radical reform today, but he alone among leading Republicans still talks in terms of providing "insurance for everybody." Trump and the Freedom Caucus may agree, for utterly mysterious reasons, that ObamaCare is an unmitigated "disaster," but they agree about very little else. Bridging that gap may well prove impossible.

The really interesting question is what Trump will do if the AHCA collapses (as it already appears likely to do). Will he encourage the writing of and play a bigger role in drafting a new "replacement" bill that cuts coverage for millions of Americans? Or will he turn on Ryan and much of the rest of his party, demanding that they scrap ObamaCare, not for a free-market utopia but for a single-payer system that provides open access to health care for all Americans?

Such a move would likely tear the GOP apart, while gaining Trump many surprising new allies in the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Will it happen? When a party becomes as incoherent as the Republican Party is today, anything is possible.

Read more:

Why everyone hates the GOP's new health plan - The Week Magazine