Letters: The government should build MPs a hotel, then they won't need second homes

Readers have come up with novel ideas on how the government could save money to tackle homelessness.

Singled out

One sector that seems forgotten is single people. Even getting onto a council list is no guarantee; in fact, you’re likely to be told you are not a priority. 

Surely this is a clear case of discrimination? With no stable home how can you even be expected to hold down a job? So-called affordable homes are not affordable to all, and private renting is not covered properly by benefits. 

Maybe if taxpayers weren’t paying for second homes for MPs, money could be found to sort this out. 

The government could build a hotel specifically to house MPs – I imagine that would make for considerable savings and, by removing individual ministers’ cars and using a minibus to collect them from the hotel, a considerable contribution towards homelessness could be found.

Elizabeth Lowe, Reading

Holding court

Really liked Gardner Molloy’s suggestions for a peripatetic parliament. Bring the parliament to the people and save billions! But I think the “olden days” comparison is a bit off the mark. When the monarch announced that s/he was visiting the local noble pile it was like the coming of a plague of locusts. 

The monarch would arrive with their family, their courtiers, mistresses, musicians, servants, horses and general hangers-on. The local lord would be judged on the quality of their hospitality, and of course expected to foot the bill for a stay of maybe many weeks. 

And then there was the entertainment! Jousting probably. More noble knights with their staff, more expense.

Michael Hanks, Waltham Cross 

Responses to: Over 13,000 people have pledged to withhold their water bills

If you need your credit to be good, then I wouldn’t do it.

Jess Bishop, Facebook

I’m happy to pay for clean drinking water. What I am not happy to continue paying for is the waste water/sewerage component of the bill until the water companies stop taking my money  – putting it in their pockets, doing nothing to fix the broken sewer system and dumping untreated sewage into the sea right where I live, even on days when it hasn’t been raining.

There are two parts to a water bill, so maybe withholding the sewerage component from them in a mass strike would be better as then they would at least be being paid for what they are actually delivering still: drinkable water.

Clare Louise Greenaway, Facebook

It’s our water. Shareholders and CEOs are not doing what we pay for. Therefore we should take it back.

Clara Jackman, Facebook

They need to stop paying huge bonuses to the shareholders. Bonuses are for work that’s well done; a company that is doing well. These are doing neither.

Lindsey Ferrier Smith

Why would increasing prices suddenly now go towards improving the infrastructure? All it’s done so far is pay for greedy CEOs and increasing dividends to shareholders. It’s difficult to take them seriously.

Kiersten Cornwell, Facebook

Data point

I am writing in response to the article, ‘Home is where the danger is for women’. While the premise reflects important data, the framing may be incomplete.

Home can indeed be where the danger is – but not only because of who is inside it. It is also where those who wish to cause harm know they can find their target.

Persistent harassment, stalking, voyeurism and targeted intimidation by individuals can make the home predictable and exposed rather than safe. In some cases, this behaviour can mirror domestic abuse – involving control, monitoring, intimidation, and escalation – despite there being no personal relationship. Yet these situations are often minimised as antisocial behaviour.

Risk may be better understood by its pattern, persistence, and accessibility – not solely by the relationship to the perpetrator.

A more complete understanding would recognise that home can be where the danger is because it is fixed, known and accessible, not simply because of who is inside it.

Jamilah Burke

Read more:

• Revealed: MPs rack up huge taxpayer-funded rent expenses while pushing through cuts to benefits
• Homelessness stagnated in Labour’s first year – but ministers warned not to mistake it for progress
• Benefits bill pushes government spending on housing to highest level since records began

Inhumanity to man

Thank you for debunking Shabana Mahmood’s lies about immigrants filling social housing. And hasn’t she said she can double the time to gain settlement rights without the need for parliamentary scrutiny (ie giving MPs the chance to throw it out)? Are we in Trumpland already? If I wanted inhumanity, I could vote for Reform. 

John Bishop

Responses to: Giving care leavers £2,000 can help prevent homelessness 

Yet again, a basic income trial success.

Carolyne Webb, Facebook

This will really benefit care leavers, especially where benefits are concerned. It could be a great move. 

If councils were supporting them, they would also be there more in person. There is a care leavers team but it’s often hard to get them to engage.

Denise Byrnes, Facebook

Cash for those at the bottom is never the real problem. It’s the tax dodges the super-rich and big business can do each and every year. 

Hundreds of billions lost annually to tax loopholes that this, and previous governments, have done nothing to close due to, I think, the politicians being in the pockets of the super-rich and big business.

Jason Smith, Facebook

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Change a vendor’s life.

Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – and always take the magazine. It’s how vendors earn with dignity and move forward.

You can also support online:
Subscribe to the magazine or support our work with a monthly gift. Your support helps vendors earn, learn and thrive while strengthening our frontline services.

Thank you for standing with Big Issue vendors.