@APurpleSquirrel
Surely a better place to start would be all those overpriced flats in London currently standing empty owned by shell companies etc & all the commercial buildings or closed hotels currently vacant that could be converted into temporary accommodation, before expecting the public to step in?
But, of course, I doubt that would be popular with our government or their donors...
Yes, or one of the royal family's 26 homes, (just their actual houses, they own about 7000 "plots" in total) many of which, like Frogmore House (not cottage) are never occupied and just used for functions, others that are only used for a week or two a year, or house wastes of space like Prince Andrew at Royal Lodge?
I just saw that John Cauldwell (net work over 3billion) was offering his 10 million house to Ukrainian refugees and thought wow, a rich person actually doing something. But then when I read the article he's only offering a 2bed coach house - he still has 32 plus bedrooms available for his private use between that estate and his London house.
If a billionaire is considered laudable for giving up a 2 bed house, the income of which will be negligible to him, why should people with second homes, who often rely on it as their main income, be expected to do the same?
I don't own a second home, btw, just sick of it always being the 'normal' people who are already currently struggling hugely with the cost of living being the ones to help, when we as a country have such a high proportion of million/billionaires who like to preach at us after they've donated a £1000 (equivalent to a tenner to me!).