Your article about the garish internal refurbishment of No 11 (‘Trump-like madness!’– our critic’s verdict on Boris Johnson’s £200,000 No 11 refurb, 8 July) raises so many questions about prime ministers (and other elected officials) being permitted to make huge alterations to their temporary residences.
Might I suggest as a taxpayer that future incumbents are subject to the same rules as renters in the private sector? This means they would have to make good any alterations or major decorations they carried out when their time in office ends.
Actually, why doesn’t the landlord – ie the state – insist that only minimum changes can be made to fixtures and fittings? Also, neutral colours for walls and floors would allow the incumbent to put in whichever objects they wished, and remove them at the end of their tenure. They could have artistically placed rugs and throws about the place, which could be chucked into the removal van at the sorry end.
Máirín Power
London
• Would it risk looking like ingratitude if Lord Brownlow were approached to pay for the removal of Lulu Lytle’s improvements to No 11 Downing Street?
Geoffrey Jamieson
Holmrook, Cumbria
• Surely the most important thing the Tory leadership candidates must be asking themselves is: “Can I live with the wallpaper?”
Elaine Cameron
Lichfield
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
