Thursday 14 May 2009

Hope and Trust

Forty thousand pounds?

FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS!

And Phil Hope is still in office when he should be in prison.

Actually, that all of this is perfectly legal is the biggest scandal of all, even bigger than that it is all tax-free. If you've ever fiddled your employer, or the tax man, or both, where expenses were concerned, then you have broken the law. But these creatures have done no such thing.

Expenses will have been sorted out by this time next year. Surely? But anyway, if elected here in North-West Durham, I will keep only the national median wage for full-time work, and divide the rest equally among a community cause in each of the former District wards where I had topped the poll.

This promise, which already has people coming up to me in the street and shaking my hand (it's amazing who reads this blog), has of course caused paroxysms among those who, since they think that corruption is normal political life, unsurprisingly think that normal political life is corruption.

Furthermore, it has been suggested to me that there be a David Lindsay Community Trust, into which at least one organisation supportive of each of the policies (except probably the MP's office one) listed here and here paid, there was other fundraising activity locally, and the whole pot was divided equally at the end of each financial year among a community project in each of the old Wards.

That way, everyone would get something for having me as MP, but those who did most to keep me there would get that little bit more out of my own pocket. And I myself wouldn't make a penny. In fact, depending on the tax and NI rates, I'd lose somewhere between thirty and forty grand per year.

But one thing at a time.

14 comments:

  1. Do you think you'll buy or rent in London?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I've said on here repeatedly, I'd seek to accommodate myself in one of the many unused bedrooms within the Palace of Westminster, which also contains numerous bathrooms.

    I have somewhere to live here, and I've never heard of a nurse or teacher starving to death in London on a lot less than twenty-five thousand pounds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That might not happen immediately though - I imagine the powers that be would drag their feet a little.

    Anyhow, I ask because it occurred to me that you were in a unique position (as so often). Given that you are ethically disbursing your salary, there would be no problem, unlike with other MPs, in your making a profit on a subsidised home purchase - because you'd put the profit into your foundation.

    Think about it - it could have some quite significant benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're very bad.

    And there's no one in these rooms as things stand. If I, an Honourable Member no less, just moved into one, then no one would kick me out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Would this survive your retirement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would depend if I liked my succcessor. But seriously, if he or she wanted to keep it up, then that would be his or her concern. And anyway, we are talking forty years hence, if ever. I suspect that once in, I'd die in office.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, I suspect you'd get promoted at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  8. By whom? And would I want to be? Anyway, I'd still have to be an MP.

    Unless you think that I'd be given a peerage...?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just say that you were. What would you do with a minister's salary?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...in your reformed 99 strong House of Lords.

    I can't imagine this not happening.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't see why there shouldn't be more money for more work and more responsibility. Whether I'd keep all of it is another matter. But some, yes. On principle. However, I ask again, which party is going to make me a Minister? And would I want it to?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Noah, I do have a whole post on this today, as you may have noticed.

    And there wouldn't be 99. There might be 198 (about as many as there were within living memory), or 297, or maybe 396. And they might not be the only members. But they would be the great majority.

    But correct post, please.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Woah. I was only saying that, if you, as MP, were to drive this reform of the Lords through (pretty much a racing certainty) then it would only be fitting for you to be installed as the first of the new members. A Founding Father, if you will.

    And I think Peter had a point about using house profits for the greater good. Why shouldn't the taxpayers support your foundation - it's going back to them anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The new second chamber would be elected, not appointed. We might write the median wage as the salary into the Act creating it, I suppose.

    No, I don't plan on playing games with the property market. I don't plan on having the time, for one thing.

    ReplyDelete