When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
4:40pm Wednesday 24th June 2009 in
IS THIS the highest paid couple in Hampshire public life?
Councillors Keith House and Louise Bloom have been pulling in almost £80,000 of taxpayers’ cash by holding seven paid public posts between them.
New figures listing Eastleigh Borough Council’s expenses and allowances show top earner Lib Dem Mr House total creeping towards £60,000 a year.
That makes him Hampshire’s highest paid councillor – earning more than the £54,150 that Hampshire county and New Forest councillor Mel Kendal was paid in 2007 before pressure mounted for him to shed one of his lucrative posts.
As leader of Eastleigh council Mr House gets £28,107 in expenses and allowances, almost double that of most of his colleagues.
However, this is just the tip of the iceberg as he picks up £17,567, excluding expenses, for his responsibilities as Lib Dem environment spokesman on Hampshire County Council.
But his county council allowance will increase by a further £9,000 this year as he has taken on the role of Lib Dem leader on the authority.
He also got a further £2,865 as a member of the fire authority and £640 for working on the South East England Regional Assembly planning committee.
He pulled in cash from the South East England Development Agency (Seeda), although this year’s figures were unavailable, last year this amounted to £8,316. These five calls on the taxpayers’ purse brings his total pot of cash in 2008/09 to an estimated £57,485.
Meanwhile, his partner of nine years Louise Bloom is also getting a hefty amount of taxpayers’ money.
As one of Cllr House’s inner circle Eastleigh’s cabinet member for environment pulls in the fifth highest amount of the borough’s 55 councillors taking £15,865 and a further £6,380 in her role as deputy leader of the South East England Regional Assembly.
This brings her personal tally to £22,245 on top of her own job – working 30 hours a week as an advocacy project manager for charity Solent Mind The pair share a home in Hedge End.
Cllr House, Lib Dem, said: “I took a pay cut when I went in to public office and I was happy to do it because I think I have something of value to offer and the public obviously agree as they keep electing me.
“This is a trivial story, I don’t think the public are interested in councillors’ train fares.”
Fellow Lib Dem Cllr Bloom said: “I’m glad our expenses are published but mine are very boring, no moats or duck ponds I’m afraid.
“If I am happy to do ridiculous hours to take on these roles I should be free to.
“I work extremely hard for Eastleigh Borough Council as well as holding down a nearly full-time job. Nobody could accuse me of not doing my duty – I think I give good value for money.”
Cllr House, who has no other job, this year stepped down from Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority and Seeda and The South East England Regional Assembly was abolished.
Taxpayers’ Alliance campaign director, Mark Wallace, said: “Local taxpayers will naturally be concerned that some councillors are claiming such large amounts.
“From the lower amounts others are spending it is clearly possible to do the jobs without running up massive bills.
Councillors need to tighten their belts.”
For the full list of expenses, see the Related Links, below.
Comments(36)
Linesman
says...
11:49am Wed 24 Jun 09
Oracle1
says...
12:01pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Northamboy
says...
12:13pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Condor Man
says...
12:18pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Derek of Dibden Purlieu
says...
12:28pm Wed 24 Jun 09
King Mush
says...
12:37pm Wed 24 Jun 09
mr.southampton
says...
1:31pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Jparcoeur
says...
1:57pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Vonnie
says...
2:21pm Wed 24 Jun 09
upthe
says...
2:42pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Tobeblunt
says...
2:56pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Northamboy wrote:They'd both fall into depression if they took on normal lives and lived in a council estate.
Its legal but morally wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but they will be smug enough not to be no doubt. Kick them out and let them flip burgers for a living
Paramjit Bahia
says...
2:58pm Wed 24 Jun 09
goard
says...
3:50pm Wed 24 Jun 09
silver77
says...
3:59pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Bartonian
says...
4:59pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Jim Smyth
says...
5:08pm Wed 24 Jun 09
mr.southampton wrote:Exactly.
What a typical local rag-story. They're not getting 'taxpayers money' for nothing are they. It seems that they're both working hard to serve the community, how much free time do you think they're giving up to serve on all these committies, putting them above other engagements, family commitments etc...
It might be zeitgeisty to bash politicians in the wake of the expenses scandal but lets not start targetting anyone who draws public funds in the process of serving the community.
Jim Smyth
says...
5:09pm Wed 24 Jun 09
upthe wrote:£50 says you couldn't do it. Please enlighten us, genius. What sort ofg "b@ll@x" gets talked by these committees? Or are you just trying to sound informed, and using the cheapest shot possible to get there?
Nice work if you can get it. If someone wants to offer me £60k a year to sit on commitees listening to and talking b@ll@x, I'll accept
Jim Smyth
says...
5:11pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Northamboy wrote:What's morally wrong with it, exactly? There's nothing in the story to suggest they're not performing, or that there's anything underhand going on. Or are you of the "pay all politicians minimum wage" disposition? Yeh, well thought-out position that, eh
Its legal but morally wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but they will be smug enough not to be no doubt.
Kick them out and let them flip burgers for a living
Jim Smyth
says...
5:12pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Jparcoeur wrote:What problem are you referring to? Or have you just been hoodwinked by the old "taxpayers money" rhetorical trick again?
I don't see why we can't just pay our elected officials a straight reasonable salary with NO extra expenses. This would solve the whole problem.
Jim Smyth
says...
5:13pm Wed 24 Jun 09
silver77 wrote:Aww, diddums. In what way is your situation relevant to this story? Grass is always greener, eh.
i cant even get a deposit for a flat after being repossessed from no fault of my own
im going to be living in a tent and they get all this fair or what
gary langdon
says...
5:30pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Stubs
says...
5:39pm Wed 24 Jun 09
silver77
says...
6:21pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Jim Smyth
says...
6:50pm Wed 24 Jun 09
silver77 wrote:Yeh but I'm not. And I still don't see what that has to do with the story. Is this "I don't have, therefore why should anyone else have?" time?
if you were out on the street next week you would worry too
Jim Smyth
says...
6:56pm Wed 24 Jun 09
gary langdon wrote:Why don't you run for office, then? No, really, I'm not being facetious
I really wish I could be represented by somebody who lives on a council estate.(as I do) Then perhaps the problems which I see would be sorted out.
I would love to see what they see but I haven't got selective viewing & I cant get my head that far up my backside.
They may not have done anything wrong but it doesn't stop them looking so bloody smug. they should be made to give a good slice of that money to local charities & if they did, then I would say YES, they do represent the people.
desirodave
says...
10:03pm Wed 24 Jun 09
chunkybutt
says...
10:46pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Jim Smyth
says...
11:13pm Wed 24 Jun 09
chunkybutt wrote:People like what? Politicians? Re-assert your history, kid
and this my friends is why i have decided to leave this country for good.
you work hard for a better life for yourself and your family,only to see your,e tax money go to lowlifes and cheaters like this.
my relatives fought in two wars to keep out people like this!
what a waste.
stew5018
says...
11:25pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Paramjit Bahia wrote:As an ex politician yourself could the same not be said of you? I suspect that you to claimed expenses--would they stand up to intense scrutiny. Be interesting to examine them. You never have a good word to say about other more sucessful politicians than yourself.
Rather than claiming that they are serving the society these people should show some honesty and admit that in fact they a ripping the public purse to suit their ego and greed.
Jparcoeur
says...
7:17am Thu 25 Jun 09
Jim Smyth wrote:I was mostly referring the MP problem with expenses. Give them a paycheck, let them buy duck houses if that's what they want to do, on their salary not on the publics money. Our politicians should be paid something else we completely close the system to the poor.You could argue that only the independently wealthy could possibly be qualified to serve.
Jparcoeur wrote:What problem are you referring to? Or have you just been hoodwinked by the old "taxpayers money" rhetorical trick again?
I don't see why we can't just pay our elected officials a straight reasonable salary with NO extra expenses. This would solve the whole problem.
Northamboy
says...
8:54am Thu 25 Jun 09
Jim Smyth wrote:Hello Jim
Northamboy wrote:What's morally wrong with it, exactly? There's nothing in the story to suggest they're not performing, or that there's anything underhand going on. Or are you of the "pay all politicians minimum wage" disposition? Yeh, well thought-out position that, eh
Its legal but morally wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but they will be smug enough not to be no doubt.
Kick them out and let them flip burgers for a living
Jim Smyth
says...
9:58am Thu 25 Jun 09
Northamboy wrote:My point is that most of the posters here are deserving of contempt. Skimming headlines and stories for flimsy reasons to vent a stock complaint based on some other story, or in some cases their personal situation that has nothing to do with the story, rather than actually make your beloved constructive posts. I couldn't give a hoot if I'm thought of as rude by people who are so easily led by shoddy journalistic trickery. There's nothing in the story to support your arguments relating to it, you've simply fallen for the rhetoric. "Oh, public money is being spent? That MUST mean corruption, then!". A short-cut to actually thinking, thus rubbishing any claim you have to "constructive posts". Coupled with your self-righteous need to chastise people for bothering to say what they actually think, rather than what they believe they're supposed to think, I believe you can be discounted as just another numbskull. Bye bye
Jim Smyth wrote:Hello Jim
Northamboy wrote:What's morally wrong with it, exactly? There's nothing in the story to suggest they're not performing, or that there's anything underhand going on. Or are you of the "pay all politicians minimum wage" disposition? Yeh, well thought-out position that, eh
Its legal but morally wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but they will be smug enough not to be no doubt.
Kick them out and let them flip burgers for a living
Your point is exactly? Reading through your posts and previous posts on the Echo site you seem to be the type of person who argues for the sake of!
Taking that amount of money for doing very little apart from taking lucrative public posts. Is that not immoral?
Please don't be rude to people on this site Jim as it lowers your position of making constructive posts.
Thank you
Symondian
says...
10:09am Thu 25 Jun 09
Chas O'Bursledon
says...
12:42pm Fri 26 Jun 09
Chas O'Bursledon
says...
12:58pm Fri 26 Jun 09
Jim Smyth wrote:Oh dear! Flipping burgers. There is nothing wrong with doing that for a living.But it is a choice. If people choose to do public service it is generally out of a sense of duty and a wish to serve the community. People who do things in this way are paid - doctors, nurses, teachers and politicians. It does not follow that because some politicians are corrupt, and they are, that all politicians are corrupt. It is the logic of the intellectually sterile that tars all with the same brush. Judge them by their record. If Eastleigh is so badly run then the electorate will decide. But it isn't badly run, is it? And that is why they are re-eelcted time after time. If any of the readers of this can do better then let them stand for public office. Go on - I double dare you!
Northamboy wrote:My point is that most of the posters here are deserving of contempt. Skimming headlines and stories for flimsy reasons to vent a stock complaint based on some other story, or in some cases their personal situation that has nothing to do with the story, rather than actually make your beloved constructive posts. I couldn't give a hoot if I'm thought of as rude by people who are so easily led by shoddy journalistic trickery. There's nothing in the story to support your arguments relating to it, you've simply fallen for the rhetoric. "Oh, public money is being spent? That MUST mean corruption, then!". A short-cut to actually thinking, thus rubbishing any claim you have to "constructive posts". Coupled with your self-righteous need to chastise people for bothering to say what they actually think, rather than what they believe they're supposed to think, I believe you can be discounted as just another numbskull. Bye byeJim Smyth wrote:Hello Jim Your point is exactly? Reading through your posts and previous posts on the Echo site you seem to be the type of person who argues for the sake of! Taking that amount of money for doing very little apart from taking lucrative public posts. Is that not immoral? Please don't be rude to people on this site Jim as it lowers your position of making constructive posts. Thank youNorthamboy wrote: Its legal but morally wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves but they will be smug enough not to be no doubt. Kick them out and let them flip burgers for a livingWhat's morally wrong with it, exactly? There's nothing in the story to suggest they're not performing, or that there's anything underhand going on. Or are you of the "pay all politicians minimum wage" disposition? Yeh, well thought-out position that, eh
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search for jobs with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Find the right person for you with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for homes with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for cars with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Nearly an OAP says...
11:44am Wed 24 Jun 09