Eastleigh RSS Feed


Eastleigh News from the Daily Echo Get news, sport and travel from the Daily Echo direct to your mobile phone.

Cllrs Keith House and Louise Bloom claim £80,000 from taxpayers


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.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

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)

Nearly an OAP says...
11:44am Wed 24 Jun 09

No wonder they look so happy. They've obviously beat the system but for how long now?

Linesman says...
11:49am Wed 24 Jun 09

With their noses firmly in the trough, they should be immunised against swine flu!

Oracle1 says...
12:01pm Wed 24 Jun 09

MP/Councillor job description

Must have:
No compassion
No empathy
Willingness to milk the system
Must be good at pretending to give a monkeys
Excellent benefits for the right candidates including huge expense account.

Key duties include: attending meetings, canvassing and acting like you care for the community.

Northamboy says...
12:13pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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

Condor Man says...
12:18pm Wed 24 Jun 09

SEEDA? the non accountable Quango who aren't exactly busting a gut to develop the Vospers site?

The sooner this government goes the better.

Derek of Dibden Purlieu says...
12:28pm Wed 24 Jun 09

No wonder Kenny Thornber holds a vice like grip on his council jobs.

King Mush says...
12:37pm Wed 24 Jun 09

Smug fatcats one and all


Pseudo showbiz as they spend most of their times at fancy dinners, stuffing themselves with 'free' food and booze.

I bet their palatial homes are full of these photos as above.


Name-dropping must take up half of their verbal output as they swan around the 'circuit'

Bet he plays golf too and laughs at the peasants whom he 'represents'


mr.southampton says...
1:31pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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.


Jparcoeur says...
1:57pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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.

Vonnie says...
2:21pm Wed 24 Jun 09

From what I can gather from this story this couple have a number of different roles and responsibilities for which they are paid. If all those roles had separate other people in them, no more money overall would be spent. So - as long as they are doing the jobs properly - what the hell is all the fuss about. This expenses hysteria is beginning to get on my pip.

upthe says...
2:42pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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

Tobeblunt says...
2:56pm Wed 24 Jun 09

Northamboy 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 living
They'd both fall into depression if they took on normal lives and lived in a council estate.

Paramjit Bahia says...
2:58pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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.

goard says...
3:50pm Wed 24 Jun 09

This couple have the skin of a rhino and will not be 'put down' by the likes of us. Those that say 'what's all the fuss' will not be struggling and it is likely there are many like him in Westminster. - this is what we need to get rid of the arrogant fraudsters who think they are doing a good job - look at Eastleigh - what a mess.

goard

silver77 says...
3:59pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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

Bartonian says...
4:59pm Wed 24 Jun 09

This is coming from someone who is all in favour of concreting over much of Eastleigh's allotments, much to the dismay of those who hold them, just to satisfy this government's housing targets. He failed to get Grantham Green developed, so what is stopping him from trying again?

Jim Smyth says...
5:08pm Wed 24 Jun 09

mr.southampton wrote:
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.

Exactly.

Basically now, nobody is allowed to earn any money from the public coffers, without being accused of some sort of scandal or sleaze? Will anybody willing to be a public servant, and do the job for free, please step forward, with your plans on how you'd support yourself and your family.

Jim Smyth says...
5:09pm Wed 24 Jun 09

upthe wrote:
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
£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?

Jim Smyth says...
5:11pm Wed 24 Jun 09

Northamboy 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 living
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

Jim Smyth says...
5:12pm Wed 24 Jun 09

Jparcoeur wrote:
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.
What problem are you referring to? Or have you just been hoodwinked by the old "taxpayers money" rhetorical trick again?

Jim Smyth says...
5:13pm Wed 24 Jun 09

silver77 wrote:
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
Aww, diddums. In what way is your situation relevant to this story? Grass is always greener, eh.

gary langdon says...
5:30pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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.

Stubs says...
5:39pm Wed 24 Jun 09

I see the tax payer is being screwed once again.

silver77 says...
6:21pm Wed 24 Jun 09

if you were out on the street next week you would worry too

Jim Smyth says...
6:50pm Wed 24 Jun 09

silver77 wrote:
if you were out on the street next week you would worry too
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?

Jim Smyth says...
6:56pm Wed 24 Jun 09

gary langdon wrote:
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.
Why don't you run for office, then? No, really, I'm not being facetious

desirodave says...
10:03pm Wed 24 Jun 09

so may be thats the reason car park charges & shop rates are so high to pay for the councilors.

Pity They are slowly killing Eastleigh.

Get off the gravy train and start to help us tax payers - reduce car park charges and reduce the rates on shops.


chunkybutt says...
10:46pm Wed 24 Jun 09

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.

Jim Smyth says...
11:13pm Wed 24 Jun 09

chunkybutt wrote:
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.
People like what? Politicians? Re-assert your history, kid

stew5018 says...
11:25pm Wed 24 Jun 09

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
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.
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.

Jparcoeur says...
7:17am Thu 25 Jun 09

Jim Smyth wrote:
Jparcoeur wrote:
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.
What problem are you referring to? Or have you just been hoodwinked by the old "taxpayers money" rhetorical trick again?
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.
The real question in this story is the potential problem of how the pay for the multiple jobs is structured. If one can hold down that may positions then the positions are over paid.

Northamboy says...
8:54am Thu 25 Jun 09

Jim Smyth wrote:
Northamboy 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 living
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
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 you

Jim Smyth says...
9:58am Thu 25 Jun 09

Northamboy wrote:
Jim Smyth wrote:
Northamboy 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 living
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
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 you
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

Symondian says...
10:09am Thu 25 Jun 09

Surely the Echo has missed the real story here? What about the conflict of interests there could be with the couple's positions? Environment and Development are often found in opposition, and so too are town and county councils.
A champion with interests in so many camps cannot be guaranteed to be YOUR champion in any conflict. They might easily just say nice things to each side, draw their money, and be of little use.

Chas O'Bursledon says...
12:42pm Fri 26 Jun 09

How pathetic some of your readers are. They would never be prepared to work 80 hours a week, to stand for public office or to have the courage to take decisions on behalf of other people. None of your readers or reporters or editors would donate train fares, car milage or phone calls to their employers without claiming it back. Why should politicians be any different? If people want political representation it comes with a cost. If they do not then there is always the BNP!

Chas O'Bursledon says...
12:58pm Fri 26 Jun 09

Jim Smyth wrote:
Northamboy wrote:
Jim Smyth wrote:
Northamboy 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 living
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
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 you
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
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!


Cllrs Keith House and Louise Bloom Cllrs Keith House and Louise Bloom

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses