Forum Topic

Cllr Julian Bell: for the many? Or self-interested profiteer off the public purse?

The Labour leader of our council has 4 jobs paid out of public funds. He claims £42k p.a for leading the council. He claims another £10k p.a for chairing a transport committee with London Councils. He claims a further £14k p.a for being a board member of the Old Oak Common Regeneration Board which meets a mere 10 times a year, and often only for only half an hour. On top of all this Bell still claims a wage off MP Virendra Sharma thought to be circa £40k p.a. even though in Ealing the leader's allowance was raised to reflect a full-time role in 2006. So Total public money he bags per year so far = c£106k p.a. And as if all that is not enough from the austerity stricken public purse HE HAS A PUBLICLY SUBSIDISED HOUSING ASSOCIATION 4 BED HOUSE EVEN THOUGH HE OWNS A £1M 3 STOREY 5 BED HOUSE WHICH HE MAKES MORE MONEY OUT OF RENTING ROOMS. How can a politician who supposedly represents a socialist party get away with such a grotesque amount of public subsidy while those around him suffer deprivation, homelessness and job losses? Surely those that think Bell is a socialist are having a 'larf'?

Michael mckenna ● 3707d24 Comments

No it won't be his tenants Tony because Bell's spread family members across both houses and rents all the spare bedrooms out to students. Cllr Bell is the householder and council tax payer of both properties. Therefore Bell saves twice the savings on his council tax freezes so must be around £2.5k he's saved. The bigger property you have the more you save and if you occupy two properties like Bell (one at a public subsidy)you save yourself twice as much as everybody else.

Nick Johnson ● 3690d

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5318954/Stephen-Crabb-nominates-fellow-MPs-flat-as-main-home-MPs-expenses.html

Tony Wood ● 3690d

It'll be his tenants that have made the savings,ask the Chancellor if you can find him.

Tony Wood ● 3690d

A letter from Cllr Bell came the other day in which he says freezing council tax for 8 years has saved the average Band D council tax payer £1040. Would love to know how much Cllr Bell is saving himself on his two properties. One is Band E at £1656.03 per year and the other is Band F at £1957.12. So Cllr Bell on his £100k  p.a public salaries will be laughing all the way to the bank as he must be one of biggest winners from his own tax freezes.

Nick Johnson ● 3690d

"Perhaps one way of keeping pressure up would be to write to our MPs to voice our disapproval."Well don't waste your time writing to our local MPs Rupa Huq and Stephen Pound or whatshisname Sharma who never turns up to vote. You won't get a peep out of them on Mr Bell's "interesting" housing arrangements, or even a view on the ethics thereof.Which isn't a big surprise. Local voters will vote for Labour come what may, even when it's led locally by someone who talks about the crisis of housing whilst living in social housing and renting out his £m home, and also tells us about the crisis in care for the elderly and the pain of cutting budgets whilst choosing not to raise council tax to raise money for this as other councils across the country have done this year.When our social media hungry local MPs are mute on this subject we can draw our own conclusions about whether their loyalties are to their constituents or the Labour party.

Ed Yelland ● 3694d

This Councillor is obviously thick skinned enough to think if he just rides it out people will forget that he's still got the social house. I think pressure must be kept up so that he is forced to hand it back so that a household with children can benefit from it. Perhaps take one unfortunate family out of dingy temporary accommodation somewhere. Or stop another family from being moved out of the borough. Or another family off the street. Perhaps one way of keeping pressure up would be to write to our MPs to voice our disapproval.

Michael Mckenna ● 3694d

Yes there should be but the trouble is who to report it to. Should be the council I suppose but he's the leader so makes it difficult. From what I've been told the chief executive has had complaints about Bell but simply believes him whatever he says.May do good to complain to the Labour party. They put him there after all. God knows why though. He's obviously a very greedy man. If enough of us complain to Corbyn maybe he'll sack him.

Nick Johnson ● 3694d

Is there not a public investigation body that can look into this misuse of public money?

Dee Cook ● 3698d

There are over 5 million families in need of a social home and it's not right that a housing association has allowed this council leader to hold onto one for 9 years while he has owned another house. It's also not right that the same housing association is one of the sponsors paying for him to go to MIPIM, the South of France property extravaganza.If you or I were a social tenant who bought another house we would have to give the social house back quite rightly. In Bell's case he's saying his mother-in-law can live in the social house but not the private house because she's disabled and needs ground floor toilet facilities. It is unbelievable that A2Dominion are prepared to accept such an excuse to hold on to their property when other families need it so badly. During the 9 years that Bell has held both properties it is not credible that he couldn't have installed a downstairs toilet in his private house. Lord knows he's getting enough money from his four public salaries as well as his rental income!

Michael Mckenna ● 3699d

Surely, It's time this was all either called in for investigation by a higher body or by the Police.The connections and barefaced irresponsibility cannot keep being ~"Just a co-incidence"Councillors refusing to engage with residents and council tax payers choosing to hide behind managed PR statements.Not being open and accessible to even other councillors.Dilligent officers and staff being intimidated. A preferential housing benefit by one councillor ,unfeasible to ordinary mortals, who holds above average assets and incomes, whom also has very close links to another councillor who works for the same housing association.A housing association that also gains preferential planning and real estate.Unhealthy links between councillors and developers & waste contractors.Too many closed meetings with councillors and officials popping up in other public posts.Possible impropriety with preferential sales of public/borough owned land to politically linked individuals, Holders of elected positions using their status to further their own empires outside of politics.Huge salaries for non achieving and unnecessary posts for a select group of careerist officials with unethical links to politics and developers and outside influences.All these allegations mixed with facts are oozing out of this borough's administration and is going on now and recently.With duvious decisions and cost savings which are far from dilligent.I don't care what party these people are allied to. It is quite simply wrong and cannot be acceptable whoever they are and what they stand for.This list is probably just the tip of the iceberg and it's a list too long as it is.It is high time those who are in elected office in this borough and clearly know  more, stop turning a blind eye and start dealing with what appears to be a swines feeding frenzy.Time to put politics aside, cut out this disease and put duty, integrity and morality and the taxpaying citizens of this district first. Just because politics is a dirty business does not mean it is OK to concede to it.It's just not good enough for all this to be glibly dismissed. Not when taxpayers are getting hit by stealth hikes in council taxes and yet vital parts of  community services are being cut.

Mark Kehoe ● 3700d

I was recently asked to sign a petition to save a respite service and so talk of £45,000 for mini gardens, councillors vast pay packages, free housing and trips to Cannes does make me sceptical about the propriety of the council's use of public funds.

Manika Power ● 3701d

Then I think that's  common ground,but I'm uncomfortable with the assumption of guilt we just don't know.Have to keep it brief,had tooth out yesterday and it's giving me serious jip!

Tony Wood ● 3702d

No that isn't correct.I have no problem condemning Charles Gow, in fact any act of rampant profiteering. There ought to be a law against it. I thought we ere discussing hypocrisy in politics...we could start by suggesting that no-one who owns a private house is entitled to be a tenant in public housing. Doubly so for any politician, of any political colour. I have no time for anyone  who manipulates public provision for their own ends, Labour or Tory, rich or poor.

Keith Iddon ● 3702d

Just a quick question Keith, It seems to me that you have very clearly defined rules/laws for socialist and absolutely zilch for capitalists,is that correct?    If not can you give an example of the ethics of the Tory party on such things as we've been talking about,for example the Charles Gow doings?  To me, he and those like him are doing infinitely more damage to low earners/social housing etc. than the subject of this thread who may or may not be guilty as assumed by the unknowing.

Tony Wood ● 3702d

Not nonsense whatsoever...neither is the hypocrite because they still believe and live by the tenets of the Tory party. They just have divergent views on the EU. A socialist who speculates on the housing market for personal profit and has a publicly subsidised house in the meanwhile is hardly believing or living a life of socialism. Clearer now?

Keith Iddon ● 3703d

That's arrant nonsense.....If political life was like that we wouldn't have the disagreements such as we've witnessed recently 'twixt Cameron and Johnson over the EU,which one is the hypocrite?  Which  grey line has gone too far off of the party line?

Tony Wood ● 3704d

I did not refer to you as a rank capitalist but to the Ian Gow mentioned in yourpost. As for putting people into boxes...when people choose a political 'side' and then do the opposite of what that side preaches, there are no 'grey lines', that's just condoning hypocracy. Guess e'll have to differ.

Keith Iddon ● 3704d

I think that's due to you using binaries to put us all into 2 boxes Keith,either we're socialists or we're tories,life's not like that.  Instead we work along fuzzy grey lines safe in the knowledge that we'll know when we get too high or low, right or wrong and will adjust to fit within our comfort zone (If we're lucky that is).    I don't think I implied that I'd ever behaved like a "rank" capitalist,I haven't and you can put me down if I ever do. What I thought I said was that it was okfor socialists to not be poor,maybe I didn't get that across too well.                 

Tony Wood ● 3704d

I don't see how someone claiming to be a socialist can then act like a rank capitalist and then purport to still be a socialist as you are claiming, is possible Tony.

Keith Iddon ● 3704d

Welcome to the forum Michael Mckenna, you've certainly come out with both guns blazing in only two posts!  I thought you were another poster who used a false name and got banned, he was a ranter as well.    What I do think is that until Cllr. Bell is proven guilty of something he's innocent in my eyes, as you or anybody else would expect. I have to say I don't think he's handled it brilliantly though, he might of been a bit more open but as I understand it an elderly invalid relative is involved somehow.    "Is that the kind of socialism I support?"    Well yes as it happens I do, If it's ok for the late Ian Gows (the ex Tory housing minister)  son Charles to buy up swathes of ex council properties in Putney (he and his wife own at least 40 and possibly up to 90) then it's OK for you,I or anyone else to do it. There seems to be a popular misconception that Tories should be rich and Socialists on the bread line,that's WRONG!     Is that the sort of Toryism you support?

Tony Wood ● 3704d

*applies to Will Self's now legendary face to face description of the Welsh Windbag on HIGNFY.  You could almost see the steam coming out of Kinnock's ears..

Keith Iddon ● 3705d

'Socialism' ( laughs!) only wears a cloak of decency now Michael,or in this case a thin see through plastic sheet. You only have to look at the likes of ( the every so hypocritical Lord)* Kinnock, once vehemently anti HOL,Blair's and the Milibands' millions to see that 'socialism' is a rich man's game nowadays.What appears to us as a low rent(npi)public housing/conflict of interest scandal is de riguer in the 'big fish in a small pool' world of local politics. They are now trying to out do one another to take the rise out of the public and this bloke is doing his best imo.

Keith Iddon ● 3705d

Oh so you think it's right do you Tony Wood that this council leader should be allowed to keep a family sized house subsidised by ordinary tax payers, more and more of whom can't afford to buy a home for themselves or rent a place in London yet this council leader somehow gets to keep his housing association house even though his income is well in excess of £100k p.a and he's got another Ealing house he rents out for profit, and so many other people need it desperately right now?Is this the kind of socialism you support?

Michael Mckenna ● 3705d

Oh no :0(  it's vu deja all over again. Go for it CC.

Tony Wood ● 3707d