London Councillor Paid While Living Abroad: No Wonder England’s Public Services Are in Such a Mess

Introduction: When Your Councillor Is in Bangladesh and You’re in the Queue

When you read that a London councillor has been paid more than £20,000 a year while largely living in Bangladesh and standing for election there, your first reaction is probably the same as mine: no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess.​

Because this isn’t just a quirky one‑off story.
It’s a perfect snapshot of how far removed parts of our political class have become from the people they’re supposed to serve.

In this article, I’m going to:

• Break down what this case actually tells us about local democracy.
• Explain why it’s technically allowed – and why that’s the real scandal.
• Show how arrangements like this feed directly into the daily chaos you see in housing, social care, and council services.
• Finish with a simple checklist you can use to judge local candidates before they get near your vote.

If you’ve ever sat on hold to the council, waited months for a basic repair, or watched your area decline while allowances roll out on time, this will make sense of a lot.

The Case in a Nutshell: Paid to Represent London, Living in Bangladesh

Let’s start with the basic facts.

A councillor in Tower Hamlets, east London, has reportedly been receiving around £20,600 a year in total allowances while spending substantial time in Bangladesh and standing as a candidate for the Bangladesh National Party in the Golapganj‑Beanibazar constituency. The sum is made up of:​

• A standard councillor allowance of roughly £11,898 a year.
• An extra special responsibility allowance of about £8,702 for serving as “Scrutiny Lead for Resources”.​

On paper, she has attended some key meetings and is not currently breaking UK law by being a councillor and seeking office overseas at the same time, as the council itself has acknowledged.​

From a legal perspective:

• She was properly elected.
• She still meets the formal criteria to hold her seat.
• The system allows her to draw the allowances.

From a public‑trust perspective:

• She’s being paid by English taxpayers to represent a London borough while actively pursuing a parliamentary career in another country.
• Residents struggling with housing, social care and basic services are entitled to ask: whose life is this role really improving?

When you see that, it’s hard not to think: no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess.

Legal but Wrong? What the Rules Say About Councillors Abroad

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: under current UK rules, a lot of this is technically allowed.

To be a councillor you must, at the point of election:

• Be 18 or over.
• Be a British, Irish, Commonwealth or EU citizen (depending on the election rules at the time).
• Have a local connection – living, working, or owning property in the area.

You can be disqualified for things like certain criminal convictions, bankruptcy restrictions, or holding specific paid roles with the council itself. But there is no clear, automatic rule that says:

• “You cannot spend much of the year living abroad while drawing a councillor’s allowances.”
• “You cannot run for a foreign parliament while you are a serving councillor here.”

That’s why the council’s position is effectively: nothing in current legislation actually stops this, as long as some minimal duties are ticked.​

This is the deeper problem:
England’s public service rules are often built around trust and “gentleman’s standards” from another era. They assume people will naturally do the right thing. Modern political operators – of all backgrounds – increasingly operate on a different principle: if it’s not banned, it’s fair game.

So we end up in this bizarre position where:

• Ordinary workers in England would be sacked for trying to do their job from another continent.
• But an elected representative can be half‑based overseas and still draw an allowance, because the rulebook hasn’t caught up.

Again, you look at that and think: no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess. The standards for the people at the top are softer than the standards for the people at the sharp end.

Representation Without Presence: Can You Really Serve a Ward From Overseas?

This is where theory hits real life.

What does a councillor actually do if they’re doing the job properly?

• Listen to residents’ problems: housing, antisocial behaviour, rubbish collection, planning rows, school places.
• Walk the streets and estates, see what’s happening, understand the feel of the area.
• Attend meetings, scrutinise budgets, challenge officers, and push for local fixes.
• Be physically present – surgeries, community events, door‑knocking, site visits.

Now compare that with trying to do the job while spending long stretches in another country:

• Time zones make it harder to join meetings and respond quickly.
• You can’t see with your own eyes what’s happening on a particular street or estate.
• Casework often needs face‑to‑face contact – especially with more vulnerable residents.
• Your bandwidth is split between your local duties and your foreign political ambitions.

I’ve watched local politics for years, and when a councillor actually lives in the area and cares about it, you feel the difference:

• They know which underpass feels unsafe at night.
• They can tell you which landlord is notorious.
• They have stories of people they’ve personally helped.

When someone is effectively a “remote councillor”, you get the bare minimum:
tick‑box attendance, bland statements, no real grip on the area.

And when that sort of under‑representation is multiplied across a council – or across many councils – no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess. You’ve got people managing spreadsheets for communities they barely stand in.

Dual Politics, Divided Loyalties: Where’s the Priority?

Let’s be fair: lots of people in England have overseas ties, family in other countries, or a strong interest in politics back home. That in itself is not the issue.

The issue is divided focus and divided loyalties when you are paid – in this case more than £20,000 a year – to represent a specific English community and scrutinise how its money is used.​

If you are:

• Campaigning for a seat in the Bangladesh parliament for the Bangladesh National Party.
• At the same time holding a senior scrutiny role over resources in a London borough.

Then voters have every right to ask:

• Where is your main political project?
• Whose future are you most invested in – the ward in Tower Hamlets, or Golapganj‑Beanibazar?
• When you wake up in the morning, which set of problems do you think about first?

In theory, someone could do both. In practice, politics is all‑consuming.
If you’re pouring your energy into one battlefield, another is being neglected.

This is where my own “three questions” test comes in handy:

1. Who makes money from this?
   The councillor does – through an allowance funded by English taxpayers – while building a profile for another country’s parliament.
2. When it’s England versus another country’s politics, who do they choose?
   By physically being abroad and actively contesting another legislature, the answer is not encouraging.
3. Which networks are they working for – local residents, or overseas party machines and political contacts?

Look at it through that lens and again, no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess. Too many people at the top treat these roles as titles, allowances, and stepping stones – not as a duty to the people who actually live with the consequences.

The Taxpayer’s Question: What Are We Really Paying For?

Strip away the names and parties, and it comes down to this: what are English taxpayers actually buying with that £20,000+ a year?​

In theory, the allowance pays for:

• Time spent on casework and local issues.
• Attendance at meetings and briefings.
• Reading and challenging complex budget papers.
• Being available and accessible to residents.

In practice, the system often measures:

• Whether the form was filled in.
• Whether the meeting was technically attended.
• Whether the legal minimum has been met.

There’s very little direct link between:

• The quality and quantity of work a councillor does, and
• The money they receive.

If an ordinary worker turned up just enough days, did the bare minimum, and spent half the year abroad running a second career, they’d be out of a job. The public sector, for all its flaws, still tends to clamp down if people abuse the system at that level.

But for the people at the top of the democratic chain?
The bar is laughably low.

That mismatch feeds directly into the sense that no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess. The incentives for front‑line staff are tough; the incentives for some elected figures are soft and easily gamed.

What This Says About Standards in Public Life in England

This one story is part of a wider pattern:

• MPs with multiple second jobs and consultancies, sometimes linked to foreign interests.
• Councillors treating their seat as a side hustle while focusing on other careers.
• Weak enforcement of rules, and a constant “nothing to see here” response when the public asks obvious questions.

The message that sends to ordinary people is simple:
One set of rules for you, another for the people who run things.

Think about the basic contrast:

• Try missing work for months to build a political career abroad while drawing a full pay packet.
• Try telling your employer you’re technically meeting the minimum standard, so they can’t complain.

You wouldn’t get away with it. You’d be gone.

Yet when it comes to elected roles, there’s a culture of shrugging and saying “well, that’s politics”. And then everyone wonders why trust is on the floor and why people feel utterly disconnected from the decisions shaping their lives.

When you see that culture over years, it stops being surprising that England’s public services are in such a mess. It becomes the inevitable result of a system that demands more of the people emptying the bins and manning the hospital wards than of some of the people formally “in charge”.

What Needs to Change – And How Voters Can Start Pushing Back

The good news is you’re not powerless. Cases like this can be a turning point if voters use them as a trigger to demand higher standards.

Here are some practical changes that would make a difference:

• Real residency rules
  Councillors should be required to spend the overwhelming majority of their time living in or near their ward/borough during their term – with clear consequences if they don’t.
• Limits on time abroad
  Clear caps (with exceptions for emergencies) on how long an elected local representative can be out of the country while drawing an allowance.
• Transparency on foreign political roles
  Mandatory declarations – prominently published – if a councillor is running for, or holds, office in another country’s political system.
• Activity‑linked allowances
  Tie part of the allowance to demonstrable activity: casework levels, meeting attendance, community engagement – not just holding a title.

But change won’t start in Westminster or the town hall.
It starts with how we, as voters, think and act.

Next time you meet or consider voting for a local candidate, ask them:

• Where do you live most of the year?
• Are you involved in politics in any other country or major organisation?
• How many days a week do you expect to spend on work for this ward/borough?
• Can you give examples of when you’ve stood up for local people against your own party or other interests?

If they can’t answer those questions clearly, you don’t owe them your vote.

Because until we stop rewarding this kind of behaviour, we’ll keep reading stories like this and saying the same thing: no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess.

Conclusion: Stop Accepting “Legal” as Good Enough

The line you’ll hear over and over about cases like this is: “No rules were broken.”

That answer might satisfy a party machine or a town hall lawyer.
It does nothing for the person waiting 12 weeks for a repair, stuck on a housing list, or trying to get a response from a councillor who is, for all practical purposes, somewhere else.

We need to raise the bar from “legal” to “worthy of trust”.

So next time you see a smiling leaflet or a polished manifesto, remember this story. Remember that someone was paid thousands from the public purse to represent a London community while largely living and campaigning abroad, and the system shrugged.

Then make yourself a quiet promise:

• I will ask where my representatives live.
• I will ask what other political roles they hold.
• I will ask how much of their time they will really give to this place.

Because until we do, we will keep on saying the same thing, year after year: no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess – and nothing will change.

FAQs

1. Is it legal for a UK councillor to live abroad?

Yes, under current rules a councillor is not automatically disqualified just for spending long periods overseas, as long as they still meet the basic eligibility criteria and don’t trigger specific disqualification grounds. That’s precisely why cases like this are so controversial: they are often legal but seen by many as unacceptable.​

2. Can a UK councillor stand for election in another country?

There is no general ban on a UK councillor seeking office in a foreign parliament, provided they continue to meet UK eligibility rules and comply with any local laws. However, it raises serious questions about divided focus and loyalty, especially when the councillor continues to draw UK allowances at the same time.​

3. How much are London councillors typically paid?

Most London councillors receive a basic allowance (often in the £11,000–£13,000 range) plus additional special responsibility allowances for roles such as cabinet member or scrutiny chair. In the Tower Hamlets case, the total reported was about £20,600 a year for a councillor and a scrutiny lead role combined.​

4. What can residents do if they think a councillor isn’t doing their job?

Residents can:

• Raise concerns with the council’s monitoring officer.
• Submit complaints through the council’s standards process.
• Ask questions at council meetings or through local media.
• Organise locally and, at the next election, campaign and vote for candidates who commit to living in and actively serving the area.

5. Why does this matter for the state of England’s public services?

When elected representatives are distant, distracted or treating their roles as side hustles, there is weaker scrutiny of budgets and poorer understanding of local needs. That leads directly to bad decisions, wasted money and neglected services. In that sense, stories like this are one reason people say, with some justification, that no wonder England’s public services are in such a mess.