We guess that when you have millions in the bank and millions more coming in from people that you can criminalise if they don’t fork their money over, then spending what to you is just  a few quid over the odds means a lot less than it does for those of us in the real world.

Beneath the gloatingly triumphal headline “New depot opens - ker-ching!” Boston Borough Council trumpeted the replacement site for the former Fen Road depot with the news that it would save the council – and theoretically, us, the taxpayer – a shedload of money.

But as is often the case with the borough council’s spin on events, the reality is slightly different.

Worst Street told us that “the move from the council's rented depot at Fen Road to the new purpose-built depot on land the council owns will save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.

But the back story reeks more of ker-lunk than ker-ching.

Back in November 2012, a report to Boston’s Cabinet of Curiosities described an opportunity “whereby the council may be able to purchase an alternative site with the potential to significantly reduce its operational costs.”

The report went on to suggest the purchase of a suitable site costing up to half-a-million pounds, relocation needs and the surrender of the current lease on the existing site.

The chosen site for the new depot was on land which included a cafe and lorry park whose operators were forced to move out after 14 years.

The report calculated that it would cost about £145,000 to get out of the ten-year lease deal, which had only been renegotiated on more favourable terms a few years earlier and for which the annual rent and business rates were £135,000.

The council’s operational needs had reduced since then but probably more significantly Lincolnshire County Council gave notice that it no longer needed the borough to provide a transfer station for the recycling that it collects – having built a new one of its own, at … and we have to be cautious when we use this word in an article concerning Boston Borough Council … Slippery Gowt.

So yet again, County Hall says "jump," and Worst Street asks “how high?”

The report concluded that “the freehold purchase of a suitable depot facility allows the council to make significant revenue savings, as required by the medium term financial strategy” – a situation described at the new depot’s opening ceremony by council leader Pete Bedford as a “win-win situation” 

His scriptwriter continued: “We are saving money for council taxpayers and are more centrally situated. It's even better for staff who now have less distance to travel to get to work. Some now arrive by bicycle, which is good for the environment, good for their health and good for their pocket."

Such consideration  – not only do the staff get fitter, but their pay freeze goes a lot further as well.

However, the devil – as always– is in the detail, and the details are hard to find.
We've tried todiscover how much the new site cost, and you would think that a sum as large as £500,000 might be easy to spot, but we haven’t managed to track it down.

What we did find was that the penalty payment to end the Fen Road depot lease was £138,500 made to Ldc (Boston) – a drainage company worth more than £9 million.

As well as that there were “final settlement costs” of £45,000 and  – ker-lunk – an interest  charge for  late payment of £1,200.

So – the final cost of worming out of the lease was almost £185,000, plus an unspecified cost for the land that had to be acquired.

If the authorisation was to spend up to £500,000, we imagine that a figure pretty adjacent would have been spent.

If so, we are looking at an outlay of £685,000 to save on a bill of £1,350,000 over ten years.

That’s a total saving of £565,000 for the period – or £56,000 a year … less than the cost of running the Mayor’s office.

And we don’t think that takes into account the business rates

***

But money is an odd animal when it is Boston Borough Council’s coffers.

A recent entry in the lists of spending shows two payments to CIPFA – the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

CIPFA claims that its 14,000 members work throughout the public services, in national audit agencies, in major accountancy firms, and in other bodies where public money needs to be effectively and efficiently managed.

Boston Borough Council has apparently spent  £3,175 for a “subscription” to CIPFA, and £3,100 for a “publication subscription,” which we hope are really one the same and that the number has been incorrectly repeated – although that may not be the case.

But it seems a dear old deal.

Is membership compulsory? – and if not,  could it be a useful saving to make?

But it must be important, as we note that Boston’s Chief Executive Richard Harbord is a member – in fact he just missed being elected to the  institute’s council for 2014-15 by a mere 14 votes

***

And still the spending goes on …

The council’s June list of spending items includes three civic dinners – one charged to the mayoral kitty, and the other two merely listed as “civic functions.”

We’ll drink to that!

***

Interestingly, there seems to be loadsa money for some things but not others – despite lip service to their importance.

After periods of silence, interspersed with equal amounts of inactivity over the past year, Boston’s Youth Council has issued a survey to help “get young people’s voices heard” – although quite how is anyone’s guess.

Forays into the world of the young are conducted in Boston from time to time, but never seem to amount to much.

It is sad – but the reason is fairly obvious.

Our allegedly “grown up” council leaders have no interest in what people of any age have to say, nor about what they want.

Boston Youth Council is a group of a dozen 11 to 18 year olds  who have short-listed concerns shared by all ages – issues such as healthy living, transport, access to services such as housing, education, training and employment, things for young people to do, street cleaning, refuse and recycling, parks and open spaces and feeling safe and part of the community.

To date, these young aspirants have largely been funded by a sole conservative councillor, who donated £1,000 in February last year, with a further £500 from his annual allowance in April this year and a promise to match fund the youth council in the future when it has raised a further £500.

In the early debates, whilst council members commended the scheme as a way to encourage future councillors to come forward – it insisted that there be no significant cost to the council.

It was recognised that the Youth Council would “almost certainly” secure lottery funding and, with the help of the Local Communities Development Officer and the county council’s youth services, others in the borough were sure to support it.

Maybe this will be happening soon –  it hasn't so far.

Everything seems to be taking so long, and we are puzzled as to the reason.

However, along with our bewilderment we have concerns.

At the time of inception, it was said that “the best model” for the Youth Council would be to largely replicate the local authority structure and for a Young Mayor to be chosen in the same way as the council process.

Later it was said that the young councillors planned to have portfolio members aligned with Boston Borough Council’s cabinet members so they can work closely with them.

Or maybe not.

When all this was rumbling through the system,  we said that we felt sure that many of the new intake of Boston borough councillors, elected for the first time in 2011, believed that they would be involved in ‘something that means something,’ and that their opinions would be recognised; that they would make a difference and have a voice.

But the sad case was that many of these people soon discovered that they had no voice at all, and were unable to make any difference to life in Boston.

This is because of the way the current ‘leadership’ runs the ship – denying debate, refusing to listen to views other than their own, and working out of either self-interest or the interests of their big bosses at County Hall.

The demonstration of how democracy works is that … it doesn't.

A select elite calls the shots, and expects its party rump – what an apposite descriptor –   to do as it is told, while all shades of opposition are treated as non-existent.

Many of these ‘leaders’ have played at politics for years and find that it keeps them busy in retirement – the grown-up version of “there isn't a lot to do at our age.”

It this really the sort of lesson that we wish to pass on to potential politicians of the future?

Surely, our leaders should make sure that they are in a position to demonstrate open, honest politics of a model quality, rather than merely inflict their shabby tired values on the next generation.

But if they are really sincere, why not find a few quid to help matters along instead of blowing it on slap-up dinners?

***

Last week’s clarification of who does what in Worst Street and who calls the shots served merely to increase the level of annoyance of one reader, who e-mailed to say: “It appears that a few people have got the town sewn up quite nicely and working how they want it even though there is a strong whiff of deception, incompetence and something nastier.

“My approach, be it right or wrong, is if something cannot be explained simply then there are things afoot.

“Your explanation was clear and I have no problem with it but it's the sequence of events regarding all of these councillors which is a concern and how they got to where they are now.

“With regards to UKIP councillors, regardless of their attendance at meetings, which is necessary, it's their public profile and what they are actually doing for Boston which I am sure people want to see.

“ I think that those that parted ways from UKIP after the election should have to go through the election process again as they achieved their positions by being under the UKIP party banner.

“To then break away and form another party, in my view, is deceptive, especially a rag bag one at that who don't appear to know their backsides from their elbows. When voting last year instead of being able to vote for the best representative, I hoped to vote for the less odious.

“Quite a hard feat.

“With Mark Simmonds’ resignation, although good to see the back of that weasel, he will only be replaced by another parachuted in from any place else other than Boston or even Lincolnshire.

“And the UKIP candidate? Well who now cares, as at the end of the day the party is basically Nigel Farage with some weird and ineffectual hangers-on. All very depressing considering that Boston really needs someone with passion and with the town at heart, more so than ever.

“Another thing I also don't seem to grasp is how utterly ineffectual the two local newspapers are at really addressing anything with any proper journalistic ability.
“Everything is reported in such a pathetic manner and never a story that has any merit.”

***

Mention of Mark Simmonds brings us to another e-mail – this one from a party loyalist whose activities go back all the way to the 2001 election when Simmonds emerged top of the list of 145 applicants to be Boston’s MP.

It sounds as though things have certainly changed, because in those days we were told that not only did Simmonds not have a very reliable car – “but his clothes where in need of some maintenance.”

As well as the profits from property already mentioned, our correspondent says that Simmonds bought number 5 Church Lane Boston – which had been used as Sir Richard Body’s base in the town  –  from the retiring MP shortly after the election

He says that this was sold in 2010 at a profit of £50,000 and was never furnished or occupied by the family.

***

Fast forward to the present day, and we were interested to see the Simmonds family home in Boston apparently on the market

The property website Rightmove lists Swineshead Abbey as up for sale – although fades the details down, with the statement “this property has been removed by the agent. It may be sold or temporarily removed from the market.”
We have to assume that the listing is a recent one because of the price being asked.

Simmonds bought it in 2010 for £900,000 and the new asking price is £1.2 million – which is not a bad Mark-up – if you’ll excuse the pun – after four years.

***

And from the present day to the future – and the question of who will succeed Mark Simmonds as the next Conservative MP for life for Boston and Skegness. If their schedule follows the usual pattern, Boston Tories will meet next week – when, we hear, they will be informed who the candidate will be.

If that is the case, it would be a dangerous break with what little democracy remains in the borough – but it wouldn't be at all surprising, would it?

***

Following Boston Eye reports on the way Boston Borough Council pays its chief executive, Richard Harbord   – through his private company rather than the staff books –  the local government secretary, Eric Pickles, has said that the government will take action against councils that fail to keep excessive salaries and "dubious pay arrangements" in check.

click to enlarge

He was talking after the Sunday Times disclosed that Peter Lewis, Britain's highest-paid council official, channels his income through his company in a scheme that reduces tax bills.

Lewis was brought in last year to run Somerset's failing children's services on a four-day week, and the county council pays £318,500 a year to employ him.

“A recruitment agency takes an undisclosed percentage fee from this,” says the report. “If it is the usual 10%, Lewis is left with £286,650 … more than twice the prime minister's £142,500 a year.

“His earnings go to a company, StubbsStorey Ltd, owned by Lewis and his wife, Lynn. 

"As a result he can avoid income tax at 45%, and national insurance 12%. If he is paid by dividends, he faces only flat-rate corporation tax, possibly as low as 21%.”

Pickles told the newspaper: “"We've changed the law to reduce secrecy on town hall pay deals and given elected councillors the power to veto excessive senior pay.
“Councillors now need to use these powers — and they should be held to account if they turn a blind eye," he said.

Of course, Pickles has said all this before, and it seems that nothing has changed here in Boston – a sorry case of the minister being all mouth and no trousers … what an appalling image!

***

We love it when Boston Borough councillors try to justify the unjustifiable.

In a letter to a local “newspaper,” Councillor Stephen Woodliffe – the cabinet portfolio holder for building control, environmental health, community safety, emergency planning, health and safety, licensing and land Charges, to name but a few – tells us that is important to point out that the borough council accepted professional advice in rejecting the use of sandbags as a means of flood defence.

He clearly felt the need for this defensive and apologetic stance after the heavy criticism levelled at the council during last year’s flooding.

Early on in events, almost the only word from the council was to announce that it was no good asking them for sandbags, telling worried taxpayers … “For the avoidance of doubt, in a flooding incident, Boston Borough Council does not supply sandbags, neither empty nor filled, to any resident or business in Boston borough as the responsibility for safeguarding homes and businesses lies with the owner.

“If there is time, sandbags and sharp sand are available from many builders' merchants and DIY stores, but far better to be prepared and have a supply of sandbags to hand rather than waiting for an emergency to occur.”

However, it would now appear that this suggestion was both pointless and time-wasting – especially during a mounting emergency –  when perhaps the idea was simply a bit of fun to keep us occupied during a crisis.

Councillor Woodliffe  cast his mind back to  Sir Michael Pitt’s “highly respected”  – i.e. it agrees with Boston Borough Council’s point of view – independent  report on the 2007 floods, “which are now considered to be the greatest civil emergency in Britain’s history since 1945 and in which 13 people died.”

He somehow  manages to overlook the 1953 disaster, which struck much nearer home, and which claimed the lives of more than 300 people on land and 224 at sea.

Sir Michael’s report was published in June 2008 and deduced that sandbags were largely ineffective in protecting properties.

Councillor Woodliffe  quotes the report as saying: “The review was unable to obtain any significant evidence that sandbags were particularly effective during the 2007 summer floods in providing protection to individual households.”

He also quotes the Local Government Association’s comments in 2008 that ‘sandbags are seen by the public and the media as a panacea in flooding events and their existence and deployment constitutes one of the most fraught parts of the emergency response to flooding’.

And, of course, they are expensive for councils to supply and transport – which would have nothing to do with it … would it?

Well it would, because the letter goes on: “Local authorities have to be prudent in the use of public funds and in this time of austerity.

“Boston Borough Council and other public authorities have wisely chosen (sic) to adopt the best advice available to both inform and protect residents against flooding.

And patronisingly he concluded: “I think we all understand the desire to fall back on traditional strategies in times of danger, but there are better methods and strategies available today and your borough council is at the forefront in using these to make good use of scarce public funds for residents’ benefit.”

A point worth making is that Boston Borough Council did not really “accept professional advice in rejecting the use of sandbags as a means of flood defence.”

It  has dredged up an old report that said what it wanted to hear, and put some spin on to it to cover up its ineptitude.

And despite the pooh-poohing of sandbags, most of the few buildings that actually had sandbags at their doors on the 5^th December last year belonged to Boston Borough Council.

The Lincolnshire Local Authority Sandbag Policy makes it clear that: “Local authorities will maintain a stock of sandbags and sand strategically located within their district.

“During a flooding event the local authority will attempt to deliver sandbags to properties occupied by vulnerable people within the flood warning zone directly e.g. the elderly, the infirm and those without their own transport etc.

“Other groups will be asked to collect sandbags either from designated distribution points identified in public literature or radio broadcasts, from each local authority or from local builder’s merchants.

“No charge will be made for sandbags issued by the local authority during a flooding event but costs will be recorded for possible cost recovery by the local authority from central government.”

And why not take a look at the Advice on Flooding leaflet produced by the Lincolnshire Emergency Planning unit on behalf of the Lincolnshire Resilience Forum.

You can read it by clicking here

From page nine onwards it lists district council sandbag issuing policies – which tell us that

Boston Borough Council … holds a small stock of ready filled sandbags, which can be rolled out as required in the event of an emergency.

“In addition, larger stocks of empty bags are held ready to be filled if needed. The council cannot provide bags to everyone at all times, but will make available empty sandbags for a small charge.

And one final point.

It seems a little disingenuous not to compare like with like when offering an argument.

Whilst the 2013 floods in Boston were bad, they were soon under control, and did not involve great depths of water.

To compare them with the floods of 2008 – see the picture below – is comparing chalk and cheese.

 To argue that sand bags were ineffective during such overwhelming flooding six years ago is like saying that a Nissen hut would have been no use in Hiroshima back in 1945.

***

And still with flooding the Boston Daily Drivel ended its holiday with a story about the lucky winner of £2,000 worth of flood protection measures. She was one of a meagre 73 people who signed up for flood warnings, agreed to make personal flood plans and received a free door flood protection kit.

All residents who signed up for warnings went into a draw for £2,000 worth of flood protection measures for their home.

Lucky for some.

But there must have been a better way to have attracted more participants for such a rich reward.

Boston Borough Council has been struggling to sell the idea of flood protection – and even claiming for compensation after the event – and this raffle was really a huge missed opportunity.

Years ago during our time on the wireless, we drew the results of a competition in reverse order – and someone complained, pointing out that this contravened some Act or another because the winner drawn in third and second places was denied the chance of the top prize. The point was well made.

And we wonder if we were alone among people who signed up for flood warnings some years ago to feel a little cheated at not being able to enter a competition because we were disqualified by dint of already having been sensible.

And with just 73 takers, the excuse that it encouraged lots of people to sign up simply doesn't hold water – if you’ll pardon the expression!

***

Still with Boston Daily Bull(sh*t)in – here’s what baffles us.

On one hand it is so important to keep in touch with us that it is published daily – but apparently by just one person. So when that person takes a break, the publication stops – ergo it can’t really be that important, and more like busywork than anything else.

               

***

It still not easy to work out the policy on issuing parking tickets in Boston since the county council began milking this profitable cash cow. We always thought that the idea was to use tickets to deter parking in areas where there were especial problems – and imagined that there would be a blitz on the Market Place in particular, where the situation is an acute one.

But as we have reported, Fridays seem to have become the day the wardens stroll out of town to find the odd car parked harmlessly but where it shouldn't be whilst the Market Place remains thronged with badly and often dangerously parked cars.

Last week, we noticed a change of tack.

Wardens were around on Market Day, touring all the little hideaways where people are forced to park because there is nowhere else to go.

Another day of easy pickings.

Is it because so many people break the rules in the Market Place and the wardens fear a confrontation, that they appear to steer clear of it?
We’re sorry to say that it begins to look that way.

***

Not surprisingly, the 94 year-old war veteran ticketed outside  Boston bus station  – whose story prompted the Daily Mail headline “War hero, 94, slams council as 'Nazis'” –  had his appeal against a £35 fine upheld.

"Even so, Boston Borough Council couldn't resist taking a parting shot which left them in a bad light …  yet again.

A local “newspaper” report quoted a council spokesman as saying that the appeals unit in Nottingham cancelled the charge as there was a discrepancy between the time on a bus ticket and the time printed by the penalty ticket machine.

So, they were wrong – but in Boston the council always has to have the last word.

“But the appeals unit did comment that the penalty notice we served ‘was issued for a valid reason,’” the spokesman smugly added –  which implies that really, the opposite was the case.

For once, discretion might have been the better part of valour – but this council always has to appear to be right.

See our earlier piece on sandbags!

***

More on the Quadrant debate now – and an e-mail from a reader who is unhappy with the ongoing coverage in the conventional “press.”

“The newspapers are making hay with the news that Boston Borough Council planners gave the Q1 project the go-ahead, again misleading most readers into thinking it's all over.

“This application still has to have a seal of approval on it from the Secretary of State!

“Looking at the comments from the leader Peter Bedford, it would appear we no longer have a need to take things to a planning committee.

“He has already stated the distributor road will be built round to Tesco and put pressure on Lincolnshire County Council and the government to put funding in place for the links through to the A52 and the A1121 Boardsides and then over the Witham to Tattershall Road (Boston  Standard 13^th  August.)

“This will put more traffic on the A1121 past Swineshead Abbey then?

“Mr Bedford is already singing the praises of Chestnut Homes' Q2  – so, no need to take it to planning then?

“It would save expense and time to cut them out!”

***

Finally, we note concerns about the procedures surrounding the electoral register – just as there are changes being made to the way it is compiled.

After completing their original form – a job formerly allocated to the quaintly named householder – a copy was sent annually to be confirmed as still being correct.

Now that has changed, and if you've been registered for some time, your details and those of the rest of the household will now be registered individually – which will happen with about 80% of households

Under individual electoral registration you need to provide identifying information, such as date of birth and national insurance number, when required to register and the application will need to be verified before it goes on the register.

The government says: “Individual Electoral Registration will give people more control and ownership over the process and increase the accuracy of the register – with the new system able to verify that everyone on the register is who they say they are. This will ensure that there is greater trust in the legitimacy and fairness of our elections.”

Of course it will.

It also creates more jobs for the boys together with massive printing and postage costs, and countless home visits, which we’ll probably have to fund from our council tax.

It also makes some people uneasy.

A reader e-mails to say: “What annoys me most is the statement ‘you need to provide us with this information; if you don't you could be fined £80.’

“I was under the impression that voting in England was not compulsory, thus if you do not vote you do not have to register as a voter. Have I got this wrong?

“The other thing which is a concern in giving information, is how it is being used. With all the various agencies delving into our lives these days and demanding more information regarding how we live, and personal details, the collation of such information becomes more spread around, thus causing more of a chance of making you more vulnerable. This does not mean that people are generally up to no good, but misinterpretation is always an issue with the type of people who analyse information.

"I can see why the electoral registration service is doing this due to phantom voters registered by those who unscrupulously attempt to undermine elections but – as usual – the rest of us have to compromise our own personal liberties.”

There are several points to be noted here.

Firstly, there is no compulsion to vote here – unlike countries such as Australia which is one of 23 nations with mandatory voting laws … although only ten enforce them.

Supporters of the system say Australia boasts some of the highest civic participation in the world, with a reported 94% voter turnout in the last federal election, compared with about 65% in the UK's 2010 general election and an estimated 57% in the 2012 US presidential election.

We’re sure that Boston Borough Council is fully behind fining people £80 for failing to tell them what they want to know – it uses criminalisation as a sledgehammer to crack a nut whenever possible.

But there is even more money at stake here if you decide to be an awkward customer.

Again, the government tells us: “You need to be on the electoral register to vote in all UK elections and referendums. You are not automatically registered even if you pay council tax.

“If you receive a request for your registration information from your local electoral registration office then you are legally obliged to respond. If you do not respond you could face a fine of up to £1,000,

“It is an offence to knowingly give false information and you could face a fine of up to £5,000 and/or up to six months in prison.  If you do not make an application for registration when required to do so, you could face a fine of £80.”

As far as using the information is concerned – there are two electoral registers – the main one and the open register.

The main one is used – surprise, surprise – for “electoral purposes” … but also crime detection, finding candidates for jury service and checking credit applications.

The open register is for sale to any Tom, Dick or Harry  who wants to buy it so they can send promotional material, charity appeals, credit card offers and a whole host of other junk mail – but you can ask not to be included on this list.

The real answer is that they love to gather information about us – and the more they can get the better as far as they are concerned.

Earlier this week, the Local Government Association called for the practice to be stopped, claiming that it discouraged people from registering to vote – but with details floggable for less than 50p a name, we can’t see many authorities turning down such easy money.

The bottom line here is that if people feel strongly enough they just don’t register, and nothing much seems to be done about it.

The Electoral Commission says that up to six million British voters are not registered – a 50% rise in ten years, because registration has "not kept pace with a rising population."

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com