It never rains but what it pours in Boston, does it?

First we lose our MP for reasons that have divided opinion among local people (more on that later) and now –  at the moment when it seems that his move might give UKIP a remote chance to wrest the seat from the Tories, up springs Neil Hamilton like Zebedee  from the Magic Roundabout to announce his intention to seek the nomination.

Our erstwhile MP Sir Richard Body never quite recovered from a jibe delivered by the normally mild-mannered former Prime Minister John Major, of whom he once said: “Whenever I see him approaching, I hear the flapping of white coats."

Quite what Major would have heard as Neil Hamilton approached would most likely have produced even more entertaining analogies.

It concerns us that the party might be lured by the purely illusory notion that Neil Hamilton is a well-known personality – or worse still, someone “famous” who will “put Boston on the map.”

Neil Hamilton is famous for being infamous.

According to the sanitised account of this plan to stand for Boston on the Boston Standard’s website, “Hamilton served as MP for Tatton – now Chancellor George Osborne’s seat – between 1983 and 1997, when he lost to campaigner Martin Bell. He had been Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry between 1992 and 1994.”

The background was covered in slightly more detail when the paper hit the shops, but was still not one of the great moments in local journalism.

As many readers will remember, there was more to it than merely “losing to Martin Bell” – the former BBC war correspondent defeated Hamilton on an “anti-sleaze” ticket after the “cash for questions” affair.

And if that doesn’t mean a lot, then hopefully this timeline from BBC news will tell the tale far more succinctly than we ever could.

click to enlarge photo

A sorry footnote to the whole affair was that Hamilton was eventually bankrupted after a petition was brought by Mohamed Al Fayed, who was owed £1.5m in court costs after Hamilton's unsuccessful libel action against him over the cash for questions affair – and whose failed subsequent appeal left him with estimated debts of about £3 million.

***

When we made reference to bobbing up like Zebedee, there was a reason, as theHamiltons – and don’t forget, wherever Neil goes, he is joined at the hip to his wife Christine, a former face of British Sausage Week in 2005  –   bob up here, there and everywhere, and to their credit, whilst they may be amiable clowns, they are certainly not quitters.

Over the years, the couple have appeared in countless TV programmes, written books, performed in pantomime and at the Edinburgh fringe. They even opened the adult roadshow Erotica Manchester, billed as “the world’s largest erotic festival” and recorded an unofficial England World Cup song, “England are Jolly Dee” in 2006.

With a CV like that, if UKIP didn't exist, the next choice would have to have been the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Publicity is definitely their opiate of choice.

But do you hear the sound of white coats flapping?

We surely do.

***

Neil Hamilton has gone from being a former Tory minister to the Vice Chairman of UKIP, although he was quietly axed from his role as UKIP campaigns director amid reported insider claims that the demotion stemmed from fears over his political disgrace.

In an interview with BBC Radio Lincolnshire, Mr Hamilton said of his decision to apply to stand in Boston: “I came, I saw, I liked what I saw and that is what has made my mind up."

He said he decided to stand in the constituency because it was in the region with the highest number of votes for UKIP in the country at the European elections in May.

"The whole of my political life has been fought to achieve [getting out of Europe] and so I obviously want to be in at the kill," he said.

"If Boston and Skegness can be the means of achieving that then that's the seat for me."

Humbly, he added: “I would be the most effective representative for Boston and Skegness in Westminster, which is really what matters.”

He said he wants to highlight the effect of immigration on the area.

“I want to put Boston and Skegness on the front pages and because I'm a nationally known figure I think I can really put the national searchlight on the terrible problems which have been foisted on the constituency."

In another BBC interview, he took things further by saying that UKIP was a party for “decent” supporters of the BNP who worried about being "swamped" by immigrants,

On BBC Radio 5 Live's Pienaar's Politics he said “a lot of decent people” who had previously voted for the BNP were now turning to UKIP instead.

“They feel their communities are being swamped by immigrants from outside, whether they are from Eastern Europe or from other parts of the world.

“Now those people, the decent supporters of the BNP, from the last election, who weren't true BNP supporters at all, I am sure that quite a few of them are voting for a respectable alternative, which is UKIP," he added.

Interesting how times are changing.

Not so long ago, such comments would have drawn cries of “racist” from several of our Boston borough councillors – and may well do again, if they think that there is political advantage in it.

***

Neil Hamilton also claims a vague political kinship with Sir Richard Body – who also flirted with UKIP – telling the Boston Standard:  “Dick Body was a great friend of mine. We were very close when I was an MP –   I want to follow in the tradition that he set.”

A review of Body’s political career in Total Politics says: “Even Body's subsequent defection to the UK Independence party, triumphantly announced on the homepage of the party's website, was less straightforward than at first it seemed.

“Nine days later, the by then former MP told Boston Target readers that he would be voting Conservative  at the 2005 election and advised them to do the same.

“There was dark talk among some Boston UKIP members of referring the party's new star signing to its disciplinary committee for ‘bringing the party into disrepute.'

“The party evidently forgave him, however, and its website now lists him as a "UKIP grandee" (although his UKIP membership lapsed in 2008 and he later joined the English Democrats.)”

***

Just to lighten up for a moment.

If he were to be elected, we wondered whether Neil Hamilton’s name holds any clues to what sort of MP he might be.

So we checked out some anagrams of his name – with some interesting results.

A move to Boston-by-the-sea could well be one Into Main Hell if things didn’t go well.

Bearing in mind the cash for questions affair, the thought of Ah, Ten Million might have some allure and, of course, whoever gets the job, we will always want an MP who doesn’t turn out to be a Thin Lame Lion.

***

Following the circular route that this blog often takes, we now come back to the present day and the departure of our sitting MP Mark Simmonds.

After all the criticism, a writer to a local “newspaper” had some sympathy for the “plight” which led to his decision to quit.

“He’s standing down because he wants his family with him but he can’t rent a four-bedroom flat in central London for £28,000 a year. People don’t believe him, but have they bothered to check?

“I did an online search and found nothing in Westminster under £30,000 a year, so I don’t struggle to take him at his word.

“He hates staying in a hotel and doesn’t want to commute from the suburbs. Those are personal choices and we’re all entitled to make them. If our jobs won’t accommodate them, we quit.

“If those complaining about his decision had a friend saying the same things, they’d reward them with ‘I don’t blame you mate’. But sadly, because Mr Simmonds is a politician, people seem to think they have the right to control not only his Parliamentary duties but his personal decisions too.”

We have to say that we think this to be a bit over-simplistic given the huge sums of money and property values involved.

Mr Simmonds ought to have been able to rearrange the Monopoly board and acquire a top quality London home where, no doubt, his family would have been much happier, and bought or rented somewhere decent in Boston for his weekend visits.

***

But as is always the case with politicians, not everyone accepts what they say at face value.

A Boston Eye reader e-mails to say: “I don't think anyone with any sense is buying his excuse for resigning. The man had a clear majority in the area with no near contenders – especially since UKIP’s main man has decided to run in South Thanet and not Boston, which at one stage could have been a possibility.

“The possible proposed UKIP candidate, as we know at present is, Neil Hamilton, a nincompoop of immense proportions with an especially odious wife thrown in.

“Who in their right mind would be pleased to have him representing an area he knows absolutely nothing about?

“And the Tory candidate?

“No suggestions so far. However, with the recent shock defection of Douglas Carswell to UKIP and possibly others from the Conservatives and Labour, the last thing they will be thinking about is Boston and Skegness.

“Back to Mark Simmonds. He resigned only a few weeks after the appointment of Philip Hammond as Foreign Secretary. Apparently Baroness Warsi mentioned her "great unease" at Philip Hammond's appointment.

“Did Mark Simmonds also have a great unease?

“Just having a quick look at his tweets at the end of May, he was taking a Mozambique delegation around this area for possible trade partnerships. Don't recall this being reported in the local press, but I could have missed the article. His involvement in Africa was also quite strong but of course he could still be doing his job whilst harbouring decisions to leave.

“Also, it was only last year he (and in fairness) others, missed a crucial vote regarding Syria, on which the government were narrowly defeated.
"Was he put on the political naughty step due to this? However, could it also be that his boss, William Hague, was replaced due to the amount of people going from the UK to fight in Syria and who are now possibly returning to the UK to cause further problems here?

“It makes your head spin - or mine at least.

“The bottom line is, I think the guy was out of his depth. At the end of the day he was a surveyor who ended up embroiled in issues far beyond his scope who initially was probably quite chuffed to be chosen for the role but finds out how difficult and awful a place the world is outside of dealing with his constituents in Boston and Skegness.”

***

The satirical magazine Private Eye had its own take on the Warsi/Simmonds departures which appeared in its New Coalition Academy feature – a spoof on the government run as a private school with the politicians as teachers.

***

Still looking ahead to May 2015, and we have received a few more nuggets from an insider about how the selection process operates – and what happened last time, when Mark Simmonds was chosen.

We are told that the usual procedure is for Conservative Central Office Candidates’ Department to “clear” Tory hopefuls, who would have the information on all constituencies and apply to the ones they “prefer.”

Locally, the Constituency Secretary prepares a list of all CVs with any information available on each.

There is then a meeting of the selection committee (drawn up from officers and senior members) followed by a sift of candidates to bring the numbers to a sensible level – followed by selections held at Skegness and Boston.

The outgoing MP will only vote on the final of three candidates

Most would then proceed to the bar in the Con Club.

Our man in the know says he doesn’t think that Mark Simmonds will be there, though, as he has been persona non grata at the constituency office for some time.

Interestingly, back in the day of the final selection between Mark Simmonds and two others, we are told that Sir Richard Body approached the ballot box holding a voting slip indicating his support for Mark Simmonds and whispered “Am I doing the right thing?”

When it was time to lodge the nomination papers for the election, we are told that when Simmonds was asked for his deposit he gave “a surprised look” and a cheque  – which is only cashed  if the candidate loses – had to be issued in his name.

Apparently, Sir Richard had in the past paid his deposit in gold sovereigns! 

***

We mentioned house prices earlier – and whilst everyone else appears to be sitting on a fortune if they own their own home, we don’t seem to be so lucky here in Boston.

The Sunday Times has come up with a clever little calculator that shows by how much local house prices have risen since 1995.

The answer is a wallet busting 130%, which sounds very exciting until you see that it means the average price for the area is now £140,351 – up from £61,044 twenty years ago … an increase of £79,306.

But that pales into insignificance when compared with the news earlier this year that the average UK house price has now hit £250,000.

The strange thing is that when you browse the windows of local estate agents, house prices seem much the same as they were a year or 18 months ago – and that’s despite claims that prices have risen by more than 15% in that time.

But bet your boots that if the current housing bubble bursts, local prices will fall in line with everywhere else – despite apparently never having risen.

Certainly, there’s not much chance of people in Boston “downsizing” to somewhere smaller and pocketing some handy cash – there’s nowhere lower to go!

It called the Boston Blight.

***

Mention of the Boston Blight moves us neatly on to those buffoons who claim to lead Boston Borough Council.

If further examples were still needed to demonstrate just how hopeless they are, then two have emerged in the last few days.

The first is the issue of car parking – and despite constantly being reminded that charges in Boston are too expensive, councillors continue to view it as the goose that lays the golden egg.

Short of a few bob?

Then stick another ten pence on the price of parking – the projections predict a vast boost for the coffers if you do.

But it all ends in tears when motorists vote with their wheels – and steer towards  places where parking is cheaper – or often free.

Then there are long faces all around the cabinet table accompanied by Tarzan style breast beating and laments about lost income.

The latest figures show that 4.35% fewer car parking tickets were sold in the first quarter of this council year than in the corresponding period last year.

And we’re talking big numbers according to the figures – something like 26,000 fewer tickets this year compared to last year and 50,000 fewer than in 2011/12.

As so often happenes our leaders went for the pie in the sky based on what turned out to be a series of wrong assumptions.

The estimate for car parking income in the 2013/14 budget was just over  £1 million – which was retained for  the 2014/15 budget as, “at the time, it wasn’t clear what the net effect of the price increase on 1^st  October 2013, the effect of disabled parking charges, and the introduction of civil parking enforcement (CPE) would be.

“It was projected that CPE would encourage more people into the council’s car parks, and that the new charges would also add or maintain income, which has proved not to be the case.”

And – in don’t blame us, guv mode – the council also notes “a downturn in car park income across the town’s private sector managed car parks has also been noted.”

Now the whole sorry affair is on the agenda for October with a report on “car parking/review of CPE/options taking car parks forward.”

Expect nothing exciting – the cabinet codgers are too set in their ways to consider anything radical that might get more people to park in Boston.

The key mistake is to factor the expected income into the budget – which then creates problems if the projected profits fail to materialise.

A better idea would be to wait and see how much money came in from parking charges, and then to allocate it.

It’s known as living within your means.

We hope that when the council reviews civil parking enforcement it remembers the falsity from Lincolnshire County Council, which emphatically denied that ticketing was a fundraising exercise.

The figure it quoted when the plan was mooted was that it would cost about £1.1 million a year to operate, and that the 20 parking wardens employed were expected to rake in £940,000 in parking fines.

However, recent figures showed that in 2013 revenue from parking tickets in Lincolnshire was the second highest outside of London – with Lincolnshire County Council  pocketing £2,196,590 in fines from 35,275 parking tickets

As a large chunk of this is “earned” in Boston – despite the fact that there has been no noticeable impact on the town’s parking problems – it seems only fair to hand some of it back to be spent on a useful purpose.

The whole Boston parking charge fiasco reminds us of  the ancient trick used by hunters to trap monkeys.

Food is put into a bottle that is firmly tethered to a tree or a post.

The neck of the bottle is just large enough for the monkey to reach in and grab a handful of the goodies – but once its fist is full of food it is too big to pull back out of the bottle.

The monkey (Boston’s so-called leaders) is both too stupid and too greedy to let go of the food (the income from car parking) and make a run for it – and thus becomes easy prey.

Sound familiar?

***

The other example of the Boston Blight concerns the Boston Enterprise Centre – another multi-million pound white elephant at which Boston Borough Council threw millions of pounds. Think PRSA.

We denounced the idea when it opened five years or so ago, and sadly, time has proved us right.

The lease expires in November, and the place is making barely any money for the council

The idea  was to develop modern office accommodation within Boston and strengthen business support services to meet the needs of business start-ups and small business growth – and Boston Borough Council secured funding from various sources totalling £3,670,000 to develop it.

However – as always with Boston Borough Council – the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and nothing came of the idea.

Take up of space was poor, and despite all the exciting plans, in desperation it was agreed to sub-lease part of the centre to the NHS/Primary Care Trust for five years.

This meant extending the head-lease for another two years period to coincide with the end date of the NHS/PCT sub-leases.

All very well, except that no formal sub-leases were ever completed and the actual sub-tenants have “evolved” over time because of NHS restructuring.

In fact, for the past four years, NHS occupancy at 55% has been 10% more than for the intended occupants that that the place was built for.

Now, it could be that the NHS needs will start pulling out from as early as November with a potential loss in income of £19,000 a year and uncertainty surrounding the balance of the NHS income of £52,000 per annum.

A report warns that if the NHS vacates part or all of its space in the short term this could see the centre running at a loss.

And it’s on the brink of that already … with a profit last year of only £30,000 on a turnover of £226,000 – a fall from £70,411 the year before.

Now the council has been forced to scrabble around trying to snatch the least ignominious defeat from the jaws of what was once intended as economic victory.

Politically, it seems fair to point out that this particular calamity was a product of the Boston Bypass Independent administration, but it seems that the Tory heirs to this on-going debacle have done little if anything to address it before the crunch has come.

***

The Boston  Blight has also been noticed by reader Robin, who wrote after our explanation in last week’s blog of how the council worked to say: “I must admit that I also have long been worried by the way most councils are being run these days, in particular our own Boston Borough Council.

“The small cabinet group of actual governing councillors seem to have total and complete control over everything – all other councillors are in fact totally surplus to requirement, as they seem to have no useful or meaningful function to perform as far as I can see, other than to make up the numbers.

“This is not how a real democracy is supposed to be. No wonder the voters have to all intents boycotted local elections with fewer and fewer turning out year by year.

“I always thought that councillors of all persuasions should have meaningful input and discussion on all subjects and actually represent and express the views of their constituents, not just turn up at meetings to make up the numbers.

“Obviously some like Councillor Carol Taylor do put in enormous efforts trying to represent their constituents to the best of their ability, but under this undemocratic system they are not able to have a fair crack of the whip for their area’s views.

“As it appears that a mere handful are taking and making all the decisions seemingly regardless of the others’ views, then it seems to me that if this continues we only need a mere handful of councillors, of course this means that democracy is a dead duck –  but it more or less is already in this town.”

***

We followed up on last week’s Sunday Times report on senior council officer pay, with a quick word with the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The story concerned Peter Lewis, Britain's highest-paid council official, who channels his income through his private company in a scheme that reduces tax bills.

Communities Secretary Eric 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.

So we asked what his view might be on the similar arrangement under which Boston’s Chief Executive is paid.

The department was slow in answering – it operates an interesting system under which once the press office e-mail post-box is full, queries are returned as undeliverable and must be sent over and over again until there is room in the mailbox.

Bizarre!

However, we found a way around that, and received the following “go boil your head” response.

“Your blog includes the Secretary of State’s comment that was given to the Sunday Times. The same rules would apply to Boston Borough Council. It would be for the council to explain why they are paying him in this way.”

So, Pickles trumpets the rules that he has made; councils do nothing to observe them and the minister is the one who turns the blind eye.

If anyone other than Eric Pickles was involved, we would use the descriptor “gutless!”

***

Last week we questioned the value of Boston Borough Council’s daily propaganda sheet – given that it can take a two week break without anyone at Worst Street apparently being bothered.

And it seems that readers who wonder why are deemed unworthy of a response.

One told us: “I never got courtesy of a reply when I asked the council where it had gone.”

So much for our caring council.

***

It was with a sigh of relief that we noted the conclusion of the “public” appeal to unveil a £4,200 lump of stone on the 96^th anniversary of the ending of the First World War on November 11^th.

Whilst it would be impossible to say without a look at the list of contributors, it seems likely that the majority of the money came from ratepayers in one form or another, via parish councils and the great and the good who hold office

Certainly, the public were reluctant participants in this sorry affair which, let us not forget, needed to be underwritten from council tax by the incompetent B-TACky committee in Worst Street when it looked as though the appeal might fall flat on its face.

This placed any possible charge unfairly on citizens who paid an extra precept for the honour to be represented by B-TACky rather than the council’s main budget making up any difference.

Hopefully, Worst Street will have taken away a few lessons  on the right way to organise and promote such an appeal – largely because they got most of it wrong.

***

Finally, after last week’s piece on the scheme to encourage young people to take an interest in their local council, we received an interesting e-mail from an insider, who told us that the funding  for a Youth Council that we mentioned came from Conservative Councillor Gurdip Samra  – “whose two sons started it off!”

“The first donation from him of £1,000 was declared at a meeting where there was a discussion about housing and difficulties faced by those who can't afford them,” we were told.

The e-mail continued: “When this came up on the agenda, Samra piped up with his £1,000 donation and pompously said ‘may as well, it would only go to the taxman anyway’ … this in a meeting where people were discussing how times were so hard.”

As we said earlier, so much for our caring council.

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