Sunday 24 February 2019

It’s been an open secret for the past couple of weeks that Boston’s two independent parties – BiG and the Blue Revolution have been in talks on how best to approach the local elections on 2nd May.

***

There once was a time when both Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire County Council had a good scattering of independents – with voters clearly believing that being represented by someone with a specific interest in their locality would be an improvement on being represented by councillors whose politics took priority over the people they claimed to serve.

***

Sadly over the years the independent mindedness of voters has been diluted by a tendency to vote for a mainstream party – for reasons that make little sense.

***

Take Boston, for example.
When the electors empowered the Conservative group to run the place, were they really voting for a diminution of services, rising tax bills and a council that has run steadily down like a cheap watch and is now at the point where it has all but stopped?
Similarly, when the people seeking our vote made promises about how the place would improve, were they consciously telling porkies – in some cases it would appear so.

***

Certainly, some councillors now seem to be feeling that the time has come for a change – hence the arrival of the Blue Revolution Party and the Bostonian Independents Group.

***

The former is the elder of the two groups – and its founder, former Tory Boston and Lincolnshire councillor Mike Gilbert – contested the 2017 general election.
He told Boston Eye: “The town and indeed the nation's politics are now adversely affected by our two-party system and we need to be promoting a more independent brand of politics.
“Blue Revolution is essentially a brand for people who want to be part of a loosely affiliated group who share values of openness and respect for each other.
“Blue Revolution wants to get people into politics under any banner other than that of an established command and control, mainstream party which puts its ideology, membership and interests ahead of the interests of ordinary workers.
“In respect of Blue Revolution, there was no agreement with BiG other than to respect each other's independence, values of open debate and respect, and to try and avoid standing in the same wards.
“We will be standing candidates under the Blue Revolution banner. We have only three candidates so far and will stand in Station Ward and North West Ward, with one other yet to be confirmed.”

***

Councillor Brian Rush has had a bumpier ride down Independence Avenue – starting as a member of the Boston Bypass Independents, and then forming the Better Boston Group, before moving via UKIP to a stand-alone Independent role before BiG was established around this time last year.
He readily admits: “It is not the easiest of tasks, being a political Independent ... however as my political career, I think also proves, that neither am I a compliant apostle!
“It would be foolish of me to pretend that I have not been looking around, without much success, to find like-minded apostles who share at least some of my views.
“Of course humans are not only social animals, some are pack animals, and within any pack there will be those who are weak, and those who are strong. I think I sit somewhere about the middle.
“However what is more important is that our area is ready to react to our MP Matt Warman, and our Boston Conservative group, whose silence on the EU was a cowardly act of abandonment, for what was the biggest out vote, percentage wise, in Britain.
“We need to stop this blind political loyalty to our national party politics, and ask ourselves one long overdue and honest question, what have the Conservatives or Labour really done for our people and our borough – so maybe the time has really come!
“Now is the time to unroll the banner that says ‘Boston first and foremost!’
“So if you think that Boston really needs to change, then we all need to stand together and take it on.”
BiG currently has two councillors in Worst Street, with a third declared candidate who is very vocal on Facebook.
There are also Independents Alison and Richard Austin and former leader Peter Bedford – so if all these were to stand, almost a third of the council could face an independent challenge.
There are also six UKIP councillors who face the interesting dilemma of which way to jump at the forthcoming elections as it seems fair at least to say that the UKIP wave has crested since the last poll and the political tide is now well and truly out.

***

One thing is certain – there is a clear and definite need for councillors to do more than they are at present.
Contrary to popular belief, there are no formal requirements for a district councillor in terms of a job description or any legal requirements as to how much engagement they must make with their constituents.
The only legal requirement is that a councillor must attend at least one meeting every six months or be automatically disqualified.

***

Having said that, the Local Government Association says that a councillor’s main job is to represent their ward and the people who live in it.
“Councillors provide a bridge between the community and the council. As well as being an advocate for your local residents and signposting them to the right people at the council, you will need to keep them informed about the issues that affect them.
“In order to understand and represent local views and priorities, you need to build strong relationships and encourage local people to make their views known and engage with you and the council.
“As a local councillor, your residents will expect you to:  respond to their queries and investigate their concerns, communicate council decisions that affect them, know your patch and be aware of any problems, know and work with representatives of local organisations, interest groups and businesses, represent their views at council meetings, and lead local campaigns on their behalf.
The LGA concludes: “Good communication and engagement is central to being an effective local representative.”
We wonder how many of our councillors can say – hand on heart – that they are doing their job according to these recommendations.

***

The council’s own figures for attendance at meetings show up those who do not.
The worst absentees include one councillor who has managed a meagre 14% attendance between the end of August last year and the end of January this year. Three others managed 25%, 40% and 50% respectively – and three of those four are members of BTAC … now a big spending and powerful committee, whose voters deserve a powerful voice.

***

It is to be hoped that where a member – or their party group – recognises serious shortcomings in representations, either the individual will stand down or the party will ensure that person is not allowed to seek re-election in May.

***

A slap on the wrist for council leader David Cooper from UKIP Councillor Sue Ransome.
In last week’s Boston Eye, Councillor Cooper told us that at the last Corporate and Community meeting, not a single member of the opposition turned up and many didnt even give apologies – something he declared ‘amazing’ as the budget setting for next year was in the spotlight.
Councillor Ransome told us: “You have been given incorrect information, this time from Councillor Cooper regarding the last meeting of Corporate and Community which was held on 7th February.
“Of the opposition, myself, Councillors Paul Gleeson and Brian Rush were present.  Apologies were given by Councillor Elizabeth Ransome. 
“The only person of the committee not present at the start of the meeting was Councillor Richard Austin.
“I will take this up with Councillor Cooper and hope that you will amend next week’s issue of Boston Eye.”

***

On the same issue, a regular reader and One Who Knows writes: “Perhaps Councillor Cooper's comments on (non) attendance at various borough committees are understandable – but only from a person who does not recognise and appreciate the futility of such committee attendance where a local authority has a cabinet system of governance, such as Boston suffers from.
“Councillor Gleesons idea of a number of executive-powered working committees with a fall-back possibility of sending any committee decision to the full council – although not new –  has much to recommend it as a system where councillors can be seen to be acting for their wards and the borough.
“And such a committee structure allows all councillors to bring their knowledge and talents into the decision making process.
“And as a footnote to the matter of attendance, perhaps councillors should only be paid the percentage of their allowances in direct ratio to the percentage of their committee duties performed.
“Maybe your numpty of the week (18/2/19) could look into this as the savings would, it appears, be quite significant. 
“The study of this issue could well also keep his mind off other matters where, dangerously, he seems to consider himself to be the ‘bee’s knees.’”

***

It will be interesting to see how Worst Street intends to manage after its litter police – the environment enforcement company 3GS – pulled out of its deal with the council.
Pro tem a handful of staff will undertake the job while an alternative is sought.
3GS – which ironically styles itself ‘a reputable environmental enforcement company, providing support to the public and private sectors across the UK’ – pulled out of a similar arrangement with a council in Bradford where a councillor claimed that they found it unprofitable.
The big bonus for Worst Street was the service cost nothing as the company kept the fines.
So, weren’t they working had enough to keep their income rising?
We may never know – but one thing that can be said is that most of Boston is as dirty and litter-strewn as ever.

***

There’s always gold to be found in the foothills of Worst Street’s lists of monthly spending over £250 – even though it’s our gold and we seldom see an explanation of what it’s for.
Back at the beginning of February, we asked why a company called Bentley and Rowe was paid £16,500 for a ‘PRSA Valuation?’
The firm apparently works in the leisure industry on projects that closely resemble the recent £90,000 overhaul of the Moulder Leisure Centre gymnasium.
Now they’re on the list for “PRSA valuation 2 for works completed” with an eye-watering payment of £51,296.55.
It’s now three and a half years since Boston Borough Council signed a deal with a private company called 1life, and the borough website WorstWeb told us at the time “A new chapter in the life of Boston's Princess Royal Sports Arena has begun as 1Life takes on full responsibility for the centre.
It went on: “Following a contract signing with Boston Borough Council, 1Life now has the go-ahead to arrange repairs and improvements to bring the centre up to an improved handover condition – the final bill to be paid by the borough council.
“But these costs will be covered by savings made by energy efficiency improvements, some of which are already complete and providing a return.
The website explained that “a huge array of solar panels on the roof of the building is already meeting almost all the energy needs during summer days and biomass boilers are on the way, replacing costlier LPG – the site is not on mains gas.”
Turning back to the deal WorstWeb continued: “The sport, leisure and recreation experts will have a full repair and renew lease for the site, relieving borough council tax payers of any future financial responsibility.”
And later, it declared once again: “The longer-term future of the PRSA will be without on-going revenue support from the council.”
So will someone please tell us why at the end of last year we forked out so much money on something that is not our responsibility.
Not only that – could someone also explain why we paid almost £6,000 for electricity in November, and nearly £900 for biomass fuel – charges that are incurred on a monthly basis?

***

Something else we mentioned in recent blogs was the amount of money being steered into the coffers of Boston Stump’s Inclusive Boston Project.
December’s accounts showed a further £14,309 towards ‘delivery’ of  the project paid to something called ‘Bringing Learning Into Communities’ which operates from the Len Medlock Voluntary Centre in Boston.
BLIC offers courses such as:  active listening, communication skills, managing difficult situations, and time management.
All these are skills that we would expect candidates to have when they signed up – rather than spending time training people to meet the requirements of what they are expected to do.
What an old fashioned idea.

***

Just one more from the list and then we’ll move on …
Our eye was caught by a charge of £900 for 12 ‘psychotherapeutic appointments’ with a local company called Total Therapeutics.
They help people with problems such as depression, panic attacks, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, bulimia and eating disorders, social anxiety, specific phobias, health anxiety and addictions.
Certainly, we’d have health anxiety if we had the rest of the stuff on the list.
But joking aside, why is Worst Street trying to tackle what we assume are individual staff problems such as these – or are we looking at the start of a series of courses for all 320 employees … which would come to a cool £24,000?
This is what we mean when we say that it is no good publishing spending figures without explaining what the money is being used for.

***

Lincolnshire Police continue to confound us with their attitude to money.
On one hand Chief Constable Bill Skelly says that up to 155 posts, including 40 police officers and 85 PCSOs, could go in 2019-20 because of a £3.2million budget gap.
On the other Police and Crime Commissioner Marc Jones is reported as saying the Chief Constable's statement is setting a tone of pessimism which I don't share.
He said that a special grants application asking the Home Office to top up its 2019/20 grant to Lincolnshire of nearly £60million will be sent in, possibly protecting the jobs Mr Skelly warned were at risk.

***

Whatever the outcome, we do know is that we will be paying an extra 11% council tax for what may become a diminished service – which many people have been critical of.
Unless, that is, you work for Lincolnshire Live – website of the Lincolnshire Echo and Boston off-Target.


Yet despite the force being so seriously stretched, Mr Jones’s most recent stunt was to call a ‘special summit’ involving all seven of the county’s district and city authorities, the county council, Lincolnshire Police, the Environment Agency, several drainage boards, the NFU and the County Land and Business Association to investigate what can be done to tackle problems caused by fly-tipping
Mr Jones will now assess the information given by the various agencies before drawing up a list of actions.
He has committed to creating a “hot spot” map – showing the locations across the county most used by fly tippers – as a first step in an intelligence gathering process.
Representatives from all agencies, including the Chief Constable, have also signed a pledge to seek ways to work together to tackle fly tipping.
“Today is very much the first step in gathering information, good practice and experiences,” said Mr Jones.
“But it is clear, already, that this is a huge problem for all our communities and it’s having a significant impact on resident’s (sic) quality of life.
“Clearly partnership working will be crucial so I am keen to analyse the information we have gathered, find examples of positive steps taken around the UK and then see what projects we can create and launch that will begin to make a difference.”
Fly tipping is and always has been a responsibility of local councils – and we are not sure how pleased our cash-strapped chief constable is at the idea that his force should now be dealing with it as well.

***

There’s a postscript to the 11% council rise for the police, which some might see as better news.  
Whilst a report by Mr Jones to the meeting that set the tax said that £1 million of reserves and £3.2 million budget savings will still be required to start addressing a potential gap of £6.9 million by 2022/23 – he added that  that he would currently be targeting a 2% rise next year.
Is this clairvoyance from someone who knows what next year’s financial needs will be, we wonder?
Or might it be that – unusually – the local Conservative group has re-selected Marc Jones to run again for the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner role in 2020.
And a low tax promise could prove a useful election bargaining chip come Thursday 7th May next year.

***

We’re away next week, so our next blog will appear on Monday 11th March – just 52 days before the elections.


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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com 
We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Monday 18 February 2019

Now you see IT –
now you don’t!
Recent news stories have claimed that that thousands of bus routes in England are under threat because councils have said they cannot afford to pay for them – citing an "unsustainable" funding gap of £652m in the free bus pass scheme, which local authorities have been forced to fill.
Councils – which  are required by law to reimburse bus operators for carrying passengers who hold a free off-peak bus pass – subsidise 44% of English bus routes, but have warned that without more funding, these could be cuts.

***

In Lincolnshire, any threat to local services would be a major cause for concern – but are we already seeing the thin end of the wedge here in Boston?
One of our regular correspondents from some years ago, who writes under the pseudonym ‘Scanner’ claims that county and local councillors were kept in the dark after the operators Brylaine axed the IT3 and IT4  bus services in the new year.
Scanner writes:

I
 know that local elections are not far away and that older people are more likely to vote than the youngsters, but given their record of anonymity in the Witham Ward (I await their reminder before May) it comes as no surprise that both the local district and county councillors for this ward are not aware that Brylaine axed the IT3 and IT4 bus services in the New Year.
As a sop, Brylaine have diverted the A6 Boston to Horncastle service through the estate three times in each direction.
The services finish at the bus station, and not the convenience of Wide Bargate, which means a walk to the Market Place.
At least they call at Boots on their return journeys.
The first service reaches the bus station at 9.20am, and departs at 10.50am – giving 90 minutes for shopping. 
The second arrives at the bus station at 10.44 am and departs at 1.00 pm – a lengthy wait of 2 hours and 15 minutes.
Finally: a service arrives at the bus station at 2.24pm and departs at 2.30pm – a breath-taking six minutes!
This has left most of the elderly unable to get out or do their shopping or having to take a taxi at least in one direction. 
It has always seemed extravagant to have two buses serving the estate as frequently as they did.
Given the size of the area it covered, one bus travelling in one direction at regular intervals would have sufficed and meant fuller buses.
I can understand that bus companies need to make a profit.
The cost of running services has increased, and the funding of bus passes is just a token payment.
I am told that the other IT services have been altered as well and that this has left many unable to use them.
The IT service was hailed as a way of giving people access to the town and the centre, so leaving their cars at home, and giving the older citizens the opportunity to get out and about.
I have spoken to many of them and most would be quite happy to pay, say £1, on top of their bus passes. I suppose this would cause a problem, which, I’m sure, could be overcome.
It’s probably much too late to alter things, but the County Council are responsible for bus services in the district.
Where were our local county councillors if and when Lincolnshire County Council were consulted on these changes – and what did they do … if anything … to try to save them? 
W
here, also, were the protests of our district councillors – don’t they dare to disagree and speak out about the actions of their party chums in Lincoln?


***

Election news 1: A word from Worst Street leader Councillor Michael Cooper as the election wars hot up …
“The opposition groups have been very vocal about wanting the full committee system, but at the last Corporate and Community meeting, not a single member of the opposition turned up and many didn't even give apologies!!
“Amazing really as it was the budget for next year being scrutinised!
“The BiG group have been very vocal about the homeless, but again not one volunteered to work in the emergency shelter over the eight nights it was open … “Again very vocal about the M&S closure -- but don't seem to be in possession of any of the facts: the closure is purely a commercial one and nothing to do with its location.”

***

Election news 2: Labour’s Councillor Paul Gleeson has e-mailed with a further update on candidates and the selection process. 
He told Boston Eye: “At a recent branch meeting we had a discussion about standing candidates from outside of the borough. The meeting felt it was important that our candidates do actually live in the borough, and so it resolved that we will only stand candidates who are residents. 
“We are still proposing to stand candidates in every seat.”

***

Election news 3:  Is just a reminder to parties and individuals that Boston Eye has a place for them in the run-up to 2nd May should they wish to make use of it – not forgetting purdah, of course.

***

The good news is that a four-year, £1.8 million scheme, to enhance an area of Boston's historic town centre is to be launched this spring. It’s a partnership between Boston Borough Council and the Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
The bad news is that we’ve heard it all before …

***

This time around, the project will operate under the name Boston Townscape Heritage Project and will provide grant funding towards conservation repairs and reinstatement of buildings. Grants of 50% for repairs and 85% for reinstatement will be available until July 2022.
The area to benefit includes the eastern boundary of the Market Place, Dolphin Lane and Pump Square – and individual buildings eligible for grant funding have been identified.
According to the bumph on WorstWeb – Boston Borough Council’s website – “Boston’s rich and unique historic environment, dating from the medieval period, will be explored, celebrated and conserved through the four-year scheme of capital works and (jargon alert) an innovative activity programme.”
And, it claims: “The project will build upon the momentum gained from recent heritage-led regeneration initiatives in the town and will also work collaboratively with local partners on activities relating to the Hanse League membership and Mayflower 2020.”

***

A similar scheme was announced in 2015 – and the council issued desperate reminders of the largesse on offer at regular intervals.
Despite that, only eight properties benefitted, and even fewer had applications in the pipeline.
The beneficiaries included a charity shop, a jeweller’s shop which is undergoing yet another refit soon, and the former Edinburgh Woollen Mill shop which has been empty ever since  it was tarted up with some grant money and put on the market – and  which now looks in need of  ‘refurbishment’ yet again!
A summary to councillors produced at the end of 2017 noted the appointment of a full-time heritage project officer and also the plans for the scheme that has just been announced.
We have noted before that whenever free money is on offer, Worst Street’s first move is to invest in full-time staff, and all the implications that this involves.
Now, in the blink of two years, the wheels are slowly starting to turn with an end date three years hence – apparently pretty fast by Worst Street standards
Back in 2017 the report noted: “The scheme is beginning to make a real impact on the historic environment in Boston. The scheme has gained momentum and is now making its mark in the town. Now that a project has been completed within the Market Place more interest will be gained and therefore more property owners will come forward.”
Apparently, not so – have you noticed any real difference to speak of?
Meanwhile, Boston Town Centre Conservation Area – said to be of great historic importance  is entering its ninth consecutive year on the Heritage at Risk Register compiled by Historic England, and described as being in a ‘very bad’ condition

***

Our Numpty of the Week award goes to Worst Street’s deputy ‘leader’ Councillor Aaron Spencer. 
We wouldn’t have thought it possible, but he’s gone one better on an earlier suggestion that shops in Boston town centre should be replaced  by a town full of cafes, bars and restaurants rather than “failing businesses.”
In a statement of the obvious, Councillor Spencer has told a local ‘newspaper’ that Boston’s ban on street drinking – which isn’t a ban at all – isn’t working.
His proposal to change all this is to call for specific drinking zones to be set up to tackle the problem.
He is quoted as saying: “The problem is street drinking – and it’s a combination of cultures coming together.
“We drink in the pubs, whereas others do it on the streets as there is no communal space for them to do it.
“I think that it would be better if we created a specific area where it can be controlled.
“It’s not an idea that I've put forward to the council; it’s just my personal opinion and I’m not saying that it would practically work but in theory we could police an area better.”
 “I think if we created a specific area that was well lit, covered with CCTV cameras then we could police the area better and clamp down on anti-social activity.”
It occurs to us that this could be something of a visitor attraction as well.
Way back in 1938 an American town proposed caging drunks then towing them around the area behind police cars for everyone to see.
We await Councillor Spencer’s next move with bated breath.
At least, voters in Councillor Spencer's Five Villages ward are handy for shopping in Spalding should he ever achieve his wish to turn our town centre into an alfresco boozery. packed with coffee bars to chase away our hangovers!

***

One piece of news that he may warmly greet is a change of venue for the town’s Dunelm shop.


Units 1a and 1b on the Alban Retail Park opposite Oldrids Downtown on the Grantham Road are being converted into one massive unit – and judging by the planning application from Dunelm looks to be their future home.


The present shop fronts on to West Street – and we wonder how long before it will be  before it becomes the biggest wine bar or coffee bar in town.

***

We didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when we read the chunterings of members of BTAC-ky – the Boston Town Area Committee – at their last meeting.
Over the past four years, they have become power mad in their wish to turn BTAC-ky from a peaceful little committee that did little or nothing most of the time to a money-grabbing monster that fritters away thousands on the town centre alone – with precious little regard for taxpayers in its wider catchment area.
Now that elections are looming, we suspect that committee members want to brag about their “achievements” on the ‘why you should vote for me’ leaflets which they will soon be stuffing through voters’ letterboxes.
Hence the show of committee rage that we witnessed at the end of last month.

***

After years of supine obedience, committee members wanted some rapid action from officers – and got quite snitty when told that it was out of the question.
According to reports, during a debate on a BTAC wish list, Councillor Nigel Welton, town centre cabinet member and BTAC liaison, said councillors had been “sat here for four years waiting for reports” on improvements to the town’s open spaces.”

***

His comments came as the committee debated spending up to £127,000 on playground toys for parks in the borough – including a pirate ship, an octopus see-saw and a play house.
Although consultations by officers had whittled the list down to 18 items – an average of £7,000 each – Councillor Welton felt things had not gone far enough.
He was reported as saying: “This is raising people’s expectations of what we are going to be doing when we might not be here next year.
“I’m fed up and tired of waiting around ... our stuff is going on longer than the bloody Brexit debate.”

***

Despite the clear indication that officers apparently try to do as little as possible for as long as possible, Councillor Welton called for a report to the meeting at the end of this month.
But officer Phil Perry – clearly run off  his feet as head of Place and Space” – said it would not be feasible.
According to Worst Street’s establishment chart, Perry earns between £60,000 and £65,000 a year and has more than 80 staff at his beck and call – so we must express surprise that between them Club P&S can’t cobble together a long-awaited report in four weeks.

***

As well as their dissatisfaction at the sluggish pace that officers find stressful,  there were also grumblings about the use of councilspeak instead of plain and simple English.
One word singled out was offer – in this instance to describe playground equipment.
We recall many others that have cropped up in reports over the years.
Public realm means the streets, whilst low hanging fruit is something easy to achieve.
So, next time you read of plans to make an offer of low hanging fruit in the public realm, you’ll be as clued up as our councillors are!

***

It seems that BTAC-ky is desperate to spend, spend, spend as much as possible before the elections – and is minded to fork over another pile of cash to Boston Stump for its Passion for People project.
St Botolph’s Church had already received a lottery development pay-out of £160k, to allow it to grab to bid for a jumbo grant of  £1.17 million  with the balance to be raised from ‘partnership funding.’
Worst Street has already given £80,000 from its Controlling Migration Fund for two members of staff at £18,000 a year for the two-year span of the government award.
On top of that, the council released £50,000 from the remaining severe weather funds to the project.
BTAC members were reminded of the latter when The Stump applied for £20,000 – and deferred things until they have more details.
Our view is that Boston taxpayers have already Stumped up more than enough already, and that another £20k would confirm that the committee just wants to spend as much as it can, regardless.

***

click on image to enlarge it
Back in January, a response from Boston Independents Group – BiG – to criticism by Councillor Anton Dani after he left to join the Conservative group … claimed he had previously applied to join the Tories in 2015, but was rejected, so he joined UKIP instead.
Councillor Dani took issue with this and has sent us a copy of a letter from the Boston and Skegness Conservative Association. 
As it makes clear, Councillor Dani’s recent application was the only one made – and he has asked us to put the record straight, which we are pleased to do so.









You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   
E– mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com  

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Monday 4 February 2019

This week there’s good news and there’s bad news.
The good news is that the Tory controllers at Worst Street have told us that a by-pass for the town has been agreed.
The bad news is that they’ve gone a funny way about telling us.

***

Last week we fired our opening salvo about the local elections in the run up to Tuesday 2nd May, when all 30 seats at Worst Street will be up for grabs.
The leading Tory group seemed to be doing what it does best  – taking things for granted if the complacent response we received was anything to go by.
We asked whether at this stage the Tories could say if they were fielding a full house of 30 candidates and for any specific manifesto pledges if they had been drawn up – and the reply from Paula Cooper, Lincolnshire County Councillor for Boston West and Deputy Chairman of the Boston and Skegness Conservative Association, was: “At this stage nothing to report.”

***

In fact, the opposite was the case.
Our great and glorious leadership had gone into print with the political equivalent of a pizza parlour flyer which we understand was passed to the free monthly magazine Simply Boston in the belief that it would be delivered though every door in Boston.
In fact, the magazine  says it reaches 17,000 of the 28,000 households – and other copies are left in various outlets to pick up.

***

The lead story was about a by-pass for Boston, and we were told: “This thorny subject has been around Boston for so long, we had the Bypass Party who actually held the balance of power in the Council, some of them are still Councillors although not under that banner.
“The thing that has not happened is a Bypass — But now it's been agreed.”
Or has it?
It boiled down to the same old, same old.
Boston does not merit a by-pass – but a ‘distributor’ road instead.
And although the Boston Torygraph doesn’t say, the closest we are to anything at all is a bid for £1m to draw up some of the basic paperwork.

***

Beneath the headline ‘Meet some of the local team’ are a set of pictures of some current councillors, and others that we have not seen before – who we guess are standing as candidates in May.
The photos range from a seemingly ancient black and white to a comedy effort by cabinet member Aaron Spencer – and having seen it we would certainly vote for him at least twice if the opportunity presented itself.

*** 

Quite why the Tories prat around declaring “nothing to report”  when it’s not true baffles us – since they almost lost control to UKIP in 2015, and were trounced by the Boston Bypass Independents in 2011.
As it turned out, the failure of the BBI to deliver anything at all and the passion among UKIP members for falling out among themselves has done more to help the Tories over the past eight years than anything they have achieved through their own efforts.

***

Meanwhile, Labour is moving apace. Councillor Paul Gleeson told us: “We had an election campaign meeting on Saturday morning and we have at present 25 prospective candidates selected and allocated to wards. 
“The team is pretty confident we will fill the last five seats by the middle of the month. 
“At present we have prospective candidates for every ward.  For the BTAC area, we have prospective candidates for every seat.  For the parished wards, we have at least two prospective candidates in three-seat wards and a prospective candidate in two-seat wards.”

***

UKIP – as we saw last week has a unique problem with the possibility of a re-born party being formed – but not until after make-your-mind-up time for local candidates.
Our own view is that standing under the UKIP banner would almost guarantee failure this time round.
So where does this leave Kippers seeking re-election?

***

Well, we have Independents up the ying-yang.
We have Clan Austin – Richard and Alison … who seem to have settled for a pro-Tory ‘Independent’ role after launching the Boston Bypass Independents then morphing it into the Boston District Independents in the hope that the bypass taint would wash off.
Then there is Councillor Peter Bedford – who led The Worst Street Chums for many years before getting the heave-ho, parting company with the Tories, going Independent, and then paying the price at the 2017 County Council elections when after 25 years as a councillor the voters gave him the elbow and backed the official Tory. Might he decide to call it a day?
We can certainly think of one or two of his peer group who should give the idea some serious thought – and the splash of ‘new’ members of the team suggest that they may not have any choice in the matter.
Certainly, whilst we started out referring to runners and riders, we think that if there were a stocktaking of who ought to call it a day, then the Tories most definitely should be consigning some of their long servers to the political knacker’s yard. 

***

Then there is the Bostonian Independents Group – BiG for short, although it is in fact very small, and the Blue Revolution party, formed by former Tory councillor Mike Gilbert who hopes eventually to change the way we do politics.

***

If they’re honest, we would expect them to agree with our assessment that they are unlike to have much – if any – impact at the ballot box.

*** 
 
So what’s the likely outcome?
We’d put our money on the mixture as before – even though it is an increasingly bitter pill to swallow.

***

All this talk of Independents coincided with a timely e-mail  from the man who probably served longer under that banner than anyone else – former Councillor Richard Leggott.
He asked Boston Eye: “Could I register my complete bemusement – or should that be amusement –  at the use of the word Independent by the some of the present Boston Borough councillors?
In my 24 years as an Independent councillor at West Street there was no  other guide/rule for Independents than ‘do what you think best for your Ward and the Borough.’
“How this was accomplished was down to Independent members to work out for themselves.
“No party alliance was needed as there was no reference to party policies. But if an Independent did wish to take a party whip he/she was at liberty to do so without recrimination.
“The only reason for 'grouping' by Independents was for purposes of committee seat allocation on the required proportional representation basis. And this grouping would have been unnecessary if the main political parties (Lab, Lib and Con) had allowed individual, non-aligned, councillors to have committee seats. But for reasons not hard to work out this was not to be permitted.
“This possible exclusion of elected members from the council's committee structure may be hard to believe – and even harder to understand – but that is how politics was (and I understand still is played at Boston Borough Council.
“After doing a little research it appears that Boston Borough Council’s interpretation of this particular rule (no group = no seat/vote on committees) is not looked at similarly by all local authorities.

***

We wonder whether anyone can explain what Worst Street is doing borrowing millions of pounds from over the border in Scotland.
Whilst  Boston’s big plans to make a profit from property fund investment raised a few eyebrows and begged a few questions, our understanding was that a £20m fixed rate borrowing would be taken out over a 50 year term from the Public Works Loans Board – a statutory executive agency of HM Treasury whose job is to lend money local authorities, and  collect the repayments.
The idea was to borrow the money on the cheap, then invest it “with a view to obtaining long term financial benefit to support the delivery of services.”

***

At no time did we expect to see the name of Edinburgh City Council pop up – especially not in the context of Worst Street borrowing £4 million in a short term loan, and repaying £5,500 in interest soon after.


The figures appear in the council’s list of spending for November last year – along with £6,000 in fees to Blackrock Property Fund Financial, and more than £2,000 in two fee payments to Threadneedle Financial.
It may seem a silly question – but isn’t Worst Street supposed to be making money rather than paying it out in fees and borrowing charges from apparently other sources than those listed?

***

We have said before that these monthly financial figures – purportedly issued by Worst Street in the name of transparency – often beg more questions than they answer.

***

For instance why has a company called Bentley and Rowe been paid £16,500 for a ‘PRSA Valuation?’
The firm apparently works in the leisure industry on projects that closely resemble the recent £90,000 overhaul of the Moulder Leisure Centre gymnasium – but why is Worst Street footing a bill to do with the PRSA, when we were promised that it’s now nothing to do with the council and is operated independently.

***

A handful of other interesting bills include £15,000 for the relocation the Department of Work and Pensions staff to Worst Street – something we were told would save them – and make the council – money.
It looks a bit one-sided so far.

***

And on a lighter note – remember the oddly caged-off area of the Market Place which housed an ice sculptor during the Christmas market.
Well, that little piece of entertainment cost us £1,600, whilst a knees up for visitors from one of our twin towns – in this case Laval in France – set taxpayers back just over £1,000.

***

For a couple of issues now we have been banging on about the silence from the senior ranks at Worst Street about the planned closure of Marks and Spencer.
We’re heard nothing from the leader – nor any of the highly paid officers whose job is supposedly to be across things like this and come up with solutions.

***

So why is it that when our local politicians do decide to comment on major local issues, that we sometimes wish they kept their trap shut instead?
Local ‘newspapers’ have received the wisdom of deputy leader and finance portfolio holder Aaron Spencer on the M&S affair  –  although it may not have been what people wanted to hear.
According to the reports  Mr Spencer said: “It’s a shame to see these big shops closing and its concerning for the future of our town centre.
“I think we pay too much attention to these big retailers, and spend too much time trying to bail them out.
“I think that we need to focus on these medium enterprises in town, of course it's a shame that HMV and M&S are closing, but we need to do something different.
"I feel like we need to move away from these failing business models and create a town centre full of cafes, bars and restaurants.
“We need to get people living in the town centre again, living above shops and get people coming to the town.
“I've seen some comments on the Save our Boston Marks & Spencer page blaming the council for charging too high rents, but that's just incorrect.
“M&S actually own the building and the only thing that the council does is set the business rates, even then these are set nationwide.
“I think that we need to leave the past behind, you can buy everything online nowadays and we need to adapt to the changing business environment.
“We need to adapt, there's only so many times that these big businesses can be bailed out and to be honest I don't think that they work in Boston anymore.
“I think a lot of the members of public expect the council to wave some sort of magic wand and the problems to go away, but M&S has announced nationwide closures and we simply can't help that.
“Customers need to look at themselves; their buying habits need to change.
“I'd question some of the people complaining about the closure, when was the last time that they actually bought from the store?
“If the answer is a couple of months ago then here lies the problem.”

***

Whilst we are sure that very few people thought that Worst Street might magic away the problems, we are equally confident that they did not expect such negative claptrap from someone who ought to know better and be adopting a more constructive and mature approach.

***

Friday sees the end of the consultation on Worst Street’s plans to balance the budget – something that we reported on last week.
Regular readers will know that we give short shrift to such ‘consultations’ especially as they are often engineered to deliver the result that the organisation asking the questions wants to hear.

***

We wonder why Worst Street makes is a precondition to read 7,600 word report and ten sets of appendices that accompany it when  after the usual pleading of poverty and pointing out how little of the money collected is spent on the borough –  the consultation boils down a request for comment and the answers to two questions …
The first asks:  “Please can you indicate what you feel are the THREE MOST important services that Boston Borough Council provides.
Building Control, Car Parks, Cleaning roads/footpaths and emptying litter bins, Community Development, Community Safety - CCTV, anti-social behaviour, domestic violence and abuse, Crematorium and Cemetery, Economic Development - Environmental Crime Enforcement (litter, dog fouling, fly tipping,) Emergency Planning and Business Continuity, Environmental Health - food safety, pollution and noise, Housing Needs - homelessness support, managing the housing register and the Homechoice bid system, Leisure Services - Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre and health initiatives, Licensing - Taxi, entertainment and alcohol, animal welfare and charity collections, Markets, Parks and Open Spaces, Planning, Private Sector Housing - monitoring of standards in privately rented accommodation Public Toilets, Town Centre, and Waste and Recycling Collection.

***

And the second question says: “Please can you indicate what you feel are the THREE LEAST important services that Boston Borough Council provides.”
And guess what? The same list follows.
Could someone please tell us how this constitutes a consultation – which is defined in the dictionary as: “An extremely important concept in the context of managing an organisation  ... Consultation is an active process in which organisation management opens formal and informal communication channels between the organisation and its stakeholders.”
Asking which three out of twenty things you like most – and least –  is a totally meaningless exercise.

***

We believe that Boston has already acquired at least one unique distinction already this year – in that two of our former chief executives have appeared in consecutive issues of Private Eye magazine’s Rotten Boroughs fortnightly feature.

***

First past the post was Nicola Bulbeck – who worked at Boston between 2002 and 2006 – and whom we seem to recall that never moved to the borough from the Grantham area.



She topped the awards for Payoff of the Year despite stringent efforts by her council to keep her massive fiscal farewell out of the public domain.

***

A fortnight later, her predecessor at Worst Street – Mark James (the man we have to thank for the PRSA, which we were told wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny) was back in the current issue for the umpteenth time after announcing his retirement.



***

And Worst Street has had some other interesting potential candidates over the years if local paper histories are to be believed.
In 1991 a newly appointed Chief Executive was suspended after less than a year following allegations of pension fraud irregularities. He subsequently resigned early in 1993 – and in true Worst Street style was sacked two months later!
His successor lasted three years before resigning over allegations of gross misconduct –  again being sacked some time after the event.
What a career springboard Worst Street has proved to be over the years!

***

There’s no blog next week as we have to grapple with the parking system ot the Pilgrim Hospital. Wish us luck!
We’re back on Monday 18th February.



You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   
E– mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com  

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston