As we were saying

before we were so

rudely interrupted

Welcome to the New Boston Eye. We hope you like the look of the site, and will visit us often. Our old site will stay at its previous address as an archive in case you wish to revisit it.
Last week we mentioned the Leader’s Message, which appeared - like the Tories after the May election – as if by magic, around about their first 100 days in power.
It is, as you might imagine, the usual self-congratulatory claptrap, but with one slight variation from what it purports to be.
Under the headline Message from the Council Leader, the piece begins: “We are on track to keep promises made to the electors of Boston during our election campaign.”
Forgive us if we raise a questioning eyebrow, but we cannot recall the council conducting an election campaign.
We do recall individuals and parties doing so, but in his message, the leader is writing about the ruling Conservative group, and not the council.
Immediately we started to read it we had a strong sense of déjà vu.
Slightly less than two years ago the former council leader, Richard Austin, embraced the electronic age with a Leader’s Blog.
The final noun may be different, but the idea was the same.
Councillor Austin’s message was clearly political, and his blog became one of the shortest on record – surviving for just a few days before being withdrawn.**
Questions were raised about cost to the taxpayer through the use of council time and resources, as critics believed that Councillor Austin would have needed help to get his blog online.
We see little difference between the situation then and the situation now.
Had the "message" not been largely a political statement we would have had no objection, as communication with the public is paramount in local government.
A message from the leader of the council about the work of the council is perfectly acceptable.
A message from the leader of the Conservative group within the council is not – unless we also hear from the leaders of Labour, the BDI (as they are now styled) the Independents and the English Democrats.
If they would like to send us one, we would be happy to publish it.
It's a narrow line, but one that must be walked.
This imbalance brings us to the latest edition of Boston Borough Council's Bulletin – a.k.a the newsletter of the Lincolnshire MG Car owners’ club.
Readers will know that a campaign is underway to test the waters to see if Boston people would prefer an elected mayor rather than a council leader and cabinet.
To start the ball rolling, five per-cent of the electorate - around 2,400 people - must demand a referendum on whether to hold a vote for an elected mayor.
In this month’s bulletin – again in what we consider nothing less than a political opportunity, Councillor Bedford is given more than 500 words to rubbish the idea on the grounds of cost.
He tells readers: “The cost of that referendum is likely to be around £50,000.
“The fact is that it’s £50,000 we have not budgeted for, and we would be required to make savings to cover this amount.”
The bulletin reminds us that: “A wide-ranging consultation exercise held last year delivered an overwhelming public response which was not in favour of an elected mayor.”
And Councillor Bedford goes on to add: “Borough councillors responded in accordance with the public’s wishes last November and adopted the current leader and Cabinet model. The leader and Cabinet option received support from 65% of those who responded to the consultation while just 33% wanted to see an elected mayor.”
What no-one bothered to add is that this wide-ranging consultation was poorly publicised, and generated just 1,021 votes – 1,008 of them postal with 13 online. And these votes could, of course, have included local councillors and their families. Even so, overall, only two per-cent of local voters took part.
Let's not forget, that what the punters and the council voted for was the government preferred Strong Leadership Model, which requires the leader to serve for his or her full four year term – which is not what we have here in Boston.
On the issue of voting versus spending, when a similar number of people as that required to force a referendum for an elected mayor petitioned the council for the re-opening of the Geoff Moulder training pool, our leader and his cabinet were quick to draw up the questionable rescue plan which will see almost £200,000 taken from Boston’s financial reserves to smarm to public opinion.
Another point is that when the “wide-ranging consultation” was carried out, many people might have voted for the status quo in the misguided belief that the BBI would shortly be replaced by something better.
Now that they have seen the error of their ways, it is entirely possibly that they might wish to re-consider and have an elected mayor rather than what we have ended up with.
Democracy involves choices, and choices often come at a cost. We don’t hear central government

whingeing that it’s too expensive to bring democracy to Libya so there’s no need to bother.
But in Boston, it's ok.

**Earlier, we mentioned the previous leader’s blog, and looking through our files, we discovered a link to it on Boston Borough Council’s website. Following it clearly demonstrates that someone in Worst Street has a quirky sense of humour.
Take a look for yourself – but be quick, as we don’t expect the link to survive very long! You will find it at http://www.boston.gov.uk/LeadersBlog/
Too late! It's 10-30am and it's gone, and been replaced by the Leader's Message. Never mind - we'll show you what you missed on Friday's "Week Ending."

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