55 days to the elections
One of the downsides of an approaching election is that shortly
we enter a period known as “purdah” when restrictions on pre-election publicity
come into force which will rob us of any future “comment” columns by the
council “leader” Pete Bedford until after the election.
How Councillor Bedford has confected these glittering
nuggets of literature month after month leaves us aghast with amazement.
His parting shot tells us that at local level the election is
“more about the people you most feel make the best case for supporting the
borough and taking care of delivering the services that the borough council has
responsibility for – from refuse collection, street cleaning and provision of
leisure services to planning for housing and economic regeneration, helping
provide more affordable homes and assisting in future flood prevention.”
By a happy coincidence for Councillor Bedford, this list
embraces the entire meagreocrity of the sum of the parts delivered by him and his
henchpeople.
But to hammer the point home, he adds “You will make the
final decision on who you trust to make best use of the taxes you pay, who you
trust to handle a budget of millions of pounds.”
Over the years, we have encountered several such subtly
written devices – whose bottom line is the exhortation “Vote for Us.”
His column tells us: “The important business of the council
will carry on as normal and I will remain as leader until May 7th.
“Your current ward councillors remain your ward councillors
up to May 7th and will still be able to deal with any issues you
want to raise with them.”
At this point, we say … Hmmm …
The “business” of the council has been reducing in recent
weeks and will probably dry up almost entirely as the election
closes in.
The claim that our ward councillors will “still be
able to deal with any issues you want to raise” is moot.
Our own experience is that some of our ward councillors
have tried every trick in the book to side-step issues – to the
point where they risked giving offence to voters in order to avoid giving help.
Presumably, many of this ragged band of incompetents will be
seeking re-election … riding on the coat-tails of Bedford’s claims of how well
he and his cronies have done.
Over the coming weeks, we will be trawling the Boston Eye archives to review what the
party that was elected without a policy because it never expected to take
control of Boston Borough Council has achieved.
Watch this space.
***
Before we bid farewell to Bedford’s overconfident swansong, other points need addressing.
He tells readers of the Bostory
Standard “It is my hope that I will be returned as leader after May 7th
…”
That’s an interesting one.
First of all, it presumes that the Conservatives will retain
control of Boston Borough Council.
Then it implies that voters determine the leadership by
“returning” the present head honcho.
The Conservatives’ unexpected victory in 2011 left them in a
spin, and without policy – since when they have lurched from crisis to crisis
trying to paper over the cracks.
But Councillor Bedford goes further still – with the
ambition that after all this he will remain as leader.
If the Tories retain a majority – which is not guaranteed
given Boston’s electoral history – Bedford’s continuance as leader would … we
hope and expect … depend upon his being re-elected by his peers, and not
continuing via some feudal right of entitlement.
***
His final comment column comes perilously close to being an
election campaign leaflet – listing as it does the sum total of the council’s
responsibilities from refuse collection, leisure services, to planning and future
flood prevention – and suggesting that the whole thing is down to “trust.”
Trust is not an issue and never has been – the leadership
has always worked on the premise “we know best,” stifled democratic debate and
refused to consider any alternative.
Worse still, this has been done by an elite group of
know-alls who demand that their political minions obey without question – a
bad policy which began when the Bypass Independents voted for the dictatorial
cabinet system of government.
Finally, although we know that this cannot be possible, we
think that Councillor Bedford may be wrong when he claims that what the politicians call purdah starts on 23rd
March.
The government seems to think otherwise, and has set the
date as 30th March.
And why do they call it purdah?
Because that is the name of the practice in certain Muslim
and Hindu societies of screening women from men or strangers, especially by
means of a curtain.
Aren’t those politicians a caution …?
***
Interestingly as the election approaches, the Tories at
County Hall have asked for a cut of at least six from the current total of 77
councillors.
If accepted, the proposals would mean that each councillor
would represent slightly less than 8,000 electors – 600 more than at present.
Lincolnshire Tories say that improvements in technology and
communications make such a reduction “realistic and sensible” and would save
about £100,000 a year.
County Council leader Martin Hill takes the opportunity to remind us that
Lincolnshire is a two-tier authority and so voters are also represented at
district level.
The idea has been opposed by all Labour and Lincolnshire
Independents – most likely because they suspect that the lost seats might well
turn out to be ones that they currently hold.
***
Boston is already set to emerge leaner – and probably meaner
– from May’s election as two seats are to vanish.
All of this nudges us still further towards the inevitable
expectation that Lincolnshire will become a unitary authority sooner rather
than later.
We have said many times before that the remorseless slimming of local services has reduced the
borough council to little more than an administrative tax collecting arm of
Lincolnshire County Council and Lincolnshire police – and the breakdown of
spending that eventually accompanied the latest council tax settlements tends to underscore this.
Whilst Councillor Bedford’s “trust” list covers what might
be called the “business” of the council, he observes that “these are just a few
of the responsibilities of the borough council: there are many more.”
And indeed there are. The list is a long one and includes
such things as the cost of the municipal buildings, property services, office
cleaning, staff salaries, accountancy, internal audit, debt management, treasury management,
insurance, councillor services, civic functions, communications, training, recruitment,
and the payroll.
A similarly long and expensive list exists at the six other
district councils in Lincolnshire as well as at county hall.
Savings of £100,000 are a drop in the ocean compared to
those that could be made if the county came under one administrative umbrella.
***
Meanwhile, as elections day draws closer, campaigning
continues in tits and farts (shouldn’t
this be fits and starts? – Editor.)
As far as the battleground for Westminster is concerned, the
only candidate to litter our doormat to date has been UKIP’s Boy Wonder Robin
Hunter-Clarke.
Even then, his leaflets have done nothing to answer any of
our questions.
We are told that “the old parties” have been far too
complacent in the county and taken people’s votes for granted, and that people
(presumably that means us) want real change.
But quite what form that change might take is anyone’s
guess.
Having said that, Master Hunter-Clarke has issued a survey asking us to tell him what concerns us most – so perhaps some policy ideas will emerge
once the punters have responded.
***
UKIP’s Boston office is becoming a popular place. Party loyalists recently assembled for a Young Independence
East Midlands action day – complete with an impressive motorcycle flying the
UKIP flag.
But is it a good idea to name the machine “Little White Lie,”
we wonder?
A few days after this rally, a passing reader spotted a
couple of Boston’s finest boys in blue sprawling in chairs in the front window.
We’re sure that it was a security check, and not in the
least a chance to warm up with a cuppa.
***
After last week’s issue, a comment has arrived from Boston
and Skegness prospective British National Party parliamentary candidate, Reverend Robert West.
Readers will remember that we queried his clerical
credentials after reading some of the news items on the internet – but it seems
that all is well.
Rev. West writes: “I am happy to confirm that the title
Reverend is both orthodox and genuine, and that I would be happy to take any
services in Boston, either during or after the election.”
Does he have a funeral service for the BNP in mind, we
wonder?
***
It seems that the period known as purdah will last a lot
longer for one general election political hopeful than for the rest.
Paul Wooding had been debating whether to stand as an
Independent, but mid-week tweeted the following message
Regular readers will recall that Mr Wooding was originally
short-listed as a UKIP candidate for Boston and Skegness but following
some head office legerdemain lost out
to Robin Hunter-Clarke.
Unfortunately he took it very badly, and spent more time
rubbishing UKIP than seeking a way forward.
It’s a shame, as we feel that he would have been a very
viable candidate – but there’s now 2020
to look forward to.
***
Locally, election fever is less noticeable – although it is
possible to detect some stirrings of awareness.
One such example comes from Councillor Helen Staples – who
after all this time appears to have spotted the amount of litter scattered
around the place.
Councillor Staples, who will be next year’s mayor if
re-elected, is one of the four members of Independent
Group 2 who were elected as members of the disastrous Boston Bypass
Independents in 2011 before the party underwent one of those identity crises
that have befallen so many of our elected members in recent times.
In a letter to a local “newspaper” she urges people to take
their litter home with them rather than drop it on the ground, saying: “Our
town attracts a lot of visitors – please let them go home and say what a spick
and span town Boston is” adding … almost as an afterthought … “and of course
those of us who live here want to feel that too.”
***
Councillor Staples’s party status raises another interesting
question – which is how councillors seeking re-election will present themselves
to the electorate.
As we have already said, there are four Independent Group 2
members – survivors of the BBI rout of 2011 – and two Lincolnshire Independents
… one-time Ukippers who regularly changed their party identity until they
settled on the present one.
Councillor Alison Austin – who is an Independent Group 2
councillor in Boston – is a Lincolnshire Independent at County Hall … think
Oscar Wilde’s Importance of being Earnest,
where a key character is “Ernest in town, and Jack in the country.” Lincolnshire
Independents – despite their title – form a party in Lincoln with a leadership
structure, although it is hard to see what influence it has at district level … so
will those current ex-Kippers in Worst
Street stand on the same ticket, if they seek re-election, that is.
And where does that leave members of Independent Group 2?
It’s not a name that rolls trippingly off the tongue, nor
one which voters are likely to warm to.
All that – plus the fact that we still have no idea which
councillors are being axed in March, nor the shape and names of the new ward
layout would seem to be paving the way for a monumental mess locally on 7th
May.
***
Further confusion might emerge for voters in the
parliamentary election after candidate Lyn Luxton fell out with Lincolnshire
Independents and quit as their candidate to form the Pilgrim Party.
However, this news appears to have escaped the editors of
the Lincolnshire Independents’ website who as recently as yesterday were still listing Ms Luxton as their
candidate.
More significantly, she appears thus on the candidate list
for the constituency on the website yournextmp.com.
Getting folk to vote these days is like drawing teeth at the
best of times but now many people will have no true picture of whom the
candidate really represents.
***
On a broader election note, this week’s Ashcroft National
Poll, shows the Conservatives retaining
their lead but unchanged on 34%.
Labour are down a
point at 30%, UKIP up one at 15%, the Greens up one at 8%, and the Liberal
Democrats down two at 5%,
***
We mentioned a possible softening of heart in last week’s
blog after the usual “book ‘em Danno,
football one …” threats to bring back hanging for the unauthorised use of a
football pitch.
Worst Street back pedalled to agree grudgingly that children should be allowed to
kick a ball about – if for no other reason than to meet the council commitment to
improving our health.
There is an aspect of Sod’s Law which often comes back to
haunt such episodes – and on this occasion it occurred within days.
The same reader who raised the issue of juvenile kickabouts
was strolling the Garfits Lane playing field shortly afterwards when he saw a Boston Borough Council vehicle driving merrily all over the pitch.
First it went to one end, where it dropped a worker off to begin
re-lining, then drove to the other end to await his arrival with the machine
that does the job … not withstanding the fact that the equipment has its own wheels and is far lighter that a truck.
Following on from his earlier tongue in cheek e-mail to
Worst Street, he wrote again enclosing the photograph shown here and observing: “We
are not allowed to play football, so can we drive vans up and down the pitch?”
The response failed to see the funny side of this – nor the
fact that the council has exquisitely shot itself in the foot – not for the
first time.
“I have been advised, and I am sure you are aware anyway,
that the staff are attending to mark out the pitches and their vehicle is being
used to carry the tools and equipment necessary to do that.
“I am also assured that the vehicle should not drive onto
the pitches if the conditions of the
pitch were such that it would be foreseeable for it to damage them.
“It would be really helpful if you can let me know if any
damage has been caused to the pitch on this occasion as obviously I can raise
this further.
“Thank you very much for your assistance.”
Can you doubt for one moment that this final sentence was sincerely meant!
***
Last week’s Boston Eye
raised the concerns of former borough councillor Brian Rush over the way some decisions
are pushed through at Worst Street.
He also has other concerns – regarding the Quadrant
development scheme at Wyberton, which he raised at the recent full council
meeting.
He tells us that his questions related mainly to the feeling
that the planners, officers and members chose to ignore the opinions of local
residents and initially failed properly to inform them of what was going on, failed
to take account of increased safety risks and issues that such a proposal might
have on the quality of life of local residents and chose not to provide details
and plans relating to the health and wellbeing of a large built-up area.
We understand that Mr Rush got something of a hard time from
the Mayor as he went to deliver his question – presumably because she saw him
as a former councillor rather than as a member of the public who should be
deserving of respect.
Council leader Bedford – who responded to the question –
made no such assumption as we are told that he referred at least once to Mr
Rush as “Councillor Rush.”
As we understand it the reply took the usual political route
of ignoring the concerns, instead stressing the “implications and clear
benefits for the borough at large,” then saluting the Planning Committee for “soundly
and fairly” approving the application – further underlining that he was “proud
to be associated with an experienced planning committee that can do such a good
job and after a full and transparent debate.”
He must have watched a different webcast to the one that we
viewed on the Boston Borough Council website!
However, we understand that local campaigners who remain
concerned about the development and its impact on Wyberton are not giving up
just yet – and if they keep us in touch with their progress, we will be happy
to pass the news on to our readers.
***
Despite its small size, Boston continues to punch above its
weight in the Lincolnshire parking ticket league.
As you might expect, Lincoln headed the list with more than
10,500 tickets issued between 1st April last year and the end of
January 2015.
East Lindsey came second with 6,300 tickets, followed by
South Kesteven on 4,830.
Boston was fourth with 3,250 fines ahead of South Kesteven
on 2,540, North Kesteven on 1,060 and
West Lindsey on 945.
What we don’t understand amidst all of this is – why do we
still see so many cars illegally parked in Boston … especially in the Market
Place?
We’ve suggested before that it might be an idea to run a
prolonged offensive in one area at a time until the message gets through.
As things stand, the
traffic wardens spread themselves so thinly around the area that we imagine
most motorists think that it’s worth taking a chance, as the odds of getting
caught are not that great –the figure represents an average issue of just a dozen
tickets across the entire borough each day
***
Some better news for Boston was a surprise appearance in a
special Daily Telegraph supplement
listing “1,000 companies to inspire Britain.”
Of these fast growing companies, the list – compiled by the
London Stock Exchange with help from business data collection company Duedil – contained
61 East Midlands companies that met their criteria.
Of these, just four came from Lincolnshire – but two were from
Boston … Staples Vegetables, with revenues of £75 million, and the Bulldog
Hotel Group with £8.25 million.
***
The news coincides with the issue of revised contract and
procurement requirements for Boston Borough Council – drawn up and overseen by an
advisor from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council … it must be one of
those Hanseatic things we keep hearing about.
Somewhat disappointingly the point where a line is drawn
that opens bids to other than local businesses is no higher than £10,000 – and in
the £5-£10,000 range only one of the
minimum two written quotations must be from a local supplier and a local
supplier should be used where they provide “the most economically advantageous
offer.”
Part of Boston Borough Council’s brief is to encourage local
business growth, and these revised rules still seem a little stifling, and we
think that it would be nice if we could invest more in the local community than
we do at present.
***
The story related yet another triumph for Boston Borough
Council’s war on intestinal waste when it summonsed a local woman who was fined
for allowing dog waste to accumulate in the garden of her home.
The story was accompanied by a photograph of the garden in
question liberally dotted with droppings for the benefit of anyone living in
Boston who doesn’t yet know what a dog turd looks like – although there can’t
be many of those.
What a grand accompaniment to breakfast that edition turned
out to be.
The council’s determination to mention poo and pee at every
verse end is matched only by our own in wanting them to cease and desist unless
absolutely necessary.
In this case whilst the episode was clearly unpleasant for
the woman’s neighbours we don’t think that it was significant enough to warrant
the entire issue of Monday’s bulletin.
We’ve said it before and we’ll keep on saying it – the Boston Daily Bulletin is a shop window
for the borough and those who would visit it or make it their home.
To paint the town in varying shade of brown at every opportunity
is unnecessary – and is becoming excessive.
You could say it is over-egging the poo-ding!
There was a time when the borough’s bulletins were reviewed
by a small group of councillors to ensure that the content was going in the
right direction – something which we imagine has long fallen into abeyance.
But the time has now come to review some of the content – and
whilst not turning a blind eye to the less savoury aspects of life in Boston,
at least not seizing on them at every opportunity and blazoning them across the
front page.
Unless of course, the borough is trying to win a Poo-litzer
Prize – by producing an omnibus edition of all its articles to date
under the headline: Fifty shades of brown.
***
Buoyed up after getting a handful of people to attend a Save our NHS campaign day in Boston and
Skegness, the pressure group 38 Degrees
then turned its attention to our outgoing MP Mark Simmonds.
It followed a critical story in the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail
which said that Mr Simmonds had claimed thousands in expenses for advertising
at football grounds and on Pilgrim Hospital Radio.
With all guns blazing, 38
Degrees trumpeted: “While people in Boston and Skegness face cuts
and pay freezes, your MP Mark Simmonds used £10,000 of public money to pay for
billboard and radio ads to promote himself. It’s almost unbelievable.
"John, a 38 Degrees member from Boston, has started a
petition calling for him to apologise and pay the money back immediately.
“Mark Simmonds obviously likes good publicity – so the last
thing he’ll want is a big public petition, signed by thousands of people in his
area. Every signature helps to embarrass him into paying us back.
“Here’s what John says:
“‘You're standing down at the next election because,
apparently, you ‘can’t afford’ to live on an MP’s £67,000 salary. And despite
making over half a million pounds in profit from the sale of your
taxpayer-funded house, you're still claiming thousands in expenses.
“‘Such claims are greedy, morally indefensible - and just
plain wrong. I call on you to apologise and give back the money you have used
for self-promotion.’”
We somehow don’t think that Mr Simmonds will be rushing
red-faced and apologetic to return the money – especially since the Independent
Parliamentary Standards Authority said there was a “fine distinction between
‘advertisements’ overtly seeking to enhance the standing of a candidate
(outside the rules) and those intended to spread awareness of a local MP’s
constituency and parliamentary functions (within the rules”)
After receiving a complaint about the adverts, IPSA visited
the constituency and saw the hoardings.
But the compliance officer said the current rules “do not
directly address claims for advertising” and so decided there wasn’t
“sufficient evidence to open an investigation.”
The campaign by John is one of two, and appears to have
attracted almost 67,000 signatures of the 75,000 required
A second … less ambitious … campaign seeking just 100 names
had earlier this week been signed by just eleven people.
Interestingly, this campaign has been created by a gentleman
named Chris Pain – and from the wording we suspect that he is none other than
the prospective parliamentary candidate for Boston and Skegness for the An
Independence From Europe party.
We’re sure that he will be hoping for more votes at election
time than he has had from 38 Degrees supporters.
***
As the word implies, co-operation takes two to make it work –
but not necessarily where Boston Borough Council is concerned.
Instructions concerning wheelie bin collection are quite specific
– including as they do orders such as “your bin must be left out by 5.30am on
the day of your collection or the night before to guarantee collection … your
bin must be placed at the edge of your property with the handles facing
outwards and it would really help if you could stand your bin next to your
neighbour's for collection …
In the area around Number One Eye Street these rules have been adhered to for many
years and bins were returned to the place where they were left so that householders
could then wheel them back where they came from.
More recently, bins have been returned to the most convenient
place for the collectors – which in some instances is as much as 25-yard walk away
… which is a bit of a pain for some that we know who are elderly or disabled
and can manage to drag the bin to their boundary but are less able to undertake
a route march to retrieve it.
Whilst we agree that dragging wheelie bins around for a
living is not the most pleasant job – and we are old enough to remember the
days when binmen dressed like Alfred Doolittle with padded protection and
carted rusting metal bins around on their backs – the job is now far more
civilised.
And if taxpayers must leap through regulatory hoops to get
their rubbish removed, the least that they should expect is even-handed treatment.
***
We are spending another couple of days taking chemistry
lessons at the Pilgrim next week, so Boston
Eye will be back on 27th March – but don’t let that stop you
from getting in touch either via e-mail or our Twitter account.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your
e-mails will be treated in when it confidence
and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment