13 days to the elections
Boston
Eye begins this week with a warning to
householders across the borough to be on the lookout for doorstep tricksters
posing as politicians seeking their votes for a place in the Worst Street
council chamber.
A major
problem is that whilst most of them are perfectly genuine, some are only after your
vote because they like being called “councillor”– which makes them feel more
important – and pocketing the £4,400 a
year basic allowance that comes with it.
Often it
is possible to pick up that extra £366 a month by doing little if almost
anything other than sounding important – and long- term perpetrators of this
scam can be so persuasive that their gullible victims are sucked in without
realising it.
Boston
Eye was told: “It is very important that
you don’t vote for the wrong sort of person who has no real interest in you, or
your ward.
“There
have been a number of examples over the years of councillors getting elected
and then almost totally ignoring the people who put them in power in the first
place.
“No
matter how serious these people might seem to be, remember, that at heart they
are politicians, and as such regard economy with the truth as a stock in
trade.”
***
Meanwhile,
a fuller version of the controlling Conservative group’s list of promises is
dropping through letterboxes.
Hoarders
of such stuff may initially be confused, as its main page mimics almost
completely the “five promise clipboard” leaflet issued four years ago.
The
latest propaganda reminds us of the pledges made then and are accompanied by a
list of four completely different things that have been delivered.
Top of
the list is the Assembly Rooms – “sold for £1/2 million ... saving £60,000 a
year in upkeep ... saving you the £500,000 repair costs.”
Well,
sort of ...
The
Assembly Rooms were actually sold for £465,000 after years and years on the
market – but what’s £35,000 between friends when half a million pounds sounds
so much better.
And the
reason why the repair costs had become so great was because of the refusal by a
number of previous administrations to maintain it – a self-inflicted
injury.
Next on
the list is a self-congratulatory slap on the back for the “sensible financial
management” that enabled the reopening of the Moulder Training Pool.
Spending
on the Moulder has become a runaway train in recent years, involving hundreds
of thousands of pounds and a couple of raids on the borough's reserves – which
begs the question of how one defines the word “sensible.”
The list
goes on ... introduction of green waste collection, a new depot, and sharing of
bin lorries, and “state of the art” (whatever that means) CCTV at a cost of
£230,000. Boston’s CCTV empire has now spread its electronic tentacles into
South Holland and East Lindsey – prompting concerns that its worth might be
diminished because Boston Borough Council has bitten off more than it can chew.
***
Moving on, we encounter promises
to “Deliver our Long Term Local Plan to enable the Distributor Road bypassing
Boston to be built, so we can Grow the Local Economy to provide private housing
and jobs throughout our local community.” The capital letters are theirs, not
ours.
There’s an undertaking to review
car parking and reduce prices where possible; work with drainage boards, the
Environment Agency and other local authorities to deliver the Boston Flood
Barrier.
And finally, from a leadership
mired in secrecy, comes the droll idea of
“Cabinet Question Time” public
meetings with the idea that voters can
“ask questions and hold councillors to account on the issues that matter
most.”
At present, Boston doesn’t have
much by way of a long term local plan.
The South East Lincolnshire Joint
Strategic Planning Committee opened for business in 2011, tasked with looking
as far ahead as 2036. In fact it is already so far behind the times that its
most recent Tweet urges us to “Come along to the South East Lincolnshire Joint
Strategic Planning Committee, Monday 25th November 9.30am at Boston Borough
Council Offices.”
It was posted in November 2013.
That’s despite an invitation to
“keep up-to-date with progress via Twitter and Facebook.”
A local development scheme is now
in its third revision but will probably not be worth the paper it’s printed on
in 25 years’ time.
And it’s likely to be that far in
the future – or perhaps even longer – before any meaningful kind of
“distributor road” emerges ... and it will all depend on browbeating developers
into proving it stretch by stretch.
That’s something we don’t really
imagine happening.
The irony of a question time at
which the council can be held accountable also reeks of pie in the sky.
The Assembly Rooms sale mentioned
earlier took place against a backdrop of secrecy which saw journalists and the
public kicked out of a special meeting, whilst most of the events surrounding
the sale remained a closed book to the voters – who were technically the owners
of the public building being dumped.
Somehow, we can't see our
leadership leopards changing their spots if re– elected on 7th May.
***
One thing that we do know, is that
the Conservatives do not tolerate what their leader once upon a time referred
to as “mavericks” defined by the dictionary as “independent- minded persons”
– or put more simply, people who think
for themselves.
After the Tories’ 26 wannabes,
Labour are fielding 19 candidates, UKIP 18, and Independents 14.
So far, we have not had sight of a
Labour leaflet, but will tell you what it says when we see one.
However, looking back at what
Labour had to say after the 2011 elections, we are sorry to say that the
group’s delivery has been totally lacking.
As we said at the time, Labour
probably had the most ambitious manifesto but given that the party was not
contesting enough seats to gain control of Boston Borough Council, it would not
therefore be faced with the threat of delivering on any of its promises.
High on the list four years ago
was a pledge to campaign to make Strait Bargate a pedestrian area once again –
but we can’t recall anything taking place after that.
Then we were told:, “Our new
councillors will be urging the new Conservative administration to reinstate a
dog warden, as this would have a major impact on our estates – firstly by removing stray dogs; and secondly
enforcing the horrific environmental blight of dog fouling in our streets and
parks.”
Nope, that didn't happen either.
And finally, the only current pledge of which we have heard has been disinterred from the 2011 tomb of promises and dusted off for this
year’s campaign – the return of the Party in the Park.
“We will campaign vigorously to
reinstate Party in the Park,” said Labour after the 2011 elections. “Sadly – we
are likely to be too late to reinstate it this year, but we believe that 2012
would be an excellent year, as it is also the Queen’s Golden Jubilee and the
Olympics year, to bring our local communities together.”
Aside from the promises about
ending the Strait Bargate rat run, which would have been heartily opposed by
the county council and the bus operators both, we would have thought that at
least a dog warden would not have been beyond the realm of possibility.
But to resurrect the idea of a
free for all booze up in the heart of the town having done little, if anything,
since the promise was last made four years ago, seems little more than a
blatant and none too transparent stunt to win some votes.
With so many candidates this time
around, Labour might have a chance of winning more than three seats, and if
they do, we trust that their promises won’t fizzle out as they did last time.
***
Moving on, the UKIP approach is
quite interesting – and given their successes at recent elections, it is
entirely possible one way or another that the Conservatives will lose overall control at Worst Street and the
council will revert to its more commonplace status of having no one group in
charge.
***
Despite their individual
independence there is a broad Local Manifesto drawn up which stresses that Kipper councillors do not have to toe the party line.
Pledges at borough council level
include stimulating the local economy, keeping police on the streets along with
a zero tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour, supporting the work of the voluntary sector and restoring
weekly bin collections.
The manifesto includes references
to controlling immigration to ease the burden on local services – but of course
that is well above the pay grade of a local district council.
Don Ransome, Boston's Mr UKIP told
us: “All UKIP councillors are un-whipped and are free to follow their
consciences and more importantly their residents’ majority wishes.
“Whilst our local election
manifesto sets out our broader aims, many of our candidates have specific ideas
on their local wards.
“Where we really hope to differ
from previous administrations is our determination to listen to the electorate
and actually find out what the majority want us to do for them by surveys and
referendums and not just pay lip service to the needs of the residents of the
borough.”
The offer of local referenda is
something that bothers us because of the cost.
It is said that a borough
referendum would cost between £50,000 and £70,000 – so we would hope that there
wasn't a demand for too many!
A key slogan of UKIP’s is “If you
vote UKIP – you get UKIP” and if the party wins some seats, we hope that this
will be the case.
Our one-time Kippers on Boston Borough
Council appeared to spend more time changing their party name than
anything else – from UKIP to UKIP Lincolnshire, the Independence from Europe group, to Lincolnshire
Independents.
At next month’s elections one is
not standing, whilst the other is seeking election as an Independent.
***
One stunt that UKIP did come up
with – which, no doubt, provoked an interesting reaction, was a propaganda
display to greet council staff and councillors as they entered their Worst
Street car park at the start of the week.
More annoyingly for the Tory
rulers, it was on private land and put there with the owner’s permission!
***
It seems that yet again Boston
might not be getting quite the best it deserves from developers.
Back in February, our respected
and beloved leader told us that “serious interest” had been expressed to the
council in developing of Haven Wharf on the river alongside Boston High Street,
and added “I think we are in for an exciting time ahead.”
This has now come to pass.
But if you’re expecting some
sympathetic development, reflecting the heritage and architecture of the water
side, prepare to be disappointed.
Back in 2008, the Boston Waterways
Development plan referred to the “key location on the Haven where the inner
ring road crosses the river, the site comprises a group of industrial brick warehouses which
are currently vacant and semi-derelict.
“Boston has lost much of its
industrial waterways heritage over the years for a variety of reasons and it is
seen as important that good examples of the type are preserved wherever
possible.
“The vision for this site seeks to
retain the warehouse buildings, with new development facilitating the
conversion of the warehouses to new uses. The proposed development respects the
bulk and materials of the warehouses, follows the east/west orientation of
traditional riverside developments, and creates a striking urban form on the
inner ring road corner.
“As shown, the site could
accommodate significant commercial or educational uses. Alternatively, a scheme
of conversion and new build for residential use could be appropriate.”
Dream on ...
Instead, we are looking at the
wholesale demolition of the buildings on the site to be replaced by two
grim-looking seven storey detached apartment blocks containing 75
apartments a cafe and a gym, and a few
houses to fill in the gaps.
The application has been made by a
company called Hanseatic Developments, but – scour Google as hard as we might,
we can find no mention of them.
In fact, Companies House – the
bible of company listings – has no record of a company of this name being
registered.
It’s ironic though that Boston’s
decision to ride piggyback on the Die Hanse organisation which is celebrating
ancient trading links between ports and towns should coincide with plans to
demolish what are clearly characterful and iconic buildings which reminds us
strongly of our maritime heritage.
***
Which reminds us, what happened to
plans to build a £3m marina at Fenside in Boston containing 161 berths and an
80-seat family restaurant which we were
told could bring millions of pounds of investment to the town, according to
local councillors?
The plans were approved two years
ago, and work was supposed to have begun last year.
A search on the internet finds the
only two official sites connected to the project dead in the water, if you’ll
excuse the pun. One site is no longer available, whilst the other is “under
construction” – unlike the marina, apparently.
At the time the plans were
approved, our ever optimistic leader Pete Bedford declared: “it should bring
millions to the town, push up property prices and get people coming to Boston –
it is a very exciting prospect."
Whilst he seems to like the word
“exciting,” we have yet to experience even the smallest frisson of pleasure
from what’s going on – or not going on.
***
One of the big national and
local debating points in Boston as 7th
May approaches is the issue of immigration, and a constant bone of contention
has been whether or not there are pay differentials between the migrant
community and the indigenous population.
Generally the view from the top
has been that our local people have become workshy.
Both our outgoing MP Mark Simmonds
and council leader Bedford have separately made this claim.
When Simmonds was asked about the
lack of jobs for local people, he responded: “I can meet some young people in
Boston who say ‘Mark, when are you going to get all these migrants out of our
town', and I say to them, ‘Well, when you’re prepared to go into the fields or
the packhouses'.”
Councillor Bedford, meanwhile,
offered this verdict on jobs: “It’s the fact that our population have got to
get used to the fact of starting to apply for such jobs (in the packhouses)
again.”
A recent report compiled locally
highlighted serious exploitation faced by some members of the Latvian
community.
Many locals have insisted that the
reason they no longer seek land work is because migrant labourers receive a
lower rate – one that they could not afford to live on.
Whilst many of the great and the
good have challenged this, a couple of reluctant admissions indicate that there
might be some truth in the claims after all.
Last week, in a report entitled
“Town's firms wary of praising migrant workers” the BBC’s World Service British
Affairs correspondent, obtained reluctant confirmation from Simon Beardsley,
chief executive of Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce – who actually visited
Boston for the interview.
"Below the radar there are
businesses that do feel it is positive (but) in a small town, you can alienate
yourself very quickly,” he is quoted as saying.
"Initially there was a mood
of scepticism around individuals coming in and the impact that they would make
on the town and the economy. Over a period of time those impressions have
changed and the acceptance of migration into the town has changed.
"Without the numbers coming
in, the businesses would suffer because predominantly the area is made up of
lowskilled, low-wage jobs in agriculture and food processing and there isn't
the indigenous population looking to take up those jobs."
The report continued: “Mr
Beardsley says many employers would suffer if they couldn't recruit the labour
they needed and, even if they were to entice British workers to apply, the
higher wages necessary would drive up the costs.
“Despite numerous BBC requests, we
found, with a fierce election contest underway, those employing east Europeans
in large numbers all refused to speak about it.
“‘Most of the land work is taken
up by the east Europeans now,’ one young man tells me .... he says those who
want that work on the land, as he once did, see the arrivals as competition.
"’If you were ever stuck for
a job there was always land work, but it has got a bit more difficult now
everybody is having to work more, because they work all the hours God sends.
"’The east European gangs
will work for a lot less, for a lot longer, than the English gangs."
Later in the report, viewers are
told: “Asked if businesses like immigration because the arrivals had pushed
down wages, Simon Beardsley answers obliquely.
“‘There is a supply and demand
issue here in terms of the flood of labour into the market. Businesses do need
the labour, without it they would struggle to do what they need to do, so yes
it is potentially a lower cost base," he says.
***
Some more election snippets for
you now...
We hear of frayed tempers in Worst
Street – where for the first time that we can think of, the “P” word is being
bandied about in anger.
The “P” in question stands for
“Purdah” – the practice in certain Muslim and Hindu societies of screening
women from men or strangers, especially by means of a curtain – and quaintly adopted by politicians to
describe a pre-election period during which certain restrictions apply to
publicity matters.
So far, one candidate has received
a slightly worrying visit from the police, and we understand that a council
committee meeting was cancelled as a result of complaint that to let it go
ahead might confer political benefit on one of the people who would have been
participating.
After this, a complaint was made
that the purdah rules were being breached in the borough council’s mercifully
now only thrice-weekly “news” bulletin with repeated references to the Mayor,
Councillor Alison Austin, and her husband consort, Richard, both of whom are
seeking re-election.
This involved the lead officer for
Electoral Malpractice in Lincolnshire Police being made aware, and the
Electoral Commission being advised as a matter of course ... but the police
quickly washed their hands of the complaint.
However, the Department for
Communities and Local Government advice was that a formal complaint could be
made to the council about “perceived inappropriate publicity.”
That has received the response
that promoting the mayor is not a breach of the rules.
Incidentally, this is not the
first time that the borough bulletin has come under the spotlight.
Earlier this year, it was the
subject of a formal complaint about bias, and the Labour group leader Paul
Gleeson told Boston Eye he had “a series
of issues and have been in discussion with the borough for a period of time.”
What became of that?
Who knows?
Labour strikes again.
***
UKIP nationally is having a hissy
fit over the results of the latest ComRes poll of ten key Conservative-held
UKIP target seats – including Boston and
Skegness.
It ranks the Conservatives top of
the list on 39%, followed by Labour on 29% and UKIP with 21%.
The figure is well below the
massive lead quoted earlier in the year, when an Ashcroft poll published in
February put UKIP just three points behind the Tories (35 per cent to 38 per
cent) and some private polling by
Survation in September last year that gave the party 45 per cent, with the
Conservative vote at just 26 per cent.
Of the latest poll, Katharine
Peacock, ComRes managing director: “While UKIP’s support nationally has fallen
away from its peak last year, this poll of Conservative– held target seats
suggests that estimates of UKIP winning any more than a handful of seats at the
general election were overly optimistic. They are still in play in a small
number of seats, but have not managed to become to the main challenger to the
Conservatives in the way they had hoped.”
But a UKIP source is quoted in the
Spectator as criticising a ‘terrible way of doing the poll’. The party’s main
gripe appears to that be several of the seats polled by ComRes are not top
targets for the party.
***
We raise our cap an inch or so to
Boston Borough Council Conservative candidate Daniel Elkington, whom we
criticised last week for the rough ride he gave fellow contenders in Boston’s
Witham Ward. in his blog “Boston Tory.”
“After reading the comments in the
new Boston Eye blog I get the feeling that I'm being sucked into the negative
campaigning that I, personally, don't like,” he wrote.
“It's so terribly easy to get
sucked into it though, especially when this time round it is so important ... “
***
Remember Boston song thrush and
county councillor Andrea Jenkyns? She lost the seat for Boston North West two
years ago then headed for Yorkshire to contest the Morley and Outwood seat
currently held by Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls with the slender majority of 1,101.
Whilst no one has much fancied her
chances, she’s now making optimistic noises and thinks that she will beat Balls
after reports that a number of the many undecided voters have been provoked by
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon into backing the Tories. Hmmmm.
***
It was last October that we
highlighted the appalling state of the Liquorpond Street roundabout – as a
direct result of the “experimental” ban on traffic turning right from South
End.
We have noted time and again that
nothing appears to have been done to repair the mess, but a new hazard has now
emerged for drivers as the heavy
five-inch stone block cubes that form the surround are finding their way
into the path of traffic.
The right hand turn ban began on
21st August last year, with a public “consultation” promised after six months –
which would have been in February.
Does anyone know what happened?
***
Last week, we read about an
“excellent meeting” about new signage for Boston – something that’s supposed to
be happening as part of various grant aided improvement packages for the
town. Sadly, the Tweet that mentioned it
made us wise after the event, and we recall no pre-publicity that might have
encouraged input from a wider audience.
Once again, it seems that
decisions which might make the town a better place are being contained within a
narrow group of the great and the good – which is really quite shameful.
***
As Pilgrim Hospital begins showing
signs of improvement, we can suggest another area that could be reviewed as
soon as possible.
More than one reader has been in
touch about the ridiculous state of the car parks at the hospital in recent
weeks. One reported that – driving alone to an early afternoon appointment –
she was forced to cancel it after fruitlessly touring the car parks to find
somewhere to stop.
Earlier this week, we heard
another case, when a patient with an appointment was accompanied by a relative,
but had to be dumped outside as again, there were no parking places to be had.
Unfortunately, the car park
barriers do not display the useful information that the place is full which
means collecting a ticket and then wasting time driving around, then using the
same ticket to exit and try somewhere else.
What is crystal clear is that the
car parks are jammed with visitors – sometimes to the exclusion of patients.
Some wards display signs limiting
the number of visitors to a bed – but
these are never enforced.
We suppose that the hospital
couldn't care less so long as it is trousering a fortune in parking charges.
But don’t they whine and moan when
appointments are cancelled at the last minute – even though it is sometimes
their fault.
***
Finally, this week’s “Damned if
You Do and Damned if You Don’t” Award goes to Boston Borough Council – now
there’s a surprise.
After the incessant and often
nauseating attention Worst Street has lavished on people who treat public areas
as outdoor privies, we note that when someone shows a bit of initiative, they
still end up in deep sh*t.
A clear attempt to improve things
by installing a loo in one of the town’s parking areas was carted off by the
Boston Big Clean-up volunteers amid the usual condemnation.
Sometimes, you just can’t win!!
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
