One of those quarterly snapshots which ought to send shivers
down the spinelessness of the Worst Street “leadership” is currently doing the
rounds.
It gives an idea of the popularity of the town centre with
shoppers, and tells us a bit about the number of visitors to the town.
Frankly the news is not especially good.
In terms of the town centre, the footfall figures are down
by 6% on the second quarter for last year – by 151, from 2,249 to 2,278 … although some
scrabbling about comes up with a different figure elsewhere, which improves the
pairs of feet falling by 35.
These pedestrian counts are conducted on the third Wednesday
of every month for 30 minutes at 10am and 2pm and counts only adult pedestrians
excluding people on the buses.
The decline in footfall is following the national
trend – but that’s no consolation at all when you realise just how few people
are sampling the delights of our shopping centre.
Although it might be comparing things chalky with things
cheesy, the not-too-distant Springfields centre near Spalding, claims annual
footfall of 2,300,000 and is increasing rather than declining.
And before anyone shouts ‘foul’ by comparing the two, Springfields
has just 55 stores – probably about the
same as the central area of Boston … many of which are outlets which used to be
in the town until they closed and moved away.
***
The news was none too good on the visitor front either.
Although the number of visitors to the Guildhall increased by 2% compared with
the second quarter last year it stood at a meagre 5,282 compared to 5,171 …
which is barely out of double figures on a daily basis.
And use of the tourist information centre – housed in the
same place – was down by 13% as people viewing the tourism page on the
council’s website fell by 3%.
We are promised that “a tourism project is underway which
will include looking at the website offer.”
About time too.
***
As we’ve said before, the minutes of meetings – when they
eventually appear – often make interesting reading.
One such example recently emerged concerning the so-called
leadership’s attitude to the UKIP contingent at Worst Street.
We’ve remarked on this before, as – despite a council
line-up of Conservative - 13 members, UKIP - 12, Independent - 2, Labour - 2, Unaligned
– 1 – UKIP occupies no significant committee roles.
This was highlighted in a question from the party’s group
leader Councillor Brian Rush who asked ‘Nipper’ Bedford: “Why did you decide to
completely reject all UKIP candidates, for chairs or vice chairs, on influential
panels, preferring instead to give such seats to the Conservative party’s arch
enemies, Labour?”
The response from Councillor Bedford “Locally, I do not
class Labour as arch enemies, but sensible councillors working together for the
good of Boston.”
But just in case, he also offered the standard “a big boy
did it and ran away” get-out by adding: “I did not make the appointments; it
was Full Council.”
***
Clearly, this is not as simplistic as our so-called “leader”
would wish us to believe.
The Tories would not enjoy their present position of control
without the collusion of Labour and some so-called Independents who are Tories
in everything but name.
The crucial point that is being overlooked here is that the people are supposed to matter – that’s
you and us, the taxpayers – but are being ignored (well, there’s a surprise.)
Agreed, the UKIP contingent has appeared as mad as a box of
frogs at times, with a disappointing performance to boot, but the fact is that
the Tories have been so insistent on wreaking their own particular recipes for
disaster on Boston that they would probably have done a deal with the devil to
cling on to power – which is not what it should be all about.
Many Boston voters supported UKIP, and are entitled to have
their wishes reflected through proportional responsibility on committees, and
to see what the group might do – after
all, they couldn’t be worse than the current leadership … could they?
To declare that the two Labour members are “sensible
councillors working together for the good of Boston” in the context of the
question is to say that UKIP members are not doing this, and we are
disappointed that our “leader” should stoop so low as to insult his fellow
councillors in the Worst Street chamber.
***
Amidst all this we hear that one of the Tory group would
like to throw in the towel, but has been persuaded to hang on until county
council election time next May. If the idea is to save the cost of a
by-election, then to continue to pay an indifferent and disinterested councillor
£350 a month for six months or more is surely just as wasteful and – again –
insulting to taxpayers and voters.
Or is it because the leadership fears that a by-election now
could cost them their slender hold on power?
Having said that, a quick scan of attendance by councillors
at meetings suggests that more than one are borderline members of the
money-for-nothing club.
Councillors may claim that their allowances are among the
lowest in the country, but many of them are certainly being overpaid!
***
Against this background we learned that our “Leader” has
just notched up 25 years as a councillor.
‘Nipper’ Bedford was elected in 1991 – the same year that
Boris Yeltsin became president of Russia and a number of coloured spheres
said to be UFOs performed an “aerial ballet” over Sibsey – and has
represented the nearby Coastal Ward ever since.
Monday’s council meeting saw him presented with a framed
certificate to mark an event that he claimed to have forgotten all about.
The political upheavals of recent years mean that there are
now very few long serving councillors in Worst Street.
Certainly, Boston was a much different place in 1991 – and
we doubt that anyone would claim it was better now than it was then.
As one whose tenure in office has paralleled Boston’s
decline, perhaps Councillor Bedford thought it better to disremember his
anniversary rather than otherwise.
Still, who knows – some minor gong for tenacity might even
so be in the pipeline.
***
Back to the council minutes … and a classic example of a
councillor who thinks that being clever makes him a politician.
Another question – again from Councillor Brian Rush – was to Councillor
Paul Skinner ... portfolio holder of the poisoned chalice known as the town
centre.
He was asked a perfectly reasonable and simple question –
“where or what became of those very attractive market stalls that were
purchased not so very long back?”
Instead of a perfectly reasonable and simple answer,
Councillor Skinner changed his name to Alec Smart for the duration of the
discussion.
“Since the beginning of the Charter, there have been a
number of different stalls used, which version did you mean?”
Councillor Rush: “Who
purchased the stalls and why, and where are they?”
Councillor Skinner: “The Charter dates back to the 1600s and
there have been many variations since that time. We are only partly along this
journey.”
What journey is that then – and why would Councillor Skinner
not answer?
Might it be because the stalls have been sold – or worse
still “dumped” like the benches arbitrarily removed by B-TACky.
If so, it would be a case of history repeating itself and
would not surprise us. At the time of the London Olympic celebrations Worst
Street spent almost £5,000 on buying
rather than hiring crowd control barriers and traffic cones – yet some time
later was paying to hire barriers for another event.
Perhaps Councillor Skinner might like to relent, and let us know the answer
to Councillor Rush’s question about the market stalls – but then again, perhaps
he might not.
Perhaps no-one knows where they are and can’t find them.
***
Early in October the Worst Street website congratulated
Councillor Aaron Spencer after he was shortlisted for the title of young
councillor of the year by something called LGiU – “the local democracy think tank.”
We’d forgotten all about this until recently, and so we
checked on the outcome of the nomination – only to find that Councillor Spencer
… the cabinet member for cuts … had been unsuccessful.
The fact that there had been no mention of the result was
typical of the Worst Street news management – if the story looks good, then
publish it … if not, then pretend it never happened.
This from the council that promised “warts and all” information
– yet remains in denial over the decision
to hold a public inquiry into the Boston Barrier plan … because it’s not what
our leaders wanted to happen.
Interestingly one local winner at the LGiU bash was North
Kesteven District Council Leader Marion Brighton, who received the Lifetime
Achievement award.
The award is given to a councillor who has shown a
demonstrable contribution to local government over a number of years –
Councillor Brighton has notched up more than 40 – during which he or she will
have contributed considerably to the development of the council and their local
community.
Let’s not forget, also, that South Holland’s leader and Chairman of the Local Government Association, Gary Porter, was last year made a life peer.
It’s good to see some of our nearby district councillors making their
mark.
Perhaps it will be Boston’s turn one day soon.
***
A surprise – though not unexpected – was the news that
emerged this week that the Pilgrim Party was de-registered at the beginning of
the year and is no more.
Mind you, it was never anything much to begin with – a girl
band with just four members at its peak, which came eighth out of nine parties
at last year’s general election with just 143 votes out of the 43,339 cast.
Still, it’s always a shame when these political
eccentricities vanish – though doubtless something else will emerge in 2020.
***
Back on our hobby horse now and a piece of Boston’s history
that will be 500 years old next year.
In 1517 Thomas Cromwell (think Wolf Hall) was approached by
Geoffrey Chambers of Boston for help in seeking an audience with Pope Leo X to
secure funding for the Guild of Our Lady in St Botolph's church.
Pope Leo was threatening to end the indulgences from which
the guilds and the church received large sums of money from people who wished
to pay for the safety of their souls in heaven.
Cromwell deployed an audacious plan …
He "ambushed" the Pope during a stag hunt near Rome, and knowing of Leo’s sweet tooth persuaded him to change his mind by
plying him with sweets and delicacies, and the guild’s finances were rescued.
This was an important event for Boston, which saved the
town’s fortunes at a time when they were drying up along with the silting of
the river – and the man who achieved it was one of the giants of Tudor England
and British history who not only set the wheels in motion to bring
parliamentary democracy to the country but also made possible the Reformation
which saw Henry VIII take control of the Church.
A few days ago BBC Four TV rebroadcast historian Diarmaid
MacCulloch’s 2013 BBC2 documentary “Henry VIII's Enforcer: The Rise and Fall of
Thomas Cromwell”
The programme featured generous segments filmed in Boston
Stump and the Guildhall together with an animated reconstruction of Cromwell’s
meeting with the Pope.
Let us hope that someone somewhere has the wit to arrange
for a copy of the programme to be shown in both buildings next year, and that
more is made of this important event in Boston’s history.
If you missed the programme, and would like to watch it
again, you can find if here
***
The nature of our blogging will be changing for a while due
to a combination of events between now and mid-December. We won’t be producing
our Friday miscellany, but instead will post comments on issues of interest on
a one-off basis as they arise – and will let you know via our Twitter page so that you can visit the
blog.
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
We are on Twitter
– visit @eye_boston
