The Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come looms large over Boston between now and December as BostonBorough Council continues to demonstrate how best not to run a booze-up in a brewery.

After last year’s Christmas fiasco brought borough-wide condemnation and beyond, Worst Street’ Boston Town Area Committee – BTAC-ky – supported the creation of a community group to “pursue provision of Christmas lights for the town” jointly with the Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses.

When the committee met last Wednesday we expected to see it set the ball rolling.

But Boston Borough Council had already set its own balls-up rolling

The council that makes a sloth look like Mo Farah hadn’t got around to contacting the eleven people said to be interested in helping out – which means yet another delay is in the offing.

And even though the item was on the agenda, only one interested member of the public was there.

Several of those keen to help had talked ahead of the meeting about breaking the mould of previous years and coming up with something new and exciting,

Suggestions included staging the Christmas celebrations on a Saturday rather than the recent choice of a Thursday, and including extra market stalls and some kids’ attractions.

Word must have got round – because the day before the meeting some stodgepots  in Worst Street decided to undermine these efforts by setting the key dates in stone and declaring a broad framework for Christmas

It’s called a pre-emptive strike.

Last Tuesday, the Worst Street Twitter feed told us registration for traders was now open. 

All well and good, you might think – Boston Borough Council is planning ahead at last.

The the tweet – which was removed soon afterwards for some reason – linked to a web page that promised the involvement from Transported and Boston Stump.

The date – as in previous years coincides with US Thanksgiving Day which can be traced back to a 1621 celebration where the religious refugees from England known as the Pilgrims invited the local Native Americans to a harvest feast after a particularly successful growing season.

We don’t know why Boston Borough Council selected this date – because … as any fule kno … the original Pilgrim Fathers sailed from Plymouth UK in 1620 to a place they named Plimoth Plantation in Massachusetts.

None of those original settlers came from Boston or had any connection with it. Our connection with the New World came a dozen years later when people from Boston went out to America on a commercial exploitation ticket and founded the “other” Boston.

***

But for some reason, it suits Worst Street to think otherwise – hence the fact that we celebrate Christmas more than a month early – or do we?

According to Boston Borough Council this year’s event will be held on Thursday 23^rd November which is Thanksgiving Day …

… or is it?

 Last week, an alternative date was also being published … giving the choice of two events a week apart.

Clearly Worst Street is setting out as it means to go on.

***

Someone needs to nip this nonsense in the bud.

The third week in November is far too soon to be replacing our own major religious celebrations with a totally unconnected and irrelevant event – merely to establish some spurious link to a celebration taking place in 3½ years’ time.

Despite claiming to have no money, we understand that this year’s event by Worst Street is being organised by the town’s Events Team.

Didn’t know that we had one … certainly, they’ve hidden their blight under a bushel very successfully until now.

So what’s the budget for this?

Whatever happened to the annual sponsorship of a Christmas tree for the Market Place which used to come from local business – but is now paid for by the council?

And after giving an impression that the broadly based thoughts of keen citizens were being welcomed, it now appears that they have been handed the job of arranging the lighting alone – a poisoned chalice with little chance of success.

Not only that but we are told that Worst Street will “assist and mentor” the community volunteers.

We all know what that means – the borough will cherry-pick the good ideas and order the volunteers about as if they are lowly members of staff. 
Plus ça change …

The job ahead is more than one to do with lights. The whole Christmas celebration was a disaster last year – with Worst Street pleading that it no longer had the money and that in any case the event should be funded and run by local business.

It said that although it had asked local business for help, none came forward. But as far as we remember, that request was made in the papers with no mechanism suggested for businesses to get in touch.

This year again, we note a website with a booking form – but if that is all that is done, then the result will be exactly the same.

Worst Street needs to get out, knock on some business doors, and treat its volunteers with the respect they deserve by giving them a voice in the whole project.

*** 

A key player in the Thanksgiving event is the Transported arts group, which has said that it would prefer to arrange the event on a Saturday.

But Boston Borough Council has rudely told them that they are to work yet again to a Thursday performance.

There’s gratitude for you!

And another listed “partner” – local commercial radio station Lincs FM – expressed surprise at being included …

***

In last week’s blog, we mentioned a Tweet by former Labour councillor and ex-Mayor Paul Kenny, who declared: “I write my own letters to the papers. Tory councillors in Boston get officers to write their letters for them, wasting taxpayers’ money. Disgraceful.”

A few days ago, he raised the issue again, saying …

***

Call it serendipity, but as this tweeting was going on, Boston Eye had sight of a letter that was drafted at the end of last year.

We understand that it was drawn up by the council’s Chief Executive Phil Drury to be sent to local newspaper editors above the signature of the four group leaders at the time.

We can only guess what an editor might make of such a missive or any reaction to the content but this is what the letter said:

Dear Editor.

We hope that this letter finds you well and that 2016 has been a successful and productive one for your publication.

The last year has been an eventful one, has it not?  Each year brings new and varied challenges, highlights and difficulties.

You will know that the council and its partners work hard in the local community to meet the town's challenges and make our lovely borough the best it can be. This we see as a role for all, volunteers, businesses and residents – everyone in fact. Here at the council, we see great examples of individuals and organisations doing and achieving great things day in and day out.

As a council, despite our efforts, we are the first to recognise that we don't always get everything right every time; we do however strive to do our best. But, the purpose of this letter is not to talk about the council but your role in supporting, promoting and fairly reporting.

We accept the right of the media to reflect the community view and write interesting and quality articles about the borough. The council is a prominent organization 1ocally, our letter is not about us but our town, our borough.

Coverage of Boston appears dominated by negative coverage, both in profile and allocated column inches. We are sure that you will contend that coverage is balanced with a mix of good and bad. That is not our impression. Front pages are dominated by the negative. This is a view shared with us by businesses and residents alike who voice concerns about the generally downbeat and negative coverage of the area. We are sure you are very aware of the influence on reputation and image that your newspaper can have. We hope will agree with us that we all have a role to play in contributing to a fair and, dare we say, sometimes promotional portrayal of our borough. The council aspires to see improved housing, growth, economic development and tourism maximisation. We believe that you too have a responsibility and contribution to make in this aim.

We would be delighted to meet with you discuss this matter in more detail and explore how we could jointly support wider Boston in being the best it can be.

To conclude, this letter is not about reporting of the council. We accept the rough and tumble of the media reporting and do appreciate your help in reporting on our releases. This letter is, however, about your role in our area and the responsibility you assume in supporting this wonderful borough.

***

What the letter was undoubtedly doing is the exact opposite to what it claimed.

The use of words and phrases such as “your role in supporting, promoting and fairly reporting …” “a role to play in contributing to a fair and, dare we say, sometimes promotional portrayal …”  “… a responsibility and contribution to make …” – all of this effectively is asking the local newspapers to help sweep the bad stuff under the carpet.

The letter is a clear attack on the role of a newspaper, which is to reflect the community warts and all.

Worst Street would rather that the papers employ some cosmetic surgery.

That serves no one.

The newspapers would not be telling the truth if they went along with the deplorable suggestion that they connived with the council to paint an untrue picture of the borough.

And who would it help?

Is Worst Street naive enough to believe that if the bad news was toned down – or better still in their view omitted altogether – that the town would become a better place as a result?

Apparently so.

Much of what it wrong with Worst Street is the fault of inept councillors and officers.

They fail to keep voters in touch.

They fail to anticipate and employ damage limitation when they cock things up.

They rely on too many “outsiders” to do their work for them.

The list could go on –  but we are sure that you could recite it in your sleep!

***

Earlier, we mentioned Paul Kenny’s tweet about the cost of producing letters for the Conservatives.

Whilst the missive to the media was under the imprint of the various group leaders, we are quietly confident that it was a Tory initiative which sought to drag the others on board.

Using ballpark figures based on the Chief Executive’s pay we calculate that the not-terribly-well-written-letter, plus minor revisions and all that sort of thing would have taken at least three hours of his time – and therefore would have cost around £150.

Surely a cash-strapped council such as ours could spend its money on something more worthwhile?

And again … how sad are two of these “groups” whose “leaders” were asked to sign?

The Labour group “leader” commands just one other councillor, whilst the Independent “group” at the time the letter was written comprised Councillors Alison Austin and her husband Richard – the Pearl Carr and Teddy Johnson of Boston politics.

And they expect to be taken seriously!

***

When we talk about how poorly our councillors serve us, we must not forget the most recent “fool” council meeting which rubber stamped the council tax for the coming year.

One of our readers attended, and was shocked at the indifference that our so-called “representatives” demonstrated.

I’

ll be brief about perhaps the most important meeting of the year – there’s not a lot else I can be, as the meeting which the public was allowed to attend took less than 45 minutes.

This included the prayers, the formalities and a question from a councillor …

And when we actually got to the budget, a councillor read out a bit obviously prepared by an officer.

The meeting was then thrown open to comments from councillors, and once the tumbleweed had cleared the chamber, – with what appeared reluctance, Councillor 'I wear the trousers' Austin spoke out and waffled on insisting the council must continue to press for further funding from government, but never mentioned the budget.

“Then Councillor 'yes dear' Austin again took the chance to hear his own voice, and droned on about history and heritage.

No mention of the budget.

Labour group leader Councillor Paul Gleeson blamed the drainage boards for the increase in their precept … but failed to mention the budget.

Council “leader” Peter ‘Nipper’ Bedford then read his obviously pre-written statement – with no mention of the budget.

UKIP Councillor Paul Noble then commented – and to his credit actually mentioned the budget and suggested a few areas that could have been cut.

Then the debate was over.

The vote was carried almost unanimously.

What a surprise.

This meeting deals with the one topic that affects everyone in the borough – and the night’s ephemeral performance was the best that our elected representatives could do for us.

There was no alternative budget from the opposition;  no disagreement from the Tory  “Independents” or even the red part of the Conservative party.

Everyone apart from Councillor Noble should be ashamed of themselves for once again bending the knee to the ruling officers and just accepting what they are told to do.

***

There’s no blog next week… we have to be somewhere else for a time. We’ll be back on Monday 27^th March.

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