This week there’s good news and there’s bad news.

The good news is that the Tory controllers at Worst Street have told us that a by-pass for the town has been agreed.

The bad news is that they’ve gone a funny way about telling us.

***

Last week we fired our opening salvo about the local elections in the run up to Tuesday 2^nd May, when all 30 seats at Worst Street will be up for grabs.

The leading Tory group seemed to be doing what it does best  – taking things for granted if the complacent response we received was anything to go by.

We asked whether at this stage the Tories could say if they were fielding a full house of 30 candidates and for any specific manifesto pledges if they had been drawn up – and the reply from Paula Cooper, Lincolnshire County Councillor for Boston West and Deputy Chairman of the Boston and Skegness Conservative Association, was: “At this stage nothing to report.”

***

In fact, the opposite was the case.

Our great and glorious leadership had gone into print with the political equivalent of a pizza parlour flyer which we understand was passed to the free monthly magazine Simply Boston in the belief that it would be delivered though every door in Boston.

In fact, the magazine  says it reaches 17,000 of the 28,000 households – and other copies are left in various outlets to pick up.

***

The lead story was about a by-pass for Boston, and we were told: “This thorny subject has been around Boston for so long, we had the Bypass Party who actually held the balance of power in the Council, some of them are still Councillors although not under that banner.

“The thing that has not happened is a Bypass — But now it's been agreed.”

Or has it?

It boiled down to the same old, same old.

Boston does not merit a by-pass – but a ‘distributor’ road instead.

And although the Boston Torygraph doesn’t say, the closest we are to anything at all is a bid for £1m to draw up some of the basic paperwork.

***

Beneath the headline ‘Meet some of the local team’ are a set of pictures of some current councillors, and others that we have not seen before – who we guess are standing as candidates in May.

The photos range from a seemingly ancient black and white to a comedy effort by cabinet member Aaron Spencer – and having seen it we would certainly vote for him at least twice if the opportunity presented itself.

*** 

Quite why the Tories prat around declaring “nothing to report”  when it’s not true baffles us – since they almost lost control to UKIP in 2015, and were trounced by the Boston Bypass Independents in 2011.

As it turned out, the failure of the BBI to deliver anything at all and the passion among UKIP members for falling out among themselves has done more to help the Tories over the past eight years than anything they have achieved through their own efforts.

***

Meanwhile, Labour is moving apace. Councillor Paul Gleeson told us: “We had an election campaign meeting on Saturday morning and we have at present 25 prospective candidates selected and allocated to wards. 

“The team is pretty confident we will fill the last five seats by the middle of the month. 

“At present we have prospective candidates for every ward.  For the BTAC area, we have prospective candidates for every seat.  For the parished wards, we have at least two prospective candidates in three-seat wards and a prospective candidate in two-seat wards.”

***

UKIP – as we saw last week has a unique problem with the possibility of a re-born party being formed – but not until after make-your-mind-up time for local candidates.

Our own view is that standing under the UKIP banner would almost guarantee failure this time round.

So where does this leave Kippers seeking re-election?

***

Well, we have Independents up the ying-yang.

We have Clan Austin – Richard and Alison … who seem to have settled for a pro-Tory ‘Independent’ role after launching the Boston Bypass Independents then morphing it into the Boston District Independents in the hope that the bypass taint would wash off.

Then there is Councillor Peter Bedford – who led The Worst Street Chums for many years before getting the heave-ho, parting company with the Tories, going Independent, and then paying the price at the 2017 County Council elections when after 25 years as a councillor the voters gave him the elbow and backed the official Tory. Might he decide to call it a day?

We can certainly think of one or two of his peer group who should give the idea some serious thought – and the splash of ‘new’ members of the team suggest that they may not have any choice in the matter.

Certainly, whilst we started out referring to runners and riders, we think that if there were a stocktaking of who ought to call it a day, then the Tories most definitely should be consigning some of their long servers to the political knacker’s yard. 

***

Then there is the Bostonian Independents Group – BiG for short, although it is in fact very small, and the Blue Revolution party, formed by former Tory councillor Mike Gilbert who hopes eventually to change the way we do politics.

***

If they’re honest, we would expect them to agree with our assessment that they are unlike to have much – if any – impact at the ballot box.

*** 

 

So what’s the likely outcome?

We’d put our money on the mixture as before – even though it is an increasingly bitter pill to swallow.

***

All this talk of Independents coincided with a timely e-mail  from the man who probably served longer under that banner than anyone else – former Councillor Richard Leggott.

He asked Boston Eye: “Could I register my complete bemusement – or should that be amusement –  at the use of the word Independent by the some of the present Boston Borough councillors?

In my 24 years as an Independent councillor at West Street there was no  other guide/rule for Independents than ‘do what you think best for your Ward and the Borough.’

“How this was accomplished was down to Independent members to work out for themselves.

“No party alliance was needed as there was no reference to party policies. But if an Independent did wish to take a party whip he/she was at liberty to do so without recrimination.

“The only reason for 'grouping' by Independents was for purposes of committee seat allocation on the required proportional representation basis. And this grouping would have been unnecessary if the main political parties (Lab, Lib and Con) had allowed individual, non-aligned, councillors to have committee seats. But for reasons not hard to work out this was not to be permitted.

“This possible exclusion of elected members from the council's committee structure may be hard to believe – and even harder to understand – but that is how politics was (and I understand still is)  played at Boston Borough Council.

“After doing a little research it appears that Boston Borough Council’s interpretation of this particular rule (no group = no seat/vote on committees) is not looked at similarly by all local authorities.

***

We wonder whether anyone can explain what Worst Street is doing borrowing millions of pounds from over the border in Scotland.

Whilst  Boston’s big plans to make a profit from property fund investment raised a few eyebrows and begged a few questions, our understanding was that a £20m fixed rate borrowing would be taken out over a 50 year term from the Public Works Loans Board – a statutory executive agency of HM Treasury whose job is to lend money local authorities, and  collect the repayments.

The idea was to borrow the money on the cheap, then invest it “with a view to obtaining long term financial benefit to support the delivery of services.”

***

At no time did we expect to see the name of Edinburgh City Council pop up – especially not in the context of Worst Street borrowing £4 million in a short term loan, and repaying £5,500 in interest soon after.

The figures appear in the council’s list of spending for November last year – along with £6,000 in fees to Blackrock Property Fund Financial, and more than £2,000 in two fee payments to Threadneedle Financial.

It may seem a silly question – but isn’t Worst Street supposed to be making money rather than paying it out in fees and borrowing charges from apparently other sources than those listed?

***

We have said before that these monthly financial figures – purportedly issued by Worst Street in the name of transparency – often beg more questions than they answer.

***

For instance why has a company called Bentley and Rowe been paid £16,500 for a ‘PRSA Valuation?’

The firm apparently works in the leisure industry on projects that closely resemble the recent £90,000 overhaul of the Moulder Leisure Centre gymnasium – but why is Worst Street footing a bill to do with the PRSA, when we were promised that it’s now nothing to do with the council and is operated independently.

***

A handful of other interesting bills include £15,000 for the relocation the Department of Work and Pensions staff to Worst Street – something we were told would save them – and make the council – money.

It looks a bit one-sided so far.

***

And on a lighter note – remember the oddly caged-off area of the Market Place which housed an ice sculptor during the Christmas market.

Well, that little piece of entertainment cost us £1,600, whilst a knees up for visitors from one of our twin towns – in this case Laval in France – set taxpayers back just over £1,000.

***

For a couple of issues now we have been banging on about the silence from the senior ranks at Worst Street about the planned closure of Marks and Spencer.

We’re heard nothing from the leader – nor any of the highly paid officers whose job is supposedly to be across things like this and come up with solutions.

***

So why is it that when our local politicians do decide to comment on major local issues, that we sometimes wish they kept their trap shut instead?

Local ‘newspapers’ have received the wisdom of deputy leader and finance portfolio holder Aaron Spencer on the M&S affair  –  although it may not have been what people wanted to hear.

According to the reports  Mr Spencer said: “It’s a shame to see these big shops closing and its concerning for the future of our town centre.

“I think we pay too much attention to these big retailers, and spend too much time trying to bail them out.

“I think that we need to focus on these medium enterprises in town, of course it's a shame that HMV and M&S are closing, but we need to do something different.

"I feel like we need to move away from these failing business models and create a town centre full of cafes, bars and restaurants.

“We need to get people living in the town centre again, living above shops and get people coming to the town.

“I've seen some comments on the Save our Boston Marks & Spencer page blaming the council for charging too high rents, but that's just incorrect.

“M&S actually own the building and the only thing that the council does is set the business rates, even then these are set nationwide.

“I think that we need to leave the past behind, you can buy everything online nowadays and we need to adapt to the changing business environment.

“We need to adapt, there's only so many times that these big businesses can be bailed out and to be honest I don't think that they work in Boston anymore.

“I think a lot of the members of public expect the council to wave some sort of magic wand and the problems to go away, but M&S has announced nationwide closures and we simply can't help that.

“Customers need to look at themselves; their buying habits need to change.

“I'd question some of the people complaining about the closure, when was the last time that they actually bought from the store?

“If the answer is a couple of months ago then here lies the problem.”

***

Whilst we are sure that very few people thought that Worst Street might magic away the problems, we are equally confident that they did not expect such negative claptrap from someone who ought to know better and be adopting a more constructive and mature approach.

***

Friday sees the end of the consultation on Worst Street’s plans to balance the budget – something that we reported on last week.

Regular readers will know that we give short shrift to such ‘consultations’ especially as they are often engineered to deliver the result that the organisation asking the questions wants to hear.

***

We wonder why Worst Street makes is a precondition to read 7,600 word report and ten sets of appendices that accompany it when – after the usual pleading of poverty and pointing out how little of the money collected is spent on the borough –  the consultation boils down a request for comment and the answers to two questions …

The first asks:  “Please can you indicate what you feel are the THREE MOST important services that Boston Borough Council provides.

Building Control, Car Parks, Cleaning roads/footpaths and emptying litter bins, Community Development, Community Safety - CCTV, anti-social behaviour, domestic violence and abuse, Crematorium and Cemetery, Economic Development - Environmental Crime Enforcement (litter, dog fouling, fly tipping,) Emergency Planning and Business Continuity, Environmental Health - food safety, pollution and noise, Housing Needs - homelessness support, managing the housing register and the Homechoice bid system, Leisure Services - Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre and health initiatives, Licensing - Taxi, entertainment and alcohol, animal welfare and charity collections, Markets, Parks and Open Spaces, Planning, Private Sector Housing - monitoring of standards in privately rented accommodation Public Toilets, Town Centre, and Waste and Recycling Collection.

***

And the second question says: “Please can you indicate what you feel are the THREE LEAST important services that Boston Borough Council provides.”

And guess what? The same list follows.

Could someone please tell us how this constitutes a consultation – which is defined in the dictionary as: “An extremely important concept in the context of managing an organisation  ... Consultation is an active process in which organisation management opens formal and informal communication channels between the organisation and its stakeholders.”

Asking which three out of twenty things you like most – and least –  is a totally meaningless exercise.

***

We believe that Boston has already acquired at least one unique distinction already this year – in that two of our former chief executives have appeared in consecutive issues of Private Eye magazine’s Rotten Boroughs fortnightly feature.

***

First past the post was Nicola Bulbeck – who worked at Boston between 2002 and 2006 – and whom we seem to recall that never moved to the borough from the Grantham area.

She topped the awards for Payoff of the Year despite stringent efforts by her council to keep her massive fiscal farewell out of the public domain.

***

A fortnight later, her predecessor at Worst Street – Mark James (the man we have to thank for the PRSA, which we were told wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny) was back in the current issue for the umpteenth time after announcing his retirement.

***

And Worst Street has had some other interesting potential candidates over the years if local paper histories are to be believed.

In 1991 a newly appointed Chief Executive was suspended after less than a year following allegations of pension fraud irregularities. He subsequently resigned early in 1993 – and in true Worst Street style was sacked two months later!

His successor lasted three years before resigning over allegations of gross misconduct –  again being sacked some time after the event.

What a career springboard Worst Street has proved to be over the years!

***

There’s no blog next week as we have to grapple with the parking system ot the Pilgrim Hospital. Wish us luck!

We’re back on Monday 18^th February.

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