Last week’s Daily Mail feature on the impact of immigration on Boston quoted communities portfolio holder Mike Gilbert recalling the  landslide majority  won by the Boston Bypass Independents, and saying: “If it can happen for a bypass, then who says it won’t happen for an issue that inspires much more extreme opinions?” We felt that the quote suggested that Councillor Gilbert felt that the BBI phenomenon could be replicated in Boston as an immigration issue in 2015, and asked him if that was the case. He told us: “No not specifically. I think there are pros and cons to migration which colour the debate too much. I was making a general point about the way Boston can adopt issues passionately, but then the real debate needs to start to get perspective, get some facts  and avoid – as  with migration – scapegoating, which I think came over well in the article. Mass migration is social engineering on a continental scale. It affects every country in Europe and is implemented by the EU who govern sovereign states like a feudal overlord would have controlled the peasants in the 13^th century.”

In the same feature, council leader Pete Bedford trumpeted the fact that Boston retained its Marks and Spencer store when the one in Grantham closed as a symbol of success. Let’s hope he hasn’t spoken too soon. Readers with long memories will recall that almost five years ago, the Boston store submitted ambitious plans for a 50-seater first floor café as part of a major refurbishment programme. At the time, the plan was hailed by the council, which said it would “preserve and enhance the character” and “help maintain the vitality and viability” of the town centre. Whilst some improvements were made, the café plan was shelved, and the permission expired two years ago. As far as we can see, it has not been resubmitted. Meanwhile, the company has reported dismal Christmas trading figures.
And it may well be time for a recount following the leader’s claim that Boston has the lowest number of empty shops in the region after yesterday’s news that the town’s HMV store is one 66 ‘loss making’ stores to be closed. The shop in Pescod Square is likely to remain open for the next month or so but will then join other empty properties in the centre such as the former Clinton Cards, Julian Graves, and the historic Pescod Hall building which names the development. We really would like to know what organisations such as Boston’s Business “Improvement” District and the borough council’s economic development staff are doing to try to improve the look and prosperity of the town.
Readers whose memories go back even further than five years will know that Boston Eye has just entered its seventh year of publication. Despite a few efforts to stifle our blog, we hope to continue for as long as it takes to see Boston governed by a leadership which sets public service before self-service. We accept that we probably have more critics than fans. But on return from holiday last week we were amused to read on Independent Councillor Carol Taylor’s blog  the response she received when she told someone that she was among our fans. “This person said ‘I never read it, it’s a load of rubbish and if left to me I would close it down.’”  Assuming that the person concerned was most likely a fellow councillor, we think that this says more about the quality of some members than anything else could!
Just as we went away, we received an e-mail from English Democrat leader Councillor Elliott Fountain, concerning our expression of disappointment at the news that a meeting of “opposition” councillors to discuss common issues was attended by three Independent councillors, and two Labour members, and that “missing in inaction” were one Labour, the entire Boston District “Independents” and the English Democrats. Councillor Fountain wrote: “I was not aware of this meeting or else I would have been there. It would be nice to have an opposition meeting every six to eight weeks for us all to discuss things.” Well said. At the moment the opposition groups on the council are making noise, but little else. Perhaps a little more co-ordination might result in giving the so-called leadership more of a run for their money.
Having said that, one issue on which the opposition dug its heels in firmly over was that of the decision to cut council tax benefits for working age people, by 25%. However, their alternatives were apparently misunderstood. Bostonian Richard Houle wrote to the local papers criticising Independent group spokesman Councillor Richard Leggott and his opposition using words such as “opportunist,” and “barmy,”  and saying that everyone who can should contribute to the local services. He asked: “Is  Councillor Leggott seriously suggesting  that people already benefiting from the generosity of the taxpaying public should be absolved completely from ever paying a ha’penny in council tax?  In response, Councillor Leggott says: “No member of the opposition proposed a new council tax scheme where present 100% council tax rebates would continue. The schemes put forward by the opposition in Boston Borough were of a graduated variety, with those of working age apparently less able to pay the tax to be offered larger rebates than those seemingly more able to absorb such increases. It was proposed that budget differences (£18-£24,000) arising from such a plan would be met initially – 2013/14 – from our £1.653m reserves, not by an extra payment from other council tax payers. This would give the council an opportunity to evaluate such a scheme in practice with all its ramifications before next year's budget setting. There are also some similar unknowns to the scheme that has been adopted which will lead to similar need of evaluation before next year. I thank Richard Houle for this opportunity to explain, not just to him, but to others in the borough who may have been mistaken in their understanding of what the opposition was proposing re the new Boston's new council tax scheme.”
After our comments about the waste of £2,500,000 on the Transported arts programme  designed to “empower” local people to experiment with “radically different approaches and develop inspiring, sustainable arts programmes that will engage audiences in those communities,”  we were interested to hear that an arts festival in Skegness has been labelled  “a total waste of ratepayers' money.”
East Lindsey District Council plans to spend about £350,000 on the SO Festival, which features arts, street theatre and dance, which it claims delivered direct economic benefit of more than £1m to the area. One district councillor cited an event which only two or three people attended – and it would take little by way of imagination to predict that something similar will happen in Boston.
Following the fanfare concerning the sale of Boston’s Assembly Rooms, we wonder if things will get moving soon – as it is now almost two and a half months since the deal went through. All we’ve heard since then are stories about how the owner plans to expand his business in the town to provide a “pub crawl” facility. We’ve seen no sign of any sort of planning application, and the building is looking tattier by the day.
Yet again in these times of cuts, we wonder where people find those extra millions from and why they choose to spend them as they do. The latest news to reach us is that more than £2m is to be spent on improving facilities for cyclists in East Midlands  towns and railway stations. Apart from plans to create “cycling hubs” at Nottingham and Leicester stations and the provision of hire bikes at Nottingham and Derby, a  new bridge for cyclists will be put in over Maud Foster Drain in Boston.  The money has come from a £62m government fund.  We already have a new bridge on the cards (no pun intended!) to replace the ageing St Botolph’s footbridge. Do we really need another? And just for cyclists? Surely this money could be put to better use.
Finally, the other week, we published a poem by Terry Coope, whose wife Shirley tells us likes to put his memories of growing up in Boston into poems … but adds that “maybe there's only a certain age group who would understand them.” We both understand and like the one below which we think will strike a chord with many readers – so here it is …
 
Tall cranes, fishing smacks
Steam trains, smoking stacks
Hot summers and aching backs.
West Street crossing the place to be
Endless carriages for all to see.
To the gas house a strike of coke
Big Stan Lote was the bloke.
Cooky's orchard, Dr Shaw's,
Scrumping apples gut's ache caused.
Golden sands, freezing river
That poor man’s Skeg made us shiver.
Homemade bike, ride down the west
A sharp greased parting from old Sid Guest.
Buckled pram wheels make a gedge
Nip to the Bee Hive and  fetch some veg.
Caught the bus from Fenside
Just a "tanner" what a ride.
Up the town, market place
Nod of the head, a smiling face.
Off the bus before it stops
Lots of people, lots of shops.
Our great landmark that braved two wars
Now looks down at one lost cause.
Majestic straight tall and proud
But it’s you blind council in a cloud.
Our Rooms of Assembly look up with woe
Goodbye old Stumpy it's time to go.....

 

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

 

A return from a holiday is always interesting, because it offers a chance to catch up on what’s been happening and review it from a little distance.
The big issue of the past few days concerned the cut in council tax benefits  to working age people, who will see their council tax benefits cut by 25%– with the severely disabled and families also sharing the pain.
And is that bad news?
Not a bit of it.
In Worst Street-speak this is all about being fair – which many now see as a euphemism for making the less fortunate even more so – in this case through financial penalties.
Critics claimed – and it’s hard to argue with them – that the cuts will affect the most vulnerable and lowest-paid people of Boston.
At the meeting which approved the cuts, it was left to the council’s youngest member, Councillor Aaron Spencer, who represents Five Village ward, to accuse opponents of  “making statements to appease the public to get re-elected again.”
And his interpretation of the benefit cuts was to say: “We live in a country now where everybody has to be seen to have equal rights
“We can’t be seen to discriminate one set of beneficiaries from another. I support this entirely, it’s the right thing for this council.”
Regular readers might recall mention of Councillor Spencer in last year’s Boston Eye, when he was pictured on a friend’s Facebook page slouched in a chair variously puffing on a Churchill-sized cigar and upending a bottle of Glenfiddich  - although he told us that the latter was simply striking a pose.
Just the kind of  image we need for a  lecture on equal rights for rich and poor alike.
It seems to us that our ruling Tories seem to have lost sight of the Cameronesque mantra that we are all in this together.
Equality works both ways – so why does no one ever suggest reducing the council tax paid by people who aren’t receiving benefits to the level of those who are?
It’s now the second time that the disabled have taken a hit – the last was the abolition of free parking for blue badge holders with the laughable “concession” of an extra half an hour’s free parking to allow the disable extra time to limp back to their cars.
On that occasion we heard the pitiful argument of Councillor Derek Richmond - who insisted that disabled people resent free parking because it discriminates against them, and his colleague Gloria Smith, who subsequently uttered the even more pathetic “It’s nice that we are not going to be discriminated against, we are going to be treated as equal and being charged.”
Everywhere we turn, it seems that the Tories are trying to re-write the dictionary as they ramp up charges for parking, dying, relaxing – you name it, they’ll tax it.
Most recently, we heard Council Leader Pete Bedford summarise the pressure caused by inward immigration as being little more than one of noise.
This idea of false equality and a diminution of reality is just what we don’t want to hear.
We think that most people understand the need for economies, and that we all need to play our part to share the burden.
What we don’t need are facile, glib, councillors who are convinced that they are proper politicians treating us like idiots.

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 wonder how many times the people who carry out surveys reissue them until the answers begin to conform to what they wanted them to be in the first place?
Yet another “Have Your Say” survey is launched by Boston Borough Council today and riding in tandem with it is yet another questionnaire from Lincolnshire County Council about – yes, you’ve guessed it …the Market Place refurbishment.
It’s only about six months since the last such survey was dumped in our laps – burying us beneath an avalanche of twenty questions ranging from how often we visited, how much we spent, what attractions we enjoyed (a tough one this, as so far there have been very few) and how we rated the range of shops and services – which was ironic given the number of business that have closed down since the Market Place work began and stallholders who have decided to call it a day..
The latest survey is a slimmed-down version – with some of the same questions included but many falling by the wayside.
It does, however, sing the same old song with its opening statement: “Lincolnshire County Council is undertaking an evaluation of the recent refurbishments undertaken in Boston Market Place.
“The objective of the project is to deliver a high quality public realm scheme in the market place, returning it to its rightful position as the centre piece of the town.
“Detailed evaluation work is required to confirm that the money invested in this project has been well spent and delivers significant benefit to the local area.”
This immediately leads to a question of its own – what happened to the answers to last year’s questionnaire, and what was done about them?
Presumably, they weren’t what was expected, and the hope is that asking them again will produce a response more to Lincolnshire County Council’s liking.
The Market Place project was one with several partners – including Boston Borough Council – which seems little interested in itself seeking opinions from the voters or pushing for improvements.
Broadly, the only message that we have heard from the public is that the job has not been a success.
We hear constant complaints of problems for pedestrians and motorists alike, and yet despite the time that has elapsed, no one seems to have even started to address matters.
Meanwhile, the borough council’s own survey asked for feelings about our “local area”   defined as “the area within 15-20 minutes walking distance from your home.”
This is a problem in itself, as we doubt that many people walk as far as 20 minutes from home these days unless they live fairly close to the town centre.
Most of us jump into our cars and drive for that length of time to get to our nearest supermarket which diminishes the weight of any answers from the outset.
The council says: “We are particularly interested in your comments about what could be done differently to improve your experience.
“We will look at the results and let you know what we intend to do in response.  We will then repeat this survey next year to see if things have improved
“Please tell us how you feel about the area, about council services, and about being a customer of Boston Borough Council.  We are particularly interested in your comments about what could be done differently to improve your experience.
“We will look at the results and let you know what we intend to do in response.  We will then repeat this survey next year to see if things have improved.”
We are asked declare our satisfaction levels (very satisfied to very dissatisfied, but with no retailed input) on no fewer than 15 “aspects” of our local area – ranging from allotments to the May Fair, travelling via  cultural facilities and public toilets.
And as far as council services are concerned, there are 18 areas requiring our opinions – from anti-social behaviour to tree advice.
The trouble with all of this is that way too many questions beg the answer “don’t know” – whilst many others will produce such a small response for the answers to be barely worthwhile.
For surveys like these to carry some merit, they need to be simpler and more specific – remember the classic case of £600,000 replacement for St Botolph’s footbridge where a “consultation” on the best design generated was chosen from the most favoured among  just 137 questionnaire replies.
And the most important result from any survey asking about improving public services should be action.
Still, if pointless surveys are your preferred cup of tea/coffee/mineral water/fruit juice/smoothie/another, then the survey, which has to be completed by Friday, March 15, and can be found at  http://bit.ly/14t0tvP

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

 

Quite a number of you have been in touch since reading Saturday’s report in the Daily Mail which we wrote about in yesterday’s blog.
In particular, they drew attention to the way that views seem to be changing on immigration issues.
Council Leader Pete Bedford – in his only “proper” quote to appear – seems almost to have relegated the debate to trivial proportions.
He is reported to have told the Mail’s Robert Hardman: “One of the biggest issues is one of noise.
“Boston was always a quiet town and a lot of Eastern Europeans are not, shall we say, used to talking quietly. You walk round town and you hear these loud foreign voices everywhere.
“You go into the local doctor’s surgery and you have a lot of locals sitting quietly as a loud foreign voice tries to deal with the receptionist. So people think: ‘They’re taking over.’”
Yet this view coincides with the announcement in Boston Borough Council’s monthly good newsletter  that local efforts to tackle the challenges posed by population change have made “some dramatic moves forward” with a visit to Boston by members of an all-party  parliamentary committee from the House of  Commons to study the impact of population change.
Based on Councillor Bedford’s latest interpretation, what are we going to tell them?
If all we’re going to do is moan about the noise, we may as well spare them the bother  of making a visit.
Yet, in his New Year message published a year ago, Councillor Bedford told us: “We have continued to emphasise to the Government that Boston is a special case in terms of its rising population, and should have more support for the impact immigration has had on services.”
A government grant for the distribution of ear defenders, perhaps?
And message came not long after Councillor Bedford  and other council group leaders issued a joint call for action to help with Boston’s growing population … urging our MP Mark Simmonds – remember him? – to raise issues of the “significant impacts and strains” caused by the “rapid and significant” population change in the area over the past decade.
We know that the rising population and the pressures that it brings cause concerns, and that there is now a worry that things will start all over again when our borders are opened still wider next year.
But there have already been suggestions that political correctness might have affected the “evidence” given to the council inquiry that reported last year.
However, to back away when the national press comes calling helps none of us.
On one hand, Councillor Bedford blames the problem on noise.
Elsewhere in the same report a fellow cabinet member with community responsibility – Councillor Mike Gilbert – hints obliquely that immigration could provoke a Boston  Bypass Party style landslide at the 2015 local elections if it were to become an issue.
According to the Daily Mail report: “They’ve stopped mincing their words in these parts. Even the social workers and the worthiest public sector grandees have given up dancing around one of the great taboos of our age and realise that it needs to be addressed head-on.”
Reading between the lines, we’re afraid to say that in some quarters, this doesn’t appear to be the case.
And we were also concerned to read that two Boston Borough Council employees encountered by the Mail writer  – who reportedly shared the views put forward by a friend of theirs who is a member of the local protest march group –  said that if he were to use their names in the article, they would be fired.
Why on earth should they fear such a backlash?

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

 

Given the number of Boston’s Great and Good who get a name check in Saturday’s Daily Mail, we expect that the circulation of the newspaper in the town has taken a distinctly upward blip.
The two page look at immigration in Boston – “The town that's had enough: We visit the place with the country's biggest influx of East Europeans” – by Robert (How I see It) Hardman, tells us … “They’ve stopped mincing their words in these parts. Even the social workers and the worthiest public sector grandees have given up dancing around one of the great taboos of our age and realise that it needs to be addressed head-on.
“Hence there is little talk of ‘multi-culturalism’ here in Boston, the Lincolnshire cabbage capital.
“Instead, everyone in this handsome old market town simply talks about ‘immigration’ — none more so, it seems, than the immigrants themselves ...”
He quotes a local Latvian community leader, who claims that the Romanians and Bulgarians, who will be allowed into Britain at the start of next year,  will see recent history repeat itself with job agencies and gang-masters hiring the new arrivals at a lower cost  instead of the Polish and Latvians and Lithuanians,.
So what’s the solution?
Surprisingly, Hardman quotes of our regulars on this page – Mandy Exley, of the South Lincs Community Voluntary Service as saying that the only answer is a padlock  – “I’m not kidding. We haven’t got any more jobs.’
Robert Hardman comments: “When community cohesion officers start calling for border controls, it is probably time for government ministers to acknowledge there is a big problem.”
He interprets the latest census figures – which show an increase in Boston’s population of more than 15 per cent to 65,000 in a decade – as representing the equivalent of London absorbing an extra 1.3 million people in under ten years.
And he also recalled the recent Question Time clash between local Rachel Bull and the Cambridge expert in Roman history Mary Beard in which Mrs Bull referred to  Boston as a “foreign country” at “breaking point.”
The last time the Mail took a look at Boston was in September 2011, when columnist Peter Hitchens penned a four page feature in the Mail on Sunday about “Boston Lincolngrad” which was dismissed by council leader Pete Bedford as “clichéd, jaundiced, inaccurate and one-sided.”
Perhaps one reason for this is that Mr Hitchens chose not to interview any of the local worthies, and declined an invitation from Councillor Bedford to return to hear the council side of events. He even went so far as to refer to our leader’s criticism as “concrete headed.”
This time, Councillor Bedford was on Robert Hardman’s guest list – but careful to avoid any direct quotes that might come back to haunt him later.
He began with a favourite line that he often trots out – that Boston has the lowest number of empty shops in the East Midlands.
Then he cited the recent closure of the local Blockbusters, which is now a Polish supermarket.
And even more good news – Boston has managed to hang on to its branch of Marks & Spencer, when others, including Grantham, have closed.
Mr Bedford said that the council has worked hard on its social impact report, and appointed the opposition Labour group to chair the immigration inquiry to give it cross-party credibility.
Some interesting points there.
As far as empty shops are concerned, recent figures are hard to find.
The ones we think Councillor Bedford uses were first quoted in May last year, and were then at least a year old – and who knows how they may have changed since?
The replacement of a film hire shop with a Polish supermarket is fine if you are Polish – whilst our local Marks and Sparks is still here but in desperate need of an overhaul.
We were interested to note the beneficent motive regarding the chairmanship on the social impact report.
Cross-party credibility is not a phrase we associate with our current leadership – and we would uncharitably suspect that the appointment of a chairman from Labour was more deeply rooted in avoiding political blame if the exercise failed.
One point that did emerge though is that Councillor Bedford “is adamant that there must be restrictions on any future arrivals, and acknowledges that the locals have had enough.”
But then, in the only directly quote in the interview, he offers the following pearls of wisdom.
“One of the biggest issues is one of noise.
“Boston was always a quiet town and a lot of Eastern Europeans are not, shall we say, used to talking quietly. You walk round town and you hear these loud foreign voices everywhere.
“You go into the local doctor’s surgery and you have a lot of locals sitting quietly as a loud foreign voice tries to deal with the receptionist. So people think: ‘They’re taking over.’”
If the problem was as simple as that, it could be easily solved.
We were reminded of the leader’s rejection of claims that the town was a risky place after dark, when he trotted out his own experience leaving an early evening concert and finding the place peaceful – simultaneously declaring that problems are in the eyes of the beholder –  i.e. his view meant that others were wrong.
The report ends with a night-time tour of the town with Tory Councillor Mike Gilbert, the portfolio holder in charge of communities.
“All the voices we hear, in the space of an hour, are speaking another language, writes” Robert Hardman.
Councillor Gilbert has another favourite  political hobbyhorse.
This is the one which criticises locals who leave school and are unwilling to take on factory work  - without asking whether the great and the good should be doing more to bring a better quality of employment to the area.
His words close the report – and they are those of a latter day Cassandra*
“As councillor Mike Gilbert observes, things can move fast round here.
“A few years ago, the council elections delivered a shock landslide majority to a group that wanted a bypass for Boston.
“‘If it can happen for a bypass, then who says it won’t happen for an issue that inspires much more extreme opinions?’”

*Cassandra : A prophet of disaster, especially one who is disregarded.

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

 

The resignation of  Boston’s Independent Councillor Richard Leggott as Chairman of the council’s Audit and Governance Committee because he could no longer accept the leadership’s cavalier approach towards non-executive councillors chairing such committees, is still echoing down the threadbare corridors of Worst Street.  Among the latest to comment is Labour deputy leader Councillor Paul Gleeson, who says: “Richard was an effective, even-handed chairman. But, what is more important, he treated the position with the seriousness it deserved and always was fully on top of his brief, which meant his meetings were very workmanlike. Audit and Governance is a very technical committee – you can’t just turn up without having fully read and researched the papers you will be considering, and Richard was always on top of this. It will be interesting to see how the declaration of interest issue will be handled next Monday. I find it a bit rich that I am having to persuade the Tories to play fair and introduce their own Government’s legislation properly. I am having a similar struggle with notices of private meetings.”

Meanwhile, with no hint of irony, the council leader, Pete Bedford, says he is “sorry” that Councillor Leggott has stepped down. An indication of the depth of his grief is in the statement issued to one of our local “newspapers.” It reads: “I’m sorry that Councillor Leggott is going down the lane he’s going down. I thought he had far, far more about him than at the first obstacle, to revert back into the olden days was rejected, and his resignation was forthcoming accordingly. Richard and myself (sic) have been friends for many, many years and I’m sure that will continue both inside and outside the council, but playing political games is not good in any way for the people of Boston.”  Whilst some might call that damning with faint praise, to us it reads like a calculated insult. And to accuse someone of Councillor Leggott’s obvious integrity of “playing political games” is so impudent when you consider the source – or should that be sauce?
Back now to Councillor Gleeson, and another issue in his e-mail – the Boston Town Area Committee’s knife-edge decision to take over the running of Garfits Lane playing fields – thus easing the leadership’s overall financial problems. “I also read (English Democrat) Councillor Elliott Fountain’s report on my attempt to kick Garfits Lane into the long grass (or should I say very expensively cut short grass,) and one point that has been missed is that this will increase the “town” element of the council tax by 41%, – so contrary to the announced freeze, people living in the town will pay more. Ok, this is only about £4 a year more, but that is to pay for something we are already paying (well over the odds) for. On a slightly churlish note, had (fellow English Democrat) Councillor David Owens attended BTAC which he rarely does, the ‘opposition’ could have won the vote.”
Whilst most of us sit and shiver in the current icy spell, a certain irony has not escaped Don Ransome, the Wyberton based  East Midlands Regional Organiser for UKIP.  He notes two written answers from Boston MP Mark Simmonds in parliament on Wednesday.  In the first, he informs a questioner:” I was fortunate enough to attend the inauguration of President Mahama in Accra about two weeks ago …” whilst in the second answer he declares … “I will travel tomorrow to the African Union summit in Addis Ababa …” As Mr Ransome wryly comments: “Ah well, at least he is keeping warm!”
All this essential globetrotting ensures that Mr Simmonds could not have had time to attend the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration in the House of Commons on Wednesday – that's if he ever had the inclination, of course. One person who was there was Boston’s  Labour group leader Councillor Paul Kenny, who chaired  last year’s Borough Council's task and finish group looking at the impact of population change. Sadly, we learned little about what went on from Councillor Kenny on the BBC’s Look North programme. Asked how one suggestion – limiting off licence premises in the town – would help Boston’s problems, Councillor Kenny did as he has so often done … which is to talk himself out of time. “One of the points that was raised during our enquiry was the number of off licences that we had in certain streets. One of the points that was raised to us was that some streets, or one particular street, where we had a large number. This issue has also been brought up in other towns within the country, and more recently there was an MP in Peterborough who had a similar issue …” At this point, host Peter Levy woke up and  intervened to try to get an answer, and as a result it was lost entirely … and the remainder of the interview descended into a ramble as well.  These windows of opportunity are so small that they have to be seized with precision and brevity if they are to get a point across. So much time has now been spent on this important issue with so little result, we cannot help wonder where the whole thing was worth it in the first place.
A refreshing piece of candour came from Independent Councillor Carol Taylor in her blog this week. She confessed to difficultly understanding the council’s financial structure, which made her think that she could not contribute effectively when it came to this complex subject. And we wonder how many of her colleagues were honest enough to agree when she added: “I am not alone and when I look round the table I am not too sure whether many other councillors do either … It does, however, raise some serious questions – including ‘are we serving our communities effectively?’ Somehow I just don't think so.”
Given the complexities of the borough’s balances it, comes as no consolation to see a photo of the leader and his deputies stifling smirks in the local press as they murmur darkly about the council’s own “fiscal cliff” – who until now we thought was a Welsh accountant. It is not enough to describe a problem through the means of solving it – which inevitably involves upping parking charges as the most common solution. We need to be told more clearly the nature. What the council spends and where it spends it remains as much a mystery today as it did before our leadership became so “open and transparent.”
One way that we can learn more is if our elected councillors decide to talk to us – and at the moment, apart from a couple of blogs, most of them treat their electorate as if they  were invisible. Before the election in May 2011, one of the most prolific bloggers was joint deputy leader Raymond Singleton-McGuire – but since then his communications have remained frozen in time.  This is particularly ironic as he is the councillor “in charge” of the finance portfolio. Last week a voter got in touch with Boston Borough Council to suggest that the time had some to consider updating the councillor’s blog, and was told “it was up to the individual councillors to update any details.” Subsequently, he was told that Councillor Singleton-McGuire would not remove the links as he felt they were “still useful.” So, if you are thirsting to know   the holders of annual  appointments to external bodies as at 27th May 2011, then http://www.smgblog.co.uk/  is the site to visit.
Still with matters financial, we wonder how long it will be before our leaders in the blue star chamber at Worst Street use the excuse that “they’re doing it in Lincoln”  to  start charging to remove green waste. Garden rubbish is easy to identify since district councils introduced brown bins to cart it away. Now, Lincoln City Council has upped the ante with a move to “save” – which means “charge” – £1 million by demanding £25 a year for the service. Generously, this is described as an “opt-in” service, which means that  if you don’t your bin won’t be emptied. Interestingly, other savings considered by the city council– but included raising parking charges and closing public toilets both were rejected.
The arrival of a new Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire co-incides with a “Policing Plan” to cover 2012 until 2015 which proclaims: “More action, less crime – it all adds up”   Boston gets just one name check in the entire 6,000 word report.  “We will start a process of replacing worn out custody facilities across the force, initially at Boston police station.” Boston is again top of the list … for all the wrong reasons!
With so many issues concerning the fight for decent democratic behaviour within Boston Borough Council, it is especially disappointing to learn that a meeting of “Opposition” councillors to discuss common issues was attended by  three Independent councillors,  and two Labour members.  Missing in inaction … one Labour, the entire Boston District “Independents” and the English Democrats
Finally … Boston Eye’s annual ski break in Saint Moritz means that we will not now be back until Monday 4^th February.  But please keep in touch between now and then by e-mail …

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

 

Our blog yesterday led us to recall – that although Boston is often referred to as forgotten or neglected – we have, over time, enjoyed a considerable amount of financial largesse.
The problem is that we don’t seem to know how to spend the money wisely.
Back in   November 2009 the Department for Communities and Local Government awarded Boston Borough Council £53,000 under the Empty Shops Funding Grant Scheme to improve the look of the town centre.
That money was mostly wasted, and the only sign of it today is a shop devoted to helping people give up smoking – not exactly what was intended.
Then there was the £2 million Market Place refurbishment project – which has left us with an unattractive ocean of grey stone as far as the eye can see, on which pedestrians take their lives in their hands each time they try to cross it, and for which there seem to be no safety rules whatever.
Later this year work will start on a £600,000 replacement for St Botolph’s footbridge. A “consultation” on the best design generated a pathetic response – with only 137 questionnaires.
Conveniently, more than 80% of replies said the timescale for building the bridge was very important, which allowed Lincolnshire County Council to adopt an unsuitable design whose only merit is that it can conveniently be largely built off-site.
The result will be an unsympathetic construction that will be out of synch with the historic look of the area.
More money down the drain, then.
Yesterday, we heard of the first tottering steps being taken by the powers that be to get their sticky fingers into a £1 million pie that is supposed to be for the people of Boston  – and free from any interference by the  so-called great and good of the area.
And last week we were reminded of perhaps the most blatant waste of public funds for years – the Transported arts programme.
According to Boston Borough Council, which is a supporter of the scheme, “Art from Boston and South Holland will be seen from Sutterton to Spain, Holbeach to Holland, Benington to Belgium and Fleet to France as part of a travelling display set to clock up 125,000 miles a year.”
This “art” will involve “large-scale photographic commissions (big pictures to the likes of us) on vehicles that criss-cross Europe, will connect the local work force with the places and cultures the lorries travel to.”
But there’s more.
Boston and South Holland are among seven “areas of greatest need” that have been awarded funding to establish action research projects called Creative People and Places.
The investment will encourage long-term collaboration between local communities and arts organisations, museums, libraries and local authorities.
According to the jargon, it aims to “empower them to experiment with radically different approaches and develop inspiring, sustainable arts programmes that will engage audiences in those communities.”
It involves a consortium of representatives from artsNK, Lincs Artist Forum – which has the entirely appropriate acronym laf  –  and the usual suspects  ...  the South Lincolnshire Community Volunteer Service ... which between them want to  “take art of all forms out to the community and into often isolated rural areas where access can be limited.”
We’re sure that local villagers are waiting agog for this, and will have been for many years.
Amazingly, this project will run for three years and cost – a staggering £2.5 million in Arts Council funding.
In a nutshell – you give us the money – we’ll waste it.
It could be our new slogan.

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