It seems to us that – not for the first time – Boston Borough Council is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

A detailed account of the discussions at the last meeting of BTAC – the Boston Town Area Committee – reports on the idea of turning the group into a separate Boston Town Council. At present, it effectively operates as the borough’s 19^th parish council, drawing its income from a charge on the council tax – just as the others do.
However, in recent months there have been rumblings that BTAC is sometimes playing second fiddle to  the council’s ruling cabinet – doing its bidding rather than what the members would prefer if they had the democratic opportunity.
The most recent example was the last minute dumping of more than £30,000 from the council’s main budget on to BTAC to take over the full running costs of the Garfits Lane playing fields.
This is despite the fact that the council has an extremely well-funded leisure services budget with its own portfolio holder. But the crucial effect of passing the budgetary buck to BTAC was to let the council claim that its share of the council tax had not been increased – whilst instead increasing the council tax for a Band D property in the BTAC area from £8.85 to £12.72 – more than 40%.
The decision to do this teetered on the brink – and it was only the casting vote of Conservative chairman and cabinet member Councillor Mike Gilbert that carried the day … which was seen as validating the charges that the cabinet had a grubby finger in the pie.
One suggestion that has come up recently is that BTAC should go solo – cut its ties with Boston Borough Council, and become a parish council in its own right.
But the obstacles to this create a significant barrier.
Even before any decision, it would split the council, as – if BTAC decided to go ahead – it would have to engage its own advisors, as the Chief Executive would be acting for the borough council in any review.
And whilst the benefits would include increased self-determination, BTAC would run its own services in its own way and employ its own contractors.
The report to the committee – watched from the wings by stage manager and council leader Pete Bedford – says: “It would have its own clerk, and the head of the town council would have a civic role. It would make its own policy decisions; the borough council’s power and influence would be diluted. The rates charged for the area would be for the new town council to set …”
As always, cost is a predominant factor – and many committee members thought that a change would be too expensive.
But another view was that forming a town council would give people in the town fair and equal democracy to those in rural areas of the borough, as they were disadvantaged at present.
Not only that, but after reorganisation in 2015, the parishes would have more seats, and, effectively will set BTAC’s budget – “which was a concern, as decisions would be made by people who did not live in the town.”
If a referendum was held and town residents were asked whether they wanted to pay one charge or two they would vote for one. Self-determination was needed. BTAC was already paying for officers and accommodation.
But an interesting sidebar to the debate was that at the right time, a campaign would be launched for a parish council for Skirbeck as well as a town council for the town, to give people a voice.
Whatever the outcome, it is certainly true that the residents of the town are being discriminated against by the current structure.
BTAC’s current budget is proportionately small at present – around £100,000.
Declaring UDI, it seems, would require a shedload of staff, and possibly a town mayor as well – although what a mayor for the rural part of the borough would do is anyone’s guess.
But what would be most interesting would be the political implications of any change. As the council is ruled by the Tories, they plan never to lose a vote – although a couple of absentee members at a critical time could always change that.
When BTAC is running at full strength, there are 16 members – nine of them Conservative. The remaining seven comprise a mixture of Labour, Independent and English Democrats.
An independent BTAC might place decisions under greater scrutiny, and might make it harder for the cabinet to pull the strings if that is the case.
Meanwhile, Chief Executive Richard Harbord will review the Committee’s constitution to see if it could be amended to give it more parish council-like powers and report back to a future meeting.
But at the end of the day, cost – not democracy – will be the deciding factor, so expect to have to take the mixture as before.

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

 



Kicking people when they’re down is getting to be something of a routine with Boston Borough Council – even though the reason that a lot of us are down has much to do with the present political and economic climate.

In recent months we have continued to suffer pay freezes – or even cuts – and seen reductions in the services that cost small fortune at both local and county level.
So it feels like someone is rubbing salt into the wound when Boston Borough Council buys space in one of our local “newspapers” to warn us – “Times may be hard, but don’t become a criminal.”
It goes on to say: “With changes in some benefits now taking effect and consequent reductions in payments, recipients are advised that the last thing they should consider is trying to cheat the system.
“Benefit cheats end up in court, and there are now new methods employed with cross-checking of data by all agencies involved in processing claims.”
It goes on to detail a recent case which saw a Boston woman given a 12-week suspended prison sentence after being convicted of benefit fraud – and continues in stern tones …
“Criminal convictions have massive implications for a person's ability to lead a full life …
“The majority of employers will ask about previous convictions and four million Criminal Record Bureau checks are carried out every year in England and Wales. If a person lies about their convictions it is a criminal offence.
“If a person has a job and is sent to prison it is very likely they will lose that job, but even if they are not jailed it is possible to be dismissed for gross misconduct.
“There can be difficulties in getting visas or entering certain countries for those with previous convictions. In particular, travelling to the USA can be an issue.”
Stuff like this follows the line that Boston Borough Council takes when dealing with its punters.
In the past, we have seen such headlines as: ““There will be no hiding place for any who spoil the streets of Boston …”  “Litter louts – we’re watching you” … “Your waste: Your responsibility. Waste cowboys could land you with a fine and a criminal record …”  “Don't get caught without a TV licence …” the list goes on and on.
Although the numbers involved in benefit fraud run into millions of pounds, the fact is that in 2011/12 it is estimated that nationally just 2.1 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error, the same as the 2010/11 estimate.
There will always be people who try to cheat the system – and whilst some will do so because of greed, or because they want to put one over on the system, there will be other who do so as a last resort.
These people need help, advice and encouragement – not bullying and threats.
Nor such sledgehammer phrases from the council such as “those who try to cheat the system are often not aware of the fraud detection tools that enable the council to detect fraud. They are able to identify undeclared people at properties and receive data matches to show when earnings, savings and pensions have not been declared. The council also uses impressive technologies to spot those who try to cheat the system …
“All housing benefit claimants and council tax support applicants are required to notify relevant changes … such as increases in earnings or changes to household members and failure to do so could result in prosecution and heavy financial penalties.”
And after all the threats and heavy handed bluster, the sole lifeline thrown to readers of this piece is: “If you are in difficulties because of changes to your benefits please contact the benefits and council tax section. They can help.”
The feeling that we get is that the only sort of help available is help to find the quickest route to prison, or to receive swingeing fines that add still further to a person’s financial difficulties.
There are ways to approach these problems, and the Boston Borough Council way is the wrong one.
A more sensitive approach and a more humane face beats threats every time.
As the anonymous sage once said: “It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.”

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 issue of car parking in Boston is one that simply will not go away – and the more our local leaders try to persuade us that it’s a good thing to charge drivers for the privilege, the more the debate rages.

The latest argument comes from the town’s car parking Czar, Councillor Derek Richmond, whose sympathy towards motorists ranks alongside that of Judge Jeffreys towards the accused at the Bloody Assizes.
One thing that is never going to work where parking issues are concerned is to play the poverty card – although Councillor Richmond has not let this stand in his way.
“Boston Borough Council has limited means to raise money to pay for the services it provides, and, in the current difficult financial climate, balancing revenue with expenditure becomes harder and harder,” he tells us in the pages of the local “newspapers.”
Against a backdrop of dwindling resources, we are told that money raised from council car parks “is important” – i.e. without it the council wouldn’t have any.
But the problem is that after years of selling off  its assets, the civic car parks are now more or less the only egg remaining in the council’s basket.
Year in, year out, as summer follows spring, Boston Borough Council ups its car parking charges.
Whilst councillor Richmond concedes that it would be “brilliant” to make all parking free, “more than £1 million a year in lost revenue says we cannot.
“There is simply not the means to make up that amount of money, and I am sure we would be heavily criticised however we tried to make up that sort of shortfall.”
We have a problem with an argument such as this, as it implies the automatic conclusion that “making up a shortfall” can only be achieved by increasing charges.
In fact, Councillor Richmond reinforces this idea by saying that people who do not use the car parks would rightly complain if asked to subsidise those who did.
But we wonder whether anyone, at any time, has called a brainstorming session to see if there are ways that the council could generate income by means other than simply robbing the council taxpayer even more.
Councillor Richmond says that car parking charges in Boston are reasonable, comparable and, in some instances, cheaper than in neighbouring towns.
However, a look at our nearest neighbour – Spalding, in South Holland District – suggests that broadly speaking, it cheaper to park there.
Comparing the SHDC website with that of Boston, parking in the Sheep Market – Spalding’s equivalent of the Market Place – is 50p for half an hour and 80p for an hour. In Boston, the charges are listed at 60p and £1.40p.
Again, the price of a seasons ticket in Spalding is either £220 a year or £260 depending where you park – whilst a year’s parking charge in Boston is £328.
And whilst we don’t know what the score is in South Holland, we do know that councillors and council staff in Boston enjoy free parking – at a cost to the local taxpayer of more than £100,000 – a perk that they will not withdraw despite the criticism and unpopularity that it brings.
Councillor Richmond says that some places quoted as providing free parking are not council-owned car parks but run by stores and supermarkets – citing Asda, Tesco Currys and Downtown in Boston as examples   – even though three of these are well out of town, and therefore irrelevant to his argument
One interesting compromise in Boston might be to allow free short term parking – i.e. 30 minutes’ worth –in the Market Place in Boston.
There are very few parking spaces here to begin with – so the loss of revenue would be minimal.
Such a decision would help people who need to use the Market Place for a visit to the bank – although the queues in some of them might require a longer stay than half-an-hour – or people who just want to make a quick visit in their lunch break.
This would be beneficial both to the town centre and to the council, and would be seen asa concession by the council that might defuse much of the anger over its intractability.   
Councillor Richmond declares that: “It has never been my intention to be unjust or unfair to any part of the population …”
But events do not support his argument – witness the charges imposed on disabled blue badge holders and his laughable 30 minute “concession” to them.
As we said earlier, an imaginative leadership might well be able to brainstorm money raising ideas that didn’t involve highway robbery.
But then, brains seem sadly lacking amongst those who claim to be our rulers.

  

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

 

As spring casts aside its winter duvet and prepares for a new year of growth and progress, our leaders at Boston borough council are adopting a rather different approach – they simply turn over for a lie in of a month or so.
^nd April 2013 has been cancelled “due to insufficient business.”
Last week an e-mail to all elected members told them that “with the agreement of the mayor” the next meeting of the full council scheduled for 22
This has happened before, of course – and we once remarked that if we held shares in a company with an annual budget of around £10 million and a staff of 275, we’d expect the people who ran the business to be pretty busy … rather than merely turning up when the mood took them.
This time, though, we think that the cancellation has less to do with “lack of business” and more to do with what our local leaders laughingly call “politics.”
Full council meetings in Boston are largely a rubber stamping exercise, with decisions taken in advance, cut and dried, and steamrollered through regardless of any opposition attempts to mount a challenge or table a discussion.
The one ray of light in these otherwise turgid affairs usually comes in the form the agenda item headed “To answer questions (if any) from elected members pursuant to Rule 11 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure.”
Whilst the preferred option of our so-called leaders is to take no questions whatever, things don’t always go their way – and when questions are asked the great and the good of our Conservative elite are often left with egg on their faces.
The last full council meeting, http://newbostoneye.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=adey for example, more closely resembled a Brian Rix Whitehall farce – with council leader Pete Bedford being caught with his trousers down more than once after he was handed the wrong answer to a written question.
And who can forget the well-earned embarrassment suffered by the former mayor, Councillor Mary Wight, when a question exposed her antediluvian attitude to equality when she declared: “women have far more important things to do, like cook dinner and look after their husbands and families than attend meetings in the evenings.”
So, no full council meeting means that there will be no questions.
Despite out suspicious nature, we might have accepted this at face value – but we have a nasty feeling that there is an element of organisation that reaches beyond Boston.
Alarm bells sounded when we spotted a notable omission in last Friday’s final agenda of Lincolnshire County Council before next month’s elections.
Just like Boston Borough Council, County Hall normally allows members to raise questions with executive members of the council – their equivalent of portfolio holders … but not this time around.
Doubtless, the official line would probably have something to do with “Purdah” – the period before an election when normal protocols and behaviours around a council activities in general and around publicity and communications in particular become more restricted.  
But we suspect that the ban on questions has more to do with the possibility that what little opposition there is within the county council would seize the opportunity to pose awkward questions to the Tory leadership less than three week before polling day.
If they did, we couldn’t blame them – but we will never know, as the opportunity for questions and answers has been banned.
So too with Boston – no last chance to call our portfolio holders to account.
In the past 12 months there have been six full council meetings in Boston – and one of those was a “special” one.
Not only has there been little by way of business, but now it seems that even half a dozen meetings are considered too many.
We find it a struggle to believe that everything is going so well that decision making can be left in the hands of just seven cabinet members – without no need to consult or hear from the other 25 members –  well, 24 at the moment.
But isn’t it convenient that the chance for questions has been removed?
And not just for one meeting either – the following council on  May 23^rd  will the annual meeting and Mayor making, so it’s doubtful questions will be allowed there either.
It’s called democracy – Boston style.

 

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

 

At the start of the week, we commented on the potential dilemma facing voters in next month’s county council election if asked to choose between “Independents” and “Lincolnshire Independents” a group on the county council that boasts a “leader” – something that we regarded as contradictory. One candidate from Boston is borough councillor Alison Austin, who is standing in the Boston South division. She e-mailed Boston Eye to say:” I deliberated for a long time as to whether my official designation for this election was to be‘Independent’ or ‘Lincolnshire Independent.’ Either way I am an Independent. If elected to the County Council as part of the wider group of Lincolnshire Independents I will be able to have greater effect than if I was just a lone independent. It gives me more support and influence at County level. My election literature makes it quite clear that I am an Independent and also that I shall be working with the Lincolnshire Independents. By standing as a Lincolnshire Independent I have openly declared that I am not a member of any national political party. Lincolnshire Independents do not operate any form of “party whip” and no one will dictate to me how to vote. My aim is to speak on behalf of the people of Boston and I will vote as I think most appropriate.”

 Yesterday we mentioned the interesting news that Andrea Jenkyns – the county councillor for Boston West, who is seeking re-election next month – has just been accepted as the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Morley and Outwood constituency in West Yorkshire – just over 100 miles from Boston. Miss Jenkyns is, of course, Yorkshire born and bred, and she will be up against shadow chancellor Ed Balls. The constituency was fought for the first time at the 2010 election after boundary changes, and Mr Balls squeaked home by just 1,101 votes against the Conservative candidate.  Locally, the news remains low-key – with no announcement as far as we can find.  Until yesterday one of Miss Jenkyns’ websites was still closed “for maintenance” but we assume there will be an announcement soon. Somewhat unkindly, the website Political Scrapbook  reports the news under the headline “Tory candidate to face Ed Balls in terrible amateur music video.” Miss Jenkyns is, of course well-known in Lincolnshire for her love of music, and Political Scrapbook light-heartedly suggests “Perhaps she could form a band with Ed Balls on the drums?”  

It goes on to link to a “weird Kate Bush-esque music video” in which Miss Jenkyns performs a song called Crazy World   (see picture, above) where she delivers a series of facial tics normally associated with low-budget vampire movies. Political Scrapbook also includes another link showing Mr Balls beating the living daylights out of a drum kit. It’s a cruel world in politics.
 Amidst the heady excitement of the county council elections, let’s not lose sight of the one for the Staniland South seat on Boston Borough Council, which takes place on the same day – Thursday 2^nd May. Candidates are: Pam Kenny for Labour, Rob Lauberts, listed as an Independent – he is a “Lincolnshire Independent” on his nomination form for the Boston West Seat on the county council – Bob McAuley for the UK Independence Party and Carl Richmond for the Conservatives – any relation, we wonder?

The ward  (see map, above) comprises 1,595 dwellings, with 3,434 inhabitants aged 43.9 years old on average. The seat became vacant following the death of Conservative Councillor Paul Mould in February.

Yet another attempt by Boston Borough Council to seize victory from the jaws of defeat has rebounded.  The borough website informs us that “One of the year's major projects has taken place as part of the Boston in Bloom 2013 campaign.” It turns out to be a £2,500 clean-up of Customs House Quay where a pressure washer was used to spell the name of the location in the dirt. With what almost seems to be a sense of pride, the council chortled that “more than 15 years' worth of accumulated grime, moss and weeds were blasted away.” Fifteen years? Accumulated?   Why didn’t some bright spark think of growing Boston’s in-bloom entry in the muck that’s been allowed to build up to show how dereliction can become a source of civic achievement? The episode reminded us of the persistent neglect of the Assembly Rooms by so many successive councils that eventually what should have been a jewel in Boston’s crown was flogged off cheaply to be turned into a night club before it fell down.  We are now told that in order to preserve and maintain the appearance of the quayside a high-temperature annual clean is planned, along with regular weed spraying which the Environment Agency has agreed to carry out.” Yet again, the desire to win some civic bauble trumps what should have been regular maintenance to make the town a pleasant place for the people who live here year round – and who don’t merely drop in for a one day judging session
In a similar vein, we are, of course in the throes of Boston’s “Big Clean-up” week, when it’s impossible to walk around the town without encountering tribes of high-vis jacket wearers wielding litter pickers to make the town a better looking place. We’ve said before that we have no problem with this stunt, which saves Boston Borough Council a fortune by doing the job we pay our council tax for – but street cleaning is a year-round task – not a special event like a birthday or anniversary. If an area is highlighted by the public as a “grot spot”, it should not be allowed to languish for 12 months before receiving attention. Neglect encourages  neglect in cases such as this, and the sooner litter is cleared away the better. It was equally discouraging to learn that the Environment Agency was planning to use boats to clear rubbish from the waterways, which could present a serious flooding risk if it blocked drainage channels. Surely, they haven’t relegated these vital tasks to a once-a-year publicity stunt as well? And all of this reminds us – did anything every become of the  highly publicised “name and shame” campaign involving Boston Borough Council and the Boston Standard, which was going to clamp down on litter louts? No, it didn’t, did it?

Still on the subject of litter, – it seems to be this week’s mantra for Boston Borough Council. It is possible to publicise something to the point where trying to show an upside has quite the reverse effect. The front page of the borough council website yesterday carried nine stories – six of which were about litter and rubbish. Their headlines were: “Boston Big Clean-up 2013,” “Derelict property is brought back to life,”  “Bulky waste collections suspended,”  “Custom House Quay clean-up,”  “Order your brown waste bin,” and “Fly Swat total.” A casual visitor could be forgiven for thinking that Boston was a litter strewn and dirty place. And if you’re wondering about Operation Fly Swat – that’s the canny council use of forced labour, where inmates at North Sea Camp Open Prison tidy up under the guise that collecting rubbish constitutes rehabilitation.
We note the arrival of a book about Boston Guildhall which “describes the life and times of the Guildhall and Boston in 12 chapters” and wonder if this is a collation of the monthly “Tales of the Guildhall” which appeared in Boston Borough Council’s good news bulletin between April 2011 and March last year. We couldn’t really see much point in it the first time around, but at least it has been put to some sort of use eventually. If you want one, it’s £3.50 a copy, but as it’s been produced by council staff and published by the council as well, we would appear to have already paid for it. Somehow, we don’t think that J K Rowling has much to fear.
Talking of the Guildhall – is now a good time to reconsider the feeble opening hours of such a key visitor attraction in the town. Whilst free admission helped boost attendances – though not by much – you only have to blink to miss the Guildhall entirely. It’s open between 10:30am and 3:30pm from Wednesday to Saturday, with the last admission to the museum at 3pm. It’s bad enough that one of our few decent attractions is open for such a short time. What makes matters worst is that the the Tourist Information Centre is also based in the Guildhall and both the museum and the TIC are open for the same meagre hours.
Wednesday’s comments about the pitfalls of using Boston Borough Council as a role model for   a Youth Council and Young Mayor scheme for the borough have struck a chord with a councillor who was elected for the first time  in 2011. Independent Councillor Carol Taylor writes: “I read with great interest your blog this morning highlighting the plight of our potential youth council. I agree with this concept, but totally disagree that it should be a mirror image of Boston Borough Council. I was one of those newly-elected to local government in 2011. I entered the arena (because that is what it is!) with enthusiasm, excitement and a belief that I was going to be part of an organisation which made things so much better for the good people of Boston.   Instead, I was greeted with ritualistic behaviour from those who have the power to dictate – not  influence – decisions and outcomes and use that power to do just that and,  boy, do they use it well. With regard to the somewhat small group coming forward for the youth council, they are from what I have seen and heard an excellent example of how the future could be for Boston. Two of the group are closely related to a councillor and the same councillor very generously donated £1,000 of their own money to start the ball rolling. This is such a kind gesture, as unfortunately there is no money for the youth council until they become established and generate their own income. I am in favour of the youth council but we must not allow them to be a mirror image of the present council. They are our future. Future means change and we must encourage them to do just that and lead us into a true democratic society.”
Finally, in the week of the Big Boston clean-up, we welcome a poem on the subject from our Boston Eye verse-smith Terry Coope. It’s called The Big Spring Clean.

Our rivers and drains and leafy lanes,

Were once such a pleasure to walk,
That old fly tippin' has gave us a whippin',
Culprits rarely caught.

Throw it down, clog up the town,

It's everywhere you go,
So give it a whirl it's a "job for the girl"
And save the borough some dough

Will Jen Moore show the rubbish the door,

It's a constant whinge and woe,
Why left so long to sound the gong,
That's all we want to know.

Young and old timers with gloves and bin liners,

Walking to and fro,
With an high vis' jacket,
We'll save Pete a packet,
Community spirit will grow.

So come on Jen, better than paper or pen,

Hands on, there's Litter to sort,
But why should we worry, 'cause there's no hurry,
We've got Harry's Audit report.

On a final note, but it's no joke!

There's one thing puzzling me,
For it’s us the Council are stitchin’,
There's another "soup kitchen",
With a "meal deal" for free.

A meal don't come cheap with a rubbish heap,

Just tell us your 'grot spot'
Then fill a bin with a drink thrown in
They say it's FREE – but it’s not.

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 rhetoric has started …

With just three weeks to go to the elections for seven Boston seats on Lincolnshire County Council, our local politicians are dusting off their phrasebooks to find the words needed to win the day.
And according to one local report, it all comes down to four words - potholes, immigration and welfare reforms.
But whatever the issues, the big talking point is whether after all these years the Conservatives might see their stranglehold on Lincolnshire loosened.
After all, the Tories are running well behind Labour in the national opinion polls, whilst UKIP has gained more than 30 council seats in just three months.  
Despite what some see as the writing on the wall, Boston Borough Council leader and Tory county council candidate Pete Bedford apparently remains upbeat.  
He told the Boston Standard that he hoped for a clean sweep of the borough’s seven county seats – one of which is currently held by Independent Ray Newell, who is not seeking re-election.
And how’s this for confidence?
“I always think it is very, very difficult to knock out a sitting councillor if they have done their work properly.
“I know our councillors have worked very, very hard over the last four years for Boston and Lincolnshire as a whole.”
Interestingly, Councillor Bedford’s comments came after the news that one of the Conservative candidates – Andrea Jenkyns, who is standing for re-election in Boston North West – has been selected as the Conservative’s prospective parliamentary candidate against Labour Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls in the West Yorkshire constituency of Morley and Outwood, where Balls won by a narrow margin at the general election.
Without pre-judging, it would seem hard to represent Lincolnshire adequately if re-elected whilst campaigning to win an important parliamentary seat more than 100 miles away from Boston in 2015.
Such things usually involve moving house to live in the constituency thus being totally available to make one’s mark.
And if re-elected in Lincolnshire, what if victory comes in Yorkshire?
It is not possible to be the servant of two masters.
Councillor Bedford’s assumption that he and his merry minions  have been seen to be slaving away on our behalf, might also bear some examination.
Boston Eye has followed almost every full County Council meeting  since the last elections – and as you might recall from our reports, questions and comments from “our” councillors – aside from Councillor Newell – have been few and far between, and sometimes irrelevant.
In fact, we were pressed to recall the name of our representative at county hall – and have certainly never heard from him, in the four years since he was elected.
But having said that, neither have we heard from any of our borough representatives.
Apparently, they are now all so important that the only way we learn what they are doing is to read it in the papers!
That, of course, assumes that they do anything worth reporting!
Councillor Bedford has said that he said he welcomes the challenge of UKIP – which comes across as patronising rather than sportsmanlike, and seems quite unlikely as well.
But cryptically, he is quoted by the Standard as saying: “I think a vote for UKIP would be a vote for Labour.”
Surely that is no different than claiming that a vote for the Boston Tory wannabees for County Hall is a vote for the Monster Raving Loony party.
A vote for UKIP is a vote for UKIP.
Nothing more.
All Councillor Bedford is doing is trying to scaremonger – but has picked the wrong party to depict as a threat, as at the moment, as we have already said, Labour is considerably more popular that the Conservatives nationally, and UKIP is doing pretty well, too.
Labour tells us on their local party website that their candidates have made contact with “hundreds of people in Boston” and there are five clear issues which local communities feel strongly about:
These are to: Stop buses running through Strait Bargate, bring back a dog warden, clean up the town and waterways, introduce residents’ parking/cheaper car parking, and to stop spitting and drinking in town.”
The party adds: “So on May 2^nd you only have one choice if you want these issues tackled and dealt with.”
There is an absence of any promise here which gives us pause for thought.
Not just that, but these are issues of such parish pump status that they are unlikely find their way on to a county agenda.
Most cautious of all was UKIP’s Don Ransome – after whom the party might as well be named in Lincolnshire, as four of the seven local candidates bear the surname – who confined himself to saying that he was delighted to be able to contest all seven Boston seats and hoped to win at least one.
He added “The mood swing on the streets is amazing - we have never been so popular.”

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 the UK's first  youth police and crime commissioner after the disclosure of a series of offensive posts made on her Twitter social networking site, reminded us of the enthusiasm within Boston Borough for a young mayor and youth council.

But before they let their eagerness run amok, we think that councillors who favour such a scheme should look at just what such an idea might achieve.
Above all, one of the things that struck us most forcefully was the ironic comparisons that can be made between those young folk who favour the idea and those older ones who have already been elected.
The young ‘uns who attended a meeting with officers and councillors were asked two basic questions … although really just one would have sufficed – but that’s local government for you!
– Why is it important for you to be involved in a Youth Council for Boston? 
and
– Why do you think it is important to have a Youth Council for Boston?
Compare their answers with those we might expect to come from the current generations of councillors …
Among the replies came responses such “gives someone something positive to do,” “getting your opinions recognised,”  “learning about the democratic system,” as well as making a difference, and having a voice, and to “help make Boston a better place.”
The youngsters taking part also felt that they would be listened to, have an influence on the community, would be involved in “something that means something,” and their comments were coupled with the lament “there isn’t a lot to do at our age.”
Being involved, they felt, would “give them more knowledge on how the democratic system works.”
Is the irony beginning to become clear?
To underline it, the following appeared in the cabinet papers covering the plan – “It was felt that a youth council should mirror the borough council.”
We are sure that many of the new intake of Boston borough councillors, elected for the first time in 2011, felt that they would be involved in “something that means something,” and that their opinions would be recognised; that they would make a difference and have a voice.
To varying degrees – and depending on where they stand politically – these people have since discovered that they have no voice at all, and are making little, if anything, of a difference to life in Boston.
This is because of the way the current “leadership” runs the ship – denying debate, refusing to listen to views other than their own, and working out of either self-interest or the interests of their big bosses at County Hall.
The demonstration of how democracy works is that  … it doesn’t.
A select elite calls the shots, and expects its party rump to do as it is told, while all shades of opposition are treated as non-existent.
And many of these “leaders” have played at politics for years and find that it keeps them busy in retirement – the grown-ups version of “there isn’t a lot to do at our age.”
It this really the sort of lesson that we wish to pass on to potential politicians of the future?
Having said that, whilst the council is keen to encourage a political youth cadre, we are uncertain as to how long it might last.
There are around 4,000 pupils of secondary school age in Boston.
Just ten pupils from five schools attended the meeting to discuss a Youth Council – and one of those schools was based in Horncastle.
Surely, our leaders should make sure that they are in a position to demonstrate open, honest politics of a model quality, rather than merely inculcate their shabby tired values on the next generation.
 

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