Special election issue

We hope you found last week's election headlines helpful – now for the meat on the bones and some interesting snippets that we’ve come across. 

*** 

First, an explanation.

Last week we pointed out that 26 of the 74 candidates seeking election – almost half – are refusing to say where they live.

This is the first time that such an option has been possible after the introduction of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Rules 2018, which removes the requirement for candidates to have their home address published on the ballot paper and statement of persons nominated at principal area elections.

It comes into force for all principal area elections held in England on or after 2^nd May.

***

Where candidates choose to use this new right, the council area in which they live is published instead. The change follows the Committee for Standards in Public Life review of intimidation in public life and brings the law for these contests into line with that for Westminster elections where, due to concerns over personal safety the law was changed a few years back.

***

All well and good – and when we briefly joined a Twitter discussion on the issue, Councillor Paul Gleeson told us: “I've always had my contact details in the public domain and always will. However, I've had my car vandalised and until I had my phone line shielded would regularly receive threatening and abusive phone calls. So in a week when a plot to murder an MP was revealed I understand why.”

***

We can understand that as well – but there are aspects which still concern us.

Westminster MPs must surely run a far greater risk of attracting the unwanted attentions of the lunatic fringe than local councillors, and we suspect the incidence of problem voters is mostly confined to over-persistence rather than anything else.

***

Over the years, we have encountered a number of councillors who have sought to perform from the wings rather than the stage – giving Worst Street as their address and a mobile phone as their contact number.

This is the next worst thing to not bothering at all in our book – and it is noteworthy that over time, we have noticed that such cavalier councillors also tend to have poor attendance records.

***

So – to recap – there 74 candidates are contesting the 30 seats in the 15 wards up for grabs.

26 are Conservative, 22 Labour, 14 Independent, 4 UKIP, 4 Blue Revolution 3 ‘others’ and 1 Liberal Democrat.

Of the ‘others’ two have declared no political position, and so are presumably counted as independent, and one is from the Veterans and Peoples Party … “a new vibrant, radical, open and transparent political party, founded by UK Armed Forces and Emergency Services Veterans.”

Of the 26 refusing to say where they live – all but one confine their information to “address in the Borough of Boston” whilst another owns to an address in South Holland.

Ten of these represent Labour, 9 Conservative, 1 UKIP, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Blue Revolution and three others. And one standing in distant Staniland Ward declares a South Holland address.

In one ward –  Swineshead and Holland Fen –  none of the three candidates say where they live.

And in Fenside six of the seven candidates are likewise coy – whilst the seventh lives in Wyberton.

***

So, on to the individual wards, and items of interest.

Going down the list alphabetically, we see that former Tory grandee and council leader Peter Bedford is standing as an Independent in Coastal Ward, which he has represented for more than a quarter of a century.

He quit the party after a change of leadership and previously stood as an Independent in the 2017 county council elections where – despite such dedicated political service – he lost out to … a Conservative.

This proves the point that we have made time and time again – service counts for nothing if a scarecrow in a blue suit is put up as a candidate in some wards despite the incumbent party policy of charging more for less and making cuts at every opportunity.

Councillor Felicity Ransome – who currently represents the seat for UKIP – is also seeking re-election.

There are four other candidates for the two seats; two Tories, one Labour and an Independent.

***

In Fenside Ward (two seats) we find one-time UKIP/BiG councillor turned Tory Anton Dani seeking re-election – and if successful, he will be the next Mayor.

A name on the list familiar to regular readers will be Tiggs (Patricia) Keywood-Wainwright – a UKIP Boston borough councillor between 2011-2015 and a Lincolnshire county councillor from 2013-2017 – and now standing as an Independent.

There are also two Labour candidates, one Lib-Dem and one Blue Revolution.

***

Fishtoft Ward (three seats) sees a bid to become a councillor once again by octogenarian Ossy Snell, who has been a parish councillor for more than 30 years, served on Boston Borough Council for 16 years and Lincolnshire County Council for four years. Although he is a member of the Lib-Dems, he is standing as an Independent.

The three Tory holders are seeking re-election and Labour if also fielding a candidate.

***

Five Villages Ward (two seats) has four candidates. Tory Leader Michael Cooper and his Deputy Aaron Spencer are seeking re-election. The other two candidates are Labour’s Ewa Thorley and Joseph Reid for the Veterans and People’s Party.

Councillor Cooper is one of three candidates who does not live in the borough, but in East Lindsey.

***

Kirton and Frampton Ward (three seats) will have entirely new faces after 2^nd May.

Tourism and culture cabinet member Claire Rylott is not seeking re-election – and neither is her Tory sidekick Colin Brotherton, a former mayor who has represented the ward since 2011. The third councillor to stand aside is UKIP’s James Edwards.

Step up five contestants – Conservatives Nigel Welton and Shaun Blackman, Labour’s Mick Gall and Patrick Glennon and Independent Peter Watson. Councillor Welton is portfolio holder for the town centre, and is currently a Fenside councillor, where he was elected for Labour but defected to the Tories at the end of 2017. Doubtless he is hoping that his chosen ward will prove a safer Tory berth. He is another contender who doesn’t live in the borough.

***

To Old Leake and Wrangle (two seats) now. Both incumbents are seeking re-election. They are professional councillor Tom Ashton for the Conservatives, and Barrie Pierpoint standing as an Independent.

We call Councillor Ashton a pro, since, according the Boston and Skegness Conservatives website, he has been the East Lindsey District Councillor for Sibsey and Stickney since 2015.

He was elected to the Lincolnshire County Council Tattershall Castle ward in 2017, and along with these jobs is also chairman of the Boston and Skegness Conservative Association.

Oh, and he’s a parish councillor as well.

In fact in 2015, we noted that his enthusiasm to serve was so great that as well as standing in Sibsey and Stickney for a seat in East Lindsey,  he campaigned alongside former Boston Borough Council leader Peter Bedford in Worst Street’s Coastal Ward as well – losing to a UKIP candidate.

Councillor Pierpoint is at present leader of the Bostonian Independents Group but is unable to say so on the ballot form, as the party name was deregistered at the start of the year.  The same goes for several other candidates – despite a big plan by BiG and a casual partnership with the Blue Revolution party, which has four candidates for next month’s elections.

Also contesting Old Leake and Wrangle is another former Conservative councillor – Frank Pickett, who served between 2011-2015, and Labour’s Christopher Dorrington.

***

On now to Skirbeck (three seats.) Just one sitting tenant is seeking re-election – Labour veteran Paul Gleeson who has spent a doubtless uncomfortable time as an Independent for committee chairmanship reasons after becoming the sole proprietor of the Worst Street Labour group. On the defection of Nigel Welton (see above.)

Councillor Martin Griggs, the portfolio holder for housing, property and community

is standing down in Skirbeck but popping up seeking election in another ward (see Trinity further down the page) as is BiG’s Stephen Ball who may not be much missed having been absent from meetings for 80% of the time.

Skirbeck has the most candidates of any ward – three Tories, three Labour, two Independents and a Blue Revolution.

Two names from the past that you might recognise among them are Paul Kenny – another Labour veteran and parliamentary candidate for Boston who has contested general elections since 2005 – and Anne Dorrian.

Ms Dorrian was a political chameleon during her time in Worst Street starting out with the Boston Bypass Independents back in 2007, then forming the splinter Better Boston Group. More recently, she has stood as an independent at both the local and county elections.

***

Now to St Thomas’ Ward.

The incumbent of this single seat ward seeking re-election is another political veteran – Alison Austin, a founder member of the Boston Bypass Independents who morphed into a Boston District Independent to lose the dreaded B word before becoming simply Independent.

She is being challenged by another Independent, Darron Abbott, and Labour’s Maglione Mauro.

Mr Abbott will be well-known to readers of Boston Eye as a persistent critic of Boston Borough Council, and someone who as also had a few run-ins with Mrs Austin. Given the new issues of where candidates live, Mr Abbott says he can claim to be the only candidate who lives in the ward.

***

Staniland Ward (two seats) is being contested by one of the two incumbents. One-time BBI/Better Boston Group/Independent/UKIP/BiG councillor Brian Rush represents BiG at the ballot box but as with Councillor Pierpoint is listed as Independent due to party de-registration.

Tory Councillor Ben Evans, Vice-Chairman of BTAC, is not standing.

Other candidates are: Conservatives Deborah Evans and Martin Howard, with Ben Cook and Pam Kenny for Labour.

***

Station Ward (one seat) is being defended by UKIP incumbent Sue Ransome, who is up against Blue Revolution founder and former Tory councillor Mike Gilbert, with Paul Goodale for Labour and Gerry Roffey for the Tories.

***

Swineshead and Holland Fen (two seats) is another ward that will see all new members.

Veteran Tory Michael Brookes – overlooked when the joint deputy leadership at Worst Street merged into a single post – is standing down ... as is UKIP’s Elizabeth Ransome.

Councillor Brookes is a long serving politician and remains a county councillor – a role that he has held since 2009.

Two Tory candidates and one Labour are also contesting the seat.

***

Trinity Ward (two seats) has one incumbent – Tory Councillor Yvonne Stevens – seeking re-election. Her present Tory colleague Doctor Gordon Gregory is doing the decent thing after an appalling attendance record which at its worst – between April and October last year saw him attend just one out of 14 meetings – an absentee rate of 93%. His attendance to date since then marks him absent 86% of the time.

As we mentioned earlier, Conservative Martin Griggs – currently cabinet member for housing, property and community – is hoping to move from Skirbeck to this currently safe Tory ward. He is also county councillor for the Skirbeck division. Other contestants are Labour’s Andrew Finch

and William Lawrence and Independent Andrea Keal.

***

Things look interesting in West Ward (one seat.) The current incumbent last time we looked was a former mayor and one-time Tory cabinet member Stephen Woodliffe. But now Worst Street lists him as unaligned and he is seeking re-election as an Independent.

Some disharmony in the blue camp, perhaps?

Other candidates are: Labour’s Andy Cook, Gavin Lee for the Blue Revolution, and Conservative Paula Cooper – other half of leader Michael and another candidate with an address outside the borough she is seeking to represent. She is presently a county councillor for Boston West.

***

Witham Ward (two seats) has UKIP incumbent Viven Edge seeking re-election against two candidates each from the Tories and Labour and one Independent.

***

And finally, Wyberton Ward (two seats) sees both incumbents – Independent Richard Austin and Conservative David Brown seeking re-election.

Also standing is Independent Tracey Abbott – the other half of St Thomas Ward candidate Darron who is challenging Mr Austin's wife Alison, along with Labour’s Malcolm Limbert and UKIP veteran Don Ransome – who has still to taste success at local and county level even though his wife and daughters have all held office.

Having said that the good news for some of the contenders is that they have won uncontested places on Wyberton Parish Council ahead of the elections.

Mr Austin, Mrs Abbott, Don Ransome and his wife Sue were all elected unopposed along with a fifth member, Rachel Lauberts.

***

That’s it for this week.

Betwixt and between the names are some interesting stories which we hope will give you food for thought – and perhaps even inform your decision when you vote.

And please – do vote ... it's no use moaning about what your council is up to if you let others do the choosing. 

***

There’s no blog next week because it is Easter. We’ll be back on Monday 29^th – just days away from a new Boston Borough Council.

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

Nominations for next month's elections are in – and as you might expect there are a few surprises.

Cabinet member Claire Rylott  –  portfolio holder for Tourism, Arts, Culture and Heritage – is not seeking re-election, whilst her colleague for the town centre – Nigel Welton, is after a new, safer seat after defecting from Labour.

A number of other councillors are not seeking re-election, and quite a few more are trying to make a comeback after an absence of one or more four year terms.

They include Anne Dorrian - who was a pioneer member of the Boston Bypass Independents all those years ago, and octogenarian Ossy Snell.

A number of UKIP-pers are standing under that party banner, whilst there might we be some confusion for people looking for the right Independent candidate after the Bostonian Independents Group deregistered the party with the electoral commissioners and so cannot use the name on their nomination papers.

Whilst we already knew that several candidates live outside the borough or do not live in their wards, the precise number of candidates in exile will not be known as a large number have decided not to say where they live in the borough.

In total 74 candidates are contesting the 30 seats in the 15 wards up for grabs.

Of these, 26 are refusing to say where they live – all but one confine their information to “address in the Borough of Boston” whilst another owns to an address in South Holland.

In one ward –  Swineshead and Holland Fen –  none of the three candidates say where they live.

Whatever the reason so many are being so coy – and no doubt they will likely claim it is to avoid abuse or annoyance – this is a new and unwanted move … and one which we think says much about these candidates in advance.

One final statistic – then we’ll have a more detailed anaalysis for you next week.

Of the 74 candidates, 26 are Conservative, 22 Labour, 14 Independent, 4 UKIP, 4 Blue Revolution and 3 others and 1 Liberal Democrat.

***

The end of last month saw something called Discover Lincolnshire Weekend – which was celebrated by Worst Street with its customary lack of imagination.

The usual suspects – and nothing special or out of the ordinary – were promoted on WorstWeb … which remains as bad as ever, and almost impossible to follow as easily as it used to be.

Whereas other places in the county offered free admission to sites that normally charged – Worst Street listed 'attractions' that normally were free to enter (even including Central Park) and which in many cases were only open on the Saturday.

***

This was an example of Boston Borough Council at its can’t be bothered worst – listing something for the sake of it apparently to be involved in a county-wide event, without taking the trouble to lift a finger.

***

And among the attractions, it listed one of our favourite bugbears – The Lanes!

To quote the Worst Street handout … “The lanes – the medieval feeder lanes leading to the Market Place. Explore these for unique and individual traders and places to eat and drink some of Lincolnshire’s finest fare.”

What a load of bollocks.

Take Dolphin Lane – pictured below just six months ago on Google street view

There are at least four empty shops – one of which is the disgracefully neglected former Milletts which runs down the lane for at least 40 feet opposite the wall of a pub for another similar distance.

There there's a barber’s shop, a perfume shop, a dry cleaner, a letting agency, a butcher’s shop, a couple of coffee shops, a vaping shop, optician, brow bar, opticians and a florist which also sells fruit and veg.

And what about Emery Lane?

A vast slab of Cash Generator occupies much of the start of the lane from the Market Place, then there’s a pet shop, a card and soft toy shop, a European supermarket, nail bar, jewellers, a tattoo parlour, phone shop, and cafe and a couple of cheap clothes shops.

“Unique and individual traders and places to eat and drink some of Lincolnshire’s finest fare” they are most definitely not – yet amazingly at one time a senior officer in Worst Street likened them to the Shambles in York.

As we said at the time – our lanes are a shambles, but that’s where the resemblance ends.

Luckily for Worst Street, the Trades Descriptions Act doesn’t apply to such desperate and phoney attempts to con visitors, or the council would have been in court time and time again.

***

Among the issues we’ve been discussing in recent weeks has been the important one of councillor quality – or the lack of it.

This has prompted an e-mail from our occasional contributor Scanner – whose words of wisdom are well worth noting ...

May will soon be here and, once more, Boston’s residents will be asked to choose our ‘leaders’ for the next four years.

I am a member of a political party, but, over many years it has been regrettable that party politics, self-interest and personal animosity have cast their shadows over the administration in West Street.

The cabinet system, hailed by Labour as democratic and more efficient, has led to a small group making all the decisions knowing that their majority will carry them without any problems.

The councillors’ system of remuneration was altered at the same time. Councillors used to be paid for the number of meetings they attended. This was replaced by a yearly payment ‘decided’ by a so called ‘independent panel.’ In effect, this means that councillors can do as much or as little as they wish without loss of pay. This has led to poorly attended meetings and therefore, I’m sure, some of them not bothering to turn up as the decisions have already been made.

I hope that any new councillors will put the district’s well being and its future before party politics.

I had the pleasure of knowing the former Councillor Mrs. Margaret

Howarth. I didn’t always agree with her but she would have been my ideal

representative on the council.

Mrs. Howarth was Boston from head to toe and became known for standing up for the district at county, regional and national level. She never took no for an answer. Even after she retired as a councillor, she kept her eye on West Street, almost up to the time of her death. I wouldn’t mind betting that Chief Executives had misgivings when they saw her name in their appointments diary. I have a hope that any new councillors will share her passion for the area, forget party politics and have the motivation and courage (yes courage) to work towards solutions to the challenges we have.

I will be judging any prospective candidate myself for these qualities. That’s if any of them manage to reach my doorstep in person. I must be getting old and cynical.

***

A couple of weeks ago, we mentioned a farce at a recent meeting of BTAC-ky in which an officer’s report became a frantic photocopying exercise due to lack of foresight when anticipated electronic assistance failed to materialise.

Although complaints to Worst Street are inevitably whitewashed, one was made, nonetheless – receiving a response that included the lines: “The officer was not ill prepared for the meeting, the necessary equipment was not available. He was able to print hard copies of the presentation and hand them round at the meeting so the presentation went ahead as planned – just on paper instead of on the screen.”

BTAC-ky meetings begin at 6-30pm, whilst we imagine that an officer's day ends about an hour earlier – which gives ample time to check the availability and functionality of any necessary equipment.

So really, there was no excuse.

***

Which of course does nothing to diminish the downward loyalty which the complaint generated – something that it worrying in itself as it reflects an attitude  from higher up that we could do without.

***

Which brings us on to job descriptions

The response to the complaint was signed by Worst Street’s £60,000 a year Head of Place – a job that once upon a time was known more prosaically as Head of Town Centre, Leisure, Events and Culture … more of a mouthful, perhaps but a job we could all understand.

Head of Place is a meaningless job title.

But in Norway, a head of plaice is considered something of a delicacy.

Appropriately for Boston, plaice and flounder are closely related – so at least something makes sense here.

***

Another recent post with a questionable title was that of Growth Manager. Can you spot why we don’t like that?

***

We mentioned Worst Street’s new look website last week – and we’re sorry to say that it remains as opaque and as bad as ever.

Initially, we gave it the benefit of the doubt and concluded that much of what was wrong with it was down to teething troubles -– but it seems that it will need more than a rub with a drop of Bonjela to ease this painful sore.

One thing that we have noticed is that so much of what was formerly easy to find is now absent ... the news archive is a good example. Whereas Google posts a link to it, the WorstWeb cannot find it. More records that are no longer available.

Once it was possible to browse the council website and learn a lot about about the it, which must surely have its benefits for the authority.

But we wonder if the aim of this new site is to conceal information rather than to share it.

If it is it would be entirely in line with the apparent policy of reducing the data made available to councillors and taxpayers.

Some years ago, a Conservative election candidate told of a unanimous shout of agreement when a demand was made to seize power back from the hands of officers to councillors if the Tories gained a majority.

Whilst the latter occurred the former did not.

The problem now is that senior officers consider themselves the conductors of the Boston Borough Council Brassy Band rather than the instruments, and this attitude needs to be reined back.

***

Which brings us back the matter of the arbitrary decision to cancel the recording of council meetings – and the waste of £25,000-plus spent on state of the art recording equipment bought little more than a year ago.

Labour councillor Paul Gleeson tells us: “As I understand it the recording of council meetings was stopped because of the amount of staff time dealing with enquiries, providing extracts of recordings etc. If of course the recordings were made available online, as many councils do, that would not be an issue. If, after the elections, my group is in a position to re-introduce recordings we will do so.”

***

That, of course, is if the work-shy officers decide to go along with any such decision.

***

Having said that we note some progress being made – although nothing has officially been announced by Worst Street.

***

MP Matt Warman told us on his Facebook page how pleased he was that the government has given £145,000 to Boston Borough Council to support rough sleepers in the area ‘into safe and stable accommodation where they can rebuild their lives.’

He said that the money will be used to help rough sleepers into accommodation, increase existing accommodation and providing new temporary accommodation, including night shelters and hostel spaces.
As far as we can discover, Worst Street has had nothing to say about this so far.

But expect to see an advertisement for a two year £25k pa homelessness officer post any time now.

***

The second disclosure was by Clive Gibbon – the Economic Development Manager at Boston Borough Council, who told us: “Our Future High Streets bid has now just been submitted. A massive thank you to all stakeholders who attended the consultation workshops, especially those students from our schools and ⁦‪at Boston College – your fantastic ideas and conversations helped bring this about.”

The fund comprises a government kitty of £675 million and a place like Boston needs help badly.

That’s why we hope that more information will be made available soon and also to hear that more input has been received than that of a group of students – helpful though it may have been.

***

It’s a couple of years since we published the picture on the left of one of our Welcome to Boston signs in poor condition on the A16 approach to Boston from the south.

Needless to say nothing has been done to improve it.

But now we’ve seen worse.

The appalling mess below is on the Sleaford Road heading east towards Boston from Downtown.

We don’t know whose job it is to look after these signs – but as they are at the moment they say a lot about the powers that be and their attitude to Boston.

***

Our Smile of the Week award goes to Lincolnshire County Council and the long-awaited clean-up of St Botolph’s footbridge … something that we pointed out was needed a long time ago.

Ahead of closing the bridge, a spokesman at Clownty Hall told us: “This is a difficult bridge to clean, so we have to bring in specialist equipment to get the job done.”

Specialist equipment?

How far can our council be behind the times when it uses that description for men dangling from ropes with buckets?

 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

Sorry about our non– appearance last week – but we fell victim to a double whammy of a health setback and a major  computer failure ... neither of which are fully better.

***

As always, absence means some catching up.
So here we go …

***

“Boston punching above its weight” was the headline on the borough website WorstWeb –  above the claim that Worst Street  is “one of the nation’s most innovative councils”.
The so-called “accolade” was granted at the Local Government Chronicle Awards in London, where Boston was shortlisted among eight contenders in the environmental services category – one of 20 competed for by councils across the UK.
“Judges shortlisted the council after hearing of the myriad of initiatives taken by the council to keep the town and borough clean and tidy – combatting fly tipping and littering and encouraging recycling and reduced contamination,” WorstWeb burbled.
“The council’s entry ... praised the successful partnerships and volunteers who help with initiatives such as Operation Fly Swat, litter enforcement, litter champions and the Big Boston Clean Up.”
Innovative?
Scarcely.
Worst Street has dragged  the Big Clean-up horse to the award pond before – and as a piece of ‘innovation’ it is now in its 12th year.

***

It was five years ago that Worst Street last trotted  its clean-up out for recognition – along with  garden waste collections and the long-forgotten Geoff Moulder Leisure Complex swimming partnership. 
Then, the occasion was something called the District Councils Partnership, and it turned out that almost all of the 200-plus district councils  taking part sent in details of their pet schemes – as we said at the time ‘all that seems to be needed to qualify for a place in the league is to post your boast.’

***

No, the word ‘innovative’ appeared in one of those concocted quotes from the LGC award organisers designed to make the losers feel good and give them something to boast about.
Incidentally, silence reigned a few days later when the results of the East Midlands Local Authority Challenge 2019 appeared without any mention of Boston.
And the 2019 Lincolnshire Tourism Excellence Awards came and went last month with no mention of us either.

***

Still, they never stop striving in Worst Street ... and they certainly are very trying!
Yet another fanfare from WorstWeb announced: “Boston shows a whole new face to the world next week with the launch of MYBOSTONUK.COM.”
The piece bragged of a new website which has been under construction for the past few months “and will be streamlined, more responsive and user-friendly and the latest member of the new-look family of council websites which includes visitbostonuk.com and thinkbostonuk.com.”

***

Poor old Worst Street. The old  front page disappeared on Friday 22nd March – just in time to make it impossible to find the announcement of the notice of next month’s election. 
Worse still, repeated attempts to find any pages – anywhere – were greeted with ...

In terms of forward planning, it’s hard to imagine  a worse time to fool about with your website than when it is likely to eepect more visitors than usual.
Think about it. 
The council tax demands have just gone out, and people will be wanting to find out information which is always supposed to be more easily available online. 
And of course in just over a month it's local election time.
The weekend when all the messing about occurred coincided with the receipt of our voting cards – and we decided to apply for a postal vote.
What do you think the chances were? 
Correct.
Zero.
And as we went to press, there were still problems with the site and difficulties finding some inportant information that we are sure Worst Street would rather we didn't know.

***

Talking of elections, whilst we were away the joining of forces between the Blue Revolution Party and the Bostonian Independents Group was formalised at a local meeting. 
Both parties oppose national political policies as a way to run a local authority – feeling that councillors whose hands are not tied can focus more fully on local issues ... and of course, they are right.
A release after the meeting declared that “It was agreed that each independent councillor will remain independent.
“They will be free to act and vote however they feel is in the best interest of their ward with no involvement from any party politics, and by working together, they can effectively mount a strong opposition to push for real change within the borough of Boston.”

***

Whilst it sounds good in principle, the history of ‘independence’ in Worst Street has been something of  minefield over the years.
Remember the Boston Bypass ‘Independents’ who spent more time falling out with each other than getting anything done?
Or the United Kingdom Independence Party– which might have controlled Boston Borough Council had it not been for members’ inability to get on civilly, civilly?

***

But after next month's election, even if every independent candidate were successful there would not be enough to make a deal of an impact on the workings of the council.
Both BiG and Blue Revolution  are likely to put up three candidates apiece – 20%  of the 30 members required ... and so the maths makes it clear at this stage even  a political miracle wouldn’t  be enough to do the trick and give them a real say.

***

And whilst we wouldn't suggest that BiG had already given up the ghost, it strikes us as odd that the party – formed in May 2018 – would have been deregistered eight months later.

Perhaps this is an example of what’s called quitting while you’re still ahead.

***

It’s a shame really, as BiG has been making all the right noises – especially in a recent release which put the problem of imposing national party politics over what needs doing locally into harsh perspective.
It said: “Looking at Boston over the past 10 years, how and where has it progressed? Very little and nowhere, why?
“Because the Borough Council has been predominantly run by the Conservatives who spend all of their time cutting budgets, services and leaving Boston residents to fend for themselves.
“The Conservatives in Boston have ran (sic) out of steam and have nowhere else to go, they lack ideas, vision and direction. The Conservative Councillors on Boston Borough Council who are also County Councillors, will not challenge their Conservative County Council hierarchy because they do not want to rock the boat, so Boston gets left behind again with lack of roads, investment and infrastructure.
“Lincoln, Grantham and other towns within the County are getting better roads, infrastructure and investment, Boston is yet again left behind.
“Why aren't our Boston Borough Conservative County Councillors challenging the Conservative County Council for a better deal for Boston? They are not interested nor bothered and are not strong enough to stand up to their big brother Conservative Council.”
“In Boston Conservatives are a party of the past, with many of their councillors made up from deserters who failed their electorate from Labour and UKIP,  Labour is non– existent except for the same one or two old faithfuls, and UKIP has disintegrated due to their lack of direction, drive and ambition. All major political parties in Boston are there for party politics and their self– interest –  not the people, who get forgotten and left behind.
“It has never been a better time for Independent Councillors to work together who are not politically minded but share the same vision, aims and objectives to be elected and serve the electorate with fresh ideas, vision, direction and new initiatives. They will tackle the real issues and not just ignore them or push them under the carpet like the current ruling Conservative Councillors do.”

***

Don’t run away with the idea that we are anti-Tory by the way, but the facts are the facts.
And the BiG blast is simply a louder version  of  the one we issued a few weeks ago which in summary asked: "If you are standing for the Tories with the promise to make Boston a better place, are you seriously saying 'Vote for me and I will see that services will be cut but that you will be paying more for them. Not only that, but I will do whatever I am told by my local office in Lincoln and my head office in Westminster regardless of the impact on you”
Vote Tory by all means – but make sure that your candidate has something in the way of guts to put Boston first.

***

Meanwhile, Boston Labour Party was first out of the trap with  list of candidates ... advertised in the local press last week.

Well ahead of the official announcement, Labour has declared 19 candidates in 13 wards.

They are:

Skirbeck – Jacqueline Barton, Paul Gleeson, Paul Kenny

Fenside – Alan Bell and Joseph Pearson

Witham – Andy Izzard and Wendy Gleeson

Coastal – Tracii Edwards

Staniland – Ben Cook and Pam Kenny

Station – Paul Goodall

St Thomas – Mauro Maglione

West – Andy Cook

Fishtoft – Jane Hancock

Five Villages – Ewa Thorley

Kirton & Frampton – Mick Gall and Patrick Glennon

Swineshead & Holland Fen – Jan Finch

Wyberton – Malcolm Limbert

***

Although it was well down the list, it was interesting to read that Boston Borough Council has spent almost £40,000 on gagging order payments to – we presume five former – staff in the past five years.
The figures appear in a list obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Lincolnshire Reporter website through one of their two Local Democracy reporters.

***

This sort of thing is always concerning as it means that silence is being bought – often for the wrong reasons.
But we also know that Worst Street loves keeping secrets – and that relationships within its walls are often sour.

***

Against this backdrop – we hear a suggestion that the council’s cabinet of curiosities has moved against a “persistent and vexatious” complainer by refusing to deal with him any more ... instead passing enquiries on to the Local Government Association, whose job it is not to deal with such things.
Whilst this iron fist in the iron glove approach is typical of Worst Street, we understand that on this occasion it has become so because the purported “complainant” is an elected councillor – who would now appear to have been denied the rights of his office to represent constituents.
What a shame that the elections do not include some Worst Street officers that we might be better off without.

***

Which brings us back to the issue of recording meetings – something that has been raised in no uncertain terms in recent weeks.
One former councillor believes that the root of the problems lies with the Worst Street officers.
“During my time as a Boston Borough Councillor member more than once I noted that the agreed outcome of committee discussion had not appeared in the minutes. 
“In general the unrecorded material tended to be in the areas where officers had, unsuccessfully, tried to guide the members towards a different outcome of discussion of the matter before committee. 
“Of course, the new arrangement of not recording meetings will make it easier/safer to operate what would appear to already be the present system of writing up the minutes to suit.”
This is what the authors of “1066 and all that” would call “a very bad thing.”

***

Some word splitting now over our observer's reports of a couple of recent BTAC-ky’s meetings where a request to grant money to Boston Stump was debated.
Councillor Paul Gleeson e–mailed to say: “I am afraid your reporter didn't quite get their facts right.  On the 27th February BTAC decided not to give the £15,000 grant for the school's festival, and to ask for more information on the £2,000 and £3,000 projects.  At their meeting on 20th March they decided not to support the other two projects. 
The two sums concerned were for arts and building projects respectively and were supported in principle subject to a breakdown of how they directly benefited the residents of the BTAC area.
At the time, our reporter took this to mean that the committee was on-side – even though the application was subsequently rejected ... an why not?

***

No harm done though.
Boston Stump’s “Passion for Pounds” project was  back in the news the other day as a beneficiary of £38,850 for “Regenerating a 17th century Church House and adjoining church hall to create a central community venue –  reviving the Blenkin Memorial Hall.”
Yet another worthwhile project, we’re sure.
BUT ...
The money in question came a £36 million government grant for “the great British coast.”
The Blenkin Hall grant was part of a round two phase three project of the Coastal Revival Fund.
We may seem a bit thick here,  but the building in question is not what you might call coastal – apart from the fact that the River Haven flows by some distance away behind a high concrete wall.
Boston Eye’s offices are in an old building near water as well. Had we known about the grants, we might have applied – only joking, of course.
But we wonder whether our parish is becoming more than a little greedy.

***

County Hall’s  indifference to Boston – highlighted earlier in our report on BiG – reached the international stage after a visit to Cannes by Lincolnshire County Councillor Colin Davie.
Councillor Davie, Lincolnshire’s  Executive Member for Economic Development, was attending MIPIM ... an annual four-day international property dog-hanging as a member of the  Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership.
Afterwards he claimed that Lincolnshire could be set to receive at least £750 million in investment on its major developments – and was quoted as saying: “We were promoting a number of specific sites around business and commercial interest and two of those sites, which I’m very confident are going to come forward, they’re going to put £750 million into the Lincolnshire economy.
“We’re excited about delivering the big stuff which will make a difference in different parts of the county, not just Lincoln, but Grantham, Holbeach, Skegness, Louth and Gainsborough will get a benefit from the work that we’re doing.”
Boston?
Where’s that, Councillor Davie?

***

It’s been a typical couple of weeks for Boston since last we wrote – people being pushed from windows, stabbed, attacked in the street ... all the day to day minutiae that we are told is nothing to worry about.
Even so, we can’t help but worry at the emphasis being placed by our Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Jones on gadgetry.
His explanation of why he needed an 11% council tax rise this year was made against a background of a pledge of a 2% rise next year ... which by a happy co-incidence  happens to be the year that he is up for re-election.
So much money seems to be going on gimmicks like the mini-police scheme and  gadgets such as drones and fancy four-wheel drive vehicles to chase hare coursers around the fields.
We have no doubt that this crime is a problem – but is the expense of pursuing it proportional?
Then there are the handful of officers who are ‘on the street’

We sometimes wonder how they are able to move – buried as they are beneath the host of contraptions shown above, which it’s claimed between them can free  up an hour and twelve minutes  of time per officer per day.
We also note the absence of those big, black, heavy-duty boots that for years were at the heart of a policeman's wardrobe!
More worrying still was the  PCC’s knee-jerk reaction to the latest go-everywhere device from the United States.

Perhaps such a machine – whose wheels turn aside and become propellers if it has to enter water – could come in handy when police chases drive felons from the village green and into the duckpond!

***

As always we are indebted to the Lincolnshire Live website – which keeps us so well-informed about happenings in  Newark and Retford under the banner of the Boston off-Target for a regular chuckle. It came up with this howler from Skegness, which we thought we would like to share.

If no-one else, we are sure that our PCC would approve!  

***

Finally, a couple of stories that wouldn't have made our  blog if today wasn’t so special.

***

Rumours abound that Boston Borough Council  has done a deal to sell its West Street headquarters to Lithuania’s largest supermarket group Maxima.

The picture above is an artist’s impression of how the building might look once planning permission to convert it has been granted.
Spokesman Olar Lipof told us: “It has long been a goal to turn the West Street into a Little Lithuania and this may soon become a reality.”
At Worst Street we were told: “Not much goes on in these offices nowadays so it seemed daft not to realise a million-pound asset, bank the money and work from home.
“As for councillors ... who needs ‘em these days anyway?”

***

Today's other news takes the form of  new attraction for the Market Place – one that ties in with the Mayflower 400 celebrations marking the Pilgrim Fathers’ departure to the New World from Plymouth ...
The arrival of a £450,000 giant statue outside the city’s Theatre Royal made national headlines when it became the UK's largest cast bronze sculpture ....

But there was also a closely guarded secret surrounding the event.
Mouldings from the lower half of the project are to be used to mark Boston’s new status as a centre for al fresco defecation ...

The sculpture is pictured being loaded into position and is expected to be finished and ready for its official unveiling soon.
It is thought that the image will be sufficiently graphic for people to get the idea without the need for ancillary sculptings – and given the giant scale, it has been given the working title Poofrilla ... a sort of a cross between Godzilla and you-know-what.

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