6 days to the elections

We witnessed one of those strange moments on Sunday, when –  as the circus just outside town was  breaking down its tents and preparing to depart – another main ring event was being staged  in Boston town centre.

It took the form of a  metal cage made of pedestrian crowd control barriers containing several men – one of whom was holding what looked for a moment like a lion tamer’s whip, but which turned out to be a microphone on a cable.

The occasion – if so it can be described – was the arrival in town of the BBC’s Sunday Politics show, in which the forthcoming election in Boston, which the BBC reckons will be  “unlike any before” was debated by four of the main party candidates ... with the rest chipping in on video.

With the election so close, we tuned in with interest – only to be broadly disappointed.

Each of the four main candidates, Conservative Matt Warman, Paul Kenny for Labour, UKIP’s Robin Hunter-Clarke and Lib-Dem candidate David Watts responded robustly, but not impressively to the questions –  and the programme seemed to lack any depth, fire, or character.

Individually, the candidates seem scarcely to have warmed up, despite several so-called Hustings in recent times.

Matt Warman for the Tories came across as keen to please but focussing  too strongly on  the “Tories must win nationally” rather than “why this particular Tory should be elected in Boston.”

Paul Kenny got his points across, and has sharpened his delivery, which used to tend to ramble, although he is still entangling local and national issues in a mildly confusing way.

Robin Hunter-Clarke has improved his act since his earlier television appearances, but the range of subjects he is covering remains too narrow –  on Sunday he came across as a one note immigration  samba.

We had not seen or heard the Liberal-Democrat David Watts before – something we would be happy to do again.

As we said earlier the remaining candidates were given a minute or two to make their pitch, which given the tokenistic nature of the BBC’s  concession means that they might as well not have bothered.

Only Lyn Luxton tried to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, by telling her followers:

Crowds?

Addlethorpe?

Surely, she was dreaming.

Our Best in Show award for the BBC’s less than impressive production goes to Paul Kenny – who had far and away the best haircut.

***

A major criticism of the BBC’s coverage – and minor ones abound – is the way that the pre-filmed report segued seamlessly from mention of the  huge rise in immigration between 2001 and into footage of the protest meeting in the Market Place with no indication that this was well over two years old.

An uninformed viewer would have concluded that protests were still a way of life in Boston – whilst in fact things have calmed down considerably.

The poor visual presentation was compounded by staging the event inside the pedestrian cage and around the Five Lamps.

According to reports ahead of the broadcast, the show was being staged outside the Assembly Rooms, beneath the balcony.

The venue’s general manager was quoted as saying: “I have been working hard to ensure that there remains a balance at (the) Assembly Rooms, being both a popular night time venue, and a utilised community asset. Events like this ensure that we bring a total variance of different people through our doors,” whilst the Assembly Rooms owner Matt Clark declared: “This is an exciting event to be involved with, not only for the Assembly Rooms, but Boston as well.”

It was certainly exciting day for the night club, which got good television coverage and a name check or two as well – despite being completely uninvolved.

And certainly, no one came “through the doors,” as suggested.

***

UKIP was in for a disappointment from the BBC’s Panorama programme the following day.

In a cliché ridden snapshot of Skegness –    bingo, fish and chips, camel racing and the like – we heard Nate Silver “America's rock star statistician” predict that Skegness ... at one moment “the jewel of the English seaside” and the next “the most deprived seaside town in England”  ...  had to be retained by the Tories if they are to win an overall majority.

And according to one of Nate’s little helpers, UKIP has a one in fifty chance of success.

Not once was the name of Boston ever mentioned in the programme – but surprisingly, given the content and approach, candy floss never appeared.

***

For those of us in the less glamorous role of common or garden voters, the decision now  is – who do I vote for?

One thing that can be said for the BBC Sunday Politics show is that it offered no help whatever in this respect – but our instincts say that we are looking at a Conservative/UKIP contest, with Labour coming third.

The polls have been too close to call for a long while – but it’s being suggested that support for UKIP is running out of steam and that the party might not be the shoo-in that was first imagined in some areas.

***

But what about locally?

Last week we took a detailed look at the promises on offer from the ruling Conservative group and the UKIP candidates.

Just in the nick of time, a copy of Labour’s manifesto dropped through the door of Number 1 Eye Street.

Some of it includes echoes of the last local election in 2011 – such as the promise to introduce dog wardens and bring back the Party in the Park – whilst other parts seek to turn back the clock.

We’re talking about the idea of reintroducing Sunday bus services – many of which disappeared because of cuts in subsidies by Lincolnshire County Council, against a background of poor uptake by passengers.

Raising wages and lowering rents also feature on Labour’s agenda – as does the reintroduction of flood warning sirens, which were done away with some years ago ... notionally on the grounds that there were higher tech means of alerting people to flooding, but also because county hall didn’t want to spend the money.

Labour is also proposing sandbag collection points around the town  – which we are certain will prove so popular that there will be none left before the first rains even begin.

All this – plus  slashing car parking charges, which provide one of the few forms of income for Boston Borough Council –   suggest what could be a very expensive package for local taxpayers.

We would hope to see thorough and detailed costing before Labour started on this shopping list ... and want to know where the money will be coming from.

***

It’s now almost make-your-mind-up-time, and the box where you place your mark on  7^th May will help determine who runs our country and our council for the next several years.

Unless you are party politically driven, it’s best to spend some time looking at the promises that are being made.

We’ve just looked at the Labour list which is interesting, but also impracticable in many respects and certainly expensive.

We mentioned the Tories last week –  and their five “priorities” don’t amount to much.

Delivery of a long term plan that will see a distributor road being built is not something for the coming four years –  but more  an uphill grind over the next forty.

Working in partnership to deliver the Boston Barrier is something that has been going on for years and barring any economic mishaps will now go ahead –  come hell or high water, if you will forgive the pun.

And a “Cabinet Question Time” sounds good on  paper –  but then so did the trumpeting that  council meetings could be filmed  18 months ago. Since then –  apart from a brief bit of filming for its novelty value –  nothing more has happened.

This council leadership  has been one of the least transparent and most secretive as far as things that matter are concerned  –  and whilst a “Question Time” concept sounds seductive, we have to remember that the meetings start at 10am and a recent one was over by 10-30am.

Who would seriously believe that someone would rate a meeting such as this so important that they will take at least half a day off work to attend a half-an-hour meeting.

Smoke and mirrors.

And whilst UKIP has a raft of broad local policies, individual promises need close inspection to ensure that they are deliverable.

A quick flip through the pledges on offer include many things that are simply beyond the pay grade of local councils – responsibilities of County Hall and national government or the NHS.

With election promises – as with anything else – always read the small print thoroughly before signing up.

We urge everyone who has an interest in Boston to turn out and vote – but to weigh up the promises of those who want you to hand them power and not to be taken for granted.

As Al Capone, the legendary gangster has been famously quoted as saying: "Vote early – and vote often."

***

Having raised the issue a few times in recent weeks, it was with a sense of schadenfreude that we noticed the laborious explanation issued by Boston Borough Council to try to clarify the effects of ward boundary changes on voters in the Fishtoft area.

Some people have received their postal ballot papers but – in the words of Worst Street – “may not realise that for electoral purposes the Fishtoft Parish Council area is split into two wards ...”

The reason for this is most likely because, the borough council has not bothered to try to make this information clear and accessible.

With a number of new wards popping up across the borough, and changes as to who votes where, we hope that the council seizes the chance to tell people where to go  –  in the nicest possible way, or course –  before it is too late.

***

A sympathiser with what some see as over-generous publicity for Boston’s mayor in the run up to the elections draws our attention to an interesting way of measuring the passage of time in the Boston Bulletin.

This exciting and vibrant publication tells us: “Centenarians are not known to be like London buses – arriving in twos – but recently in Boston no fewer than four came along at once.”

The item then went on to captivate us with no fewer than four pictures of the mayor exchanging wrinkly handshakes with the simultaneous centenarians.

Simultaneous?

Not quite.

There also appeared to be five, not four, when you delved deeper into the story.

According to the bulletin, the first of these “all at once” oldies was visited in January, followed by the next in February, the third in March and the fourth at Easter.

But we were also told that at the beginning of December last year, a 101 year-old also received a mayoral visit – although the excitement would appear to have been so great that she died not long after..

Not for the first time, we are reminded of the motto quoted by one of our first editors.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

***

Staying with the Boston Bulletin, after last week’s blog we received the following email from Boston Borough Council’s Labour group leader Paul Gleeson, which said:

“I noted your aside on my concerns about the Boston Bulletin.

“Section 28 of the Government's guidance on council publications states ‘... local authorities should not publish or incur expenditure in commissioning in hard copy or on any website, newsletters, newssheets or similar communications which seek to emulate commercial newspapers in style or content.

“Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, newssheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly.

“Such communications should not include material other than information for the public about the business, services and amenities of the council or other local service providers..."

“Whilst my view of the guidance is straightforward and means that the bulletin should only be published quarterly, this view is not accepted by the council's monitoring officer.  

“As the restriction is only contained in a guidance. my only option is to continue to pursue the matter with the monitoring officer, which I am still doing – as I am of the opinion her replies to me still have not adequately addressed the issue of frequency of publication.

“At present I am awaiting a further reply from the monitoring officer”

***

We now know a little more since last week's blog about plans to develop Haven Wharf alongside the river in the centre of the town.

click to enlarge

The application was made on 7^th April on behalf of Hanseatic Developments Ltd, which at the time had not been incorporated at Companies House ... and wasn’t until 23^rd April.

As a result we now know that the company lists just one company director – 48 year-old Simon George Brown – who has expressed the wish to “adopt entirely bespoke articles.”

The company’s registered address  is 5 Resolution  Close, on  Endeavour Park in Boston, which is also home to 33 other companies – 24 of them active, plus nine which have been  dissolved.

We believe that this is known as an accommodation address.

According to this week’s “exclusive” report in the Boston Standard – which appeared just a week after our own piece in Boston Eye, the scheme is set to cost £10 million.

Mr Brown’s background appears to be in transport and haulage.

We await further developments on the site with interest.

***

That’s it for this week.

Please make sure that you stick your ‘X’ in a box –  the worst you can do is to vote for monkeys and find that you are stuck with a bunch of clowns – but you can then at least say that you looked at what they said and took a decision.

Next week, we hope to publish the headline results on Friday followed by a more detailed analysis of what it might mean locally.

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

13 days to the elections

Boston Eye begins this week with a warning to householders across the borough to be on the lookout for doorstep tricksters posing as politicians seeking their votes for a place in the Worst Street council chamber.

A major problem is that whilst most of them are perfectly genuine, some are only after your vote because they like being called “councillor”– which makes them feel more important – and  pocketing the £4,400 a year basic allowance that comes with it.

Often it is possible to pick up that extra £366 a month by doing little if almost anything other than sounding important – and long- term perpetrators of this scam can be so persuasive that their gullible victims are sucked in without realising it.

Boston Eye was told: “It is very important that you don’t vote for the wrong sort of person who has no real interest in you, or your ward.

“There have been a number of examples over the years of councillors getting elected and then almost totally ignoring the people who put them in power in the first place.

“No matter how serious these people might seem to be, remember, that at heart they are politicians, and as such regard economy with the truth as a stock in trade.”

***

Meanwhile, a fuller version of the controlling Conservative group’s list of promises is dropping through letterboxes.

Hoarders of such stuff may initially be confused, as its main page mimics almost completely the “five promise clipboard” leaflet issued four years ago.

The latest propaganda reminds us of the pledges made then and are accompanied by a list of four completely different things that have been delivered.

Top of the list is the Assembly Rooms – “sold for £1/2 million ... saving £60,000 a year in upkeep ... saving you the £500,000 repair costs.”

Well, sort of ...

The Assembly Rooms were actually sold for £465,000 after years and years on the market – but what’s £35,000 between friends when half a million pounds sounds so much better.

And the reason why the repair costs had become so great was because of the refusal by a number of previous administrations to maintain it – a self-inflicted injury.

Next on the list is a self-congratulatory slap on the back for the “sensible financial management” that enabled the reopening of the Moulder Training Pool.

Spending on the Moulder has become a runaway train in recent years, involving hundreds of thousands of pounds and a couple of raids on the borough's reserves – which begs the question of how one defines the word “sensible.”

The list goes on ... introduction of green waste collection, a new depot, and sharing of bin lorries, and “state of the art” (whatever that means) CCTV at a cost of £230,000. Boston’s CCTV empire has now spread its electronic tentacles into South Holland and East Lindsey – prompting concerns that its worth might be diminished because Boston Borough Council has bitten off more than it can chew.

***

Moving on, we encounter promises to “Deliver our Long Term Local Plan to enable the Distributor Road bypassing Boston to be built, so we can Grow the Local Economy to provide private housing and jobs throughout our local community.” The capital letters are theirs, not ours.

There’s an undertaking to review car parking and reduce prices where possible; work with drainage boards, the Environment Agency and other local authorities to deliver the Boston Flood Barrier.

And finally, from a leadership mired in secrecy, comes the droll idea of  “Cabinet Question Time”  public meetings with the idea that voters can  “ask questions and hold councillors to account on the issues that matter most.”

At present, Boston doesn’t have much by way of a long term local plan.

The South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee opened for business in 2011, tasked with looking as far ahead as 2036. In fact it is already so far behind the times that its most recent Tweet urges us to “Come along to the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee, Monday 25th November 9.30am at Boston Borough Council Offices.”

It was posted in November 2013.

That’s despite an invitation to “keep up-to-date with progress via Twitter and Facebook.”

A local development scheme is now in its third revision but will probably not be worth the paper it’s printed on in 25 years’ time.

And it’s likely to be that far in the future – or perhaps even longer – before any meaningful kind of “distributor road” emerges ... and it will all depend on browbeating developers into proving it stretch by stretch.

That’s something we don’t really imagine happening.

The irony of a question time at which the council can be held accountable also reeks of pie in the sky.

The Assembly Rooms sale mentioned earlier took place against a backdrop of secrecy which saw journalists and the public kicked out of a special meeting, whilst most of the events surrounding the sale remained a closed book to the voters – who were technically the owners of the public building being dumped.

Somehow, we can't see our leadership leopards changing their spots if re– elected on 7th May.

***

One thing that we do know, is that the Conservatives do not tolerate what their leader once upon a time referred to as “mavericks” defined by the dictionary as “independent- minded persons” –  or put more simply, people who think for themselves.

After the Tories’ 26 wannabes, Labour are fielding 19 candidates, UKIP 18, and Independents 14.

So far, we have not had sight of a Labour leaflet, but will tell you what it says when we see one.

However, looking back at what Labour had to say after the 2011 elections, we are sorry to say that the group’s delivery has been totally lacking.

As we said at the time, Labour probably had the most ambitious manifesto but given that the party was not contesting enough seats to gain control of Boston Borough Council, it would not therefore be faced with the threat of delivering on any of its promises.

High on the list four years ago was a pledge to campaign to make Strait Bargate a pedestrian area once again – but we can’t recall anything taking place after that.

Then we were told:, “Our new councillors will be urging the new Conservative administration to reinstate a dog warden, as this would have a major impact on our estates –  firstly by removing stray dogs; and secondly enforcing the horrific environmental blight of dog fouling in our streets and parks.”

Nope, that didn't happen either.

And finally, the only current pledge of which we have heard has been disinterred from the 2011 tomb of promises and dusted off for this year’s campaign – the return of the Party in the Park.

“We will campaign vigorously to reinstate Party in the Park,” said Labour after the 2011 elections. “Sadly – we are likely to be too late to reinstate it this year, but we believe that 2012 would be an excellent year, as it is also the Queen’s Golden Jubilee and the Olympics year, to bring our local communities together.”

Aside from the promises about ending the Strait Bargate rat run, which would have been heartily opposed by the county council and the bus operators both, we would have thought that at least a dog warden would not have been beyond the realm of possibility.

But to resurrect the idea of a free for all booze up in the heart of the town having done little, if anything, since the promise was last made four years ago, seems little more than a blatant and none too transparent stunt to win some votes.

With so many candidates this time around, Labour might have a chance of winning more than three seats, and if they do, we trust that their promises won’t fizzle out as they did last time.

***

Moving on, the UKIP approach is quite interesting – and given their successes at recent elections, it is entirely possible one way or another that the Conservatives will lose  overall control at Worst Street and the council will revert to its more commonplace status of having no one group in charge.

***

Despite their individual independence there is a broad  Local Manifesto drawn up which stresses that Kipper councillors do not have to toe the party line.

Pledges at borough council level include stimulating the local economy, keeping police on the streets along with a zero tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour, supporting the  work of the voluntary sector and restoring weekly bin collections.

The manifesto includes references to controlling immigration to ease the burden on local services – but of course that is well above the pay grade of a local district council.

Don Ransome, Boston's Mr UKIP told us: “All UKIP councillors are un-whipped and are free to follow their consciences and more importantly their residents’ majority wishes.

“Whilst our local election manifesto sets out our broader aims, many of our candidates have specific ideas on their local wards.

“Where we really hope to differ from previous administrations is our determination to listen to the electorate and actually find out what the majority want us to do for them by surveys and referendums and not just pay lip service to the needs of the residents of the borough.”

The offer of local referenda is something that bothers us because of the cost.

It is said that a borough referendum would cost between £50,000 and £70,000 – so we would hope that there wasn't a demand for too many!

A key slogan of UKIP’s is “If you vote UKIP – you get UKIP” and if the party wins some seats, we hope that this will be the case.

Our one-time Kippers on Boston Borough Council appeared to spend more time changing  their party name than anything else –  from UKIP to UKIP Lincolnshire, the Independence from Europe group, to Lincolnshire Independents.

At next month’s elections one is not standing, whilst the other is seeking election as an Independent.

***

One stunt that UKIP did come up with – which, no doubt, provoked an interesting reaction, was a propaganda display to greet council staff and councillors as they entered their Worst Street car park at the start of the week.

More annoyingly for the Tory rulers, it was on private land and put there with the owner’s permission!

***

It seems that yet again Boston might not be getting quite the best it deserves from developers.

Back in February, our respected and beloved leader told us that “serious interest” had been expressed to the council in developing of Haven Wharf on the river alongside Boston High Street, and added “I think we are in for an exciting time ahead.”

This has now come to pass.

But if you’re expecting some sympathetic development, reflecting the heritage and architecture of the water side, prepare to be disappointed.

Back in 2008, the Boston Waterways Development plan referred to the “key location on the Haven where the inner ring road crosses the river, the site comprises a group of industrial brick warehouses which are currently vacant and semi-derelict.

“Boston has lost much of its industrial waterways heritage over the years for a variety of reasons and it is seen as important that good examples of the type are preserved wherever possible.

“The vision for this site seeks to retain the warehouse buildings, with new development facilitating the conversion of the warehouses to new uses. The proposed development respects the bulk and materials of the warehouses, follows the east/west orientation of traditional riverside developments, and creates a striking urban form on the inner ring road corner.

“As shown, the site could accommodate significant commercial or educational uses. Alternatively, a scheme of conversion and new build for residential use could be appropriate.”

Dream on ...

Instead, we are looking at the wholesale demolition of the buildings on the site to be replaced by two grim-looking seven storey detached apartment blocks containing 75 apartments  a cafe and a gym, and a few houses to fill in the gaps.

The application has been made by a company called Hanseatic Developments, but – scour Google as hard as we might, we can find no mention of them.

In fact, Companies House – the bible of company listings – has no record of a company of this name being registered.

It’s ironic though that Boston’s decision to ride piggyback on the Die Hanse organisation which is celebrating ancient trading links between ports and towns should coincide with plans to demolish what are clearly characterful and iconic buildings which reminds us strongly of our maritime heritage.

***

Which reminds us, what happened to plans to build a £3m marina at Fenside in Boston containing 161 berths and an 80-seat family restaurant  which we were told could bring millions of pounds of investment to the town, according to local councillors?

The plans were approved two years ago, and work was supposed to have begun last year.

A search on the internet finds the only two official sites connected to the project dead in the water, if you’ll excuse the pun. One site is no longer available, whilst the other is “under construction” – unlike the marina, apparently.

At the time the plans were approved, our ever optimistic leader Pete Bedford declared: “it should bring millions to the town, push up property prices and get people coming to Boston – it is a very exciting prospect."

Whilst he seems to like the word “exciting,” we have yet to experience even the smallest frisson of pleasure from what’s going on – or not going on.

***

One of the big national and local  debating points in Boston as 7th May approaches is the issue of immigration, and a constant bone of contention has been whether or not there are pay differentials between the migrant community and the indigenous population.

Generally the view from the top has been that our local people have become workshy.

Both our outgoing MP Mark Simmonds and council leader Bedford have separately made this claim.

When Simmonds was asked about the lack of jobs for local people, he responded: “I can meet some young people in Boston who say ‘Mark, when are you going to get all these migrants out of our town', and I say to them, ‘Well, when you’re prepared to go into the fields or the packhouses'.”

Councillor Bedford, meanwhile, offered this verdict on jobs: “It’s the fact that our population have got to get used to the fact of starting to apply for such jobs (in the packhouses) again.”

A recent report compiled locally highlighted serious exploitation faced by some members of the Latvian community.

Many locals have insisted that the reason they no longer seek land work is because migrant labourers receive a lower rate – one that they could not afford to live on.

Whilst many of the great and the good have challenged this, a couple of reluctant admissions indicate that there might be some truth in the claims after all.

Last week, in a report entitled “Town's firms wary of praising migrant workers” the BBC’s World Service British Affairs correspondent, obtained reluctant confirmation from Simon Beardsley, chief executive of Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce – who actually visited Boston for the interview.

"Below the radar there are businesses that do feel it is positive (but) in a small town, you can alienate yourself very quickly,” he is quoted as saying.

"Initially there was a mood of scepticism around individuals coming in and the impact that they would make on the town and the economy. Over a period of time those impressions have changed and the acceptance of migration into the town has changed.

"Without the numbers coming in, the businesses would suffer because predominantly the area is made up of lowskilled, low-wage jobs in agriculture and food processing and there isn't the indigenous population looking to take up those jobs."

The report continued: “Mr Beardsley says many employers would suffer if they couldn't recruit the labour they needed and, even if they were to entice British workers to apply, the higher wages necessary would drive up the costs.

“Despite numerous BBC requests, we found, with a fierce election contest underway, those employing east Europeans in large numbers all refused to speak about it.

“‘Most of the land work is taken up by the east Europeans now,’ one young man tells me .... he says those who want that work on the land, as he once did, see the arrivals as competition.

"’If you were ever stuck for a job there was always land work, but it has got a bit more difficult now everybody is having to work more, because they work all the hours God sends.

"’The east European gangs will work for a lot less, for a lot longer, than the English gangs."

Later in the report, viewers are told: “Asked if businesses like immigration because the arrivals had pushed down wages, Simon Beardsley answers obliquely.

“‘There is a supply and demand issue here in terms of the flood of labour into the market. Businesses do need the labour, without it they would struggle to do what they need to do, so yes it is potentially a lower cost base," he says.

***

Some more election snippets for you now...

We hear of frayed tempers in Worst Street – where for the first time that we can think of, the “P” word is being bandied about in anger.

The “P” in question stands for “Purdah” – the practice in certain Muslim and Hindu societies of screening women from men or strangers, especially by means of a curtain –  and quaintly adopted by politicians to describe a pre-election period during which certain restrictions apply to publicity matters.

So far, one candidate has received a slightly worrying visit from the police, and we understand that a council committee meeting was cancelled as a result of complaint that to let it go ahead might confer political benefit on one of the people who would have been participating.

After this, a complaint was made that the purdah rules were being breached in the borough council’s mercifully now only thrice-weekly “news” bulletin with repeated references to the Mayor, Councillor Alison Austin, and her husband consort, Richard, both of whom are seeking re-election.

This involved the lead officer for Electoral Malpractice in Lincolnshire Police being made aware, and the Electoral Commission being advised as a matter of course ... but the police quickly washed their hands of the complaint.

However, the Department for Communities and Local Government advice was that a formal complaint could be made to the council about “perceived inappropriate publicity.” 

That has received the response that promoting the mayor is not a breach of the rules.

Incidentally, this is not the first time that the borough bulletin has come under the spotlight.

Earlier this year, it was the subject of a formal complaint about bias, and the Labour group leader Paul Gleeson told Boston Eye  he had “a series of issues and have been in discussion with the borough for a period of time.”

What became of that?

Who knows?

Labour strikes again.

***

UKIP nationally is having a hissy fit over the results of the latest ComRes poll of ten key Conservative-held UKIP target seats –  including Boston and Skegness.

It ranks the Conservatives top of the list on 39%, followed by Labour on 29% and UKIP with 21%.

The figure is well below the massive lead quoted earlier in the year, when an Ashcroft poll published in February put UKIP just three points behind the Tories (35 per cent to 38 per cent)  and some private polling by Survation in September last year that gave the party 45 per cent, with the Conservative vote at just 26 per cent.

Of the latest poll, Katharine Peacock, ComRes managing director: “While UKIP’s support nationally has fallen away from its peak last year, this poll of Conservative– held target seats suggests that estimates of UKIP winning any more than a handful of seats at the general election were overly optimistic. They are still in play in a small number of seats, but have not managed to become to the main challenger to the Conservatives in the way they had hoped.”

But a UKIP source is quoted in the Spectator as criticising a ‘terrible way of doing the poll’. The party’s main gripe appears to that be several of the seats polled by ComRes are not top targets for the party.

***

We raise our cap an inch or so to Boston Borough Council Conservative candidate Daniel Elkington, whom we criticised last week for the rough ride he gave fellow contenders in Boston’s Witham Ward. in his blog “Boston Tory.”

“After reading the comments in the new Boston Eye blog I get the feeling that I'm being sucked into the negative campaigning that I, personally, don't like,” he wrote.

“It's so terribly easy to get sucked into it though, especially when this time round it is so important ... “

***

Remember Boston song thrush and county councillor Andrea Jenkyns? She lost the seat for Boston North West two years ago then headed for Yorkshire to contest the Morley and Outwood seat currently held by Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls with the slender majority of 1,101.

Whilst no one has much fancied her chances, she’s now making optimistic noises and thinks that she will beat Balls after reports that a number of the many undecided voters have been provoked by SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon into backing the Tories.  Hmmmm.

***

It was last October that we highlighted the appalling state of the Liquorpond Street roundabout – as a direct result of the “experimental” ban on traffic turning right from South End.

We have noted time and again that nothing appears to have been done to repair the mess, but a new hazard has now emerged for drivers as the heavy  five-inch stone block cubes that form the surround are finding their way into the path of traffic.

The right hand turn ban began on 21st August last year, with a public “consultation” promised after six months – which would have been in February.

Does anyone know what happened?

***

Last week, we read about an “excellent meeting” about new signage for Boston – something that’s supposed to be happening as part of various grant aided improvement packages for the town.  Sadly, the Tweet that mentioned it made us wise after the event, and we recall no pre-publicity that might have encouraged input from a wider audience.

Once again, it seems that decisions which might make the town a better place are being contained within a narrow group of the great and the good – which is really quite shameful.

***

As Pilgrim Hospital begins showing signs of improvement, we can suggest another area that could be reviewed as soon as possible.

More than one reader has been in touch about the ridiculous state of the car parks at the hospital in recent weeks. One reported that – driving alone to an early afternoon appointment – she was forced to cancel it after fruitlessly touring the car parks to find somewhere to stop.

Earlier this week, we heard another case, when a patient with an appointment was accompanied by a relative, but had to be dumped outside as again, there were no parking places to be had.

Unfortunately, the car park barriers do not display the useful information that the place is full which means collecting a ticket and then wasting time driving around, then using the same ticket to exit and try somewhere else.

What is crystal clear is that the car parks are jammed with visitors – sometimes to the exclusion of patients.

Some wards display signs limiting the number of visitors to a bed –  but these are never enforced.

We suppose that the hospital couldn't care less so long as it is trousering a fortune in parking charges.

But don’t they whine and moan when appointments are cancelled at the last minute – even though it is sometimes their fault.

***

Finally, this week’s “Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t” Award goes to Boston Borough Council – now there’s a surprise.

After the incessant and often nauseating attention Worst Street has lavished on people who treat public areas as outdoor privies, we note that when someone shows a bit of initiative, they still end up in deep sh*t.

A clear attempt to improve things by installing a loo in one of the town’s parking areas was carted off by the Boston Big Clean-up volunteers amid the usual condemnation.

Sometimes, you just can’t win!!

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

20 days to the elections 

Monday saw our look at the bare bones of the forthcoming local election campaign – and now it’s time to flesh things out in more detail.

As you might expect, fewer candidates are seeking election to fewer seats

The Conservatives and UKIP are standing in all 15 wards - down from 18 at present.

Labour has candidates in 12 of them, the Greens in four and the Lib Dems in one.

There are also 14 candidates running on the Independent ticket – but on the evidence from previous administrations we can expect many of these to regroup – if they are re-elected.

As we mentioned on Monday there are three big name losses for the Tory group at Worst Street – although one had already renounced the group.

Raymond Singleton-McGuire, formerly joint deputy leader and portfolio holder for finance – who chaired the local Conservatives and led them to the resounding and completely unexpected victory in 2011 – appears to have quit political life entirely.

After being suspended from the Tory group, allegedly "in the interests of transparency and good governance" pending a legal action completely unrelated to this civic role, he declared himself  “unable to continue my allegiance with Councillor Peter Bedford as Conservative group leader and leader of the council,” and to serve the rest of his term as an Independent.

In the meantime, he has quit his other role on Fishtoft Parish Council, and his name does not appear on the list of borough council candidates for next month’s elections.

Another casualty is Derek “Knocker” Richmond – another portfolio holder ... allegedly responsible for Boston Town Centre.

The silver-tongued Councillor Richmond has been under fire more than once during his tenure in office.

In particular his reasons for charging blue badge holders to pay to park struck a bum note when he reinforced the argument by claiming that this would give them the equality with able-bodied people that they were always banging on about.

And he attracted further unfavourable attention after saying of the Boston Standard’s anonymous commentator “Observer.”

“You want to sort your Observer column out.” He was quoted as saying. “We know who he is, he’ll get a knock on his door one day,” adding,  “When has he supported us? He never supports anything we do.

“He’s going to get a knock one day.”

It appears though, that people jumped to entirely the wrong conclusions over these remarks, as he later took the trouble to explain

“By a ‘knock on the door’ I meant that even though Observer hides behind a pseudonym I know who he is, and may knock on his door so that he can have an adult face-to-face conversation with me in order that we can sensibly discuss some of the issues which concern him, I would welcome a meeting with Observer at any time as I do with any other member of the public.”

Of course.

The third major loss from the Tory camp is that of Mike Gilbert, another cabinet member and portfolio holder, who we understand cannot seek re-election due to regulations surrounding his job.

***

One other Tory on the move is Gloria Smith, who was elected to Skirbeck Ward in 2011, and will now be standing as an Independent candidate in Staniland Ward, where her opponents include portfolio holder and self-styled “dignitary” Yvonne Gunter, former borough councillor Brian Rush standing for UKIP, and Pam Kenny, wife of Labour councillor and prospective parliamentary candidate Paul Kenny.

Quite how the Conservatives will cope with the loss of the inestimable Gloria Smith is hard to imagine - but we expect that they will begin by trying not to grin too broadly!

***

Looking down the list of nominations, a number of interesting entries catch the eye.

***

In Coastal Ward, the deputy chairman for Policy and Campaigning with Boston and Skegness Conservatives – Tom Ashton - is standing (obviously) for the Tories, alongside the present council leader Pete Bedford who has declared his wish to remain as leader in the event of another Conservative victory at Worst Street. That’s despite losing three cabinet members and a fourth rank and file member this time round.

To describe Mr Ashton as keen to be elected is an understatement.

In fact, so enthusiastic is he to serve the voters that he is also standing in the East Lindsey District Council elections as the Tory candidate for the Sibsey and Stickney ward.

By a strange coincidence, another contender for a Boston seat is doing the self-same thing. Not content with standing for UKIP in Boston’s Fishtoft Ward, Jonathan Noble is also having a go at East Lindsey’s Sibsey and Stickney seat.

Whether this is a case of belt and braces in a thirst for election or merely an overwhelming need to serve the people isn’t clear.

But given the amount of time councillors put in, we have to question whether either man would be able to manage two jobs in neighbouring authorities alongside whatever outside interests they may have.

***

In Fishtoft Ward, Conservative Paul Skinner is attempting to end a run of recent bad luck after losing his Lincolnshire County Council seat in 2013 and an unsuccessful bid for Boston Borough Council back in 2011. His wife, Judith, is the other Tory contender in the ward. All told, seven candidates are fighting for the three available seats

***

One of the new wards – St Thomas – could also prove interesting.

St Thomas – one of only two single seat wards on the council – emerged after some reshuffling by the Boundary Commission and sees around 370 voters in part of the current South Ward moved to the Wyberton Ward.

The idea was opposed by the incumbent, “Independent” Councillor Alison Austin, and husband Richard who represents Wyberton, who – apparently without any concern about the impact on likely voting – objected on the grounds that electors would have further to travel, especially the elderly without transport who would have to walk along and cross busy roads.

Another part of the current South Ward has also been moved into the Wyberton Ward, where around 71 voters in the London Road area will be asked to go to Wyberton Parish Hall.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Mrs Austin will find herself up against five candidates compared with three last time.

Having his second bite at the cherry is local accountant Darron Abbott, who ran second to Mrs Austin in 2011, whilst an Independent took third place.

Since that election, Mr Abbott has been a fly in the ointment of Boston Borough councillors and officers – barraging them with questions and comments to keep them up to snuff.

If elected, we expect him to be one Conservative who will not be toeing the party line if he doesn’t want to.

As well as that, Mrs Austin faces opposition from UKIP and Labour, and another potentially interesting Independent candidate.

Dr Cyril Nyman – famous for his bow ties – retired in 2012 as consultant physician in cardiorespiratory medicine at Pilgrim Hospital

Dr Nyman is well-known for setting up the Pilgrim Heart and Lung Fund around 30 years ago, since when he has raised thousands of pounds for charity.

Such a well-known and popular figure could do very well at the polls, and it will take all of Mrs Austin’s charm and charisma – which has often been unfairly  likened to a plate of cold mashed potato (unfair to the  plate of cold mashed potato, that is)  – to cling on in the new ward.

***

We mentioned the departure of Councillor Mike Gilbert earlier in today’s report - but it may be that the name is not to be lost to local politics.

Mr Gilbert’s son Tristan is standing in the new Station Ward – which is the only other ward to return a single councillor.

Master Gilbert faces challenges from UKIP, Labour, and the Green Party candidate Joe Pepper – a 28 year-old officer with a neighbouring council who is soon to embark on his final training to become a solicitor.

As proponents for many years of the need for local politicians to use the internet to talk to the electorate, we are pleased to learn that Mr Pepper has set up a  public  e-mail address at joepeppergreen@gmail.com  and a Twitter account  @JoeMPepper . 

He tells Boston Eye that he will be very happy to answer questions on any issues at all, from anyone who asks..

***

The contest for Trinity Ward also features two familiar names.
Boston solicitor Dennis Bambridge, of Bambridges Solicitors, is standing as an Independent. Mr Bambridge is a one-time independent chairman of the former Standards Committee on Boston Borough Council, and a  one-time director of Boston Business “Improvement” District.
And the other is Wendy Gleeson, wife of Labour group leader Paul Gleeson,  who stood last time for Labour in Fenside.

***

As election day draws closer a meeting was held at the beginning of the week for all candidates.

The wannabes were told about a two month induction programme, which is very intense and obligatory for all new councillors.

Apparently, two Ukippers failed to make it to the meeting, and questions are already being asked as to how our Boston and East Lindsey joint candidates might cope with a double helping of this sort of thing.

***

A sense of schadenfreude is being expressed in some quarters following the appearance of highly visible “Vote UKIP” posters on houses adjoining some prominent spots easily visible to passing traffic on Spilsby Road and John Adams Way. The irony?  A number of the properties are owned by Boston councillor and prominent property magnate Raymond Singleton-McGuire, whose website describes his company as Lincolnshire’s largest private sector landlord.

When the Tory group kicked him out earlier this year, he severed all ties with them and went Independent, and now he is not seeking election at all.

Nonetheless, people must be a little bewildered!

***

One of our newer political bloggers has treated the voters in his ward to a personal thumbnail sketch of his opponents.

Daniel Elkington, is standing alongside political trouper Mary Wright in Witham Ward,

Of this unlikely pairing he says: “ ... there's me – work in Bargate  live on Norfolk Street, Chairman of Lincolnshire Conservative Policy Forum  ... ... and there is Mary, who has been a councillor for several decades (I think) and has a vast amount of experience of Boston and Witham ward.”

Of the Labour candidates, Ben Cook and, “presumably” his brother Andy, he writes: “Both live at Wyberton Low Road – which is not in Witham Ward. I've met Ben a few times and think he is a nice enough chap, he doesn't seem to have any original ideas.”

Of UKIP, he says: “Two interesting candidates. One of them doesn't live in the ward, but on Church Road. I eagerly look forward to why she thinks she can represent the local people. She lives in Skirbeck ward and they haven't fielded a full slate there – so why has she chosen Witham over where she lives? The other candidate is another unknown. He does run 1st choice webs, which seems to have produced some decent websites for local businesses. As a local businessman I feel a deal of synergy with him. I'm surprised that someone in the tech sector wants to leave the EU without a referendum, but I eagerly await his rationale on my doorstep!”

Finally, the Independent candidate Councillor Carol Taylor comes within range of Mr Elkington’s rapier like wit.

“Carol is a lovely lady, but it is very sad that she decided to defect a few weeks after getting elected on the back of the Conservative vote last time. I can understand the reasons for her defection, but really would have preferred if she had tried to work through her problems rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

We recall Councillor Taylor’s departure from the Tory fold very clearly.

She went Independent because of her unwillingness to kowtow to the leadership and mindlessly do as she was told.

However. it seems as though Mr Elkington –  an “Independent Financial Adviser” –  is telling us that we need have no fears about where he stands as far as political independence is concerned and that his Tory masters need have no fear that he will step out of line.

His blogs to date have been unsparing in their criticism of others...

Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson is dubbed “grumpy” and with  “a catastrophic lack of understanding of how the world actually works” ... whilst the Elkington insight into the recent local hustings told us that  ...

UKIP’s Robin Hunter-Clark “stood up and lied to the assembly”

Labour’s Paul Kenny “did his normal trick of sounding really passionate about stuff, and whinging a lot about stuff and offering very few solutions ...”

Moving on, “Chris Pain (Independence from Europe) seemed genuine and seemed to struggle a bit on stage ... He's not MP material, but I could see him making a good councillor and he probably does.”.

And as for the Green’s candidate ... “Victoria Percival I felt sorry for, she kept saying that 'it made her sad' to see something and I could just imagine her going back home with a bottle of fair-trade wine and weeping gentle organic tears into it.”

When he first began blogging in March, Mr Elkington told his readers that he would like to begin with a thank-you to “all the people who have helped me to become the man that I am ...”

A few blogs down the line, we think we’re starting to get the idea of the sort of man he is.

***

Some election trivia for you now...

 ... Although we have seen one or two political couples competing, our nomination for the most tenacious family goes to the Ransomes ... Sisters Felicity Elizabeth , Elizabeth Lucy and Jodie are contesting Coastal, Five Villages and  Swineshead & Holland Fen respectively, whilst mum Sue  is standing in Station Ward,  and dad Don is West Ward.

...  the most heavily contested  election will be in Witham Ward where eight candidates are vying for two places. There are no uncontested wards.

... the Lack of Interest This Time Round award goes to the English Democrat movement. Spurred on by the examples of Elliot Fountain and David Owens, they fielded 11 candidates in 2011. This time they have none - and their place appears to have been taken over by the more voter friendly UKIP

***

We don't know what they were thinking of in the first place, but BBC Radio Lincolnshire has backed down after some harsh words on the internet and in the social media pages over its decision to exclude the Green Party candidate, Victoria Percival, from a live radio “hustings” which is being broadcast from Blackfriars in Boston on 1st May.

Whilst the event is organised by BBC Radio Lincolnshire it is purportedly supported by the Boston and Skegness Standard “newspapers” – although precisely what the paper’s role in the event is, we do not know.

Perhaps they’ll be putting the chairs away afterwards.

The debate as originally organised was to feature the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, and UKIP candidates with the remaining five having “the chance to speak on air during the evening.”

In a county like Lincolnshire we find it hard to imagine why the Greens should have been blacklisted in the first place – and let’s not forget that earlier in the year, the prospect of TV election debates between the party leaders suffered a blow after David Cameron refused to participate in them if the Green party was excluded.

The debate following the local decision indicated just how annoyed with the BBC many local people were.

A number questioned whether BBC Radio Lincolnshire was able to exclude parties on a whim.

But the answer was – yes, it was ... and if you are interested enough to read the full Ofcom regulations, you can find them here.

Initially, when Ms Percival’s agent, Biff Vernon, raised the issue with Radio Lincolnshire’s Managing Editor, Charlie Partridge, he received the sniffy  reply: “It is indeed the case that our Boston Debate on Friday 1^st  May is going to be between the four main parties: Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, and UKIP.

“Our decision is based on previous electoral performance and evidence of support locally. Although the Greens will not be invited to take part in the debate itself, we will be contacting you in order to arrange an interview with you in the three hour election programme that the debate is part of.

“I should point out that the Boston Debate is one of seven that BBC Radio Lincolnshire is promoting, and that the Greens will be included elsewhere.

“I hope this makes our position clear.”

Clear it may have been.

Acceptable it was not.

Quickly and unsurprisingly Mr Partridge caved in to public pressure – although his Tweet, on the day he changed his mind, is a tad baffling and sounds like the mixture as before: “All candidates will get a chance to put their case in three hour show. Debate is part of that prog and will feature the four main candidates.”

Whilst we can understand the BBC’s reluctance to engage as many as nine people in any sort of meaningful debate, it is clearly guilty of not thinking things through sufficiently well before announcing the line-up.

There are clearly some classic no-hopers among this ennead whose exclusion would in no way harm their chances – but they will still have a chance to speak outside of the debate, apparently.

Before Managing Editor Partridge caved in we understand that quite a lot of people complained to him and were “annoyed” by his response.

Complaints were being prepared for the BBC Trust and the Electoral Commission and the director of Blackfriars Theatre was warned that hosting an event to which only some candidates were invited might be judged by the Electoral Commission as a donation to those parties and that such a political donation could threaten the theatre's status as a registered charity.

Fortunately, Partridge’s surrender rendered these actions moot.

More seriously, perhaps, we are told that Stephen Stray, who edits the Boston and Skegness Standard ,seemed to be washing his hands of any responsibility – saying it was not his call.

So much for any form of joint enterprise.

As we said earlier, we understand why the BBC would want to keep the numbers down.

But we have concerns about a local “newspaper” copping out of any responsibility, when it has a far wider duty to its local readership than our local BBC radio station does to its county audience.

It’s a fairly safe bet that the 1^st May broadcast will attract few, if any, listeners

But if the Standard relies on it for source material – which we are sure it will as it’s a nice, lazy way to cover an event – then candidates are likely to be disenfranchised by what may well be an unbalanced account.

***

All of which reminds us of how things have changed. At the 1983 general election broadcasting of debates was more rigorously regulated by the Representation of The People Act.

At that time, BBC Radio Lincolnshire was hoping to break what–   for it – was then new ground with a live round table debate.

Under the rules in those days, all candidates had to agree to take part, and if one refused then the whole programme was kicked into touch.

One Conservative candidate – confident of his chances and, we suspect, concerned lest he made a fool of himself on the wireless –  refused on the following grounds.

“The people of  -------- have voted Conservative for years, and I can see no reason for them to change their minds.

That’s democracy for you!

***

A couple of UKIP whimsies for you before we close...

Whether it’s a case of supreme confidence in victory, or one of caution about fighting simultaneously on two different fronts, but we note that Robin “Boy Wonder”  Hunter-Clarke has waved goodbye to Skegness Town Council, where he has been King of  Winthorpe for the past four years.

He has told his Twitter followers: “Skegness Town Council meeting commences. My last one.... cannot believe it's been four years!” Looking at his Skegness Town council photo, we certainly can ... he has clearly begun to shave since the photo on the right was taken!

Meanwhile, supporter Robert Kimbell, who pompously calls himself a “well-travelled geopolitics junkie and EU-antagonist UKIP Activist.”  rather over-eggs the  pudding on Twitter with his claim that  “YouGov Nowcast has  UKIP  as high as 47.6% in Boston and Skegness.” 

What YouGov actually says is that the constituency is “too close to call” and shows the gap between UKIP and the Conservative's Matt Warman so narrow that you can’t slip a fag paper between them.

Mr Kimbell chooses to highlight UKIP’s popularity – but overlook that of the Tories.

Understandable, perhaps, but not quite " cricket”

And finally ...

There’s an old joke –  attributable, we think, to the late and great Les Dawson –  which runs along the lines of “I’ve  just put a picture of my mother-in-law on the mantelpiece  ... it’s not very pretty, but it keeps the kids away from the fire.”

We think that our local Kippers had something similar in mind when they came up with this cod Jolly Fisherman poster to highlight Nigel Farage’s recent visit to Boston and Skegness.

Aside from the fact that the thing scares you half to death, it also set off the usual rumblings about abusing the famous image such as the one which landed  Viz magazine in big trouble back in 2008.

We think that Jolly looks scary enough already without the Farage makeover!

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

DON’T FORGET ENDER

24 days to the elections

Whomever uttered the phrase “interesting times ahead” may well have had Boston and its forthcoming elections in mind.

The ructions of the last local elections – which saw the Boston Bypass Independents routed, and overall control of the council pass to a single party for the first time since local government reorganisation in 1973 –  are now a thing of the past, as the wannabe councillors have retreated to party lines or the perceived safety of “independence.”

There are 82 candidates contesting 30 seats on the new look Boston Borough Council, which has been slimmed down from 32 seats by a Boundary Commission review –  compared with 95 last time around.

Surprisingly, three Conservative stalwarts are hors de combat and will not be participating in the melee.

Principal among these is Raymond Singleton-McGuire, formerly joint deputy leader and portfolio holder for finance, Mike Gilbert, another cabinet member and portfolio holder for Housing and a sheaf of other things, and Derek ”Knocker” Richmond – another portfolio holder ... who has apparently been “responsible” for Boston Town Centre .

It says much for the inspirational leadership of Councillor Peter Bedford that he has managed to lose three of his seven cabinet members in a single term in office

One other Conservative – Gloria Smith of Skirbeck Ward is standing elsewhere ...  in Staniland Ward – and as an Independent, whilst fellow Tory Mark Baker is not seeking re-election.

***

Two other departures of interest are those of David Owens, elected last time as an English Democrat councillor in Fenside, and Bob McAuley – most recently a Lincolnshire Independent. David Owens was one of two English Democrats elected in 2011. The other was Elliot Fountain who was thrown off the council for not attending a meeting in six months.

Councillor Owens seemed destined to follow in his footsteps, but managed to turn up just often enough to avoid the sack  – which presumably also secured his councillor’s  allowances.

Bob McAuley remains a Lincolnshire County Councillor and was initially elected under the UKIP flag.

His decision not to stand for the borough is disappointing, as “double- hatted” councillors are quite useful, although frankly those who work at county level seem to have achieved little if anything much in recent years.

His former UKIP colleague on Boston Borough Council, Patrisha Ann Keywood-Wainwright, is deserting the Lincolnshire Independents to stand as an Independent.  Should she succeed, we calculate that this will see her fifth change of party name in two years – moving seamlessly from UKIP to “UKIP Lincolnshire,” the Independence from Europe group, to Lincolnshire Independents. The cost of letterheads must be enormous. 

***

The confusingly named Independent Group 2 will cease to exist at the election – and three of its four members ... the survivors from the rump of the disgraced BBI ... are standing as Independents.

Time will tell whether – if re-elected – they will then regroup as a named band of Indies, which yields benefits in terms of gaining places on committees.

The three comprise the clan Austin – Alison and Richard – and Helen Staples, whilst Councillor David Witts has no party preference shown on his nomination form.

***

A former councillor seeking a return to the Worst Street bear pit is Brian Rush – a onetime BBI candidate who subsequently defected and formed the Better Boston Party.

Ill-health forced his resignation, but he is now standing for UKIP in Staniland Ward.

***

Sadly, despite the plethora of parties, there are no Monster Raving Loonies among the nominations.

But given the nature of the Worst Street chamber over the past few years, we are sure that a cluster will emerge as time goes by.*

***

As they say in the news – those are the headlines.

We’ll be back on Friday with our usual blog when we’ll be looking at the nominations and some of the more interesting candidates  in more detail.

***

In tandem with the borough council nominations, a final list of candidates for the Westminster election was announced – including an unexpected name ... that of Peter Johnson of Benington  standing as an  Independent

The full list is – in alphabetical order for the sake of fairness is:

Robin Hunter-Clarke – UKIP  

Peter Johnson – Independent

Paul Kenny – Labour

Lyn Luxton – Pilgrim Party

Chris Pain – Independence from Europe

Victoria Percival – Green 

Matt Warman – Conservative

David Watts – Liberal Democrats,
Robert West – BNP

 *CLUSTER. Collective noun for a bunch of nuts.

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