Democracy should never be compromised

We normally take criticism on the chin, and tend to do no more than report it so that our readers can make up their own minds.
But in the way that our blog on democracy raised concerns with Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire, his response to it (which we published yesterday) raised concerns with us.
Information often reaches Boston Eye in a fragmentary fashion, which was the case with last week's story.
Councillor Singleton-McGuire's response has thrown a little more light into some of the darker corners where information was lacking, so that we can now say with confidence that the major opposition objections to the selling-off of land for the Queen Street and Sleaford Road "improvement" scheme would have been confined to the Better Boston Group of councillors.
This is because Councillor Singleton-McGuire informs us that as a member of the Conservative Party By-Pass Action Group in 2006/7 he worked with other members, and the County Council for the Liquorpond Street Road Improvement scheme - only for the incoming Boston Bypass Party to put a stop to everything.
This puts the current Tory opposition onside with the Bypass Independents to push this project through.
He attacks critics of the Mayor's refusal to "call in " the land sale for further discussion at the eleventh hour on the grounds that "many meetings have taken place, open to all councillors and general public to raise concerns, or in fact 'call it in' for further debate. "
Yet he then goes on to disclose that perhaps the best opportunity for debate was stifled at Boston Borough Council’s Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 18th November last year by the committee chairman, Councillor Alison Austin.
He also alleges that her efforts went further - to include "a degree of unnecessary antagonistic and personal unpleasantaries to some members, which included myself being given the third degree in my attempt to ask a question."
By the sound of it, we're not talking about petty stuff here, as Councillor Singleton-McGuire is a tough customer, and for him not only to complain strongly at the time but to raise the issue with the Chief Executive the next day suggests that his patience was sorely tried.
Not only that, but apparently Better Boston Group Councillor Anne Dorrian left the meeting after "continued unnecessary interruptions" by Councillor Allison Austin.
Councillors were also invited to question County Council Highways Officers immediately before the meeting, which prompts Councillor Singleton-McGuire to claim that "if a 'call in' for further debate was required, then the appropriate time and place should have been at the above meetings or at previous Lincolnshire County Council meetings."
This is where we start to worry.
The Tories seem to have been happy to ignore successful efforts to filibuster debate on the scheme as it suited them to see their original cunning plan go through.
Furthermore, to claim that "to accept a 'call-in' at full council when there is already an overwhelming majority of 93% in favour, would not be practical and at such a late stage would waste thousands of unnecessary taxpayers money in delays, when this 'democratic process' that your article refers to could have been executed earlier at little or no waste of taxpayers' money" is very worrying indeed.
Why?
First of all the democratic process was not apparently executed earlier, which was probably why a last ditch attempt was necessary.
And if, as Councillor Singleton-McGuire insists "the problem lies with the Boston Bypass Party ... who did not give a fair and necessary exposure to the borough’s members at Boston," then surely the role of a Mayor is to put this right if the opportunity presents itself - as it did.
Secondly, we take issue with the idea that if a large majority of people support a plan, there is no need to hear from the minority which opposes it.
Extrapolate that to a courtroom scenario, and we have a situation where - if enough people think a defendant is guilty before a trial - we dispense with the judicial process in favour of a conviction.
And thirdly, the suggestion that democracy comes at a price - the assertion that high cost should preclude debate ought to be anathema to someone who is "all for the democratic process," as Councillor Singleton-McGuire says he is.
We wonder if the boot were on the other foot, and the Conservative opposition group has been denied debate, whether the attitude would be so passive.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.