As predicted: BBI

steamrollers over

democracy

As we predicted last week, the BBI beat a path to the door of last Thursday's Performance Review Committee where an item to call in a decision over who should go to this year's annual meeting of the Local Government Association was on the agenda

A plan by the Chief Executive, which proposed that the Leader and deputy, plus the leader of the largest opposition group should go, was approved by the Cabinet – but opposition members wanted it recalled and reconsidered on the grounds that as the decision affected the whole council, the whole council should have had a say in it.
No-one quibbled with the idea, which avoids a repeat of last year's fiasco which saw Leader Richard Austin and his personal deputy Alison attend following some obscure political mathematics after which she emerged as winner of a ballot among the non-cabinet rump of the BBI which Councillor Austin had deemed was the second largest party after the smaller Conservative opposition.
Our fly on the wall “Diggeryermole,” was at the meeting and sent us this report...
“The BBI arrived mob handed to do their leaders' bidding.
“The question before them; should all political parties and groups on Boston Borough Council be consulted on an issue of interest to all of them.
“Councillor Richard Austin, with audible coaching from the Chief Exececutive, Richard Harbord, and with unwavering support from Councillors Clare and Alison Austin (is there a connection there?) demonstrated that the BBI were unwilling to allow other parties and groups to have any say on the number of councillors to be allowed to represent Boston at the annual Local Government National Conference.
“ The total level of representation - three - was not the issue at the meeting although, if consultation had been allowed, the number could well have been reduced, as could the narrow guidelines imposed as to who would primarily be eligible for selection; Administration Leader, Deputy Leader and Leader of largest opposition party/group - again an issue that would have been a sounder decision agreed by all groups, in whatever final form, than imposed by one group on all others without consultation.
“With a nice demonstration of effective political whipping the BBI members, lead by Councillors A, Austin (is there a connection here ?) and Gerry Clare demonstrated their support for their leaders' refusal to allow anyone but the Cabinet (leader Councillor Richard Austin) to have a say in this matter.
“A block vote by BBI Party members to allow the cabinet decision to stand without consulting other parties or groups of the council killed off any chance of intergroup talks on the matter.
“Whilst no more opportunities now exist to come back to this issue before this year's elections, it is to be hoped that any future, differently balanced, council will be more inclined to allow all the public's elected representatives an input into any matter that is of direct interest to all and any of them as councillors.
“ Therefore, again hopefully, I find myself echoing Councillor Richard (genuine Independent) Leggott's recent remark on your blogsite- 'Roll on 5th May!'.”
Boston Eye says: We did of course declare that this debate would end the way it did.
Whilst we think that it was right to demand a more open debate on the simple grounds of democracy, it has to be said that meetings like these cost money, and it would have been far more simple for the BBI to have put the issue to debate in the first place, and not adopt playground bully tactics to show how effectively they can throw their weight around.
At least whoever is leader, deputy and opposition leader after May's election will go to the LGA bash in Birmingham, and unless by some weird accident of kinship they are husband, wife and son/daughter, we will gain a better representation.

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