Week ending 29th April

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

The debate over things the BBI takes credit for when it might not actually be the case continues. An e-mail from Better Boston Group Councillor and independent candidate Brian Rush says: “I am very surprised that my Conservative colleagues have allowed the BBI to claim ownership of the road widening scheme (time will tell, regarding its success) and the removal of traffic lights on roundabouts etc. I am not sniping at the Tories, because I do believe these plans and proposals were well under way before the BBI took control. But why have they (Tories) not exposed these false claims, by publishing the evidence that surrounds this case? After all, the condemnation by the BBI of the road widening was clearly one of the major manifesto items in 2007, and one that probably contributed to Conservatives, and others, losing seats in that election. There is no doubt that there will be some very new faces in the council chamber post May 5th, and although I do support the ethos that new blood brings new ideas, already I am feeling somewhat uncomfortable regarding the next four years. From what I have seen and read so far, the people need to understand that statements made in manifestos are very easily written. It is being able to achieve and deliver the promises contained within them that is difficult! All new elected councillors will be shocked and surprised by the commitment that will be expected from them, if they are to serve their wards adequately and a steep learning curve is on its way.”
A reader takes us to task for some remarks about the closure of the Broadfield Lane allotments which we made a couple of weeks ago. He says that the Boston Municipal Charities, who hold the freehold of the land, wanted to sell some of it and at the time thought it would fetch a lot of money. The charity terminated the Borough Council’s and the council in turn had to give the allotment holders a year's notice. “The possible purchasers then melted away,” says our critic. “Some of the allotment holders moved to other allotments in the town. Some went to the new Cuckoo Land allotments, as I understand. The allotment holders removed much of their materials, and the Borough removed the rest. Most of the locals want the site to remain as it is, rather than be built on. As far as I am aware the charity still owns the site which has since become something of a natural wild life site, complete with deer and wild vegetation. Rough sleeping immigrants have been removed from the site. The top end by the road where the businesses are situated was cleaned up.  The Neighbourhood Police Team keeps an eye on it, as do the Boston Borough Council officers. I personally felt that your comments were rather scathing on Boston Borough Council and (implied) that they had wanted to get freehold possession on the property with the intention of selling as the market was on a high at that time.” We publish this as it contains some new information, but point out that what we said was that the BBI closed the allotments "to pave the way for a development that never happened" – there was no suggestion that the council would benefit in any way.
After yesterday’s sometimes acrimonious radio round table debate on next week’s Boston elections – more on that in Tuesday’s blog – it’s nice to see that some candidates have remembered their manners. Boards in gardens in the Skirbeck wards are asking electors “Please vote Anne Dorrian.” That should be worth an extra vote or two from the more civilised electors of the ward.
By contrast, after we asked all the main contenders for their manifesto for a series we ran three weeks ago, the Lib Dems were among the lesser parties who failed to respond. Then, earliler this week, we received an e-mail from the senior local figure to whom we had originally written with what we can only assume was a deliberately offhand and discourteous message. “A trifle late for you I gather but here is the Boston LibDem manifesto, more or less. The trouble is that in the past we have never had one as such; each candidate has had their own. We don't believe in centralisation. However this time part of each leaflet is the same. So I guess that makes it the manifesto and this is it. Feel free to do your usual hatchet job. We're the Millwall FC of politics now - no-one likes us; we don't care! This coming week looks like "media week" for us - in between postal voters' leaflets (done) and the run-in to polling day for the in-person voters. We should have stuff in Standard, Target, Radio Lincolnshire (breakfast show Thursday) and Look North (filming Tuesday) so it seems right to add in Boston Eye at this point, even though you wanted it much earlier.” It really makes you want to vote for them, doesn’t it?
Whilst Boston’s Business Improvement District remains in hibernation – its last published set of minutes is from February - residents in Lincoln can shop until they drop, after more than 100 retailers agreed to late-night opening to 8pm each Thursday from July. Talks are also going on to create special car parking deals for Thursdays. The organisation behind the scheme is Lincoln BIG – the Business Improvement Group. The group’s promotions manager said: "We had a lot of late nights in the run-up to Christmas but Lincoln is out of sync with the rest of the country.” If Lincoln was “out of synch,” where does that leave Boston?
The adage tells us that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Which makes us wonder what happened to the commitment by Boston Borough Council to publish accounts of its expenditure over £500 on a monthly basis? As the calendar hovers on the brink of May, the published lists remain frozen in time – with the last issue being for February. The figures have turned up one or two things that we suspect the borough would rather not have seen in the public domain. Does this possibly explain the delay?
Having said that, the opportunity to post a petition on the borough council website has surged forward – we have one at last! It calls for a dog warden to be brought back to Boston, and whilst the aim is a good one, the wording of the petition is unfortunately unintentionally comic – as our photo below (click to enlarge) shows…

We guess that with so many dogs fouling out there – and there is no doubt that it is a serious problem in Boston – it is inevitable that some of the may have the odd little problem or two!
Riding through the countryside the other day, we came across these two campaign signs sharing the same stake. Look closely at the picture below…

Did you notice? Things aren’t quite what they seem! We’d love to see the BBI reaction as these signs start appearing around the town.
We don’t have crystal balls – we’d clink when we walked if we did – but we can tell you at least one election result ahead of May 5th. It seems that no one in Amber Hill could be bothered to stand for the parish council other than the people who’ve been in post these past four years – and possibly longer for all we know. This means that the council is re-elected by default. Whilst it’s highly praiseworthy that local people are willing to work so hard for their parishes, it’s also a sad reflection on a community when the residents are happy to sit back and do nothing and leave it all to the same set of people. Still, we got a little smile when we visited the Amber Hill Parish website…. click on the photo to enlarge it

Whilst we can forgive a simple spelling mistake such as leaving the letter ‘e’ out of the name of Councillor Mike Brookes, we were momentarily puzzled by the parish’s County Councillor - Mrs Andrew Jenkyns. Could they have meant to name our political song thrush Councillor Miss Andrea Jenkyns. We’re sure that they could.

And talking of spelling mistakes … is there a Tory candidate for next week’s election who doesn’t know the difference between “loose” and lose?” It seems there is. “There is a great future. Don’t loose it, vote for me,” pleads her election literature. We’d have thought that the word “lose” would be an unforgettable one in politics. It’s true, really – not just a Glorious Myth!

That’s it for this week. We’re back after the Bank Holiday break - on Tuesday 3rd May … isn’t there something in the diary for that week?

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

Everyone's out of step but

us, is new BBI mantra

The Boston Bypass Independents seem to have little to chortle about as the campaigning for the May 5th elections goes on.
And it seems that whenever they try, their efforts fall flat.
Recent pieces on their blog comprise a three way assault on their opponents.
The attack on the Conservatives, who have been in discussion with their counterparts in South Holland District Council on “future partnership and closer working relationships” should the Tories take control of Boston, interprets that explanation as being the thin end of a wedge that will see Spalding taking over the running of Boston.
“The leader of Spalding is very ambitious and he sees the potentially weak leadership that could end up trying to run Boston Borough Council as a means of extending his own ‘empire,’ warbles Blogger Number Two.
”Full marks to him, but ‘nul points’ to Boston Tory leaders who don’t realize (sic) their limitations and think that they are being flattered!”
We wonder what the leader of ELDC would make of that!
And the piece concludes “Well folks, do you want Boston to effectively lose its sovereignty and become an annexe of Spalding? It’s your choice.”
Moving on to Labour’s manifesto, the rant underlines its inflated sense of its own importance by saying “For a start they don’t even know the name of BBI!”
Well, that it, then – they won’t get our vote!
Moving to things that really matter, the diatribe claims that of Labour’s top ten aims, eight of them are nothing to do with a district and that because they have insufficient
candidates to form an administration “they can promise the earth, or though (sic) they would certainly bankrupt the council if they got their way.”
The English Democrats also get a BBI tongue-lashing.
“There’s nothing democratic about this lot! No-one is allowed to use a certain term when describing them but it’s one for all and all for one, as long as you are English.”
The BBI’s blogger invites us to “read the literature - beautifully presented, but far too literate to have been scripted by any of our lot.”
Donning his clerical robes for some inexplicable reason, Blogger Number Two intones: “Dearly beloved, do not be fooled by the group of young (and not so young) men (I won’t call them gentlemen) who have burst on the local scene. They are new generation BNP, right here in Boston. What is more, delve into the names and they all lead in a certain direction.
“Some of you have been fooled once by BNP, surely you’re not going to fall for that one again? How much did that achieve for those of you who elected them last time? Absolutely nothing, I expect.”
Sensibly, the BBI diatribes seem to have spared the considerable number of candidates standing as genuine independents – perhaps having a snipe at them might prove a little awkward, given the BBI claims also to be independent.
So – it seems that all roads lead to a vote for the BBI – even though none of them remotely resembles a bypass.
The trouble is that it’s easy to shoot other party efforts down in flames when you have none of your own to offer – and as we have said before, the offerings from the BBI landing on our doormats make much of the group’s past “achievements” but promise nothing for the next four years.
It seems that the best they can come up with is an indirect attack on the literacy of local people and presenting their own candidates as people who have “really useful skills or life experience” and are able to think for themselves.
As there’s been little evidence of many BBI councillors doing much by way of independent thinking over the last four years we wonder whether this latter promise constitutes the party’s one and only change of policy!

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

Election claims row

goes on and on

The other day, we wrote about the complaints by Boston Bypass Independent’s leader about Conservative claims in their party newsletter – for which he demanded they apologise.
The plea to the Electoral Commission so far seems to have fallen on deaf ears, and now it seems that Councillor Austin is in the firing line.
We understand that Tory group leader Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire is complaining about Councillor Austin’s activities in the run up to the election.
He is concerned about alleged approaches to newly appointed Conservative candidates, which Councillor Singleton-McGuire feels have “overstepped the mark.”
In an e-mail seen by the Boston Eye, he says he regards Councillor Austin's complaint to the Electoral Commission as a case of the pot calling the kettle black when viewed against the claims that the BBI is “the most improved council” which we mentioned yesterday.
The e-mail to Chief Executive Richard Harbord says “I believe it was yourself in one of the leaders’ meetings who stated that ‘we were not the most improved council but in fact the most improved of the councils who were in a situation facing Government intervention or were under the watchful eye as in the Boston Borough Council
case, by GOEM (the Government Office for the East Midlands) therefore, the most improved of the worst!’
Councillor Singleton McGuire also claims that Councillor Austin gave the selfsame answer to Better Boston Group Councillor Brian Rush at a full council meeting.
Councillor Singleton-McGuire goes on to challenge BBI claims of credit for issues for which he says they were not responsible.
One of these was the removal of traffic lights at roundabouts which he says was a county council action - and asks for them to be removed BBI campaign literature together with the phrase “The Most Improved Council.”
We wish that this claim could be clarified once and for all.

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

So what's the real answer?

Something of a war of words is going on over the claims that Boston Borough Council – aka the BBI – is or is not “the most improved council” in the land.
Certainly it does not hold that distinction in the eyes of the Local Government Chronicle – the magazine which has been the bible for town hall groupies since 1855.
The other day it published its 2011 “Recognising Innovation” awards in which the honour of being declared the “Most Improved Council of the Year” went to North East Derbyshire District Council for an overhaul of its management and departmental structure.
Not only did East Derbyshire snatch the title, but Boston did not appear anywhere in the list of nominations – in this or any other category.
Even the BBI seems reluctant to go the whole hog with this claim. In the party political retrospective which is being handed our in place of election campaign literature, it calls itself “The Most Improved Council” – as if the additional capital letters will somehow reinforce this hard-to-establish claim. But elsewhere, the claim is modified by the addition of small print which inserts the words “claiming to be” before the headline.
In September last year, a borough council press release said “Boston Borough Council has gone from being one of the worst local authorities in the country to one of the most improved inside just nine months (our italics).”
Chief Executive Richard Harbord said this meant “the threat of Government intervention had been lifted, there had been no Audit Commission qualifications in any category, all were now ‘adequate.’”
As we have previously said, so much of this is down to the wording.
Mr Harbord is quoted as saying “To move from where we were nine months ago to where we are now is excellent. It is virtually unheard of and means we are one of the most improved councils in the country this year.”
This sounds like definitions within definitions.
Certainly, Boston has made an improvement - but precisely where to is the issue under debate.
Although the BBI would have us believe that Boston is now free of all external influence, Mr Harbord said at the time that “the independent improvement board, which had been formed to advise the council after the commission found the council to be performing ‘poorly,’ will continue in an advisory role until May.”
Last year’s press release told us “the Audit Commission recorded failings against the council and issued a damning report for Value For Money and use of resources. The council’s future hung in the balance with the ever-present threat of being taken over by officials from Whitehall.
“’We were in a dire situation,’ Mr Harbord reminded staff.
“By the end of the year the threat of intervention had grown and warnings were being sounded that it would take years for things to improve.
“Intense improvement activity took place between January and March, when Audit Commission inspectors began their next examination.
“Mr Harbord made a special plea for the result of those inspections to be the subject of a detailed report after the news broke that the Audit Commission inspectors’ work was to cease with immediate effect.”
So the situation becomes even more confusing.
The Commission was kicked into touch by the government, and the report issued as a “special plea.”
We have searched the report on the council’s website an cannot find any reference to it being the most improved – or even among them – and in fact the “I” word appears only ten times.
We couldn’t find the report on the Audit Commission website - instead there was a copy of what it calls its annual audit “letter” – and again there is no reference to Boston being “most improved.”
We understand that apart from the report on the borough website, the rest of the message was been delivered “personally” to Mr Harbord following his appeal for the inspection results following Eric Pickles' decision to scrap the Audit Commission.
As the say in the X Files - The truth is out there I - it’s pinning it down that’s the problem.

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

Week ending 22nd April

Our Friday miscellany

of the

week's news

and events

We’d love to have been a fly on the wall at Monday’s full meeting of Boston Borough Council. Not only were the BBI given a sound thrashing over the Discretionary Rate Relief issue, but some members of the BBI actually voted and spoke against their leader, Richard Austin. We are told that even his wife and fellow councillor Alison voted against him, which caused quite an outburst in the chamber! We expect there was a bit of an atmosphere on the Austin tandem as they pedalled their way back to Wyberton afterwards.
Still with Monday’s meeting, we were disappointed that the bid to reinstate the old system for selecting the borough’s Mayor was lost. We say lost, rather than defeated, because the meeting split equally at 13:13 on the call to select future Mayors on length of council service rather than the blatantly political system of nominating and voting for the postholder. A tie means that the Mayor has the casting vote, and Councillor Peter Jordan – the sole BBI member to benefit from the changed system – voted against the proposal. What a sadly missed opportunity to demonstrate the fairness, independence and absence of politics that the office of Mayor is supposedly famous for – especially given the fact that at its last council meeting some BBI members at last demonstrated that they had the guts to defy the leadership.
As if all this was not enough, apparently the best bit of the evening occurred beyond the public gaze. It seems that tempers flared in the Mayor’s Parlour with Councillors Richard Dungworth and Jim Blaylock involved in a major altercation during which observers commented on seeing two of the reddest and angriest faces they had observed for a long while ... We’re told that the choice of words was also “quite enlightening.”
In these cash-strapped times, we would have hoped that our masters might have given more thought on how they use money. A total of £1.7 million is being spent on a project called Routes not barriers, which will include a £600,000 replacement of the appalling eyesore known as St Botolph’s bridge, which links the bus station and the Market Place. Whilst we have no problem with that – the bridge has been a disgrace for years – we would question spending £560,000 on a “multi-user” route between Boston and Hubberts Bridge and another £275,000 on improving the village slipway and boating facilities. It it’s very politically correct – and in times when cash is plentiful ticks all the right boxes for leisure and fitness et al. But, hands on heart, how many people do you think will ply the “multi-user” route before it could be deemed to be worth the money.
Talking of which ... We noticed that the highly expensive gallery which forms part of the pointless “community hub” that the BBI frittered so much government grant money away on, was closed on Wednesday. It was market day, and one of the sunniest of the year. Just the sort of day you would expect such a public facility to be open for business. First they waste our money, and then they give us the finger.
We have never stinted in our praise for the Big Boston Clean Up as a piece of social engineering, but yet again it underlines the fact that the money we pay in council tax to collect litter is not being properly spent. If almost 1,000 volunteers can collect 28 tons of rubbish in a week, what has our Environmental Services department been doing? Similarly, all an amnesty for private landowners will do is encourage them to let their rubbish accumulate again for another year. And, as the council’s photos of the land behind Joy Paine Close show, the culprits dumping their litter are clearly just throwing it over their garden fences. A few quick prosecutions would probably do much to stop it happening. This is the core of the problem. What Boston needs is a better litter collection service, and a more robust system of prosecuting offenders – when did you last read of a case coming before the courts? All the big clean up does is ensure that Boston is virtually litter-free for one day a year. We would like to see that situation all the year round.
Students of vexillology - the scholarly study of flags – were doubtless quick to spot the front page error on this week’s Boston Standard. “Free Royal flag,” boomed the list of this week’s buckshee offers … picturing the Union Flag, or Union Jack as it’s more popularly known.

The “Royal” flag, of course, is more commonly known as the Royal Standard (no relation) and is completely different in appearance. At least the Standard refers to the flag correctly on an inside page, but how many people get that far…?
Finally, have a good Easter. We’ll not be publishing on Easter Monday, but will be back as usual on Tuesday 26th.

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

Leader sends to

Coventry over

Tory claims

In and among the political campaigning in the run up to the elections on May 5th one issue is still rumbling on.
It concerns the Conservative newsletter “In Touch” which used a section for local news to attack the record of the Boston Bypass Independents.
It accused the BBI of taking Boston Borough Council to the brink of bankruptcy and making large cuts.
Exactly a month ago, this provoked an angry letter from BBI and council leader Richard Austin to the regional director of the Electoral Commission’s Midlands office in Coventry accusing the Tories of “gross fabrications and misinformation”
He asked the commission “to direct” the Conservative group to make a public apology for publishing such misleading information and engaging in such underhand behaviour.”
As one who should know, he added: “It brings the electoral system into disrepute.”
In what some may consider hair splitting, Councillor Austin says that Boston was not on the brink of bankruptcy. He said that two years ago the Audit Commission classified the council’s performance as “poor” but that Boston has been in a strong financial position ever since.
We wonder whether it was about then the former deputy leader of the BBI and now Mayor – Councillor Peter Jordan – was quoted in the local “newspapers” as saying of the borough’s finances “"It really is Armageddon… we are facing some difficult decisions and need to take some drastic action." Councillor Jordan was also quoted as using the “B” word in June 2009 at a full meeting of the borough council.
Although the Conservative leaflet mentions council tax freeze in 2008 which “placed … the council in a very weak financial position,” Councillor Austin says in fact there was an increase – of 4.9%, “voted by the previous administration”
Having spread some blame, he goes on to claim that council tax rose by 2.9% in 2008/09; 0% in 2009/10; and by 1.1% in 2010/11 reflecting the increase in the drainage board precept.
This seems to us to be a case of having your cake and eating it.
When it suits the BBI to say that council tax has been frozen to help the borough’s poorer taxpayers, it is headlined as an act of generosity.
When it suits the BBI to dodge the bullet of freezing the tax and thus losing valuable income, it points to an increase that generates no additional cash for the borough itself.
In rebuttal of Councillor Austin’s complaint to the Electoral Commission, the Conservatives have sent a detailed response, and we have to say that it answers the issues in a very thorough manner.
Perhaps the absence of any news to the effect that the Commission has upheld Councillor Austin’s complaint is an answer in itself.
Certainly, we have yet to hear of any apology being issued.

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

Now it seems

all

questions are political

It seems that at this particular point in the electoral calendar, anyone asking the Mayor “how are you today?” will receive an abrupt rebuff on the grounds that the question is political.
Aside from dressing up in red robes and clanking as he walks, the role of the mayor at council meetings is to be a non-political referee.
In the run-up to the local elections, we enter a period quaintly known as purdah, which imposes restrictions to prevent councils or candidates obtaining publicity which may benefit them by influencing voters.
Such is the Mayor’s over-enthusiastic interpretation of the rules that he has banned a shed load of questions on the grounds that they are political, and therefore forbidden.
As an example of his inability to distinguish chalk from cheese, he even rejected the question “Now that you have experienced being Mayor, which particular duty did you most enjoy?” as capable of being interpreted as being political.
This question from Better Boston Group Councillor Anne Dorrian - and the two others mentioned in yesterday’s blog – were rejected … along with two more posed by the Conservative group leader, Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire.
“In a round robin e-mail to both councillors, Councillor Jordan claimed: “The questions do not address or advance any specific aspect of the council’s current business or relate to its powers or duties. Moreover, they can be interpreted as being political in nature. It is not appropriate for full council to be used as an electioneering platform, particularly during the purdah period. I shall not therefore allow the questions.”
Councillor Singleton-McGuire had sought to ask BBI leader Richard Austin “how did you ensure your council was not officer led?” whilst the second question – to the portfolio holder for regeneration, planning, sport and cultural services, Councillor Richard Dungworth, wanted to know “what kind of relationships did you build up with partner organisations?”
Tsk, tsk, said Mayor Peter Jordan – a bit naughty, those – and banned them both.
With respect, Mr Mayor, what a load of rubbish!
Whilst we have no doubt that a Mayor treads a difficult path in his quest for the holy grail of fairness, his recent actions seem to us to do nothing more than prevent any of his BBI colleagues being put on the spot.
The organisation East Midlands Councils, which is the consultative forum for all 46 Local Authorities in the East Midlands, including Boston, has succinctly set out the rules for what may and may not be done during purdah – and you can read them by clicking here. 
Try as we might, we find it hard to apply anything in these rules to the questions asked by Councillors Dorrian and Singleton-McGuire.
Expressing disappointment, the Tory group leader has accused the mayor of a “mumbo-jumbo” of an excuse and an “abuse of political power.”
In an e-mail seen by Boston Eye, he accuses Councillor Jordan of acting “extremely unwisely” and placing the office of mayor into an area deemed outside the non-political domain.
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
But the problem is that the damage has been done, and a series of questions designed to enlighten the taxpayers of Boston have been kicked into the long grass by someone whose job is intended to do quite the opposite.

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

Had a good time Mr Mayor?

“I couldn’t possibly comment”

After civic silliness such as the Mayor’s refusal to answer a question about how much he’s enjoyed his year of office – on the grounds that it is political – little birds flock to our windowsill as if we were St Francis of Assisi.
Ahead of council meetings, questions can be submitted, which the Mayor then has the discretion to admit … or not, depending on his interpretation of them.
Rejection of a harmless enquiry asking which duty he most enjoyed was, quite frankly, laughable.
Surely, someone of the Mayor’s oft declared experience as a captain of industry could have trodden the political tightrope that such an interrogatory minefield posed and in the way of the seasoned politician that he is could either have damned them all with faint praise, or declared them all equally pleasurable.
However, his decision-making abilities may have been clouded by a two accompanying questions which might have made him feel that he was being led into some carefully laid trap.
The first was to Councillor Leader Richard Austin, citing the failed attempts of the BBI to run the council, and calling them a “local farce” which has made the party a laughing stock. Had it been allowed, the question would have asked Councillor Austin to assess the impact these failures have had for democracy in the Borough of Boston.
Of course it’s a political question – but then the council chamber is a political place.
The other question – similarly political – was to Councillor Richard Dungworth - the man responsible for regeneration, planning, sport and cultural services. The question asked him which particular failure he felt most responsible from each of his areas of responsibility.
The pick list included the collapse of the Modus project, the loss of a High Court judicial review costing tens of thousands of pounds, a zero star rating for cultural services from the Audit Commission, and the closure of the Geoff Moulder training pool coupled with the collapse of the £2.4 million renovation of the leisure pool.
Luckily for Councillor Dungworth, the Mayor appears to forgiven him for coming up with the soubriquet “Old Grumpy” and decided that the question should not be permitted.
The Mayor sought sanctuary behind the apron strings of “purdah” which rules on aspects of publicity in the run-up to local elections – and which we do not believe are relevant in this case.
Frankly, the only reason that we can see for refusing to allow the questions would be that it would take far too long to answer them - and thus drag the meeting on into the wee small hours.
It would have been interesting to see how Messrs Austin and Dungworth would have stumbled their respective ways through a response, as clearly there is merit in the questions.
Councillor Austin, we are told, usually fields tricky questions by punting them straight to the Chief Executive or refusing to answer them altogether, whilst Councillor Dungworth would have most probably have exploded with rage.
The questions have a particular relevance in the wake of the issue of the BBI’s manifesto – which seeks to present a gilded history of achievement by trying to drown us in a sea of historical waffle in which nothing ever went wrong.
Presumably the party is trying to fudge our collective memory so that we now recall everything in the garden as lovely … whereas before the arrival of the BBI it was a weed-strewn wilderness.
If nothing else, these two abortive questions remind us of a different picture.
Perhaps they also explain why the BBI manifesto contains absolutely no promises of any kind of future action should the party be re-elected.
More on this tomorrow …

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

"Bring back the

old grey Mayor"

As the ruling Bypass Independent elite retreats to is bunker in these dog days of the current administration, the snipers are still out there – and they have one of the borough’s top roles in their sights.
At tonight’s final full council meeting under the present regime, a motion has been proposed to reinstate the former method by which the borough picks its Mayor.
Better Boston Group Councillor Anne Dorrian, seconded by Independent Councillor John Storry, are suggesting that from the start of the coming civic year the job of Mayor should be offered to the councillor with the longest period of service as an elected member – either continuous or accumulated.
This is the way things were before the BBI swept to power four years ago – and the decision to change it cause considerable anger and debate.
The reason was obvious.
There were enough re-elected councillors to ensure that under the existing rules there would never be a BBI mayor during the party’s four year term of office.
It was clearly not enough for the party legitimately to hijack control of the borough through the ballot box.
They also wanted the spoils of war to include the role of the town’s first citizen.
They voted to change the rules so that the Mayor was elected by the council.
And the council, of course, is the BBI – its majority is so great that it brooks no attempt at opposition.
After a token period in which councillors previously entitled to hold the post under the old system served in office, Councillor Peter Jordan – at the time the deputy leader of the BBI – was elected to fill the role – an appointment which we understand surprised no-one.
Tonight’s motion to the council also contains an additional barb – even though it seeks to close the stable door after the mare has bolted!
It proposes: “That this council promotes the running of the functions of local government above all else and to that end, this council discourages elected members from leaving a cabinet post in order to become either Mayor or Deputy Mayor.”
It also asks the council to promote the duties of elected office above those of other councils and voluntary organisations – “and to that end discourages elected members from undertaking more than one ceremonial role in any one election cycle.”
Hmmm.
The role of Mayor is one that traditionally combines dignity and diplomatic skills.
Unfortunately, the current postholder has occasionally run into conflict with some opposition councillors in a way that has upset what should be the smooth running of this ceremonial office.
And we hear that Councillor Jordan’s term in office ends tonight on a sour note after he rebuffed a number of questions posed in advance as “political,” including a particularly contentious hot potato which asked him which of the many duties he has undertaken in his year of office gave him the most enjoyment.
Usually, politicians duck a question because they fear that the answer will get them into trouble. In rejecting such an anodyne enquiry, is Councillor Jordan telling us that he has enjoyed none of his civic outings?
But back to the point.
Tonight’s motion gives the council the chance to restore the status quo to the way the Mayor is appointed.
The words most commonly used by councils throughout the land to describe the office of Mayor are “honour” and “dignity.”
But where is the honour when a party with sweeping control over a council chooses to enforce its own nominee on the people it represents, and how can the postholder demonstrate much by way of dignity in those circumstances?
However, this being Boston, and Boston being still in the terminal grip of the palsied fingers of the BBI, tonight’s motion is certain to fail – as, if nothing else, the last thing the party would do would be to backtrack on an earlier decision.
The next meeting of Boston Borough Council – which is also the first of the new council after next month’s elections – is on May 23rd and its traditional job will be the appointment of the Major.
If the BBI scrabbles back with a majority, expect no surprises.

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

Week ending 15th April

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

It seems that the BBI is extending its policy of secrecy to include not only its meetings - and as we disclosed last week, its councillors – but now aspects of some candidates in the forthcoming elections. A long-time resident of Witham Ward, where two newcomers are standing, noted that there were no photographs on their leaflets, and wanted to see if he could recognise them as local people. “I phoned the number given, and Councillor Alison Austin answered. She explained that her husband was their leader and said I could direct any queries through him. He came on the phone to answer my concerns that it seemed we were in for the ‘same old, same old,’ after the lack of seeing the two current BBI members in the ward. He admitted they hadn’t been that visible, but had worked jolly hard for the council. So I asked why I couldn’t speak to either new candidate, or see a picture. He did state that they don't live in the ward (it's surely a very useful thing to live among who you should be representing) but as they were family people rather than very busy businessmen that they would be more active in the role. He said that there might be another leaflet out at some stage with contact details of my prospective representatives, so I will look forward to getting the chance to see if they are worthy of my vote!”
A recent visitor to the town’s tourist information centre came away almost empty handed, but with a sheaf of apologies and some helpful long distance diy ‘phone numbers to call after a quest to find a holiday somewhere other than within fifty miles of Boston. The apologies were for the fact that the function of the TIC had been severely reduced by cuts and redundancies – but the bottom line is that it makes a mockery of the whole service. Visit the Spalding TIC, for example, and you can walk away with information on visiting anywhere in Britain. We’ve found the same to be true on our travels around the country. Boston seems to be the only TIC where information on offer is for such a small area. Not only that, but its opening hours coincide with those of the Guildhall – Wednesday to Saturday, between 10-30am and 3-30pm. Is someone pulling our leg?
Having said that, Boston will scarcely be worth visiting for many months ahead. The news that the Market Place regeneration will start later than planned and take longer to complete than first thought, means Bostonians must brace themselves for months of chaos. The work will now start in July and might not end until February next year. Then in June 2012, consultations will start on replacing the footbridge over the River Haven. We hope that this consultation is a little more exhaustive than was the case with the Market Place. Although the County Council declared itself “thrilled” with the response, the fact is that only 406 people completed a survey offering their views. Of those only ten per-cent were from businesses – who will be the first to moan when they find that something is not to their liking. The bottom line is that a sketch of the Market Place appeared about of the blue, and in the next breath was declared to be everyone’s dream solution. Time will tell.
We wonder whether the highly expensive and wasteful Placecheck scheme is really worth the effort. A reader writes to tell us: “At a recent Placecheck Area 5 initial meeting there were only five people attending - not counting the three members of the scheme's enforcer 'team'.) One of these was the local Tory councillor and two more from just around the corner from the councillor’s home. Not a single person from the vast number of residents of migrant persuasion in the area nor from local businesses (Area 5 covers West Street and at least five pubs and eight restaurants not counting the take-aways.) Despite vociferous assurances from Ms Exely of Placecheck, many of those not attending were not aware of having received a leaflet or seeing a poster in the area. When this issue and the lack of any language translation facilities was raised by a local resident he was sarcastically talked down and he walked out in disgust. Where is the 'Big Society/Localisation/Democracy’ ideals in this scheme which, as the very few residents attending were told, has £10,000 to give out (for litter bins according to a lady from Haven Bank who seemed also to have complaints about Witham Country Park...a totally different Placecheck area)
Our series on the candidates seeking your vote on May 5th provoked a variety of replies. Several readers wanted to read the Labour manifesto in full, and if you are among them, you can find the details by clicking here.
The latest stunt from Lincolnshire Police in these straitened times – issuing health and safety instructions to staff on how to make a packed lunch – has led to an apology from Chief Constable Richard Crompton. Judging from the number of times we see Boston patrol cars parked outside local sandwich shops while the occupants stock up, we don’t think that there is any risk of self inflicted food poisoning being a problem for our gallant (if slightly overfed) boys and girls in blue!
Last week we offered our congratulations for some robust sentencing by a Boston judge - meted out to persistent offenders who continue ignore the law. Having read this week’s local “newspapers” we think that someone also needs to clamp down on the preposterous “mitigation” being offered by some of our local solicitors. Mitigation is supposed to persuade the court that there are circumstances that reduce an offence’s severity. In our book, driving whilst knowingly over the limit because a relative wants you to pick up a takeaway does not fall into that category – and anyone who considers it a reasonable excuse should consider going on a refresher course.
By an ironic coincidence, immediately below a letter from a local branch of the Royal British Legion, headed “Our armed forces need your help more than ever” in the Boston Standard, is another appeal from  one of our local heroes. This one, headed “Military personnel deserve a discount like students,” demands that military “personal” should get a discount such as that offered to students as “a welcome display of thanks in recognition of the sacrifices they make.” The writer declares himself frustrated that offers of discounts to the military are few and far between compared with those to students. “Added to this is the fact that the airmen and women of RAF Coningsby actually have been awarded the freedom of the town of Boston!” he rants. “You would think that this would go hand in hand.” A very little research unearths hundreds of discounts available to the armed forces in almost every High Street shop – it’s just that they don’t display the fact in the window. And the “freedom” awarded to RAF Coningsby is a civic and ceremonial one – with no financial benefit. Appropriately, the writer is a “petty” officer – more than that, a “chief” petty one! The salary for such a job ranges from £36,953 to £42,043 depending on skill and length of service. We are sure there are many people in Boston who are much lower paid and more deserving of discounts before we consider this chap’s request.
Finally, everyone remembers the old joke about the Liberal Democrat Party holding their annual conference in a ‘phone box – but we wonder whether it might be truer that we thought. The following appears at the foot of every page of Labour’s local manifesto (click on the image to enlarge it.)

It must be crowded in there!


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

In the fourth and final blog on choice of candidates available in the Boston Borough Council elections on May 5th, we focus on the Independents and the English Democrats.
Because independents are precisely that, it is impossible for anyone to speak for them as a group. But we felt that the next best thing would be to approach Councillor Richard Leggott, a veteran independent who represents Swineshead and Holland Fen and ask him for an opinion.
Here’s his response.
“Why Independent? This question has been asked and answered many times in my mind over the years, but to crystallise the results it comes out something like this.
"It used to be, at Boston, that a meeting of the Independent Group always featured a chocolate cake as well as open discussion, without a 'policy to bow down before' or a threat from the party whip of excommunication for not toeing the line.
“Sadly the chocolate cake no longer seems to materialise, but the rest has endured.

“And this is what makes TRUE Independents such a valuable asset to local government and local government electors.
“We can 'call it as we see it' in the interest of our local patch without fear of recrimination - except at the ballot box, of course, if our voters think we got it wrong. “We like to think that we try to put both the 'common' and 'sense' into common sense in local government.
“This surely must be a good thing to bring to any organisation, especially to a tax-raising and public spending outfit like a borough council.
“True Independents are happy to back those with sensible ideas and, whilst mostly in a minority, have to know how to garner support for their own projects. This means they must learn, and be prepared to practice, politics - with a small 'p '- amongst those from opposing political camps practicing the big 'P' version.
“So, TRUE Independents can be a vital balancing factor, able and willing to advance and stress the local viewpoint and ramifications of schemes and projects emanating from high flying politicos, which is never a bad thing in such company.
“This is not a claim that independents always get it right, just that there is no in-group curb on any of us, individually, ultimately getting it right or wrong, except the ballot box - which is surely what democracy in local government is all about.
“Roll on 5th May. Let's hope for a good crop of TRUE Independents this year!!”
Moving on now, we take a look at the manifesto of the English Democrats – the surprise contenders who are contesting eleven of the 32 seats on the council.
The party has a ten-point manifesto – the five most important of which are:
1: Local jobs for local people, with an attempt to get quota from farms and factories of 50/50 foreign and English workers.
2: Local housing for local people. Priority should be given to people who been here the longest and can pay their rents “rather than being a drain to the taxpayer.”

3: Education. The English Democrats say they believe teaching in Boston has become difficult for teachers due to so many languages in any one class and that children should have to have a certain level of English before going into main classes.
4: Build bridges to improve Boston’s traffic flow – seeking private funding if necessary with a small toll to recoup the investment.
5: Reintroduce the Party in the Park as an annual event – again using private funding if necessary.
Other issues include retaining police cells in Boston; getting all car park charges reduced in the town with a 50p for half an hour fee for all council owned town centre car parks; on crime, the party says it believes that all immigrants who commit crime here should be deported and banned from the country, as should foreign nationals who get caught drink driving and then get caught whilst banned; the green waste service should be kept and there will be look at the possibility of introducing a new wheelie bin for either green waste or other recycled products.
This ends our look at what the people seeking your vote are proposing to make Boston a better place.
We asked both the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independents for their ideas for Boston as well, but neither party bothered to reply.
As far as we are concerned that makes the issue of whether to vote for them or not a very simple one!

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

 It seems to be a reverse law of our local psephology that the further parties move from the chance of controlling Boston Borough Council, the more detailed and positive their campaign promises become.
On Monday we saw how the BBI, which is fighting the most seats and hoping to retain its stranglehold on Worst Street, had little to say about what it would do if it won a second term.
Yesterday, the Tories – fighting one seat fewer, and confident of winning a big say in borough affairs, if not complete control – threw a few carrots in our direction.

Today we look at Labour’s campaign.
The party is campaigning in just eleven of the 32 borough wards – so it can only ever hope to be a party of middling opposition - but its manifesto bristles with tempting morsels to tickle our electoral palate.
It cuts to the chase from the word go.

“We will fight for a Boston that is safer, cleaner, greener, active, accessible, creative, healthy, attractive, homelier and fairer.

“BY:

“Putting the people of Boston first

“Strong community leadership
“Being honest and transparent
“Listening to the electorate
“Giving value for money and not wasting expenditure.”
Putting flesh on some of the bones, the manifesto pledges a severe crackdown on Boston’s drinking culture, including giving local people a say in how pubs and clubs are run.

In the war on litter, locals would be able to draw up a “contract” with the council requiring agreed standards of cleanliness in their areas. The party would fight to bring back a dog warden and – in common with the Tories – seek the replacement of the borough’s aging fleet of refuse collection vehicles.
Interestingly, whilst the BBI boasted of providing more allotments (in Wyberton!) Labour wants to try to re-establish the former site in Broadfield Lane – which the BBI closed with indecent haste to pave the way for a development that never happened – robbing scores of allotment holders of a “town lung” facility they had enjoyed for almost a century.
Another interesting proposal is the development of a Boston Leisure Pass - accessible to a wide range of people including pensioners, the jobless, registered disabled people, and all 16-18 year olds. The pass would allow holders to use various leisure facilities at a reduced price.
Labour would also cease all funding for the PRSA from May.
To keep Boston moving, the party proposes an all-party and community traffic “commission” to improve traffic flow and keep up the pressure for long term solutions.
The proposed £2 million development of Boston Market Place is declared to be an “untimely” use of Boston Borough Council resources, which takes expenditure away from other key services. “This piecemeal development will not deliver the improvements needed for the centre of our town and needs a total rethink,” declares the manifesto.
These are just some of the key points from the eight page, 2,250 word document.
To us, the problem with this is that as Labour is fighting fewer than half the borough seats, it can make promises that it knows it will not be forced to deliver. In the event that it won all ten seats that it is contesting, it is still powerless to bring any change to the council. And we are uncertain whether any other parties would offer it a coalition role.
If Boston reverts to its historical state of being under No Overall Control, any alliance is, for example, unlikely to cancel the dregs of funding being offered to the PRSA.
And Labour also has the wider problem of trying to persuade voters to dissociate the party locally from the party nationally.
Time will tell.
Tomorrow, we wrap up our series with a look at the Independents, the English Democrats manifesto, and (if we hear for them – they have been asked) the Lib Dems and UKIP.

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

Today’s series on the parties seeking your vote in the Boston Borough Council elections continues with the Conservatives who – although they have never fully controlled the council, ran it in conjunction with other parties for many years.
Whilst we observed in yesterday’s piece that the BBI was long on history, and short on future promises, the Conservatives, by comparison, are brimming with slogans and pledges – so at least voters have something to think about as their crayon hovers above their ballot paper.
“A record of action, a promise of more” trills the headline.
“Action for you all the year round.”
“Your priorities are our priorities,”
The Tories say they plan to give more for less.
Key promises appear in a clipboard format on the election literature.
The include maintaining front line services, ending secrecy in the council, a push for cleaner streets and a green waste collection, improvements in community safety and policing, and sharing work with other councils to save money.
The Conservatives are fighting 26 of the borough’s 32 wards – one fewer than the Boston Bypass Independents - and they include two foreign nationals among their candidates.

The election literature promises some “tough decisions” over the next two years and pledges consultation with voters as well as keeping them informed.
As with the BBI, the Conservative pledges give us some pause for thought.
“A record of action” is the boast.
But some of the actions proved unpopular as time passed. Memory tells us that the Tories were prime movers in the disastrous PRSA project, which cost taxpayers millions – but there is no suggestion that they plan to review the recent decision to continue funding this unloved white elephant for just a little longer.
And whilst the Bypass Independents are often described as a single issue party, there is no question that the bypass issue got them elected – and we would like to have seen some mention of the Tories’ future transport plans for Boston.
Again, maintenance of “front line” services is something of a red herring in the context of a district council these days – as the services it provides are relatively low key.
And as we’ve pointed out before, something like 80% of Boston’s income goes on staff pay – which is the real “front line” and which is still seriously top heavy.
We also wonder what the subtext is behind the claim that “tough decisions” will only be needed for the next two years – just half the life of the next council.
Will all our troubles have vanished so quickly, leaving a two-year period of bliss and ease for the people of Boston?
Whatever the answer, the Tories have at least made an effort to dangle a carrot under our noses.
It’s the unmentioned stick that might accompany it that worries us most!
Tomorrow, our attention turns to Labour and their plans for Boston in the next few years.

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

Today’s series on the parties seeking your vote for the Boston Borough Council elections starts with the Boston Bypass Independents – the party in power for the past four years.
We asked for a manifesto from a senior party member, but – as has so often been the case when we have contacted the BBI in the past – we did not receive a reply.
However, we do have copies of the leaflets being issued by candidates, and we presume that these form the basis of the party’s campaign.
In terms of a battle slogan, we have a choice of two.
The first declares the BBI to be “The Most Improved Council.” The capital letters are theirs, not ours.

But elsewhere  in the leaflet – perhaps just in case someone decided to challenge this sweeping claim, the leaflet is slightly more cautious.
In small print (what else?) the boast is prefaced by “claiming to be…” the most improved council.

Aside from this, the leaflet is largely retrospective – listing the BBI’s achievements rather than its plans for the future.
The bypass pledge that swept them into office has now been diluted to “bypass/distributor road plans…” with the promise that the party is working with developers on what is hoped to be the first stage of a distributor road for Boston, and that “we expect plans to be announced soon” (our italics.)
The regeneration of the Market Place is mentioned - but acknowledged as an all-party agreement.
The party also promotes its drive to persuade the Environment Agency to be less draconian in its opposition to development on the grounds of flood risk.
Beyond that, the leaflet details the party’s past achievements - but not its proposals for the future, despite the claim that it is “Moving Boston Forward.”
Again, where claims are made, they are sometimes difficult to recognise.
The party says it has “listened to people’s concerns” about anti-social behaviour, fear of crime, litter and drinking in the streets, and as a result established stronger local communities in areas where there has been “tension between different groups of people.”
We guess that this refers to the Placecheck scheme – but wonder whether residents would recognise themselves and their streets from this description. Placecheck is a national concept, and the areas chosen in Boston have always seemed largely random - and could have been substituted for an alternative five areas with no perceptible difference.
Then there is the claim of a “big” reduction in crime; “some” car parking charges reduced; “more recycling” (the green collection service has just ceased due to lack of funding); and finally the contentious decision not to raise council tax.
Taken as a whole, the reader is almost forced to conclude, that little, if anything of any great importance has occurred during the BBI’s watch, and the same is true of the future.
Interestingly, in a subtle piece of self-aggrandisement, the BBI has abolished the definite article in its title, and now refers to the party as “BBI” rather than “the” BBI.
Unless a few rabbits are to be pulled from the political hat in the next few days, we don’t see much on offer for the next four years….
Tomorrow, our series continues with a look at what the Conservatives are offering the voters of Boston.


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

Week ending 8th April

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

...and our 700th blog

The other day we were talking about Boston Borough Council and secrecy - and it now seems that the need not to know has been extended to our councillors themselves. Under the section "How does the council work...? the invitation "click here for further details of councillors (in wards)" is followed by the information "You are not authorised to view this resource. You need to login." - which ordinary members of the public are unable to do, of course. And under the section "council and democracy" (no pun intended) clicking on the section entitled "Councillors" produces a ward chart with names and home addresses of members. Regular users of the council website will recall that once upon a time, there was a section which listed all the borough's councillors, together with their photographs and their e-mail addresses. Now it seems, we are no longer allowed to know what they look like, nor to contact them unless we know how the system works. We hope that this is simply an error, and that it will soon be rectified.
We hear that the English Democrats are challenging the decision to reject three of their candidates' applications for next month's borough elections because of errors in the electoral numbers submitted. By one of those unfortunate ironies, the letters sent from the council declaring the nominations for all three candidates void was dated 18th February 2005. "We find this very amusing," said a spokesman. "We get one number wrong, but they get numbers, months and years wrong!" Welcome to Boston!
Our quote of the week comes from the Risk Management report next week’s Boston Borough Council's Audit Committee meeting. It reads: “The authority's risk appetite is defined by the tolerance lines on the risk matrix below which is used to score residual and target risk and to identify control and monitoring requirements. These are guidelines and can be flexible where necessary.” Trust us; you’d be none the wiser if you saw the “matrix” in question.
The news that the vegetable firm Staples has won permission to site 40 caravans for workers  – despite Environment Agency misgivings about the risk of flooding – may be the thin end of a welcome wedge. A public inquiry into the agency’s stance saw Boston Borough Council backing Staples and submitting a study which contradicted the agency's predictions. The argument was accepted by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, who ruled that the agency's computer modelling was over-cautious. That’s one small step towards a possible improvement in the borough’s economy. If the Environment Agency can be persuaded to look again at its models – and the result lowers the flood risk estimate - businesses and builders might decide that Boston is no longer a high risk flood area. We may then see more inward investment – so long as we are sensible, and don’t open the floodgates to development, so to speak. In that case, we can do without huge posters such as the one below – prominently displayed on the A52 Liquorpond Street, the road that takes visitors in and out of the town.

The message it sends is unambiguous. The illustration clearly depicts Boston, and the flooding is not minimal. Are we so determined to drive investment away - despite the evidence to the contrary?
Lincolnshire County Council is taking over the management of the Visit Lincolnshire tourism website a month after forcing its closure by pulling out its funding along with the axed East Midlands Development Agency. The website will become part of a wider strategy for boosting visitor numbers, which will include working with the private sector. In the past, Visit Lincolnshire has been largely indifferent to Boston as a destination, and so far little seems to have changed. We can only keep our fingers crossed – but it would not be a good idea for Boston to put all its eggs in the county council’s basket. Having said that, we wouldn’t give the task to Boston BID, given its track record to date.
Still with attractions, we are somewhat baffled by the decision to drop visitor charges to Boston’s Guildhall for a year. Prima facie, it seems an act that combines generosity with a desire to educate people in the history and heritage of their town. Cynically, we imagine that visitor numbers have been so low that it was decided to abandon charges to avoid red faces when the accounts are published. Certainly, charges were proposed to continue in the 2011-12 –  although they were for a 10p reduction for ordinary visitors. Other council documents talk of using £7,750 savings on publicity budget for the Haven and the Guildhall to cover rent for an industrial estate unit and to buy a container unit to store the Guildhall’s collection of items.

Now that’s what we call conserving our heritage. And no wonder no-one visits when you blow the publicity budget elsewhere.
And here’s an idea for a worldwide attraction for Boston in the months ahead. Why don’t we set up a couple of webcams aimed at the Market Place so that people can watch the progress of the multi-million pound regeneration project from the comfort of their homes – wherever they live. Perhaps it could feature on a website showing off some of Boston’s other attractions. It can be done for such a small cost these days that it would seem a heaven sent opportunity to promote the town.
As one door closes another one opens. The council recently confessed to wasting a shed-load of money on the utterly useless community rooms and art gallery project but took the view that as the cash came as a government grant, it didn’t really matter, and the whole thing could be treated as a learning experience. Undeterred, that nice Communities Secretary has just handed Boston another pile of cash. Just over £82,000 comes in the shape of what is little more than a bribe – a payment in exchange for freezing council tax … something the BBI trumpets as if they did it without any external inducement at all. Boston has also picked up another £208,000 from the same ministry in the form of a grant to help disabled people live in their homes more comfortably. And there’s more. Another £152,110 is arriving in the shape of a “New Homes Bonus Scheme Grant Determination.” What’s it for? “The purpose of the grant is to provide support to local authorities in England towards expenditure lawfully incurred or to be incurred by them.” Now there’s a blank cheque for you.  With such generosity, we wonder if minister Eric Pickles is any relation of the late entertainer Wilfred (“give him the money, Mabel”) Pickles.
In the old days, newspapers came up with all sorts of cunning ideas to win new readers. But in Boston, a more fundamental human appeal seems to be the one that they think will work most effectively. The Boston Target has stolen the Standard’s thunder by talking over the offer of a free sausage roll for every reader. Crumbs! Meanwhile news that the food company Domino’s Pizza is to open a shop in town is accompanied by the quote that the company “has identified Boston as having a great potential for pizza.” Perhaps that’s why we already have so many places selling them. We note that this new one is planned for Skirbeck Road – doubtless to make it easy for the students to stuff themselves with junk food without having to walk too far to get it. It seems that whatever we try to do, there are people determined that Boston should regain its crown as the fattest place in Britain.
As Boston ponders where its next penny is coming from to help collect the mountain of green waste set to accumulate across the summer months, East Lindsey District Council has announced the resumption of its annual collection, which uses wheelie bins collected at the door rather than Boston's haphazard street corner collection which requires residents to deliver their waste to a vehicle. Whilst East Lindsey seems able to deal with the issue with ease – and with its own funds – Boston relied on a Defra grant and simply wound up the service when the money ran out. We are neighbouring authorities. How come one can do a proper job, and the other totter from crisis to crisis?
At last! We congratulate District Judge Richard Blake for his robust stance at Boston Magistrates in handing out prison sentences to a persistent thief, a man who failed to carry out a community service order, and a third who didn’t pay his fines. For too long people like this have received warnings and gone on to ignore them. Perhaps it will also see an end to the laughable “mitigation” offered by our local solicitors, who think that being an alcoholic is a defence for stealing booze.
Next week, we plan to look at the manifestoes of the people and parties fighting for a seat in the forthcoming borough council elections. We welcome copies from any party or individual who would like to be included

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

Poet's corner

Ode to the BBI ...

nothing at all!

 The week so far has been very serious – well, there’s an election coming, isn’t there ...exactly four weeks today, in fact?

So, to lighten up a little, we’ve cast aside our vitriol-filled fountain pen in favour of our poet’s quill.

We hope you like the result ...

We’re a month away from Election Day

A chance to make a change.

To wave goodbye to the BBI

And hopefully,

Rearrange the sit-ees

On committees to take a bold decision.

Replacing them with folk who care –

Not treat us with derision.

Four years ago the BBI

Made promise after promise.

But all we got was ….

Not a lot – just bad decision making.

With meeting after meeting

Taking cash from council coffers

And wasting it on offers

To places like the PRSA - not saving for a rainy day.

Our ancient borough council -

Far from being named the First

Was missed off almost every list

And once proclaimed the worst.

The BBI was quick to blame the

Former lot in power.

But that old wives tale was soon to fail

And soon we realised what a shower

We’d elected.

But if by chance they were selected once again

Whilst it would be a shame

We wonder….

Who they’d blame

For blunder after blunder

‘Twixt twenty seven and eleven.

They’d have to raise their hands

And say ‘twas us, we cannot lie

The faults – and more – are at the door

Of the useless BBI

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