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