Roger Gambba-Jones

"Team work needed
- not independence"


Our ongoing criticism of Boston Borough Council has brought a response from a Conservative councillor in neighbouring South Holland.
Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones, who represents Spalding Wygate, and is Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Green Spaces and Operational Planning, says:
“I would like to address one of your recent comments - ‘Boston needs 32 independently minded councillors,' or words to that effect.
“Surely, given its lack of direction and impact, isn't that what you effectively had prior to the latest elections and are now seeking to repeat through your constant harrying of the current administration?
“Is it not a given that, once in control of a council and responsible for making and delivering the policies of that council, a fundamental requirement is team work?
“As an organisation/individual with the best interests of Boston at their heart, would it not be better to try to encourage strong and cohesive team work, rather than constantly encouraging division and confrontation between members?
“Yes, healthy debate and challenge is the bedrock of our democracy, and long may both continue to be present in the council chamber, but that is not the same thing as stepping out of line every time you don't agree with something or worse still, going against the stated policy in order to pacify a vociferous minority who might be giving you a hard time.
“Principle is one thing - popularism is something far less agreeable.
“By all means continue your detailed scrutiny and comment of your locally elected body - I sometimes wish we had something similar in South Holland just for the entertainment value.
“However, along with the often keen and incisive observation, could you not try, occasionally, to offer some encouragement and positive comment and accept that, having a team of 32 players all kicking the ball in the direction of their choice whenever they get it is unlikely to find the goal.”
We’re grateful for the points raised, but feel that some of them are a little off target.
Whilst party loyalties are clearly cross border, we recall no reaction to our critical stance of the BBI leadership.
Our point then was that whilst the group claimed to be made up of “independent” members, the block voting pattern that epitomised the party’s four years in office indicated – if not an official whip, then an unofficial one.
We fear that the same is true of the current Tory administration. To date, members vote en-bloc and use their majority as a bludgeon to get their own way.
It’s not just us who have criticised this – many non-Conservative members of the council are unhappy about it as well.
Council Leader Peter Bedford defended this by saying in a radio interview: “You can’t have maverick voices. We have a strong line on what we want to achieve for Boston. The electorate put us in on a mandate and we are going to achieve that mandate and that is what the people of Boston expect from us.”
As we’ve said before, the Tories were caught napping when they unexpectedly gained control of the council.
They had not expected victory, and the so-called mandate – which we take to be the five vague promises on their election literature were to maintain front line services, be accountable and transparent, address green waste, litter issues and replacement of the outdated refuse vehicles, work to improve community safety, and to share resources with other councils.
Nothing earth shattering there.
The writer who called for “good, independent, free-minded people to run this town” was not us. It was a former Conservative candidate, who added: “It is proof enough that there is no advantage to our townsfolk of such a dominant leadership considering the totally overwhelming leadership at county level as well - they still cannot stand up and be heard to save the town from deteriorating any further.”
The rejection of a “maverick” in their midst suggests that the decisions being made by the council and slavishly endorsed by the party as a whole are being made by a narrow elite, and are unlikely to be opened to a wider discussion.
At the very least we think that people should be allowed to think for themselves and have their voices heard. The fact that this is apparently not the case is what we are critical of.
And we would also suggest that – to date – the current administration is also showing the “lack of direction and impact” described by our critic.

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