The rubber stampers have bitten back at long last!

Our main story last week was about yet another attempt by Worst Street to hive off services to a third party – in this case leisure, culture and community services, including the Moulder Leisure Centre.

In the normal run of things the recommendation to start the ball rolling would have been nodded through by our supine councillors.

But the item – the final one of a meagre three on the agenda – by all accounts caused something of a hullabaloo before being abruptly withdrawn.

We’re told that not only was the portfolio holder Councillor Claire Rylott absent from the meeting, but that other councillors spoke out against the item on the grounds that the 1,800 word report was not thoroughly thought through and had come as something of a surprise.

Why they waited until this point in the meeting to raise their concerns is anyone’s guess – but we suspect that standard operating procedure among many councillors is to chuck agenda papers in their in-trays and wait until the night of a meeting before leafing through the contents.

During the debate members commented that consideration by an overview and scrutiny would be an appropriate first step in such a process.

***

We can’t help but agree.

As we said last week there are more implications than saving money to farming out the Moulder Leisure Centre,  along with responsibility for heritage, the Guildhall, tourism, sports and play, events (including BTAC which has only just taken on new responsibilities), the May Fair – and community support projects including “controlling migration”

Almost as an aside, the report noted “The council is aware a proposal will have implications for its staff.

“Staff and staff side representatives will be fully briefed and consulted on an on-going basis as the proposal develops and be a key stakeholder in the shaping of a final proposal which is in the best interests of the Borough Council and its residents.”

This echoes the council standard approach to consultation – i.e. ask … then do exactly as you intended all along, only this time, more than 70 jobs are involved.

***

One reader who knows about this sort of thing got in touch after the report to say: 

“I was interested to see Boston Borough Council have decided to go with Magna Vitae which means the residents of East Lindsey will keep any profit or pay for any loss – I don’t suppose they were consulted on that!

“I wonder why they have decided to negotiate a deal rather than a more formal (costs but open and transparent) tender.

“At the moment councils are getting really good deals financially when they do this and with the country’s biggest provider, Greenwich Leisure, already running libraries and taking over leisure in North Kesteven in April they would have had a good chance of a low bid – and Greenwich Leisure are not 1Life (which operates the PRSA,) they have a good track record.

“More to the point, as has occurred at many other authorities, the real saving is in merging the officers of East Lindsey and Boston Borough Council (I’m strangely not aware of members ever doing this,) so only one Chief Executive for a start would save £100,000.

“Also the positive is with a larger (than individually but smaller than the current combined if that makes sense) officer core you can afford a decent structure. The shortage of planners nationally means to get a well-qualified head planner costs but shared across two authorities is a reasonable price.

“It seems like a half-grasped nettle, one that Peter Bedford would not allow to be touched but now only half way.”

***

 

In most acrimonious debates there comes a time when the participants decide to call it a day and that common-sense decrees it’s best to bury the hatchet.

And in the case of the social media charges against Boston Mayor Councillor Brian Rush, as least one person seems determined to just that –  just so long as the hatchet was firmly buried between the Mayor’s shoulder blades.

A lengthy report on the local news website Lincolnshire Reporter  last week lumped together entry after entry purportedly from Councillor Rush’s Facebook page – even going so far as to offer interpretation of the entries concerned.

Lincolnshire Reporter is a reputable news source which has been published since 2016 and is a sister title to The Lincolnite and Lincolnshire Business – and certainly no Flash Harry of local news sites.

But having said, that it underwent a frothing-at-the-mouth moment when gifted a shedload of the Mayor’s alleged iniquities on a plate.

***

Beneath a picture which we hope was not deliberately chosen to show the Mayor in the-not-very-best-possible-light, we were told that: “Controversial comments made by the Mayor of Boston about his political colleagues and Muslims entering the UK can now be revealed.”

The “now” in question was late afternoon last Monday – just a few hours ahead of the full council meeting that evening … and a good time for anyone who wants to disinter bad news with a virtual wooden spoon.

***

But what really struck a bum note with us was the disclosure that: “Lincolnshire Reporter received paper copies of the comments made by the Mayor Brian Rush from Boston Borough Council leader Michael Cooper, and scanned them for use online.

***

Councillor Cooper was the man who proposed the move demand that the Mayor resigned – and ended up with egg on his face because even though councillors backed his call … underpinned by a threat to withdraw administrative support if he refused – the reality was that nothing would actually change, after Councillor Rush refused to quit.

But Councillor Cooper – whose other claim to fame is to run a bubble car museum in Langrick – was apparently not keen to let matters rest … hence his contribution to the Lincolnshire Reporter.

***

The website reproduced reams of scans – some of which appear to less than polite – but none of which are dated … or really terribly offensive.

Among the various arguments put forward after the hoo-ha about the Mayor’s use of social media was launched was the issue of when they were published.

Supporters of the Mayor said that many of the allegedly offensive comments appeared before Councillor Rush was in office – and more significantly noted that his remarks were made on his personal page … and not any kind of civic outlet.

In other words … he was writing as a private citizen – Mr Brian Rush – and ought not to see his remarks conflated with his role as Mayor.

***

Regular readers will recall that in May last year, a row erupted after the then newly-appointed leader Cooper was said to have expressed his feelings over remarks by council critic Darron Abbott about his non-dom status. – he lives in East Lindsey whilst representing a Boston ward – by nobbling a friend of Mr Abbott’s at a drinks bash in a pub away from Worst Street after the announcement of his appointment and telling him …

"The next time you see your f*****g mate Darron Abbott tell him that if he puts anything else on Facebook I will punch him in the f*****g face."

But when Mr Abbott formally complained about this, part of Worst Street’s response made a sharp distinction between a leader at work and a leader at play.

It said that the alleged comment was made at least an hour after the council meeting closed, and was in a town centre pub – not the Municipal Buildings.

The alleged comment was made in a social gathering of mixed company – defined in this case as a mix of political views and not solely a Conservative meeting and a mix of both councillors and non-councillors.

Worst Street’s response concluded: “For further clarity, the content of the statement made by Mr Cooper is irrelevant for my purposes, as at the time of the incident he was Mr Cooper not Councillor Cooper …

In that case, one might think that the adage ‘what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ should apply – the definition being that if one person is allowed to do something or to behave in a particular way, then another person must be allowed to do that thing or behave in that way, too if the circumstances are the same.

And surely Mayors have time off  and a private life as well as well.

Forget it! – this is Worst Street.

***

Far better, we think to suggest to Councillor Cooper in language that he might possibly understand that he admits: “Isetta goal to sack the Mayor but made a Messerschmitt of it.”

And then he should call it a day.

*** 

We reported last week the “update” by Boston MP Matt Warman on progress towards a bypass for Boston.

Almost immediately afterwards Councillor Alison Austin announced her praise for Mr Warman on the bypass issue with a question to county council executive member for highways and transportation, Richard Davies.

What kind of black magic she weaves to get a question in at every meeting still baffles us.

And what a shame it is that her Boston peers so conspicuously fail to do likewise.

Quoting a headline from the Boston Target (Let’s get on with it – MP’s promise to make town’s bypass happen) she asked Councillor Davies if he shared Mr Warman’s optimism – and received a paean of praise in response.

“Isn’t it nice that we have a fresh-faced enthusiastic MP who’s vociferously campaigning for his local area …?” oozed Councillor Davies

“If anybody can make it happen I think Matt Warman can. He is constantly badgering myself and (leader) Martin Hill (and) as recently as last Friday met to talk about this and other transport issues.

“As you may be aware, we’re already had our inaugural meeting of the transport and transport pressure group in conjunction with Boston Borough Council. We’re looking at not only the delivery of the bypass but other improvements built on what we’ve already done over the past ten years in the town.

“I know that you’re a very vociferous campaigner and won’t allow me to take my foot off the pedal.

“Certainly we’re committed to the bypass, er, the distributor road, and I think that if anybody can bring up that key link which has to be that slug of government money to make it happen as we know, then Matt Warman is your man.”

***

A couple of points here …

Everything was going so well until Councillor Davies seemed to realise that he was making use of the B-word, and so slipped in the modifying “ … er, the distributor road” lest our hopes be raised and his comments come back to haunt him.

Secondly, he mentioned the transport and transport pressure group in conjunction with Boston Borough Council and its inaugural meeting – something that we haven’t heard about, and  which is proving elusive to track down.

Perhaps something by way of detail would be helpful, Councillor Davies?

***

At least Councillor Davies seems to be changing his tune a little.

A couple of years ago he scoffed at the idea of a bypass, er distributor road,  because the latest transport assessment showed inbound, not on-going through traffic using Boston’s roads.

When we pointed out that Boston is the main through road to Skegness which must count for something, as hundreds of thousands of people pay the resort a visit each year, he said: “I understand what you mean but surveys and sampling confirmed it. It's being looked at but traffic movements are key.”

He added that an analysis of a survey had shown that 82% of vehicle movements ended up in Boston, with only 18% passing through – something that we still find almost impossible to believe.

Councillor Davies said that another other “huge” problem was low land values, which limit developer contributions.

After some searching, we found on page 234 of the 308 page subtly-named “South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Combined Preferred Options and Sustainability Appraisal Report Full Consultation Document (May 2013)” the news that: “Whilst the Boston Distributor Road remains an aspiration, it is unlikely to come forward in its entirety in the plan period.

“However, there is potential for future development at Boston town to contribute to a ‘first phase’ of a new piece of highway infrastructure, although there is no underlying evidence to draw on relating to this at present.

“There is no evidence to suggest the implementation of a Boston distributor road is critical for the delivery of the growth strategy for Boston to 2031.”

That’s at least thirteen years away – at least three more general elections – by which time the fresh-faced Virgo Mr Warman (you are greatly appreciated for your generosity, discipline and quick mind) will be 49 and this Scorpio writer (often has trust issues and can be highly suspicious of everything)
will be long dead and past caring –  and we’ll all be using drones instead of cars in any case.

***

Finally, we’ve said it before – but it’s always interesting to see our point proved.

As road users around the county struggled to cope with some of the worst weather conditions for many years last week, Clownty Hall made its position crystal clear.

Lincoln always comes first.

Around the same time the A16 between Boston and Skegness was closed – as were many other county roads.

We accept that prioritising is an almost impossible task in such conditions.

So why single Lincoln out for special treatment? 

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

E–mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com  

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston