When asked by SignLink how much would have been acceptable to spend on the controversial sign, Councillor Ben Grower emphatically replied: “Nothing”.

He explains: “Nothing – this is an illuminated sign. In Dorset, we are turning off lamposts at night to save electricity and this is a sign that is lit up at night. There are two signs on that road that say welcome to Bournemouth already – we don't need a third one.

“To spend £80,000 - £90,000 (£76,000 according to the Conservative-led council) on a sign in a time of austerity when we've got people queuing for food stamps seems a total waste of money. It only covers one road into Bournemouth.”

The politician says that the Conservative claims it will help tourism are wrong, as “people are already coming to Bournemouth.

“They're not suddenly saying, ‘are we coming to Bournemouth or will we visit’,” adds Grower.

“They're already there, they've made up their mind. If you put it up the other end of the M3 outside London, that might help tourism. This doesn't help at all.”

Grower was also derisory about any aesthetic benefits for the sign, snorting: “No – have you seen it.” He also says the money would have been better spent elsewhere.

He continues: “It could pay for two social workers, it could keep a day centre open for an extra few hours, it could help the elderly, hundreds of things!”

With many in his own party claiming that the government, should be creating jobs through investment in infrastructure, Grower claims that this sign is not the right type of spend.

He concludes: “Let's give them jobs mending the potholes in the roads. Practically everyone here would like to see the holes in the road outside their house fixed, rather than a sign across the a dual carriageway, which no-one is going to see because they're looking ahead. They shouldn't be looking up in the air anyway.”
jmf