Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2013, 07:03 PM

It looks like the candidates have given the electorate a full spread of election literature so all that remains is for Newbury to vote - and please use your vote, your democracy depends on it.

I haven't seen the Labour literature, but it's curious that both the Tories and Lib Dems have campaigned largely on West Berkshire Council issues. Either the candidates are confused about which council they're hoping to get elected onto, or else they think the electorate are dumb and will vote for any old blather.

Anyroad, best of luck Newbury, I hope your choice proves a wise one.

Posted by: JeffG May 8 2013, 07:12 PM

Oh, I thought the election would have happened at the same time as all the other local elections last Thursday.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2013, 07:16 PM

Yes, I have no idea why that couldn't have happened, it would have been the most sensible thing I'd have thought.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2013, 08:58 PM

I'm sure most people have decided who they are going to vote for.

Is the literature on line?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2013, 09:04 PM

The Apoliticals claim that they will reveal the 'dirty dossier' on the cracked park which would be embarrassing if they find they can't!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2013, 09:10 PM

Dave Yates has said that he will publish the hydrogeological report. It will be embarrassing for some at the council if it turns out he can!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2013, 09:11 PM

It may be but I haven't looked, I just saw what they put through doors.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2013, 09:26 PM

If I search using Google with: newbury town council election 2013
I get the Apoliticals first, so well done to them for getting that side of things sorted.

http://charliefarrow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/newbury-town-council-by-election_3.html


Quite interesting policies too!

Posted by: On the edge May 9 2013, 07:01 AM

Having someone who actually knows about marketing would be quite a novelty! Are we actually up to having a thriving market again? Imagine all the complaints; all those people flooding in, spending money in car parks, going to Park way? Is that really what we want!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2013, 09:15 AM

That's the paradox.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 09:20 AM

I may be wrong, but I think OtE was being sarcastic - I certainly think a thriving market would be an excellent thing for the town, and I think Charlie has some good ideas about how to achieve that.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2013, 09:23 AM

Of course he was being sarcastic, but just as people see the benefits of a popular town, it can come at a cost to others with a less 'commercial way of life'.

I think the Apoliticals deserve a go for just being more accessible on line and having a clear message and policies. Having said that, Newbury's sheep will just vote the same way.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 09:37 AM

At least the people of Newbury have a genuine opportunity to vote for an alternative, and I'm confident that in two years time we'll have independent options in the majority of wards for both councils.

Posted by: CharlieF May 9 2013, 01:27 PM

Thanks. I just hope enough people turn out and vote for us!

Posted by: blackdog May 9 2013, 03:22 PM

'If they find' of course they can't. 20 votes against 2 (should they both be elected) will ensure they can't.

Unless they can get a dozen Apoliticals on to the council they will be unable to push through any of their policies.

They also seem a bit confused about which council they are going for - or the power that NTC has to do anything about parking charges or the development of Newbury.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 04:06 PM

There won't be any "pushing through" of policies. There is no Apolitical policy, we're all free thinkers. Even if all the town councillors were Apolitical there would be no "pushing through" of anything, proposals would be decided on their merits as each individual council saw it - just like it should be at a parish council.

And there's no confusion: We understand that the only town car park that the town council controls is the one where the officers park for free at West Mills, but a democratic mandate gives every town councillor standing enough to comment on issues of general interest to the people of Newbury, and parking is one of those issues, and if the cost of parking is harming the vitality of the town centre then it would be entirely appropriate for the town council to resolve to loby WBC over the issue.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 04:17 PM

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you know full well what you're talking about!

The decision on whether to release the hydrogeological report can never be one for the council to take on a vote. The council's (latest) position is that they are prevented by a confidentiality agreement from releasing the report. Because of that agreement the council can not lawfuly make that decision to release the report and the town clerk can not allow the proposal even to go to a vote.

On the other hand if the council are lying about the confidentiality agreement and are hiding the report to cover their mismanagement and the unjustifiable amount of money they spent perusing a claim which the report didn't unequivocally blame on the dewatering, then they cannot lawfully withold the report because of their overriding duty under the Environmental Information Regulations to publish, and no resolution of the council can trump that.

So which is it blackdog, confused or sussed?

Posted by: CharlieF May 9 2013, 04:40 PM

Can I endorse what Simon is saying, but also make the point that the market traders themselves identify the parking charges as having a negative impact on trade. So as the Market is a Town Council matter, it is entirely appropriate to consider anything that is directly affecting it.

Posted by: user23 May 9 2013, 06:51 PM

How does anyone know what they're voting for if the party members are encouraged to make up policy as they go?

Posted by: CharlieF May 9 2013, 06:58 PM

That would be why we make a big point of telling people who we are and publicising this guidance:

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 07:25 PM

Your question implies Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem parties publish their town-council manifesto before any election, but they don't. How can they? Look at the issues the town council decides - the purchase of grit bins, new playgrounds, what to do with the Christmas lights, the design of a parish flag. The town council's business is largely reactive, and it's the stuff of parish administration, not weighty matters of national defence, law and order, and the economy, so national party politics tells you nothing about how the parties will decide those issues.

Parish issues should be decided on their merits, and only after a good discussion so that the councillors can listen to each other's point of view, regardless of party, and be free to change their minds. This is the real problem of party-politics at the parish level - quite a few of the councillors are decent enough sticks with more then enough common sense, but their party affiliation makes the whole town council process adversarial and brings with it a ridiculous fear of being seen to change opinion, like being swayed by a reasonable argument is a mortal sin.

Dave Yates and Charlie Farrow have published on-line and distributed to homes their thoughts on the services and issues that interest them most, so the electorate know where each stand stand on a range of parish issues. None of the other candidates have done that. When it comes to the elections in 2015 all of the Apolitical candidates will do the same.

We're learning as we go obviously, but I would hope that more prospective Apolitical candidates will be identifying themselves here too so you know what you're voting for.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 10:56 PM

Reasonably close finish between the Lib Dems and Conservatives with the Lib Dems being elected, then Apolitical, Labour, Apolitical, and Labour, with Apolitical and Labour together getting about the same as the Lib Dem vote. Turnout was around 25%.

It was interesting being involved, and I hope more people will take an active interest next time round.

Posted by: blackdog May 9 2013, 11:06 PM

Confused probably. If they are bound by a confidentiality agreement then the Apoliticals can no more release the report than the current councillors.

However, I thought they were withholding it on legal advice as its release could jeopardise any legal action they might take. As they are not bound by legal advice (though it I guess it means they can use it to justify non-release) they could decide (by vote I guess) to release it against device, taking whatever risk it might be to the process of extracting cash from Costain's insurers.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2013, 11:32 PM

I may be wrong, but I don't think they can refuse to release the report just because they've had legal advice that it's contents could prejudice any claim they're making. There are specific exemption to their duty to publish under the Environmental Information Regulations, but even then there is a presumption in favour of publishing even when an exemption is available unless the public interest in publishing outweighs the public interest in withholding the information, and then they still have to publish as much as they may and only redact what they must. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/part/3/made for the exemptions. I believe the reason the council have given for not publishing the report is that the data they got from Costain was given to them under the condition that it was not made public, and if the council have indeed agreed to that condition then they can rely on this exemption


However, they only made that excuse late in the day, and there was no suggestion that the report was never going to be published in the early stages of the snafu.

As I've said before, I think someone needs to make an application for the report and then take the council to the Information Commissioner when they refuse, as that's the only way we're going to get some closure here, and as the IC process needs quite a bit of time, experience and knowledge to go up against the council and their legal people it's not something I'm particularly keen to myself.

Posted by: blackdog May 10 2013, 12:06 AM

If it's all about confidentiality of Costain's data then surely they could release an executive summary.

The report concludes that Costain caused the damage and are liable to cough up the cash to pay for it

or

The report concludes that Costain are blameless, the freak weather conditions caused the damage

or,

Extensive and expensive investigations of the damage, taking into account information regarding the water extraction during the Parkway build, leads we experts to think that there is a distinct statistical possibility that the water extraction may have been, in part, responsible for the damage in and around Victoria Park. However, we experts are certainly not willing to bet our careers or for that matter our cash on the issue and will, therefore park ourselves clearly on the fence in this matter and leave it for the courts to decide.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2013, 12:56 AM

What it shows to the layman is that Costain have something to hide.

Posted by: On the edge May 10 2013, 07:03 AM

Quite

Posted by: Rowley Birkin May 10 2013, 08:15 AM

result was lib dems first followed by tories apoliticals labour last

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2013, 09:11 AM

It seems that Newbury Today are as excited about the result as the electorate!

Posted by: On the edge May 10 2013, 09:40 AM

Yes - clearly know their customers priorities!