Victoria Ward Election Options

[Simon Kirby]

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

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[blackdog]

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?

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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. See Section 12 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

12.(5)(f) the interests of the person who provided the information where that person—

(i)was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;

(ii)did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and

(iii)has not consented to its disclosure; or

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.

[blackdog]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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

[On the edge]

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

Quite

[Rowley Birkin]

result was lib dems first followed by tories apoliticals labour last

[Andy Capp]

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

[On the edge]

Yes - clearly know their customers priorities!