Now a personal view of Mr. Frayne's 'personal view.'

This 'personal' view from James Frayne (New Frontiers) only tells a very small part of the story and is selective in what it exposes and discloses but, we fully expected this.
The referendum fight in the North East was merely a platform for profile raising of Dominic Cummings' think tank, New Frontiers, and not about the issue or working with the people up who had spent over two years on the campaign.
From the outset it was about the setting up of a rival campaign and controlling the agenda.
You can draw your own conclusions as to why NESNO was set up when the North East No Campaign was pro-active and very effective, non-party political with massive support from the North East public.
Why jeopardise that?
Why despite our numerous attempts did NESNO not wish to form even a loose coalition?
How did NESNO receive designation from the Electoral Commission when they had no profile, no history and no public profile?
Why will NESNO and the Electoral Commission not disclose details of their application for designation?

I have briefly responded to some of the points raised by Mr. Frayne (in red below). Our full warts and all report on the campaign and the result will follow.

TELEGRAPH 15/11/04
Personal view:
North East 'no' vote to Assembly looks like bad news for Blair's Europereferendum hopes
By James Frayne
Those who oppose the euro, the European Constitution and further integration in the European Union should be greatly encouraged by the result in theNorth East referendum. An anti-Constitution campaign already has many advantages over the anti-Assembly campaign and it is difficult to see how Tony Blair could win a referendum over Europe.
Not difficult to win...it is an impossible task. One of the tactics that he will attempt to use will be exactly what NESNO allowed to happen in the North East...to try and polarise the issue into a party political one. NESNO naively, or deliberately walked straight into that trap, and the Conservative connections were all to transparent. Added to that, UKIP allied themselves to the Conservatives and NESNO, and not the long established People's No Campaign, ..."Because Neil Herron stood against us in the European Elections..." ( from recollection I think the Conservatives stood too)
The scale of the "no" vote - 78-22 against a regional assembly - suggests that a big victory was sure from the start.
Yes it was. The whole agenda had been built on spin and deception, and anyone involved from the outset would have been fully aware of this. The agenda could be driven forward but the Achilles Heel was always going to be getting it past the public, and the public would simply ask for details. Once the details confirmed their ssuspicions it would be 'game over.' We always knew this.
Every meeting I spoke at in front of an 'ordinary' people's audience returned a similar margin. Sometimes even higher. (Lanchester 44-1. Gateshead Arthritis Support Group 45-3).
Those which were closer still had the 'undecideds' as the majority...but they weren't prepared to buy the Yes dream. They wanted facts and those facts were lways going to be forthcoming once the ballot papers started to drop and the press and media conducted the analysis.
However, because events organised by stakeholder or vested interest groups produced split votes the Yes campaign thought they had a chance and it was all to play for. These results were false indicators and we knew that. Most ordinary members of the public would not attend such events. We knew what the feeling was 'on the streets.'
More politicians?
Higher Council Tax?
Expensive Buildings?
Jobs for the Boys?
These are the lines that were coming back from the people.
It was not. The Yes campaign had years to prepare, a far larger budget, the BBC and newspapers on their side, state support, and, as late as August, ICM polls predicted a 2-1 "yes" vote.
It is necessary for Mr. Frayne to make big play of this so that it looks like the NESNO cavalry arrived and massively shifted public opinion. They did not and the reason is simple.
All polls which were conducted had been dissected by us and exposed for what they were...an outrageous manipulation and misrepresentation, but for the newspapers to expose this would have sunk the ship before it got out of port. The BBC had known that their poll from 2002 was an absolute fraud...we exposed it, and exposed them for repeatedly using it. They dropped it.
There was never a 2:1 in favour of Yes. That poll was conducted by the Yes Campaign...and would you believe that not one journalist that ran the story thought to ask what the question was. We would all vote for a better voice for the North East and greater wealth and prosperity. The question was asked in such a way to produce the misleading information. What NESNO don't reveal about that poll was the fact that from the raw data only 4% of those questioned felt as though they had enough information to make an educated and informed decision. We always knew that although eveyone wished to 'buy the dream' pragmatism, cynicism and reality would win the day and as the referendum date approached it would be inevitable that the dream would be shattered in the face of the reality of what was on offer. Visions are impossible to sell to a public that has to pay.
However, as the campaign began properly in mid-September and people focused on it, the polls moved quickly in our favour.
As above. They were always going to anyway. The Yes campaign had nothing more than emotional rhetoric. However, the hearts and minds had been won over and influenced during the past two years with the letter writing to the local media, the comments in the press and the appearances countering the Yes arguments at every turn.
The first and most important reason is that our message was simple,believed, and we stuck to it. Everything we did or said was aimed at delivering our three key messages: vote no to higher council tax; vote no to more politicians; vote no to a white elephant that doesn't have the power to help the North East. The three were summed up in the slogan "Politicians talk, We Pay", which tapped into the widespread contempt for modern politics.
Did it really need a separate campaign and all the contention to deliver this? Did it really need a think tank from London to parachute in a strategy director to come up with that slogan? Was the risk of turning the whole referendum fight into a party political battle worth it for a slogan and an elephant? Was it necessary to 'use' John Elliott as a front man and create a rival campaign when John was already working closely with (and funding) the People's No Campaign? Does Mr. Frayne doubt the ability of those who were already here? Apparently so as there has been no reference anywhere in anything done by NESNO, to the People's No Campaign.
So, NESNO didn't invent the simple message... we had been saying precisely that for over two years. NESNO didn't need to set up a new campaign to re-invent the wheel, unless there was another agenda.
In contrast, the Yes campaign focused, like the pro-euro campaign, on showing off a "historic coalition" and attacking the enemy as "Tory" and extreme. This meant the two campaigns diverged widely in strategy.
We predicted this would be the Yes Campaign's strategy and that is why the People's Campaign was 'untouchable' in that regard.
NESNO by setting up a separate conservative construct played straight into this 'attacking the enemy as "Tory"' strategy by the Yes Campaign, but we did warn them in all our meetings. The People's Campaign could never be accused of being Tory because we had Labour / Lib Dem and Liberal supporters on board as well as people from no political background.
Immediately the Yes Campaign had NESNO on the back foot...a place where we had NEVER been, and played on the Tory connections which NESNO looked foolish when they denied them:
-Spokesman...Graham Robb. Conservative Candidate in Hartlepool against Mandelson. Conservative spokesman for the North East. Former spin doctor to William Hague.
-NESNO Council Members list...gave over £200,000 to the Tory Party and included many Tory grandees. Sir David Kelly was the one who had written to potential supporters.
-Website hosted by Politico's Iain Dale, Conservative ppc.
- Domain Name originally registered to Amanda Vigar (3rd on the Conservative Party list in the European Election)
- NESNO staff included Alex Ray on secondment from New Frontiers.
-Initial strategy by Dominic Cummings, Director of New Frontiers and former Head of Strategy for the Conservative Party.
-Chief Executive of NESNO, Philip Cummings...Uncle of Dominic!
-Upon designation, James Frayne of New Frontiers becomes Campaign Director of NESNO. (New Frontiers is funded by Stuart Wheeler, Stanley Kalms and Lord Salisbury among others)
-initial company set up and research done by William Guy Norton, a close associate of Bernard Jenkin, Shadow Regions Minister.
The Yes campaign had a four-minute documentary-style film designed to show who was voting yes - celebrities, nursing unions, etc - saying "be proud, be positive". Our broadcast was split into four mini-ads, each delivering avery simple message based on cost, politicians, and the lack of powers being proposed.
A very effective and simple broadcast. It will be interesting to see costings and spend. We had a provisional estimate to bring in the broadcast for < £5,000. Simple and effective.This difference in strategy also showed in the campaigns' stunts. We burned£1m of fake £50 notes to show how much money would be wasted; we unveiled a huge blank cheque; we "began construction" on a new Assembly building by hiring JCBs and cranes and we took our 15ft high inflatable white elephant around the region.
The NESNO White elephant was effective.
The Yes campaign were more concerned about showing what nice people they were by unveiling things like a cultural manifesto promising more rights for artists. We did not fight on their ground. We did not bother with offering"alternatives" to the Assembly and we never fought on party politics.
We did offer alternatives which negated that line of argument. The alternative offered was never challenged and is now being mooted by some of the 30 North East MP's who now know that with an election coming up they have to get back onside with the 700,000 North East voters who rejected something which they (except the Conservative Peter Atkinson) had endorsed.
The other side did fight on party politics and had NESNO on the back foot as mentioned earlier. A line of argument that was never used against us.
Even when Middlesbrough Mayor Ray Mallon used this line of attack we engineered a challenge to him to come to Sunderland and call us Tory southerners. This neutered Mr. Mallon and gained the necessary publicity for the alternative No Campaign.
In the North East, any suggestion that this was a Tory versus Labour battle would have been a problem.
It was a problem and Prescott made great play of it immediately upon designation.
NESNO's creation and connections played straight into this and allowed Prescott and the Yes Campaign to descend down this route. The fact that this backfired was not down to strategy by NESNO. The bizarre decision by the Electoral Commission to award designation to the recently formed NESNO needs to be exposed because it smacks of political interference. There have been no answers to something which should be so transparent. We, and others have been met with obfuscation from all concerned.
The Labour Party sensed this. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott personally unveiled ads attacking our campaign as being "run by Southern Tories";Chancellor Gordon Brown also parroted the same attacks, as did the once independent Ray Mallon.
Our excellent campaign spokesmen - made up of North East business people - just carried on delivering our messages.
Graham Robb, North East Conservative Party spokesman being one of them. He did a good job, but could always be knocked for the Conservative connection which put him immediately on the back foot when other points could have been delivered. He could never be aggressive and go on the attack because of the political baggage.
Chairman, John Elliott always came across as sincere but not fully comfortable with the arguments and delivery.
Some, such as Ian Dormer and David Lockie were good.
Others lacked the depth of knowledge of the issue when the debate got deeper and trickier. None were aware of the deceit behind the polls. None were aware of the misuse of public money by the unelected assembly. None were aware of the funding relationships between the trade unions, the Campaign For English Regions and the Yes Campaign.
All of these were killer points which we had at our finger tips.
Yes, the spokesmen did well in delivering the soundbites and the necessary lines, but often fared badly in head to head confrontations.
As far as strategy goes, if you want to avoid the campaign being branded a Tory campaign, first shout would not to have put William Hague's former spin doctor as the front man.
The campaigners against the Constitution will be starting from a much stronger position. They are already significantly ahead in the polls; they already have strong business support; they will be at least as well funded as the Yes campaign (though the abuse of state power will be a major threat).
There is not a cat in hell's vote of a Yes vote to the Constitution...and we also said that two years ago when we exposed the unelected assembly for misusing public money (and no NESNO can't claim credit for that one either) about a Yes vote to an elected assembly when NESNO wasn't even a twinkle in Bernard Jenkin's eye.
They will also have more obvious cross-party support and the Tories have wisely made clear that while they would obviously play a prominent part in the campaign, they would not run it (a crucial distinction).
In the North East referendum they kept well away BUT there were times nationally when Prescott and Raynsford could have done with a kicking and the Tories were nowhere to be seen. An example of this was on the BBC Politics Show when UKIP Leader Roger Knapman went head to head with Prescott and failed miserably to land even one punch. Prescott should have been on the floor!
Just as the pro-Assembly campaign could not persuade people of its merits, the dynamics of EU politics suggest Blair will not be able to persuade people that the EU is a success that ought to have more powers.
A cross party campaign has to come from the people and not from a NESNO type construct. There was no grassroots structure at all to NESNO and they wouldn't have first clue about creating one...except to use the Conservative party branch structure. Hardly cross party.
However, we are not naive to think that a People's Campaign will be running or even be attempting to run THE national No Campaign in a referendum on the European Constitution. But, a true, independent People's Campaign will be a valuable asset to the official No Campaign and create what is necessary in the way of spontaneous local campaigns, dissemination of information through established networks and the creation of the umbrella coalition necessary to pull together all disparate groups and organisations. No to the Euro, Vote No and NESNO do not have this ability. The People's No Campaign and Referendum04 have proved that they do...and proved that they can work with others and without conflict towards a common goal. NESNO had a different agenda and therefore were never interested in creating a coalition.
However, there are a couple of things that did cause us problems in the North East that need to be addressed. The BBC's coverage was slanted to help the Yes campaign.
We have an in depth analysis and exposure of some of the BBC's agenda on the blog and will further expose it this week in the Sunday Telegraph.
Can't remember NESNO attempting to expose this. Can't remember them asking a representative from the People's No Campaign to stand alongside them at any point to help represent the people.
At no point did NESNO make reference to the People's No Campaign.
The BBC deliberately avoided reference to the 'other' No Campaign and there was no coverage on referendum night on BBC TV.
Tyne Tess on the other hand gave the People's No Campaign ample coverage.
It undermined our launch by linking it to the BNP and, at London's direction, insisted that if Mr Prescott was speaking for Yes, then the BBC would only take a Tory or UKIP figure to represent No.
Did they think to say no, we will not provide a spokesperson on those terms and issue a press statement saying so...which would have forced a BBC backtrack or exposed their agenda?
Given that Mr Prescott's message was that it was a party political battle,
who allowed him to do this?this obviously helped Yes and showed that the BBC would try to shape perceptions of the official No campaign - leading Labour politicians clearly had to be protected from non-political opponents.
...and when did NESNO ever attempt to bring the people into this, considering we were already here?
This is obviously unacceptable and has major implications for a referendum on Europe.
Only if those behind NESNO learn the lessons from their naivity.
The problems with the Electoral Commission are too numerous to go into here
Cannot find anything on the NESNO site about problems with the Electoral Commission. Perhaps they are too numerous to go into because they are on our site and Mr. Frayne hasn't had time to read them all yet.
We will be very interested to see how they can make a detailed analysis of designation and produce a critical appraisal of that decision. We hope that in the interests of all in the European Constitution referendum NESNO will make available their application in order to expose the reasons behind the Electoral Commission's decision. After all, if the decision was clear cut then we will have no problems and can learn for the future. However, the continued obfuscation simply perpetuates the conspracy that this was an attempted political stitch-up.
but nobody should be under any illusion that the commission exists to police conduct at referenda. There was rarely anyone available that could give timely advice on the conduct of government ministers.
Can't recall NESNO bringing this to the attention of the press the way we and our networks did. Check the blog and we are ongoing with the complaints to the ODPM, the Electoral Commission and the Audit Commission. Would appreciate Mr. Frayne's comments on that one as well before he again steals someone else's clothes.
We are continuing down this line because the behaviour of Government Ministers has obvious impications for future referenda. No personal glory in following these up...just hard slog.
When we complained to the Electoral Commission, it said there was nothing it could do, that it assumed the Government had taken legal advice, and that anyway there was no enforcement mechanism to deal with any illegal action.
So what did NESNO do? Didn't see or hear anything.
We did not accept that and exposed the Electoral Commission as well. Check the website and the blog...we served a High Court writ on the EC as well as the Secretary of State.The anti-Constitution campaign will need to work out how it will issue legalchallenges during a referendum when similar problems inevitably occur.
We can show them...we did it. We also asked if NESNO wished to join us in the action. That would have created the story of the two campaigns uniting (another one of the many offers at creating unity). We got no response or offer of support except from Petrina Holdsworth from UKIP who had the courtesy of replying and giving reasons. We were forced to discontinue proceedings but the legal point was made that the public were being misled.
The biggest challenge the opponents of EU integration have is the development of an alternative vision to the status quo relationship with the EU and how to sequence its development with a pure anti-Constitution campaign that may not happen.
And there Ladies and Gentlemen is the real reason for setting up a 'rival' No Campaign in the North East.
A campaign run and won by the people would not have given New Frontiers the ability or apparent credibility to go to the big backers and say, "Look what we did."
Will the alternative vision will come from those at New Frontiers...the ones who won the referendum for everyone in the North East?
Now is it clear why they made no contact with, or reference to the People's No Campaign?
The North East No Campaign was created by the people to challenge a political class that has simply stopped listening and has lost touch with the mood and attitude of the average voter. For any group to impose itself on a growing and winning partnership as a rival to the already winning people's non-political organisation that was vigorously representing the 'No' perspective is unfogiveable.
James Frayne is director of research at the New Frontiers Foundation and was Campaign Director for the official No campaign in the North East referendum.
Response to James Frayne by Neil Herron, Campaign Director of the North East No Campaign