Prescott warned about 'No' vote

Feb 28 2005
By The Journal

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was warned that North voters would turn against plans for a regional assembly more than a year before last autumn's comprehensive referendum defeat.

Mr Prescott was told in a private polling commissioned in October 2003 that voters had fears over "potential financial wastage and increased bureaucracy" - even after in-depth briefings about his plans for elected regional government.

The research, by consultants NOP World, showed there was little understanding of regional politics in the region in 2003 - with many people interviewed seeing an assembly as "an extra level of hierarchy".

And despite claims of a strong sense of regional identity from supporters, people felt Newcastle would dominate the agenda, with smaller areas expected to report back to the city.

Last night there was criticism of the Government for pressing ahead with the multi-million pound assembly referendum campaign in the face of the polling results, ultimately leading to last November's 78pc `No' vote .

No campaigner Neil Herron said: "This was political will being imposed on us and not at all about what the people wanted.

"It was the Government's agenda, a manifesto pledge and it had to be fulfilled irrespective."

More than £3m was spent on the Government's information campaign about regional assemblies - leaflets for which NOP used in their polling.

In total, the moves towards assemblies cost taxpayers about £11m.

The effectiveness of the publicity, however, has been called into doubt, with the "Your Say" information leaflets themselves coming under fire. Voters say they were biased and jargon-heavy.

"Some of these words - I don't have a clue what they're about?" one young woman said.

A young male voter said: "It's a bit biased. All yeses. Just telling you what you want to hear - there is a downside because there are naturally going to be things we don't agree with."

The `No' campaign played heavily on fears the assembly would be a "white elephant" - fears which had already been uncovered for the Government by the 2003 research.

It found focus group members remained concerned about the potential for financial wastage and increased bureaucracy.

They argued there would be a "lack of visible change" together with high costs and political infighting, although most accepted it would be democratically accountable with the potential for increasing its powers, Whitehall departments willing. The 2003 research was intended to help Mr Prescott's department identify awareness of the issue, but urged the Deputy Prime Minister to "counteract negative pre-conceptions of elected regional assemblies (ERAs)".

Polling was also conducted in September 2004, just two months before the referendum, showing that despite 54pc of people in the North-East being aware of the issue the "majority did not feel informed about ERAs" or about their responsibilities.

A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office said: "Following the publication of the regions white paper in 2002, we undertook a wide ranging soundings exercise to consider whether there was demand for a regional assembly.

"After consideration of the findings, we decided there was enough evidence in the North-East to warrant a vote."

Former Yes4theNorthEast campaigner Suzannah Clarke said: "I think it's pointless going over old ground about who said what when.

"But I think having the referendum has brought up a number of issues that weren't being talked about before.

"What we now have to do is see what we can take out of that which will help the region in the future