£1m Assembly bill demand
Sep 23 2004
By Ross Smith And Daniel Cochlin, The Journal
The group fighting against a North-East regional assembly has called on John Prescott to spend £1m of public money sending the draft bill to every voter in the region.
Opponents last night condemned the idea as a waste of money, but North East Says No claimed the move would clear up arguments about how much power the assembly would have.
It would cost more than £1m to send the draft Regional Assemblies Bill, which is 223 pages thick, to the region's 1.9 million voters.
Nesno, which has opposed the assembly on the grounds of cost, claims the price is worth paying to prevent the referendum being mired in claims of misinformation.
Both Nesno and Neil Herron's North East No Campaign have raised questions about the wording of a Government information leaflet sent out across the North-East and the preamble to the referendum question on ballot papers. They believe it made the assembly sound more powerful than would actually be the case.
In a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nesno chairman John Elliott wrote: "Given that there has been so much controversy surrounding the actions of the Government during this referendum we believe that the Government needs to take action to reassure voters that it is committed to a fair vote. North East Says No strongly believes that the best way the Government can demonstrate this commitment is by sending the full copy of the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill to every voter in the region.
"This will allow them to make up their own minds about what is being offered."
He said Europe Minister Denis MacShane's suggestion of sending a copy of the EU constitution to every household before a public vote on that issue should be a model for referendums.
A campaign spokesman added: "We're confident the `yes' campaign would support this as it would help people to make an informed choice - people would be able to judge whether we're right on what the assembly would lead to, or whether the `yes' campaign is right.
"It would send out completely the wrong signal to North-East voters if the Government refused."
But Yes4theNorthEast chairman John Tomaney said: "The North-East public have a right to hear and read as much information as possible about a regional assembly, but it is not a sensible use of over £1m of taxpayers' money to send out a copy of the draft bill to every house in the region.
"It is ironic that the No campaign is now so keen on demanding information from the Government when it couldn't find a single person from the North-East to present its views on the Bill to the Parliamentary Select Committee discussing it."
Neil Herron, whose rival anti-assembly campaign lost out to Nesno in the race to secure Government campaign funding, said he wanted the public to be informed but sending out the entire draft bill would be a waste.
He said: "There are only three or four points which the voters need explaining - it would be ideal for everybody to read the draft bill but they are not going to."
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Moe correspondence from the public
Dear Sir,
I am an ardent NO supporter in the forthcoming referendum on the NE Assembly.
I am not surprised by the stupid revelation, by NESNO, that each household should receive a copy of the draft Assembly Bill.
After the rejection, by the Government, of Neil Herron (NEARA) in favour of the ‘johnny come lately’ NESNO chaired by John Elliott, I suspect that some of NESNO’s troops are perhaps YES campaigner’s in disguise, who like Saul on the road to Damascus will have a remarkable conversion, just before the ballot, to the Yes camp.
At the end of July I downloaded from the official government website the aforementioned draft Bill (free of charge, not the cost of £25.75 as quoted in the purple information booklet).
The website is as follows, and can be transferred to 5 floppy discs,or a recordable CD
www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm62/6285/6285.pdf
(it is 236 pages long and 6.7mb).
for those without a computer on the internet, then all local libraries now have computers that can access the internet and just take the necessary discs with you for transferring the info.
I suggest Mr Eliott (NESNO) you identify the person(s) who thought up this nonsense. As Neil Herron says there are only a few points that need explaining to the public, especially the fact that the majority of the Bill refers to the legal establishment of Regional Development Agencies and Consortiums by the Assembly (these are quangos to be paid for by the local taxpayers in the NE region instead of Central Govt. but will nevertheless be under the ultimate control of Central Government)
D.Green
East Herrington
Sunderland
I am an ardent NO supporter in the forthcoming referendum on the NE Assembly.
I am not surprised by the stupid revelation, by NESNO, that each household should receive a copy of the draft Assembly Bill.
After the rejection, by the Government, of Neil Herron (NEARA) in favour of the ‘johnny come lately’ NESNO chaired by John Elliott, I suspect that some of NESNO’s troops are perhaps YES campaigner’s in disguise, who like Saul on the road to Damascus will have a remarkable conversion, just before the ballot, to the Yes camp.
At the end of July I downloaded from the official government website the aforementioned draft Bill (free of charge, not the cost of £25.75 as quoted in the purple information booklet).
The website is as follows, and can be transferred to 5 floppy discs,or a recordable CD
www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm62/6285/6285.pdf
(it is 236 pages long and 6.7mb).
for those without a computer on the internet, then all local libraries now have computers that can access the internet and just take the necessary discs with you for transferring the info.
I suggest Mr Eliott (NESNO) you identify the person(s) who thought up this nonsense. As Neil Herron says there are only a few points that need explaining to the public, especially the fact that the majority of the Bill refers to the legal establishment of Regional Development Agencies and Consortiums by the Assembly (these are quangos to be paid for by the local taxpayers in the NE region instead of Central Govt. but will nevertheless be under the ultimate control of Central Government)
D.Green
East Herrington
Sunderland
Audit Commission adds nothing ;-)
Dear Mr Sayers,
Thank you for your letter of 21 September, acknowledging the complaint which I made on 7 September to your Newcastle office.
I made a further complaint to that office on 16 September, raising additional specific issues of inaccuracy/ommission in the ODPM's "Have Your Say" leaflet.
In case my further complaint has not yet been forwarded to you, I set out the text below.
Copies of both my letters have been sent to the ODPM and to the Electoral Commission.
In view of the imminenece of the referendum, and the seriousness of the situation, legal advice is being taken to determine the appropriate course of action.I shall be much obliged for your early reply.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Wallace
Chairman
North East No Campaign
16th September 2004
Dear Sir,
Referendum on a Regional Assembly in the North East
I refer to my letter to you dated 7th September, asking you to investigate my complaint about the money wrongly spent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, issuing advertisements and leaflets which are inaccurate and misleading and which promote a particular political view.
Two further inaccuracies have now come to light;
both are contained in the leaflet entitled "Have Your Say", which I enclosed with my original letter:
1.On the page headed "A new opportunity for the North East", there is a section entitled "How would the new elected assembly operate?"
It reads"The Government intends that a North East assembly would consist of around 25 elected members to represent different views and parts of the region. They would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single party."
This is a lie.
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill, section 3,states that an assembly is to consist of both constituency members and regional members; the constituency members will be members for electoral areas (known as constituencies) within the region, whilst the regional members will be members for the whole region.
Section 10 states that "each constituency member of an assembly is to be returned under the simple majority system".
In the Explanatory Notes, point number 15,it states that "the precise division between the number of each type of elected member would be decided by an order of the Secretary of State but it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority"; thus, in other words, the bulk of the members will be elected on the first-past-the post system, not by proportional representation.
The statements in the leaflet are untrue.
2. The second additional accuracy relates to the part of the leaflet which covers local government reorganisation in County Durham. (In Northumberland and Durham, voters will be asked in the referendum a second question on the alteration of the current system).
Two options are given to the voters, A and B, and the leaflet states that the Government will pay the upfront costs; "these costs should be less than £37 million for option A and £38 million for option B".
This is a lie.
It has now come to light that the costs for option B will actually be £47 million. The electorate is being asked to vote on the basis of incorrect information.These are further examples of the misuse of taxpayers' money: please investigate.
Yours faithfully
Mrs J. A. Wallace
National Audit Office3rd FloorHigham HouseNew Bridge Street WestNewcastle-Upon-TyneNE1 8AU
Cc The Electoral Commission
Thank you for your letter of 21 September, acknowledging the complaint which I made on 7 September to your Newcastle office.
I made a further complaint to that office on 16 September, raising additional specific issues of inaccuracy/ommission in the ODPM's "Have Your Say" leaflet.
In case my further complaint has not yet been forwarded to you, I set out the text below.
Copies of both my letters have been sent to the ODPM and to the Electoral Commission.
In view of the imminenece of the referendum, and the seriousness of the situation, legal advice is being taken to determine the appropriate course of action.I shall be much obliged for your early reply.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Wallace
Chairman
North East No Campaign
16th September 2004
Dear Sir,
Referendum on a Regional Assembly in the North East
I refer to my letter to you dated 7th September, asking you to investigate my complaint about the money wrongly spent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, issuing advertisements and leaflets which are inaccurate and misleading and which promote a particular political view.
Two further inaccuracies have now come to light;
both are contained in the leaflet entitled "Have Your Say", which I enclosed with my original letter:
1.On the page headed "A new opportunity for the North East", there is a section entitled "How would the new elected assembly operate?"
It reads"The Government intends that a North East assembly would consist of around 25 elected members to represent different views and parts of the region. They would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single party."
This is a lie.
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill, section 3,states that an assembly is to consist of both constituency members and regional members; the constituency members will be members for electoral areas (known as constituencies) within the region, whilst the regional members will be members for the whole region.
Section 10 states that "each constituency member of an assembly is to be returned under the simple majority system".
In the Explanatory Notes, point number 15,it states that "the precise division between the number of each type of elected member would be decided by an order of the Secretary of State but it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority"; thus, in other words, the bulk of the members will be elected on the first-past-the post system, not by proportional representation.
The statements in the leaflet are untrue.
2. The second additional accuracy relates to the part of the leaflet which covers local government reorganisation in County Durham. (In Northumberland and Durham, voters will be asked in the referendum a second question on the alteration of the current system).
Two options are given to the voters, A and B, and the leaflet states that the Government will pay the upfront costs; "these costs should be less than £37 million for option A and £38 million for option B".
This is a lie.
It has now come to light that the costs for option B will actually be £47 million. The electorate is being asked to vote on the basis of incorrect information.These are further examples of the misuse of taxpayers' money: please investigate.
Yours faithfully
Mrs J. A. Wallace
National Audit Office3rd FloorHigham HouseNew Bridge Street WestNewcastle-Upon-TyneNE1 8AU
Cc The Electoral Commission
ODPM Ask for more time
Latest News
ODPM are urgently consulting lawyers. North East No Campaign lawyers received fax at 5.20pm from the ODPM asking for more time. They are to respnd by tomorrow.
No Campaign Counsel instructed to prepare the case for lodging at the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow.
Neil H
ODPM are urgently consulting lawyers. North East No Campaign lawyers received fax at 5.20pm from the ODPM asking for more time. They are to respnd by tomorrow.
No Campaign Counsel instructed to prepare the case for lodging at the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow.
Neil H
High noon for Raynsford
(or is it High Tea?)
The North East No Campaign have (at 2.30 pm today) issued an ultimatum, by way of a letter, to The Rt Hon. Nick Raynsford Minister for Local and Regional Government concerning the misleading information peddled by the government of the NE regional elected assembly. The letter speaks for itself:
The Rt Hon. Nick Raynsford
Minister for Local and Regional Government
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
26 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2WH
Thursday, 23 September 2004
BY FAX: 020 - 7944 4539
Also by e-mail to: nick.raynsford@odpm.gsi.gov.uk
***EXTREMELY URGENT***
Dear Mr Raynsford
Referendum 4 November 2004
This is an important letter.
We act for the North-East No Campaign Limited. We have been instructed on their behalf to write this letter.
We write in relation to the referendum that is being carried out pursuant to section 1 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.
We refer to the document published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister entitled An Elected Assembly for the North East. Have Your Say, (Product Code 04RDG02287 NE), published August 2004 (A the Document@ ).
As you are aware, 1.2 million copies (approximately) of the Document were distributed to each address in the North-East Region in late August 2004. The Document is directly and exclusively related to the forthcoming referendum that is to be held by closing date of 4 November 2004. The fact that the Document is published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister plainly gives it the appearance of authoritativeness and means that it must be correct in every detail and in no way misleading. This is underscored by Guidance from the Cabinet Office in relation to Government Publicity and Advertising.
On the fifth page of the Document, in the page headed "County Durham" , it states:
"The Government will pay the upfront costs needed to realise these savings. These costs should be less than , 37 million for option A and , 38 million for option B."
As you have already publicly admitted, this statement is erroneous and should read:
"The Government will pay the upfront costs needed to realise these savings. These costs should be less than , 37 million for option A and , 49 million for option B."
In other words, you admit an error of , 11 million pounds.
Your admission has been widely reported, including in the 17 September 2004 issue of The Journal.
You have also publicly stated, and this too has been widely reported, that you will be shortly writing to all households in County Durham correcting this error.
All households in County Durham@ constitutes approximately 220,000 households of the 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
We would ask that you confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the corrected version will be sent to all 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
Next, there is a further material error in the Document which we would ask to be corrected at the same time and sent to all 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
On the second page of the Document it is stated:
"The Government intends that a North East assembly would consist of around 25 elected members to represent different views and parts of the region. They would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single party and to help ensure a balance of opinion. Elections would be held every four years."
This is incorrect. In the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill (presented to Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, July 2004, Cm 6285) (" the Bill" ) clause 3 provides that an assembly is to consist of: (a) constituency members; and (b) regional members. The former are members for electoral regions, called "constituencies" , within the assembly= s region (cl. 3(2)). The latter are members for the whole of the assembly= s region (cl. 3(3)). There is to be one constituency member for each constituency and, accordingly, the region of an assembly is divided into as many constituencies as there are constituency members (cl. 4(1)-(2)). The number of constituency members and the number of regional members for the assembly is to be such as the Secretary of State may prescribe (cl. 3(4)). The total number of members for the assembly is to be between 25 and 35 (cl. 3(5)).
In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, paragraph 15 states:
The White Paper stated that the Government would expect that around 33 to 35 per cent of its members would be regional top-up members meaning that around 65-67 per cent of members would be constituency members for specific electoral areas. The Government feels that such a breakdown (which mirrors that for the National Assembly for Wales) would both ensure that all voters have an identifiable constituency representative whilst encouraging an assembly to take a region-wide approach. With this in mind the Government feels that the most appropriate number of constituency members (and of electoral areas) would be between 15 and 17 (as this would provide that proportionality) and would welcome the Commission's advice on the exact allocation of members within this range.
It is, accordingly, incorrect (or, at very best, substantially misleading) to describe the voting to be "by a system of proportional representation." We would therefore ask that you correct the Document so that it reads:
We understand that your proposed corrected version of the Document is to be sent to the 220,000 households on Monday, 27 September 2004. In the circumstances, we would ask for your written confirmation of both matters (i.e. that it will be sent to all 1.2 million households and that the other correction will also be made) by 5:00pm today (i.e. 23 September 2004).
If you advise in writing by 5:00pm today that you will defer sending the currently-intended corrected version, we are prepared to allow you greater time within which to consider your response to this request. In this latter case please advise by 5:00pm today as to the date by which you will let us know your response to the corrections and the wider distribution as well as the revised date on which you propose to send out the corrected document.
In the event that we do not receive a satisfactory response from you by 5:00pm today, we shall be immediately instituting declaratory proceedings in the High Court of Justice. To this end, we have already instructed Counsel.
Yours faithfully
The North East No Campaign have (at 2.30 pm today) issued an ultimatum, by way of a letter, to The Rt Hon. Nick Raynsford Minister for Local and Regional Government concerning the misleading information peddled by the government of the NE regional elected assembly. The letter speaks for itself:
The Rt Hon. Nick Raynsford
Minister for Local and Regional Government
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
26 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2WH
Thursday, 23 September 2004
BY FAX: 020 - 7944 4539
Also by e-mail to: nick.raynsford@odpm.gsi.gov.uk
***EXTREMELY URGENT***
Dear Mr Raynsford
Referendum 4 November 2004
This is an important letter.
We act for the North-East No Campaign Limited. We have been instructed on their behalf to write this letter.
We write in relation to the referendum that is being carried out pursuant to section 1 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.
We refer to the document published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister entitled An Elected Assembly for the North East. Have Your Say, (Product Code 04RDG02287 NE), published August 2004 (A the Document@ ).
As you are aware, 1.2 million copies (approximately) of the Document were distributed to each address in the North-East Region in late August 2004. The Document is directly and exclusively related to the forthcoming referendum that is to be held by closing date of 4 November 2004. The fact that the Document is published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister plainly gives it the appearance of authoritativeness and means that it must be correct in every detail and in no way misleading. This is underscored by Guidance from the Cabinet Office in relation to Government Publicity and Advertising.
On the fifth page of the Document, in the page headed "County Durham" , it states:
"The Government will pay the upfront costs needed to realise these savings. These costs should be less than , 37 million for option A and , 38 million for option B."
As you have already publicly admitted, this statement is erroneous and should read:
"The Government will pay the upfront costs needed to realise these savings. These costs should be less than , 37 million for option A and , 49 million for option B."
In other words, you admit an error of , 11 million pounds.
Your admission has been widely reported, including in the 17 September 2004 issue of The Journal.
You have also publicly stated, and this too has been widely reported, that you will be shortly writing to all households in County Durham correcting this error.
All households in County Durham@ constitutes approximately 220,000 households of the 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
We would ask that you confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the corrected version will be sent to all 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
Next, there is a further material error in the Document which we would ask to be corrected at the same time and sent to all 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
On the second page of the Document it is stated:
"The Government intends that a North East assembly would consist of around 25 elected members to represent different views and parts of the region. They would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single party and to help ensure a balance of opinion. Elections would be held every four years."
This is incorrect. In the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill (presented to Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, July 2004, Cm 6285) (" the Bill" ) clause 3 provides that an assembly is to consist of: (a) constituency members; and (b) regional members. The former are members for electoral regions, called "constituencies" , within the assembly= s region (cl. 3(2)). The latter are members for the whole of the assembly= s region (cl. 3(3)). There is to be one constituency member for each constituency and, accordingly, the region of an assembly is divided into as many constituencies as there are constituency members (cl. 4(1)-(2)). The number of constituency members and the number of regional members for the assembly is to be such as the Secretary of State may prescribe (cl. 3(4)). The total number of members for the assembly is to be between 25 and 35 (cl. 3(5)).
In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, paragraph 15 states:
15. Assembly members would be elected under what is called the Additional Member System (also used for the election of members to the Greater London Authority). This means that a number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional first-past-the-post method. The rest (regional members ) would be elected on a region-wide basis, as top-up members. The precise division between the number of each type of elected member would be decided by an order of the Secretary of State but it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority.Similarly, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister document entitled Proposed Statutory Guidance to the Electoral Commission on drawing-up the Constituencies for a North East Regional Assembly. Consultation Paper it is stated:
1. Members of a North East regional assembly will be elected using a form of proportional representation known as the Additional Member System. This will mean that a North East assembly will have a majority of members representing individual constituencies elected by the first-past-the-post system, with a minority being elected from regional lists to ensure that the
overall representation in an assembly is broadly representative of the votes cast.
The White Paper stated that the Government would expect that around 33 to 35 per cent of its members would be regional top-up members meaning that around 65-67 per cent of members would be constituency members for specific electoral areas. The Government feels that such a breakdown (which mirrors that for the National Assembly for Wales) would both ensure that all voters have an identifiable constituency representative whilst encouraging an assembly to take a region-wide approach. With this in mind the Government feels that the most appropriate number of constituency members (and of electoral areas) would be between 15 and 17 (as this would provide that proportionality) and would welcome the Commission's advice on the exact allocation of members within this range.
It is, accordingly, incorrect (or, at very best, substantially misleading) to describe the voting to be "by a system of proportional representation." We would therefore ask that you correct the Document so that it reads:
The Government intends that a North East assembly would consist of around 25 elected members to represent different views and parts of the region. The majority of members representing individual constituencies will be elected by the first-past-the-post system, with a minority being elected from regional lists to ensure that the overall representation in an assembly is broadly representative of the votes cast. Elections would be held every four years.Again, please advise by return fax that you will be ensuring that this correction is included in the corrected version to be sent, and that it will be sent to all 1.2 million households to which the Document has been sent.
We understand that your proposed corrected version of the Document is to be sent to the 220,000 households on Monday, 27 September 2004. In the circumstances, we would ask for your written confirmation of both matters (i.e. that it will be sent to all 1.2 million households and that the other correction will also be made) by 5:00pm today (i.e. 23 September 2004).
If you advise in writing by 5:00pm today that you will defer sending the currently-intended corrected version, we are prepared to allow you greater time within which to consider your response to this request. In this latter case please advise by 5:00pm today as to the date by which you will let us know your response to the corrections and the wider distribution as well as the revised date on which you propose to send out the corrected document.
In the event that we do not receive a satisfactory response from you by 5:00pm today, we shall be immediately instituting declaratory proceedings in the High Court of Justice. To this end, we have already instructed Counsel.
Yours faithfully
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
We want answers from the Electoral Commission, not silence
The Electoral Commission goes silent.
Because of the implications for the referendum on the European Commission it is imperative that there is full scrutiny of why and how the Commissioners reached there decision. There is already talk of legal action which will force full disclosure after the referendum. We at the North East No Campaign, are prepared to lay open our full application for public scrutiny. We expect NESNO will do the same after the result on 5th November.
Another example of the many complaints coming in:-
Dear Mr Crawford
I emailed you yesterday, 21 September, seeking information on the Commission's decision to designate North East Says No, and to withhold designation from North East No as best fitted to represent the 'No' case in the forthcoming referendum on the proposal to set up a regional assembly for the North East. (I repeat the text of the email below for your convenience).
I have to date received neither acknowledgement nor reply, though the matter is clearly a pressing one.
I shall therefore be most grateful if you will kindly confirm by return that you received the original email; and either respond to my questions or advise me of the date by which I may expect to receive answers to them.
I look foprward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerly
Stephen Howarth
Text of original message:
"Dear Mr Crawford
"I note that the Commission's press release announcing the designation of North East Says No Ltd as the lead 'No' campaigner in the forthcoming referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly in the North East makes no mention of the alternative applicant North East No; and gives no explanation as to why North East Says No better met the Commission's criteria for designation.
"I am minded to lodge a complaint about this but would not wish to do so without hearing both sides of the argument. I shall therefore be grateful if you will advise:
1 On what grounds the decision was taken?
2 Whether the Commission's decision was in line with the recommendation of its officials; and if not, on what grounds it overruled them?
3 Whether the submission of North East Says No was unambiguous in opposing the principle of setting up a regional assembly, or merely opposed to a council with the powers as now intended rather than to the principle of creating regional assemblies?
Whether members of the Commission with connections with
(i) Rowntree Trust; and
(ii) public sector jobs and board memberships, both of which might be considered 'parti pris' participated in the discussion and/or voted on the decision?
"I note from the press release that,
"If there is more than one applicant to be designated applicant for each outcome, The Electoral Commission is able to designate whichever of the applicants appears to us to represent the greatest extent those campaigning for the relevant outcome."
In the nature of law governing the conduct of public bodies, and especially so in the case of the Electoral Commission, which occupies a position akin to Caesar's wife in this respect, the words 'appears to us' are conditioned by implicit requirements - 'on the evidence of the facts' and 'by exercise of objective disinterested judgement' .
It is not clear to me how the well-established, highly organised North East No campaign led by of Mr Herron, with his track record for success in promoting understanding of public interest political questions could be rejected in favour of Nesno Ltd, which (as I understand matters) is linked to a political party with a weak or negative profile in the region and no track record for effective campaigning.
An online search for NESNO this morning on my computer (for example) did not produce a link to that organisation - or even their Conservative party sponsors - but did provide a link to North East No. QED - I think.
"I look forward to receiving a response, on the basis of which I shall decide whether a complain is justified, and if so whether it should be to the Commission or about the conduct of the Commission.
"Yours sincerely
"Stephen Howarth"
Because of the implications for the referendum on the European Commission it is imperative that there is full scrutiny of why and how the Commissioners reached there decision. There is already talk of legal action which will force full disclosure after the referendum. We at the North East No Campaign, are prepared to lay open our full application for public scrutiny. We expect NESNO will do the same after the result on 5th November.
Another example of the many complaints coming in:-
Dear Mr Crawford
I emailed you yesterday, 21 September, seeking information on the Commission's decision to designate North East Says No, and to withhold designation from North East No as best fitted to represent the 'No' case in the forthcoming referendum on the proposal to set up a regional assembly for the North East. (I repeat the text of the email below for your convenience).
I have to date received neither acknowledgement nor reply, though the matter is clearly a pressing one.
I shall therefore be most grateful if you will kindly confirm by return that you received the original email; and either respond to my questions or advise me of the date by which I may expect to receive answers to them.
I look foprward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerly
Stephen Howarth
Text of original message:
"Dear Mr Crawford
"I note that the Commission's press release announcing the designation of North East Says No Ltd as the lead 'No' campaigner in the forthcoming referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly in the North East makes no mention of the alternative applicant North East No; and gives no explanation as to why North East Says No better met the Commission's criteria for designation.
"I am minded to lodge a complaint about this but would not wish to do so without hearing both sides of the argument. I shall therefore be grateful if you will advise:
1 On what grounds the decision was taken?
2 Whether the Commission's decision was in line with the recommendation of its officials; and if not, on what grounds it overruled them?
3 Whether the submission of North East Says No was unambiguous in opposing the principle of setting up a regional assembly, or merely opposed to a council with the powers as now intended rather than to the principle of creating regional assemblies?
Whether members of the Commission with connections with
(i) Rowntree Trust; and
(ii) public sector jobs and board memberships, both of which might be considered 'parti pris' participated in the discussion and/or voted on the decision?
"I note from the press release that,
"If there is more than one applicant to be designated applicant for each outcome, The Electoral Commission is able to designate whichever of the applicants appears to us to represent the greatest extent those campaigning for the relevant outcome."
In the nature of law governing the conduct of public bodies, and especially so in the case of the Electoral Commission, which occupies a position akin to Caesar's wife in this respect, the words 'appears to us' are conditioned by implicit requirements - 'on the evidence of the facts' and 'by exercise of objective disinterested judgement' .
It is not clear to me how the well-established, highly organised North East No campaign led by of Mr Herron, with his track record for success in promoting understanding of public interest political questions could be rejected in favour of Nesno Ltd, which (as I understand matters) is linked to a political party with a weak or negative profile in the region and no track record for effective campaigning.
An online search for NESNO this morning on my computer (for example) did not produce a link to that organisation - or even their Conservative party sponsors - but did provide a link to North East No. QED - I think.
"I look forward to receiving a response, on the basis of which I shall decide whether a complain is justified, and if so whether it should be to the Commission or about the conduct of the Commission.
"Yours sincerely
"Stephen Howarth"
North East Says No Campaign Responds to the Questions. Official Yes Campaign still quiet
Response to Questions from...
John Elliott Chairman
North East Says No
Durham
12.30pm 21st September 2004
Dear John,
We are preparing a case for Judicial Review which will be lodged by the end of the week at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We feel as though the referendum issue and the implications for the North East public are too important to be decided without correction of the misleading / factually incorrect statements which appear in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet which went out to 1,900,000 people in the region.
The ODPM is currently considering writing to only a proportion of the North East public over the incorrect figure involved in the local government reorganisation in Durham.
I have also indicated the other 'misleading statements,' which will form part of the case.
See below...
Have Your Say
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill
"A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
Have Your Say
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43)
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
I would appreciate answers to the following questions within 24 hours from the Yes (and also the 'No') Campaign because it is important that the North East are fully aware of exactly where the two official campaigns stand:-
1. Do the feel that the two above statements from the Have Your Say Leaflet are misleading?
NESNO ... absolutely but further more the whole leaflet is designed to "sell" the idea of an assembly by misleading the readers. This is not a matter of opinion I've tested it with voters.
2. Would you be happy for the statements to be withdrawn or corrected, or would you prefer them to remain unchallenged?
NESNO ... at the very least those who prepared it should make it clear that it is intended to sell the idea rather than inform. I would like to see the brief and minutes of meetings with the advertising agency I can't believe their brief implied or actual was to inform if so they should give the money back
3. Are you happy that the incorrect figure describing the cost of local government reorganisation for Durham is not being corrected for the whole of the 1,900,000 voters?
NESNO ... I believe the whole issue of having a referendum complicated by a secondary issue which is not directly dependent on the primary issue is wrong. It would have made more sense to offer those in Durham the option of voting for an assembly and a separate vote on unitary status. Unitary status is clearly not dependant on a regional assembly. It's simply another example of reorganisation on the hoof and reminds of that well known phrase "act in haste but regret it at leisure"
4. Do you think that the importance of ensuring that the public are fully and correctly informed outweighs the cost of correcting the mistakes?
NESNO ... totally. it's a bit like saying do you want it early and cheap or right
5. Are you content that the photographs used in the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet and the use of negative imagery including using racial stereotypes should also be allowed to stand?
NESNO ... I think this is an absolute disgrace while I'm not a great believer in political correctness I thing stereotyping groups as negative for political gain is reprehensible.
Neil Herron North East No Campaign Frederick Street Sunderland Tel. 0191 565 7143 Mob. 07776 202045
Also to Professor John Tomaney, Chairman,Yes4theNorthEast cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes (Journal) cc. Philip Johnston (Daily Telegraph) cc. Peter Young (Evening Chronicle) cc. Tony Kearney (Northern Echo) cc. Jeremy Wicking (Sunderland Echo) cc. Peter Hetherington (Guardian) cc. Steve Dyson (Middlesbrough Evening Gazette) cc. Richard Moss (BBC) cc. Tiffany Royce (Tyne Tees)
John Elliott Chairman
North East Says No
Durham
12.30pm 21st September 2004
Dear John,
We are preparing a case for Judicial Review which will be lodged by the end of the week at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We feel as though the referendum issue and the implications for the North East public are too important to be decided without correction of the misleading / factually incorrect statements which appear in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet which went out to 1,900,000 people in the region.
The ODPM is currently considering writing to only a proportion of the North East public over the incorrect figure involved in the local government reorganisation in Durham.
I have also indicated the other 'misleading statements,' which will form part of the case.
See below...
Have Your Say
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill
"A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
Have Your Say
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43)
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
I would appreciate answers to the following questions within 24 hours from the Yes (and also the 'No') Campaign because it is important that the North East are fully aware of exactly where the two official campaigns stand:-
1. Do the feel that the two above statements from the Have Your Say Leaflet are misleading?
NESNO ... absolutely but further more the whole leaflet is designed to "sell" the idea of an assembly by misleading the readers. This is not a matter of opinion I've tested it with voters.
2. Would you be happy for the statements to be withdrawn or corrected, or would you prefer them to remain unchallenged?
NESNO ... at the very least those who prepared it should make it clear that it is intended to sell the idea rather than inform. I would like to see the brief and minutes of meetings with the advertising agency I can't believe their brief implied or actual was to inform if so they should give the money back
3. Are you happy that the incorrect figure describing the cost of local government reorganisation for Durham is not being corrected for the whole of the 1,900,000 voters?
NESNO ... I believe the whole issue of having a referendum complicated by a secondary issue which is not directly dependent on the primary issue is wrong. It would have made more sense to offer those in Durham the option of voting for an assembly and a separate vote on unitary status. Unitary status is clearly not dependant on a regional assembly. It's simply another example of reorganisation on the hoof and reminds of that well known phrase "act in haste but regret it at leisure"
4. Do you think that the importance of ensuring that the public are fully and correctly informed outweighs the cost of correcting the mistakes?
NESNO ... totally. it's a bit like saying do you want it early and cheap or right
5. Are you content that the photographs used in the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet and the use of negative imagery including using racial stereotypes should also be allowed to stand?
NESNO ... I think this is an absolute disgrace while I'm not a great believer in political correctness I thing stereotyping groups as negative for political gain is reprehensible.
Neil Herron North East No Campaign Frederick Street Sunderland Tel. 0191 565 7143 Mob. 07776 202045
Also to Professor John Tomaney, Chairman,Yes4theNorthEast cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes (Journal) cc. Philip Johnston (Daily Telegraph) cc. Peter Young (Evening Chronicle) cc. Tony Kearney (Northern Echo) cc. Jeremy Wicking (Sunderland Echo) cc. Peter Hetherington (Guardian) cc. Steve Dyson (Middlesbrough Evening Gazette) cc. Richard Moss (BBC) cc. Tiffany Royce (Tyne Tees)
27 hours and counting...Yes Campaign still silent on Misleading leaflet
These were the questions asked of the official Yes and No Campaigns about the factually incorrect and misleading statements in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet.
The Yes campaign remain silent. We are hopeful for a response. A telephone call to their office at 4pm on 22nd September brought the response, "I will ask aroud the office and ring you back."
The North East Says No's response from their Chairman John Elliott can be seen by clicking the link here.
Professor John Tomaney
Chairman
Yes4theNorthEastDurham
12.30pm 21st September 2004
Dear John,
We are preparing a case for Judicial Review which will be lodged by the end of the week at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We feel as though the referendum issue and the implications for the North East public are too important to be decided without correction of the misleading / factually incorrect statements which appear in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet which went out to 1,900,000 people in the region.
The ODPM is currently considering writing to only a proportion of the North East public over the incorrect figure involved in the local government reorganisation in Durham.
I have also indicated the other 'misleading statements,' which will form part of the case. See below...
Have Your Say
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill
"A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
Have Your Say
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43)
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
I would appreciate answers to the following questions within 24 hours from the Yes (and also the 'No') Campaign because it is important that the North East are fully aware of exactly where the two official campaigns stand:-
1. Do the feel that the two above statements from the Have Your Say Leaflet are misleading?
2. Would you be happy for the statements to be withdrawn or corrected, or would you prefer them to remain unchallenged?
3. Are you happy that the incorrect figure describing the cost of local government reorganisation for Durham is not being corrected for the whole of the 1,900,000 voters?
4. Do you think that the importance of ensuring tthat the public are fully and correctly informed outweighs the cost of correcting the mistakes?
5. Are you content that the photographs used in the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet and the use of negative imagery including using racial stereotypes should also be allowed to stand?
Neil Herron
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
Also to John Elliott,Chairman,North East Says No
cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes (Journal)
cc. Philip Johnston (Daily Telegraph)
cc. Peter Young (Evening Chronicle)
cc. Tony Kearney (Northern Echo)
cc. Jeremy Wicking (Sunderland Echo)
cc. Peter Hetherington (Guardian)
cc. Steve Dyson (Middlesbrough Evening Gazette)
cc. Richard Moss (BBC)
cc. Tiffany Royce (Tyne Tees)
The Yes campaign remain silent. We are hopeful for a response. A telephone call to their office at 4pm on 22nd September brought the response, "I will ask aroud the office and ring you back."
The North East Says No's response from their Chairman John Elliott can be seen by clicking the link here.
Professor John Tomaney
Chairman
Yes4theNorthEastDurham
12.30pm 21st September 2004
Dear John,
We are preparing a case for Judicial Review which will be lodged by the end of the week at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We feel as though the referendum issue and the implications for the North East public are too important to be decided without correction of the misleading / factually incorrect statements which appear in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet which went out to 1,900,000 people in the region.
The ODPM is currently considering writing to only a proportion of the North East public over the incorrect figure involved in the local government reorganisation in Durham.
I have also indicated the other 'misleading statements,' which will form part of the case. See below...
Have Your Say
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill
"A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
Have Your Say
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43)
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
I would appreciate answers to the following questions within 24 hours from the Yes (and also the 'No') Campaign because it is important that the North East are fully aware of exactly where the two official campaigns stand:-
1. Do the feel that the two above statements from the Have Your Say Leaflet are misleading?
2. Would you be happy for the statements to be withdrawn or corrected, or would you prefer them to remain unchallenged?
3. Are you happy that the incorrect figure describing the cost of local government reorganisation for Durham is not being corrected for the whole of the 1,900,000 voters?
4. Do you think that the importance of ensuring tthat the public are fully and correctly informed outweighs the cost of correcting the mistakes?
5. Are you content that the photographs used in the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet and the use of negative imagery including using racial stereotypes should also be allowed to stand?
Neil Herron
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
Also to John Elliott,Chairman,North East Says No
cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes (Journal)
cc. Philip Johnston (Daily Telegraph)
cc. Peter Young (Evening Chronicle)
cc. Tony Kearney (Northern Echo)
cc. Jeremy Wicking (Sunderland Echo)
cc. Peter Hetherington (Guardian)
cc. Steve Dyson (Middlesbrough Evening Gazette)
cc. Richard Moss (BBC)
cc. Tiffany Royce (Tyne Tees)
More Letters...tidal wave grows
Northern Echo
21st September
REGIONAL ASSEMBLY
I CAN confirm that Ray Mallon has made no attempt over the past year to contact the 'No' campaign to hear the contrary arguments and concerns with regard to a regional assembly.
It appears he is prepared to listen to arguments from Sir John Hall and John Tomaney from Yes4theNorthEast without a balance.
He was also made fully aware of the unelected assembly's misuse of public money. He chose not to contact us.
If Ray Mallon considers himself a 'man of the people' then he has a duty to listen to the doubters' concerns too.
Perhaps he has realised that the way forward in politics is with the region's political elite.
I understand that he is supporting the Labour candidate in Hartlepool.
There will not be an assembly dominated by true 'Independents'. This is a political project, by a political party for political reasons... and remember, it is the hard working taxpayer who will carry the cost of this unwanted political folly.
Do you wonder why everyone is still desperate for information and facts and there are none forthcoming?
Neil Herron,
Campaign Director, North-East No Campaign.
SO 20 per cent of the 'No' campaigners are supporters of the Tory Party. What a surprise!
I wonder what shattering percentage of the 'Yes' campaigners are members of the Labour Party?
David M Bishop, Guisborough.
SO Ray Mallon supports a regional assembly and would be a willing member.
Wonder if this has anything to do with his aspirations to become an MP? I'm sure he sees this as a route to Westminster.
As regards cost, you are all fooling yourselves if you think it won't add to your council tax bills.
Look at the Scottish Parliament. Estimated cost £45m - actual cost - £450m.
Only the Government could get away with it. You've been warned. –
Mel Auton, Ingleby Barwick.
'NO' campaign's publicity man Graham Robb has coined what he thinks is a clever catchphrase by referring to the 'Yes' campaign as the "New Establishment" He uses it on every occasion he can.
He had better be careful. It could backfire.
As has been frequently pointed out, North-East Says No is run by retired Conservatives. They were the establishment in the North-East when the Conservatives were in power.
During that period our industries were run down and public services starved of funds. The electorate responded by kicking out Conservative councillors and MPs in the region wholesale. These are the people who now think they can solve our problems when they conspicuously failed before.
The campaign for a regional assembly gained momentum during this period so that the North-East would never get the same treatment again.
So Graham might ponder that if people are given a choice between the "New" and the "Old" establishments which one they would prefer. I don't think it will be much of a contest. –
David Taylor-Gooby, Peterlee.
IT is excellent news that Ray Mallon is backing Yes4theNorthEast. It shows that when people are faced with the reality of making decisions in all parts of the North-East, they find out just how limited the power of regional policy makers really is.
Bringing about meaningful change requires the legitimate power that democratic regional government brings.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that the region must seize. Yes4theNorthEast is building a rainbow coalition of support across the region, the result of many years of campaigning by those close to the grassroots, active in their local communities.
Those in the 'No' campaign who seek to reject this opportunity have to explain how the same old rule from London is going to enable the North-East to make policy and put it into action.
Philip Latham, Riding Mill.
Northern Echo
Letters
21st September
REGIONAL ASSEMBLY
THE 'No' campaign is being accused of using "spin" - horror of horrors.
However, I have noted that the 'Yes' campaign refers frequently to Scotland and Wales, and even once to the US. Could this not be an attempt by inference to persuade us that we would be given powers similar to those in Scotland?
This suggests to me that they are very much aware that this would not be the case, and that they are worried that too many voters might realise this and that they are trying to use spin to mislead us.
Voters should be told clearly that the Scottish Parliament has full control of education, its legal system, etc, and in these matters it is in no way overseen by the Parliament in London, or by the House of Lords.
To choose a topical issue, it passed a law forbidding foxhunting with dogs two or three years ago. To choose another example, school children are not tested as they progress in the way they are here - this is the case in Wales also.
It would not be possible for the proposed North-East regional government to, contrary to the rules from London, do either of these things, no matter how much we wanted to within the region.
David M Bishop, Guisborough.
'YES' campaigners for a regional assembly wrongly claim the North-East could take control of its own affairs.
Examination of the Government's policy document reveals paragraph 43: "The Government could require changes to the (RDA's) strategy, if it considers that it is likely to have a detrimental effect on areas outside the region".
This actually gives the government more control over our economic development policies than it has at present.
For example, following the bad news about job losses at Jaguar in Coventry, any attempt by a prospective regional assembly to support the North-East's motor sector could be stopped if the Government chose to prioritise the West Midlands motor sector.
Instead of offering the devolved power that the 'Yes' side claims, the actual policy gives power explicitly to ministers in Whitehall. This is why the proposals should be regarded as fake devolution.
At present, councils can group together, as they have in Tees Valley or through the original NGI, and there is nothing to stop them competing with other regions. Paragraph 43 would give the Government power to stop a regional assembly from doing precisely this.
It's clear an assembly would have no real power and would cost us more. The answer is to vote 'No'.
Graham Robb, Middleton St George.
THERE seems no end to the lies peddled by the Government in its (unconstitutional) attempts to impose a regional assembly on the North-East.
First, an electoral system (referendum by post) has been chosen which the Government and the Electoral Commission admit is so flawed that it will never be used again.
Second, the Government has set up a so-called regional assembly and now asks us if we want one. Doesn't democracy mean the other way round?
Third, if the Government has a policy of providing regional assemblies for the UK why are there no regions allowed in Scotland (where there at least three identifiable regions) or Wales (where there at least two)? Why is only England to be split up?
Fourth, if the Government wants to change the constitution of the United Kingdom and create regional assemblies why does it not ask the people of the United Kingdom? Because it would get a resounding 'No'. So, instead, it is bypassing 90 per cent of the British people through a manipulative referendum in only one part of the UK.
Fifth, the regional assembly supporters have now been saying things in their referendum literature which are not in the actual parliamentary Bill. The successful and long established 'No' campaign in the North-East has been bypassed and Government money has been awarded to complete novices in this matter.
In any other democratic country in the world constitutional change can only be achieved after a two thirds majority but Mr Blair and Mr Prescott will throw out our system of local government if only 51 per cent vote in favour.
Rodney Atkinson, Stocksfield.
HAVE the likes of Sir John Hall and Ray Mallon been given extra information on the powers of the regional assembly?
It would be wonderful for a Northern assembly to have the same powers and finance as Scotland, Wales and London to decide our own fate.
But I feel that a number of restraints will be put on the assembly as already Nick Raynsford has stated that the assembly will have a 25-seat restraint so that the assembly does not trample on local authorities or try to usurp their functions.
Then there are the mandarins of government departments who are sure to put up a fight about any loss of power.
JR Stoker, Brandon.
21st September
REGIONAL ASSEMBLY
I CAN confirm that Ray Mallon has made no attempt over the past year to contact the 'No' campaign to hear the contrary arguments and concerns with regard to a regional assembly.
It appears he is prepared to listen to arguments from Sir John Hall and John Tomaney from Yes4theNorthEast without a balance.
He was also made fully aware of the unelected assembly's misuse of public money. He chose not to contact us.
If Ray Mallon considers himself a 'man of the people' then he has a duty to listen to the doubters' concerns too.
Perhaps he has realised that the way forward in politics is with the region's political elite.
I understand that he is supporting the Labour candidate in Hartlepool.
There will not be an assembly dominated by true 'Independents'. This is a political project, by a political party for political reasons... and remember, it is the hard working taxpayer who will carry the cost of this unwanted political folly.
Do you wonder why everyone is still desperate for information and facts and there are none forthcoming?
Neil Herron,
Campaign Director, North-East No Campaign.
SO 20 per cent of the 'No' campaigners are supporters of the Tory Party. What a surprise!
I wonder what shattering percentage of the 'Yes' campaigners are members of the Labour Party?
David M Bishop, Guisborough.
SO Ray Mallon supports a regional assembly and would be a willing member.
Wonder if this has anything to do with his aspirations to become an MP? I'm sure he sees this as a route to Westminster.
As regards cost, you are all fooling yourselves if you think it won't add to your council tax bills.
Look at the Scottish Parliament. Estimated cost £45m - actual cost - £450m.
Only the Government could get away with it. You've been warned. –
Mel Auton, Ingleby Barwick.
'NO' campaign's publicity man Graham Robb has coined what he thinks is a clever catchphrase by referring to the 'Yes' campaign as the "New Establishment" He uses it on every occasion he can.
He had better be careful. It could backfire.
As has been frequently pointed out, North-East Says No is run by retired Conservatives. They were the establishment in the North-East when the Conservatives were in power.
During that period our industries were run down and public services starved of funds. The electorate responded by kicking out Conservative councillors and MPs in the region wholesale. These are the people who now think they can solve our problems when they conspicuously failed before.
The campaign for a regional assembly gained momentum during this period so that the North-East would never get the same treatment again.
So Graham might ponder that if people are given a choice between the "New" and the "Old" establishments which one they would prefer. I don't think it will be much of a contest. –
David Taylor-Gooby, Peterlee.
IT is excellent news that Ray Mallon is backing Yes4theNorthEast. It shows that when people are faced with the reality of making decisions in all parts of the North-East, they find out just how limited the power of regional policy makers really is.
Bringing about meaningful change requires the legitimate power that democratic regional government brings.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that the region must seize. Yes4theNorthEast is building a rainbow coalition of support across the region, the result of many years of campaigning by those close to the grassroots, active in their local communities.
Those in the 'No' campaign who seek to reject this opportunity have to explain how the same old rule from London is going to enable the North-East to make policy and put it into action.
Philip Latham, Riding Mill.
Northern Echo
Letters
21st September
REGIONAL ASSEMBLY
THE 'No' campaign is being accused of using "spin" - horror of horrors.
However, I have noted that the 'Yes' campaign refers frequently to Scotland and Wales, and even once to the US. Could this not be an attempt by inference to persuade us that we would be given powers similar to those in Scotland?
This suggests to me that they are very much aware that this would not be the case, and that they are worried that too many voters might realise this and that they are trying to use spin to mislead us.
Voters should be told clearly that the Scottish Parliament has full control of education, its legal system, etc, and in these matters it is in no way overseen by the Parliament in London, or by the House of Lords.
To choose a topical issue, it passed a law forbidding foxhunting with dogs two or three years ago. To choose another example, school children are not tested as they progress in the way they are here - this is the case in Wales also.
It would not be possible for the proposed North-East regional government to, contrary to the rules from London, do either of these things, no matter how much we wanted to within the region.
David M Bishop, Guisborough.
'YES' campaigners for a regional assembly wrongly claim the North-East could take control of its own affairs.
Examination of the Government's policy document reveals paragraph 43: "The Government could require changes to the (RDA's) strategy, if it considers that it is likely to have a detrimental effect on areas outside the region".
This actually gives the government more control over our economic development policies than it has at present.
For example, following the bad news about job losses at Jaguar in Coventry, any attempt by a prospective regional assembly to support the North-East's motor sector could be stopped if the Government chose to prioritise the West Midlands motor sector.
Instead of offering the devolved power that the 'Yes' side claims, the actual policy gives power explicitly to ministers in Whitehall. This is why the proposals should be regarded as fake devolution.
At present, councils can group together, as they have in Tees Valley or through the original NGI, and there is nothing to stop them competing with other regions. Paragraph 43 would give the Government power to stop a regional assembly from doing precisely this.
It's clear an assembly would have no real power and would cost us more. The answer is to vote 'No'.
Graham Robb, Middleton St George.
THERE seems no end to the lies peddled by the Government in its (unconstitutional) attempts to impose a regional assembly on the North-East.
First, an electoral system (referendum by post) has been chosen which the Government and the Electoral Commission admit is so flawed that it will never be used again.
Second, the Government has set up a so-called regional assembly and now asks us if we want one. Doesn't democracy mean the other way round?
Third, if the Government has a policy of providing regional assemblies for the UK why are there no regions allowed in Scotland (where there at least three identifiable regions) or Wales (where there at least two)? Why is only England to be split up?
Fourth, if the Government wants to change the constitution of the United Kingdom and create regional assemblies why does it not ask the people of the United Kingdom? Because it would get a resounding 'No'. So, instead, it is bypassing 90 per cent of the British people through a manipulative referendum in only one part of the UK.
Fifth, the regional assembly supporters have now been saying things in their referendum literature which are not in the actual parliamentary Bill. The successful and long established 'No' campaign in the North-East has been bypassed and Government money has been awarded to complete novices in this matter.
In any other democratic country in the world constitutional change can only be achieved after a two thirds majority but Mr Blair and Mr Prescott will throw out our system of local government if only 51 per cent vote in favour.
Rodney Atkinson, Stocksfield.
HAVE the likes of Sir John Hall and Ray Mallon been given extra information on the powers of the regional assembly?
It would be wonderful for a Northern assembly to have the same powers and finance as Scotland, Wales and London to decide our own fate.
But I feel that a number of restraints will be put on the assembly as already Nick Raynsford has stated that the assembly will have a 25-seat restraint so that the assembly does not trample on local authorities or try to usurp their functions.
Then there are the mandarins of government departments who are sure to put up a fight about any loss of power.
JR Stoker, Brandon.
Emergency Meetings in the Electoral Commission
IMMEDIATE
1pm 22nd September
Sources reveal that there are some serious questions being asked within the Electoral Commission over the North East Referendum designation fiasco. Meetings are being held today and panic is rife within the walls of Trvelyan House.
Who was responsible for failing to check out NESNO? The information on their website www.northeastsaysno.co.uk is hardly informative and appears to be written by someone with a very limited understanding of the real debate.
They have no public meetings arranged.
Who failed to check out the Conservative connections within NESNO?
Who at the Electoral Commssion was responsible for checking the Government literature? The first the Electoral Commission had sight of the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet was on 3rd September at 1.30pm in Trevelyan House when it was handed to Douglas Stewart, Head of Referendums.
Why are the Electoral Commission not challenging the Government over the 'purdah period? Electoral Commission say no more information can be placed in the public domain for 28 days prior to the first ballot papers going out on 18th October. The ODPM are now saying they meant 28 days before the closing of the polls on 4th November. Which one is it guys?
They have not confirmed whether they are happy with the misleading content of the 'Have Your Say Leaflet.' Perhaps when they are called to submit evidence to the courts they may find the balls that they are supposed to have.
Still no decision has been given as to how they designated the No groups and which criteria the long established campaign did not fit.
No response to the question..."Was it only the North East No Campaign who was asked to submit further evidence?"
No explanation as to how NESNO appeared on the agenda for the House of Commons Select Committee which sat on 15th September. Designation was only decided, according to the Electoral Commission, the day before. The agenda was circulated on 9th September with Yes4theNorthEast and NESNO as the Yes and No campaigns.
All paths lead to our door...electronically, physically etc...with no-one even to find a telephone number for NESNO. How, therefore, did NESNO manage to get the shout?
Did the BBC know?
Nice to know that the Electoral Commission are now running around in a state of panic and disarray and seem to be preparing for Hurricane Ivan. Perhaps if they had devoted the same energies at scrutinising NESNO they would not be about to come under the full glare of the spotlight of the media.
1pm 22nd September
Sources reveal that there are some serious questions being asked within the Electoral Commission over the North East Referendum designation fiasco. Meetings are being held today and panic is rife within the walls of Trvelyan House.
Who was responsible for failing to check out NESNO? The information on their website www.northeastsaysno.co.uk is hardly informative and appears to be written by someone with a very limited understanding of the real debate.
They have no public meetings arranged.
Who failed to check out the Conservative connections within NESNO?
Who at the Electoral Commssion was responsible for checking the Government literature? The first the Electoral Commission had sight of the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet was on 3rd September at 1.30pm in Trevelyan House when it was handed to Douglas Stewart, Head of Referendums.
Why are the Electoral Commission not challenging the Government over the 'purdah period? Electoral Commission say no more information can be placed in the public domain for 28 days prior to the first ballot papers going out on 18th October. The ODPM are now saying they meant 28 days before the closing of the polls on 4th November. Which one is it guys?
They have not confirmed whether they are happy with the misleading content of the 'Have Your Say Leaflet.' Perhaps when they are called to submit evidence to the courts they may find the balls that they are supposed to have.
Still no decision has been given as to how they designated the No groups and which criteria the long established campaign did not fit.
No response to the question..."Was it only the North East No Campaign who was asked to submit further evidence?"
No explanation as to how NESNO appeared on the agenda for the House of Commons Select Committee which sat on 15th September. Designation was only decided, according to the Electoral Commission, the day before. The agenda was circulated on 9th September with Yes4theNorthEast and NESNO as the Yes and No campaigns.
All paths lead to our door...electronically, physically etc...with no-one even to find a telephone number for NESNO. How, therefore, did NESNO manage to get the shout?
Did the BBC know?
Nice to know that the Electoral Commission are now running around in a state of panic and disarray and seem to be preparing for Hurricane Ivan. Perhaps if they had devoted the same energies at scrutinising NESNO they would not be about to come under the full glare of the spotlight of the media.
Ante Raised...Court case looms
Campaigners plan court battle
Sep 22 2004
By Ross Smith, The Journal
Campaigners fighting plans for an elected assembly are preparing a court action to make the Government reprint an information leaflet.
Neil Herron (pictured above), of North East Says No, intends to apply for a judicial review over what he claims are "misleading statements" in the `Have Your Say' booklet.
Meanwhile, the official North East Says No campaign wants the Electoral Commission to re-write the text on the ballot papers.
The `Have Your Say' leaflet was sent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to every household in the North-East as part of its `Your Say' information campaign.
Last week, regions minister Nick Raynsford was forced to admit that calculations over the cost of reorganising local government in County Durham included in the leaflet were wrong. The correct figures are to be sent out again to every home in the county. But Mr Herron claims they should be distributed across the region.
And he also claims that statements claiming assembly members will be elected by proportional representation and that regional development agency One NorthEast will be answerable to the assembly rather than Whitehall are "misleading".
The draft bill says that elections will be carried out on a first past the post system, with regional members topping up the assembly to ensure it is proportionally representative.
And an ODPM policy statement says: "Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDAs continue to address national priorities."
But the ODPM insisted it is accurate apart from the incorrect figure for County Durham. A spokeswoman said: "We believe we have followed all the relevant guidance and been very careful to make sure things were legally watertight."
Meanwhile, NESNO chairman John Elliott has written to Electoral Commission chief Sam Younger, calling for a preamble to the referendum question to be re-written on ballot papers. The preamble, which says: "The elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development", was agreed in 2002.
Mr Elliott said: "We are now two years further on in the debate and it has become increasingly clear that the proposed regional assembly will in fact have very limited powers."
But an Electoral Commission spokeswoman said: "We looked at issues of intelligibility and fairness and made a number of suggestions for improvements. The Government made changes as a result and we believe that the intelligibility of the materials has improved significantly as a result of our suggestions."
Yes4theNorthEast chairman John Tomaney said: "It is important that the smoke and mirrors approach adopted by the `no' campaigns doesn't hide the important factors in this debate. The status quo is unacceptable and it is important the people of the North-East have the facts because they have a crucial question to answer."
Sep 22 2004
By Ross Smith, The Journal
Campaigners fighting plans for an elected assembly are preparing a court action to make the Government reprint an information leaflet.
Neil Herron (pictured above), of North East Says No, intends to apply for a judicial review over what he claims are "misleading statements" in the `Have Your Say' booklet.
Meanwhile, the official North East Says No campaign wants the Electoral Commission to re-write the text on the ballot papers.
The `Have Your Say' leaflet was sent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to every household in the North-East as part of its `Your Say' information campaign.
Last week, regions minister Nick Raynsford was forced to admit that calculations over the cost of reorganising local government in County Durham included in the leaflet were wrong. The correct figures are to be sent out again to every home in the county. But Mr Herron claims they should be distributed across the region.
And he also claims that statements claiming assembly members will be elected by proportional representation and that regional development agency One NorthEast will be answerable to the assembly rather than Whitehall are "misleading".
The draft bill says that elections will be carried out on a first past the post system, with regional members topping up the assembly to ensure it is proportionally representative.
And an ODPM policy statement says: "Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDAs continue to address national priorities."
But the ODPM insisted it is accurate apart from the incorrect figure for County Durham. A spokeswoman said: "We believe we have followed all the relevant guidance and been very careful to make sure things were legally watertight."
Meanwhile, NESNO chairman John Elliott has written to Electoral Commission chief Sam Younger, calling for a preamble to the referendum question to be re-written on ballot papers. The preamble, which says: "The elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development", was agreed in 2002.
Mr Elliott said: "We are now two years further on in the debate and it has become increasingly clear that the proposed regional assembly will in fact have very limited powers."
But an Electoral Commission spokeswoman said: "We looked at issues of intelligibility and fairness and made a number of suggestions for improvements. The Government made changes as a result and we believe that the intelligibility of the materials has improved significantly as a result of our suggestions."
Yes4theNorthEast chairman John Tomaney said: "It is important that the smoke and mirrors approach adopted by the `no' campaigns doesn't hide the important factors in this debate. The status quo is unacceptable and it is important the people of the North-East have the facts because they have a crucial question to answer."
What are the Tories saying No to, and are they saying No?
Which way do the Tories Face?
by Brian Mooney
It is true that some local Tories do oppose regional government properly, (such as those whose Councils have severed from the RegionalAssemblies).
However others maintain the Tories' reputation for facing both ways.
1. David Curry MP - embarrassed in Parliament for his speeches (sincethe 2001 election) for regionalism. Michael Howard amazingly appointedhim as the main Tory spokesman on local government!
2. 'Clarkeite' Bob Neill, on the Committee of Regions for London, and listed as a member of the federalist European Peoples' Party. Chairs a COR committee on extending road user charging, even though London Toriesswear they passionately oppose Ken Livingstone's moves, which though badare less drastic.
3. His GLA colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who gave Ken Livingstone a softride in the face of searching questions at a public meeting last year.Lost his seat in June, but given an even better paid job on the LDA byLivingstone! (What was that about "working with the corrupt system",CS?)
4. Bernard Jenkin may carp on about the cost of the GLA, but there is noTory commitment to abolish it. Mayoral candidate Steve Norris is happyto have taxpayers' money wasted on a "museum of lesbianism" or similarby the GLA. By putting up such a joke candidate that many could not votefor (various reasons), they ensured Livingstone was re-elected to wasteour money.
5. From a Lindsay Jenkins posting:...Speaking in the House, Charles Hendry (MP & shadow minister) said:The Government's concern is that a poor turn-out would deprive the proposed assemblies of their democratic legitimacy. In that they areundoubtedly right, but the solution must therefore lie in ***the nature of the proposed assemblies***, not in the nature of the electoralsystem."Read: "Go on Tony, give them more powers and more appeal"?not "Scrap them" - which I thought was party policy
...I could go on, but will just note that the reason the Tories got anysubstantial vote in the Europarl elections was that they wrappedthemself in the Union Jack and the slogan "Putting Britain First".Although their leader waffles about returning some powers he contradictorily says he's committed to 'Maastricht', which incidentally promotes regionalism.
by Brian Mooney
It is true that some local Tories do oppose regional government properly, (such as those whose Councils have severed from the RegionalAssemblies).
However others maintain the Tories' reputation for facing both ways.
1. David Curry MP - embarrassed in Parliament for his speeches (sincethe 2001 election) for regionalism. Michael Howard amazingly appointedhim as the main Tory spokesman on local government!
2. 'Clarkeite' Bob Neill, on the Committee of Regions for London, and listed as a member of the federalist European Peoples' Party. Chairs a COR committee on extending road user charging, even though London Toriesswear they passionately oppose Ken Livingstone's moves, which though badare less drastic.
3. His GLA colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who gave Ken Livingstone a softride in the face of searching questions at a public meeting last year.Lost his seat in June, but given an even better paid job on the LDA byLivingstone! (What was that about "working with the corrupt system",CS?)
4. Bernard Jenkin may carp on about the cost of the GLA, but there is noTory commitment to abolish it. Mayoral candidate Steve Norris is happyto have taxpayers' money wasted on a "museum of lesbianism" or similarby the GLA. By putting up such a joke candidate that many could not votefor (various reasons), they ensured Livingstone was re-elected to wasteour money.
5. From a Lindsay Jenkins posting:...Speaking in the House, Charles Hendry (MP & shadow minister) said:The Government's concern is that a poor turn-out would deprive the proposed assemblies of their democratic legitimacy. In that they areundoubtedly right, but the solution must therefore lie in ***the nature of the proposed assemblies***, not in the nature of the electoralsystem."Read: "Go on Tony, give them more powers and more appeal"?not "Scrap them" - which I thought was party policy
...I could go on, but will just note that the reason the Tories got anysubstantial vote in the Europarl elections was that they wrappedthemself in the Union Jack and the slogan "Putting Britain First".Although their leader waffles about returning some powers he contradictorily says he's committed to 'Maastricht', which incidentally promotes regionalism.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Spotlight getting brighter...Electoral Commssion getting piles from sitting on the fence
Another sample of a complaint with a different line of questioning appears below:-
The Electoral Commission's Douglas Stewart has failed so far to answer the questions put to him last Thursday.
We have received no reasons as to why North East No Campaign was not suitable.
Ask yourself how a decision could be made to give £100k to the following:-
-NESNO has no speaking engagements planned.
-NESNO's website is an insult to anyone who wishes to become informed about an elected regional assembly or the referendum. If you want to check it out click here. Then check out ours click here . For contact details of the Electoral Commission should you wish to challenge or question their decision please click here.
Remember that if you are not prepared to speak out, do not complain when there is no-one left to speak for you.
Dear Mr Crawford
I note that the Commission's press release announcing the designation of North East Says No Ltd as the lead 'No' campaigner in the forthcoming referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly in the North East makes no mention of the alternative applicant North East No; and gives no explanation as to why North East Says No better met the Commission's criteria for designation.
I am minded to lodge a complaint about this but would not wish to do so without hearing both sides of the argument. I shall therefore be grateful if you will advise:
1 On what grounds the decision was taken?
2 Whether the Commission's decision was in line with the recommendation of its officials; and if not, on what grounds it overruled them?
3 Whether the submission of North East Says No was unambiguous in opposing the principle of setting up a regional assembly, or merely opposed to a council with the powers as now intended rather than to the principle of creating regional assemblies?
Whether members of the Commission with connections with (i) Rowntree Trust; and (ii) public sector jobs and board memberships, both of which might be considered 'parti pris' participated in the discussion and/or voted on the decision?
I note from the press release that, "If there is more than one applicant to be designated applicant for each outcome, The Electoral Commission is able to designate whichever of the applicants appears to us to represent the greatest extent those campaigning for the relevant outcome." In the nature of law governing the conduct of public bodies, and especially so in the case of the Electoral Commission, which occupies a position akin to Caesar's wife in this respect, the words 'appears to us' are conditioned by implicit requirements - 'on the evidence of the facts' and 'by exercise of objective disinterested judgement' . It is not clear to me how the well-established, highly organised North East No campaign led by of Mr Herron, with his track record for success in promoting understanding of public interest political questions could be rejected in favour of Nesno Ltd, which (as I understand matters) is linked to a political party with a weak or negative profile in the region and no track record for effective campaigning. An online search for NESNO this morning on my computer (for example) did not produce a link to that organisation - or even their Conservative party sponsors - but did provide a link to North East No. QED - I think.
I look forward to receiving a response, on the basis of which I shall decide whether a complain is justified, and if so whether it should be to the Commission or about the conduct of the Commission.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Howarth
The Electoral Commission's Douglas Stewart has failed so far to answer the questions put to him last Thursday.
We have received no reasons as to why North East No Campaign was not suitable.
Ask yourself how a decision could be made to give £100k to the following:-
-NESNO has no speaking engagements planned.
-NESNO's website is an insult to anyone who wishes to become informed about an elected regional assembly or the referendum. If you want to check it out click here. Then check out ours click here . For contact details of the Electoral Commission should you wish to challenge or question their decision please click here.
Remember that if you are not prepared to speak out, do not complain when there is no-one left to speak for you.
Dear Mr Crawford
I note that the Commission's press release announcing the designation of North East Says No Ltd as the lead 'No' campaigner in the forthcoming referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly in the North East makes no mention of the alternative applicant North East No; and gives no explanation as to why North East Says No better met the Commission's criteria for designation.
I am minded to lodge a complaint about this but would not wish to do so without hearing both sides of the argument. I shall therefore be grateful if you will advise:
1 On what grounds the decision was taken?
2 Whether the Commission's decision was in line with the recommendation of its officials; and if not, on what grounds it overruled them?
3 Whether the submission of North East Says No was unambiguous in opposing the principle of setting up a regional assembly, or merely opposed to a council with the powers as now intended rather than to the principle of creating regional assemblies?
Whether members of the Commission with connections with (i) Rowntree Trust; and (ii) public sector jobs and board memberships, both of which might be considered 'parti pris' participated in the discussion and/or voted on the decision?
I note from the press release that, "If there is more than one applicant to be designated applicant for each outcome, The Electoral Commission is able to designate whichever of the applicants appears to us to represent the greatest extent those campaigning for the relevant outcome." In the nature of law governing the conduct of public bodies, and especially so in the case of the Electoral Commission, which occupies a position akin to Caesar's wife in this respect, the words 'appears to us' are conditioned by implicit requirements - 'on the evidence of the facts' and 'by exercise of objective disinterested judgement' . It is not clear to me how the well-established, highly organised North East No campaign led by of Mr Herron, with his track record for success in promoting understanding of public interest political questions could be rejected in favour of Nesno Ltd, which (as I understand matters) is linked to a political party with a weak or negative profile in the region and no track record for effective campaigning. An online search for NESNO this morning on my computer (for example) did not produce a link to that organisation - or even their Conservative party sponsors - but did provide a link to North East No. QED - I think.
I look forward to receiving a response, on the basis of which I shall decide whether a complain is justified, and if so whether it should be to the Commission or about the conduct of the Commission.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Howarth
Public waking up to the stitch-up
Middlesbrough Evening Gazette
We're not left
Sep 20 2004
By Evening Gazette
With reference to a recent letter from Suzanne Fletcher (2.9.04), New Labour think secondary modern-educated people like myself and many other pensioners are stupid. This is not so.
The Regional Assembly is simply being proposed to make entry into Europe easier. It's to provide certain people the opportunity to make money and provide easy, well paid jobs for the boys.
They know the people in this area are easily conned, and the referendum is a foregone conclusion.
You might think I'm being a bit cynical but, because of the past performance of this Government, I don't believe a thing they say or facts and figures produced by them.
At the last count there were about seven or eight Labour MPs representing this area.
We even have the Prime Minister.
If these people can't represent us and get our voice heard in central Government, without causing us all a great deal of expense, then they should all resign.
Another correspondent, Mr Pratt, said our area is not mentioned in the brochure sent out by the Deputy PM's office. That is because this matter has already been settled by the people to our north and we have been removed from the picture. Anyway, our small vote in this area will not make a difference.
The pensioners of this area cannot take any more.
I have not had a holiday since 1992, I can't afford baccy for my pipe, a pint of pub beer or a bag of fish and chips, and after nearly 50 years of paying my dues and raising three children (without Government aid or paternity leave), I am nearly on the breadline.
I have only just absorbed the last increase in council tax and I can't take any more.
MR B SAUNDERS Normanby
******
I FOUND the letter from Councillor Suzanne Fletcher to be amusing if it was not so serious.
The leaflet now dropping through letter boxes quotes the estimated cost of a regional assembly and I have no doubt they will be wrong. It is the nature of Government to publish estimates biased in whichever direction they want.
A new assembly will build small empires and that always costs the long suffering tax payer more.
Mr Blair would dearly love regional assemblies. It would help us to fall in line with Europe.
Teesside is not even mentioned in the leaflet, Middlesbrough only once, and then only as the southern marker. The maps shown are for Northumberland and Durham. Presumably Teesside has no overall identity.
Central government will control the funds as they do with local authorities. Why should we believe that the 'jobs for the boys' syndrome of this Government's quango mentality would change.
If the politicians in Parliament did their duty correctly and apportioned the budget in a fair manner, then the North-east would not be in the mess it is now by being under-funded.
Would a regional assembly be any fairer? I think not. Tyneside is already getting the largest slice of the cake, and is being marketed extremely hard to attract jobs, more money. Teesside is the poor neighbour. We couldn't even keep our own airport name.
I do not believe a further tier of government is going to be beneficial or cheap.
A LLOYD Stockton on Tees
******
THANKS Suzannah Clarke for your very polite response to my last letter (Cultural Faux Pas} and for your invitation to come and discuss it at the big debate at the University of Teesside.
Unfortunately I had just returned from a cultural research break in the Czech Republic the day before the debate and had gone nearly 40 hours without sleep.
We must beg to differ on the assembly, but whatever the outcome must protect what little identity Teesside has left.
IAN LUNN Acklam, Middlesbrough
We're not left
Sep 20 2004
By Evening Gazette
With reference to a recent letter from Suzanne Fletcher (2.9.04), New Labour think secondary modern-educated people like myself and many other pensioners are stupid. This is not so.
The Regional Assembly is simply being proposed to make entry into Europe easier. It's to provide certain people the opportunity to make money and provide easy, well paid jobs for the boys.
They know the people in this area are easily conned, and the referendum is a foregone conclusion.
You might think I'm being a bit cynical but, because of the past performance of this Government, I don't believe a thing they say or facts and figures produced by them.
At the last count there were about seven or eight Labour MPs representing this area.
We even have the Prime Minister.
If these people can't represent us and get our voice heard in central Government, without causing us all a great deal of expense, then they should all resign.
Another correspondent, Mr Pratt, said our area is not mentioned in the brochure sent out by the Deputy PM's office. That is because this matter has already been settled by the people to our north and we have been removed from the picture. Anyway, our small vote in this area will not make a difference.
The pensioners of this area cannot take any more.
I have not had a holiday since 1992, I can't afford baccy for my pipe, a pint of pub beer or a bag of fish and chips, and after nearly 50 years of paying my dues and raising three children (without Government aid or paternity leave), I am nearly on the breadline.
I have only just absorbed the last increase in council tax and I can't take any more.
MR B SAUNDERS Normanby
******
I FOUND the letter from Councillor Suzanne Fletcher to be amusing if it was not so serious.
The leaflet now dropping through letter boxes quotes the estimated cost of a regional assembly and I have no doubt they will be wrong. It is the nature of Government to publish estimates biased in whichever direction they want.
A new assembly will build small empires and that always costs the long suffering tax payer more.
Mr Blair would dearly love regional assemblies. It would help us to fall in line with Europe.
Teesside is not even mentioned in the leaflet, Middlesbrough only once, and then only as the southern marker. The maps shown are for Northumberland and Durham. Presumably Teesside has no overall identity.
Central government will control the funds as they do with local authorities. Why should we believe that the 'jobs for the boys' syndrome of this Government's quango mentality would change.
If the politicians in Parliament did their duty correctly and apportioned the budget in a fair manner, then the North-east would not be in the mess it is now by being under-funded.
Would a regional assembly be any fairer? I think not. Tyneside is already getting the largest slice of the cake, and is being marketed extremely hard to attract jobs, more money. Teesside is the poor neighbour. We couldn't even keep our own airport name.
I do not believe a further tier of government is going to be beneficial or cheap.
A LLOYD Stockton on Tees
******
THANKS Suzannah Clarke for your very polite response to my last letter (Cultural Faux Pas} and for your invitation to come and discuss it at the big debate at the University of Teesside.
Unfortunately I had just returned from a cultural research break in the Czech Republic the day before the debate and had gone nearly 40 hours without sleep.
We must beg to differ on the assembly, but whatever the outcome must protect what little identity Teesside has left.
IAN LUNN Acklam, Middlesbrough
Conspiracy over Stitch-up Grows
21st September 2004
Observations from this month's Sovereignty
But why would the Government rig it so blatantly at that stage?Necessity.... Prescott had to cancel his other regional referendums (mainly for fear of heavy defeat) but to retain whatever crediblity he imagines he still has, he had to continue with at least one.
With regard to cheating Blair's Cabinet could not risk waiting till later, because there was a highly credible and effective "No" group -- North East No -- already campaigning against the government's plan for the effective dismemberment of England, and they feared that their "Yes" campaign, despite its numerous avenues of access to State funding, would also face formidable opposition from Labour Party MPs and experienced local Labour activists opposed to the regional parliament, either acting independently or in alliance with the genuinely non-party North East No campaign.
By appointing North East Says No, so obviously a Conservative Party front window-dressed with a (very) few UKIP dilletantes, the government would make it exceedingly difficult for its own party members to oppose the plan, as they could then be portrayed as supporting a rival party. And in any case, as mentioned above, that government-appointed (how else could it be described?) official "No" campaign just happens to be headed by people who are in all but official name "Yes" supporters!
For more from the Deputy Prime Minister's appreciation society please click here
Observations from this month's Sovereignty
But why would the Government rig it so blatantly at that stage?Necessity.... Prescott had to cancel his other regional referendums (mainly for fear of heavy defeat) but to retain whatever crediblity he imagines he still has, he had to continue with at least one.
With regard to cheating Blair's Cabinet could not risk waiting till later, because there was a highly credible and effective "No" group -- North East No -- already campaigning against the government's plan for the effective dismemberment of England, and they feared that their "Yes" campaign, despite its numerous avenues of access to State funding, would also face formidable opposition from Labour Party MPs and experienced local Labour activists opposed to the regional parliament, either acting independently or in alliance with the genuinely non-party North East No campaign.
By appointing North East Says No, so obviously a Conservative Party front window-dressed with a (very) few UKIP dilletantes, the government would make it exceedingly difficult for its own party members to oppose the plan, as they could then be portrayed as supporting a rival party. And in any case, as mentioned above, that government-appointed (how else could it be described?) official "No" campaign just happens to be headed by people who are in all but official name "Yes" supporters!
For more from the Deputy Prime Minister's appreciation society please click here
24 Hours and Counting
Professor John Tomaney
Chairman
Yes4theNorthEastDurham
12.30pm 21st September 2004
Dear John,
We are preparing a case for Judicial Review which will be lodged by the end of the week at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We feel as though the referendum issue and the implications for the North East public are too important to be decided without correction of the misleading / factually incorrect statements which appear in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet which went out to 1,900,000 people in the region.
The ODPM is currently considering writing to only a proportion of the North East public over the incorrect figure involved in the local government reorganisation in Durham.
I have also indicated the other 'misleading statements,' which will form part of the case. See below...
Have Your Say
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill
"A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
Have Your Say
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43)
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
I would appreciate answers to the following questions within 24 hours from the Yes (and also the 'No') Campaign because it is important that the North East are fully aware of exactly where the two official campaigns stand:-
1. Do the feel that the two above statements from the Have Your Say Leaflet are misleading?
2. Would you be happy for the statements to be withdrawn or corrected, or would you prefer them to remain unchallenged?
3. Are you happy that the incorrect figure describing the cost of local government reorganisation for Durham is not being corrected for the whole of the 1,900,000 voters?
4. Do you think that the importance of ensuring tthat the public are fully and correctly informed outweighs the cost of correcting the mistakes?
5. Are you content that the photographs used in the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet and the use of negative imagery including using racial stereotypes should also be allowed to stand?
Neil Herron
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
Also to John Elliott,Chairman,North East Says No
cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes (Journal)
cc. Philip Johnston (Daily Telegraph)
cc. Peter Young (Evening Chronicle)
cc. Tony Kearney (Northern Echo)
cc. Jeremy Wicking (Sunderland Echo)
cc. Peter Hetherington (Guardian)
cc. Steve Dyson (Middlesbrough Evening Gazette)
cc. Richard Moss (BBC)
cc. Tiffany Royce (Tyne Tees)
Chairman
Yes4theNorthEastDurham
12.30pm 21st September 2004
Dear John,
We are preparing a case for Judicial Review which will be lodged by the end of the week at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We feel as though the referendum issue and the implications for the North East public are too important to be decided without correction of the misleading / factually incorrect statements which appear in the Government's 'Have Your Say' Leaflet which went out to 1,900,000 people in the region.
The ODPM is currently considering writing to only a proportion of the North East public over the incorrect figure involved in the local government reorganisation in Durham.
I have also indicated the other 'misleading statements,' which will form part of the case. See below...
Have Your Say
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill
"A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
Have Your Say
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43)
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
I would appreciate answers to the following questions within 24 hours from the Yes (and also the 'No') Campaign because it is important that the North East are fully aware of exactly where the two official campaigns stand:-
1. Do the feel that the two above statements from the Have Your Say Leaflet are misleading?
2. Would you be happy for the statements to be withdrawn or corrected, or would you prefer them to remain unchallenged?
3. Are you happy that the incorrect figure describing the cost of local government reorganisation for Durham is not being corrected for the whole of the 1,900,000 voters?
4. Do you think that the importance of ensuring tthat the public are fully and correctly informed outweighs the cost of correcting the mistakes?
5. Are you content that the photographs used in the 'Have Your Say' Leaflet and the use of negative imagery including using racial stereotypes should also be allowed to stand?
Neil Herron
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
Also to John Elliott,Chairman,North East Says No
cc. Ross Smith / Zoe Hughes (Journal)
cc. Philip Johnston (Daily Telegraph)
cc. Peter Young (Evening Chronicle)
cc. Tony Kearney (Northern Echo)
cc. Jeremy Wicking (Sunderland Echo)
cc. Peter Hetherington (Guardian)
cc. Steve Dyson (Middlesbrough Evening Gazette)
cc. Richard Moss (BBC)
cc. Tiffany Royce (Tyne Tees)
Complaints start going in to the Electoral Commission
Anyone wishing to raise a complaint to the Electoral Commission can see the points raised by Gillian Swanson below. It is important that this decision is fully questioned and examined because of the implications for the European Constitution referendum.
19 September, 2004
Mr Sam Younger, Chairman,
The Electoral Commission,
Trevelyan House, Great Peter Street,
LONDON, SWIP 2HW
Dear Mr Younger,
Designation of the Official No Campaign in the North-East Referendum
As a north-east voter who is against regional government and has been well-served by Neil Herron’s No campaign over the past two years, I would be grateful if you would let me have in writing your reasons for selecting NESNO as official opposition to the Yes Campaign in the run-up to November’s referendum.
I have racked my brains to think why you should have preferred this recently concocted group to Mr Herron’s well-established campaign, which has both a proven track record and wide-ranging grass-roots support.
Please enlighten me.
In addition, I understand that your officers’ original recommendation went against NESNO. What caused your change of heart?
I further wish to draw your attention to damage already inflicted by your unaccountable decision.
On 15 September, within minutes of being designated the official No Campaign and awarded £100,000 of taxpayers’ money, a representative of your chosen people, NESNO, should have appeared before a House of Commons Select Committee to give evidence. NESNO said sorry, none of them could make it. Neil Herron has since stated in the Newcastle Journal that he was fully briefed and ready to go to Westminster to argue the No case. Your decision made this impossible, thus depriving many north-east voters of fair representation before the committee.
What have NESNO done to deserve selection? Any undecided member of the electorate consulting their website would find nothing at all in the section entitled “Our Case”. They have issued no press releases since the initial one in July. They have no plans for public meetings. How did all this lack of activity qualify them for government funding?
Intriguingly, NESNO were listed by name as the chosen opposition to the Yes Campaign in an ODPM Committee Press Release issued on 9 September, a whole five days before you made your decision. How was this possible? Is the Deputy Prime Minister clairvoyant? Was he given prior information regarding your choice? Or did he lead, and you follow? The implications are disturbing.
It is also disturbing to hear Graham Robb, NESNO’s spokesman, state that they aren’t against an assembly as such: they would merely wish it to have greater powers. We now have a Yes and a No campaign, each of which favours regional government in principle. So who will speak for the many people who argue, quite reasonably, against the very idea of it? No funding is being made available for those attempting to put the full range of No arguments to a wider public. Meanwhile, because of your decision, £200,000 has been lavished on two groups which differ only in how much power they would wish an assembly to have before giving it their support.
Another point: I find it extraordinary that you did not take traditional party loyalties in the north-east into account when making your decision. Typical of attitudes among many people up here is this comment on the Newcastle Journal’s website: “ … if the Conservative party, that did so much damage to this area, and their large land-owning friends are against the idea of an assembly, then it must have some merit”.
To hand financial control of the No Campaign to a group led by Conservative supporters and backed by the Conservative Party at once reduces debate, in this overwhelmingly Labour part of the country, from the rational to the emotive level, and significantly increases the chance of a Yes vote. This may well be crucial when taken in conjunction with misleading leaflets put out by the ODPM which do not accurately state the expense involved in reorganising local and district councils, the cost of running an assembly or the degree of power to be retained by central government (see letter attached).
What were your reasons, when presented with a straight choice between a non-party-political, grass-roots campaign and a group headed by prominent Tory supporters, for picking the one most likely to alienate a significant portion of the north-east electorate?
I await your reply with interest,
Gillian Swanson
Cc Sir Neil McIntosh CBE The Newcastle Journal
Ms Pamela Gordon The Sunderland Echo
Mr Glyn Mathias The Northern Echo
Mr Karamjit Singh CBE warmwell.com
19 September, 2004
Mr Sam Younger, Chairman,
The Electoral Commission,
Trevelyan House, Great Peter Street,
LONDON, SWIP 2HW
Dear Mr Younger,
Designation of the Official No Campaign in the North-East Referendum
As a north-east voter who is against regional government and has been well-served by Neil Herron’s No campaign over the past two years, I would be grateful if you would let me have in writing your reasons for selecting NESNO as official opposition to the Yes Campaign in the run-up to November’s referendum.
I have racked my brains to think why you should have preferred this recently concocted group to Mr Herron’s well-established campaign, which has both a proven track record and wide-ranging grass-roots support.
Please enlighten me.
In addition, I understand that your officers’ original recommendation went against NESNO. What caused your change of heart?
I further wish to draw your attention to damage already inflicted by your unaccountable decision.
On 15 September, within minutes of being designated the official No Campaign and awarded £100,000 of taxpayers’ money, a representative of your chosen people, NESNO, should have appeared before a House of Commons Select Committee to give evidence. NESNO said sorry, none of them could make it. Neil Herron has since stated in the Newcastle Journal that he was fully briefed and ready to go to Westminster to argue the No case. Your decision made this impossible, thus depriving many north-east voters of fair representation before the committee.
What have NESNO done to deserve selection? Any undecided member of the electorate consulting their website would find nothing at all in the section entitled “Our Case”. They have issued no press releases since the initial one in July. They have no plans for public meetings. How did all this lack of activity qualify them for government funding?
Intriguingly, NESNO were listed by name as the chosen opposition to the Yes Campaign in an ODPM Committee Press Release issued on 9 September, a whole five days before you made your decision. How was this possible? Is the Deputy Prime Minister clairvoyant? Was he given prior information regarding your choice? Or did he lead, and you follow? The implications are disturbing.
It is also disturbing to hear Graham Robb, NESNO’s spokesman, state that they aren’t against an assembly as such: they would merely wish it to have greater powers. We now have a Yes and a No campaign, each of which favours regional government in principle. So who will speak for the many people who argue, quite reasonably, against the very idea of it? No funding is being made available for those attempting to put the full range of No arguments to a wider public. Meanwhile, because of your decision, £200,000 has been lavished on two groups which differ only in how much power they would wish an assembly to have before giving it their support.
Another point: I find it extraordinary that you did not take traditional party loyalties in the north-east into account when making your decision. Typical of attitudes among many people up here is this comment on the Newcastle Journal’s website: “ … if the Conservative party, that did so much damage to this area, and their large land-owning friends are against the idea of an assembly, then it must have some merit”.
To hand financial control of the No Campaign to a group led by Conservative supporters and backed by the Conservative Party at once reduces debate, in this overwhelmingly Labour part of the country, from the rational to the emotive level, and significantly increases the chance of a Yes vote. This may well be crucial when taken in conjunction with misleading leaflets put out by the ODPM which do not accurately state the expense involved in reorganising local and district councils, the cost of running an assembly or the degree of power to be retained by central government (see letter attached).
What were your reasons, when presented with a straight choice between a non-party-political, grass-roots campaign and a group headed by prominent Tory supporters, for picking the one most likely to alienate a significant portion of the north-east electorate?
I await your reply with interest,
Gillian Swanson
Cc Sir Neil McIntosh CBE The Newcastle Journal
Ms Pamela Gordon The Sunderland Echo
Mr Glyn Mathias The Northern Echo
Mr Karamjit Singh CBE warmwell.com
Stakes raised and ODPM on the back foot
Press Release
North East No Campaign
Alleged 'illegal' Actions by Government as North East Electorate misled by 'Information' Leaflet. Referendum now in chaos.
IMMEDIATE
The North East No Campaign has lodged an official complaint with the Audit Commission, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Electoral Commission over the blatantly biased and misleading 'Your Say' Government Information Leaflet.
Preparations are now being made for a legal challenge to have the Leaflet withdrawn should the Government not act and fail to have the 'misleading statements' rectified to avoid the North East public voting in a referendum after being misinformed. We are awaiting responses from the Audit Commission, the Electoral Commission and the Office of Depty Prime Minister before embarking on the legal challenge.
However, the referendum would possibly have to be cancelled because, according to the Electoral Commission, we are now in the 'Purdah Period' where the Government cannot put further information into the public domain.
Douglas Stewart, Head of Referendums, confirmed, "the purdah period commences 28 days prior to the first ballot papers going out on the 18th October." The Electoral Commission confirmed this to be the case at a series of roadshows across the region.
This conflicts with information being given by the ODPM and GONE who now state the purdah period begins on 7th October.
Neil Herron states, "the North East public have been deliberately misled by this Government leaflet. It is not acceptable for the North East public to be making a decision which will affect future generations based on blatant misinformation. We cannot see how, in such circumstances, the referendum could proceed, but we hope that it does because we expect a loud, resounding 'NO' from people who have been treated in such a disgraceful, contemptuous manner."
Taking aside the blatant negative portrayal of those saying 'No' in the photographs we need to look at the following statements...
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill states, "A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
This is a deliberate attempt to mislead, as is the following statement...
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
However, the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43) states,
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
And now it is also reported that Rt. Hon. Nick Raynsford has stated that the leaflet has factual errors about costs of local reorganisation and more information has to go out.Click here to read. This is not possible as we are now in the 'Purdah Period.'
Judith Wallace, Chairman of the North East No Campaign states, " It is not possible for the Government to put any information into the public domain. They cannot possibly simply correct a mistake for Durham County residents when the issue is being decided by 1,900,000 North East residents. This whole affair is descending into an absolute shambles."
ENDS
Contact
Neil Herron
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk
www.neilherron.blogspot.com
Notes to Editors:
The Electoral Commission did not have sight of the Government's 'Your Say' Leaflet until 3rd September when we handed them a copy at Trevelyan House. The ODPM had not even consulted them on its content.
The same team, North East Against Regional Assemblies, were successful with a complaint to the District Auditor last year which exposed that the unelected North East Assembly had been misusing public money in a similar way, and embarassed the North East Councils who had been funding the propaganda.
Read the story here
Read the Christopher Booker article in the Sunday Telegraph ... 'Rigging of a Referendum' here
North East No Campaign
Alleged 'illegal' Actions by Government as North East Electorate misled by 'Information' Leaflet. Referendum now in chaos.
IMMEDIATE
The North East No Campaign has lodged an official complaint with the Audit Commission, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Electoral Commission over the blatantly biased and misleading 'Your Say' Government Information Leaflet.
Preparations are now being made for a legal challenge to have the Leaflet withdrawn should the Government not act and fail to have the 'misleading statements' rectified to avoid the North East public voting in a referendum after being misinformed. We are awaiting responses from the Audit Commission, the Electoral Commission and the Office of Depty Prime Minister before embarking on the legal challenge.
However, the referendum would possibly have to be cancelled because, according to the Electoral Commission, we are now in the 'Purdah Period' where the Government cannot put further information into the public domain.
Douglas Stewart, Head of Referendums, confirmed, "the purdah period commences 28 days prior to the first ballot papers going out on the 18th October." The Electoral Commission confirmed this to be the case at a series of roadshows across the region.
This conflicts with information being given by the ODPM and GONE who now state the purdah period begins on 7th October.
Neil Herron states, "the North East public have been deliberately misled by this Government leaflet. It is not acceptable for the North East public to be making a decision which will affect future generations based on blatant misinformation. We cannot see how, in such circumstances, the referendum could proceed, but we hope that it does because we expect a loud, resounding 'NO' from people who have been treated in such a disgraceful, contemptuous manner."
Taking aside the blatant negative portrayal of those saying 'No' in the photographs we need to look at the following statements...
"They (the assembly members) would be elected - as in Scotland, Wales and London - by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single political party..."
However...
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill states, "A number of members (constituency members) would be elected for constituencies on the traditional 'first past the post' method. The rest would be elected on a regionwide basis, as 'top-up members.'...it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority."
This is a deliberate attempt to mislead, as is the following statement...
"The North East Regional Development Agency, for example, would answer not to Ministers or Whitehall but to the assembly."
However, the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill Policy Statement (Section 43) states,
"Central government would retain powers to ensure that assemblies and their RDA's continue to address national priorities.For example, the assembly would need to consult the Government on the draft regional economic strategy and on Board appointments."
And now it is also reported that Rt. Hon. Nick Raynsford has stated that the leaflet has factual errors about costs of local reorganisation and more information has to go out.Click here to read. This is not possible as we are now in the 'Purdah Period.'
Judith Wallace, Chairman of the North East No Campaign states, " It is not possible for the Government to put any information into the public domain. They cannot possibly simply correct a mistake for Durham County residents when the issue is being decided by 1,900,000 North East residents. This whole affair is descending into an absolute shambles."
ENDS
Contact
Neil Herron
North East No Campaign
Frederick Street
Sunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk
www.neilherron.blogspot.com
Notes to Editors:
The Electoral Commission did not have sight of the Government's 'Your Say' Leaflet until 3rd September when we handed them a copy at Trevelyan House. The ODPM had not even consulted them on its content.
The same team, North East Against Regional Assemblies, were successful with a complaint to the District Auditor last year which exposed that the unelected North East Assembly had been misusing public money in a similar way, and embarassed the North East Councils who had been funding the propaganda.
Read the story here
Read the Christopher Booker article in the Sunday Telegraph ... 'Rigging of a Referendum' here
Monday, September 20, 2004
Electoral Commission catch 'Foot in Mouth'
'Foot in Mouth' Disease expected to reach epidemic proportions within a week.
Rumour and speculation are predicting that the 'Foot in Mouth' disease that has broken out in the North East is expected to reach epidemic proportions.
Because symptoms were not treated immediately there are now pockets popping up all over.
The Electoral Commission has also succumbed.
A call to the North East No Campaign on Thursday of last week came from Terry at the Royal Mail distribution centre in Gateshead.
"Good morning, North East No Campaign."
" Is that Philip?"
"No, it's Neil. How can I help?"
"This is Terry from the Royal Mail to help sort out the leaflet drop for the No Campaign."
"Terry, you will be wanting Philip at the North East Says No Campaign in Durham. Here is their number. Can I ask why you came to us?
"Well, I rang the Electoral Commission and asked them for the telephone number for the No campaign and they gave me your number."
Would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the Electoral Commission gave the NESNO campaign Designation as the official No group two days previously.
Rumour and speculation are predicting that the 'Foot in Mouth' disease that has broken out in the North East is expected to reach epidemic proportions.
Because symptoms were not treated immediately there are now pockets popping up all over.
The Electoral Commission has also succumbed.
A call to the North East No Campaign on Thursday of last week came from Terry at the Royal Mail distribution centre in Gateshead.
"Good morning, North East No Campaign."
" Is that Philip?"
"No, it's Neil. How can I help?"
"This is Terry from the Royal Mail to help sort out the leaflet drop for the No Campaign."
"Terry, you will be wanting Philip at the North East Says No Campaign in Durham. Here is their number. Can I ask why you came to us?
"Well, I rang the Electoral Commission and asked them for the telephone number for the No campaign and they gave me your number."
Would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the Electoral Commission gave the NESNO campaign Designation as the official No group two days previously.
'Foot in Mouth' Epidemic Spreads
Did No-one Tell the Tories?
The call to our office went like this;
"Hello, North East No Campaign."
"Is that the No Campaign?"
"Yes"
"Hi, its Cameron Watt from Iain Duncan Smith's office."
"Hi Cameron," I said. "It's Neil Herron. I have just received your e-mail about the visit to the North East of Iain Duncan Smith and his wife Betsy on Monday. I also see that Shadow Regions Minister, Bernard Jenkin is accompanying him too."
"Yes. That's what I wanted to talk to you about. We were hoping you could help us with the press and media in the North East. We know that you have a good relationship with them."
"Yees."
"Well, we were hoping that the No Campaign could get us some coverage."
"Cameron. This is the No Campaign...the People's No Campaign. I think you should be speaking to the Conservative NESNO group in Durham."
"Who are they. I haven't heard of them."
"Cameron. They are the group with your North East Conservative spokesman, Graham Robb, as their spokesman. They are the organisation that the Electoral Commission designated as the official 'No' campaign. I suggest you give Iain and Bernard an urgent call and ask them to ring me straight away before they dig an even bigger hole for themselves."
That was Friday. I am still waiting for a call. The Tories are in the region today and I wonder if the press even know they are here. I wonder if NESNO eventually found out that the man who helped set their campaign up was in the region?
Trouble is, even typing NESNO into any search engine brings you to us...the North East No Campaign. Poor Cameron. He must have had a bad weekend. No-one can find NESNO's phone number.
I am fully expecting the Tories to turn up at the office in Sunderland today to ask where the North East is.
Neil H
The call to our office went like this;
"Hello, North East No Campaign."
"Is that the No Campaign?"
"Yes"
"Hi, its Cameron Watt from Iain Duncan Smith's office."
"Hi Cameron," I said. "It's Neil Herron. I have just received your e-mail about the visit to the North East of Iain Duncan Smith and his wife Betsy on Monday. I also see that Shadow Regions Minister, Bernard Jenkin is accompanying him too."
"Yes. That's what I wanted to talk to you about. We were hoping you could help us with the press and media in the North East. We know that you have a good relationship with them."
"Yees."
"Well, we were hoping that the No Campaign could get us some coverage."
"Cameron. This is the No Campaign...the People's No Campaign. I think you should be speaking to the Conservative NESNO group in Durham."
"Who are they. I haven't heard of them."
"Cameron. They are the group with your North East Conservative spokesman, Graham Robb, as their spokesman. They are the organisation that the Electoral Commission designated as the official 'No' campaign. I suggest you give Iain and Bernard an urgent call and ask them to ring me straight away before they dig an even bigger hole for themselves."
That was Friday. I am still waiting for a call. The Tories are in the region today and I wonder if the press even know they are here. I wonder if NESNO eventually found out that the man who helped set their campaign up was in the region?
Trouble is, even typing NESNO into any search engine brings you to us...the North East No Campaign. Poor Cameron. He must have had a bad weekend. No-one can find NESNO's phone number.
I am fully expecting the Tories to turn up at the office in Sunderland today to ask where the North East is.
Neil H
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
