PR Archives - Aberdeen Voice

UTG Referendum: The Real Attacks On Democracy

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 3 Responses »

Sep 132012

By Suzanne Kelly.

‘Undemocratic!’ is the cry coming from various people in Government and some Aberdeen residents concerning the death of the granite web scheme.

The truth is that democracy took a beating in the way the referendum campaign was waged, in the secrecy over the TIF ranking the scheme received, and in the statements made by ministers who should know they were overstepping their bounds.

For those who really care about ‘Democracy’ and how it has been chipped at by those insistent that the web goes ahead, here is an overview of some newly emerged issues.

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

Last Sunday 9 September, the Sunday Herald carried two articles pertinent to how undemocratically the granite web has been pushed. The first piece by Steven Vass was entitled ‘FOI Victory Over Aberdeen Project’. Vass explains that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust have been criticised by the Information Commissioner. These two organisations are refusing to release information on Aberdeen’s TIF bid, in particular how it was ranked against other projects.

TIF is meant to be used for deprived areas. Our city centre needs improvement, and a good place to start would be practical assistance to local businesses which now must compete with multinationals in our shopping malls (which have far more financial power than the little guy does).

We are not, however, a deprived area; businesses are continuing to set up shop here, our housing prices are good, and our standard of living has on the whole been found to rank highly in the UK.

So why can’t we find out more about the TIF application? Is it possible that our TIF application was one of the lower-scoring ones? (It was ,after all, soundly criticised by an independent accountant.) If it was not a high-scorer, then was it given priority unfairly over other projects?

In the interests of democracy, whatever side of the debate you are on, you have to agree that withholding critical information which could help evaluate the facts is undoubtedly undemocratic. The information Commissioner has concluded as much , and hopefully on 22 October the truth of the situation will be revealed. Either that, or the Government and the SFT will appeal to the Court of Session.

It will be interesting to find out who was involved in this non-compliance with the democratic principle of Freedom of Information, and to find out what they have to hide. It will be interesting as well to see if the Government refuses the Information Commissioner’s decision and lodges a Court of Session appeal.

There is legislation saying this information should be supplied, and yet it is being withheld against the Information Commissioner’s decision. Verdict: Undemocratic

Above the Law? How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

The other article in the Sunday Herald brings us to an even more serious issue. This article, entitled ‘How to get ahead in the race to the White House…by advertising’ explains how voters are bombarded with election propaganda and how important it is to spend on adverts. It also brings us to the decision just released by OFCOM against the radio advertising that took place during the referendum.

The Herald article explains the vast sums spent on TV and radio ads to try to secure election victories in the US. The article quotes Erika Fowler, the associate professor running the Wesleyan Media Project:

“ Campaigns are not going for efficiency, they are going for moderate voters in the centre who have not made up their minds. There are going to be many, many people tuning out the messages, but in a competitive election cycle, you really are going for that last one or two percentage points. So the parties and the interest groups… are going to do whatever it takes to get a competitive advantage.”

And as the article says,

“That means spending money…”

The American spin doctors and PR firms know, as do their UK counterparts, that advertising works. And OFCOM, the communications regulator, knows it as well. It exists to prevent the public being misled, and it has come down hard against the aggressive saturation campaign and adverts placed by The BiG Partnership on behalf of the anonymous VFTCGP members- what do they have to hide?

As a referendum campaigner who had to obey stringent rules and spending limits, I was astounded that an unelected and anonymous group, ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project’ were allowed to place a huge volume of radio and print advertising. Not only did they have a degree of media saturation which I couldn’t have hoped for – but the contents of their ads were misleading. Why do I say that? Here are two direct quotes from the ads and my comments on each:-

1. Quote: “I’m voting yes because of the £182 million of investment to the city centre – and it’s all coming from grants and private donations so it won’t cost the taxpayer a penny.”

“The City Garden Project won’t cost you a penny, it will be paid for through private donations and business rates.”

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf – see Pages 6 and 7

Comment: As demonstrated by invoices paid by the City Council, taxpayer money has ALREADY been spent on this project for advertising, PR and ‘stakeholder engagement’ in the region of at least £200,000. What is galling is that the BiG Partnership, working closely with ACSEF would have known this. In fact, it is still a mystery what agency or agencies carried out the PR, advertising and photography: was BiG a recipient of taxpayer money? If so, how democratic or ethical was this agency acting when it submitted these ads for broadcast?

2. Quote: “It will create twice as much green space in the City Centre.” (reference as above)

Comment: We have a green park – when I say green, there is a deep, rich fertile layer of soil supporting wildlife and ancient trees. (Democracy fans note – there are trees and species in this park which are protected by UK and EU law, even though the past administration allowed fireworks displays in the gardens).

If you build underground structures and have a layer of topsoil over them, you won’t have the same environmental quality as we do now.

If you chop the trees down, and build a 5,000 seat outdoor theatre on formerly rich soil, then there is absolutely no way that you are going to double the amount of green space.

Layers of turf over the concrete theatre’s roof and making similar turf-clad structures does not mean you can claim you are doubling genuine green space.

By the way, the idea of building an outdoor theatre in Aberdeen makes very little sense indeed weather-wise. Building a theatre in front of where a theatre already exists raises questions about the ‘non-displacement’ concept – rules are supposed to prohibit using public resources to build something that will compete with or take away from an existing business – but this is being conveniently overlooked.

Aside from my opinions on the accuracy of these ads – Aberdonian citizens were bombarded with over 200 ads on Northsound 1 and 2, and Original 106 played ads over 100 times between 16 and 29 February. ( In contrast, Mike Shepherd had one ad played a total of 26 times).

The point is that if so much as one person heard these hundreds of ads, assumed they were true (after all, the trusted radio stations continued to run them) and voted for the web based on these spurious claims (no cost to the taxpayer, double (??) the green space magically created), then the commercials and the big money behind them unduly influenced the referendum result.

What really beggars belief is the behaviour of the BiG Partnership.

They were involved with ACSEF to push the web scheme. They know that invoices were paid by the taxpayer for consultation, PR, ‘stakeholder engagement’, photos and the like (even including a photo for about £150 meant to show how ‘inaccessible’ the gardens are).

They knew that the web was already costing the taxpayer money, yet they were involved with creating and placing advertisements on radio saying the taxpayer wouldn’t pay a penny. Whatever your position on the web is, don’t you agree this is unethical?

People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads

BiG also appear to have placed these ads apparently without getting full advice and clearance. Reading OFCOM’s decision, it is easy to conclude the ads would not have been deemed acceptable had clearance been asked for in advance.

How does an organisation as big and experienced as BiG explain itself to the regulator? This is what they said:-

“Northsound told us that this organisation was set up by a group of private individuals who supported the re-development project. They were not a formally constituted organisation, the Licensee said, and had “no legal status”. This advertiser appointed The BIG Partnership, a public relations consultancy, to run and manage its campaign.

“The BIG Partnership made the following comments through the Licensee:

“This campaign was set up a by a group of private individuals who wanted to see the project go ahead. They were not a formally constituted organisation. They have no legal status. They got together and appointed The BIG Partnership to run and manage the campaign and they provided funds for that campaign. The City Garden Project, as part of the wider city centre regeneration scheme, will be funded by private donations and a TIF scheme whereby Aberdeen City Council borrows money to pay for the regeneration and uses the new business rates generated by new business across the city as a result of the regeneration to pay back the loan. It will not be financed by Aberdeen City Council’s annual revenue budget and therefore not have an impact on local council tax payers or on the delivery of public services. The group behind the campaign is not political. The campaign aimed to influence the outcome of the referendum by communicating the facts and the benefits of the project to the public. The objectors to the project also ran similar advertisements.”

If there is even a single person who voted for the project based on these radio ads, which should never have been aired, or has a friend or relative who was taken in by these ads, then they should come forward now and say so. (Write to me if you wish; I can keep your details anonymous if you prefer – sgvk27@aol.com)

An anonymous group of people, via an experienced agency, placed ads which should never have been aired . The ads contain spurious claims, but at the time the regulatory bodies were unable to intervene. The regulator has found the ads in breach of code.

We need to know who the VFTCGP members were to see whether there were any conflicts of interest. People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads, the contents of which could not be contested at the time.

Whatever side of the issue you are on, if you care about law, democracy and fairness, you must admit these ads should not have aired and would have influenced the voters who heard them. Verdict: Extraordinarily Undemocratic

( Note – BiG has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press. )

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Unfortunately our local hard copy tabloids, the Press & Journal and its sister, the Evening Express, are clearly in favour of the web going ahead.

Their coverage in the past has seemed one-sided. However, they have chosen to exclude the news item about the information Commissioner’s verdict re. the TIF details. They have covered other Information Commission decisions in the past, and this one certainly has local importance.

More importantly, at the time of writing, no local tabloid has mentioned the OFCOM decision, and instead have run pieces critical of the Labour administration. The BBC and the Herald have decided these two stories were newsworthy enough to be published. The local press did not find room for them, but do have articles on a new chocolate shop opening in the mall, and a photo of a black swan.

Note – The local press has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press.

Is it possible that our papers are slanting coverage to please their advertisers? It just might be possible. Verdict: Newspapers can take any side of an issue they want; that is democracy. However, do you want a paper that gives you one side of an issue, or one that covers all ground?

Democracy: Labouring the Point

This is a good time to discuss Labour and Democracy. When the referendum was announced, Labour said at the outset it did not agree with holding it, and explained they were already legally representing their constituents. They also pointed out that the referendum was not a legal vote that had to be adhered to; it was in law always just a consultation (like the one we had before which rejected the city square).

Labour told the people that if elected, they would scrap the City Gardens Project, which by the way was still in its infancy. Some people seem to feel the web was a done deal. It had not had TIF approval yet – it lacks details (we don’t have anything other than fanciful artist drawings which ignore necessary architectural and safety features which would make the thing look far different from the concept art), and it had to go through planning.

Labour explained what was wrong with the referendum before it started, and vociferously objected to all the abuses that went on during the campaign. They asked to be elected with scrapping the CGP as a main campaign plank: they did what they were elected to do Verdict: Democratic

SNP Sniping

It is very interesting to see in today’s Press and Journal our Scottish Government minister for planning, Derek MacKay, speaking out against Labour over the web – which is a planning issue. There are guidelines which direct him not to make such statements, but he seems to be ignoring them.

Is a minister involved with planning overstepping his remit and going contrary to Scottish Ministerial Code? Seems like it. Verdict: Out of Order
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/01141452/9

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Old Susannah #91: Where Did That Olive Branch Get To?

Aberdeen City, Satire and Humour 6 Responses »

Aug 242012

Voice’s Old Susannah looks at events over the the last week … and what a week it’s been in the ‘Deen. By Suzanne Kelly.

‘SHATTERED!’ roars the Press & Journal headline following the council’s decision on Wednesday not to pursue a £92 million pound loan to build the Granite Web. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth; most of the wailing stemming from Jennifer Craw’s insistence on putting her feet on the back of the seat in front of her as she sat in the public gallery.

What was agreed was the madcap idea of trying to fix the Gardens and our existing facilities. Surely if that sort of thing worked, people would already be doing it. No, a Granite Web was the only thing that was going to save our town’s economy.

We are apparently doomed to being a ghost town. Unfortunately no one’s told this to the many companies moving into the area. Shame.

Without further ado, here are some definitions relevant to this week’s news stories…

Online Bullying: (mod. Eng. noun) the use of electronic media to harass, intimidate or ridicule.

Those on the losing side are quite rightly using Facebook and email to hound, vilify and harass those who voted for the modest independent compromise motion. There has been a Facebook page set up calling Barney Crocket ‘The man who killed democracy’.

Absolutely. He got elected, did what he said he and his party were going to do, and reminded everyone why the referendum was a sham won by a slim margin in favour of those who saturated the public with lovely brochures and endless radio ads.

The content of these ads promised the earth, billions of pounds of income, and 6,500 new jobs. Sadly, some people remained a little sceptical that these were achievable, even though the P&J said they were.

The official campaign organisations didn’t spend as much so they couldn’t win; just because the guidelines told them what their limits were for spending and ad content, there was no reason they couldn’t compete fairly with the wishes of a billionaire and a multimillionaire.

But back to this Facebook page. All those people are queuing up to smear Crockett and his like-minded councillors; well, fair enough.

It was almost as if he were trying to lump all the opposition together and tar them with a very sinister brush.

Obviously the page in question is not in any way connected to the BiG partnership or any of its student interns, Jake the Ghost, or Morris the Monkey – for that would be playing fast and loose with Facebook and PR professional association rules. And that just wouldn’t happen – except for the time that it did, of course, during the referendum.

The important thing for us Aberdonians to remember about online bullying is when it is or is not a good thing. It is perfectly acceptable to use social media and emails to hound people like Crockett and Boulton, who clearly don’t care that businesses are departing Aberdeen in droves and the four horsemen of the apocalypse have been seen near Tillydrone.

But when someone rich and important like Tom Smith is subject to online bullying, then it is a matter for the police. Unfortunately when Tom went to the press, something he now says he didn’t want to do, he mixed online bullying together with people having online conversations which didn’t involve him, as well as with the very illegal crime of computer hacking, which carries a potential jail sentence.

As we since learnt, there was no crime committed, even though he told us there was in a Press & Journal front page article days before the referendum. It was almost as if he were trying to lump all the opposition together and tar them with a very sinister brush.

How exactly this timid soul was forced to go public with his story remains a mystery. Was he bullied into it? Anyone with knowledge of the media handling would be welcome to explain it to me. But as it stands, it seems like Tom was rather left with his foot in his mouth, or something like that.

Olive Branch: (Eng. noun) an offering of peace or conciliation, usually offered after an argument or an altercation.

I’m afraid that a Mr K Flavill has much to answer for. He had the bad humour not to accept the olive branch which was kindly offered to him by the City Gardens Trust supporters, post-referendum. The headline ‘Olive Branch brushed aside’ painted this villainous arts sector worker in his true colours.

However, as the definition of ‘online bullying’ above clearly proves, there are circumstances in which something can either be desirable or not.

Since the City Council has agreed on a measure which will save the Gardens, improve the Gardens, save the businesses on the back of Belmont Street, improve the Lemon Tree and other features of the city’s cultural portfolio, an olive branch is clearly inappropriate.

I do hope no one will suggest that the Granite Web’s supporters should accept an olive branch and work to improve what needs improving, if that is possible without a Web and a £92,000,000 debt. An olive branch in such circumstances can’t be an option.

Sensory Soundscape: (noun, very very modern English) {NOTE: definition known only to Prof. Paul Harris of Gray’s School of Art}

Well, along with not getting our bosque, we will not be getting the ‘Sensory Soundscape’ that Prof. Harris spoke of lovingly in his address, as he put in his deposition in favour of the Web.

He was involved for 18 months with the project as well as the ‘cultural working group’. He spoke to us all about the Web giving us an ‘all-embracing sensory experience’, as well as ‘seamless connectivity’ to boot. And we don’t get to have our ‘sound trails’ either. Obviously you can’t have ‘sound trails’ without a ‘sensory soundscape’.

Old Susannah is now done with her excellent diet, although I could really shed another pound or two, but thank you to all at Temple Aesthetics.

Why am I telling you this? Because as soon as I can get out from under my mounds of UTG-related research papers, I will be heading for my own personal sensory soundscape and sound trails: YES – I am heading back to BrewDog Aberdeen just as soon as I can manage.

Soundgarden will probably be providing the sensory soundscape as I get a pint of either ‘Dead Pony Club’ or ‘Hello my name is Ingrid’, God willing. You want an all-embracing sensory experience? Brewdog will fix you up on that score AND still give you change from £140 million.

Irony: (Eng. noun). A concept of humour which Americans cannot understand.

Sadly, being American-born I have little sense of irony, and arguably even less sense of satire. However, friends suggest two examples to try and help me.

The first concerns a writer called ‘O Henry’. One of his short stories involved a poor newlywed couple trying to get gifts for each other for Christmas. The wife sells her hair to buy a pocket-watch chain for her husband. Meanwhile, he has sold his watch to get her a set of beautiful hairbrushes.

The second example I am given comes from our very own HoMalone. When the deer cull was first suggested as the only possible way in which the non-existent, arbitrary trees were going to thrive on wind-and arson-swept Tullos Hill, Malone wisely turned cold-hearted ( uncharacteristically of course) and refused to listen to the thousands of petition-signers and the three community councils that told her in no uncertain terms not to kill the deer.

She also prevented myself and Andy Findlayson (now a Councillor) from speaking about the deer to the Housing & Environment Committee which she chaired. Her reason for not listening to the people was on the important point (or some say technicality) that she had a verbal report on the deer at the meeting, and not a written one.

Yesterday as I sat in the gallery, I listened to Aileen Malone say how important it was to listen to the people and to give them what they wanted.

Perhaps I will eventually learn the definition of irony. Maybe Councillor Findlayson will have some thoughts on the subject too.

Fudge: 1. (noun Eng.) a delicious, sweet, rich concoction. 2. (verb, Mod Eng) to try and obscure the truth, evade, or move the goalposts in some way.

Senior Statesman Callum McCaig accused the Motion to forget TIF, and just fix what we have with far less borrowing, of being a fudge. Surely nothing would ever be ‘fudged’ by the Web devotees?

Aside from changing their minds and not letting the public say no to the whole scheme when the consultation was live, and aside from disregarding the public choice of garden design, I’m sure that’s true.

There was also the little matter of hiding the actual companies who received tens of thousands of pounds from PR and advertising work on the Web by billing the City via the Chamber of Commerce. No fudge here.

Except for blanking out details from the Garden Project committees’ meetings, apart from hiding the identities of those who spent a fortune on the secretive, unofficial pro-Web campaign – some of whom stood to gain if the thing went through – no fudge going on at all.

Final word of thanks.

None of these long months of fighting to keep our only green city centre space would have been possible but for this one man. This man’s actions brought us 18 months of bitter conflict, and he deserves all of our thanks. Thank you indeed former Provost Peter Stephen.

If you hadn’t used your tie-breaking vote to go against the tradition of keeping to the status quo in tie breaks, we would not have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money pounds on committees, PR, advertising, design shows, ‘stakeholder events’ and so on.

When people today complain that democracy has been killed, it’s good that your conscience is clear. You may or may not have taken a late-night visit from a few rich people before the original vote, but hey, I’m sure you would have been as open to any of us paying you an evening call to discuss the city’s future, too.

Next week: An Old Susannah column with improved connectivity, forward-looking and dynamic, wholly democratic and transparent, offering value for money and stakeholder engagement, complete with a total sensory soundtrail experience. Or maybe just a few more definitions.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

A Hunner Snipers An Aa An Aa

Creative Writing, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Aug 172012

By Bob Smith.

Noo a hunner business billies
Faa support City Gairdens Trust
Tae destroy Union Terrace Gairdens
They aa think iss is a must

They’re aa the usual suspects
Faa stan tae mak a killin
An ding doon ony cooncillor
Faa disna show ony willin

Ye hiv the likes o Martin Gilbert
Twa Stewarties, Milne an Spence
An woe betide ony business chiel
Faa micht sit upon the fence

A letter tae oor toon council
Wis sint wingin on its wye
If ye vote agin the plans
We micht hing ye oot tae dry

Think o the bigger picter here
Is their affa mournfu plea
An Sir Ian he’ll jist waak awa
If oor biddin ye dinna dee

Their PR machine is gearin up
Wi helpfu freens at the P&J
Faa canna say onything naistie
Advertisin revenue cums intae play

Fit richt hiv aa thae buggers
Tae tell us fit’s best fer oor toon?
An try tae dictate tae oor council
Fit they can or canna vote doon

We wull sin fin oot fit’s fit
The cooncil’s back is tae the wa
Can they haud faist agin the critics
An a hunner “snipers” an aa an aa?

FoUTG Chair Addesses Council Re. Referendum Report

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 062012

A report on the UTG referendum was discussed at a meeting of full council on Wednesday with a view to it being approved before being sent to the Scottish Government. Friends of Union Terrace Gardens chairman Mike Shepherd was permitted to give a deputation. Aberden voice presents Mike’s deputation in full.

“I was allowed to give a deputation here in January when I said that the FoUTG would agree to take part in a referendum if it was fair.

We agreed to the referendum in spite of the shameful behaviour of this council in ignoring the result of the public consultation two years ago. We agreed for two reasons.

First, we saw the CGP as a juggernaut pushed through relentlessly by business and a friendly council. There were only two options to stop this; either through the referendum or legal action. We chose the referendum.

Secondly, we chose this route through public spirit. We were only too aware of the poisonous attitudes building on both sides of the issue. Aberdeen was at war with itself. A fair referendum was the only way of killing this beast.

I also told the council that the referendum would have to be fair because implicit in taking part was that we accepted the final result, whatever it was. This was said in good faith.

THIS WAS NOT A FAIR REFERENDUM!

We do not accept the result. The process was flawed. Internet and phone voting should not have been allowed as without signatures, this was open to fraud. The Green party have also asked me to complain about their shortened message in the information pack that was sent out.

The City Garden Project supporters were allowed to spend tens of thousands of pounds on PR, newspapers, leaflets and radio ads. This money spent on advertising bought a marginal result for the referendum.

The ads were often misleading and in some instances blatantly so. We were told of a bogus £182M investment, consisting of a bogus £15M of private investment and a bogus £20M Art Gallery grant which didn’t exist. One misleading ad is under investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority.

This council also misled the public. The claim that a new park could create 6,500 jobs was utterly ludicrous. They did not explain the risks of borrowing through TIF properly, even when Audit Scotland expressed their concerns about the long term implications for the Council’s finances.

You are £618M in debt, you cannot afford the risk on further borrowing.

The council were partial to one side of the referendum. The ACGT were allowed to show a video in the Art Gallery, council property, yet we were excluded until after several days of complaint on the matter.

This was a dishonest referendum. The public were misled right up the City Garden path. The council should vote to ignore the result. Furthermore, this report should not be passed onto the Scottish Government as suggested. The proposal to spend valuable investment and infrastructure money on something as trivial as a new park is a disgrace.

We do not accept the result of the referendum and we intend to carry on campaigning to save Union Terrace Gardens. Thank you.”

Evening Express report here. http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx

02.03.12 – A Black Day For Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Mar 092012

The black calendar of Aberdeen’s civic history has a new entry: 2nd March 2012, the day that its citizens, evident sufferers of apathy and myopia, handed both its natural heritage and its economic future to a cabal of businessmen. Arthur Taylor writes.

The fight to retain and improve Union Terrace Gardens hit the buffers on that day when the public – or rather 27.5% of them – voted to support the plans to destroy this unique piece of the city’s heritage and replace it with a concrete monstrosity – presumably confused by the smoke and mirrors of the PR campaign which branded it “The Granite Web”.

Whether the battle turns into a war, protracting the debate, and driving further wedges between parties already badly divided, remains to be seen, but it is hard to see a rapid healing of the wounds that this process has created.

It is also difficult to stop the passion that fuelled the Retain campaign from dissipating, before all avenues of challenge are exhausted against a process labelled as democratic – but which in reality has been anything but that.

What is clear is that events from 2008 to now should be reviewed and recorded for posterity, so that future generations when looking back can seek to understand a number of things:

why we allowed our heritage to be given away to a clique of egoists and nepotists, who deluded the public and maybe even themselves into believing that they were altruists and philanthropists

why the local authority whose primary function is to act in the citizenry’s best interest handed control to an unelected quango, immune from public scrutiny

and why we allowed the city’s future to be mortgaged on the most questionable of business cases, flagged up as high risk by Audit Scotland in the final days of the campaign – when most votes were already cast.

Not that this was a revelation: Friends of Union Terrace Gardens had identified the risk months before, but their claims were played down in the media.

The last two months have seen a referendum conducted by a returning officer who sought to have the campaigns run to a fair set of rules.

The dominance of the local print media in forming and steering public opinion, and its incestuous relationship with local business, is deeply concerning.

While it appears that the retain groups stayed within their £8000 budgets, the pro groups – aided and abetted by the collaborators in the local media – spent an estimated £1,000,000 to buy the votes of the people of Aberdeen. Their cynical campaign saw radio adverts dressed as public information broadcasts, and a drip-fed daily editorial in the local press, with each day’s evening paper offering more extravagant promises than the last, as part of a fawning hysterical clamour.

That the retain groups, variously composed primarily of grey-haired men, beardies, tree-huggers and an enthusiastic schoolboy, ran the referendum right to the wire, losing by such a slender margin, is testament to their energy, enthusiasm and resourcefulness. That they did this against a campaign co-ordinated by the BIG Partnership, Scotland’s largest PR agency, is little short of a miracle.

The dominance of the local print media in forming and steering public opinion, and its incestuous relationship with local business, is deeply concerning.

The public need a source of true facts rather than propaganda dressed as objective reporting.

That said, there have been two positives to emerge from the press coverage of the campaign: the amusement derived from watching the Evening Express contorting itself like an India-rubber prostitute in a bid to champion the development, while not entirely abandoning its habitual council-baiting; and the emergence of the STV Local site as a place where all parties can present their voice without editorial bias.

It is hard not to see the future of local journalism as lying in hyper-local online spaces, as counterpoint to the shrinking of print to the point of complete insignificance.

the dead-eyed, gape-mouthed novelty-seekers who lurch zombie-like through the malls

Returning to the proposed development itself, it should be remembered that Union Terrace Gardens is the only part of the city where one can see the original topography of the land on which the city is built.

Sadly the local authority in the last century has allowed almost all traces of the city’s history to be erased like some embarrassing legacy instead of retaining and celebrating its character. Compare this with Edinburgh’s old town or York’s centre.

We are now confronted by the effacement of the final part of our history in order to satisfy the dead-eyed, gape-mouthed novelty-seekers who lurch zombie-like through the malls that have brought about the systematic homogenisation of the city centre and obliterated all individuality and character.

If we do not continue to challenge this proposed act of civic vandalism, by:

opposing the planning application,
challenging the use of Common Good land,
exposing the business case as one which will leave the city bankrupt (as it was last in1817) when the TIF scheme plays out as feared,

then we should at least ensure that we record for posterity the names of the businessmen who proposed this vanity project; note the politicians and faceless unelected quango-ists who eased its path to realisation; and ponder the many, many idiotic consumers who swallowed the hype, without challenge or analysis.

If we do nothing else, we should record those names on the black calendar’s page for 2nd March 2012.

Letter To The Sane World – A UTG Overview

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 292012

Shakhaf Barak wrote to a friend highlighting the history behind the current referendum that is dividing the city. He has kindly allowed Voice to use it, almost verbatim as the deadline approaches for voting.

Dear Friend,
Here in Aberdeen there is a bitter referendum taking place, and it could go either way. Over 70,000 people have voted thus far, in a city of barely 212,000 souls, and both sides have reported each other to the police. Central to this story is a 250-year old city centre park, Union Terrace Gardens, and the billionaire oil tycoon seeking to redevelop it.

Union Terrace Gardens are similar to Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens, lying in the natural amphitheatre of the Denburn valley, the Denburn being a stream which flows right through the city, underground where it borders the Gardens. Much of Aberdeen’s best architecture was clearly envisaged to overlook this area.

The Gardens are home to a cluster of 260-year old elms trees that once formed part of the Corbie Haugh, a historic wood which ran through the valley. This is among the largest concentration of healthy mature elm trees in Europe, and they are reputed to have escaped Dutch Elm Disease, not only due to their isolation, but also because the pollution of the city has afforded some sort of protection from it.

Both the park and its beautiful Victorian toilets are Grade A-listed, and all of the trees are under preservation orders. Up until as late as 2003, the Gardens formed the centrepiece of Aberdeen’s Britain In Bloom entry, and they were truly stunning, but since then expenditure has all but ceased, and the toilets have been closed for several years.

In 2008 a local arts organisation, Peacock Visual Arts (PVA) was granted planning permission for an award-winning and sympathetically-designed arts centre to be built into the hillside of the Gardens. This would have meant felling a small number of trees but none of the elms. The design was universally acclaimed and it was hoped that this scheme would help regenerate interest in the Gardens.

Enter Sir Ian Wood, one of Scotland’s richest men, and chief of Wood Group PSN. Sir Ian decided that he’d like to redevelop the Gardens by building a five-storey bunker in their place, whilst covering over the adjoining railway line and urban dual carriageway, with the entire roof of this construction forming a flat civic square at street level. It was not entirely clear what would be installed in the bunker, although speculation was rife to say the least.

He offered the council £50m towards the cost of this project, which was mooted to cost £140m. This was possibly an optimistic figure since Union Square, a similarly sized shopping mall with none of the technical difficulties or prior excavation work, cost £250m to build. The council felt this offer was too good to refuse, but the some members of the public were up in arms.

Sir Ian decided to put the proposal out to public consultation and promised to walk away should the public reject it.

The ‘consultation’ was commissioned by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (ACSEF), a publicly-funded unelected QUANGO, and conducted by The BiG Partnership, Scotland’s largest PR company.

It many ways it resembled a marketing exercise. The bulk of participation was via a website, which asked several questions with a somewhat loaded feel to them. For technical reasons, the question on whether or not to proceed with the plan defaulted to a YES vote.

If, during completion of the questionnaire, any previously-given responses were subsequently amended, this again defaulted back to a YES vote. When the results were released, it became apparent from the comments sections that may people who had intended voting NO had instead been recorded as YES voters.

Over 10,000 people participated in the consultation, and In spite of it’s technical oversights, the public voted against the Civic Square proposal by 54%-46%, a healthy and significant majority. However the PR machine kicked in and somehow spun that the 202,000 people who had not participated possibly represented a silent majority in favour of this scheme.

Critics described it as a cross between Tellytubby Land and a skate park

Sir Ian decided not to walk away, and the project went to a council vote. The council voted in favour of taking the plan forward at the expense of PVA who by that time had 80% of their £20m funding in place. It has subsequently been alleged that some of the PVA funding was diverted into the new project.

The BiG Partnership now re-launched the plans under a new name, The City Garden Project (CGP). It was claimed that the outcome of the public consultation was that the public were broadly in favour of a garden as opposed to a civic square. Any implication that they were actually in favour of preserving the existing gardens was ignored.

The interested parties now felt that the best option was to redevelop the Gardens by building a five-storey bunker in their place whilst covering over the adjoining railway line and urban dual carriageway, with the entire roof of this construction forming a new garden at street level.

The whole thing had an air of déjà vu.

This time it was decided to hold an international design contest, paid for with public money. Six designs were shortlisted from hundreds of entrants. One, The Granite Web, bore a striking resemblance to Civic Square concept, albeit with less concrete and more greenery. Critics described it as a cross between Tellytubby Land and a skate park.

The local press heavily promoted the Granite Web design from the outset of the contest, leading with it on their front page and providing it with more photo coverage than the other designs. It was almost as though it had been ordained.

The public voted, and spoiled ballots aside, all indications were that The Winter Garden design proved the most popular. An independent poll confirmed this and put The Monolith in second place.

Tellingly both of these designs retained much of the topology of the existing Gardens. Word on the street was that The Granite Web was not a popular choice, but we’ll never know for sure, because a decision was taken not to release the results of the so-called public vote to the public.

It was then announced that the winner of the private-public vote would be put forward to the selection panel, along with another design. The self-appointed selection panel consisted of Sir Ian, some other influential people from the oil industry, an architectural consultant on the project payroll, and a councillor who backed the project.

The two designs discussed were the acknowledged public favourite, The Winter Garden, and you’ve guessed it, the joker in the pack, The Granite Web. When the panel announced the result, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that they had chosen The Granite Web, yet there was a shocked silence, and even those had come out in favour of the redevelopment initially appeared bemused if not downright confused.

The original Civic Square was mooted to cost £140m, with £50m coming from Sir Ian, £20m from the private sector, and the rest to be borrowed through a Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) scheme. Any over-run would be covered by the council (read local taxpayer) .

Only £5m of the private sector contribution has materialised thus far, but there has been an announcement that The Granite Web would be significantly less expensive to build than the previously-envisaged, but somewhat less complex, civic square. Sir Ian has offered to personally fund up to £35M of any cost over runs, should they occur.

The TIF proposal cheerfully bends all the guidelines of TIF funding. TIF is intended to be used to redevelop brownfield sites, with the loan being repaid over a 25 year period through increased rates recouped from any businesses setting up in the redeveloped area. The city council had already approved planning permission for two new industrial estates on the outskirts of town, under the business case for the TIF funding, these new estates become part of the TIF zone, so in The Granite Web’s case, sections of the TIF zone are located several miles away from the actual redeveloped area.

The predictions are for 6,500 jobs and £122m annual revenue to the local economy, all based on the new industrial estates, which have no obvious linkage to The Granite Web, operating at full capacity. Even if one were to accept that any new jobs could be somehow attributed to The Granite Web, the figure of 6,500 seems unlikely given that the London Olympics is only projected to create 3,500 jobs.

Either way, the setup feels a bit shaky; the truth is that these jobs and their associated revenue will accrue with or without The Granite Web.

By this time, councillors seemed to be getting edgy and unwilling to green-light the project, so they decided to hold a public referendum. Any group wishing to campaign was required to adhere to an £8,000 spending limit, and for this they were provided with 300 words of text in the voting pack.

The packs went out, but unfortunately some of the Retain lobby’s statements were mangled due to a ‘computer error’. The voting packs were closely followed by a big money public relations mail bombing campaign by The BiG Partnership promoting The Granite Web. Publicity materials went through every letter box, pro Granite Web articles dominated the press, and adverts were played around the clock on the local radio stations.

Apparently this expenditure was permitted by virtue of being funded by an ‘unregistered’, and as yet anonymous, campaign group – whatever that means! I guess it’s a bit like not having to pay tax because your parents never applied for a birth certificate, who knows? By this point, things were becoming surreal to say the least.

The referendum closes on 1 March and it’s a bitter fight that has divided the city. For example, an oil company boss has made a complaint to the police alleging mail hacking and cyber bullying. The police claim they are taking this allegation seriously. There have also been two arrests possibly related to claims of vote-rigging, but ultimately no one was charged.

The town has gone berserk and it’s civil war all over Facebook. It’s as if we’re all experiencing a really, really bad shared dream. I just dread to think what we’ll all be waking up to on Saturday morning.

The Great City Gardens Project Gravy Train

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 282012

A person might think that a chamber of commerce exists to promote local businesses. Here in Aberdeen this is true as well. But as Aberdeen Voice’s Suzanne Kelly learns – the taxpayer is funding at least some of the PR work for the City Gardens Project – and the Chamber of Commerce and ACSEF seem to be leading the City Council by the nose.

The proposed City Gardens Project/Granite Web is a contentious idea which would see a mix of public and private interests building huge, granite ramps over Union Terrace Gardens.
While this idea may not even get off the ground, it has been a gold mine for some fortunate businesses via the Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce – at the taxpayer’s expense.

This article will primarily deal with money that the City Council was invoiced by the Chamber of Commerce for PR-related work. Before doing so, a little recap of other financial facts will add perspective.

PriceWaterhouse Coopers have come up with some grandiose projections including the creation of some 6,500 permanent jobs and £122 million flowing into Aberdeen every year until c. 2023: all because of the granite web. PriceWaterhouse Coopers were first paid £41,000 and change for TIF-related work in March 2010. Other invoices followed, and so far I have been shown by Scottish Enterprise £71,000 worth of PwC invoices.

These invoices are made out to Scottish Enterprise, and Scottish Enterprise is funded by the taxpayer. Unfortunately, these projections have been seized upon by the press and turned into ‘facts’ (The Press & Journal published these and other items in a box entitled ‘facts and figures’ on 19 January next to an article about the PwC projections and the garden’s many projected benefits).

The unelected and free-spending and secretive ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project Group’ have likewise promoted these figures in their literature as being reliable facts as well. They are projections, and arguably very optimistic ones at that. Whether or not these glowing projections (that we will have more permanent jobs from our web than London expects from its 2012 Olympics) are based on the fact that PwC is being paid by the side that wants to build the web is something the referendum voters may wish to ponder.

A Freedom of Information request I lodged with Scottish Enterprise some time ago revealed (details of which I have previously published) included:-

Item	Description	Date	Amount
1	Technical Feasibility Study to undertake an engineering, cost and design appraisal of the development options for UTG, each incorporating an arts centre.	Jun 2009	£162k
2	Architect, Design & Project management fees for a Contemporary Arts Centre project	Feb 09/May 10	£226k
3	Consultation Report – City Square Project..	Mar 2010	£113,915
4	Union Terrace Gardens (TIF)-Tax Increment Financing	Mar 10 Oct 10 Nov 10	£71,959.65
5	Scottish Enterprise holds 22 copies of invoices relating to ACSEF approved spend for activities relating to stakeholder engagement, events management, and communcations. [sic]	2009-10 2010-11	£51,766.60 £22,712.72

(source – Scottish Enterprise email exchange with Suzanne Kelly May 2011)

While this £648,000 was being spent, Aberdeen City Council was battling with potential job and service cuts in order to balance its books. It seems that these costs have largely been paid by the taxpayer via Scottish Enterprise and other vehicles, and I can find nothing to show that the Wood Family Trust, which has offered £50,000,000 to further the project, has paid towards any of these costs. The PR and promotional invoices referred to at Item 5 have been paid by the Aberdeen City taxpayer.

Before moving on to Item 5, which is the subject of this article, some of these other items are worth a further glance.

At Item 2 you will notice we are now talking about some kind of ‘Contemporary Arts Centre project’ – is Peacock already being edged out of the picture at this point?

Item 4 would seem to correspond to PriceWaterhouse Coopers invoices which I referred to. How much more money has been spent on PWC since this May 2011 exchange is unknown.

From what I have been subsequently sent by Scottish Enterprise, the bulk of the invoices at Item 5 were from the Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce to the City Council. In the words of Scottish Enterprise:-

9 invoices relate to financial year 2009/10 – these total £51,766.60

16 invoices relate to financial year 2010/11 – these total £36,692.95. This total is higher than the original figure stated due to the invoices received after the date of that response
There has been no spend on the City Garden Project from the ACSEF budget during the current financial year (SK notes – it is only February – there is time)

(source – Scottish Enterprise email to Suzanne Kelly February 2012)

Arguably a mere £88,459 is small change as Aberdeen City contemplates borrowing £92,000,000 (minimum) if the project goes ahead. However, this is money which the City paid from its own budgets – it is taxpayer money. Should a financially-pressured city use pubic money for propaganda purposes – PR, events and photos designed to promote the City Garden Project? Is the Wood Family Trust contributing any money towards these expenses yet? I simply do not know.

A spreadsheet of the expenses comprising Item 5 can be found online at http://oldsusannahsjournal.yolasite.com/ I would recommend looking at these 50 or so items.

If you look at the wording in the table above, ACSEF is apparently approving this expenditure. ACSEF is a public-private quango, and at the time of writing, Stewart Milne is on its board. He owns the Triple Kirks land adjacent to Union Terrace Gardens, and he wants to turn this landmark into an office complex which will likely enrich him if it goes ahead in my opinion.

Despite several emails, no one in a position of power has the slightest qualm with Mr Milne potentially having a conflict of interest. Why precisely ACSEF is allowed to commission and recommend for payment invoices to the City Council is a matter I personally find worrying.

Virtually none of the invoices from the Chamber to the City specify who / what company actually performed the services in question. What company got all the PR work? Who took the photos? I do note that Zoe Corsi of the BIG Partnership is on the Chamber’s Board of Directors – as are other key players such as Tom Smith, one of the two directors of the private entity, Aberdeen City Gardens Trust. This company seems to be in the thick of the decision-making processes; it is apparently the company which is holding onto the results of the design finalist public vote – which it refuses to release at present.

The taxpayer apparently paid for that exhibition and the public vote – and yet a private company seems to be withholding the results. The argument has been put forth that it is no longer relevant. Many people took the opportunity to write on the voting papers that they were against all the schemes and wanted the gardens retained and improved.

The public should have had this ‘no’ option at the final selection vote, but it seems councillors who asked for a ‘no’ option were outmoded by the Project Management Board (note – see the website listed previously for details of how all these companies and entities have interesting personnel overlaps).

It may be of interest to accountants that the party which actually performed the work not specified on these invoices, and with only a rare exception is VAT ever charged. It would be interesting to know whether or not the Chamber of Commerce adds any fees or commission charges to the work it is invoicing the City for.

Highlights of the list of invoices include:-

£180 paid for a photograph showing ‘inaccessibility of Union Terrace Gardens’
over £25,000 paid for ‘Stakeholder engagement’ events and so on since October 2009 to August 2010
£3500 paid to ‘Comedia’ for Charles Landry to attend event / speak
Redacted line items and handwritten notes adorn several of the invoices
One invoice – No. 42407 shows only one line relating to ‘coach hire’ – this is £246. However, the total shown on this one page invoice is for £7444 – what has happened?
A January 2010 Advertising bill from Aberdeen Press & Journals for £ 2,820 ( See: http://fraserdenholm.blogspot)
£11,000 in February 2010 charged from the Chamber to the City for “Development of images, movie, powerpoint and exhibition material for City Square Project as per attached sheets”

As to the redacted text on the invoices, redacted text has started showing up in Project Monitoring Board minutes and reports again, despite Councillor McCaig’s previous intervention to cease this practice. One company which has had its name redacted from recent documentation is Brodies.

The value of three Brodies invoices which I received copies of is around £12,000. One of these invoices from April 2011 is for:

“City Gardens Project – Development Constraints Report (Legal [sic] To fee for professional services in connection with the preparation of a development constraints report relating to the title of Union Terrace Gardens, Aberdeen, and surrounding land.”

I suppose our City’s in-house legal department cannot be expected to know whether or not it has free title to Union Terrace Gardens. Happily, experts have demonstrated the land is Common Good Land. As such, whether any of these garden projects can or should be legitimately carried out will be a big question in the future.

Earlier we saw how ACSEF was allowed to recommend these expenditures; we have seen how the Chamber of Commerce invoices the City for ACSEF-approved costs. If we were to put in some of the over-lapping names from ACSEF and the Chamber of Commerce into the equation, we would be able to see that:

ACSEF [including Stewart Milne, Jennifer Craw (of Wood Family Trust), Tom Smith (Director, Aberdeen City Gardens Trust), Colin Crosby (Director, Aberdeen City Gardens Trust), Callum McCaig (ACC) ]

approved invoices generated by the Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce [Colin Crosby; Zoe Corsi (BIG Partnership) , former director Tom Smith]

for the City Council [Callum McCaig]

to approve to further the aims of the Garden Project (CGP entity members include John Michie, Colin Crosby, Jennifer Craw).

Given the above, I suggest that the time is right for an entire re-think of how this project has been allowed to develop, and a full investigation into the demise of the Peacock plan and an investigation into the genesis of the current state of affairs might not be a bad idea as well.

While this is going on, a local care home has announced it will no longer provide 24/7 on-site staff as there is not enough money. Residents were told to drink less fluids at night time.

Aberdeen Against Austerity Responds

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, News, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 232012

Aberdeen Against Austerity, a group campaigning against the £140m redevelopment of the historic Union Terrace Gardens, has released the following statement in response to the P&J article headlined, “Police probe attacks on city garden team” of 21 February 2012. The statement is published verbatim as received by Voice with only minor graphical changes made to AAA’s release to comply with Voice’s house style.

These allegations by Mr Smith and as yet unnamed others are strong indeed – e-mail hacking, online bullying and harassment and personal threats are all criminal offences.
We at Aberdeen Against Austerity are not responsible for any of the alleged offences and do not believe any of our fellow Retain Union Terrace Gardens campaigners would stoop so low either.

We are opposed to unlawful tactics being employed by anyone in this important debate over the future of our city, as dirty tricks cheapen both sides’ arguments. However, we worry that the sensational coverage of these criminal allegations in the Press & Journal and Evening Express will serve as a deterrent to ordinary people speaking out, who oppose the City Gardens Development.

The referendum campaign is being fought on a far from level playing field. Six of the seven groups registered against the development are comprised of ordinary citizens (the 7th being the group of Labour City Councillors). By registering as campaign groups we have all been bound by the referendum rules, which allow a maximum spend of £8,524.45, although most groups have no budget at all.

Of the pro-development campaign groups, only three are registered, allowing the vast majority of campaigning to be done outwith the rules, and at huge expense, by PR company The BIG Partnership on behalf of those who propose the City Garden Project. Their Vote for the City Garden campaign has so far included 4-page flyers and newspaper-style brochures to every house in the city, constant radio advertising on all the local stations, a Facebook page manned by full time staff and daily coverage in the local newspapers.

As with any modern debate, much campaigning is being done online and this is where Mr Smith alleges bullying is taking place. Both sides are being equally forthright in their postings on social media, but Aberdeen Against Austerity are certainly not interpreting the strong wording of some of our opponents as bullying or harassment.

We have chosen to rise above any personal slurs and engage in debate based upon facts and we can still have a wee smile at those posts which satirise us and our efforts, because as Aberdonians we retain a sense of humour.

Aberdeen Against Austerity wonders if Sir Ian Wood, who has donated £50m of his own money to the controversial City Gardens Project, will be reporting local comedians Flying Pig Productions to the police for this week’s P&J column The Butter-Fingered Philanthropist.

BIG Pizza Party Fails To Deliver

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, News No Responses »

Feb 212012

With an armful of flyers promoting various pro ‘Retain Union Terrace Gardens’ groups, Aberdeen Voice’s Suzanne Kelly headed to the first of two ‘pizza parties’ thrown by the secretive ‘Vote For The City Gardens Project’ group. Suzanne was unable to give away more than four flyers – because less than a half dozen students turned up to hear the pro CGP message.

If the promise of free food to students isn’t enough to lure more than 5 or 6 people, things are looking bleak for the VFTCGP, and bleaker still for PR agency, BIG Partnership.
VftCGP, on their official Facebook page, announced last week there would be two ‘free pizza!’ events thrown for students; a free pizza dinner was theirs and all they had to do was show up to hear a pro-City Garden Project lecturer – Paul Robertson.
At first most FB readers assumed this was a spoof thrown by the ‘Retain UTG’ groups – but no, this was actually someone’s idea of a vote-winner.

We all know the proverb about the incompetent who can’t even arrange a drinking session in a brewery; but I was unprepared for what must be the biggest non-event in history.

The Facebook invitations simply read:

“Free Pizza And Information Night! Come join us for free pizza and a chat with Paul Robertson about the City Garden Project on Monday 20th February, between 6pm and 7pm at the RGU: Union”.

Thinking back to my RGU course days, I thought a. how insulted I would be at someone blatantly trying to buy my opinion – with pizza no less, and b. how often I could have found a free meal very handy indeed. This event would be packed. The invites were also sent to staff and students. I thought of a massive collective of outsiders and RGU students and staff competing for quickly-disappearing ‘American Hots’ and ‘Hawaiians’ before a slick presentation from BIG.

BIG must be making a huge amount of money from the referendum – it is doing some if not all of the official City Gardens Project group’s PR, as well as work for the ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project’ group. This last group, VftCGP is allowed to spend and write whatever it wants without any external controls.

They were behind the A3 glossy colour brochure filled with ‘concept’ drawings in lurid pastel colours (or ‘vibrant and dynamic’ colours – depending on your outlook); these brochures were delivered not only to city voters, but also to shire non-voters. Perhaps this was the first sign of many mistakes and gaffes to come?

I arrived late; it was 5:50pm. Had I missed the free pizza?

Would I get through the crowds? Would I be admitted? I went to the RGU Union reception desk, and was told the event was really only for RGU students.

“How many are already signed in?” I asked.

“You’re the first one.” came the reply.

It was explained that I needed to be signed in by a RGU Union member. A tumbleweed rolled by.

Eventually a man arrived who explained he’d received the invitation which said nothing about it being only for students. Is it possible that BIG didn’t get all the little details right – like who should be allowed in? It seemed so. The reception desk got in touch with someone – presumably the organisers and we were allowed to attend the event. It was almost 6pm.

A sea of empty chairs and a few sofas greeted our eyes. We were the first two arrivals.

My friend and I went to the designated area. The song by The Specials, ‘Ghost Town’ went through my mind. Two students played pool further off. A man tended the food/drink area. Three BIG PR professionals (who looked like students to me) were fumbling with a screen, a laptop and a projector.

There was me and my new friend, who if possible was even more against the concept of building ramps over UTG than I was.

A sea of empty chairs and a few sofas greeted our eyes. We were the first two arrivals. We sat in the back of 8 or 9 rows; the chairs of which had all been covered with a copy of The Granite Web newspaper, and a fetching postcard of the concept drawing captioned “Wish You Were Here?”. It crossed my mind the organisers must have wished people were here, too. But no one was.

My new friend explained to me his position against the CGP. He had attended a meeting in the days of the consultation; Sir Ian Wood had addressed a group of Health & Social Sciences faculty and staff at the Garthdee campus. My friend said:-

“I was there all that time ago, and Sir Ian Wood told a group of about 24 of us that if the consultation showed that people didn’t want the gardens developed, then he would walk away. He walked away all right – and came back.”

My new friend was not happy.

“I know people have their own opinions about what should happen to Union Terrace Gardens,” he said; “but I object to PR people muddying the waters. Instead of corporate BS we need facts and honest debate.”

It was approximately 10 minutes after 6. It was three people fumbling with technology, and my friend and I at the back. Had any PR professionals come over to introduce themselves? Welcome us? Offer out any pizza? No.

But what was this? Two male students showed up. They looked at eachother, then at the empty seats. They sat in the front row. As they didn’t seem to have been made welcome by the professional BIG team, I wandered over.

“I can’t buy you any pizza,” I explained; “and I can’t afford any print or radio commercials. However, I’d like to offer you some literature just so you can see the other side to the coin.”

“I’m a social work student, and I’m not in favour of this plan.” one of them said. He spoke about money, and seemed to know quite a bit about this nebulous scheme.

They took my literature. One of the PR bods – a woman with dark hair, watched this little exchange between the student and I, and looked for all the world as if cold water had been poured on her. It kind of had.

It was 6.15 now. There had been no welcome to the visitors. There was no presentation ready to roll.

There was a Lady Gaga video playing over the pool table which made as much architectural sense as the Granite Web newspapers thay lay unread and unwanted on the empty chairs. And – there was no pizza.

What was that? Three more people had arrived. I repeated the procedure and gave them flyers too. It seemed that was all they were going to get.

“Does anyone know how to work presentations?” one of the BIG crew asked. Answer came there none.

My friend admitted to me he knew all the ins and outs, as did I. But by now things were getting poignant, and moved by pity for the fumbling threesome, I simply had to leave.

I made my farewells to my new friend, who promised to call me if anything exciting happened, if the numbers swelled, or if the pizza showed up. I do not expect to hear from him.

“I went to that fly-through thing at the art gallery. I really don’t know what decade they were trying to capture.”

I thanked him and headed off. Just as I turned to leave, it seemed the three-man crew managed to power up the projector. A yawn of excitement emanated from the four or five remaining hungry students. Perhaps I’ve missed the public relations event of the year. Well, there is always tomorrow at Aberdeen University at 6.30 pm. Then again, I think I’l lbe washing my hair.

As I turned to leave, more than 15 minutes after the advertised start time, I think one of the three began to speak. The film ‘Withnail and I’ came to mind. At the end of this film the unequalled Richard E Grant gives a rendition of Hamlet’s famed soliliquoy to a collection of animals at the Regents’ Park zoo. He is brilliant, but there was no one there to appreciate his message.

Poor BIG. Poor paying clients of BIG. Richard E might have had no audience, but at least he had something important, heartfelt and honest to say.

Picture Credit: Renee Slater

Democracy For Dummies?

Articles, Community, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 292011

By Dave Watt.

Democracy – The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves. The Cambridge Online Dictionary

Democracy is one of our modern society’s buzzwords and we all nowadays accept it as a given that stable communities should be free and democratic.
Democracy to us is a positive concept but in our history it is only in the last hundred and fifty years or so that Britain has embraced the idea of democracy.

Previous to this it was regarded, particularly by our rulers as being neither more nor less than rule by a howling mob.

It is, in fact, less than eighty-five years since women over 21 were allowed to vote and less than 100 years since august journals such as the Times’ editorial announced that:

“The suffragettes are a regrettable by-product of our civilisation, out with their hammers and their bags full of stones because of dreary, empty lives and highstrung, over-excitable natures“

About the same time, the good bit less august Daily Sketch , declared that:

“The name of a suffragette will stink throughout recorded history”

Obviously tabloid journalism was alive and kicking the underdog even back in 1912.

One might think that having achieved universal adult suffrage in 1928 that Britain had been a full modern democracy since then. However, there were still such corrupt anomalies on the go as the businessman’s vote whereby a business owner was given a vote for each shop or establishment he owned as well as a vote for his home address.

In addition, the gerrymandering of votes in Northern Ireland by the Protestant Establishment ensured that the native Catholic population was continually on the wrong end of the electoral process. In fact, one Protestant businessman actually had forty-three votes and although this was an extreme case, many of Ulster’s ruling Protestant elite had multiple votes until the Irish Civil Rights Movement of the mid 1960s.

However, here we are in the twenty-first century with universal suffrage for those over eighteen, nobody asks your religion when you turn up at the polling station and we would regard anyone campaigning to curtail women’s voting rights as being something of a loose screw.

In addition, the candidate will spend large chunks of their working week in Parliament and nowhere near the constituency in question

So, do we live in a democracy where one person’s vote is worth the same as another’s? Unfortunately not. If you live in a key marginal constituency – you will get an inordinate amount of media coverage, assorted party leaders will turn up and tell you and you fellow voters what a fine, discerning, intelligent electorate you are.

Your vote will be sought after by phone and occasionally by canvasser and you will be generally coaxed, cajoled and pleaded with to vote for Party A over Party B or vice versa.

However, if you live in a firmly committed area where they simply weigh the vote for Party A or B you will be largely ignored apart from the usual leaflets and the odd party political broadcast. The committed voter, like the poor, is always with us and, like the poor, can be safely ignored by any astute politician on the make.

Voting Systems – There are several types of voting system. The most common in Britain is First Past the Post (or FPTP). This is where a people in an electoral constituency vote for one candidate to represent that constituency. While this is ostensibly fair it is deeply flawed, as the list below will show by a specimen election result.

Aberdeen East

Total Electorate in Constituency 50,000 voters

Candidate A (Longer Sticks on Lollipops Party) 13,000 votes

Candidate B (Shorter Sticks on Lollipops Party) 12,000 votes

Candidate C (Don’t Waste Precious Wood on Lollipop Sticks Party) 10,000 votes

Candidate D (It’s a Bloody Shame the Poor Can’t Afford Lollipops Party) 5,000 votes

Turn out 80%

As you can see from this, although the Longer Sticks on Lollipops Party have won the seat they represent less than a third of the votes cast and in parliament will actually be representing the wishes of just over one fifth of the electorate despite a massive 80% turn out.

this is not much cop when it comes to electing people who are willing to represent the public’s interests

Consequently, bearing in mind that it would be a bold back-bencher indeed who would stand against the wishes of his political overlords (and their pet lobbyists) it looks like the poor voters in Aberdeen East better get bloody used to having longer sticks on their lollipops for the foreseeable future.

The defenders of this system frequently mump on about how important it is to have constituency member of parliament who will be dedicated to that area alone and will be accessible to its residents – obviously forgetting that candidates are more than occasionally parachuted in as a constituency candidate from outwith the area and that most MPs or MSPs will actually be able to answer a phone, read a letter or an e-mail while the brighter ones will even have learned how to read texts on their Blackberry.

In addition, the candidate will spend large chunks of their working week in Parliament and nowhere near the constituency in question.

The next style of voting system is the Single Transferable Vote (or STV) which I have been obliged to do the tedious arithmetic for on several occasions and the details of which I will not go into here, as you would be fast asleep by the time I had finished (if you aren’t already). Suffice it to say that each voter gets several votes and lists them in preference order and the lowest voted candidate is removed then the next etc. until one of the top few are elected.

This is probably more democratic than first past the post but is probably best suited for choosing your student representative when you’re at university than a political contest. This is used in local council elections, so you can see by recent events in Aberdeen that this is not much cop when it comes to electing people who are willing to represent the public’s interests but mainly keeps the same old faces in power while pretending to be a bit more democratic.

There was a move afoot after 2003 to have this system replace the Parliamentary List System – presumably by those in Holyrood who objected to having their cosy little club invaded by a crowd of Greens and Socialists in that year.

The Parliamentary List System (or Regional Ballot) is probably the most democratic of the systems at present in use in the UK but is only used in Scotland and Wales.

It’s democratic and it’s simple and most countries in Western Europe use it and have been using it for over fifty years

The principle behind the list system is that the voters second vote is for a political party within a larger electoral area known as a region. (A region is formed by grouping together between eight and ten constituencies.) There are eight Scottish Parliament regions and each region has seven additional seats in the Parliament.

The MSPs chosen to fill these 56 additional seats are known as regional MSPs. Regional MSPs are allocated seats using a formula which takes into account the number of constituency seats that an individual or party has already won.

However, the outright winner in any serious democracy contest would undoubtedly be Proportional Representation (PR), which is remarkably simple whereby every one in the country votes and all the votes are added up, and each party is allocated seats in the parliament according to the percentage of the votes they have been given. It’s democratic and it’s simple and most countries in Western Europe use it and have been using it for over fifty years.

Why don’t we? Mostly it is more of the previous objection to the aforesaid cosy little club being invaded by those pesky troublemaking Green and Socialist radicals who are presumably closed to the blandishments of the lobbyists, who infest the corridors of power like poisonous termites, busily undermining the democratic process for big business interests.

Voting
Despite the title of Ken Livingstone’s 1987 book pointing out:‘If Voting Changed Anything They’d Abolish It’, Should you bother to vote? Yes, you probably should, ideally. An awful lot of people fought an awful long time to get you a vote so you should probably get down there and stick that cross down. You never know.

From their point of view an oppressive Conservative government got into power in 1979 and has stayed there ever since

One day the electorate might get it right and we might find ourselves with a government that cares for the old, sick and impoverished, has everybody in a house and a job, doesn’t send poor kids from depressed areas off to kill other people’s kids for oil and profit and cares for the environment. You never know.

Who does vote and who doesn’t vote?
Affluent people tend to vote and the poorer people seem not to. Figures in Scotland show that there can be up to a 15-20% difference in voting figures between poorer and richer neighbourhoods even within the same constituency on occasions.

Why is this? Basically what the underprivileged have seen for the past thirty years is an ongoing attack on their quality of life by a succession of right wing free market supporting governments. From their point of view an oppressive Conservative government got into power in 1979 and has stayed there ever since. Consequently, their disenchantment with government and the democratic process has meant that this has taken a back seat to the struggle for a decent life.

In addition, with the advent of the Poll Tax, which was effectively a Sod-The-Poor-Tax many people on the poorer end of society became disenfranchised and simply dropped off the electoral roll by simply being unable to afford to pay the Poll Tax. Its replacement by the almost-as-unfair-Council Tax has obviously not induced these people to get back on the electoral roll.

From an electoral view the parties which have traditionally suffered most from this, have been the socialists who have considerably more support within the poorer sections of society but owing to this disillusion and the aforementioned virtual disenfranchisement have been consistently punching below their weight at election time. Even when they are doing well (and don’t have their hands round each other’s throats, vigorously choking the electoral life out of each other as the SSP and Solidarity are doing at present) this factor reduces their electoral impact.

Who pays for a political party’s election funds?
There is a strange sideways jump in public morality about election funding. To keep it simple: large financial concerns of various kinds will bankroll political certain parties election funding on the expectation that when the party gets into power then the large financial concern can reasonably expect the party in government to enact legislation which will increase their profitability. They are seldom disappointed in this.

Needless to say, whereas this would be regarded as mere bribery and corruption in everyday life, in politics it is just regarded as the norm. For example, Abraham Lincoln, on being elected back in 1861, discovered his Republican party had promised enormous and unrealistic concessions to so many business concerns that, being quizzed a few weeks after the election as to why he was looking so glum, famously replied that “There’s just too many pigs for the teats”.

The Last Word on Democracy
When I was a kid there was a series on TV about an idealistic young US senator which had an impressive voice over at the start, which said:

“Democracy is a bad form of government…but all the others are so much worse“.

Something to think about anyway.

Older Entries

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

Above the Law? How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Democracy: Labouring the Point

SNP Sniping