New row over C-charge ad
28/11/2008
A NEW war of words has broken out between the two sides in the congestion charge battle after TV watchdogs ruled an advert on the controversial plan was biased in favour of the Yes Campaign.
The £230,000 ad, fronted by the former BBC presenter Martin Henfield, was broadcast by Granada between November 6 and 13 before being pulled when complaints arrived.
Ofcom yesterday ruled that the advert was ‘directed to a political end’ and ‘showed partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy’.
There were fears that the ad could lead to a referendum on the issue being scrapped.
Continue
But Sir Neil McIntosh, returning officer for the referendum, said the vote would continue as planned.
The ad was commissioned by Greater Manchester’s 10 councils and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. The councils are bidding for more than £2.75bn from the government’s Transport Innovation Fund, including £318m to set up the peak-hour, weekday charge. £1.2bn would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.
The all-postal referendum on the issue started this week and will close on December 11.
Ofcom investigators said the time allocated in the advert to the consequences of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes was ‘weighteding significantly towards the ‘yes’ result’.
“The presentation and tone of the consequences of the two outcomes was uneven,” they said. “We have concluded that the advertisement showed partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.”
The watchdog also expressed concerns about a website set up by the councils and the GMPTE, which featured prominently on the ad. The site –
www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk – provided ‘information on a matter of public controversy’ that was ‘partial in respect of the transport funding bid and the prospective congestion charge’, said Ofcom.
“The website contained material that was almost exclusively in support of the congestion charge and a ’yes’ vote,” it added.
Ofcom raised specific concerns about a page of press releases with titles such as ’Unions welcome TIF job injection’ and ’New research has revealed almost 10,000 new jobs could be created in Greater Manchester as a result of the TIF package’.
The site has since been changed, with the releases removed and new links to both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns.
There were fears the referendum would have to be scrapped because leaflets sent out with referendum ballot papers included a link to the website as a source of ‘further information’.
Planned
But Sir Neil McIntosh, returning officer for the referendum, said the vote would continue as planned.
“I understand that the Ofcom verdict, in as far as it relates to the website, refers mainly to items which had already been removed before the ballot papers were issued,” he said. “It does not reflect its current contents. I am advised that the website now includes links to the No and Yes campaigns which provide access to a range of contrasting viewpoints.”
A spokesman for the TIF bid stressed that the ruling - of a total of two breaches of the TV Advertising Code - was technically against Granada for showing the advert. But he said he was ’dismayed’ by Ofcom’s decision, branding it ‘unbalanced and unjustified’.
“The advert was professionally commissioned, the script was examined by leading counsel to ensure balance, and the final advert was approved by Clearcast, the independent body appointed by broadcasters,” he said.
But Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley, agreed the vote should continue but said: “These materials, paid for by the taxpayer, clearly overstep every boundary in terms of bias.
“Misleading information is also now landing on doormats across Greater Manchester. How can we retain any level of trust in those behind this scheme, when they have so deliberately sought to distort the facts?”
Lis Phelan, chair of the ‘yes’ campaign, said: “The time has come for everybody to drop this obsession with adverts, websites and the wording of ballot papers. Let’s just get on and vote.”
A whopping 84% THINK this advert to be biased per a MEN poll.
Readers' letters to Bolton/Bury/Salford/Manchester/Wigan press seem to indicate objection to the charge.
My sisters, brother and family who live in this area report that shopkeepers are only too willing to display the NO posters and take up car stickers and badges to hand out. Customers in these shops also declare their opposition .. even if they do not drive
as they foresee hike in prices at a time when they can ill afford such.
Many doubt the "improvements to public transport" Many worry it will go "over budget". Alll say the buses in peak rush hours are full already and are fairly punctual every 20 minutes. You cannot have more buses in reality else you have a "traffic jam of buses"
There are no plans to improve stations. Also you can only fit so many folding prams and wheelchairs on a bus. Cyclists cannot use the tram to Oldham whereas they could use the train.
In short .., it looks like a raw deal and a dead pup. Ill thought out and no one really knows what they are voting for .. other than a lame duck.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
This road flows nicely by virtue of its width. It also has a pretty decent cycle lane already along it. A high speed bus can hardly be good news for the cyclists here.
)
I suspected that within minutes of the massive 
Yes camp would put all their lies and spin to work. Don't be complacent. I think they'll try again.