How independent is independent?

A great post from punkscience, discussing the sinister use of allegedly 'independent' organisations to propagate the opinions of whoever is paying the cheque. This technique isn't limited to corporate 'think-tanks' or 'independent analysts' - the state isn't afraid to use a bit of the old 'independent' subterfuge to mislead the public too.

It reminded me of how our local education bodies on Tyneside were marshalled to produce a teaching resource website called 'xingthetyne' to promote the second Tyne Tunnel project. The creators of the website, South Tyneside and North Tyneside Education Business Partnerships, (along with the education departments of North and South Tyneside prostituting themselves to the cause) claimed it was to encourage student participation in democracy and citizenship. But all of the information on the website came exclusively from the tunnel sponsors, and naturally represented their views. Despite the objections to the tunnel, none of the opposition viewpoints were represented in the material.

One question was 'Why do we need a second tunnel?', instead of analysing if there was a 'need' for a new tunnel. A clear case of teaching children what to think instead of how to think. I wonder if the genius who wrote this beauty is now spending their time compiling consultation questionnaires for South Tyneside Council.

What was meant to be an independent educational resource was little more than a marketing tool to sell roads to kids and perpetuate the 'car is king' culture, and received some enthusiastic support from Labour leader Councillor Paul Waggott.

The 'xingthetyne' site now seems to have disappeared into the internet ether, apparently no longer needed now the mission to get permission to build the tunnel has been successful.

I'm now expecting the local waste partnership to sponsor a new educational resource "How incinerators are great and getting cancer from the shit they spew out isn't too bad actually."

Darling's new northern bail out

In tonight's BBC Look North item on the Tyne Tunnel we witnessed the BBC becoming PR company to the second the Tyne road tunnel. Even the lead-in had a 'dynamic' soundtrack like some crappy company presentation. In this Tunnel-friendly puff piece, brought to us by reporter Damien Lewis, the BBC painted the tunnel as the only possible solution to crossing the Tyne and failed to mention anything about the opposition to the tunnel, the noise and particulate pollution and extra CO2 emissions.

So much for journalistic balance at the BBC.

There was however a startling revelation - that 50% of the money will come from government borrowing. The last press release from the Tunnel chiefs said that the 50 per cent borne by the PTA would be through so-called "Prudential Borrowing", which is a nice way of giving plain and simple borrowing a somehow less offensive appearance. If the new funding arrangement announced by the BBC is true, and not a journalistic error (what's the chances?), this means that the Tunnel may become another beneficiary of Alistair Darling's largesse, and in more ways than one.

When Alistair Darling was Secretary of State for Transport, he gave the go ahead for the tunnel, and in his justification he commented:

"...the Secretary of State is satisfied that the NTC scheme is reasonably capable of attracting the funds necessary to secure its implementation by means of the concession agreement proposed by the TWPTA."

No doubt based upon what the Inspector said in his final report:

"There is an active market for road and crossing PPPs [public private partnerships]. On this basis, and assuming that market conditions remain favourable for this type of project and that contractual negotiations proceed successfully, then the NTC is reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funding."

So the Inspector and Darling both agreed, even falling for the PTA's line that the tunnel would even make so much moolah that the Tunnel could also fund public transport initiatives elsewhere. So now we get to a sticky situation where things are not as rosy - a concessionaire which won't take the full bill, as first presented to the Inspector, and now a chill in the lending markets. Darling gave the go ahead for the tunnel, and if the report is right, he's going to be writing (at least) a £130m cheque for it too.

Lies, damn lies and educational resources

South Tyneside Council leader Councillor Paul Waggott has decided to play the legacy card for the second Tyne Tunnel (thanks for the nod Curly) stating magniloquently that "a new generation now stands to benefit from the second Tyne Tunnel" in his support for new internet-based 'teaching materials' prepared by the North Tyneside Education Business Partnership.

This isn't the first time the North Tyneside Education Business Partnership and the Tyne Tunnel bods have got together to provide pro tunnel educational materials. Their previous stunt pretending to be an educational resource was known as 'Xingthetyne', which had a pro tunnel 2 bias of the like which would normally be considered unacceptable outside schools teaching Creationism as a science.

It's not surprising given that a lot of political reputation rests on the Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Authority's pet project. Even the Lib Dem council in Newcastle turned two faced and gave the tunnel it's full support, despite what Lib Dem leaders said about road building not working. You could argue that such propaganda stinks of totalitarian control of our childrens' minds to meet political ends.

Of course road builders like the TWPTA would say we 'need' the tunnel, and would do their most to support their position. Further, the education departments in North and South Tyneside belong to councils which are both members of the TWPTA and support the second Tyne Tunnel so any lack of balance in the materials may not be so rigorously examined.

I haven't seen the new Key Stage 3 and 4 resources (you've got to register to access them) but with the travesty that was Xingthetyne you could ask why would any school want anything to do with the new Key Stage 3 and 4 materials from North Tyneside Education Business Partnership? It's a bit like fast food giants or tobacco manufacturers being allowed to distribute to schools 'educational resources' which mention their products.

I'm looking forward to the first bright student asking why we are building more road space when it's proven that building more roads doesn't reduce traffic? Or why we are encouraging more traffic when we are supposed to be reducing CO2 emissions?


Coun Waggott also tells us that "It is timely that young people in both boroughs understand why a second tunnel needs to be built". Why indeed? Let's see what the tunnel inquiry inspector said.

The Inspector who nodded the tunnel through was also bit vague on the benefits issue and despite his decision to favour the project go ahead (from www.tyne-crossings.org) made the following observations:

"the NTC (New Tyne Crossing) would substantially increase the number of journeys taken by private car"

"the NTC would not reduce journey lengths, but would increase them significantly"

"there's very little chance of better bus services"

"I see little to prevent the spare capacity realised being utilised by additional cars"

"a linear or corridor development of this sort can only deflect from the creation of sustainable communities"

"such locations [of employment opportunities opened up by the NTC] are less sustainable and unlikely to further the reality of sustainable communities"

I'll bet you'll not see these comments from the Inspector in the learning materials.