leyton.org

I’ve blogged a number of times about the Go Ape proposal (here on the consultation, here, and here), and last night went along to the Save Pollok Park public meeting. The Herald does a much better job at summarising it than I can manage (and believe me, I tried). The BBC is also starting to pick up on the story. But the key points, and my views, might be worth of summarising.

By the papers estimations 700 people attended, with over 100 of them unable to even get inside the room. By any measure that is a stunning turnout. I also think Tristram Mayhew, co-founder of Go Ape, did a good job in difficult circumstances: I don’t think (many) people in the audience dislike like what his company does (Indeed, I’m quite keen to go up to Aberfoyle and try it myself sometime). We just disagree about it’s place in Pollok Park. There is a report that they’ll not come here against the wishes of Glasgow. Hopefully they’ll take note of the strength of feeling on show last night.

As the paper reports, that tempers boiled over is certain, but the real losers were the Labour councillors who seemed intent on shouting down the audience when they were heckled when they refused to answer questions. The event was filmed, so I’m sure the ‘highlights’ will appear somewhere soon. I gather it was Councillor Ruth Simpson, executive member for land and environment who did the ‘best’ job of making a fool of herself and her colleagues when she shouted (and pointed at the public rather rudely and disdainfully) “We have made a full consultation, and you did not respond”. This after an earlier failed attempt to seize the microphone without permission from the chair.

Ruth was clearly not listening to the meeting (why am I not surprised?). People didn’t respond because they did not know about it. Putting flyers in supermarkets and schools, when regular park users were not approached, is simply not a consultation. A website page that was poorly advertised and hard to find (believe me, I tried), is not a consultation. It was a false consultation, one that was engineered to get the result they wanted: It has the horrible smell of gerrymandering about it.

Nicola Sturgeon was the only elected representative present who did themselves proud. She challenged the council to “pause and reopen the public consultation”. There was no response forthcoming from the council (but a lot of attempts to waffle), and much of the ill-temper resulted from her well phrased and neutral question.

There was a suggestion that one of councillors had said (I gather on the public record) that “if people want peace and tranquility, they should go to a library“Councillor Paul Coleshill (Lib Dem, Langside, who opposes the plan) has posted to advise that Colin Deans (SNP, and supportive of the plan) has suggested opposing the plan implies “You are against the laughter of children” and “If you want quiet, go to a library”. More in the comments section below. It speaks volumes to me of the attitude of the supporters that they would suggest such a thing.

The cynic in me thinks that politics is playing a serious role too. Perhaps the Labour councillors viewed those present as not being their natural constituency, and can therefore be ignored? It’s the only reason I can think of for their intransigence in such a meeting. I’d suggest if that is the case, that is a serious miscalculation (as well as negligent about their responsibilities once elected). It struck me as a broad and representative base of local opinion. But with a decades old Labour domination, Glasgow council is now elected on a proportional basis, so they’d do well to bear that in mind before going any further.

There also appears to be a serious breakdown in communication between the National Trust for Scotland and the council. Robert Booth, the ‘bullish’ proponent of the idea, seemed disparaging of the NTS’s lack of response. The NTS seemed to feel the normal process hadn’t been followed. Whatever the story, the National Trust for Scotland is not an organisation to be ignored, especially given their important role in the park, and further demonstrates to me that the consultation was not extensive.

The chair did a brilliant, and ruthlessly neutral job. I think most present warmed to her over the course of the evening as she had a tough job with hecklers, grandstanding from councillors, and an emotive subject to deal with. Being able to switch of a microphone is power indeed.

A key suggestion came from the Save Pollok Park campaign’s summation. Where’s the detail to the plan to make the parks more appealing, and why is it that the Go Ape proposal is the only option? Where’s the wider council strategy that this is a part of? There isn’t one, or at least there isn’t one that is coherent. This is a piecemeal and poorly considered proposal, and it’s simply wrong for Pollok Park.

The council would do well to take head of the strength and size of opinion at the meeting, most of whom feel the council is walking rough shod over a dearly loved part of Glasgow, a wonderful and generous donation that has already been developed in various ways. It’s time to stop, and leave alone the only part of the park that remains undeveloped.

See also

• Save Pollok Park
• The Herald’s coverage of the public meeting
• Front page story on the Evening Times!
• Save Pollok Park facebook group
• Glasgow Council’s ‘consultation’
• G41 should be in every southsiders bookmarks. It’s how I found out about the consultation and got my objection in. They were present too
• My follow-up post on Glasgow council’s conflict of interest regarding the proposal.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 am and is filed under Campaigns, Glasgow, Politics, Scotland, Scottish Politics, Southside. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.