Jargon busters target road toll ballots

Now they have come under attack from a totally unexpected quarter - after anti-gobbledygook campaigners weighed in with criticism of the congestion charging ballot.

The wording of the council’s question for the road tolls referendum has been criticised by the Plain English Campaign.

The campaign group - which fights against jargon and gobbledygook - claims the crucial question for the poll could be easily misinterpreted by voters.

It has also hit out at a 12-page publicity leaflet being sent out with ballot papers.

John Lister, spokesman for the Plain English Campaign, said the information leaflet was confusing, over-complicated and misleading.

"It looks like it has been put together based on legal advice.

"But the sheer volume of information is far too much, there is an onslaught of it," he said.

"It’s very confusing to be giving people two sets of figures in a table like the council have done.

"We don’t like the use of the terms ‘preferred’ and ‘base’ throughout the leaflet, either.

"The council also should have explained the legal challenge [being mounted against the plans by three neighbouring councils] better .

"The whole thing is overly complex and isn’t the kind of document we like at all.

"As this is going to every house in Edinburgh, the council has a duty to ensure it is as simple as possible."

The 12-page fold-out leaflet has been included with the voting papers by the council despite criticism that it is simply shoving "propaganda" at people.

The council says the leaflets are included so that voters can make an "informed" choice in the referendum.

However, there is no literature included from opponents of the scheme.

Mr Lister added: "It would seem to make more sense to us to keep any publicity about the congestion charging scheme separate from the ballot paper. [Including the leaflet] seems a very unusual thing to do."

He also criticised the question included on the ballot papers.

Mr Lister said the question read "very oddly" and the use of the word "preferred" in the referendum question could easily be misinterpreted by voters.

Lib Dem congestion charging spokesman Fred Mackintosh compared the information leaflet to a complex legal document.

He said: "I actually believe there’s a danger that putting the information leaflet in with the ballot paper could backfire.

"It’s a bit like a door-to-door salesman coming to your door and asking you to sign a hugely complicated contract.

"You’re just likely to say no and that’s what people should do when they get this."

Tory transport spokesman Allan Jackson added: "There shouldn’t be an information leaflet going in with the ballot paper at all.

"It’s a highly unusual thing to do but it just shows how desperate the Labour Party in Edinburgh is to win this referendum. They will pull any trick they can."

The city council blamed the complexities in the leaflet on legal restraints which forced the council to avoid language that appeared to promote the scheme.

A council spokesperson said: "The council aims to ensure plain English in all its communications to the public.

"However, this leaflet had to conform to strict legal guidelines which ensured basic lists of factual information were delivered in a non-promotional style."

How the questions compare

The council’s question:

"The council’s preferred strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the council’s preferred strategy?"

The Plain English Campaign’s alternative question:

"The leaflet enclosed with this ballot paper gives information on the council’s proposed transport strategy for Edinburgh. The proposal includes congestion charging to fund increased transport investment. Do you support the council’s proposal?"