Cable link plans cloaked in spin
I WAS somewhat bemused (and amused) to be described as a 'professional spin doctor' in the letters section of the last Alderney Journal (10 March edition). I am glad your correspondent is not in the medical profession, for his/her diagnosis is wrong. The opposite, in fact. My letters to the Journal and the Press have been written with the central aim of combatting the spin-doctoring that has been administered by various people associated with ARE, Fab and Acre. I have sought to get at the truth behind their opaque and obfuscating language and to expose as fully as possible what the island faces if it were to permit the cable and converter that are being pushed for Alderney by these organisations.
Unfortunately, your 'name and address supplied' correspondent somehow failed in his/her attempt to provide details of my background, but I am happy to do so. As I have said many times before, I live in the US, have been visiting Alderney since the late 50s, own property on the island and my father made his home there. As for my work, I am a journalist on USA Today, America's largest newspaper, working in its New York office.
Central to my profession is to expose spin for what it is. And central to my life is Alderney, a place that I love. Thus my letters.
For instance, the proponents of the Fab cable and the converters would have us believe that these are two entirely separate projects, when they plainly are not. True, the cable can exist without the converters, but the converters cannot exist without the cable. And the cable brings nothing to the island, except the disruption of installing it (and vague promises of a fibre-optic connection, a feature that can be obtained by other means, and a paltry £70,000). Therefore they are intrinsically linked and therefore should be judged as one project. On its own merits – or, rather, lack of them – the cable should be rejected out of hand. As I said in an earlier letter, it's as if someone laid electricity, water and sewage connections in a field and pretended they did not plan to build a housing estate. The cables, as Fab/ARE are presenting their plans now, might as well bypass the island if they truly are a standalone project.
There has been other spin. The chief commissioner of Acre, for instance, maintains that there is no conflict of interest in the fact that one of his best friends – someone who played a part in his wedding – is executive director of ARE, the company he is supposed to be regulating (and which is now in arrears in its agreed-upon payments to the island, a worrying development facilitated by Acre). The twisted-like-a-pretzel excuses he engaged in when trying to explain this obvious divergence from accepted practice were awe-inspiring.
And that executive director, Declan Gaudion, in his attempt to 'set the record straight' in a 'Fact & Fiction' piece printed in the local press – and to which I made a rebuttal, also published – proceeded to offer a series of opinions and other vague musings that had all the symptoms of spin-doctoring.
Unfortunately, your correspondent also is prone to this dizzying spin ailment. For example, he/she says the 'proposed converter doesn't need any night-time floodlighting (or) barbed wire'; maybe it doesn't 'need' them, but lighting and fencing are detailed in the scope of work document that was recently circulated to States members. And floodlighting is pretty much useless during the day.
Of course, he/she is entitled to his/her opinions (though he/she seems somewhat embarrassed by them, as indicated by hiding behind anonymity). And he/she is correct that the scope of work document is something that almost all companies prepare in advance of a project. The point, however, of my bringing it to people's attention is to expose the fact that Fab/ARE's plans for converters – and they do plan more than one – are well advanced and they should not hide behind the fiction that one is not connected to the other. They should be presented as one plan that islanders and their representatives can judge and upon which they can make a decision.
One other point, if I may. I am not against renewable energy, nor am I opposed to the tidal turbines planned for the waters around Alderney. What I am against is unnecessary on-island development that is out of scale and will spoil the character of this special place. The tidal energy does not have to be harvested the way advocated by ARE/Fab; in fact, the original plan was to send it directly to France, where it would be inserted in the French electricity grid. It was only when ARE heard of plans for a France/Britain electricity link – and the cable proponents became aware of the tidal project near the island – that adding the Alderney crossing was hatched.
It is, indeed, a bold plan. My fear, though, is that it is too bold for the island we love.
The spin doctor's surgery is now closed (for the time being, at least).
MATTHEW DIEBEL.
