Morhamburn Public Affairs, PR, Media and Government Relations » News

Forward Look

Mark — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:23:23 +0000

Please follow the below link for a look ahead to events in the Scottish Parliament this week: Forward Look – Dec 20th

Pagoda Public Relations acquires Morhamburn

John — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:10:55 +0000

Two of Scotland’s leading independent public relations and public affairs consultancies are joining forces this week.

The deal will see Edinburgh-based Pagoda Public Relations acquiring the Morhamburn Consultancy to create a 15-strong company offering an integrated package of public affairs, media relations, community consultation and wider stakeholder communication.

Morhamburn Director John Macgill joins the board of Pagoda Public Relations. The existing Pagoda PR board members are Chairman Sir Michael Hirst, Managing Director Ian Coldwell and Director Giselle Dye.

“Our aim is to reinforce our position as Scotland’s premier consultancy for issues-based PR and public affairs”, explained Pagoda PR’s Managing Director Ian Coldwell.

“This acquisition not only broadens our pool of expertise but gives us the scale to take on larger projects.”

Employing eleven staff, Pagoda Public Relations is one of only three Scottish registered companies in the PR Week 150. Its clients include The Crown Estate, Waitrose and Alliance Boots. Earlier this month it scooped three CIPR Scotland Pride awards, including the Gold for best campaign £10k and under.

Morhamburn has four staff, all based in Edinburgh. John Macgill said: “This a logical and exciting next step for Morhamburn, offering staff the opportunity to develop their potential as part of a bigger team.”

Before setting up Morhamburn in 2007, John Macgill was Managing Director of Grayling in Scotland. He previously spent 15 years in broadcasting with the BBC, STV and Radio Forth, including time as an editor of Good Morning Scotland. He was also editor of Holyrood magazine and The Parliament (the magazines of the Scottish and European Parliaments respectively). He is a past Chair of the Association for Scottish Public Affairs and the Association of Professional Political Consultants in Scotland.

Also moving to Pagoda is Assistant Director Niamh Hegarty who has previously worked in the European Parliament and in public affairs consultancy in Brussels.

The combination builds on co-operation between the companies over the last two years. Morhamburn will operate as a trading subsidiary and the brand will be retained.

ENDS

For further information please contact Ian Coldwell or Giselle Dye, Pagoda PR, 0131 556 0770

E: ian.coldwell@pagodapr.com or giselle.dye@pagodapr.com

1. For further information about Pagoda PR please see the website www.pagodapr.com

2. For further information about Morhamburn please see the website www.morhamburn.com

The Coalition – our programme for government

Mark — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:59:34 +0000

Today the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats unveiled their plans for the next 5 years. Follow the link below to read the full agreement.

ConLib Coalition Agreement.

Election 2010: The SNP Manifesto

Keith — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:14:02 +0000

‘Elect a local champion’

To read a PDF copy of the SNP 2010 Manifesto, please click here.

Election 2010: The Liberal Democrat Manifesto

Andrew — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:45:54 +0000

‘Change That Works For You’

To read a PDF copy of the Liberal Democrat 2010 Manifesto, please click here.

Election 2010: Plaid Cymru Manifesto

Andrew — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:30:00 +0000

‘Think Different. Think Plaid’.

To read a PDF copy of Plaid Cymru’s Manifesto, please click here.

Election 2010: The Conservative Party Manifesto

Andrew — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:52 +0000

‘Invitation To Join The Government of Britain’.

To read a copy of the Conservative Party Manifesto, please click on the following link:

Conservative Party Manifesto 2010

Election 2010: The Labour Party Manifesto

Andrew — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:00:33 +0000

‘A Future Fair For All’.

To read a PDF copy of Labour’s 2010 Manifesto, please click here.

A tactical error that could cost an election

Niamh — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:25:34 +0000

Yesterday the Tories unveiled what could be only be described as the biggest blunder of the election campaign. It was a brave decision for Cameron to go with a campaign that plastered the face of his opposing number across the UK but the backlash is sure to come, and not necessarily from the direction that the Conservatives had taken a gamble on. The fear that the public may mistakenly see the face and assume it’s a Labour poster without reading the slogans shouldn’t be the Tories’ main worry, rather the public will see the image, read the caption and be pushed further away from the whole election experience.

The Conservatives have misjudged the public mood. In the face of the parliamentary expenses scandal and most recently last week’s Dispatches expose of the murky world of cash for access through ex-Ministers and soon to be stars of the Lords, such negative campaigning is another smack in the face for the already weary public. Society en masse is already oh so aware of the proposed austerity drive that lingers on the horizon. The prospects are pretty bleak in general, what the public wants, what the public needs, is evidence that the next government has the vision, the drive and the authority to lead and that is not being currently demonstrated by the latest Conservative poster campaign.

The campaign is also the second this year unveiled by the Tories. Who could forget the ‘I’ve never voted Conservative before but…’ billboards complete with a Hollywood gloss prime minister in waiting. It was the campaign that never was, falling victim to a guerrilla attack which catapulted the poster onto every social networking site and culminated in a public consciousness, though not the one the Conservatives were hoping for – everyone had their favourite unofficial variation. Pushing aside the subliminal cost message that this campaign brought with it, I assume that Conservative high command took stock of postergate before embarking on their current foray, so I remain slightly puzzled as to how they could translate public reaction to their last media campaign (possibly overly air-brushed and tinged with a certain smugness, not to mention quite humorous – though the latter of course refers to the unofficial Cameronise-your own web versions) as vindication that their next media blitz should underline the worst excesses of negative campaigning.

Saatchi may be a lucrative multi-million pound business and may be credited with helping sweep Thatcher to power in the 1970s but a looming period of union unrest alone does not transport us back in time. The public may not have fallen in love with Gordon Brown but they have not fallen out of love with Labour. In this election where differing panaceas are being offered to cure society’s ills the Labour heartland will rally. The quest therefore remains for the elusive floating voters and PR faux pas can be a costly price to pay.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Cross Party Group on Palliative Care

Mark — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:07:37 +0000

Currently commencing its journey through the Scottish Parliament is the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill which will undoubtedly prove to be one of the most debated and divisive topics that our MSPs will consider. Stage 1 of the Bill is to be completed by the end of November 2010, with the Chamber debate likely to follow in December. Last night the Cross Party Group on Palliative Care met to debate the (de)merits of the Bill.

The CPG secretariat had arranged to have speakers presenting both sides of the debate – Dr John Paley of Stirling University arguing in favour of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill and Dr Steven Hutchison of the Highland Hospice, Inverness, presenting the opposing view. The purpose of the speakers’ presentations was to facilitate debate among CPG attendees. Rather unsurprisingly, however, out of the 45 or so people present the majority appeared opposed to the Bill.

I have stated in a previous blog that I am in favour of this Bill. I think that it comes down to personal choice which people should have the freedom to exercise. I suspect that there have been cases of assisted suicide in Scotland, should we not therefore allow the Government to regulate such occurrences and make it safer for all involved?

Despite this, I agree with some of the opposing arguments made last night. I agree that at the age of 16 you probably are too young to make such an important decision. At 16 we are not deemed responsible enough to vote, drive a car, or drink alcohol, so an argument for increasing the age in which you can choose to end your own life makes sense. I also agree that there should be some clause that allows a doctor to opt out of administering end of life assistance. No doctor should be put in the position of having to purposely end the life of a patient. Incidentally, the worst argument in opposition of the Bill was that the majority of people do not want it. The gentleman who made the argument is probably correct. However, the majority of us are also not suffering from a terminal illness or unable to live without round-the-clock care.

What struck me most about the majority of arguments against the Bill last night were that they all seemed to centre on details: all language problems, any slight ambiguities contained in the Bill’s finer points can be worked upon and improved for the safety of those who would take advantage of the Bill. Doctors should have an involvement in this as should patients too. In Scotland we are lucky enough to have a very open Parliament which allows us to voice our opinions on all areas in which our Government has responsibility and we should get involved when an issue affects us.

It was argued that the 20 or so MSPs who supported the Bill only did so to ensure a debate on end of life assistance. Yet where is the value in having a debate when so many have made up their mind before it has even begun?