You can tell an election is coming up. Kier Starmer has announced his 6 priorities for the next Labour government. There will be a lot of opportunities for debating this in the coming months. But in anticipation of the election, political parties have now started the misleading approach.
Our old Liberal Democrat friends tweeted this week that Conservative MPs voted against a Lib Dem motion to hold water company bosses criminally liable for “sewage dumping” into rivers. We’ve seen this before. A couple of years ago, the Government brought in a Bill that would stop storm overflow discharging into rivers. None other than the Duke of Wellington put forward an amendment that would require this to be done immediately, supported by Labour and Lib Dems. The outcome would have been backing up of raw sewage into people’s bathrooms and an immediate digging up of every road in the country, followed by a cost of up to £48,000 for every household. It was idiotic, and these works are being undertaken in an orderly way, as proscribed by the original Bill. But it didn’t stop the accusations that Tories pollute rivers.
So it is with this latest Lib Dem antic. I shall explain, but I should warn readers, this is dull stuff.
The Criminal Justice Bill was in report stage in the House of Commons last week. Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron proposed an amendment (New Clause 91) which would give the Environment Agency similar powers given to regulator Ofwat. This was rejected by us because it was duplicating powers and so confusing responsibilities. Ironically, the Lib Dem leader and 25% of Lib Dems abstained, making their Tweet even more misleading. But they went on.
New Clause 92 proposed criminalising water bosses for discharges, but this was rejected by the Speaker because it was not sensible – it was silly posturing. The point is, Ofwat already has all the powers that these new clauses proposed, and so responsibility would have been halved and confused, not enhanced. But in the world of Tim Farron, that, apparently, doesn’t matter just so long as you get the Tweet.
Everyone does it, but it poisons the well of politics. Intelligent debate is crowded out by shrill, silly voices creating what looks like a legitimate campaign, but is misleading posturing. Its easy to be in opposition, but tricky to be in government. And the outcome? Low turnout in elections and elector fatigue.