this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
58 points (86.2% liked)

UK Politics

4165 readers
32 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
58
Labour abstain on bid to criminalise water companies for sewage pollution (www.thecanary.co)
submitted 1 year ago by RobotToaster@mander.xyz to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So, this isn't particularly difficult to investigate.

The Criminal Justice Bill has already passed the committee stage, see here:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511

Amendments of the sort the Lib Dems tabled here are outside the scope of the bill, as described. See New Clause 91, just below division 152 here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-05-15/debates/70FB3786-C2A3-4CFE-90EA-CC2CB5AE5CCE/CriminalJusticeBill#division-51075

Unlike the USA, tacking unrelated stuff on to bills is not how our system works, especially at the final reading, which is why loads of members abstained (all of Labour, all of the SNP, even 6/15 Lib Dems, etc).

Now, do I want it to be a criminal offence to pump literal shit in to our drinking water? Of course I do, fuck the bastards.

But please don't let yourself be tricked by this political gamesmanship.

I'd say The Canary should know better, but this sort of thing is why they are an absolute joke.

Edit: added link to clause and fixed typos

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y'know, I understand why the Canary publish this kind of misinformation. Their whole business model is based on inciting directionless outrage. What I can't understand is why people, like everyone else in this thread, keep falling for it.

[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My current theory is they purposefully try to cause splits in the left. There's no other reasoning for them to continue to be this bad after very nearly a decade of continually publishing utter tosh.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, it's like some sort of horseshoe theory of spin. The Tories say Starmer breaks all his pledges and some people on the left reply, 'Yes, Tories! Please tell me more!' As though that's... helping?

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

tacking unrelated stuff on to bills is not how our system works

Parliament has exclusive cognisance, it works how the members want it to work.

[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, and the members overwhelming rejected the attempt to add unrelated clauses to a bill in the final stages, thus keeping with convention.

The LibDems knew this would be the case, so it's cheap posturing and point scoring aimed at people who don't understand how the house operates.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This would have beem a straight criminalisation, id rather see the environmental agency given the powers and motivation to deal with the water companies.

The EA has largely been defanged by the tories and it shows very little interest in pursuing these issues

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the outside looking in, it would appear that Labour is yet another pseudo-progressive party that got addicted to corporate cash during the late 1990s flowering of neoliberalism ans aren't willing to let go.

It's the same thing in most western Nations, and it has the awful side effect of making what were previously "reasonable" right wing parties into proto-fascists put of self defense.

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

This is "New Labour", which systematically purges traditional Labour/leftist members from any position of power or leadership e.g. Corbyn.

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Oh FFS.

[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Spineless fucking shits! This is LITERALLY your entire job!

We need to replace Starmer ASAP, having him leading the party is going to be a complete waste of our chance to make some positive change in the UK.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al -4 points 1 year ago

The bar is set so low for Starmer's Labour and yet they refuse to walk over it. It's like they're trying to break the world record for the world's lowest limbo.