Sign of desperation in the local Tory party – Owl

A Conservative MP in Devon has been accused of deceiving voters by using internet addresses in a Lib Dem opponent’s name that direct web users to his own campaign website.

David Parsley inews.co.uk

Three web domains that purport to link to websites connected to the Liberal Democrat candidate for the new seat of Honiton and Sidmouth do, in fact, direct people to the campaign website of Tory MP Simon Jupp, i has found.

Mr Jupp, the current MP for East Devon, and Richard Foord, the Lib Dem MP for Tiverton and Honiton, have both seen their constituencies abolished under boundary changes and they are fighting what is expected to be a tight race in the new seat.

When i visited the richardfoord.uk, richardfoord.co.uk and richardfoord.com web addresses, they all linked directly to Mr Jupp’s website.

It is not known who bought the internet addresses as ownership records currently point to a web domain-buying site based in Worcestershire.

A spokesman for Mr Foord said: “When we talk to people across Mid and East Devon, they tell us they want their representatives to play it straight and be honest.

“Links that look genuine but simply redirect to Conservative websites only serve to arouse suspicion and undermine trust.

“People deserve better from their MP, and at the election they have a chance to demand better by voting Liberal Democrat.”

Simon Jupp (right), the current Conservative MP for East Devon, and Richard Foord (left), the Lib Dem MP for Tiverton and Honiton, have both seen their constituencies abolished under boundary changes and they are fighting what is expected to be a tight race in the new seat of Honiton and Sidmouth

Mr Foord, who overturned a huge Tory majority in Tiverton and Honiton following the resignation of Tory MP Neil Parish after he was found to have watched pornography in the House of Commons, has the official website address of richardfoord.org.uk.

According to political forecasting website Electoral Calculus Mr Jupp has a 54 per cent chance of winning the Honiton and Sidmouth seat, while Mr Foord is nine points behind on 45 per cent.

Web domains are inexpensive to buy and easy to direct to any website as long as no one has already bought the name.

For example, domain names ending in .uk can cost as little at £10 a year, with the first year coming in at less than £1. A co.uk domain will cost around the same amount and a .com address tends to be a little more expensive at around £18 a year.

Once the web domain name is owned it is a simple process to redirect it to any other website already in existence.

If someone wants to buy a domain that is already tkaen, they can steps to find the owner and negotiate a price.

The redirection of websites in an opponent’s name appear to be a new front in the campaign publicity wars that have long been a part of UK elections.

With the 2 May local elections approaching and a general election expected later this year, campaign leaflets from all parties have begun appearing though voters’ letterboxes.

In recent elections the unpopularity of Conservative candidates in some areas of the country has led to its candidates withholding which party they represent from their campaign material.

All the major parties, including Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, have accused each other of disguising their leaflets at recent elections.

At last year’s local elections the Lib Dems called for an inquiry into Conservative flyers that claimed voters did not require ID to cast their ballot despite rules coming in for the first time demanding acceptable forms of identity at polling stations.

And in the South West of England the incumbent Tory police commissioner has issued flyers that do not state that she is the Conservative Candidate.

Alison Hernandez, the Police and Crime Commission for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, sent out flyers earlier this week boasting of the improvements that had been made under her leadership, but failed to mention she will be the Conservative candidate when she stands again next month.

A spokesman for the Electoral Commission suggested the directing of the domain names to Mr Jupp’s website did not break any election law.

He said: “There is nothing in electoral law concerning the use of website domain names by candidates.

“The content of campaign material does not fall within our regulatory remit so it wouldn’t be for us to investigate.”

Mr Jupp and the Conservative Party were contacted for comment.

Born Gerard Nevile Mark Fane on October 7 1934, he became the 22nd Baron Clinton in 1965, taking on responsibility for 25,000 acres across three estates in North and East Devon, collectively known as Clinton Devon Estates.  He died on April 2.

Adam Manning www.sidmouthherald.co.uk

He leaves his wife, Nicola, always known as Nicky, and three children, the Hon Charles Patrick Rolle Fane Trefusis, who will succeed him, and daughters Caroline and Henrietta.

Lord Clinton made his home for many years at Heanton Satchville at Huish, near Merton, in the Torridge district, before moving with his wife to East Devon around five years ago.

The eldest child and only son of Capt. Charles Nevile Fane and Gladys Mable Lowther, Lord Clinton was born at 23 Belgrave Square, London – now the German Embassy – and educated at Cothill Preparatory School and Gordonstoun in Moray, Scotland.

Much of his childhood was spent with his great grandfather, Charles Trefusis, 21st Baron Clinton having lost his father, Charles, who was killed in action in Flanders, shortly before the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940 when Gerard was five.

After National Service with the Royal Scots between 1953 and 1955 he trained as a land agent, inheriting his title as the 22nd Baron Clinton from his great grandfather, who died in 1957.  The title was in abeyance for eight years and Lord Clinton took up his seat in the House of Lords in 1965.

During his lifetime Lord Clinton secured the long-term sustainability of the 700-year-old Estates – the largest in family ownership in Devon – turning a traditional landed estate into a leading land management enterprise fit for the 21st century.

Clinton Devon Estates won numerous awards under his stewardship, including being judged four times winner of the Sunday Times Best Small Companies to Work for, three times winner of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise in the category for Sustainable Development and a recipient of the 2012 Food and Farming Industry Awards. 

In his later years Lord Clinton oversaw one of the biggest conservation projects in the UK, the Lower Otter Restoration Project.

The ten-year project, completed a few months ago, was regularly visited by Lord Clinton during construction.

Clinton Devon Estates comprises farmland and forestry in East and North Devon including woodlands of national importance and the 2,800-acre Pebblebed Heaths and Otter Estuary in East Devon – now designated a National Nature Reserve, part of the newly named Kings’ Series of nature reserves.

There are around 300 residential properties, the majority let to tenants, as well as commercial buildings and the Bicton Arena, at East Budleigh, a leading equestrian venue in East Devon.

Projects undertaken during Lord Clinton’s lifetime include a major residential development, Plumb Park, at Exmouth, which saw the creation of more than 250 homes on Estate land and the building of an innovative Estate Office set in Grade 1 listed parkland at Bicton.

Lord Clinton held high office in a wide range of local, regional and national organisations and was a member or supporter of many others. He was active in the House of Lords between 1965 and 1999 and served as a Justice of the Peace for twenty years until 1983 and as a Deputy Lieutenant of Devon from 1977. He sat on the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall from 1968 to 1979.

Lord Clinton took a close interest in the tenanted and in-hand farming enterprises on the Estate, particularly the Devon Red Cattle.  His herd was culled during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001, which he later admitted caused him enormous distress.

He was also a passionate forester, spending many hours inspecting the Estates woodlands, which he saw as both an environmental asset and, when the time came, a crop of sustainable timber to be harvested.  In 2019 he unveiled a plaque to mark the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Forestry Commission – in the same North Devon wood where his great grandfather had planted the newly created Commission’s first trees.

In his personal time Lord Clinton enjoyed fishing and had an abiding passion for horse racing and sailing. He was also a member of The Royal Yacht Squadron, one of the most exclusive yacht clubs in the world, and the Turf Club. 

In an afterword to the official history of the barony, he wrote: “The historical background to the Clinton title is embedded in holding land. As a trustee for life of the Clinton Estate, it has been of fundamental importance to me to manage and build on all that I inherited from my great grandfather so that I, in turn, might pass on a thriving estate to the next generation.”

Whose side are the Tories really on? Simon Jupp, please explain. – Owl

Sewage pollution and water bills could increase following Government plans to “diminish” the powers of the water regulator, charities and MPs have warned.

Alexa Phillips inews.co.uk

Ofwat will need to be mindful of business interests when imposing penalties on water companies and exposing compliance breaches under Government guidance expected to take effect this month.

The Liberal Democrats are leading a revolt against the plans, which it says are being “essentially rushed through the Commons without proper scrutiny”, i can reveal.

The party has secured a debate and vote on the issue in the House of Lords on 15 April, led by Baroness Bakewell, which could pressure the Government to row back its decision to apply a “growth duty” to Ofwat, Ofgem and Ofcom.

The duty means the water, energy and media regulators will need to “give appropriate consideration to the potential impact of their activities and their decisions on economic growth, for the wider UK economy, alongside or as part of their consideration of their other statutory duties”.

“Certain enforcement actions, and other activities of the regulator, can be particularly damaging to growth,” the guidance says. “These include, for example, enforcement actions that limit or prevent a business from operating; financial sanctions; and publicity, in relation to a compliance failure, that harms public confidence.”

The Government said the plans will not weaken Ofwat – the body responsible for handing out penalties to water companies if they do not fully monitor their storm overflows – but environmental groups including the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which represents 83 organisations, told i the move could allow polluting water firms to avoid scrutiny or even hike water bills.

The Environment Agency revealed that raw sewage was poured into England’s rivers, lakes and coastal areas for 3.6 million hours last year, making 2023 the worst year on record for sewage spills.

The Government is implementing the change through a type of secondary legislation called a “statutory instrument”, which is rarely voted down (the last instance was in 1978) and is not subject to the same process as primary legislation.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered it and decided against referring it to the Commons chamber – it will instead be scrutinised by a Delegated Legislation Committee which does not have the power to stop it. Peers could still defeat the secondary legislation.

Tim Farron, a Lib Dem MP and the party’s environment spokesperson, said Ofwat “must be exempt from these changes”.

“Water firms are getting away with environmental vandalism on a daily basis whilst paying themselves massive bonuses and profits,” he said. “It would be a farce if water firms escape punishment via the back door.”

Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavilion, accused the Tories of putting deregulation and economic growth “before everything else” – a “dangerous” mentality that has been “detrimental to our national quality of life”.

“Even when our waterways are literally full of shit, rather than giving Ofwat new powers to protect our environment and hold water companies accountable, the Government is instead imposing a legal duty on the regulator to consider economic growth which may make it even harder to take companies to task,” she said.

Louise Reddy, policy officer at charity Surfers Against Sewage, said the growth duty would “diminish” Ofwat’s ability to regulate water companies and warned that the sewage scandal could get worse.

“We got into this mess because of poor regulation,” she said. “The regulation of the water industry has been abysmal.

“It’s been really promising to hear from the Government that we want to see better regulation of the water industry, but to then hear of the growth duty, which would actively dissuade Ofwat to regulate the water industry, feels very counterintuitive.”

Stuart Singleton-White, head of campaigns at the Angling Trust, warned that water companies could use the growth duty to argue for increases in water bills.

“Regulators are not there to promote economic growth, they’re there to regulate sectors and industries to make sure that they are behaving within the law,” he said.

“The concern we would have is if they’ve suddenly got to put economic growth considerations into decisions about issues like enforcement or price rises for investment programmes and things like that, that’s potentially going to temper the amount of enforcement they do, or give them fear or concern that if they carry out an enforcement, the polluter or the water company will use economic growth impacts as a defence and an argument.

“That will restrict the regulator from being able to do their job, and it flies in the face of everything that needs to be done in terms of sorting this industry out.”

Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said pollution has reached record levels and the public is “demanding action”, but the growth duty “could make it harder to make polluters pay and strengthen regulation of the water industry”.

He added: “If the Government is serious about cleaning up rivers and restoring nature, its first priority wouldn’t be a growth duty that could let water companies off the hook.”

Ali Morse, water policy manager at The Wildlife Trusts, expressed “concerns” that Ofwat would be “less able to take action against companies over their pollution record”.

She said the Lib Dems’ “motion of regret” – which cannot block legislation but registers peers’ disapproval – could persuade the Government to withdraw the piece of legislation or convince them to redraft the accompanying guidance, for instance to emphasise the economic benefits of a sustainable environment.

The Liberal Democrats also hope the motion will encourage peers to vote down the secondary legislation.

The Wildlife Trusts and the Wildlife and Countryside Link believe the Government should impose a “green duty” instead of a growth duty that would force regulators and the companies they oversee to contribute to the Government’s legally binding environmental targets.

Mark Lloyd, chief executive of The Rivers Trust, warned that the Growth Duty could make sanctions harder to impose and leave Ofwat “more exposed” to legal challenges when it takes action.

An Ofwat spokesperson said the Government’s response to the consultation on extending the growth duty to Ofwat “is clear that non-compliant activity or behaviour that undermines protections to the environment needs to be appropriately dealt with by regulators”.

“We will continue our work as a regulator to hold water companies to account and drive better performance and outcomes for customers and the environment,” they added.

A Government spokesperson said: “The Growth Duty does not legitimise non-compliance with existing protections, including Ofwat’s environmental responsibilities.

“This extension will allow Ofwat to more effectively help deliver economic growth alongside its regular duties and does not in any way set restrictions on regulators as to how their enforcement can and should operate.”