Opinion: 'Political game underway since websites offered analysis of MPs’ voting records', writes Paul Bristow

Perhaps because I’m still a relatively new MP, I’m amazed how often votes in Parliament are misunderstood or misrepresented.

Let me give you an example of each. I’ll start with a misunderstood vote. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the protection order covering the city centre. I was frustrated that police weren’t issuing fines.

In fact, they refuse to issue fines as a matter of policy, undermining the whole point of the zone.

Having argued that senior officers needed to change their policy decision, I expected some dialogue. I didn’t expect an essay-length response to the Peterborough Telegraph from the Chief Constable.

The letter claimed that not fining street drinkers was part of a two-tier “out of court disposal” approach, which “becomes law early next year under current government plans”.

In other words: this policy decision is your government’s and you voted for it.There’s just one problem with that.

Fixed penalty notices aren’t part of the new framework, which actually puts a stop to the police issuing warnings or cautions that require no action.

The only barrier to local officers awarding FPNs was a decision by the previous Chief Constable.

It could be changed quite easily.Although it’s depressing to see my vote misunderstood, it appears to be a genuine mistake.

Misrepresented votes

What’s worse is when votes are deliberately misrepresented. A political game has been underway since certain websites began offering an analysis of MPs’ voting records.A meaningless motion is tabled praising “motherhood and apple pie”. For technical reasons, government MPs vote down the motion.

This is repeated a few times.Nothing changes in the real world.

Yet these websites record that Ann Other MP votes “strongly against” motherhood and apple pie, even though she bakes one for her children every week. Now Labour have gone further.

They tabled an amendment to the recent Environment Act that, overnight, would make it unlawful for water companies to discharge any sewage.

Unfortunately, discharges are how the UK’s drainage system copes when it rains hard. Labour knows that and knows nothing was done about it while they were in charge.

They know the Environment Act is finally changing the system, at huge cost. They also know that we are still decades away from having the infrastructure necessary to prevent all discharges.

Why call for the impossible? So Labour’s useful idiots, like Labour councillors in Peterborough, can write that “our own local MP, Mr Bristow, voted in favour of letting the water companies dump sewage into our waters”.

I voted against a ludicrous amendment and in favour of a real plan. Labour’s claim goes beyond misrepresentation. It’s premeditated lying. They should know better.