On the ground

[webofevil]

A new high point for fans of “on the ground”:

Lord Greaves: In places where there is no [coastal] access at all, the route will have to be physically created on the ground.

As opposed to those free-floating coastal paths we hear so much about? Actually, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if that turned out to have been a Lib Dem manifesto comitment at some point.

Comments

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

This is eerily like an actual Lib Dem speech.

[(Anonymous)]

Alternatively one could move the coast to a city centre, whereby it would become a treasured local attraction as well as a significant boost to the British economy.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

Marine and Coastal Access Bill, Committee stage, Day 11 [NB - this stage usually takes about four days]

Lord Greaves [Lib Dem]: If you are going to define an estuary, you should simply draw a line and say that that is where the estuary starts—from a common-sense, geographical point of view. The Thames estuary starts where you can draw a line along the mouth of the estuary. I do not think that that is particularly relevant so long as Natural England has the ability and flexibility to go upstream where that is sensible. That will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are estuaries and estuaries. Where does the Severn estuary start? Does it start at Land’s End? Clearly not, or perhaps it does, but does it matter? The north coast of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset is all clearly coastal. Where does the Severn start and the Bristol Channel finish? It is a matter of opinion, is it not? Therefore, talking about estuarial waters and that kind of thing is irrelevant.

There is the Severn and the Bristol Channel, but with big estuaries, such as those of the Thames, the Mersey and the Humber, one just has to take common-sense decisions. Then there are lots of little estuaries, particularly on the east coast of Essex, for example. I do not know when an estuary turns into a creek or whatever, but it is all very complicated and I do not think that people are particularly concerned about whether the coastal path goes up and down every little inlet. It would be absurd if it did and I do not think that anyone is arguing that it should. Common-sense views have to be taken in certain places. That seems to be the essence of the matter, and I think that this part of the Bill should be better drafted to say that. (Etc.)

Note how every conceivable variation on his main concept is explored, thoroughly chewed over, digested and then coughed back up and chewed some more for good measure. This technique, common to many Liberal Democrats, is why the rest of the House generally dislikes them. As one senior peer said of them during another Bill, “They’re just droning on about it, everyone [who might have voted with them] is going to leave and the Government are going to win hands down. The Lib Dems are just letting it drift on. If they want to get something done, they ought to do it quickly. Still, none of my business.” And he left as well.

If no Lib Dem has yet floated the idea of moving coasts inland for the benefit of the tourist trade, then it's only a matter of time.

[(Anonymous)]

Surely those immigrants are the ones who have best access to the coast when they creep up it to claim our benefits?

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

Winner, Most Confused Daily Mail Editorial 2008.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

I fear that, through cherrypicking, I might inadvertently have made this Bill look more interesting than it actually is. This is more representative than the breathless excitement of Lord Greaves's ruminations:

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Amendment A350ZZA would require a provision that regulations may be made that include a requirement that representations should be made on the question of whether Natural England's report fulfils the requirements of its coastal access duty in Sections 286 and 287.