The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.
The Baumgarten explosion effectively obstructs the main entry point for Russian gas, which makes up a third of the continent’s overall supplies.
The reverberations have been keenly felt in the UK, where gas prices have surged to more than 90p a therm from just over 57p last week.
The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.
The Baumgarten explosion effectively obstructs the main entry point for Russian gas, which makes up a third of the continent’s overall supplies.
The reverberations have been keenly felt in the UK, where gas prices have surged to more than 90p a therm from just over 57p last week.
The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.
The Baumgarten explosion effectively obstructs the main entry point for Russian gas, which makes up a third of the continent’s overall supplies.
The reverberations have been keenly felt in the UK, where gas prices have surged to more than 90p a therm from just over 57p last week.
Luckily I am all electric
Yes, only half of our electricity is generated from gas-fired power stations.
I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.
So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
So the Monarchists should have nothing to fear by calling a referendum to settle the matter for a generation (preferably a year or so after Charles takes over!).
Of course the monarchist Tory Party would never consider a referendum, if Corbyn's Labour got a majority he might do but even he likes Charles' eco views and liking for organic food
David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt
The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.
The guy obviously had delusional expectations of the government's trustworthiness. Things should go better now than he has a more realistic view.
David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt
The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.
It's Verhofstadht's role to throw his toys out of the pram on behalf of the EU. All a necessary part of the process.
He is the JRM/John Redwood for ultra-Remain.
I haven't really been following the details on this. Is David Davis going back on the 'Gentlemen's Agreement'?
I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.
So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
So the Monarchists should have nothing to fear by calling a referendum to settle the matter for a generation (preferably a year or so after Charles takes over!).
Of course the monarchist Tory Party would never consider a referendum, if Corbyn's Labour got a majority he might do but even he likes Charles' eco views and liking for organic food
If Charles wasn't a royal he would 100% be an Islington corbynista with a second home in cornwall....
And to think there's still people who think David Davis is going to succeed Theresa May.
Verhofstadt having a go at Davis probably boosts Davis' popularity with Tory members. Davis said his assurances were absolute so writing them into text just confirms that
Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.
An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.
It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.
It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
.
Support for the Democrats in Alabama in 1976 and 1980 was bolstered by the fact of Carter being a Southerner from Georgia. Any other Democratic candidate would have been defeated decisively.
All the evidence suggests that Alabama remained a Blue-leaning state in the late 1970s, if nowhere near as unthinkingly so as it was 20 years earlier.
You are countering my facts with your opinion. Any chance of any evidence to back up that opinion?
(As an aside, Carter wasn't the first Southerner to win the White House since the Civil War - Truman got there first, as, arguably, did Eisenhower).
Truman was actually from Missouri whilst Eisenhower was born in Texas. Neither were of the Deep South as such - and we would also have to count LBJ if we include them. I do remember the elections of 1968, 1972 & 1976 very well. With the exception of his home state of Arizona and South Carolina, the states carried by Goldwater in 1964 went for George Wallace in 1968 - though Wallace also carried Arkansas. In 1972 Nixon polled over 72% of the vote in Alabama and had margins of 2 to 1 in the other Deep South States - a much bigger lead than the 61% to 38% win he enjoyed across the USA as a whole. The Deep South had deserted the Democrats at Presidential elections and was only winnable in the particular circumstances of 1976 when Carter enjoyed the status of a 'favourite son' to a large extent.Even that was not enough to save him in 1980 - outside of his home state of Georgia.
Does that mean it will be legally binding, even a trade deal is not reached? Because that would be a non-optimal outcome.
Yup, that's the understanding of the experts.
It says a legal text, that doesn't mean necessarily equate to actually been signed off ie you can convert a business deal you made via handshake into a legal text but nothing binding until you actually sign it.
Surely all parts of the brexit deal will be made into "legal texts". It is when they are actually signed off that is the key.
One approach is to ask what role bitcoin and other cryptoassets are likely to play in global portfolios. Under one (very rough) estimate, total global wealth is about $241 trillion. Because the total value of cryptoassets has been hovering in the neighborhood of $300 billion, that constitutes about one-eighth of 1 percent of the total global portfolio. If you think of cryptoassets as taking on some of the hedging functions of gold or government securities, that valuation doesn’t sound so crazy.
To consider some other rough estimates, the total estimated value of the above-ground gold stock is about $7.5 trillion. Diverting 1 percent of gold holdings into bitcoin gets its value up to about $5,000. The current bitcoin price is several times beyond that, but a range of $15,000 to $20,000 again seems within the bounds of reason, at least to this observer. To the extent bitcoin is a store of value and a hedge, it is competing with gold more than with government fiat currencies, which ultimately are defined by their transactions uses.
Or compare a $200 billion to $300 billion market cap for bitcoin to a $450 million price for a single painting by Leonardo da Vinci -- one that is arguably mediocre and perhaps not by Leonardo’s hand at all. Bitcoin values seem at least as easy to defend, even if they have a subjective component just as artworks do. In recent years, the world has moved more broadly to much higher valuations for focally important stores of wealth, whether they be Swiss government bonds, famous paintings or bitcoin. We don’t know those higher valuations will prove correct in the longer run, but seeing bitcoin as part of that broader trend is very different from simply asserting it is a bubble to be banned, as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has done…
Which is karmic justice after spending decades trying to be both sides of the fence.
But, even when they do take office, they can't be trusted to honour their own policies in good faith, be it tuition fees or EU referendums.
To be fair, though, neither can either of the other Big Two. The thing is - would you or any other pro-Conservative supporter ever recognise or endorse any position they did do, or just highlight things they didn't?
After all - they mitigated the austerity to a great extent in the Coalition, especially by reducing the amount of tax paid by the poorest - but the odds are you'd be tempted to say the Tories would have done both of those things anyway (despite explicitly pledging not to increase the tax threshold during the 2010 campaign and with the stark difference in distributional effects between the 2010-2015 and 2015-present Budgets)
They transformed the way mental health was supported in the NHS out of all sight, making massive positive differences for many people - but would you or anyone else give them the credit (To be fair to Jeremy Hunt, he certainly did, so my hat's off to the man)
The 2010-2015 UK Government decarbonised faster and better than any developed Government in the world, primarily down to the Lib Dem pressure
The Pupil Premium, one of the key pledges of the Lib Dems in 2010, was implemented in full (it has been diluted since 2015, sadly)
They repeatedly blocked ignorant policies to try to monitor everyone's internet activity and stopped the more stupid ravings over encryption throughout their time in Government; unfortunately since they've been gone, we've seen more idiocy on this front.
They stopped routine detention of children in immigration cases (something my anti-Lib-Dem sister in law (a barrister) saw as a massive pro-liberal benefit, even if she could never vote Lib Dem again)
They drove a stake through the chest of the ID cards initiative once and for all.
They pushed through same-sex marriage (and to David Cameron's eternal credit, with his whole-hearted and enthusiastic support).
All of which were explicitly their pledges beforehand and were followed up in detail when they got the opportunity in Government.
So - at what point would you give them any credit?
Does that mean it will be legally binding, even a trade deal is not reached? Because that would be a non-optimal outcome.
Yup, that's the understanding of the experts.
It says a legal text, that doesn't mean necessarily equate to actually been signed off ie you can convert a business deal you made via handshake into a legal text but nothing binding until you actually sign it.
Surely all parts of the brexit deal will be made into "legal texts". It is when they are actually signed off that is the key.
It looks like he's signed up the UK to honouring Phase I of the Brexit talks regardless of what happens in the next phases.
Does that mean it will be legally binding, even a trade deal is not reached? Because that would be a non-optimal outcome.
No - just a more jargony version of the same
The EU just love jargony versions....We are building a new bar becomes...
“In the framework of the catering policy adopted by the Bureau… to better accommodate Members’ needs and to adapt and modernise existing infrastructures, a refurbishing project of the Members’ restaurant and lounge in Brussels will start next year…To ensure high quality and functional service to Members’ parliamentary work, the Members’ Bar next to the Hemicycle in Strasbourg has been extended with new facilities.”
If Mrs May really is going to carry out a reshuffle in the new year, the best thing she can do for herself, the government, the country, and for Brexit is to replace David Davis with someone like Michael Gove or Dominic Raab.
If Mrs May really is going to carry out a reshuffle in the new year, the best thing she can do for herself, the government, the country, and for Brexit is to replace David Davis with someone like Michael Gove or Dominic Raab.
Gove or Raab would inspire contempt on the part of the Commission instead of pity. Would that improve our prospects? Probably not.
If Mrs May really is going to carry out a reshuffle in the new year, the best thing she can do for herself, the government, the country, and for Brexit is to replace David Davis with someone like Michael Gove or Dominic Raab.
If Gove was in charge we might be at war with the EU in a year
St Paul’s Cathedral risked being caught up in the fallout over the Grenfell Tower tragedy after Conservative councillors were banned from a memorial service.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
Good news for the animal welfare lobby - we've successfully persuaded Michael Gove to launch a Bill on animal sentience: "Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings in formulating and implementing government policy." This is European Union policy (marginally reworded) and was originally dropped from the Withdrawal Bill: we've been pressing the issue for the last month (Charles was having a go at us for it the other day), and are very pleased to see it. In non-partisan mode, I think Gove is doing a very good job at Defra: his willingness to be proactive and where necessary take on vested interests is decidedly helpful.
While the sentence is aspirational, it creates some real hurdles - for example, a rushed trade deal with the USA without being able to show that the implications for animal welfare have been properly considered would become much more difficult, and potentially subject to judicial review. It doesn't mean that welfare interests can't be deliberately overridden by other priorities (e.g. Ministers could say "we're sorry about the welfare problems but trade comes first") but it forces an explicit argument which can be challenged. In areas like animal testing where a harm-benefit analysis (however debatable) is already built in, there is unlikely to be any change.
Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.
I know, it is shameful.
No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.
If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
Would you correct the anomaly by removing the vote from Commonwealth citizens?
Good news for the animal welfare lobby - we've successfully persuaded Michael Gove to launch a Bill on animal sentience: "Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings in formulating and implementing government policy." This is European Union policy (marginally reworded) and was originally dropped from the Withdrawal Bill: we've been pressing the issue for the last month (Charles was having a go at us for it the other day), and are very pleased to see it. In non-partisan mode, I think Gove is doing a very good job at Defra: his willingness to be proactive and where necessary take on vested interests is decidedly helpful.
While the sentence is aspirational, it creates some real hurdles - for example, a rushed trade deal with the USA without being able to show that the implications for animal welfare have been properly considered would become much more difficult, and potentially subject to judicial review. It doesn't mean that welfare interests can't be deliberately overridden by other priorities (e.g. Ministers could say "we're sorry about the welfare problems but trade comes first") but it forces an explicit argument which can be challenged. In areas like animal testing where a harm-benefit analysis (however debatable) is already built in, there is unlikely to be any change.
Gove does seem to be a good minister, but not someone you'd really want in charge of things. Let's hope the Peter principle doesn't get put to the test in his case.
And congrats to CIWF for playing its part; the charity I have been a member of for the longest, ever since one of its people did a talk on factory farming at my school's morning assembly.
Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.
I know, it is shameful.
No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.
If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
The same should apply to them not be extended to others.
St Paul’s Cathedral risked being caught up in the fallout over the Grenfell Tower tragedy after Conservative councillors were banned from a memorial service.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
Council leader Elizabeth Campbell has said she will stay away.
An ICM poll last month for the local elections next May had the Tories ahead in Kensington and Chelsea with 42% to 39% for Labour
Good news for the animal welfare lobby - we've successfully persuaded Michael Gove to launch a Bill on animal sentience: "Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings in formulating and implementing government policy." This is European Union policy (marginally reworded) and was originally dropped from the Withdrawal Bill: we've been pressing the issue for the last month (Charles was having a go at us for it the other day), and are very pleased to see it. In non-partisan mode, I think Gove is doing a very good job at Defra: his willingness to be proactive and where necessary take on vested interests is decidedly helpful.
While the sentence is aspirational, it creates some real hurdles - for example, a rushed trade deal with the USA without being able to show that the implications for animal welfare have been properly considered would become much more difficult, and potentially subject to judicial review. It doesn't mean that welfare interests can't be deliberately overridden by other priorities (e.g. Ministers could say "we're sorry about the welfare problems but trade comes first") but it forces an explicit argument which can be challenged. In areas like animal testing where a harm-benefit analysis (however debatable) is already built in, there is unlikely to be any change.
I was having a go at you saying it was non-controversial, nothing else.
David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt
The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.
St Paul’s Cathedral risked being caught up in the fallout over the Grenfell Tower tragedy after Conservative councillors were banned from a memorial service.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
Council leader Elizabeth Campbell has said she will stay away.
An ICM poll last month for the local elections next May had the Tories ahead in Kensington and Chelsea with 42% to 39% for Labour
Labour will sweep the north, but is unlikely to worry the Tories in the south of the Borough, which is all they need for a majority, The question is whether this new independent/centerist movement "Advance" gets any traction and can challenge the Tories in the parts that Labour cannot reach. If Labour had any sense, they wouldn't stand in the safer Tory wards and let Advance have a clear run. But non-tribalism has never been Labour's strong suit.
St Paul’s Cathedral risked being caught up in the fallout over the Grenfell Tower tragedy after Conservative councillors were banned from a memorial service.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
Council leader Elizabeth Campbell has said she will stay away.
An ICM poll last month for the local elections next May had the Tories ahead in Kensington and Chelsea with 42% to 39% for Labour
Labour will sweep the north, but is unlikely to worry the Tories in the south of the Borough, which is all they need for a majority, The question is whether this new independent/centerist movement "Advance" gets any traction and can challenge the Tories in the parts that Labour cannot reach. If Labour had any sense, they wouldn't stand in the safer Tory wards and let Advance have a clear run. But non-tribalism has never been Labour's strong suit.
St Paul’s Cathedral risked being caught up in the fallout over the Grenfell Tower tragedy after Conservative councillors were banned from a memorial service.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
Council leader Elizabeth Campbell has said she will stay away.
An ICM poll last month for the local elections next May had the Tories ahead in Kensington and Chelsea with 42% to 39% for Labour
Labour will sweep the north, but is unlikely to worry the Tories in the south of the Borough, which is all they need for a majority, The question is whether this new independent/centerist movement "Advance" gets any traction and can challenge the Tories in the parts that Labour cannot reach. If Labour had any sense, they wouldn't stand in the safer Tory wards and let Advance have a clear run. But non-tribalism has never been Labour's strong suit.
A split anti Tory vote will see Campbell home
She would appear to be the acceptable face of a very unacceptable bunch of councillors. No wonder they put her forward when the previous lot were so conspicuously exposed for what they are.
St Paul’s Cathedral risked being caught up in the fallout over the Grenfell Tower tragedy after Conservative councillors were banned from a memorial service.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
Council leader Elizabeth Campbell has said she will stay away.
An ICM poll last month for the local elections next May had the Tories ahead in Kensington and Chelsea with 42% to 39% for Labour
Labour will sweep the north, but is unlikely to worry the Tories in the south of the Borough, which is all they need for a majority, The question is whether this new independent/centerist movement "Advance" gets any traction and can challenge the Tories in the parts that Labour cannot reach. If Labour had any sense, they wouldn't stand in the safer Tory wards and let Advance have a clear run. But non-tribalism has never been Labour's strong suit.
A split anti Tory vote will see Campbell home
She would appear to be the acceptable face of a very unacceptable bunch of councillors. No wonder they put her forward when the previous lot were so conspicuously exposed for what they are.
Yes an interview with her in the Sunday Times magazine on Sunday. She is Roedean and Oxford educated but stood for Parliament on Tyneside and had the social services brief for a number of years and has held a number of meetings with families of victims and is putting a lot of effort into rehousing those affected.
Comments
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/940580636527611904
If Charles wasn't a royal he would 100% be an Islington corbynista with a second home in cornwall....
Does that mean it will be legally binding, even a trade deal is not reached? Because that would be a non-optimal outcome.
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/940579453868093440
I do remember the elections of 1968, 1972 & 1976 very well. With the exception of his home state of Arizona and South Carolina, the states carried by Goldwater in 1964 went for George Wallace in 1968 - though Wallace also carried Arkansas. In 1972 Nixon polled over 72% of the vote in Alabama and had margins of 2 to 1 in the other Deep South States - a much bigger lead than the 61% to 38% win he enjoyed across the USA as a whole. The Deep South had deserted the Democrats at Presidential elections and was only winnable in the particular circumstances of 1976 when Carter enjoyed the status of a 'favourite son' to a large extent.Even that was not enough to save him in 1980 - outside of his home state of Georgia.
2. Why don’t Southern Rail train guards share advent calendars? They want to open the doors themselves.
Surely all parts of the brexit deal will be made into "legal texts". It is when they are actually signed off that is the key.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-12-11/bitcoin-is-a-bit-of-a-miracle-at-any-price?
One approach is to ask what role bitcoin and other cryptoassets are likely to play in global portfolios. Under one (very rough) estimate, total global wealth is about $241 trillion. Because the total value of cryptoassets has been hovering in the neighborhood of $300 billion, that constitutes about one-eighth of 1 percent of the total global portfolio. If you think of cryptoassets as taking on some of the hedging functions of gold or government securities, that valuation doesn’t sound so crazy.
To consider some other rough estimates, the total estimated value of the above-ground gold stock is about $7.5 trillion. Diverting 1 percent of gold holdings into bitcoin gets its value up to about $5,000. The current bitcoin price is several times beyond that, but a range of $15,000 to $20,000 again seems within the bounds of reason, at least to this observer. To the extent bitcoin is a store of value and a hedge, it is competing with gold more than with government fiat currencies, which ultimately are defined by their transactions uses.
Or compare a $200 billion to $300 billion market cap for bitcoin to a $450 million price for a single painting by Leonardo da Vinci -- one that is arguably mediocre and perhaps not by Leonardo’s hand at all. Bitcoin values seem at least as easy to defend, even if they have a subjective component just as artworks do. In recent years, the world has moved more broadly to much higher valuations for focally important stores of wealth, whether they be Swiss government bonds, famous paintings or bitcoin. We don’t know those higher valuations will prove correct in the longer run, but seeing bitcoin as part of that broader trend is very different from simply asserting it is a bubble to be banned, as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has done…
The thing is - would you or any other pro-Conservative supporter ever recognise or endorse any position they did do, or just highlight things they didn't?
After all - they mitigated the austerity to a great extent in the Coalition, especially by reducing the amount of tax paid by the poorest - but the odds are you'd be tempted to say the Tories would have done both of those things anyway (despite explicitly pledging not to increase the tax threshold during the 2010 campaign and with the stark difference in distributional effects between the 2010-2015 and 2015-present Budgets)
They transformed the way mental health was supported in the NHS out of all sight, making massive positive differences for many people - but would you or anyone else give them the credit (To be fair to Jeremy Hunt, he certainly did, so my hat's off to the man)
The 2010-2015 UK Government decarbonised faster and better than any developed Government in the world, primarily down to the Lib Dem pressure
The Pupil Premium, one of the key pledges of the Lib Dems in 2010, was implemented in full (it has been diluted since 2015, sadly)
They repeatedly blocked ignorant policies to try to monitor everyone's internet activity and stopped the more stupid ravings over encryption throughout their time in Government; unfortunately since they've been gone, we've seen more idiocy on this front.
They stopped routine detention of children in immigration cases (something my anti-Lib-Dem sister in law (a barrister) saw as a massive pro-liberal benefit, even if she could never vote Lib Dem again)
They drove a stake through the chest of the ID cards initiative once and for all.
They pushed through same-sex marriage (and to David Cameron's eternal credit, with his whole-hearted and enthusiastic support).
All of which were explicitly their pledges beforehand and were followed up in detail when they got the opportunity in Government.
So - at what point would you give them any credit?
I've asked S&M for their considered opinion.
“In the framework of the catering policy adopted by the Bureau… to better accommodate Members’ needs and to adapt and modernise existing infrastructures, a refurbishing project of the Members’ restaurant and lounge in Brussels will start next year…To ensure high quality and functional service to Members’ parliamentary work, the Members’ Bar next to the Hemicycle in Strasbourg has been extended with new facilities.”
This is all theatre and some people are over-reacting to it.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/940540781684719616
https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/940586512978272257
if it wasn't legally binding youd be complaining
why not give up remoaning for the festive season and share some goodwill
I see The Last Jedi in less than 36 hours time, and the reviews are brilliant.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) said all elected Tories on the council had been told to stay away from Thursday’s service while Labour councillors have been invited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skellig_Islands
While the sentence is aspirational, it creates some real hurdles - for example, a rushed trade deal with the USA without being able to show that the implications for animal welfare have been properly considered would become much more difficult, and potentially subject to judicial review. It doesn't mean that welfare interests can't be deliberately overridden by other priorities (e.g. Ministers could say "we're sorry about the welfare problems but trade comes first") but it forces an explicit argument which can be challenged. In areas like animal testing where a harm-benefit analysis (however debatable) is already built in, there is unlikely to be any change.
And congrats to CIWF for playing its part; the charity I have been a member of for the longest, ever since one of its people did a talk on factory farming at my school's morning assembly.
An ICM poll last month for the local elections next May had the Tories ahead in Kensington and Chelsea with 42% to 39% for Labour
https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
NEW THREAD