Labour's war on sheep needs to end
Ms Rayner should listen to those who really understand our rural ecology: hill farmers (such as James Rebanks, author of English Pastoral) and the Moorland Association. The latter has appealed to her to halt the campaign against sheep, which is destroying ancient farming practices and making wildfires on the scale of Los Angeles more likely. Seven years ago, wildfires in the Manchester region caused pollution that afflicted millions. Now fire chiefs have warned that conflagrations due to lack of grazing and land management are increasing. This is an environmental and human disaster waiting to happen.
The official prejudice against sheep is unwarranted. It seems to be inspired by zealots like George Monbiot, who claim that overgrazing by 'the white plague' has ruined our uplands – ignoring the evidence that sheep-farming has been an integral part of English agriculture for centuries. No less arbitrary is the talk of carbon emissions. Why single out sheep, merely because they are visible, rather than animals kept out of sight on intensive megafarms?
On these islands we are particularly good at rearing sheep. Last year, the Welsh flock stood at 8.4 million, or a little over 2.6 sheep per person. Even these prodigious numbers are down from their peak – there were more than 12 million in the 1990s. There remain around 70 per cent more sheep in Wales than the entire United States, a country over 470 times larger. Ovines do very little harm and a great deal of good.
Elsewhere, sheep grazing is not seen as a cause of climate change, but a prophylactic against its effects. Ms Rayner should take wildfires seriously, rein in Defra and get behind this British success story. How about lamb for lunch, Deputy Prime Minister?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
What has Scotland gained from having voted in 37 Labour MPs?
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly. Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services. The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?" Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries. SNP's wise policy on offshore wind Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own? As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: 'The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers. "The option fees are much lower than in the UK's recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers." A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy. However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters We need a vote on Holyrood The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government. The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood. There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. A disregard for human life Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down? Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed. Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society. If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed. Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it. I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all. Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow. Am I worthy of preservation? "Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect. We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter"). As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense. So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do. With or without hankies. Archie Beaton, Inverness. Has the Scottish Government got it right on offshore wind? (Image: PA) Crack down on charities This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities? There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed. The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving. Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. UK is at war with Russia Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial). Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante. George Morton, Rosyth. Hypocrisy over Trump I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not? William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Letter: Today's Britain is not what the country voted for
It's now a year since Sir Keir Starmer entered Downing Street with a landslide majority, promising stability and renewal. But what has followed has been one of the most shambolic and out-of-touch governments in living memory. Far from the 'grown-up government' we were promised, we've had a year of confusion, indecision, and economic damage. With the highest tax burden since the 1940s, rising energy bills, broken promises on National Insurance, and record levels of borrowing, this Labour government has left voters disillusioned and our economy stagnating. On immigration, Labour's record is even more alarming. Illegal Channel crossings are at record highs, up 50% on last year, despite empty pledges to 'smash the gangs.' We are now seeing illegal migrants placed in housing ahead of British families, and a refusal to declare a state of emergency despite warnings from security experts. Labour's fixation on mass immigration continues to stretch public services and housing, yet the government presses on, ignoring widespread public concern. At the same time, the Labour government has failed to protect free speech and the basic cultural principles this country was built on. From promoting Orwellian 'non-crime hate incidents' to casually dismissing public outrage as 'far right,' Starmer's Labour has shown itself more interested in appeasing elite institutions than listening to the working majority. Labour's approach to public debate has become increasingly censorious and intolerant, treating disagreement as a threat to be shut down rather than an opinion to be heard. This is not what the country voted for. Labour's first year has already seen its popularity collapse, with just 16% of people satisfied with the government's performance and Starmer now one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in modern history. After 12 months of economic decline, unchecked migration, and cultural censorship, the question must now be asked, can Britain really afford another four years of this? Roman Jones
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Labour nationalises second train company
The nationalisation of a second train company by the Labour Government has been completed. Operator c2c, which runs services between London Fenchurch Street and south Essex, was taken into public ownership on Sunday. It had been controlled by Italy's state-owned rail company Trenitalia since 2017. DfT (Department for Transport) Operator, which manages services under public control on behalf of the UK Government, said tickets previously purchased will remain valid. It added that fares are 'not changing as a direct result of the transfer'. The overall passenger satisfaction rating for c2c was 89% in the most recent research by watchdog Transport Focus. This was the joint sixth best performance out of 22 operators. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'Whether you're shopping in Lakeside or walking along the beach in Southend-on-Sea, from today you will be able to get there on a train service run by the public, for the public. 'Public ownership is already tackling deep-rooted problems we see on the railway that's led to spiralling costs, fragmentation and waste. 'A unified network under Great British Railways will take this further with one railway under one brand with one mission – delivering excellent services for passengers wherever they travel.' GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation. Ernesto Sicilia, managing director at Trenitalia UK, said: 'As the franchise moves to public ownership, we acknowledge both the progress made and the ongoing challenges of unifying a fragmented rail industry. 'In the meantime, we will continue to support and deliver services on the Avanti West Coast franchise until it too transitions to public ownership in 2026. 'While our role as operator is ending, our dedication to sharing knowledge, supporting innovation and fostering collaboration remains unchanged. 'We recognise that building a resilient and integrated rail network takes time and Trenitalia is determined to play a constructive part in that journey.' South Western Railway became the first operator brought into public ownership by the Labour Government in May. It joined Northern, TransPennine Express, Southeastern and LNER, which were nationalised under the Conservative government because of performance failings by the former owners of those franchises. The next operator to be nationalised will be Greater Anglia on October 12.
