tomo, the Peterborough by-election should be extremely interesting. The BBC has a piece on it (tucked away, strangely):

"Peterborough by-election: The 'mother of all marginals'"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48300812

The list of people interviewed by the BBC in presenting the article is an interesting indication of how the BBC sees the world.

"The climate crisis is our third world war. It needs a bold response"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/04/climate-change-world-war-iii-green-new-deal

I have read a bit of Joseph Stiglitz (the author of this article) and have been broadly in agreement with the thrust of his work, so it's more than a little disappointing to find him writing this.

tomo, try this:

https://climateemergency.uk/

"67 1st (Unitary, County, Metropolitan) & 2nd (District, Borough, City) tier Councils have declared a ‘Climate Emergency’. 47 of these have set a target date by 2030, 13 haven’t yet set a date, and 7 are aiming for zero carbon by 2050."

"Climate activists chain themselves to Scottish Parliament"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48516095

Why don't the authorities just ignore them and leave them there?

"Council on verge of 'climate emergency'"

"A coastal county in West Sussex is on the verge of declaring a climate emergency after considering a report which predicted a one metre rise in sea levels.

The cabinet of Arun District Council met on Monday to discuss the report from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

The independent body set up to advise the government has warned of a possible rise in sea levels which would put more than 500,000 properties at risk of flooding nationwide.

The report also said the public did not have "clear and accurate information" about coastal erosion.

Council leader James Walsh warned: "We are in the front line as a coastal authority... we need to up our game."

Martin Lury, cabinet member for planning, agreed, saying: "I’m thinking of declaring a climate change emergency.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment

"Change UK splits as six of 11 MPs become independents"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48515505

I wonder if anyone who gave money to Change UK will see any change....

"Trump state visit: US president turns down meeting with 'negative' Corbyn"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48515506

For me the big unanswered question here is the order of play. If Corbyn refused to meet Trump as part of the official ceremonies of the state visit, THEN asked for a private meeting, it would seem to me that Corbyn would be the one behaving like an idiot.

But if Corbyn asked for a meeting, Trump refused, THEN Corbyn decided to boycott the official ceremonial, it seems to me that in that scenario it reflects better on Corbyn and worse on Trump.

Does anyone know what the sequence of events was?

Jun 4, 2019 at 8:47 AM | Mark Hodgson

EU States are not paying their fair share of NATO costs. The US pays for its own armed services, much/most of the UN's and a disproportionate amount of NATO's.

Across mainland Europe, holiday flights go to airports paid for by NATO/US funding.