@PersephoneJames. I just wrote a long post separately apologising for using the word ridiculous because I didn't want to mix it in with our animal welfare discussion. I hope that's OK.
This turned out to be a lot longer than it should be!! I won't be offended if you don't read and don't reply. 😀
First off, I have to say I used to be an expert in this field but I've not been working in this sphere for a while so I accept some laws will have changed. So I wouldn't say I'm an expert anymore.
From what you're saying, I think you've accepted that the Tories never said animals don't feel pain. The 2006 animal welfare codes, in fact most animal welfare legislation, uses the words causing animal unnecessary suffering. It's true that it doesn't include the word 'sentient' but the fact the codes say animals can suffer, actually covers that animals are sentient. In fact the looseness of the term is very beneficial in prosecutions because it can encompass so much. There is no actual definition of unnecessary suffering. It's determined by vets, independent or govt employed. I think we can trust that they understand that animals feel pain. However, there is a bill being introduced that will state that animals, probably mammals (poor sea creatures) are sentient.
There were three countries with the UK in the top tier of animal welfare standards: Austria, New Zealand and Switzerland. All of them were A rated but were downgraded to B, except New Zealand....which was downgraded to the C list. So we're still world-leading, we're just leading on a B instead of an A. The API criticised that the word sentient was omitted from legislation but accepted at the same time that using the word sentient was symbolic rather than practical and that it didn't affect the high standards of animal welfare that existed in the UK. As I said earlier, new legislation does include the word sentient but the problem has been the delay getting new laws through parliament because of covid taking priority. I think that's why all the countries got downgraded. Not because their practices got worse, but because they couldn't pass legislation to make it even better. Except New Zealand which was criticised for not out-lawing cruel practices! Yikes! I hope, however, that you feel better that UK welfare standards have not slipped because of Brexit, its more than even tighter legislation which is slated to be introduced has not made its way through Parliament as yet.
I can sort of see why temporary changes have been made to lorry drivers' hours. The changes aren't dramatic but I can understand why lorry drivers aren't happy with driving an extra hour a day a couple of times a week. I wouldn't be happy! I haven't see any changes to the amount of hours animals can be transported. And in fact if they tried to change it, drivers would be fined in the EU countries they entered because the 28hr rule is hasn't been changed in those countries. When new legislation passes, animal transit hours will be shorter here than in the EU so it looks to me like they're tightening legislation rather than loosening it so far. But I don't know if they'll keep to the legislation any more than you don't know they won't.
As for fox hunting, I would go even further and ban trail hunting too which is just a back door to fox hunting IMO. I don't believe that fox hunting is popular with Tory voters. I'm disgusted every time it gets even mentioned in the HofC.
I didn't vote for Brexit as you pointed out but I am not a lover of the EU and its over-bloated and shambolic system of administration costing £100m moving between Brussels and Strasbourg. Its democracy is pretty shadowy and difficult to figure out but I wouldn't say its totally undemocratic. However, that's a side issue. I don't believe for a minute that Glenys Kinnock, an engaged party activist in her own right, didn't influence Neil; or that Cherie Blair didn't nudge Tony into introducing Human Rights issues from which she then earned millions prosecuting the UK under those very laws her husband had introduced. Lol. So if Carrie Johnson can get stronger animal welfare laws introduced, I'd not be complaining about democracy. I'd be cockahoop. Wouldn't you be?
As I say I've worked in the sphere of animal welfare under different political parties. My experience is it's a mistake to let party political loyalties be part of the argument. It stops you looking objectively at what's happening. You start to make judgements on the party rather than the policy. I'm sure you agree it's fantastic that we lead the world in animal welfare and it's to be celebrated. But there's so much more to be done. George Eustice is introducing new legislation for animal welfare, both domestic and wild, at home and abroad, which is great IF it makes it through. But I already know it still won't be enough for me.
I'm not getting into misogyny etc because then this becomes political and personal and for me animal welfare is too important to get bogged down in that. (Oops, I sound like zealot! Haha.)