… on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Category: plutocracy

  • UN warns of deepening displacement ‘nightmare’ in Gaza amid concerns of ‘ethnic cleansing’

    Spread the love

    This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

    A view of the heavily damaged city infrastructure and destroyed buildings while displaced Palestinians struggle to survive in makeshift tents along the coastline of Gaza City, Gaza, Palestine, on October 07, 2026. [Ali Jadallah – Anadolu Agency]

    The relentless contraction of Palestinians’ living space has caused a new “nightmare” of displacement in Gaza which is both “acute and chronic,” the UN rights office warned Friday, Anadolu reports.

    In a statement, the OHCHR said that Israeli forces continue to push Palestinians into ever-smaller areas of the Gaza Strip while destroying civilian infrastructure and attacking displacement sites “amid concerns of ethnic cleansing.”

    It said the relentless contraction of space has caused new displacement in areas adjacent to the “yellow line” demarcation boundary.

    “Over the past two weeks, OHCHR documented the westward expansion of Israeli military deployment areas in Al Shujaiyeh, Gaza City, and in three locations in Middle Gaza – eastern Al Bureij, eastern Deir Al-Balah and eastern Al Maghazi,” said the statement.

    The OHCHR said that it received reports that on Oct. 25, an Israeli drone dropped munitions on tents sheltering displaced families at the Al Shujaiyeh junction near the yellow line and that the resulting fire burned for five hours.

    As a result, 200 families made up of 800 people altogether – most of them women, children, and older persons – were displaced, according to the Palestinian Public Works and Housing Ministry.

    OPINION: Israel’s next government must end Gaza’s catastrophe

    “The nightmare of displacement in Gaza is both acute and chronic,” said Ajith Sunghay, head of UN Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    Sunghay added: “Those displaced before the announcement of a ceasefire have little to no prospect of return to the areas they fled, most of which are inaccessible because they fall beyond the so-called yellow line. And they continue to be displaced again and again.”

    The OHCHR reiterated that as an occupying power, Israel must cease the forcible transfer of Palestinians within the Gaza Strip, noting that this is a war crime that may also amount to a crime against humanity.

    “Israel also must facilitate Palestinians’ safe and dignified return to their homes and the areas they fled,” it noted.

    The OHCHR also warned that Israeli forces appear to treat the yellow line as a “kill zone,” preventing Palestinians from returning to what is left of their homes on the other side.

    “There must be an end to this suffering. This is the fourth year of displacement for most Palestinians in Gaza, the fourth winter in tents too flimsy to withstand the rain, and they are still under fire through it all,” added Sunghay.

    READ: UN rapporteurs warn of ‘scholasticide,’ erasure of truth in Gaza

    Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it's fun to kill everyone ... unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
    Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister. He asks who could possibly object to the IDF starving people to death, conducting forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing all Gaza's hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He says they've got a genocide to do for Israel and to stop objecting.
    UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister. He asks who could possibly object to the IDF starving people to death, conducting forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing all Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He says they’ve got a genocide to do for Israel and to stop objecting.
    Ed Miliband says that he and the Labour Party are full of shit criminalising people holding signs as terrorists despite anything he says.
    Ed Miliband says that he and the Labour Party are full of shit criminalising people holding signs as terrorists despite anything he says.

  • Interactive Archive Shares Secrets of Shell’s Early Climate Research

    Spread the love

    Article by Ellen Ormesher republished from DeSmog.

    Series: #ShellKnew

    Protesters gathered in London on Thursday to highlight Shell’s early knowledge of climate risks. Credit: Fossil Free London

    Campaigners backing attempts to sue Shell over a typhoon in the Philippines have launched an online archive showing that the British oil major knew that burning fossil fuels could harm the climate as early as the 1960s. 

    ExposeShell.com features documents including a 1966 memo Shell commissioned from British scientist James Lovelock and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’, a confidential 1988 report predicting that human-caused warming could trigger “dramatic” changes in sea level, ocean currents, weather and precipitation — “larger than any that have occurred over the last 12,000 years.” [Read these and other documents in the DeSmog series #ShellKnew]

    The interactive site went live as Shell announced the latest figures showing that oil majors are enjoying bumper profits as the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran pushes oil prices higher. Shell said its adjusted third-quarter earnings had doubled to £10.8 billion in comparison to the same period last year.

    “We don’t need any more reports to us that this big oily industry has been creating disaster,” Robin Wells, director of Fossil Free London, one of the groups behind the website, said in a statement. “Shell researched the reality but tore up the truth and locked it in the dark. Now, we are all facing the disastrous consequences.”

    Fossil Free London protesters took to the streets outside Shell’s head office in London on Thursday, dressed in 1960s-style suits and holding banners that read “Shell Knew.”

    ExposeShell.com is also backed by The Odette Case, a campaign group supporting more than 100 survivors of Typhoon Rai — known in the Philippines as Typhoon Odette — who began seeking damages from Shell last December in a first-of-its-kind case in the UK courts. 

    The typhoon tore through the Philippines in December, 2021, killing 400 people, injuring more than 1,000, and forcing almost 3.2 million people from their homes. 

    The survivors argue that Shell should be held liable for its historic contribution to the greenhouse gas emissions fuelling extreme weather events and its support for climate science denial via its past membership of industry groups such as the Global Climate Coalition — despite its early knowledge of the risks posed by burning its products.  

    Filed by UK law firm Hausfeld, the case draws on recent advances in attribution science that enable scientists to assess the degree to which climate change has contributed to an extreme weather event. Through Shell’s contribution of more than 2.5 percent of historical global greenhouse gas emissions, the suit alleges that Shell contributed to both the likelihood and severity of Typhoon Rai. It is the first civil claim to link the climate impacts of an oil and gas company’s activities with death, personal injury, and damage to property that has already occurred in the Global South.

    Shell has dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless” and said that it had no “unique knowledge about climate change.”

    (This story was updated at 12:44 GMT on October 29, 2026 to include Shell’s third-quarter earnings)

    Article by Ellen Ormesher republished from DeSmog.

    Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London.
    Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London. (Photo: Handout/Chris J. Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)
    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards

  • Israel’s elections: all roads lead to genocide

    Spread the love

    Article by Aseel Saleh republished from BreakThrough News under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

    Benjamin Netanyahu at podium with blue background
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waves to supporters at Likud party headquarters in Jerusalem following the release of the first exit poll results in Israel’s general election, Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2026.
    Photo: AP

    Analysts say Israel’s two main political blocs uphold ethnic cleansing policies against Palestinians and people of the region, while differences between them are only related to internal affairs.

    Israelis headed to voting centers on Tuesday, October 27, in legislative elections to choose the members of the parliament, known as the Knesset.

    The event marks Israel’s first general election since the October 7 attacks, which Netanyahu’s government expanded into a multi-front regional war. 

    Who is competing in the elections?

    For many, these elections serve as a direct referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right bloc he heads. 

    The Pro-Netanyahu Bloc 

    This bloc comprises the National Liberal Party (Likud) led by Netanyahu, the Religious Zionist Party (HaTzionut HaDatit) led by current Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and Jewish Power Party (Otzma Yehudit) led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

    The coalition advocates for the consolidation of Israeli rule throughout the occupied Palestinian territories, explicitly rejects the possibility of Palestinian statehood, promotes the expansion of settlements and the implementation of hardline security measures against Palestinians. It also calls for disavowing the Oslo Accords, and the total disarmament of Hamas.

    The anti-Netanyahu bloc 

    The primary competitor to Netanyahu and his coalition is the bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief of the Israeli forces. It represents a center-right to center-left opposition when it comes to Israeli internal affairs, but of course not to Palestinians and their destiny.

    Eisenkot is the architect of the “Dahiya Doctrine,” an Israeli military strategy that calls for applying massive, disproportionate firepower and the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure in order to create long-term deterrence, and discourage the local population from supporting any force resisting Israel.

    He was also a member of Netanyahu’s war cabinet for the first eight months of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

    Eisenkot’s bloc includes the Yashar Party, led by Eisenkot, and the Together alliance (Beyachad), led by former prime minister Naftali Bennett. It also includes The Democrats (HaDemokratim) – a merger of the Labor and Meretz parties – led by Yair Golan, a retired IDF Major General.

    Israel Is Our Home Party (Yisrael Beiteinu) led by Avigdor Liberman, is also part of Eisenkot’s coalition.

    Liberman, who formerly held ministerial portfolios in the Israeli government as minister of finance, defense, foreign affairs, strategic affairs, transportation, and national infrastructure alongside being a deputy prime minister, is known for his hawkish stances towards Palestinians. 

    Defending the use of live ammunition by Israeli forces against Palestinian demonstrators during the 2018 Gaza border protests (known as the Great March of Return), Liberman stated: 

    “There are no innocents in Gaza.”

    Although the components of this coalition are united by their goal to oust Netanyahu, they remain deeply aligned with their political rival’s traditional right-wing stance regarding the Palestinian cause.

    The coalition opposes the creation of an independent Palestinian state, while supporting the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and other parts of West Asia, and maintaining existing settlement frameworks.

    Some of the coalition’s affiliated parties further encourage separating Israeli and Palestinian populations, and retaining complete Israeli security control over strategic areas such as the Jordan Valley. They also demand the full demilitarization of any future Palestinian entity.

    Others call for the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, the annexation of Area C in the West Bank, and the entrenchment of discriminatory policies against Arab citizens in Israel.

    The Arab-led lists

    The Arab-led lists represent the minority of Palestinian citizens in Israel (also known as Arab-Israelis), a community that makes up roughly 21% of Israel’s total population, estimated at 10.3 million.

    Even though both lists fight for the same minority group’s rights, they hold opposing views on the goals, values, and strategy needed to represent them effectively.

    While representing a minority, these lists hold a critical and often polarizing role in Israeli elections, as they frequently act as a critical balance of power that strongly determines whether a governing coalition can be formed.

    These lists include the Joint List and the United Arab List.

    The Joint List

    The Joint List consists of:

    • The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash) led by Yousef Jabareen, a prominent Palestinian legal scholar, academic, and politician.
    • The Arab Movement for Renewal (Ta’al) led by Dr. Ahmad Tibi, a prominent Palestinian politician, who has served as a member of Knesset since 1999.
    • The National Democratic Alliance (Balad) led by a prominent Palestinian politician and historian Sami Abu Shehadeh.

    The coalition  advocates for Palestinian self-determination and civil rights, for an end to the Israeli occupation, and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

    It also demands full legal equality and state recognition for Palestinian Arab citizens as an indigenous national minority, and calls for immediate government and law enforcement intervention to curb the increase in organized crime in Arab municipalities.

    Structural reforms to secure building rights, expand municipal boundaries, and stop punitive home demolitions are top priorities on the Joint List’s agenda.

    The United Arab List 

    The United Arab List (Ra’am) is an Islamist and conservative political party led by Mansour Abbas, a prominent Palestinian politician, whose party was the first independent Arab-Muslim faction to join an Israeli government.

    Unlike traditional Arab political lists, Ra’am demonstrates a willingness to ally with Jewish political parties in government. It uses a pragmatic, integration-focused strategy to gain political influence and enhance the socioeconomic wellbeing of Arab-Israeli citizens.

    Ra’am prioritizes the immediate domestic needs of Arab communities inside Israel, such as fighting local organized crime, improving public infrastructure, securing budgets, and resolving housing issues.

    Netanyahu is alarmed by surging Arab voter turnout

    Media reports indicated that Arab citizens voted in numbers not seen in decades, which in turn pushed Netanyahu to launch an urgent social media campaign, warning of the growing participation of Arabs.

    Urging his supporters to go out and vote, Netanyahu appeared in a video, accusing Ra’am of bribing voters with envelopes of cash in the southern areas occupied by Israel.

    “My brothers and sisters, Likud voters, this is an emergency call, because they are trying to steal the election from us. This morning, the police announced something serious and unusual. They caught three of Ra’am’s senior financial figures with envelopes of cash in the south. This is criminal. They will get to everyone. You have been warned, the voter turnout in the Arab sector in the south is incomparably higher than in the Jewish sector. You must go out and vote,” Netanyahu said.  

    He also claimed that left-wing women escorted Arab women to the polls.

    Shortly before polls closed at 10:00 pm local time, the final reported voter turnout reached 74.3%, the highest in decades, with exit polls showing no clear winner, and pointing to a political deadlock.

    It is expected that the final tally and initial results will be published between Thursday afternoon, October 29, and Friday morning, October 30, while the official results will be announced on November 4, 2026. 

    All roads lead to genocide, no matter which bloc wins

    While many are looking forward to the loss of Netanyahu’s bloc in the elections, hoping that a new government will be less brutal against Palestinians and people across the West Asia region, analysts suggest that Eisenkot’s bloc adopts the same Zionist ethnic cleansing-based ideology. 

    In an interview with BreakThrough News, Israeli-American author, activist and founder of Palestine House of Freedom Miko Peled argued that there are no differences between the two competing blocs when it comes to issues like Israel’s war on Iran, the mass killing in Gaza, forcing Palestinians to flee the besieged enclave. Meanwhile, disputes on the internal Israeli issues – mainly the draft of ultra-orthodox jews in the military and initiating an independent inquiry into the failure of the army and intelligence on the October 7 attacks – remain serious.

  • The world once again calls for an end to the US blockade on Cuba

    Spread the love

    Article by Pablo Meriguet republished from BreakThrough News under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

    Cuba blockade vote
    Results of the vote on the resolution calling for an end to the US blockade against Cuba. Photo: Zoe Alexandra

    The United Nations resolution calling for an end to economic hostilities against Cuba received overwhelming support.

    Last Wednesday, October 28, the United Nations General Assembly voted (for the thirty-fourth time) in favor of ending the economic and commercial embargo – which many refer to as a blockade – that the United States has unilaterally imposed on Cuba for more than sixty years.

    With 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions, the international community once again demanded that the United States end an embargo that has caused unimaginable hardship for the Cuban people and has slowed the Caribbean nation’s development.

    One of the countries that voted against the embargo was South Africa, whose ambassador emphasized his concern about the negative consequences the Cuban people are suffering as a result of Washington’s decisions. He also called for Cuba to be removed from the list of countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism, a designation that prevents many companies from doing business on the island.

    In recent years, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denounced that high-level US diplomats had pressured several of its partners to vote against such resolutions concerning the embargo on Cuba, under threat of serious consequences. The denunciation was repeated this year by Cuba’s top diplomat.

    Despite these efforts, the overwhelming majority of countries once again called on the United States to end the embargo. Washington appeared to have successfully influenced only its closest allies (those fully aligned with its geopolitical ideology) to vote against it. Thus, among the countries that voted against the resolution are several signatories to “Shield of the Americas,” the new international military initiative led by Washington, to which several right-wing and far-right governments in Latin America have aligned themselves.

    For its part, the UN news portal reported: “The Assembly expresses its concern that, after decades of votes and appeals, the measure remains in force and continues to negatively affect the Cuban population and Cuban nationals residing abroad, without the expectations of economic normalization having been met.”

    A multimillion-dollar blockade

    According to Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, Cuba’s annual losses are estimated at about 8 billion dollars. The total economic losses since the embargo began amount to the astronomical figure of 178 billion dollars, which is a huge sum considering the relatively small size of a country with a population of 10 million.

    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez
    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez on October 28, showing a calculation of economic losses from the blockade since the UN debate began. Photo: Zoe Alexandra

    In this regard, the US economic and trade embargo – the longest-lasting in recent modern history – has been denounced by Cuban authorities as a perverse mechanism employed by Washington to boycott, almost from its inception, the Cuban Revolution, which proclaimed itself anti-imperialist and socialist.

    Added to this prolonged damage are the recent energy restrictions that Washington has imposed on Cuba. Since early 2026, when Washington targeted Venezuela (Cuba’s main energy partner), the possibility of sending oil to Cuba has been cut off by a unilateral US order; the United States warned it would increase tariffs on any country that sends crude oil to Cuba. Only one Russian tanker managed to navigate the waters and reach Cuba – a resource appreciated by Cubans but one that ran out quite quickly.

    The Caribbean nation depends almost entirely on petroleum for generating electricity, production, trade, and providing hospital care to its population. Added to this are the difficulties in distributing water and meeting other basic needs of the Cuban people, who are the true victims of a new strategy aimed at overthrowing the revolutionary government.

    In this regard, the support of the international community – the vast majority of which has called for an end to the embargo, considering it a measure that undermines the sovereignty and self-determination of the Cuban people – provides a platform to remind the world of the situation Cuba is facing.

    Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said on X: “Today at the UN, the international community’s overwhelming support for Cuba was evident in its condemnation of the blockade and the US government’s policy of maximum pressure. Most of the speakers, some representing regional blocs, were clear in their condemnation.”

    He added: “It is a despicable act on the part of the empire’s representatives to claim they are defending collective punishment – which exacts a high human cost – against the Cuban people, in violation of human rights. It is a futile effort. They are not convincing, and they achieve nothing except through gangster-like coercion.”

    Exchange of accusations between Havana and Washington

    But the vote was not without controversy. During his address, the US representative to the UN, Mike Waltz, said that concentration camps existed in Cuba where “thousands of homosexuals, Christians, and Afro-Cubans” were allegedly detained.

    In response to the statement, the Cuban delegation, visibly upset, began banging on the table and requested a “point of order.” When the Assembly president did not respond, Foreign Minister Rodríguez and the rest of the Cuban delegation approached the presiding officers and Waltz and demanded that he stop lying.

    Cuban delegation
    Cuban delegation calls for a point of order during US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz’s speech. Photo: Zoe Alexandra

    Following the protests, the Assembly president gave the floor to Rodríguez, who said that Waltz was “blatantly lying” and that his “attitude is disgraceful.” He further stated: “Mr. Waltz is lying again, and I wish him a better future in other roles, but at the United Nations and on the Security Council, his performance leaves much to be desired … He is undermining the dignity of the Cuban people and the Cuban government.”

  • Burnham promised a much-needed rupture. Healey delivered gentle tinkering

    Spread the love

    Article by Jon Trickett republished from OpenDemocracy under  a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    PM Andy Burnham and chancellor John Healey meet at 11 Downing Street ahead of the budget. Alberto Pezzali – WPA Pool / Getty Images

    Mild bank levies and one-off handouts won’t undo decades of damage to places like Makerfield

    Having spent 30 years as a Labour MP, I have long argued that tinkering around the edges with the UK’s badly skewed economy simply will not do. Andy Burnham seemed to agree when campaigning in the Makerfield by-election in June.

    Back then, Burnham promised a new direction, a break with neoliberalism and the hope of a better future. He seemed to understand that the country needed a rupture with the status quo in order to address the underlying economic, political and social malaise. 

    Within weeks of winning his seat, he became Labour leader and entered Number 10 without a contest, meaning there was no real space to interrogate his political programme. The Labour Party and the country took him at his word, because we had to. 

    The Budget, then, is the first time Burnham’s vision has been properly tested. We should judge it by a ‘Makerfield test’: if the policies unveiled do not work for his constituency, or constituencies like it, they do not work at all. And by that measure, the Budget has failed. 

    Chancellor John Healey said he would secure growth in every postcode. A £100 one-off energy payment is very welcome, but the energy sector has been ripping consumers off for a generation, while retail giants take advantage of their market power by driving up the cost of groceries. If we really want to help people in every area of the country, why not take on the privatised monopolies directly, not with a few more rules, but with proper public ownership?

    Finding additional money for defence is an inevitable choice for a chancellor who helped precipitate Keir Starmer’s downfall by resigning as defence secretary. But the defence industries are concentrated in a small number of regions and will do little in terms of growth for the large part of the country.

    Healey has delivered a Budget within the same fiscal constraints as his predecessors, one that simply does not shake off the cloying grip of neoliberal ideology, Treasury orthodoxy, and the usual vested interests lobbying the government. If the chancellor cannot deliver radical change at a macro-economic level, the only option is to tinker around the edges with micro-economic policy. But that strategy simply doesn’t transform the country in the way Burnham promised Makerfield, and Britain, he would. 

    What is clear is that over-reliance on official institutions, which Burnham has spoken strongly against, has produced a Budget that is at best mildly progressive. 

    Of course, there are good things in the Budget. Healey’s pledge that every penny of the Miners’ Pension Fund will go to miners was welcome, but it should never have been in doubt – and questions still remain over when and how that will happen.

    It is also welcome that the chancellor has recognised the need for “breathing room” from the cost of living crisis, especially with a 6% levy on banks’ profits above £100m. But the truth is that this levy is less than it ought to be, and will apply for only 15 months. It does not go far enough at a time when banks make billions in super profits as many struggle.

    NHS founder Nye Bevan once said socialism is a language of priorities, a mantra that any Labour chancellor should heed in a Budget. That’s why it is disappointing that the chancellor is pushing ahead with plans to abandon the pensions triple lock, a move projected to save £15bn a year, while ignoring policies such as equalising capital gains tax, which could raise over £19bn a year by 2030. Britain doesn’t have to choose between offering a decent pension and decent care. We can, and should, provide both. 

    The country needs to fundamentally rupture with the neoliberal status quo. In recent decades, the government has ceded control of the main economic levers to the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, making it difficult for any government to intervene adequately in the economy. 

    Indeed, the UK’s institutions have been colonised by neoliberalism. We have witnessed a long history of catastrophic forecasting failures due to Whitehall orthodoxy: from Denis Healey’s misjudged swingeing cuts in the 1976 IMF crisis to joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1990 and exiting two years later on Black Wednesday, the promotion of austerity over much of the past two decades, the blind eye turned to deindustrialisation, and most recently, the miscalculations of the Truss Budget. 

    Burnham previously criticised our central institutions, arguing that top-down neoliberal economics doesn’t work. Why, then, expect the country to continue to accept the Treasury’s orthodoxy? 

    His government has spoken a lot about a “radical rewiring” of the state to restore democratic control. But the Budget was always touted as a ‘safety first’ fiscal event, with the promise that a 10-year plan is on its way to address the underlying crises in our economy. My concern is that putting off big decisions until next year’s Spending Review, as the chancellor has said he is doing, suggests potential cuts down the line. 

    The truth is, the UK’s economy is still constrained by tight fiscal rules, which will not deliver the urgent changes needed, especially for communities such as those in Makerfield. Indeed, I would advise that the chancellor needs to be careful to avoid the accusation that he is starting to look a lot like his much-criticised predecessor, Rachel Reeves. 

    Article by Jon Trickett republished from OpenDemocracy under  a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

    Andy Burnham brings absurd comedy to politics
    Andy Burnham brings absurd comedy to politics