

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
"Wittman is just an embarrassment to Virginians everywhere," said one Democratic campaigner. "This phone call was about as serious as he takes the needs of his constituents."
A vulnerable House Republican went to comedic lengths on Tuesday to avoid answering questions about Speaker Mike Johnson's plans for possible Social Security cuts.
The Republican Speaker was recorded earlier this week saying that under a GOP plan to be released next year, popular programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security needed to be “adjusted and fixed"—comments that were widely interpreted as a signal that cuts to crucial benefits were in the works.
On Tuesday, as a reporter from Meidas Touch approached him to ask about Johnson's "secret plan to cut Social Security," Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) suddenly whipped out his cell phone and began speaking into it, apparently to avoid the difficult question.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) faked a phone call for roughly 90 seconds after being asked about Speaker Mike Johnson’s comments regarding potential Social Security cuts.
The phone's screen remained visible, with his cheek inadvertently tapping different parts of the display. pic.twitter.com/y3ST5AX651
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) June 10, 2026
A video posted by the outlet shows Wittman walking and speaking into the phone while the screen was still visible, seeming to indicate that no phone call was actually taking place.
As Meidas described: “The phone’s screen remained visible, with his cheek inadvertently tapping" the phone and changing parts of the display, which does not occur when an actual phone call is happening.
Wittman's conversation, which went on for about 70 seconds, was vague and nonsensical: "Hey, how you doing? I’m good. I’m good with that. I’ll be there in just a few minutes," he said. "I've got some more efforts that I want to talk to you about. There are actually more things that we have to be working on."
Just before Wittman put his phone away, the reporter, who’d continued walking next to him, asked again: “Congressman, what is Mike Johnson’s secret plan to cut Social Security?” Wittman continued to walk, refusing to acknowledge the reporter, before speeding away.
According to Drop Site News reporter Julian Andreone, it’s not the first time Wittman has pulled such a stunt. He posted video of Wittman taking another conveniently-timed phone call last week, right as the journalist approached to ask about a proposal in the next military spending bill to integrate the US and Israeli militaries.
Oh hey! He did this to me & @DropSiteNews last week! https://t.co/lR40fjKNw1 pic.twitter.com/kGs69cL9Ec
— Julian Andreone (@JulianAndreone) June 10, 2026
This interaction came a day after Johnson complained on a radio show on Monday about the large amount of spending on “entitlement programs,” as Republican lawmakers have long called earned benefits, and suggested unspecified changes.
“The reason we’re in trouble is because over 74% of federal spending is on autopilot, mandatory spending. That’s your entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and things like Social Security,” Johnson said. “They have to be adjusted and fixed. We have a plan to do that next year.”
The next day, a report from the Social Security Board of Trustees showed that the popular retirement program would be unable to pay out full benefits by 2032, a quarter earlier than projected last year.
Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works, said that the shortfall has been exacerbated by Trump policies that have slashed revenue going toward the program, including a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, tariffs that have slowed economic growth, the war with Iran, and policies targeting immigrants.
It is perhaps understandable why Wittman might want to avoid giving more details on Johnson's plan. Voters overwhelmingly oppose efforts to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, or raise workers' payroll taxes, all of which have roughly three-quarters disapproval or more, according to a late-May survey by the Ronald Reagan Institute.
Amid high inflation and soaring gas prices, a YouGov/Economist poll on Tuesday showed that approval of Trump's handling of the economy has hit a new low point of just 29%, compared to 63% disapproval. That disgruntlement has filtered down ballot to the point where Republicans' longstanding advantage over Democrats on the economy has evaporated, which puts candidates in competitive districts like Wittman in jeopardy this November.
Democrats are already incorporating Johnson's comments into their midterm messaging. A release on Tuesday from the Democratic National Committee War Room noted that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Republicans and signed by Trump last year is projected to add potentially as much as $5 trillion to the national debt over ten years, largely to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans while cutting safety net programs like Medicaid.
It also highlighted comments by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last year describing the "Trump accounts" enacted as part of the megabill as a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security."
"Donald Trump and his loyal foot soldiers in Congress aren’t even trying to hide their plans to gut programs that hardworking Americans rely on," said DNC Rapid Response Director Kendall Witmer. "Trump and Republicans already made the largest cut to Medicaid in history, and now they are taking every opportunity to sell out working families and rip away retirement benefits, healthcare, and food assistance.”
Attorney Salaam Bhatti, one of several Democrats running in a crowded primary to challenge Wittman, used the embarrassing clip of him as a springboard.
"I'm running for Congress against him," he said of Wittman. "My platform: Don't ignore people, Medicare for All, tax billionaires, campaign finance reform."
Matt Royer, a digital strategist for Democrats in Virginia, said: “Wittman is just an embarrassment to Virginians everywhere. This phone call was about as serious as he takes the needs of his constituents in VA-1. Is it any wonder this race is now a tossup?”
It's the latest of several national strikes over the past year and a half against policies that one union leader said will heighten "inequality" and "poverty."
Much of Belgium ground to a halt on Tuesday as tens of thousands of workers flooded the streets of Brussels as part of a general strike against government austerity measures.
Schools closed, public transit operated with reduced service, and flights out of major airports were grounded as workers walked off the job. Instead, they marched through the capital clad in red and green, the colors of Belgium's major labor unions, with some carrying signs that read, "Hands off our pensions" and "We will not pay the price of their wars."
According to Morning Star, as many as 100,000 people took part in the strike, which was called by the nation's three biggest trade unions in protest of measures by Prime Minister Bart De Wever's government that the unions say slash pensions, reduce wages, and attack collective bargaining.
The marchers called on the government to roll back plans to raise Belgium's retirement age to 67 and have called for an end to what the unions have dubbed a “pension penalty” that would cut benefits for those who retire early.
Amid rising costs caused by the US-Israeli war against Iran, the unions are also outraged by a proposed temporary cap on wage indexation, which requires wages to rise in tandem with inflation.
It's part of a broader trend of the government loosening labor rules for employers, which unions say has led to longer, more irregular hours and diminished employees' work-life balance.
"People will have less money left over and will still have to work more flexibly and longer," said Ann Vermorgen, the chair of the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions. "Even the Planning Bureau says that the reform will promote inequality and that poverty will emerge.”
Tuesday's general strike was just the latest over the past year and a half, as the unions have refused to let up on their push to reverse De Wever's agenda.
Gert Truyens, the chair of the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (ACLVB), said that with the pension penalty and the other labor proposals, the government was displaying “total disregard” for social dialogue by “unilaterally imposing things without discussing them with the trade unions and employers.”