The Heartlands Tribune

Website Contact the business

The Heartlands Tribune Independent British political and current-affairs publication. Formerly Labour Heartlands. Independent. Ad-free. Demanding more.

Working-class politics, democratic socialism, civil liberties and analysis beyond the Westminster consensus. The Heartlands Tribune is an independent, reader-funded publication covering British politics, democracy, civil liberties, geopolitics and working-class communities.

18/10/2026

🇮🇹 ITALY: MILAN, 18 OCTOBER 2026

It seems shopping in Milan has taken on a whole new meaning. Forget click and collect. Apparently, it's now smash and grab.

For the second consecutive day, violence has erupted across the city centre, with shops looted, windows smashed and riot police battling groups of masked youths around the famous Piazza Duomo.

Levi's, Under Armour and Carrefour have been targeted, with people helping themselves to merchandise while police attempt to restore order.

And all this against the backdrop of demonstrations over rising living costs, low wages and failing public services.

There's a bitter irony in protesting about economic hardship while destroying businesses, threatening jobs and leaving ordinary people to pick up the bill.

The grievances deserve to be heard. The looting deserves to be condemned.

Meanwhile, from France to Italy, Europe's streets are telling a rather different story from the familiar promises of prosperity and stability.

Milan, one of Europe's great fashion capitals, has apparently introduced a new shopping experience.

No queues. No receipts. Just grab and go.

No shopkeepers were consulted in this change of shopping policy.

18/10/2026

There's a saying about Jeremy Corbyn that he has a habit of finding himself on the right side of history. And listening to this speech, you begin to understand why.

Here he is in Ireland in 2009, warning against what he called a "European empire of the 21st century", and exposing something deeply troubling about the EU's attitude towards democracy.

The Irish people had already rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. But that wasn't the end of it. After negotiating additional guarantees, Ireland was holding a second referendum in October 2009.

Corbyn had a warning for those preparing to vote No again:

"Don't scrap your posters. Don't recycle them because you're going to need them for a third referendum, because I've just got a feeling they've got to keep on voting until they get the answer they want."

As it happened, the Irish voted Yes the second time, so there was no third referendum. But Corbyn's warning about repeatedly asking the electorate to reconsider remains as relevant as ever.

And now, seventeen years later, we're hearing increasingly familiar noises in Britain.

Another government, another argument about rejoining the EU, and another political establishment seemingly convinced that the answer to Britain's problems is to hand decision-making powers back to Brussels.

Which brings me to a question for those who insist that the 2016 referendum was too close to count.

If Britain holds another referendum on rejoining, will you insist on the same 70 per cent threshold that some of you claim should have applied to Brexit? Or does that particular democratic principle only apply when the electorate votes Leave?

And while we're at it, will you insist that the full terms of rejoining are negotiated and placed before the British people before they're asked to vote?

Will Britain retain the pound? Will we recover our previous opt-outs? What will our financial contributions be? What powers will Parliament surrender, and which EU laws will Britain be obliged to accept?

Surely nobody advocating such a fundamental constitutional change would expect the British people to vote first and discover the terms afterwards?

If you genuinely believe that major constitutional decisions require an overwhelming majority, a clearly defined agreement and an informed electorate, then I'll expect you to defend those principles just as vigorously when the question is rejoining.

Because there's something rather extraordinary about accepting a narrow majority when it advances European integration, yet demanding a completely different standard when the electorate chooses to leave.

Michael Foot understood the importance of democratic accountability. Tony Benn spent his political life defending it. And Jeremy Corbyn, whatever his subsequent position on Brexit, plainly recognised the dangers of European integration proceeding against the expressed wishes of voters.

You cannot spend ten years arguing that 52 per cent wasn't enough to leave, then suddenly discover that 50 per cent plus one is perfectly sufficient to rejoin.

That's not a higher standard of democracy. It's a different set of rules depending on which side wins.

18/10/2026

Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed that Ukraine faces a further €70 billion funding shortfall in 2027, on top of the €45 billion already earmarked for that year under the EU's €90 billion support package.

That's a staggering €115 billion in existing commitments and additional funding requirements for a single year.

Brussels is now urgently looking for other countries to help plug the gap, with no firm agreement on where the extra money will come from.

And here's the rather inconvenient detail. The existing €90 billion package is being financed through EU borrowing, with Ukraine's repayment obligations tied to future Russian war reparations. Reparations that nobody can guarantee will ever materialise.

Ukraine faces a serious financial crisis unless further funding is secured, while European governments are already struggling with debt, weak growth and mounting pressure on their own public finances.

Nobody can credibly predict that Ukraine or the EU will go bankrupt in 2027 or 2028. But the financial risks are growing exponentially, and the political question is becoming harder to avoid.

How many more billions can Brussels borrow to finance a war with no agreed end date, while gambling on a military victory that is far from guaranteed and reparations Russia has shown no willingness to pay?

The entire repayment arrangement rests on assumptions, not guarantees. It presumes that Russia can eventually be compelled to pay compensation, whether through a Ukrainian victory or some future peace settlement. Neither outcome is assured, and Moscow has given no indication that it would voluntarily accept such terms.

And we're now witnessing something dangerously familiar. This is what happens when you get in so deep that pulling out becomes politically and financially unthinkable. Every additional billion makes it harder to admit the original assumptions may have been wrong. So the money keeps flowing, not necessarily because anyone can demonstrate a successful outcome, but because too much has already been committed to contemplate failure.

It's the same "too big to fail" mentality that helped fuel the financial recklessness preceding the 2008 crash. Banks took enormous risks, convinced that the consequences of failure were so catastrophic that governments would ultimately have to rescue them. When the reckoning came, the public picked up the bill.

Now consider what happens if this war ends without a Ukrainian victory, Russia refuses to pay and the reparations Brussels has effectively banked on never materialise.

The debt doesn't magically disappear. Someone still has to honour those financial commitments.

And once again, the danger is that European taxpayers will be left carrying the financial consequences of decisions they had little say in making.

The most dangerous point in any financial gamble is when those responsible become more afraid of admitting failure than of losing even more money.

18/10/2026

Come back to the EU, they said. It's a wonderful peace-loving project, they said. A beacon of prosperity, stability and European harmony.

Just ignore the riot police, burning barricades and angry crowds on the streets of France, Germany and Belgium. It's all part of the European experience. Every citizen is entitled to their daily Two Minutes Hate, provided it's directed at someone Brussels approves of.

The economies are struggling, industries are under pressure, public services are stretched, and ordinary people are wondering how they'll pay their next energy bill. But never mind. There's always money for another round of rearmament and another lecture about the virtues of European unity.

And if you question any of it, you'll be informed that you're an ignorant Little Englander who simply doesn't understand the benefits of belonging to this wonderful European family.

George Orwell gave us three memorable slogans in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

"War is Peace."

"Freedom is Slavery."

"Ignorance is Strength."

They were supposed to be warnings, not a suggested rebranding exercise for Brussels.

Still, look on the bright side. At least the EU has achieved one remarkable feat of unity. From Paris to Brussels, ordinary people seem increasingly united in their anger at the political establishment.

But do come back, Britain. The European dream is apparently going splendidly.

18/10/2026

JEFFREY SACHS: EUROPE IS MARCHING TOWARDS A DARK FUTURE

Europe can find hundreds of billions for missiles, but apparently can't find the price of a telephone call to negotiate peace.

Speaking to members of the European Parliament, renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs delivers a blistering warning about nuclear escalation and a European political class that appears to have lost its economic vision.

Factories are struggling, businesses are closing, energy costs are crippling industry, and the working class is being told there's no money for decent public services.

Yet somehow, there's always money for another weapons contract.

Sachs calls it “Keynesian militarism”, the belief that Europe can somehow build prosperity through rearmament.

“The quality of life does not come from building missiles.”

And he's right to challenge the economic thinking behind it. The arms manufacturers get their contracts, politicians make their grand speeches, and the working class is left paying the bill.

But Sachs' most chilling warning concerns nuclear war.

He recalls President Kennedy's lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis: never force a nuclear power to choose between humiliating defeat and nuclear war.

We're now hearing European politicians casually discussing the defeat and humiliation of Russia, a country with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Sachs' alternative is remarkably straightforward. Sit down. Talk. Negotiate. He even offered European leaders his own Zoom account, free of charge.

Europe needs an industrial strategy, not a war economy. It needs productive industries, affordable energy, decent jobs and investment in the things that improve people's lives.

Above all, it needs diplomacy before somebody makes a mistake from which none of us will recover.

I've written about Sachs' warning and what his arguments mean for Europe, its economy and the working class.

Watch the video. Read the article.

https://heartlandstribune.com/jeffrey-sachs-europe-warning-how-to-avoid-nuclear-war/

The future of Europe should be built in factories, schools and hospitals, not planned in war rooms.

17/10/2026

Macron has a great deal to answer for. The anger sweeping France hasn't come from nowhere, and his government cannot escape responsibility for the growing desperation of ordinary people. But what happened in Limoges goes far beyond legitimate protest.

Burning down your own historic buildings isn't protest. It's self-flagellation on a civic scale.

And that's precisely how you destroy public support for a protest movement. One burning building, and suddenly the headlines aren't about Macron's failures but about rioters destroying France's heritage. Whether it's mindless vandalism or deliberate provocation, the result is the same. Macron gets a reprieve, the protesters lose public sympathy, and the establishment couldn't have scripted it better. It does make you wonder who benefits.

In Limoges, rioters set fire to the city's magnificent 19th-century town hall, inaugurated in 1883. A building that survived two World Wars has suffered devastating damage in a single evening. Its roof has been consumed by flames, its bell tower has reportedly collapsed, and a priceless piece of French civic history has been left in ruins.

And for what?

I understand the anger over rising living costs, failing public services and a political establishment increasingly detached from ordinary people. Those grievances are real, and Macron's government must answer for them. But destroying the very buildings that belong to the people achieves absolutely nothing.

The politicians responsible for France's problems won't be personally paying the repair bills. The public will. Local communities will bear the cost, taxpayers will foot the bill, and future generations may lose a piece of their heritage that can never be fully replaced.

The working class has every right to take to the streets, to protest and to demand better from those who govern them. But there's a world of difference between challenging political power and destroying the civic inheritance of the very communities you're supposed to be fighting for.

Macron deserves to be held accountable for his government's failures. Those responsible for this destruction deserve to be held accountable too.

A society that burns down its own history isn't making progress. It's destroying its own inheritance.

JEFFREY SACHS: EUROPE IS MARCHING TOWARDS A DARK FUTUREEurope can find hundreds of billions for missiles, but apparently...
17/10/2026

JEFFREY SACHS: EUROPE IS MARCHING TOWARDS A DARK FUTURE

Europe can find hundreds of billions for missiles, but apparently can't find the price of a telephone call to negotiate peace.

Speaking to members of the European Parliament, renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs delivers a blistering warning about nuclear escalation and a European political class that appears to have lost its economic vision.

Factories are struggling, businesses are closing, energy costs are crippling industry, and the working class is being told there's no money for decent public services.

Yet somehow, there's always money for another weapons contract.

Sachs calls it “Keynesian militarism”, the belief that Europe can somehow build prosperity through rearmament.

“The quality of life does not come from building missiles.”

And he's right to challenge the economic thinking behind it. The arms manufacturers get their contracts, politicians make their grand speeches, and the working class is left paying the bill.

But Sachs' most chilling warning concerns nuclear war.

He recalls President Kennedy's lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis: never force a nuclear power to choose between humiliating defeat and nuclear war.

We're now hearing European politicians casually discussing the defeat and humiliation of Russia, a country with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Sachs' alternative is remarkably straightforward. Sit down. Talk. Negotiate. He even offered European leaders his own Zoom account, free of charge.

Europe needs an industrial strategy, not a war economy. It needs productive industries, affordable energy, decent jobs and investment in the things that improve people's lives.

Above all, it needs diplomacy before somebody makes a mistake from which none of us will recover.

I've written about Sachs' warning and what his arguments mean for Europe, its economy and the working class.

Watch the video. Read the article.

https://heartlandstribune.com/jeffrey-sachs-europe-warning-how-to-avoid-nuclear-war/

The future of Europe should be built in factories, schools and hospitals, not planned in war rooms.

Europe’s war economy is draining industry and public services. Jeffrey Sachs warns that rearmament is replacing an economic vision for peace.

17/10/2026

🇫🇷 FRANCE ERUPTS: RIOTS, FIRES AND ANGER AT MACRON

France is witnessing another wave of nationwide unrest as the October 17 protests bring students, trade unions, workers and Yellow Vest campaigners onto the streets.

In Paris and Marseille, demonstrations have descended into clashes with riot police, with reports of looting, burning barricades and damaged buildings.

The anger runs deeper than today's violence. Rising living costs, stagnant wages, struggling public services and schools starved of resources have brought different generations together against Macron's government. With billions being committed to rearmament, questions about France's spending priorities are becoming harder to ignore.

Some protesters have even revived the chilling revolutionary chant:

“Louis XVI, we decapitated him, Macron, Macron, we're going to do it again!”

MARSEILLE: Several dozen demonstrators forced their way into the lobby of City Hall on the Old Port, damaging the entrance before being dispersed by police. The incident was brief, but the symbolism of protesters storming a seat of political authority was unmistakable.

France has a long history of taking its grievances onto the streets. The latest unrest raises a familiar question for Macron's government: how much longer can it expect ordinary people to accept deteriorating services and rising living costs without demanding change?

The fires may be the most dramatic images, but the anger that brought people onto the streets is the bigger story.

The Heartlands Tribune

16/10/2026

The Culture Wars of Woke Imperialism: How Progressive Liberalism Is Killing the UK’s Left

Catherine Liu puts her finger on one of the great weaknesses of the modern liberal-left: what she describes as the “hyper-subjective blackmail of the collective”, where one person can effectively bring an organisation to a standstill by declaring themselves upset or offended. The political objective disappears while everybody scrambles to affirm the individual.

Political movements cannot be built around satisfying every individual's feelings, nor can they survive by shaming, silencing or cancelling anyone who refuses to provide the required affirmation.

That may sound harsh, but politics is collective by its very nature. Of course we should care about one another as human beings. But if we're serious about building collective power capable of confronting an economic system that concentrates wealth and ownership in fewer hands, then the movement cannot be permanently held hostage by the subjective feelings of whichever individual claims the greatest offence.

We've seen the consequences. “No debate.” Expulsions. Cancellation. Purity tests. Ever-smaller circles deciding who is sufficiently righteous to remain inside them.

That doesn't build working-class power. It builds cliques.

There is nothing particularly radical about creating political spaces so brittle that disagreement itself becomes an offence. A serious movement must contain people who disagree, argue, challenge one another and still stand together when their material interests coincide.

I've had tiny, increasingly cultish organisations try to cancel me for saying precisely this. So be it.

The working class is millions of people with different beliefs, backgrounds and opinions. If your politics cannot accommodate them unless they first learn the correct vocabulary, affirm every fashionable orthodoxy and keep their disagreements to themselves, you aren't building a mass movement.

You're building a private members' club.

16/10/2026

The audience member called it as she saw it, and no amount of political bluster from Stephen Kinnock can change the record.

The Kinnock family built a multi-million-pound career inside the European Union machine. Neil Kinnock served as a European Commissioner and Vice-President, Glenys Kinnock spent fifteen years as an MEP, and Stephen Kinnock himself spent years working for the World Economic Forum and inside European policy circles. That is not a personal slur; it is an economic reality.

When Neil Kinnock was tasked with administrative reform in Brussels, his defining moment came in 2002 with Marta Andreasen, the EU’s chief accountant.

She raised the alarm that the Commission’s accounting system was open to massive fraud, refusing to sign off on accounts she considered fundamentally unsafe. Instead of fixing the books, Kinnock suspended and ultimately sacked the whistleblower for breaking chain-of-command protocols.

The messenger was destroyed to protect the institution.

Establishment politicians often mistake accountability for insult. Dismissing legitimate public anger at institutional self-preservation does not protect progressive values; it surrenders them to the very elites who earned that distrust in the first place.

When working-class voters call out an old boys' network, the proper response isn't outrage; it is an apology.

Look at the receipts: decades on the EU institutional payroll, drawing back-to-back salaries, allowances, and index-linked pensions.

Neil Kinnock lost two general elections at home and was promptly rewarded with a post in Brussels. As a European Commissioner for ten years, he drew a six-figure salary alongside massive executive allowances. When he stepped down, he received a lucrative transitional allowance just to help him adjust to life after office, topped off with a permanent, gold-plated EU pension.

At the same time, Glenys Kinnock spent fifteen years as a Member of the European Parliament. That meant another basic salary, tens of thousands a year in unvouched daily attendance allowances, general office costs, and travel expenses. Altogether, independent research estimated the couple qualified for over ÂŁ10 million in public pay, perks, and pension entitlements from the European apparatus.

This was not a individual career path; it was the forming of a dynasty.

Stephen Kinnock’s wife, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, followed the exact same trajectory. Before becoming Prime Minister of Denmark, she served as a Member of the European Parliament for five years. After leaving elected office, she stepped straight into the chief executive role at Save the Children, followed by a comfortable rotation across corporate and advisory boards, including Facebook’s Oversight Board.

Her career fits the broader pattern of the modern political class: a seamless glide between European institutions, national governance, NGO leadership, and corporate boardrooms.

Perhaps Stephen Kinnock was right to berate the audience member for calling it an old boys' network almost misses the point. It's not. It's a self-sustaining web where power, influence, and public money circulate strictly among themselves.

Nobody needs to allege that any of them broke the rules. That's precisely the point. Ordinary people can look at a political system in which the same families and networks circulate through well-paid institutions and reasonably ask who that system is really serving.

They didn't build a company, risk their own capital or invent a product. Their wealth came overwhelmingly from careers in politics and public institutions.

So when working-class voters look at the salaries, allowances, pensions and political appointments and call it an old boys' network, sneering at them won't make the question disappear.

The people paying for the political establishment are entitled to ask whether the political establishment has become rather too good at looking after itself.

And, as an aside, while we're talking about rewriting history, let's clear something up about the small boats.

Small boat crossings didn't suddenly begin because Britain voted to leave the EU. Sporadic crossings were reported before the referendum, including around 2014–2015, but they became a significant, organised route from 2018 onwards, when the Home Office began recording arrivals systematically.

Before that, the main route was through the Channel ports and Eurotunnel, with migrants concealed in the backs of lorries. As security tightened around Calais, particularly during the migrant crisis of 2014–2015, those routes became increasingly difficult. The criminal smuggling gangs adapted, and small boats became an increasingly profitable alternative.

And anyone with a decent memory and a conscience will remember the terrible consequences of the lorry routes. In June 2000, 58 Chinese migrants suffocated in a sealed container at Dover. In October 2019, another 39 Vietnamese people were found dead in a refrigerated lorry trailer in Essex, having suffocated and overheated.

These weren't statistics. They were human beings who died dreadful deaths at the hands of criminal smuggling networks.

The methods changed, but the problem existed long before Brexit. Pretending otherwise doesn't change the history, however politically convenient it might be.

Paul Knaggs, The Heartlands Tribune

Address

Chesterfield

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Heartlands Tribune posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Heartlands Tribune:

Shortcuts

Share