of tuesday's election. more soldiers and police officers arrive in spain's flood—hit valencia region — part of the 10,000 promised by prime minister pedro sanchez. hello. the un's children's agency says 50 children have been killed in 48 hours injabalia in northern gaza, which has been under intense israeli attack for weeks. unicef�*s director, catherine russell, said it was another example of the grave consequences of indiscriminate strikes on civilians. she said the entire population of northern gaza was at imminent risk of death from disease, famine and ongoing bombardments. ms russell also accused israel of targeting a unicef worker's car with a drone. the worker, who was unhurt, was involved in a polio

vaccination drive in northern gaza that had just restarted after the who was forced to postpone it in october because of heavy israeli bombardments, mass displacement and lack of access in the region. shortly after the vaccination programme restarted, a strike on one of the clinics injured six people, including four children. let's speak to james elder, the spokesperson for the united nation's children's fund. thank you for your time. it is a staggering numberfrom the union. 50 children in 48 hours. what do we know, what happened? unfortunately we know it is par for the course. we have seen an average of 35 boys and girls killed every day during the course of this war, over the course of this war, over the course of this war, over the course of the year. i don't think viewers quite grasp just

how many thousands and thousands have been killed. these two recent attacks were on residential buildings, as they so often are. i have spent weeks walking through gaza seeing children trapped under burning homes. more than 50 children killed. already they are living under siege and being denied health care. hospitals have been coming underfrequent hospitals have been coming under frequent attack. rescue workers who have such basic tools that they often work by sound, trying to hear the scream of a nobleman or a child. they have attacked while they are seeking to help people. at the same time we have 90% reduction in these children with brutal wounds of war camps are being allowed to leave. so long as there is no accountability for killing thousands and thousands of

children, then the brutality is going to escalate and we are going to escalate and we are going to escalate and we are going to continue to see this cycle of power. that is what we are talking about now. that is gaza and has been gaza for a year. gaza and has been gaza for a ear. , . gaza and has been gaza for a ear, , ., ., , gaza and has been gaza for a ear. h, ., year. israel has always maintained _ year. israel has always maintained that - year. israel has always maintained that they l year. israel has always i maintained that they are year. israel has always - maintained that they are trying to stop hamas from regrouping. how do you take those arguments. i how do you take those arguments.— how do you take those arguments. how do you take those aruuments. . , , ., ., arguments. i have spent a lot of time in _ arguments. i have spent a lot of time in gaza _ arguments. i have spent a lot of time in gaza and _ arguments. i have spent a lot of time in gaza and it - arguments. i have spent a lot of time in gaza and it is - of time in gaza and it is impossible to think in any realm of humanitarian laws you could kill ten, 11, i2, realm of humanitarian laws you could kill ten, 11, 12, 15,000 children at the level of devastation i have seen, to think you could kill that many children, to see the denial of aids that we have seen systematically, all the heads of the united nation's agencies have said this, to see famine, to see hospitals attacked, to

see 90% of all the levels of cruelty i have seen in gaza and breaches of humanitarian law. a couple stand out. one child being allowed to leave gaza a day. we need 50 with a round the wounds of war. we see mass casualty events and safe sims. truth was a very early casualty in this war and the evidence is there for all to see and we shouldn't get trapped into a war of words. we should understand numbers in terms of children killed, great restrictions on aid, why hospitals are battlegrounds and wide yet again we have famine on the doorstep in the north of gaza. the us had given israel 30 days to boost gaza ate or risk getting it cuts. we 30 days to boost gaza ate or risk getting it cuts.— 30 days to boost gaza ate or risk getting it cuts. we are to make short — risk getting it cuts. we are to make short of _ risk getting it cuts. we are to make short of getting - risk getting it cuts. we are to make short of getting that i make short of getting that deadline expiring. have you

seen any impact of that deadline?— seen any impact of that deadline? ~ ., ., ., deadline? we are nowhere near what is needed. _ deadline? we are nowhere near what is needed. the _ deadline? we are nowhere near what is needed. the last - deadline? we are nowhere near what is needed. the last two i what is needed. the last two weeks have been two of the worst that these people have endured. those people have been attacked since the 7th of october. as long as people are 0ctober. as long as people are vented —— influence do not use that influence will keep saying the mass casualty events that you spoke of. remembering of course that the attacks in the north, this is people who first suffered this from the seventh or 8th of october onwards. we are seeing levels of that are straight beyond the we should go back to the hostages taken on the 7th of october. to try to imagine what it is like for theirfamilies. as we have to imagine what it is like for their families. as we have told so many statements, that

hostages are a focus here. hostages are a focus, then a genuine ceasefire, 100 hostages went on to their families. since then onto these ferocious military means that have destroyed hospitals, the health care system, less than ten hostages have been rescued. in so many fronts it is about a ceasefire and about showing that you do care about civilians on the grounds for all those political players with influence.— all those political players with influence. , . , with influence. james elder, we will have to _ with influence. james elder, we will have to leave _ with influence. james elder, we will have to leave it _ with influence. james elder, we will have to leave it there, - will have to leave it there, but thank you for your time and speaking to us here on bbc news. people in moldova are voting in the decisive second round of the presidential election, but there are fears of russian interference. president maia sandu, who wants closer ties with europe, is facing aleksandr stoianoglo, who is supported by the pro—russian socialist party. a referendum two weeks ago narrowly backed a change to the constitution to include a wish for european union membership.

that vote was much closer than expected, as were the first round presidential results on the same day. they prompted accusations of a large—scale attempt, orchestrated from russia, to bribe moldovans against voting for ms sandu. 0pposition candidates and russia rejected the allegation. here in the uk, the chancellor rachel reeves has been defending measures taken in wednesday's budget, insisting that achieving economic growth is her number—one mission. reeves says raising employer national insurance, contributions to pay for the health service and benefits, was not on the agenda before the election but that the government had to raise the money. with more on this is our political correspondent shelley phelps. good to have you on the programme. a lot of questions therefore the chancellor to answer. fix, therefore the chancellor to answer. �* ~' therefore the chancellor to answer. �* ~ ., answer. a huge week for the chancellor, _ answer. a huge week for the chancellor, delivering - answer. a huge week for the chancellor, delivering her. chancellor, delivering her first budget and lots of

questions from laura kuenssberg on her programme this morning. the chancellor began by defending her budget. she talked about growth being her number one priority. she also faced questions about labour? decision to increase national insurance contributions for employers. part of the groups that have been caught up in that have been caught up in that our gp surgeries, social care companies and charities, because of the way the health care system works in the uk. some of these places are delivering nhs services but do not fall under the nhs. they have faced a lot of pressures from gp services and pharmacies to be made exempt. here's what rachel reeves said about that. what i would say around social care is that in the budget, we provided £600 million support via local government for social care, and that's part of a 3.2% real

terms increase in local authority budgets this week. and i know as well there was lots in our budget that the charity sector welcomed. she was basically saying that the policy was here to stay. standing quite firm on that, despite the pressure that will continue next week as the budget continues to be a big talking point here in the uk. rachel reeves said that she did not have any discussions or consider raising employers national insurance contributions before the election because one of the accusations labour faced following the budget is that they had not been honest with people at the election about their plans for raising taxes. at the end of the interview there was an interesting question asking, well, was a lot of this budget about class because there are measures in there about inheritance tax,

private schools, and she said this was not an ideological budget. this was not an ideological bud . et. ., , this was not an ideological budaet. ., , , this was not an ideological budaet. . , , ., ., budget. there has been another big headline. — budget. there has been another big headline, that _ budget. there has been another big headline, that of _ budget. there has been another big headline, that of the - big headline, that of the conservative leadership race. kemi badenoch taking charge now. she gave that first interview. what was the highlights from that? she was talkin: highlights from that? she was talking about _ highlights from that? she was talking about where _ highlights from that? she was talking about where she - highlights from that? she was i talking about where she thought her party had gone wrong under her party had gone wrong under her predecessors and areas where she thought policies were wrong. 0ne where she thought policies were wrong. one of the things she said yesterday in her speech was that her party needed to be telling the truth, and set not keeping promises on things like tax and immigration. she was asked what she thought her predecessors had gone wrong. then she got onto her views about the partygate scandal here in the uk. that is where the former prime minister boris johnson and former chancellor rishi sunak were given a fine

because they broke coronavirus restrictions.— restrictions. some of those thins i restrictions. some of those things i think _ restrictions. some of those things i think your - restrictions. some of those l things i think your perception issues — things i think your perception issues i_ things i think your perception issues. i think a lot of the things— issues. i think a lot of the things around partygate were not why— things around partygate were not why i resigned. i thought they— not why i resigned. i thought they were overblown. you should not have — they were overblown. you should not have created fixed penalty notices. — not have created fixed penalty notices, for example. that was notices, for example. that was not going — notices, for example. that was not going with our principles. it was interesting to see the dividing lines between the two parties in this interview. kemi badenoch said her views on the economy could not be more different from rachel reeves. she said it is businesses create growth and you need to support them and raising taxes through employers would not grow the economy. a criticism that was made of kemi badenoch during her campaign was that she did not have much policy. at the time she said she had wanted to talk about core principles and it was too early to be talking about policy, so

i thought it was interesting she did say she would reverse labour�*s adding of vat on private school fees. labour's adding of vat on private school fees. thank you very much- — kamala harris has appeared in a sketch on us comedy show saturday night live, alongside actor and comedian maya rudolph, who is known for her impressions of the vice—president. in the skit, rudolph sits down in a dressing room and looks into a mirror through which harris, dressed in identical attire, is looking back. the pair then performed a scripted sketch largely punning on kamala harris's first name. meanwhile, ms harris and donald trump have been making last minute pitches to voters ahead of tuesday's election. both have visited the swing state of north carolina, with their planes parked alongside each other at charlotte airport. mr trump — the republican candidate — focused on economic issues while ms harris urged people to head to the polls. there are seven states which will decide who becomes the 47th president of

the united states. polls show there's very little separating the two candidates — and polls are within the margin of error — so these states could go either way. more than 70 million americans have already cast their vote and harris and trump have multiple visits planned to the battleground states over the next two days. let's take a listen to what they've been saying. imagine the oval office, and if he is elected, donald trump on day one would be sitting in that office, stewing over his enemies' list. booing. but when i am elected, i will walk in on your behalf, working on my to do list. cheering. to do. and at the top of my list is bringing down the cost of living for you. i will end inflation, -

i will stop the invasion of criminals into our country and i will bring back- the american dream. cheering. this is all you really need to know. - kamala, a low iq person, broke it. and i will fix it, - i promise, i will fix it. actor harrison ford has released three videos in partnership with the harris—walz campaign, saying that he will be voting kamala harris for president. listen in. look, i'm frustrated about a lot of things in this country. i'm sure you are too. but the other guy, he spent four years turning us against each other while embracing dictators and tyrants around the world. that's not who we are.

his endorsement comes as another well—known figure, monica lewinsky, stated on social media that she has voted for harris. with just three days until election day, celebrity endorsements are pouring in. earlier this week, trump got a stamp of approval from former astronaut buzz aldrin, who was the second man to step foot on the moon. he also got the backing of the a well—known youtuberjake paul, who encouraged his fans to vote for the former president on his behalf. i asked former nato official professorjamie shea how he thinks both leaders would vary in their approach to conflicts around the world. it is not so easy to assess this because this...

focused there is great news for each ukrainians, the partners. states is still the global superpower, there hasn't been much talk about its role in the wider world. so a lot of it is is guesswork. but but clearly there is a difference between a donald trump and kamala harris. harris represents a more continuity, which certainly is good news for ukrainians and for europeans, for nato, the asia pacific partners. donald trump inevitably is more disruptive and is promising changes. but trump hasn't made any sort of foreign policy speech during this campaign, setting out a sort of coherent vision for the world. and it's not clear yet if he does win, which way he's going to go. i mean, the last time trump was in the white house, he he his style was disruptive.

but in terms of substance, there was a great deal of continuity. he didn't withdraw from nato. he didn't pull us troops out of europe, and he was the first president to actually give. lethal weapons to ukraine. he also had people around him, the so—called adults in the room who were more the sort of traditional republican. internationalists and who restrained him. so really, the big question if trump does win is is it going to be a replay of the previous four years where europeans were uncomfortable but eventually found their way through and managed to talk to trump? or is this time around trump going to be unleashed, as it were, with no adults in the room and pursue much more radical policies? and frankly, we don't really know the answer to that yet, and we won't know until he wins. if he wins, until he appoints his cabinet and gives a greater sense of his foreign policy direction. and what about the conflict in the middle east? again, given, you know, donald trump's relationship with benjamin netanyahu, even the last time when he was a president of the united states, how do you see that progressing? well, he's a big friend of israel, and he said that, of course, he's going to give unconditional backing to israel. that may worry some europeans who believe, of course, that it's time now to end the war in the middle east, and israel is really not

going to get much more from continuing the campaign. we're both in lebanon and gaza. of course, the humanitarian costs are escalating, and there's a greater danger, both of a confrontation with iran and also israel losing the support of those gulf arab states that have drawn closer to israel in recent years. so trump, on the one hand, is a big supporter of israel. but on the other hand, he likes to profile himself as a peacemaker. one of his campaign's pledges is that i don't get you involved in more foreign wars. i bring the wars to an end. i don't send our military abroad to fight unnecessarily. so i think there may be also a temptation for trump to try to show that he can make peace in the middle east, particularly as previous presidents have not particularly succeeded. there may be an opportunity for the europeans to work with him, particularly as nobody has an interest in a confrontation with iran. but again, it depends very largely on the people he has around him. trump is not a foreign policy specialist. he's more interested in trade than traditional military strategic issues. therefore, who he who is he going to appoint and what kind of advice will they be giving him?

0n trades, in terms of china, there are various factors like tariffs, south china sea, taiwan, how will beijing be viewing the elections? i think i will be thinking _ viewing the elections? i think i will be thinking it _ viewing the elections? i think i will be thinking it will- viewing the elections? i think i will be thinking it will be - i will be thinking it will be more of the same. there is not a massive amount of difference between the biden administration and what we may get from trump on foreign policy. for example, biden has been very cautious recently in terms of not allowing ukraine to use long—range american weapons to strike deep to use long—range americ