i dare week and at the weekend and i dare say even a little dose of winter on the way for some northern parts of the way for some northern parts of the country. tomorrow, rather cloudy and this is satellite picture of the entire globe, a bit confusing and we went to zoom into europe but anyway! this is the map for tuesday, hydra shipbuilding into north—western parts of the uk and that means clear skies through the night and into the morning so pretty chilly in scotland and northern ireland but the bulk of england and wales i think have a relatively mild nice with the breeze of the north sea and thick cloud, 8-10 but of the north sea and thick cloud, 8—10 buta of the north sea and thick cloud, 8—10 but a touch of frost expected in some northern towns and cities. we wake up to sunshine in scotland and northern ireland also a bit developing in northern england and wales but east anglia and the south—east, probably staying fairly cloudy, that breeze off the north sea and a few showers. but in the north or the south, temperatures in the range of 8—12 . on wednesday,

thick cloud and a mild westerly breeze across the uk, heavier rain in parts of the western isles and look at the temperatures, possibly up look at the temperatures, possibly up to 14 degrees in some places feeling relatively mild midweek. thursday into friday, a cold front sweeps southwards across the uk, opening up the gates to stronger and colder winds from the north, and these white blobs are wintry showers sweeping across the scottish hills but elsewhere, a case of crisp sunshine so a crisp end to the week with a cold air and temperatures around low single figures, maybe eight or nine in the south. thanks, tomasz. that's bbc news at ten. newsnight isjust newsnight is just starting with victory on babies too but now

the prime minister says tax cuts "are coming". when, how might that affect you, and will it mean the overall tax burden is going to come down in the short term or not?

this parliament has seen the biggest tax burden in peacetime. rishi sunak claims he's a low tax tory, so when will he put our money where his mouth is? and amid all this talk about tax cuts, are we in danger of ignoring something else? big implied reductions in spending on our public services. we speak to a conservative mp and a trade unionist. also tonight, do today's revelations from sir patrick vallance at the covid inquiry bury the idea that borisjohnson and rishi sunak were "following the science" at all times? we will pay you to go into an environment with people in other hassles and mix in an indoor environment, and that is the completely opposite public health message. joe biden turned 81 today —

he's the oldest president in american history. is he too old to run again? this congressman challenging him for the democractic nomination thinks so. president biden is perhaps among the only moderate democrats in the united states who can and will lose to donald trump in 202a. and in argentina, a chainsaw—wielding outsider has won their presidential election javier milei has promised to introduce the dollar and "blow up" the central bank which he says is responsible for inflation of 143%. but now in power can he actually do all that? good evening. "over time we can and we will cut taxes." that's what rishi sunak said in a speech on the economy in london today. does he mean what he says? the chancellor will deliver the autumn statement on wednesday. today the pm said he believed in cutting taxes "carefully and sustainably", so what does that tell us about when tax cuts are coming? and will what they announce this

week actually see the overall tax burden coming down in the short to medium term? labour for its part says it's happy to fight the next election on the economy. in a moment we'll bring together kate bell, assistant general secretary from the trades union congress, and conservative mp tobias ellwood. first here's ben. we are being primed to expect tax cuts in wednesday's autumn statement. here is what the prime minister rishi sunak said today. as inflation is halved and our growth is stronger, meaning revenues are higher, we can begin the next phase and turn our attention to cutting tax. now, we don't know which taxes will be cut by the chancellorjeremy hunt. there has been lots of speculation about business taxes, inheritance tax, insurance and so on, but let's take a step back and put all of this in context. we have shown you this chart before but it is important. it shows that this is currently on track to be the biggest tax—raising parliament since the second world war, raising overall tax receipts as a share of national income

by around 4%. that is equivalent to around £3,500 per household on average. this is a result of tax rises already implemented, such as hikes in corporation tax and a freeze on income tax thresholds. any tax cuts this wednesday, or even in next year's pre—election budget, will not significantly change this picture. but tax cuts will have a distributional effect. speculation is swirling about the possible i% cut in the basic rate of income tax. there is some important context here. this income tax cut would cost around £5 billion in foregone revenues, so who would benefit? one might assume that cutting the basic rate of income tax would primarily benefit those who are on relatively modest incomes, but research by the ippr think tank shows around half of the cash benefit of this would in fact go to the top fifth of households by income shown in red. and just 25% to the bottom three shown in dark blue, green and yellow.

but public finance experts stress there is another crucial bit of context for this discussion about tax cuts, which is the implication for public services. it is true inflation is pulling in more money in tax, but it is also imposing more pressure on public services who need to pay staff more and buy more expensive equipment. the chancellor had already pencilled in very tight spending settlements for the uk public services after the current spending review period ends in 2025 and now they look even tighter. this shows the implied path for overall day—to—day public service spending per head of population in real terms, actually a 5% cut by 2028 on current levels. but let's assume that the high political profile departments like health and education continue to be protected from real terms cuts and so see funding grow by i%. look what that implies for unprotected departments likejustice, prisons, the police, local government,

et cetera, a cut of 16% in real terms from today. as the resolution foundation points out, this would be a case of cuts comparable to those imposed by george osborne after 2010. for government departments, like households, higher inflation means that the things that they are spending on get more expensive, so they are cut at the sort pace that we saw back in the george osborne 2010 era, so some really significant squeezses on government spending as a result of inflation we have seen over the past few years. the debate about tax cuts is based on the assumption that fiscal headroom is now providing the tools for the chancellor and the government to deliver them. but most analysts looking at the outlook for the economy and the current condition of the public services and the growing demands on them are sceptical of that to put it mildly. ben chu. nick's here and, nick, the prime minister hoping

that his speech today might shift the dial? very much so, because it is a government that has been rather feeling sorry for itself. we had rishi sunak�*s speech, a big message of change after 30 years of failure, so he brought back one of the symbols of that era, david cameron. then there was the king's speech, but that fell flat. so the autumn statement, they wanted to be a big moment and then i believe it can be a big moment. the reason why they think that is they think the stars are beginning to align. one, they think they have got some better—than—expected fiscal headroom, a bit of extra cash, and they did meet their target of halving inflation. from the prime minister today, as we heard from ben, talking about cutting taxes but doing so carefully and sustainably. so he is going to act with caution. he will only cut taxes if it doesn't feel inflation. talking to a very close ally of rishi sunak, this person is saying that anything that the chancellor does must look like

it is part of a long—term plan and there must be a big drive to boost economic growth in this. but the government really does need this big moment because they are not that many big set piece moments between now and the general election. just the budget really. let's speak now to conservative mp tobias ellwood from the one nation group of mp's who are described as being on the left of the conservative party, and assistant secretary general kate bell from the trades unions congress. welcome to both of you. tobias ellwood, even if a tax cut is announced on wednesday, the overall tax burden will still be the highest it has been in peace time in all likelihood. so rishi sunak�*s actions don't match his words, do they? it is interesting when you talked about the tax burden in the last decade or so, but you need to put that in context. firstly, the financial package that we inherited was not good, if you remember that note

saying there was no money left. that was 13 years ago. i saying there was no money left. that was 13 years age-— was 13 years ago. i haven't finished et. are was 13 years ago. i haven't finished yet- are you _ was 13 years ago. i haven't finished yet- are you going _ was 13 years ago. i haven't finished yet. are you going back _ was 13 years ago. i haven't finished yet. are you going back to - was 13 years ago. i haven't finished yet. are you going back to after- was 13 years ago. i haven't finished | yet. are you going back to after the second world war? we yet. are you going back to after the second world war?— yet. are you going back to after the second world war? we will get there, we are not going _ second world war? we will get there, we are not going back— second world war? we will get there, we are not going back that _ second world war? we will get there, we are not going back that far, - second world war? we will get there, we are not going back that far, i - second world war? we will get there, we are not going back that far, i am . we are not going back that far, i am making it clear that over the last decade we have not only had a bad situation to start with, we then had covid and the ukraine war and brexit. covid itself was £300 million that we didn't need to spend. but year ago inflation was 11.1% and it is now down to 4.4%. it is moving in the right direction. what we heard from the prime minister today was absolutely we want to introduce tax cuts, but we have got to do it responsibly. you had jeremy hunt at the cbi today as well saying productivity needs to improve, we are not as good as germany, but we are good at innovating. so what can britain be? we can be a high—tech superpower, we

can be another silicon valley. look at what is thriving, pharmaceuticals, life sciences. so when you talk about tax cuts to complete the story, i hope we will see them giving opportunities for businesses to invest, to say if a businesses to invest, to say if a business puts more money in two more employers and equipment and so on, they will get a tax break to invest and that will help grow the economy. kate, presumably you would welcome a tax cut for people? what kate, presumably you would welcome a tax cut for people?— tax cut for people? what we have to look at is what _ tax cut for people? what we have to look at is what is _ tax cut for people? what we have to look at is what is happening - tax cut for people? what we have to look at is what is happening to - look at is what is happening to living — look at is what is happening to living standards and most people who have suffered 13 years of real wages failing. _ have suffered 13 years of real wages falling, about 15 grand a year worse off than_ falling, about 15 grand a year worse off than they would be if the wages had grown — off than they would be if the wages had grown at the weight —— the way they had _ had grown at the weight —— the way they had gone before the financial crisis _ they had gone before the financial crisis. they may well a tax cut but they— crisis. they may well a tax cut but they will— crisis. they may well a tax cut but they will not — crisis. they may well a tax cut but they will not see that reversing a decades— they will not see that reversing a decades long decline in living standards. what they are also looking — standards. what they are also looking out for is what is this overoti— looking out for is what is this overall package doing to our public services? — overall package doing to our public services? there are record waiting lists in_ services? there are record waiting lists in the — services? there are record waiting lists in the nhs,17 point 7 million

people _ lists in the nhs,17 point 7 million people waiting to be seen. what i am looking _ people waiting to be seen. what i am looking for— people waiting to be seen. what i am looking for on wednesday is, is this a plan _ looking for on wednesday is, is this a plan to— looking for on wednesday is, is this a plan to fix— looking for on wednesday is, is this a plan to fix public services? is it a plan to fix public services? is it a plan _ a plan to fix public services? is it a plan to— a plan to fix public services? is it a plan to improve my living standards? and isn't a plan to economic— standards? and isn't a plan to economic growth? is standards? and isn't a plan to economic growth? is it standards? and isn't a plan to economic growth?— standards? and isn't a plan to economic growth? is it not 'ust the fact that broadly * economic growth? is it not 'ust the fact that broadly speaking _ economic growth? is it not just the fact that broadly speaking people l fact that broadly speaking people feel less well off than maybe five years ago, ten years ago 13 years ago? it years ago, ten years ago 13 years am? ., , , years ago, ten years ago 13 years an? ., , , ., years ago, ten years ago 13 years ao? . , , ., f . years ago, ten years ago 13 years an? , ., '. , ., ago? it has been a difficult period, but notjust _ ago? it has been a difficult period, but notjust in _ ago? it has been a difficult period, but notjust in this _ ago? it has been a difficult period, but notjust in this country, - ago? it has been a difficult period, but notjust in this country, but. ago? it has been a difficult period, but notjust in this country, but in | but notjust in this country, but in other countries as well. isn’t but notjust in this country, but in other countries as well.— other countries as well. isn't that what people _ other countries as well. isn't that what people vote _ other countries as well. isn't that what people vote on _ other countries as well. isn't that what people vote on when - other countries as well. isn't that what people vote on when it - other countries as well. isn't that l what people vote on when it comes other countries as well. isn't that - what people vote on when it comes to a general election? to what people vote on when it comes to a general election?— a general election? to feel better off? going _ a general election? to feel better off? going back— a general election? to feel better off? going back to _ a general election? to feel better off? going back to the _ a general election? to feel better off? going back to the inflation i off? going back to the inflation number two growth has flatlined. it number two growth has flatlined. it may be more than germany, but it is tiny. may be more than germany, but it is tin . ., , , may be more than germany, but it is tin. . , ., may be more than germany, but it is tin. . , tiny. that places it into context. we are subject _ tiny. that places it into context. we are subject to _ tiny. that places it into context. we are subject to global - tiny. that places it into context. i we are subject to global headwinds and that has affected our economy. you can't ignore that. haunt and that has affected our economy. you can't ignore that.— you can't ignore that. how will that and so people? _ you can't ignore that. how will that and so people? it— you can't ignore that. how will that and so people? it is— you can't ignore that. how will that and so people? it is not _ you can't ignore that. how will that and so people? it is not consoling i and so people? it is not consoling --eole, it and so people? it is not consoling people. it will _ and so people? it is not consoling people, it will put _ and so people? it is not consoling people, it will put into _ and so people? it is not consoling people, it will put into context - and so people? it is not consoling | people, it will put into context and what will help people is where we

are going ahead and the fact that inflation has come down. the trade unions have been demanding public sector pay increases because inflation has been so high. the fact it has been now reduced back down to more honest level, and we have still got more to do, but it does help meet those pay standards and allow further investment into public services. you are right, it has been very difficult indeed. we need to move to the next phase of what the prime minister wants to do, which is to see a break. we will not see huge tax cuts on wednesday, we are more likely to see progress if the economy continues to improve and being announced in the spring budget. being announced in the spring budet. ., being announced in the spring budiet. ., ., ., budget. how will it allow further investment _ budget. how will it allow further investment in _ budget. how will it allow further investment in public _ budget. how will it allow further investment in public services - budget. how will it allow further i investment in public services when richey sonic and jeremy hunt are cancelling in cuts of 16% to departments? at cancelling in cuts of 16% to departments?— cancelling in cuts of 16% to departments? cancelling in cuts of 16% to de iartments? �* ., , ., departments? at the moment they are beini tied in departments? at the moment they are being tied in with _ departments? at the moment they are being tied in with the _ departments? at the moment they are being tied in with the increase - departments? at the moment they are being tied in with the increase in - being tied in with the increase in pay which is connected to inflation.

we will have to wait until wednesday to be able to see exactly. every single mp is very conscious of the state of our health service, the pressure it has been under, not least from covid, wanting to see greater investment in our nhs. i greater investment in our nhs. i will come back to the question but i need to bring in kate. jeremy hunt and rishi sunak have factored in cuts to nonprotected departments of around 16%. a broad consensus that some of these areas will be really stretched, if not on earnings. keir starmer has said repeatedly that money for public services will come through growth if they win the next election. they are going to face a choice immediately. sticking with the conservative spending limits, cuts of 16%, or raising taxes to give that money to those departments, are they? we give that money to those departments, are they? give that money to those deiartments, are the ? ~ . ., ., departments, are they? we all want a iain for departments, are they? we all want a plan for growth _ departments, are they? we all want a plan for growth and _ departments, are they? we all want a plan for growth and that _ departments, are they? we all want a plan for growth and that is _ plan for growth and that is important and we need that plan. we

have seen— important and we need that plan. we have seen some of the planks of the plan from _ have seen some of the planks of the plan from the labour party, whether that is— plan from the labour party, whether that is the _ plan from the labour party, whether that is the investment strategy. | that is the investment strategy. i am that is the investment strategy. am asking that is the investment strategy. i am asking immediately after the next election if labour have one, are they going to raise taxes or stick with the conservative plan? that is a iuestion with the conservative plan? that is a question for— with the conservative plan? that is a question for the _ with the conservative plan? that is a question for the labour— with the conservative plan? that is a question for the labour party. . a question for the labour party. what _ a question for the labour party. what the — a question for the labour party. what the trade union wants is a plan to invest _ what the trade union wants is a plan to invest in — what the trade union wants is a plan to invest in our public services because — to invest in our public services because that is critical in delivering better economic growth. think— delivering better economic growth. think about the activity over the course _ think about the activity over the course of — think about the activity over the course of this year and that is linked — course of this year and that is linked to— course of this year and that is linked to the problems in our health service _ linked to the problems in our health service and — linked to the problems in our health service and we want to see all politicians _ service and we want to see all politicians recognising that fundamental issue, that you can't have _ fundamental issue, that you can't have a _ fundamental issue, that you can't have a strong and growing economy without _ have a strong and growing economy without strong public services and we want _ without strong public services and we want a — without strong public services and we want a plan to get our public services — we want a plan to get our public services back on track. can we want a plan to get our public services back on track.- we want a plan to get our public services back on track. can i come back to the _ services back on track. can i come back to the point _ services back on track. can i come back to the point about _ services back on track. can i come back to the point about comparing what labour want to do. i think they want to neutralise the issue of the economy in the next general election. , . , ., election. they have said they want to fi i ht on election. they have said they want to fight on the _ election. they have said they want to fight on the economy _ election. they have said they want to fight on the economy in - election. they have said they want to fight on the economy in the - election. they have said they want | to fight on the economy in the next election. , , ., , ., election. they will be hoping that the general _

election. they will be hoping that the general public _ election. they will be hoping that the general public will _ election. they will be hoping that the general public will say - election. they will be hoping that the general public will say we - election. they will be hoping that the general public will say we are j the general public will say we are hopeful and confident with the economy and that will be an approach that neutralises so that we don't talk about it. the very question that you posted as to whether they will raise taxes themselves. £28 billion has been spoken about that they will need to borrow in order to make ends meet. that is the choice we face. they have said borrow to invest. the wa we they have said borrow to invest. the way we are — they have said borrow to invest. tue: way we are interpreting they have said borrow to invest. t'te: way we are interpreting it, they have said borrow to invest. tt9 way we are interpreting it, they don't want us to discuss the economy. what you're going to see. rachel reeves said tonight to the labour party, we are happy to fight the election on the economy. can i just... the election on the economy. can i 'ust. .. ~ :, the election on the economy. can i 'ust...~ :, :, ,, the election on the economy. can i 'ust.... . . ,, just... what happened last time with ton blair just... what happened last time with tony blair when _ just... what happened last time with tony blair when you _ just... what happened last time with tony blair when you get _ just... what happened last time with tony blair when you get him - just... what happened last time with tony blair when you get him in... - just... what happened last time with tony blair when you get him in... 28| tony blair when you get him in... 28 billion is to invest, you accept that? ., �* ,, .,~ billion is to invest, you accept that? ,, ., , ., ., that? you're speaking on behalf of the the labour _ that? you're speaking on behalf of the the labour party. _ that? you're speaking on behalf of the the labour party. i'm - the the labour party. i'm concerned... where is that money going to come from. concerned. .. where is that money going to come from.— concerned... where is that money going to come from. they're going to borrow it. that _

going to come from. they're going to borrow it. that is _ going to come from. they're going to borrow it. that is what _ going to come from. they're going to borrow it. that is what we _ going to come from. they're going to borrow it. that is what we are - borrow it. that is what we are twrieini borrow it. that is what we are twrieing to — borrow it. that is what we are twrieing to say. _ borrow it. that is what we are twrieing to say. to _ borrow it. that is what we are twrieing to say. to invest. - borrow it. that is what we are | twrieing to say. to invest. you borrow it. that is what we are - twrieing to say. to invest. you said it was to make _ twrieing to say. to invest. you said it was to make ends _ twrieing to say. to invest. you said it was to make ends meet. - twrieing to say. to invest. you said it was to make ends meet. they i twrieing to say. to invest. you said | it was to make ends meet. they are makini it it was to make ends meet. they are making it clear— it was to make ends meet. they are making it clear they _ it was to make ends meet. they are making it clear they want _ it was to make ends meet. they are making it clear they want to - it was to make ends meet. they are making it clear they want to spell i making it clear they want to spell out as if they're copying the conservatives policies when they have made clear they will have to borrow 28 billion. let have made clear they will have to borrow 28 billion.— borrow 28 billion. let me ask you this, rishi _ borrow 28 billion. let me ask you this, rishi sunak— borrow 28 billion. let me ask you this, rishi sunak has _ borrow 28 billion. let me ask you this, rishi sunak has tried - borrow 28 billion. let me ask you this, rishi sunak has tried to - borrow 28 billion. let me ask you| this, rishi sunak has tried to shift the dial, his net zero speech and he claimed he was the change candidate, the kings speech what, can you remember from that? the kings speech what, can you rememberfrom that? a, the kings speech what, can you remember from that? : : :, ., remember from that? a commitment to make sure that — remember from that? a commitment to make sure that we _ remember from that? a commitment to make sure that we move _ remember from that? a commitment to make sure that we move forward - remember from that? a commitment to make sure that we move forward on - make sure that we move forward on our co2 emissions and to make sure we continue our levelling up programme. we continue our levelling up programme-— we continue our levelling up programme. we continue our levelling up irioramme. . . ~ , programme. was that in the kings sieech? programme. was that in the kings speech? yes. _ programme. was that in the kings speech? yes, we _ programme. was that in the kings speech? yes, we go _ programme. was that in the kings speech? yes, we go back - programme. was that in the kings speech? yes, we go back to - programme. was that in the kings speech? yes, we go back to it - programme. was that in the kings speech? yes, we go back to it if i programme. was that in the kings l speech? yes, we go back to it if you like. the speech? yes, we go back to it if you like- the point— speech? yes, we go back to it if you like. the point i'm _ speech? yes, we go back to it if you like. the point i'm trying _ speech? yes, we go back to it if you like. the point i'm trying to - speech? yes, we go back to it if you like. the point i'm trying to say - speech? yes, we go back to it if you like. the point i'm trying to say is i like. the point i'm trying to say is that there is a now a plan that we move forward, getting that inflation down and there is state craft has returned to no 10. we had the food

security summit, the ai summit and we are trying a role on the international stage. why do you think the polls are not shifting? the polls won't shift immediately for the reasons that we are discussing, until people actually see the benefits of these, in their pay and in public services and so forth and where britain is going. we will hear i think some impressive announcements on wednesday, but don't expect the polls to change the next day. it will take time for people to see the difference, the choice between what the conservatives are offering and what labour is. :, ~ conservatives are offering and what labour is. ., ,, ,., conservatives are offering and what labour is. ., ,, y., , ., labour is. thank you, we must leave it there. one of the key players during the pandemic, the government's chief scientific adviser sir patrick vallance gave evidence to the covid public inquiry today. according to him, dominic cummings had said, "rishi thinks jst let people die". according to him, scientists didn't know about the eat out to help out scheme in the pandemic

until it was announced — a scheme that was mr sunak�*s idea when he was chancellor. according to him, the then health secretary matt hancock said things that weren't true. in a moment we'll ask as the technical lead of a civil service team who came up with the uk's coronavirus dashboard if he is learning anything from this public inquiry that would better equip the uk to deal with any pandemic in the future. first here's nick. the trio who defined those dark days... good afternoon. politician, medic and scientist. i solemnly and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. this week it's the turn of the experts to have their say. i think i'm right in saying that the prime minister at the time gave up science when he was 15. and i think he would be first to admit it wasn't his forte and he did struggle with some of the concepts and we did need to repeat them often.

right here at the height of pandemic, two pretty obscure figures became two of the most famous faces in the land. in no 10 at the time they used to talk about how chris whitty was visible — everything he said struck home with people and so he was used in the ads. patrick vallance, well, they used to say that he was invisible, a figure who spoke with great authority, but insta ntly forg etta ble. not any more. and today we heard sir patrick vallance say how scientists often had to work doubly hard to ensure unpalatable advice was heeded by politicians. he told us our advice was not loved. borisjohnson will be giving evidence in due course. rishi sunak appeared to be no fan of the scientists. vallance wrote that in a meeting injuly 2020 the then chancellor said, "it's all about handling the scientists not the virus."

after this remark, borisjohnson blustered when he realised scientists were present. and a diary entry by sir patrick vallance quoted the former no 10 advisor dominic cummings as saying that rishi sunak "thought it was ok just to let people die." vallance also accepted that the then chancellor's eat out to help out scheme led to a higher death rate. no 10 said it cannot comment while a statutory inquiry is ongoing. all that expertise across government that was wasted and wasn't being used by no 10, because it was a small cabal of people with very insular campaigning type of mentality. an advocate for government transparency says the response to the pandemic was complicated by a downing street more accustomed to campaigning. it's hard not to believe that it was influenced by it had 2016 the brexit campaign, then you had a leadership campaign. that same group of people then also campaigned to win an election. so they were a campaigning team,

they were a very insular group of people and thought everything could be fixed with cons and slogans and controlling the message. that was just not enough when you had to be sophisticated about explaining uncertainty, preparing ministers and the population for the fact that the advice would change. eat out to help out, a chancellor subsidising restaurants at the height of the pandemic and today we learned that that policy was introduced without reference to patrick vallance. raised eyebrows at that from a whitehall watcher. so, the thing that really surprised me coming out of that was that patrick vallance and chris whitty seemingly had no input into eat out to help out before it was announced. how did the treasury get away with that? that seems remarkable that you could make such a big intervention in the economy, whether it was the right or the wrong thing to do, without advice from your chief medic and chief

scientist. thank you very much... three figures who dominated all our lives and tomorrow it is the turn of professor chris whitty to take the stand. let's speak to the man described as revolutionising the government's response to covid, pouria hadjibagheri. he was the technical lead of a civil service team who came up with the uk's coronavirus dashboard, data that was made available to us all. thank you for being with us. what did you make of what sir patrick vallance said today?— did you make of what sir patrick vallance said today? most of his talk was quite _ vallance said today? most of his talk was quite close _ vallance said today? most of his talk was quite close to _ vallance said today? most of his talk was quite close to my - vallance said today? most of his i talk was quite close to my thoughts really. i agreed with the majority of what he said. some of which particularly hit close to home. for instance, he raised the reprimand matter. , :,

instance, he raised the reprimand matter. , ., _ instance, he raised the reprimand matter. , . _ ., , ., matter. reprimanded by a senior civil servant. _ matter. reprimanded by a senior civil servant. that _ matter. reprimanded by a senior civil servant. that is _ matter. reprimanded by a senior civil servant. that is quite - civil servant. that is quite familiar— civil servant. that is quite familiar to _ civil servant. that is quite familiar to me _ civil servant. that is quite familiar to me in - civil servant. that is quite familiar to me in the - civil servant. that is quite l familiar to me in the sense civil servant. that is quite - familiar to me in the sense that i often found it was difficult to communicate matters and advice directly to stake holders, or senior stake holders, there was a number of layers between scientists and decision—makers and minister and it was quite proper during normal times, this could make things more difficult when it comes to you know an emergency response. the reason for that is because you've scientists trying to provide advice and these layers, not all scientists. they don't have a scientific background. which means the advice might get convoluted and the advice might get convoluted and the decision—maker is not able to scrutinise the advice. the decision-maker is not able to scrutinise the advice.— scrutinise the advice. were you reprimanded — scrutinise the advice. were you reprimanded for _ scrutinise the advice. were you reprimanded for speaking - scrutinise the advice. were you

reprimanded for speaking up? | scrutinise the advice. were you i reprimanded for speaking up? not reprimanded for speaking up? tirrt necessarily censored, but eyebrows were raised a number of times the, a number of times i was excluded from certain invitations. mainly because i was quite well known to speak my mind and be very frank and provide very frank and direct advice to peoplement very frank and direct advice to peoplemen— very frank and direct advice to ieiolemenr~ , , , ., peoplement were you surprised to hear according _ peoplement were you surprised to hear according to _ peoplement were you surprised to hear according to sir _ peoplement were you surprised to hear according to sir patrick - hear according to sir patrick vallance scientist didn't know about the eat out to help out scheme? trio. the eat out to help out scheme? no, because that — the eat out to help out scheme? tdfr, because that was a common attitude in government i don't think they always necessarily ask for scientific advice when it comes to policy making. scientific advice when it comes to policy making-— scientific advice when it comes to ioli makini. :, ~ ., policy making. really? we were told almost every — policy making. really? we were told almost every day _ policy making. really? we were told almost every day they _ policy making. really? we were told almost every day they were - policy making. really? we were told | almost every day they were following the science. , almost every day they were following the science-— the science. they were following the science in the _ the science. they were following the science in the sense _ the science. they were following the science in the sense they _ the science. they were following the science in the sense they thought i science in the sense they thought they were following the science and of course the science that was given to them directly. but that doesn't mean necessarily they came to scientists the asking, what do you think about this policy? if you know

people like sir patrick vallance are not asked, you know, about things like this, and this is quite literally theirjob, you can't really expect scientists from within the department should have been asked. ,, the department should have been asked. . ., the department should have been asked. ,, ., ., , ., �* asked. sure. from what you're heafini asked. sure. from what you're hearing at _ asked. sure. from what you're hearing at this _ asked. sure. from what you're hearing at this inquiry, - asked. sure. from what you're hearing at this inquiry, is - asked. sure. from what you're hearing at this inquiry, is it - asked. sure. from what you'rej hearing at this inquiry, is it the right kind of questioning. are you hearing quality evidence that will help... make the uk a better, be better equipped to deal with a future pandemic? t better equipped to deal with a future pandemic?— better equipped to deal with a future pandemic? i find some of it useful, future pandemic? i find some of it useful. but _ future pandemic? i find some of it useful, but times _ future pandemic? i find some of it useful, but times we _ future pandemic? i find some of it useful, but times we get - future pandemic? i find some of it useful, but times we get too - future pandemic? i find some of it| useful, but times we get too much into very detailed microissues such as who said what when and you know what was said in a private conversation between two people in the corridors or in whatsapp message. that isn't the kind of policy that was translated into

macro level policy. focussing too much on that, i think, takes the away from more important issues. you know, macro policies that had quite... an extensive impact on people's daily lives. you quite. .. an extensive impact on people's daily lives.— quite... an extensive impact on people's daily lives. you also felt i think people's daily lives. you also felt i think that _ people's daily lives. you also felt i think that there _ people's daily lives. you also felt i think that there was _ people's daily lives. you also felt i think that there was quite - people's daily lives. you also felt i think that there was quite a - people's daily lives. you also felt i think that there was quite a dit| i think that there was quite a dit of duplication and this is relevant particularly to the covid dashboard that was raised and gave us real time data we could all look at and understand and according to one commentators s transformed the debate. what did you think was duplication and why you think that approach hasn't been rolled out to other departments in government when it comes to the use of data? tit it comes to the use of data? in terms it comes to the use of data? t�*t terms of duplication, i think a lot of the work was done across

different independents in the government. with respect specifically to the covid dashboard we had the official coronavirus dashboard provided by the government. then we had the office of national statistics dashboard that provided data that was not exactly similar to what we did, but what we provided included the ons data. the nhs provided a dashboard which provided the data that the nhs had. this kind of duplication causes delays and it is not really in my opinion the best use of resources. that doesn't mean that these organisations didn't do a greatjob and it doesn't mean they were not spiteled entitled to do what they did, but they could be smarter in the use of their resources. t5

did, but they could be smarter in the use of their resources. is this a iublic the use of their resources. is this a public sector— the use of their resources. is this a public sector cultural _ the use of their resources. is this a public sector cultural issue. - the use of their resources. is this a public sector cultural issue. do | a public sector cultural issue. do you work in the private sector? yes. have ou you work in the private sector? yes. have you seen _ you work in the private sector? 193 have you seen duplication there? yes. ~ :. . have you seen duplication there? yes. . . , , , have you seen duplication there? yes. i ., , , , yes. what is the issue then? a cultural issue. _ yes. what is the issue then? a cultural issue. just _ yes. what is the issue then? a cultural issue. just with - yes. what is the issue then? a l cultural issue. just with people? yes, the cultural issue. just with people? yes. they don't _ cultural issue. just with people? yes, they don't see _ cultural issue. just with people? yes, they don't see really - cultural issue. just with people? yes, they don't see really you i cultural issue. just with people? i yes, they don't see really you know this... duplication as a duplication. this. .. duplication as a duplication.— this... duplication as a duilication. , ~ f duplication. they think they're doin i duplication. they think they're doing something _ duplication. they think they're i doing something different/better. yes and it also creates a competitive spirit amongst different organisations, which might be useful in the private sector, but not necessarily in the public sector. why hasn't your dashboard model been used in education or the justice department? used in education or the 'ustice departmentafi used in education or the 'ustice department? that is a very good iuestion. department? that is a very good question. what _ department? that is a very good question. what is _ department? that is a very good question. what is the _ department? that is a very good question. what is the answer? l department? that is a very good i question. what is the answer? the answer should _ question. what is the answer? the answer should really _ question. what is the answer? the answer should really be _ question. what is the answer? the answer should really be given - question. what is the answer? the answer should really be given by l answer should really be given by decision—makers. we created something by spoke. we are at risk

of learning the wrong lesson. the dashboard wasn't something that looked nice, it was a infrastructure created based on work and research over a period of time and it improved it. iwas over a period of time and it improved it. i was contacted during the pandemic by different departments to adopt this. but i never, it never really... departments to adopt this. but i never, it never really. . .- never, it never really... went anywhere- — never, it never really... went anywhere. yes. _ never, it never really. .. went anywhere. yes. i— never, it never really. .. went anywhere. yes. ithink- never, it never really... went anywhere. yes. i think we - never, it never really... went i anywhere. yes. i think we could ado it it anywhere. yes. i think we could adopt it for _ anywhere. yes. i think we could adopt it for a — anywhere. yes. i think we could adopt it for a lot _ anywhere. yes. i think we could adopt it for a lot of _ adopt it for a lot of different things and prevent that kind of duplication. things and prevent that kind of duplication-— duplication. thank you. this afternoons _ duplication. thank you. this afternoons for _ duplication. thank you. this afternoons for having - duplication. thank you. this afternoons for having me. l the united states presidentjoe biden turned 81 today. as he seeks to run the white house for another four years it's a milestone likely to draw attention to his status as the oldest person to ever occupy the oval office. some opinion polls show americans worry he's too old to run again for the topjob. 74% of people said mr biden would be too old to serve a second term, compared to 50% for mr trump, according to a recent abc/washington post poll. a yahoo/yougov poll found that 54%

of americans say mr biden no longer has "the competence to carry out the job of president", up from a1% before the 2020 election. donald trump, the frontrunner for the republican nomination to challenge biden in the 2024 election, is 77. here'sjoe. the birthday boy has long been guilty of gaffes. harder than getting a ticket to the renaissance tour or... or... britney's tour, it's kinda warm in brazil right now. the latest, today confusing taylor swift with britney and beyonce. looks, he is, i mean, he's a dictator in the sense that... after last week's labelling china's president the dictator during a visit to the us, prompting this reaction from his secretary of state. cheering. in recent years president biden has fallen and seemed confused.

representative, jackie, where is jackie? you calling out for a congressman who had died in a car crash the previous month. is this the best path? now now a key obama era adviser has raised doubts. there isjust a lot of concern about the age issue and it matters something that i think he needs to ponder, just do a check and say is this the right thing to do? i'm dean phillips and i'm running for president of the united states of america. and one democratic congressman has launched a longshot challenge and he is careful with his criticism of joe biden. what is your message to president biden? my message is thank you, my message is deep respect and gratitude for a career serving its nation but it's time for change and i would say, mister president, you can cement your

legacy by building the very bridge that you promised, a transitional presidency that you promised. you did yourjob, you affected greatly, you saved this country, you did it with grace and competency, but i would ask that you not risk a legacy for yourself and not risk a legacy for the united states of america that i am afraid is cementing itself with each passing day by losing to donald trump. but that very candidacy has angered other democrats. dean phillips needs to sit back, dean phillips needs to understand that he has no base, there isn't a clamour of american voters pushing for dean phillips at all. most people didn't even know who he was. president biden has shown time and time again showcased how uninformed the poles are. he has beat them over and over again. we saw it in the primaries, in the last primaries, they basically had him dead in the water before the first primary state even

actually voted. we have seen it time and time again throughout his political career and joe biden is a fighter. earlier this month the new york times the new york times and siena college polls voted in six battleground states, nevada, georgia, arizona, michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. donald trump won in five of those states, and outside the margin of error. whilejoe biden narrowly won the six. meanwhile, the same research suggests the proportion of voters in swing states who think donald trump is too old to be president has more than doubled, but the increase is starker forjoe biden, almost three quarters of voters surveyed argued his age is a problem. i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. advancing age has been an area of attack before, but it is not one donald trump has taken advantage of. because he is 77. they bush was a military person. he got us into the middle east. hoop they bush was a military person. he got us into the middle east. how did

that work out? _ got us into the middle east. how did that work out? and has _ got us into the middle east. how did that work out? and has recently - that work out? and has recently confused jeb bush for george w bush and the president of china with kim jong—un of north korea. next year looks likely to be a head—to—head between the oldest presidential candidate in history and two particularly unpopular ones. tt is candidate in history and two particularly unpopular ones. it is a bii risk in particularly unpopular ones. it is a big risk in keeping _ particularly unpopular ones. it is a big risk in keeping joe _ particularly unpopular ones. it is a big risk in keeping joe biden - particularly unpopular ones. tit 3 a. big risk in keeping joe biden and a big risk in keeping joe biden and a big risk in dumping as well. for all of donald trump is back problems, it is not obvious that anyone else could build the same kind of coalition that donald trump has built in the coalition. ids, coalition that donald trump has built in the coalition.— coalition that donald trump has built in the coalition. a focus on abortion and — built in the coalition. a focus on abortion and donald _ built in the coalition. a focus on abortion and donald trump - built in the coalition. a focus on abortion and donald trump was| built in the coalition. a focus on i abortion and donald trump was not supposedly threat to democracy has helped democrats to reset election success. but will the playbook work again? it was last thanksgiving that joe biden agreed with his family he would run for a second term. this holiday season, some in washington i wonder if he is a risk of becoming

an electoral turkey. there's been what's described as a "political earthquake" in argentina, where the people have elected a far—right outsider javier milei as their new president. mr milei has promised drastic changes, which include ditching the local currency for the us dollar and "blowing up" the central bank in order to prevent it from printing more money, which he argues is driving inflation. inflation there by the way is 143%. javier milei calls himself a libertarian and anarcho—capitalist who wants to slash the state and "blow up" the central bank. to his opponents, the former media pundit and tantric sex guru is "el loco", the madman. his brash style and radical right—wing policies echo those of brazil's jair bolsonaro and donald trump, who tweeted his congratulations and said mr milei would "make argentina great again". like mrtrump, mr milei is a political outsider who rose to fame on television, and promises to "do away"

with what he sees as a failing political establishment dominated by the peronist party of his opponent. stop this impoverishing a model of the cast, today embraced the libertarian model, so it is to return to be a global power. with argentina's economy in perennial crisis, widespread poverty and inflation at more than 140%, an unexpectedly large majority of argentines sided with mr milei, a trained if unorthodox economist. mr millei's radical proposals include slashing government spending by up to 15 percentage points and closing government ministries including culture, women, health and education, privatising most state—owned companies. perhaps the centrepiece is the plan to introduce the us dollar to replace argentine peso, whose value has crashed, in a bid to control inflation.

the president—elect wants to loosen gun laws, abolish abortion — which was legalised in argentina in 2020 — and allow the sale and purchase of human organs. will he get his agenda through? many economists say dollarisation, untried by a country of argentina's size, will be tough, because the central bank doesn't hold enough dollars and won't be able to borrow them on the international market. and it has defaulted on its debt. and the political numbers also appear to be against mr milei. his freedom advances coalition, founded just a couple of years ago, will have only 38 of 257 seats in the lower house of congress, and seven of 72 seats in the senate. so he'll have to negotiate support from the main centre—right coalition, whose leaders he's previously disparaged and clashed with.

but the president elect has a big personal mandate for change. dr christopher sabatini is a senior fellow for latin america at chatham house, the foreign affairs think tank. also professor at lse. welcome to you. can he do all that he promised the electorate? tt is you. can he do all that he promised the electorate?— the electorate? it is doubtful. first of all. — the electorate? it is doubtful. first of all, as _ the electorate? it is doubtful. first of all, as you _ the electorate? it is doubtful. first of all, as you said - the electorate? it is doubtful. first of all, as you said very i first of all, as you said very correctly, he does not have a majority in congress, he only has seven senators, his party has a 38 in the 257 seats in the chamber of deputies and provincial governors. but the second point is also he reallyjust but the second point is also he really just lacked but the second point is also he reallyjust lacked the temperament really just lacked the temperament of reallyjust lacked the temperament of negotiation and compromise. he is not a politician. that is what attracted him to the majority of voters who were angry and fed up with the system, but he really doesn't have the temperament. so waving around a chainsaw he is probably not too keen on negotiating. but alas, he has never said how he will take