this is bbc news. the headlines — france have reached the final of the football world cup, ending morocco�*s dream of becoming the first african country to win the trophy. the french team secured a 2—0 semi—final victory, through goals from theo hernandez and kolo muani. the defending champions will now face argentina in sunday's final. a nationwide state of emergency has been declared in peru, where supporters of the former president, pedro castillo, continue to stage protests. mr castillo was impeached, and detained for alleged corruption, following his attempt to dissolve peru's congress. speaking at the summit of heads of state in washington, the us president, joe biden,

has announced billions of dollars in new funding for african nations. the move is seen as an attempt by america to reassert its influence, as china, russia and turkey deepen their involvement. now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the uk isn't quite in the grip of a general strike, but it's not far off. vital public services like health, railand mail are being disrupted by industrial action. workers want to protect themselves from spiralling inflation. the government is desperate to keep a lid on wage rises and public spending. as the economic gloom deepens, does the opposition labour party have a plan for public service reform and prosperity?

well, my guest is shadow health secretary, wes streeting. is this a time for radicalism or caution? wes streeting, welcome to hardtalk. wes streeting, welcome to hardtalk. thanks for having me. as you are well aware, strikes are spreading across vital economic sectors in the uk. there is a real cost of living squeeze on workers across the country. in the context of these strikes, whose side are you on? fundamentally, on the people who are being affected by strike action and the people who felt forced into strike

action, because they don't have a government that's willing to negotiate and to give people a sense of hope that things are going to get better than they are today. and you're right to say that these strikes are widespread. but even in that context, the strikes we're seeing within the national health service are, in the case of nurses, unprecedented, in more than 100 years of the royal college of nursing's history. they have never balloted for industrial action, let alone voted to go on strike. and it's remarkable still that this week those strikes were avoidable, because at the 11th hour, both the royal college of nursing and unison offered to suspend strike action if the government would simply talk about pay, to negotiate on pay, and yet the government refused. so the disruption that inevitably we're going to see in terms of cancelled operations, poorer services, even poorer than they already are, i think the blame rests squarely at the door of the government.

well, the government's being honest, because the government says, look, we have accepted the findings of the independent pay review body. we are going to pay what they recommend we should pay to nurses in full. we can't go further than that, but that's what we're prepared to do. is your position very different from that? well, labour's being honest, too, that the headline demand of the royal college of nursing, inflation plus 5%, is not a figure that we could afford if we were in government today. yes, to be clear, that would amount to something between 17% and 19% for nurses. indeed. but we would be willing to talk about pay. not least because i'm particularly concerned about those people on the lower pay bands in the nhs, particularly nursing colleagues, but also wider allied health professionals and auxiliary staff. i'm also worried about the pay ofjunior doctors, people starting out in their careers, and i think we should talk about those issues and see if there's a negotiation that could be reached. and so, while i can't... obviously we're not in government today. i wish we were.

i can't tell you where those negotiations would conclude if there were a labour government today, but at least they'd be starting. at least the strike action would be suspended. and let's not forget, in the 13 years we had labour in government, there was never a national strike in the national health service. as you just said, in 100 years and more of the royal college of nursing, there has never been a national nurses strike before. to be very clear about this, are you saying you absolutely back those nurses who tomorrow will be withdrawing their labour, maybejoining picket lines? you are totally supportive of them, even though you know there are a significant number of nurses with grave reservations about, frankly, the ethics of withdrawing labour and therefore withdrawing vital care from patients in hospitals and health care facilities. well, that's the anxiety i share, actually, that we know there is going to be serious disruptions to services. we've had the chief nurse in england warning about the risks to patient care. it will disrupt the national health service. of course, it will. in a very significant way.

of course, of course it will. and that's why i think... so, i want to be clear. you absolutely think the nurses are right to go on strike? i think they're... i think i understand their position, and i think they've been forced into it by the government. and i think these strikes were avoidable. and the fact that they are going ahead means i don't blame the nurses, i blame the government, because i think the offer they made at the beginning of this week to suspend strikes if the government negotiated was the lowest bar they could have set for the government and the government didn't meet it. let's please be clear and logical here. if you're saying, well, i would have talked and the government should have talked, that can only mean you would be offering more money, because there is no point. it's just dishonest to talk if there's no more money. so if you're saying, i would go beyond the recommendation of the independent pay review body, what would you and the labour party be prepared to give nurses now? well, as i said, stephen, that's the one thing i can't be sure about, because... why not? we're not in government today, and i can't tell you where the negotiation

would conclude. butjust on that test of... you can't criticise the government and be a credible opposition, unless you're prepared to be substantive in the way you differ from the government. sure. but on the test of credibility, i would not credibly be going into a negotiation, saying, and here's where i would settle. who on earth does that in a negotiation? i've tried to be as straightforward as i can from opposition that we wouldn't be settling on inflation plus 5%, because we don't think it's affordable, but we would be willing to negotiate. and i think that's a fair position. it's a position that would have stopped strikes this week. and so the fact that they're going ahead, i think, rests with the government. and what's more, the government says we're following the advice of the independent pay body, but the government sets the size of the envelope, and the government sets the terms of the pay body. and at the moment, it doesn'tjust apply to the nurses strike, it applies to such a wide range of issues at the moment, where the government basically says, oh, it's not ourjob. you know, we can't do anything about that. we're just the government. we're just here for the red boxes, the ministerial cars and the parties at number ten.

that's not a serious position for a government. i think the government says something a bit deeper than that. they also say, look, we have a fundamental problem with the public finances. whose fault is that? i mean, that's the... that's what i think people are so angry about. because, these are the people who literally crashed the economy with the mini—budget, and worse still have presided over more than a decade of low growth, low productivity. we challenged the government on their record. but nonetheless, as a politician, you have to essentially come up with solutions to where we are today, just as the government does. i mean, we're on our third prime minister this year, and the new prime minister and the new chancellor have an approach to the economy, which many outside observers would say is serious. they are determined to get the deficit down and get the national debt down. both are dangerously high, in their opinion, and in many economists opinion. and in many economists�* opinion. you would have the same problems. so if you're telling me we would pay the nurses more, we would recommend that

the rail workers get more, we would recommend that the mail, royal mail workers get more. if you're saying we would solve all these strike issues by paying people more, you've got to explain how you pay for that. and it's because we are determined to go into the next election being very clear about what we're promising, very clear about how much it would cost, and very clear about how we would pay for it. that we're not making promises we can't keep. and so i can't tell you... so, how are you different from this government? so, i can't tell you what the situation will look like in what would likely be two years�* time when there's a general election. and so on that basis, we're very careful about the promises we make, ehich is why when i come on programmes like yours and say that a labour government would deliver the biggest expansion of nhs staff in history, i can be 100% certain we can deliver it, because it's fully costed, we've said where the money would come from, we've got a plan to deliver it. where would it come from? in that case it would come from abolishing the non—dom tax status. which you can't know how much revenue it would raise,

because it's based upon the notion that the non—dom numbers as of today would remain. but we know that non—dom numbers, those who are domiciled in this country, but for various legal reasons don't have to pay tax in this country, their numbers are falling, fell 10% last year. so you're predicating your entire policy on a revenue stream that is utterly unpredictable. well, we've used figures produced by warwick university and the london school of economics. i've seen those figures. and they have made assumptions based on previous non—dom behaviour when some of the rules have been tightened. exactly, and my point to you is that non—dom numbers are dwindling rapidly. they're estimating that it would cost over £3 billion... ..it would generate over £3 billion. my promise, my offer cost £1.6 billion. so i think we can be very confident about our ability to deliver it. let's leave aside whether that figure is right, but even assuming it is, do you think £1.6 billion would allow you to make the wholesale reforms that you've talked about, and notjust in the nhs, but in social care as well? well, i'm glad you mentioned reform because it's investment and reform that's necessary. the £1.6 billion would enable

us to double the number of medical school places, increase nursing and midwifery clinical training places by 10,000, double the number of district nurses qualifying, and introduce 5,000 extra health visitors to plug the shortfall there. that's essential, because at the heart of the nhs crisis, we see the record high backlogs, the long waits, is a shortage of staff. so we've got to address that fundamental issue. but there's a wider issue, i think, in the nhs, which, even if we weren't in a scenario where the conservatives had crashed the economy, we would have to grasp, which is, when you compare the nhs to other 0ecd countries, other leading economies, we spend actually more than the vast majority on hospital care, and we underinvest in areas like primary care, mental health, social care, diagnostics and capital. and that leads to the worst of all worlds, where we end up with late diagnosis, which means more expensive and less effective treatment. so as part of a ten—year plan of change and modernisation,

my ambition is to shift that focus through the system to get there early. i want to get a bit personal with you. does it stick in your throat that, as a proud, working—class boy, who brought himself out of real poverty and disadvantage to get where you've got today, your own party, the labour party, refuses to allow you to join a picket line and express physical support for striking workers? no, not really. not least... i mean, my general secretary of my trade union, unison, i think put it really well when she said she doesn't need us on picket lines for photo ops, she needs us in government, delivering for her members, and people right across the country... what kind of message does it send to workers across this country? that the labour party, which was founded in a sense as the political branch of the trade union movement, is now running scared of being seen on a picket line? no, i don't think this

is about running scared. it's about showing where we want to be, which is not protesting, but we want to be in government. and why is it more than 100 years ago, the trade unions... you will sacrifice certain principles, will you? no, i don't feel like i've compromised my principles at all. more than 100 years ago, the trade union movement founded the labour party, because they understood that it wasn't enough to march through the streets demanding change. we had to have labour people marching through the corridors of power to deliver it, and that's the fundamental purpose and mission of the labour party. and for four elections in a row now, we have lost the election because people haven't trusted us with the money, haven't trusted us with law and order, haven't trusted us with national security, particularly in the last two elections, and so we have to show the country that we're not just a party of protest, that we are a party that's fit to govern, and that's why so much of our emphasis is on showing the policies that would make a difference, reassuring people they can be delivered, reassure them we're not promising the earth, that we can actually deliver

what we will say at a time when trust in politics is at an all time low. interesting you put it that way, and this is the crux of the challenge facing left of centre parties right around the world — how to find a way to win but maintain a commitment to changing society in ways that matter to you. i would put it to you that, right now, keir starmer�*s labour party looks like it is riddled with caution. there are things that it could do, which it's refusing to do. one example — a wealth tax. others in the green party, the liberal democratic parties, they're talking about imposing a wealth tax on the very richest people. that would give you significant amounts of new money to spend on your health plan, your education plans, all those other things you care about. why will labour not go in that direction? well, i think there's more than one way to skin a cat. there's more than one wealth tax. i would argue that our non—dom tax policy to fund nhs staff... we've discussed that and it only affects a very tiny number of people. and it only raises, if you said we could argue between £1.6 and £3 billion at best.

i'm talking about a way to redistribute within society. and win you new revenues amounting to maybe tens of billions of pounds simply by putting a new tax, a wealth tax on those who are the absolute wealthiest in this country. it's a form of redistribution. isn't that what labour is about? we'll set out our tax and spending plans in detail ahead of the next election. but let me just take head on this point about caution. i think we wear this as a badge of pride, if i'm honest, because when you look at other center—left parties in europe, north america, australia, new zealand who find themselves in government now. i think they have understood that in order to win power, you have to reassure people in an age of cynicism, and in an age of populism that you've got a plan that can really be delivered. and if i can be perfectly frank, in 2017 and 2019, labour had manifestos that

were crammed full of policies, some of which were hugely popular, all of which were very expensive. and people looked at the package as a whole, looked at the team that was offering to deliver it, and theyjust fell back on that old adage, if it looks too good to be true, it's too good to be true. and i think they were right, and that's reflected in the result. we're determined to make sure at the next election that whether it's our policies on tax and spending, our policies on public services to get growth back into the economy, because that's how the last labour government invested in public services and public sector pay and law and order. without having to constantly pick the pockets of working people with higher income taxes, as the conservatives have done. that's how we that's how we deliver a fairer, more just society. but people have got to believe that we've got a serious leader, a serious team and a serious plan. and thanks to keir starmer, i think we're in a better position on that front than we have been probably since we were booted out of office in 2010. but we don't take people for granted. you know what that sounds like?

it sounds like caution, playing it safe, looking at the polls and seeing that after frankly, unbelievable turbulence in the tory party and an economy in deep trouble, the tories are sinking in the polls. it sounds like a party and a leadership which is simply saying we'll do as little as possible, be as uncontroversial and as unchallenging as possible. and that way we mightjust win. is that good enough? i don't think we're being quite that miserable about it. i don't recognise that characterisation. i mean, let's. .. for example, a key figure in the labour party underjeremy corbyn. he says he looks at what keir starmer is doing now and all he sees is caution, caution, caution. i think it was andrew fisher who wrote a piece in the guardian saying, you know, where are all the crowds chanting, oh keir starmer? i mean, jeremy corbyn always had crowds, but look at the election results and how many ofjeremy corbyn�*s policies have been delivered? zero. because we lost... in a sense that's an easy hit, because jeremy corbyn did lose and he's gone.

literally gone from the labour party, unless you were going to let him back in. but let's take joe biden, for example. now, joe biden is nobody�*s idea of a radical. he's a centrist democrat, but he found a signature policy just to give you one. he found a policy where he told young americans, i will wipe out a significant chunk of your college debt. and that won him a huge number of votes amongst the young people. it was a signature policy. now, admittedly, it's found trouble in the courts in the united states, but nonetheless, where's keir starmer�*s? really ambitious... i'm glad you are asking. i'll give you one. great british energy for the great british people. we've got a huge challenge in this country at the moment with soaring energy bills, a lack of our own energy security, which means that we're reliant often on regimes which we do not have a great deal of time for and certainly not shared values with. we've seen huge deindustrialisation across the country, which i think has had huge impacts on on our politics

and on people's lives. and with our plan for great british energy. it would be a huge expansion of renewable energy, new nuclear and a great british energy company that would ensure that the british people own a proportion of the assets that they're funding and get a share of the return. i think it is a hugely bold, ambitious, radical policy that would deliver help in terms of people's bills in the short term by insulating millions of homes across the country. it would deliver energy security. it would help to tackle climate change. surely the biggest challenge facing humanity, it's hugely popular and it's bold and radical. you'll hope that that takes off with the british public. right now, i would say that one issue that is exercising the british public is immigration. so let's just talk a little bit about that. and let's be simple. does labour, the labour party, does it want to see more immigration going forward in the uk or significantly less? we want this country to be a place where... it's a simple question.

but it's not a simple issue with respect. so it depends on what type of immigration you're talking about. so, for example, in higher education, i think it is a huge benefit to this country. that overseas students want to come to the uk to study. they, ithink, enrich educational debate and learning on our campuses and they make us something. they make a significant financial contribution directly to universities and to the wider economy. i want to make sure the uk remains a big destination... you lighted upon students i'm interested in workers. talking over each other. there are certain positions the labour party has taken, which seemed to make no sense to me, given everything we've discussed previously about the health service. for example, we know that the health service is massively understaffed, and we know that one reason for that is brexit and the fact that european health workers who used to come in to staff our health service no longer can do so. now keir starmer has just ruled out any effort to return to a freedom of movement

relationship with the european union. why? well, because i don't think that freedom of movement is something that the british people want to see. the nuffield trust and a whole bunch of other researchers say undoubtedly freedom of movement would help the staffing of the national health service and a whole bunch of other sectors like agriculture. but there's no reason why a controlled immigration system couldn't help our immigration policy. if it's smart and if you've got the right visa system that effectively administrated, which i don't think with respect we can claim the current system is, but on the nhs, i mean this is a really good example about more or less. so, as far as i'm concerned as a person who wants to be our country's health secretary, the nhs has always been an international employer. i think that's an enormous strength, but i absolutely agree that we are overreliant on immigration in the health service at the same time as we are turning away bright british students with straight a's from studying medicine. this summer, 3000 medical

students or aspiring medical students were turned away from studying medicine at university when we have a massive shortage. so we can't keep on pulling the immigration lever because we can't be bothered to train our own home—grown talent. it takes ten full years to train a gp. it cost hundreds of thousands of pounds as well. you could get gps from europe. i mean, there are 130,000 staff missing from the nhs right now. there are, and of course that's why the government does have to rely on overseas recruitment. but i think it's unconscionable. so this is where the labour party seems to be facing both ways at once. you know, you want to address the economic need for more workers, but you are very worried about upsetting some former labour voters who you believe want to see much tighter controls on immigration. because of that, you don't know which way to turn. i'm worried about two things in relation to immigration in the nhs. i'm worried about the fact that we are turning away british students from studying medicine at universities and from taking up opportunities to train as nurses and midwives.

at the same time, as we are recruiting from countries often on the red list who desperately need those health care workers in their own countries. i think it's morally outrageous, actually, that because this country can't be bothered to fund opportunities for for its own people, to have amazing careers in medicine and social care. we keep on pulling the immigration lever at a cost to other countries who are far less wealthy in far greater need than even our own. so i think that, you know, on immigration. it is one of those issues... it's not straightforward. it's an issue where people don't know, where labour stand. no, i think our position is clear in headline terms. we want to see a controlled immigration system, well managed, well run, that we can recruit talented people into the areas where we need them. but we also want a skill system that trains home—grown talent. and we certainly don't want to be over reliant on countries that desperately need their own workers. i think that's a good moral position.

i also think it's good, it's good for opportunities for young people in britain. finally, you've got arguably two years or so before the election when labour will truly be tested and the personality, the character of your party will be tested. you seem to want to make sure that people do not see labour as a left wing party. tens of thousands of people have left your party, most of them more social, more socialist, more left wing. you said a lot of people who've left the party were never really committed to it. a lot of them were barnacles on our boat and we are better off without them. you absolutely, do you feel that labour wins as a centrist party? you don't want radicalism in your agenda. labour's always won the election as a centre left party anchored in the mainstream that is able to marry this country's ambition for socialjustice, equal rights and opportunity for all with security, with financial stability, and with a country that is able to defend itself in a turbulent and changing world.

and every single labour government, from attlee to wilson to blair to brown, has managed to marry that radical ambition with sound economics, a belief in law and order and upholding national security. and i think keir starmer stands in that mainstream and is able to confidently look the british people in the eye and say, you can trust labour to take on these enormous crises in our world today, some of which are global, but many of which have been home—grown after 12 years of conservative failure. wes streeting. we have to end there, but thanks for being on hardtalk. thanks for having me. it's been a pleasure.

hello. this long spell of cold weather is not ending just yet. for the time being, we are still stuck in the deep freeze, this cold air that has been brought down from the north. but there are signs of a change in the outlook, through the weekend, and particularly into the start of next week. a south—westerly wind starts to develop and that will bring something significantly milder. in fact, by monday, the southwest of england could see highs of 16 degrees. but with that, there will be some wind and rain at times. but in the short term, we stick with the cold and frosty feel to the weather. some icy stretches to start thursday morning, and a day of sunshine and wintry showers awaits. the icy stretches are where we've had the showers over recent houi’s. parts of northern ireland, the east coast of england, but most especially the north of scotland, and here we will see frequent, wintry showers of sleet and snow continuing through the day. some further

accumulation of snow. some showers for northern ireland, briefly for west wales, and also for the east coast of england. again, those will have a wintry flavour. some of those showers will fall as snow. but for many other places, it is going to be a dry day, with plenty of sunshine, not helping the temperatures much, though — one to five degrees at best. through thursday night, once against those temperatures will drop like a stone. there'll be further wintry showers, some further icy stretches, and, widely, we are looking at lows of “4 or —5 degrees. some places will get colder than that, and some fog is likely to affect some southeastern parts of england through the first part of friday. the other feature of friday's weather is this weather system, which is likely to bring a mixture of rain, sleet and snow across some central parts of scotland. that could cause some disruption. it could certainly give rise to some ice. it's another cold day, but maybe not quite as cold, and that is a sign of things to come, because, by saturday, we start to shift the wind direction. we start to pick up these

south—westerly winds. still some showers around, especially in the west and the northwest. some of those will still be wintry, but those temperatures beginning to creep upwards. but it's as we get into sunday that we see this big change. this frontal system driving its way in from the southwest. that will bring heavy rain, strong winds, perhaps some snow for a time, but, behind that, things will turn much milder.

this is bbc news, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm sally bundock. france will face argentina in sunday's showpiece world cup final, after a 2—0 victory over tournament sensations, morocco. nurses in england, wales and northern ireland prepare to go on strike in the biggest industrial action in the history of the nhs. ido i do not know a nurse that does want the strike. there is not one of us that wants to be out one of us that wants to be out on those picket lines and withdrawing our neighbour. we are nurses. peru declares a state of emergency, as supporters of the former president protest, after he's impeached and detained over corruption allegations. meeting the challenge of making gabon�*s gorillas —

a major tourism and conservation attraction. we have a special report.