this is bbc news. we will have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour as newsday continues straight after 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. 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. 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. 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, maybe joining 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

disruption to services. we've had the chief nurse in england warning about the risks to patient care. it will disrupt the national health service in a very significant way. of course it will. and that's why i think... you absolutely think the nurses are right to go on strike? no, i think they're... well, 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 — if you're saying, "i would have talked and the "government should have talked," that means you would offer more money, because there is no point. it's 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. why not? we're not in government today and i can't tell you where the negotiation would conclude... you can't 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 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.

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." and whose fault is that? i mean, 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. 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. 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, that the 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 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, which is why when i come on programmes like yours and say that a labour government will 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. 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, 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 are estimating that it would cost over £3 billion or generate over £3 billion. my promise, my offer costs 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 notjust in the nhs but in social care, as well?

i'm glad you mentioned reform — 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 have 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. 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 it's about running scared. it's about showing that 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'd sacrifice certain principles...? no, i don't think i do 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 is 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, you know...

it affects only a very tiny number of people. and it only raises, as 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. do you? because when you look at other centre—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. it's that good enough? i don't think we would be quite as miserabilist about it. i don't recognise that characterisation. imean... andrew fisher, for example, who was a key figure in the labour party under jeremy 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 keir starmer? " jeremy corbyn always had crowds, but look at the election results and how

many ofjeremy corbyn�*s policies are being delivered? zero, because we lost. 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 signature... ? good, i'm glad you asked. 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 off and on regimes which we do not have a great deal of time for and certainly not shared values with.

we've seen huge deindustrialization across the country, which i think has had huge impacts 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 a significant financial contribution directly to universities and to the wider economy. i want to make sure the uk remains a big destination... you've alighted upon students. i'm interested in workers. but let me take the nhs... ..labour has taken, which seems to make no sense, given everything we've discussed 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 and 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 the 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 think it's 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 over—reliant 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, 3,000 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 gp�*s 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.. 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... no. because of that, you don't know which way... 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 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 a... it is one of those issues that's not straightforward. people don't know where labour stands. 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 social justice, 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 very much for being on hardtalk. thanks for having me. it's been a pleasure.

hello. an end to this cold spell is on the horizon, but notjust yet. friday morning once again getting off to a very cold start with a widespread frost and more snow in the forecast forsome, particularly, in scotland with this weather system working in from the west. some rain and sleet around the coasts and at low levels at times, but snow over the hills. and some of that snow will come down to low levels at times, particularly where it turns heavier. across high ground, say in the grampians, could see 20 cm of snow. but even at lower levels, maybe through the central lowlands, we could be looking at 5—10 cm of snow with some ice as well. that could cause some real disruption. some rain, sleet and snow showers getting into parts of northern ireland, particularly in the north. elsewhere, some spells of sunshine once any early freezing fog is cleared from the southeast corner.

but it will be in another cold day. just —2 degrees there in aberdeen for the afternoon high. 6 degrees in plymouth, something a bit less cold into the far southwest. now, through friday night we will see this band of patchy rain, sleet and hill snow continuing to push southwards, getting into northern england, parts of north wales. some wintery showers elsewhere. while it will be another frosty night, it's not going to be quite as cold as the nights we have become used to lately. and as we go through saturday, it will feel just a little less cold. this band of rain still with some hill snow across parts of northern england, north wales, some wintery showers elsewhere. we start to develop south or south—westerly wind and that will bring something a little less chilly. temperatures certainly should get above freezing in the vast majority of locations. maybe 9 degrees in the southwest of england. into sunday, a bigger change, this frontal system pushing in from the atlantic. that will bring some wind, and some rain and some milder air. but it's not going to be a clean transition, because things have been just

so cold lately that as this wet and mild weather bumps into the cold air, we are likely to see some snow, at least for a time. some places could see quite a lot before it turns back to rain. ice will also be a concern with this wet and wintery weather falling on very cold surfaces. but by the end of the day on sunday, we'll be looking at highs into double digits for south wales and southwest england. those temperatures could rise further on monday. see what the temperatures are going to do where you are on the bbc weather app.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm monica miller. the headlines: official documents about the assassination ofjohn f. kennedy are finally released. but will they silence the conspiracy theorists? tens of thousands of nurses in england, wales and northern ireland walk off the job over pay and conditions. the daughter of the king of thailand is hospitalised with a heart condition. the royal palace says she's "stable to a certain extent." and the monarchy according to harry and meghan: the latest revelations from their netflix series.