still to be discovered subscribe documentary, i say what i'm fed up with the 19, the problem is kind of 98 is apparently not. well, i agree that hindsight is a great thing, but rewriting history isn't a great thing, is it? britain's prime minister boris johnson is on the file once again, off least from members of his own conservative party. i think serious handling of the pandemic threat sits on the string of u. turns on key policy. my guest this week here in london is one of his junior m.p.'s

favor, a follow me elected to parliament 3 years ago. can mr. jones, from the home to his current slide, in the opinion polls, and what will the party do if you count them all follow me. welcome to comfort zone. good to be here. i want to look at for us, the, the government's handling of the pandemic in recent months. we know that a vaccine now appears imminent. but after a decade of conservative rule, britain was woefully unprepared to deal with this. pandemic any pandemic, wasn't it? despite numerous warnings and dress rehearsals, why was your party asleep on the job for so many years? well, i think what we saw with the pandemic was that the vast, vast majority of countries found themselves unprepared for it. and the reason for

that, the fundamental reason for that was that the nature of the pandemic wasn't quite what was previously expressed what was previously expected. what was generally expected by most countries was something that resembles a clue. i realize it was different, but look at the figures before the coronavirus hit, the u.k. had just $6.00 intensive care beds per 100000 people. that's fewer than latvia, fewer than cyprus, half the number that italy had, and about a 5th of german capacity, 5th largest economy in the world, and the provisions for intensive care, what woefully inadequate weren't there. well, if you're talking about intensive care beds, there is clearly a point around excess capacity, and how much is sensible to maintain avon's know that there were people from the german health system who'd visited the n.h.s. . this is all prepared to talk about how they could manage their capacity more effective. so i think that both of us can learn from each other. indeed,

most health systems can that where you claimed in may that the government had been as decisive and prompt as it could have been in meeting the challenge. but that's not a widely held view among the government's scientific advisors is that the u.k.'s chief scientific officer patrick vallance admitted that didn't. he said in july, it's clear the outcome has not been good in the u.k. . i think you can be absolutely clear about that. are you now absolutely clear about that? well, the outcome does not include because many thousands of people died. so anybody says it was the outcome was good, it is wrong. most of all, i also in boiling sh committee on the scientific group for emergencies, said if the government had acted a week or 2 earlier, it would have made quite a big difference to the death wrecked. so the government still can't bring itself to admit that can, it might. well, the truth is that hindsight is a wonderful thing. and the scientific advisors have given a little, i thought, huge respect for letting an incredibly difficult job. but they gave different times

contradictory advice. i remember when they were saying the masks shouldn't people. now, if i says to wear a mask, why did they change the device? not because they're incompetent or said it wrong because we learnt more about the virus as time went on in the same way that governments and politicians have learnt, and civil servants have learned more about how to manage this as time went on. and as i said at the beginning, we do need to learn lessons and they survive how we manage our excess capacity with beds our we manage our state capacity around testing the best out of you know, this really, really was not a c. in crisis. in many respects, hence why the things that we're grappling with in this same things all across europe, and indeed the world governments in trying to manage. well, i agree that hindsight is a great thing, but rewriting history isn't a great thing. is it this claim by the government that everybody who needed care was able to get that care? this from the health secretary mount have got in july. that wasn't backed up by the facts, was it thanks to a sunday times investigation?

we now know the system or tree our tool as it was called, had been devised, which meant that many people over the age of 60 were denied the lifesaving treatment they needed. there's direct testimony from doctors to back that up. so the truth of the matter is somewhat different to the way the government now portrays it, isn't it? well, that's not my understanding of it. my understanding of it is, of course in any health care system like a country like united there is a judgment, bacon. i'm sorry i was and of course i'm the stress then there were times when they wanted to not sh people in the hospital for as long as they otherwise might because of the huge pressure on their own health service. but it was the same problems we're seeing in lots of countries. this blanket, this blanket version of everybody who needed care was able to get that care is not true. talk to remeasure parama. chairman of the doctors association u.k. said the lect lockdown 1st time around,

allowed the infections to spread across the country. more than the health service could come up with start. he said, had to tell many critically unwell patients who needed lifesaving treatment that they would not receive that treatment. that's not the same as everybody who needed care was able to get that care is it has a big difference there. well, of course you've got a lot of people now saying, oh if only the lot that i'm going to have for 2 weeks before, when the people who deny that the treatment mustapha let me there were tonight treatment. they were told the same from the chairman of the british medical association, dr. chan. my course at the same thing. it is manifestly the case. he said that large numbers of patients did not receive the care that they needed. and that's because the health service didn't have the resources can't be clearer than that. can exact opposite of mr. hancock's blanket assurances. well, i don't think anybody tonight is that in june, july of this year, health services under strain. look, i can't hope for every individual case,

of course, in some hospitals they mainframe a difficult decisions around who got treated in one particular way, how quickly and so on. but i think that the idea that somehow, if only the government had done the blanket lockdown a week earlier, and none of these problems would have occurred, i think is wrong. also see when i look at other countries. yes, some countries went into lockdown early, but then may have and if a concert just later in the year at a time when the united kingdom didn't have it, there's a basic issue of trust is not. if you can't trust the government to admit to mistakes or failures, then you certainly can't trust it to learn from them. can you? well, i think you make a very valid point around the tone of how we talk about this. and i think that we need to, you know, actually i think the way the government's approached, the news of the facts has been very muted, very coming in, not sort of saying, oh,

it's all over. it's all going to be fine. i think. but good to have when you've got something so unexpected and difficult as in a virus that people still there fully understand. and yes, i think that earlier on in the pandemic, there was a tendency some, i think all occasions generally and often have this tendency is always show the best case scenario when it's tonight into trouble is level with everybody about some of the difficulties of the whole isn't it? that's an appalling admission because of the time of an international health crisis . you would think you could get the truth from the government and they've been high, is not only what they need homeland over the coals by the statistics watchdog time and time again for putting out shoddy data. haven't they? in june, the head of the statistics or thora to accuse the government of continuing to mislead the public over the number of covert tests carried out. the aim it says seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests,

even at the expense of understanding last week. the office for statistics regulation warn that the use of data has not consistently been supported by transparent information provided in a timely manner. and you're happy about that, are you? well, i think that the difficulty with data is that statisticians will have very long arguments about how best to present something or have rigorously one might argue to present something. since the government's watchdog. this is the government somewhat saying that, well, well it is, it is, it is the government statistical watchdog. however, the way the statistics are put out, that was how from the department of health will or number 10 downing street. actually the speed with which we're trying to put out the information from all sometimes means that the state school authorities do not have the time or not given the time to fully put their, their view of how that information could be best presented. and just not cause you

can have an argument. i said a parliamentary committees where we spend hours the basic, how the right way is to this law to be presented in different ways. i don't think actual government's done anything other than trying present as much information as quickly as possible to the public. the only failing often it hasn't done a good job, has it. if its own watchdog is holding it over the coals, you said in july, the government's efforts to date to tackle covered 900. have been rather impressive . would you like to revise that opinion given some of the things that we've been talking about? well, no, i was talking about the government and the government has done it everything. it could not cause there were mistakes made one never deny that there are states made in every single combat, not admitting them, rather than not admitting them. they're still rewriting history. they're still saying that everybody who needed care got it. well, that's manifestly untrue from the frontline doctors for that's not true if you take the issue of testing. for example, i've seen the house actually in the house of commons repeatedly say, look,

you know, we know we are testing enough people. we're trying to increase the number of tests we're having. for example, i seen the chancellor get up and say look, you know, we did, we've done this. so response the economic challenge. and actually now we're going to add to it is like i listen to people like her that we need support other people in different ways i'm going to at this i don't think the government has been sort of lined it as. busy any of the right 1st time, i don't get what i do, not even if you even had criticism of the, of the data from the former prime minister to resign. may she said last week, for many people, it looks as if the figures are chosen to support the policy rather than the policy being based on the figures that's a crushing indictment for such a senior figure in your party, isn't it? it is a crushing indictment and what she was referring to in that was she was inferring to the chief scientific medical officers, their data in relation to the sort of month long lockdown that england is, has now been brought into with these work. same people, as you quoted earlier, criticising the government, i suppose, what i'm saying this is, there are,

this is been a moment of unprecedented stress on the british state, the british health system. and sometimes everybody within that system or sometimes got things wrong. but i do not believe that is in any way a judgment on the motives. i think that on some level, the speed and the strain with which people but hunter has meant that sometimes the data may not have been corrected. a particular point. nobody, nobody has ever suggested or should ever suggest that somehow the government hasn't tried to the best quality information in a timely manner. well, you say that, but the fact is the very vocal and senior members of your party are now fed up with the government and saying it publicly and there they're fed up with a lot that they're fed up with a lot of the boosterism, the gross exaggerations that have no basis in reality and that shoddy data once you fed up with all this as well as a what i'm fed up with over 1000, the problem is coded 1000 isn't helping us. and i'm fed up with

a lot and i want to be able to do everything i want and i'm not fed up with the u. turns the constant u. turns on policy. we had at the end of august charles walker, vice chair of the $922.00 back bench committee, who said it's becoming increasingly difficult to promote and defend government policy. as so often that policy is changed or abandoned without notice. the climate of uncertainty it creates, he said, is sustainable. this is one of the big beasts of your party actually coming out now and saying enough of this enough of these u. turns and you aren't really, i thought i thought huge respect charles. but i think that's been over the top. i think walks has made us fed up, as i said, is, is, is the lockdown because nobody wanted to, to go back into that and reluctant, prime minister has they sit in premises, not one state was forced. and the result of him having to take action as made a lot of concern was greater because the conservative party we do not like

infringing on anyone's liberty, that has made a lot of people frustrated, myself included. yes. a lot of people, a lot of people in the cancer of the city, a lot of people in the country aren't impressed either. according to you. gov. 69 percent of the country thinks this government has handled the pandemic fairly badly or very badly. only 3 percent. think it's done very well. it's us poll is asked if boris johnson is incompetent, or resoundingly 54 percent said yes. do you share that view? i'm afraid opinion polls will say one thing one day and something else. the other. i know you've had your party is trying to quote them when they like them, then the judgment on how we have done in managing this virus really will only be able to be made once the whole situation crisis is over. i remember when people in ng i was saying that we don't make mistakes. then through most of the summer, people are saying sweden's got everything right now. some people are saying, oh, well sweden's, having a surge, maybe they made some mistakes. the truth is that only at the end of we really be

able to judge how each government has managed and it's very, very difficult in, in the moment to do it, especially so many people have died and so many jobs lost so much that it's very convenient to push the judgment on to some period when perhaps the conservative party is out of government to not deal with things now, but the opportunity to learn lessons is now and we know you mention the test and trace system. well that's been a fiasco, hasn't it? after mr. new turns dido harding who runs it, had to apologize, the prime minister talked about the failures of fact is your party spent gigantic sums around 10000000000 pounds on a system that doesn't work. how do you explain this shattering figure? well, i think that the difficulty with test trace is as he passed the test, it actually makes a huge strides. the difficulty was the tracing and the isolating of individual

contacts. i happen to think that our trials of mass testing are going well in liverpool than elsewhere. once that is rolled out, may be rolled out quite soon. i think the backtrace will be a lot easier to do. what i hope will happen actually now going forward and this isn't minimizing the difficulties with the chief, which you described. it's just that going forward. now. i hope that actually spits of the test and chase system will be improved. well, look, spending, you know, billions of pounds on something that isn't as effective as you like. is not, is not a good thing to do. and of course we don't want and i look at a country like germany where people were haven, germany for quality stocks. and trade system, and yet germany went into a national lockdown a couple of weeks ago because they had a surge in cases. i know michel salami that very important questions about some of the companies brought in to run this test and trade system of the biggest beneficiary was a company called serco. isn't it all that the government paid hundreds of millions

of pounds to this company, but was fined over $19000000.00 pounds last year for misconduct. and it's tagging service for the ministry of justice, apparently that misconduct included charging for offenders who were dead. nothing out there that this company has rewarded them with a massive contract. now by this government you was me think it's acceptable to reward a company with contracts like that, but it has a record of the kind i've just described. well, i, if, when i was on the public accounts committee of public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events detail and, you know, have a look at exactly how they do things. and of course, sometimes they've made mistakes. you make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper. they have a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what it's been asked to do. and nobody is saying that the reason why the testing traces them is not. is because of circuit it

is because of the huge complex you're doing, trying, but what this country is trying to do any deep what lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow there's something in a judgment about using an offensive efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. because if you don't believe any private company should be involved with any, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is you've set an interesting precedent here. a record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. i'm puzzled that you find that acceptable when there are so many countries out there that don't have records of gross misconduct. well, it's not about when, when you tender for a contract, as a government, you could have tender and you will examine that on its merits or not. if the, if the decision should it, if the construction accounts were not a company, by all means that's an argument that one can have on the basis of the evidence

presented as to maybe why another company may have been able to drink or affect its room and that's one thing in the huge number of contracts circa has for the british government over many, many years. the one area where things are going wrong in relation to an unrelated arab initiative fence. or if you have just somehow makes it so they should never, ever deliver a project for the british. so wrong thing to be got to try to work with our private sector to get the best outcome too. and you've got, you can't have. you got to have accountability and usually you have to do it. if that happens, you've got to have accountability and this is something that the government manifestly doesn't like. we saw at the beginning of october health secretary, matt hancock was in the house of commons. maybe you were there too. he was asked by an m.p. about the difficulties of getting test for his constituents. but instead of overing a full and frank answer, hancock told him, i will not have this divisive language. i just won't have it. he then sat down without addressing the question at all. i'm wondering,

do you think that kind of arrogance is acceptable from a minister? who last time i looked was a public servant paid for out of the public purse? do you think that's an acceptable answer? i will not have this divisive language, i just won't have it so perfectly innocent question about testing in this man's constituency. well, i don't recall the exact question that you said, so i can't comment on that. what i can say from what you've told me is the sometimes the house of commons can be a very heated place. and i'm sure, and i always, you know, whenever i'm in the house of commons, i always try to remain as calm as possible. but i'm not under stress the health sector is currently under. and so i think bearing in mind how much time is spent on his feet in the commons and many questions. exams that if he has,, if he's been sort of inadvertently stressed when he starts at a particular m.p., i don't think that should be hanging offense. i think, you know, he's under stress like,

but many people at the top of government and i'm sure all i know that the health section is doing absolutely everything, everything he can to improve the situation. we are, we understand stress, but we also understand that if you are stressed and you say things like that, you can apologize later as far as we know, there was no apology to the gentleman concerned what our house, i mean the house actually can speak for itself what i will just say to stress again, is, is the house of commons can be a pretty aggressive place as it should be because it's, it's a vibrant democracy. and sometimes sometimes things come out not quite no way that you otherwise would have liked. so i don't think that we should, we should condemn either the person asking the question of the health of intemperate language. let's talk if we may about bret's it briefly that this came to a head in september with the government's declared intention to breach international law and renege on parts of the bracks it withdraw agreement relating to northern

ireland. spectacular act of bad faith wasn't this point in the negotiations? no, i don't think it was an act of actually what's, what this was were were 3 particular instances of making sure that in the event where there was no breaks in the event, that the dispute resolution mechanism to have under the withdrawal agreement do not reach out we have to make sure the main unity and be coherent of our own united kingdom was intact. and that is my sure, and i mean for signing the agreement last year. you signed it in good faith and you intend to break it in bad faith. there are out there are ways of changing the text of this if you wanted to buy dispute resolution, but you chose to do it unilaterally when it was too much for the government's top. legal officials, the jonathan jones who resigned in protest when the level of city says i'm from

tory's about this. well, what actually is the case is this would only come into effect if there is no agreement trade deal. if the dispute resolution mechanisms are completely exhausted, so this, this would only occur these causes would only come into force in the unlikely, unlikely situation that those 2 things with the case. well,, you've got the obstacle with the new biden and ministration, the u.s., which takes a similar view as the e.u. . they've already slammed this decision to renege on the withdraw treaty is passed . johnson going to have to go cap in hand to the u.s. and offer one more u. turn another day, another policy reversal. pretty humiliating, isn't it? well, and i'm pretty sure the prime minister will get on well with the new president. and i'm also sure that regardless of so relationship, institutional reasons why prime minister united in the present united states become and work closely together is because of the relationship between between our 2

countries. so i don't believe what the, my understanding of what biden team was worried about was the idea that somehow we would compromise the good friday agreement in northern ireland. and we've been absolutely resolute about the measures. in fact, find them closer together. and we absolutely will not compromise on the well, nobody believes that because you renee, go, you're intending to relay, go an international agreement, only row countries do that. it's hardly something that the british government wants to be known for around the world, but it is now its word doesn't count for anything signs an agreement. and then a few months later says, i'm not going to abide by that. what trust do you think can be ever invested in the british government again, while it's looking for trade deals around the world? well, we've recently signed a trade deal with japan. that was a very comprehensive and free trade deal, frankly went further than most people, myself included, it takes effort in areas lane, you got out of it,

the very deal. it wasn't as good as the one that the here has with japan. i, i reject that. actually, if i look at koreans in particular, around financial services, they are much further than what the e.u. has which and if you, if you the broader point around trust is unimportant. and i will repeat, you know, that the very remote scenarios in which these particular clauses may come into effect. but a lot of the problem was actually are, and i think the government and the certain parts doesn't what this is around how we communicate, what we're trying to do and make sure that people do not think that somehow it's our intention to break all these international agreements now i'm not blaming the media, it's awful. we need to communicate much more carefully, much more effect why we're taking certain actions. and he do that continuing, continuing, going forward. and i'm hopeful that there will be no breakdown in trust with this

country. as i say, the japanese government doesn't seem to think that there's a breakdown in trust of britain or i've been my phenomena has been good to have your own comfort zone. thank you very much. thank you. god exists

because to come september 993, israelis and palestinians signed the oslo accords. in the middle east seemed possible new videos and private documents to tell the story of the tough negotiations behind the scenes. for half the agreements reached and the bitter

collapse of the occurrence of the body, the oslo diaries, and sistine minutes on d. w. 4. literature invites us to see people in particular to see how strong is the kids find strength. growing up, her objective is to share work of you know, the books on youtube. can you hear me now? yes. yes, we're going to you and how the last year's german sauce now remembering you, i'm going to mask off as you've never had to have before. the surprise yourself with what is possible, who is medical relief, what a new sat, and what also we talked to people who follows her along the way,

admirers and critics alike. how as the world's most powerful woman say to her, they can join us from eccles last stop. the fight against the coronavirus pandemic has the rate of infection been developing. measures are being taken. what does the latest research say? information and context. the coronavirus of the coalition special monday to friday on t.w. . the missionary under pretty much just a diplomat who always gets straight to the point to look good to institute, an outgoing director. close to tell a man we look at his final year in office and his in crest of career

may mine. the last cultural diplomat starts nov 16th on d w. above the be facing news live from china condemns as far as the decision to buy off positional mike has in hong kong to resign on mass. the politicians took the step to protest down to 4 of their colleagues were expelled from parliament. also on the program, we follow the tame trying to track and trace new corona virus infections in turkey's largest city, istanbul,

and look into claims that the government is trying to hide the true scale of the crisis. plus minus 50 players in the polish capital far right.