Will have to send troops into rafah, the city in the southern gaza, to achieve its war aims of eliminating hamas. He has been briefing a Government Committee in which he acknowleged his difference with the white house on that, not on the objective, per se, more on the means. That much is clear. President biden has been firm in his belief that a full scale of invasion of rafah would be a disaster. The white house has invited key Security Officials to washington to discuss the strategy � probably early next week. Heres what the Us National Security adviser said ahead of that meeting. The president has rejected, and did again today, the strawman that raising questions about rafah is the same as raising questions about defeating hamas. Thatsjust nonsense. Our position is that hamas should not be allowed a Safe Haven In Rafah or anywhere else, but a major Ground Operation there would be a mistake. The un human rights chief, volker turk, warned today israel could be using starvation as a Weapon Of War in gaza. And the uns latest report frames the scale of the crisis. It grades the scale of this crisis green to red. The current estimate suggest over 870 thousand. Are already in an emergency situation. And over 670,000 are facing catastrophe. But look at the dire projections for the months ahead. All of the 2. 2 Million People in gaza assessed, will be in crisis or worse byjuly unless something changes dramatically. That scenario was put to the Secretary Of State antony blinken, who is heading to saudi arabia and egypt, for talks on post war planning in gaza. This was his response. 100 of the population in gaza is at severe levels of acute food insecurity. Thats the first time an entire population has been so classified. We also see, again, according to this case the united nations, 100 , the totality of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance. Lets speak to michelle farrington. Shes oxfams Public Health lead who recently returned from jersualem. Thank you very much for being with us. As the Secretary Of State sort of nods to there, the shocking thing about this is its a 25 mile strip of land where there is an abundance of land where there is an abundance of food on either side. So surely this is a crisis that could be solved if they were willing. Absolutely. I mean, we know that just the matter of a few kilometres away in egypt, there are warehouses that are full of food, full of humanitarian aid, full of all of the items that would be needed to respond to the catastrophic level of needin respond to the catastrophic level of need in gaza, but we are not able to get these into gaza at the rate that they are required, at the rate that they are required, at the rate that they need to be able to avert this crisis going any further than it already has. I crisis going any further than it already hem crisis going any further than it already has crisis going any further than it already has. Crisis going any further than it alread has. ,. , already has. I Ust Read Tonight The Re Ort Ou already has. Ijust read tonight the report you compiled already has. Ijust read tonight the report you compiled after already has. Ijust read tonight the report you compiled after your report you compiled after your latest visit and you say that israel is deliberately blocking food aid from going into gaza and that it has been done using starvation as a Weapon Of Warfor over been done using starvation as a Weapon Of War for over five months. What evidence do you have for that . I mean, we have the evidence of directly trying to get our own food items into gaza and having these blocked by numerous barriers that are put in place, not only for oxfam but for all humanitarian agencies that are really trying to scale up their responses. There is no way that we can respond at scale with the barriers in place. There are a limited number of crossings to be able to get goods into gaza, although there are several other crossings that we are not being allowed to use. Crossings that we are not being allowed to use. There are two that are 0 en allowed to use. There are two that are open of allowed to use. There are two that are open of five . Allowed to use. There are two that are open of five . There allowed to use. There are two that are open of five . There are allowed to use. There are two that are open of five . There are five i are open of five . There are five crossings that are available. {iii crossings that are available. Of five Crossing Points, yes. If we were able to use other Crossing Points, that would support with reducing the backlog of goods that are waiting at a rafah. And reducing the backlog of goods that are waiting at a rafah. Are waiting at a rafah. And what reason is given are waiting at a rafah. And what reason is given for are waiting at a rafah. And what reason is given for keeping are waiting at a rafah. And what reason is given for keeping the l reason is given for keeping the other three closed . I reason is given for keeping the other three closed . Other three closed . I think the reasoning other three closed . I think the reasoning that other three closed . I think the reasoning that is other three closed . I think the reasoning that is given other three closed . I think the reasoning that is given is other three closed . I think the i reasoning that is given is around security and is around the suitability of those crossings to be able to move goods. However, one of the Crossing Points that is currently in use for goods was never designed as a goods crossing point. It was always designed as a Pedestrian Crossing point. So, actually, the reasoning that we are being given doesnt really make a lot of sense in terms of why we can only use the two Crossing Points to be able to bring goods into gaza. You also talk about the arbitrary rejection of dual use items. What is that . , ,. ,. , rejection of dual use items. What is that . ,. , that . The dual use items are a very arbitrary list that . The dual use items are a very arbitrary list of that . The dual use items are a very arbitrary list of items that . The dual use items are a very arbitrary list of items that that . The dual use items are a very arbitrary list of items that could arbitrary list of items that could be used for a use other than its initial purpose, and quite often that means that it could be weapon iced. ,. , that iced. That is not food, is it . That is absolutely iced. That is not food, is it . That is absolutely not iced. That is not food, is it . That is absolutely not food. Iced. That is not food, is it . That is absolutely not food. So iced. That is not food, is it . That is absolutely not food. So it is absolutely not food. So it is absolutely not. The vast majority of items that we are trying to bring into support humanitarian response into support humanitarian response in gaza. 50 into support humanitarian response in gaza. , i. Into support humanitarian response ingaza. , in gaza. So is it your allegation that when in gaza. So is it your allegation that when you in gaza. So is it your allegation that when you bring in gaza. So is it your allegation that when you bring a in gaza. So is it your allegation that when you bring a truck in gaza. So is it your allegation that when you bring a truck to i in gaza. So is it your allegation l that when you bring a truck to the border with food on it, it is being turned around for what reason . 50. Turned around for what reason . So, the reasons turned around for what reason . sr, the reasons that turned around for what reason . 5r, the reasons that we are given is that there are dual use items on board the truck, but it is not the items that are rejected, it is the entire truck. So if aid agencies are trying to put goods together to maximise what they can get into gaza, to maximise the effectiveness of their response, the whole truck is being rejected. So even if there are food items, plus other items, everything is rejected. That are food items, plus other items, everything is rejected. Everything is reected. That lends us to the everything is rejected. That lends us to the suggestion everything is rejected. That lends us to the suggestion in everything is rejected. That lends us to the suggestion in your everything is rejected. That lends. Us to the suggestion in your report that it us to the suggestion in your report thatitis us to the suggestion in your report that it is the humanitarian operations that just dont that it is the humanitarian operations thatjust dont work that it is the humanitarian operations that just dont work any more. Its the attacks on humanitarian facilities and aid convoys. We have the spokesman for the Israeli Government on the programme on thursday and said as a result there is no one to disperse the food. We sort of go around and around on this issue. What is it your belief that hamas is taking some of the food as he alleges . He says its going into hamas hands and going into the tunnels, is that the case . ,. , going into the tunnels, is that the case . ,. , ,. , case . That i could not comment on. I dont have case . That i could not comment on. I dont have any case . That i could not comment on. I dont have any evidence case . That i could not comment on. I dont have any evidence to case . That i could not comment on. I dont have any evidence to say dont have any evidence to say contrary to that, but what is very clear is that there is capacity inside gaza to be able to distribute aid. However, the conditions to distribute aid safely and keep people safe whilst they are receiving that assistance are not there. Not trying to deliver large amounts of food under bombardment, we are putting people at risk by doing that. So, really, the only option that is available, if there is a complete cease fire and we are able to distribute humanitarian aid safely and that people are able to receive that safely as well. The final one. Receive that safely as well. The final one. If receive that safely as well. The final one, if the receive that safely as well. The final one, if the facilities are not there now with overi Million People gathered around rafah, which is close to the crossing, what happens if they are moved to these humanitarian islands deeper in the strip . Humanitarian islands deeper in the stri . �. , humanitarian islands deeper in the stri . ~. ,. Strip . Again, what we need is a ceasefire strip . Again, what we need is a ceasefire to strip . Again, what we need is a ceasefire to be strip . Again, what we need is a ceasefire to be able strip . Again, what we need is a ceasefire to be able to strip . Again, what we need is a ceasefire to be able to access| cease fire to be able to access those areas. At the moment, we are humanitarian agencies can access safely is an extremely small area. So if there is further movement of people and we hope that if there is a cease fire, that movement of people would be back towards their homes, we would want to have unrestricted humanitarian access to be able to support people whilst they rebuild their lives. Be able to support people whilst they rebuild their lives. Thank you ve much they rebuild their lives. Thank you very much for they rebuild their lives. Thank you very much for coming they rebuild their lives. Thank you very much for coming on they rebuild their lives. Thank you very much for coming on the very much for coming on the programme. Very much for coming on the programme the shadow chancellor has warned a Labour Government is going to have to make some almost impossible trade offs on tax and spend if the uk economy fails to grow. Speaking at the annual mais lecture in the city tonight, Rachel Reeves said the uk couldnt just tax its way to better public services. And at one point she seemed to be inviting comparison to the former conservative leader margaret thatcher. As was the case at the end of the 1970s, she said, the uks stands at an Inflection Point, and as in earlier decades, she adds the solution lies in wide ranging supply side reform. So did her speech tonight match the moment this Inflection Point as she describes it. I want to use the rest of this lecture to set out the three pillars of a strategy for broad based and resilient growth. Growth that we can achieve, growth that we must achieve. First, stability. The most basic condition for Economic Security and international credibility. Second, investment. Fostered through partnership between Dynamic Business and strategic government. Third, reform. To mobilise all of britains resources in pursuit of shared prosperity. Lets go live to westminster, can speak to politicla correspondent. Let� s go live to westminster, can speak to political correspondent. The big question is whether there is a plan to deliver this growth. I suppose the question for labour is what really sets them apart from the status quo under the conservatives at the moment, because Rachel Reeves was talking again about her fiscal rules and stability, the bedrock on which all of her plans will be built and they only really differ from the conservatives in the sense that they will be able to borrow to invest in long term projects. So theres not a huge amount between them, really. She talks about this idea of secure economics, which i dont think is a phrase that will be picked up and repeated by lots of voters when we eventually get to the General Election, but it is about her really setting her stall out as being an economist herself, she knows what shes doing and that the economy must be built on sound foundations, if indeed it is going to grow. She is trying to, i suppose, contrast what she will do if indeed laboured to get into power as the polls suggest that they may well do it the General Election with what has happened under the conservatives, which has been characterised by political and economic instability. Also interesting that she is increasingly putting her programme for government alongside that of the biden administration, the inflation reduction act, spending lots of money on Green Industries of the future. Labour had said that it wanted to spend £20 billion a year on that. They have had to water it down because of the Economic Situation they say, anything that points to the argument that we are going to get in the General Election between the two main parties, the tory saying, how on earth are you going to pay for these ambitious plans . As a going to be through tax rises, and saying for example the Headline Rate of Corporation Tax will remain the same throughout a labour parliament, and lots of the same kinds of things that have been in place for some time, like the Bank Of EnglandInflation Target being 2 will very much remain the same under labour. Haifa being 2 will very much remain the same under labour. Being 296 will very much remain the same under labour. How are you going to a for same under labour. How are you going to pay for it same under labour. How are you going to pay for it is same under labour. How are you going to pay for it is the to pay for it is the obvious question, but from her perspective, thatis question, but from her perspective, that is very difficult to say because as she said today, there has got to be a budget event between now and the election, probably, and she wont to know what sort of headroom she is going to get if and when they take power. I she is going to get if and when they take power she is going to get if and when they take ower. , ,. , take power. I suppose the temptation is for her to take power. I suppose the temptation is for her to announce take power. I suppose the temptation is for her to announce lots take power. I suppose the temptation is for her to announce lots of is for her to announce lots of policies now, but she doesnt really need to, they are ahead in the polls at the moment and some of the policies that they have announced previously, the conservatives have borrowed or stolen, for want of a better expression. Thats what happened with the strumming of the Nondominant Tax Status in the budget, jeremy hunt, abolished that and use that to help pay for a cut to National Insurance which labour says that it will not roll back on. So there is a danger in saying too much at this stage. Interesting to note Thatjeremy Hunt did say earlier on today, the chancellor in front of a committee of Lords Committee here in parliament that he does want to have another fiscal event before the General Election. He also just completely unprovoked said if there is an election in october, blah blah blah, which people speculate the General Election will be in october, bear in mind the prime ministers without a 2nd of may General Election to coincide with the local elections. If you look then at his other. It will be the second of the parliament, september is probably going to be too early because that will mean campaigning over the summer. October is always felt like the most logical time for a General Election, but the fact of the matter is what we do not know, and nor do labour, which i suppose is why teresa is being quite cagey. Its been a long one, an hour long, but there wasnt a great deal there in terms of new announcements or a Radical Change in approach. Her political calculat