the uk economy needs a �*fundamental course correction�* says the woman who wants to be the uk's next chancellor. rachel reeves promises stability, stability, stability — will that really achieve all the growth she's pledging? the shadow chancellor says "we need to change direction". there are no easy answers, no quick fixes and no shortcuts. what is demanded is a decade of national renewal. if labour win the election, can she really do what she wants to do without telling us whether she's going to tax us more, spend less, or change her fiscal rules? nick and ben will look at the politics and the economics and then we'll talk live to shadow financial secretary to the treasury. also tonight, two warnings that a man—made famine could be imminent in gaza, one from a un—backed report and one from israel's strongest ally, the us, which says all of gaza's two million people are facing acute hunger. we'll ask the former pm of israel, ehud olmert, why israel wont let more aid into gaza to stop people dying of starvation. and in san fransisco where so many people have overdosed on the so—called zombie drug fentanyl, it is possible to overcome the addiction. we follow brian, who slept on the streets of the tenderloin district for three years whilst addicted to opioids. there was a guy laying down on the ground kind of watching him and people were laying down all over the place in that area and somebody went over to him and he was dead. delivering the annual mais lecture is a big deal — regarded as the city of london 5 most important event for the banking and finance community and the man or woman delivering it is expected to set out out their economic direction and philosophy. gordon brown did it when he was chancellor. george osborne when he was shadow chancellor. it's a not about soundbites, or it's not supposed to be, it's about deep thinking on the economy. tonight the woman who wants to be your next chancellor delivered the lecture. her pitch was "trust me, i'll bring stability and that will bring growth". can it be that straightforward? more on the politics in a moment with our political editor nick watt, but first here's ben chu to talk us through the economics. the central theme of rachel reeves' mais lecture, stability. first, stability, the most basic condition for economic security and international credibility. stability in fiscal rules, stability in economic approach, ruling out any radical changes in tax or spending plans. in this sense her lecture this evening was very similar to gordon brown's mais lecture in 1999 which also stressed stability over all else. so what does all that tell us about the economic approach of a potential future labour government? well, it suggests there will be no immediate step change in funding for our public services, our hospitals, courts and local government, which reeves herself described tonight as at breaking point. and what does it all imply about the likelihood of labour hitting its extremely ambitious target to decarbonise uk electricity generation by 2030, which is five years faster than existing government plans? here is some context. there is this from the independent climate change committee. it shows a lot of additional investment across the economy is required over the next 25 years for us to achieve net zero. this is investment in things like electric cars, wind turbines and heat pumps. it hits £50 billion every year by 2030. yet labour of course recently pulled back on its public investment pledge, scrapping its £28 billion a year state investment target. and, as a result, as this shows, just like the government's plans, public investment is set to fall as a share of gdp under labour's plans as well. so that inevitably raises questions about how labour will fulfil its ambitious decarbonisation plans. rachel reeves accepted today that more of the required investment will have to come from the private sector and the policy stability she would create would induce that, but is that realistic? well, the climate change committee has said it is reasonable to expect the required increase in investment to be delivered by the private sector, provided the right incentives are put in place. but the office for budget responsibility, the government's official adviser, which by the way rachel reeves said she would give more power to today, warned last year that the government is currently tracking below what is required in terms of public investment to meet its net zero targets and this increases the risk of higher public investment being needed in future. that warning would apply just as much to a future labour government. i think we are currently obviously in an election year so what we hear currently and what we will hear in manifestos, there are various forces at play there. i think the economics of this, however, are that we do need to start investing as a country across both the public sector and the private sector and there is a really strong case for increasing public sector investmentjust for the growth imperative, but in addition for net zero. it is worth remembering that after labourl�*s 1997 election victory gordon brown did, as promised, stick to the very tight tax and spending plans he inherited for two years. but public service spending did ultimately increase as growth picked up and taxes raised as well. will history repeat or will this time and the circumstances be different? nick, what about the politics of all this? this is probably one of the most significant speeches rachel reeves will deliver before the general election. this former bank of england economist prepared for the speech with very great care. i have watched a lot of shadow chancellors come and go and the last one i can think of who commanded as much authority over their own side was gordon brown in a generation ago. don't forget that rachel reeves won a standing ovation at last year's labour conference when she pledged she would not waver from her ironclad fiscal rules. george osborne was the last giant of a shadow chancellor but he was only ever tolerated by his side. so ever tolerated by his side. 50 gordon brown ever tolerated by his side. so gordon brown and george osborne, obviously rachel reeves is focusing on gordon brown. she obviously rachel reeves is focusing on gordon brown.— on gordon brown. she is seeking inspiration _ on gordon brown. she is seeking inspiration from _ on gordon brown. she is seeking inspiration from gordon - on gordon brown. she is seeking inspiration from gordon brown i on gordon brown. she is seeking inspiration from gordon brown in on gordon brown. she is seeking - inspiration from gordon brown in two big ways. one, being a rock of stability and two, stick for the moment to the tories are' fiscal fundamentals. there is a bit of chatter amongst white or grandees, people who are well disposed to the idea of a labour government, that may be rachel reeves is missing a trick. i set out george osborne was tolerated by his side, but he was respected by his side for his aggression against labour in the run—up to the 2010 election. {jut run-up to the 2010 election. our country is _ run-up to the 2010 election. our country is facing _ run—up to the 2010 election. our country is facing the largest budget deficit_ country is facing the largest budget deficit in_ country is facing the largest budget deficit in modern history. put bluntly. — deficit in modern history. put bluntly, labour created this mess and we _ bluntly, labour created this mess and we conservatives are going to have _ and we conservatives are going to have to _ and we conservatives are going to have to sort it out.— have to sort it out. now, rachel reeves, have to sort it out. now, rachel reeves. she _ have to sort it out. now, rachel reeves, she does _ have to sort it out. now, rachel reeves, she does know - have to sort it out. now, rachel reeves, she does know how- have to sort it out. now, rachel reeves, she does know how to l have to sort it out. now, rachel - reeves, she does know how to take an argument to a political opponent. what about the prime minister? well, rishi sunak— what about the prime minister? well, rishi sunak had the chance to denounce _ rishi sunak had the chance to denounce the politics and the policies — denounce the politics and the policies of liz truss. to make clear that he would never repeat her mistakes _ that he would never repeat her mistakes. but he didn't. it was two weeks _ mistakes. but he didn't. it was two weeks of— mistakes. but he didn't. it was two weeks of stand up to them one year and, weeks of stand up to them one year and. so_ weeks of stand up to them one year and, so what chance do you give him five years _ and, so what chance do you give him five years in? — and, so what chance do you give him five years in? the and, so what chance do you give him five years in?— five years in? the question these urandees five years in? the question these grandees are _ five years in? the question these grandees are asking _ five years in? the question these grandees are asking is _ five years in? the question these grandees are asking is whether i grandees are asking is whether rachel reeves' innate caution, the classic don't let labour frighten the horses, means she is not acting as aggressively as george osborne did. he comprehensively trashed gordon brown because my economic record. one of his ally said to me, we blamed gordon brown for the global, financial crash which was pushing it a little bit. but then having done that george osborne then set his terms of the economic debate which was austerity. these grandees are thinking today that may be by being a little bit timid on the politics rachel reeves is losing the chance to set her own terms on the future economic picture. let's talk now to labour mpjames murray, shadow financial secretary, who's in rachel reeves' team. hello to you, mister murray. thank you for being with us. in her speech tonight, which i have read rather than watching her deliver it live, she said we need strong public services to support economic growth, yet labour, rachel reeves, have signed up tojeremy hunt's budget which implies spending cuts after the next election of 2.3% in unprotected departments like prisons and police and so on. she can't have it both ways, can she?— it both ways, can she? there is a real difference _ it both ways, can she? there is a real difference in _ it both ways, can she? there is a real difference in the _ it both ways, can she? there is a real difference in the way - it both ways, can she? there is a real difference in the way we - it both ways, can she? there is a l real difference in the way we would approach public services because we have already set out specific loopholes that we were close to get an immediate injection of cash into the nhs and schools. but we know in the nhs and schools. but we know in the medium and long term the only way to have the sustainable revenue for public services is to get the economy growing. that is why it could be a circle where we have a strong public services and economic growth and economic growth leads to tax receipts to invest in public services. ., ., , _, services. the non-dorms will come back to you — services. the non-dorms will come back to you because _ services. the non-dorms will come back to you because the _ back to you because the conservatives have now closed that loophole and you have not yet revealed how you will replace that money to spend on the nhs. let me come back to that. there is a contradiction here, isn't there? she is signing up to the conservatives proactive budget but she says public services need strong economic growth. how do you square those two things? the growth. how do you square those two thins? ., , ., , ., ., things? the conservatives have not set out the — things? the conservatives have not set out the detail— things? the conservatives have not set out the detail of _ things? the conservatives have not set out the detail of what _ things? the conservatives have not set out the detail of what will - set out the detail of what will happen after the next general election. , , happen after the next general election. , election. they say 2.3% in | unprotected departments. election. they say 2.3% in - unprotected departments. they election. they say 2.396 in _ unprotected departments. they have not set out the _ unprotected departments. they have not set out the details, _ unprotected departments. they have not set out the details, but - unprotected departments. they have not set out the details, but we - unprotected departments. they have not set out the details, but we are i not set out the details, but we are clear about the difference we would make immediately with the loopholes and we come back to the point about economic growth. we know if we win the election, we will inherit a mess where the economy is not working and public services are on their knees and that is where rachel set out this fundamentally different direction to the economy, to rebuild the economy on these foundations of strength and security and getting the economy growing. she strength and security and getting the economy growing.— the economy growing. she said toniuht the economy growing. she said tonight that — the economy growing. she said tonight that public _ the economy growing. she said tonight that public services - the economy growing. she said tonight that public services are | the economy growing. she said l tonight that public services are at breaking point now. that tonight that public services are at breaking point now.— tonight that public services are at breaking point now. that is why the immediate injection _ breaking point now. that is why the immediate injection of _ breaking point now. that is why the immediate injection of cash - breaking point now. that is why the immediate injection of cash is - breaking point now. that is why the immediate injection of cash is so i immediate injection of cash is so important. immediate in'ection of cash is so im ortant. ., immediate in'ection of cash is so important.— immediate in'ection of cash is so im ortant. ., , ., important. forgive me, they will not be an immediate _ important. forgive me, they will not be an immediate injection _ important. forgive me, they will not be an immediate injection of- important. forgive me, they will not be an immediate injection of cash i be an immediate injection of cash because the conservatives have closed the loopholes on non—dorms and you have not closed us —— told us where that is coming from. we have set us where that is coming from. - have set out what we want to do with private schools and equity. on the non—dorms point we are committed to the nhs and breakfast clubs and we will set out how we do that in due course ahead of the election. it has been two weeks — course ahead of the election. it has been two weeks since _ course ahead of the election. it has been two weeks since the - course ahead of the election. it has been two weeks since the budget and you don't know yet? we been two weeks since the budget and you don't know yet?— been two weeks since the budget and you don't know yet? we don't want to rush into this — you don't know yet? we don't want to rush into this and _ you don't know yet? we don't want to rush into this and we _ you don't know yet? we don't want to rush into this and we want _ you don't know yet? we don't want to rush into this and we want to - you don't know yet? we don't want to rush into this and we want to look - rush into this and we want to look at the details in great detail to make sure that when we set out our spending plans they can be fully trusted going into the general election. it trusted going into the general election. , ., ., , ., election. it is not really an injection — election. it is not really an injection of— election. it is not really an injection of cash _ election. it is not really an injection of cash into - election. it is not really an| injection of cash into public services, if you are able to do that, but i don't know how you can if you agree with the obr, and you tell me you are a fan of them, and if you don't believe the obr, which you do, the resolution foundation says it is £19 billion a year cuts to the day—to—day spending on unprotected departments. that to the day-to-day spending on unprotected departments. that is why it is so important _ unprotected departments. that is why it is so important to _ unprotected departments. that is why it is so important to get _ unprotected departments. that is why it is so important to get the _ it is so important to get the economy growing. i it is so important to get the economy growing.— it is so important to get the economy growing. i know it is important _ economy growing. i know it is important to _ economy growing. i know it is important to get _ economy growing. i know it is important to get the - economy growing. i know it isj important to get the economy growing. you can't get it growing on day one. all these respected institutions say cuts have to come and you are pretending that is not the case. i and you are pretending that is not the case. ., , ., the case. i am explaining the difference — the case. i am explaining the difference between _ the case. i am explaining the difference between the - the case. i am explaining the - difference between the immediate injection of cash by closing the loopholes, but in the medium and long term the only way to get sustainable revenue for public services is to get the economy growing. you mentioned the election and the obr, it is an institution we respect and one of the changes rachel set out today was a fiscal lock to guarantee the role of the obr, to make sure we have stability in the economy which has been lacking in recent years. £311" in the economy which has been lacking in recent years. our public services at — lacking in recent years. our public services at breaking _ lacking in recent years. our public services at breaking point - lacking in recent years. our public services at breaking point or - lacking in recent years. our public services at breaking point or not? | services at breaking point or not? yes, many public services are. ilrfufhy yes, many public services are. why sin u- to yes, many public services are. why sign up to a — yes, many public services are. why sign up to a budget that implies big cuts after the next election. we know that _ cuts after the next election. - know that anything we promise has to be fully costed and fall —— fully funded. be fully costed and fall -- fully funded. . , be fully costed and fall -- fully funded. ., , ., ., , ., funded. that is not a question i asked. funded. that is not a question i asked- pat _ funded. that is not a question i asked. pat mcfadden _ funded. that is not a question i asked. pat mcfadden was - funded. that is not a question i asked. pat mcfadden was in i funded. that is not a question i | asked. pat mcfadden was in the studio on budget night and i said is there anything you objected to in there anything you objected to in the budget and he couldn't think of one thing. you have signed up to spending cuts after the election. i didn't ask what you objected to in the budget that wasn't there. there are individual— the budget that wasn't there. there are individual measures _ the budget that wasn't there. there are individual measures in - the budget that wasn't there. there are individual measures in the - are individual measures in the budget we will not oppose for the sake of opposing them, but what was missing was a plan for growth and thatis missing was a plan for growth and that is why rachel has said time and again this plan for growth is so central and why she set out this comprehensive vision built on stability and investment and about how we get the economy growing. this is an inflection point where we need to move in a different direction, where we need that supply side to get the economy growing and we need to make sure it is done in a way thatis to make sure it is done in a way that is broad—based, resilient and is good for people right across the country. is good for people right across the count . ,, ., ., , ., ., is good for people right across the count , ,, ., ., , ., ., ., is good for people right across the count . ,, ., ., , ., ., ., ~ ., country. sharon graham, who you know ve well, country. sharon graham, who you know very well. is _ country. sharon graham, who you know very well. is the — country. sharon graham, who you know very well, is the general— country. sharon graham, who you know very well, is the general secretary - very well, is the general secretary of the unite union. you say it is a fundamentally different direction. she says ripping up building regulations and tinkering in the public sector is not going to deliver growth. i5 public sector is not going to deliver growth.— public sector is not going to deliver growth. public sector is not going to deliver urowth. , , ., , ., deliver growth. is she wrong? if you look at the — deliver growth. is she wrong? if you look at the speech, _ deliver growth. is she wrong? if you look at the speech, there _ deliver growth. is she wrong? if you look at the speech, there is - deliver growth. is she wrong? if you look at the speech, there is a - deliver growth. is she wrong? if you look at the speech, there is a lot - look at the speech, there is a lot in rachel's speech which would be good for unite union members. if you look at the investment in different industries across the country, if you look at what rachel said about workers' writes, there is a lot in there that i hope would be welcomed by unite union members. there there that i hope would be welcomed by unite union members.— by unite union members. there is a consensus — by unite union members. there is a consensus among _ by unite union members. there is a consensus among economists - by unite union members. there is a consensus among economists that i consensus among economists that public investment has to go up in the obr says you will not be able to deliver net zero unless you increase public investment in public investment is going down. iinufhed public investment in public investment is going down. what is missinu investment is going down. what is missin: is investment is going down. what is missing is a _ investment is going down. what is missing is a private _ investment is going down. what is missing is a private investment. investment is going down. what is missing is a private investment as | missing is a private investment as well. we know that business investment is the lifeblood to getting the economy growing and we have to be honest, we want investment in this country to increase and the real source of the investment is the private sector. we need to use an active government, we need to use an active government, we need to use an active government, we need to be a smart government, a smart state, delivered in the private sector investment. [30 smart state, delivered in the private sector investment. do you think that same _ private sector investment. do you think that same amount _ private sector investment. do you think that same amount of- private sector investment. do you think that same amount of money private sector investment. do you i think that same amount of money is going to come into the private sector now you have rolled back on your 28 million a year to just 5 million a year? your 28 million a year to “ust 5 million a year?�* your 28 million a year to “ust 5 million a year? every time i talk to the sa million a year? every time i talk to they say how _ million a year? every time i talk to they say how much _ million a year? every time i talk to they say how much they _ million a year? every time i talk to they say how much they want - million a year? every time i talk to l they say how much they want invest. they are ready to invest. so despite cutting back you will still get the same amount of private investment? we still get the same amount of private investment?— still get the same amount of private investment? we are still committed to the 2030 — investment? we are still committed to the 2030 clean _ investment? we are still committed to the 2030 clean energy _ investment? we are still committed to the 2030 clean energy target - investment? we are still committed to the 2030 clean energy target and that will rely on private sector investment. the way to increase that is by providing stability, setting out for example a road map to the course of the parliament for taxation. he targeted investment and make reforms so for example to the planning system to encourage businesses to have confidence that their investment will be well spent. and in that case we can get the economy going. and in that case we can get the economy going-— and in that case we can get the economy going. and in that case we can get the econom anoin. . ,, ,, , . next, we're going to bring you some distressing footage of a little boy in gaza. he is six and his name is fadi al—zant. he has cystic fibrosis, but is now also struggling with malnutrition due to a lack of food available in his home city of rafah in southern gaza. these images were fillmed by reuters on march 10th and released today. in fact, all of gaza's two million people are facing acute hunger — all of them — so said the us secretary of state antony blinken today. it's the first time an entire population has been so classified and mr blinken called on israel to prioritise providing for those in need. also today, a un—backed report says famine is expected between now and may in the north of the strip — that's a report from the integrated food security phase classification. and that's a famine that's man—made. in a moment we'll talk live to the former prime minster of israel ehud olmert. first let's hearfrom a palestinian journalist and translator radah al—kord, who had to move from her home in the north of the territory because it was being bombed, and is now living in rafah in the south. i asked her what conditions were like there. i've been evacuated from gaza city, the first week of the war i have been evacuated to al—shifa, i stayed there for three days. then i evacuated to the middle area one week after this. and on the 20th of october i evacuated to khan younis. i was sheltering in one of the unhwra facilities for approximately three months. then injanuary i had to evacuate for another time to rafah after the israeli forces conducted a ground invasion to khan younis city. i am now living in rafah city in one of my relatives' homes. we are sheltering in this house, me and my sister, my nieces, my nephews, and we are more than 20 people living inside one apartment, small apartment actually. this year ramadan is coming, we cannot celebrate ramadan, we cannot do some rituals related to ramadan. children are dying of starvation and we have the us secretary of state saying the entire gaza population is facing acute hunger. is that what you are experiencing? do you see that? for all of the people we are experiencing this. i lost my father because of the starvation and famine in the north of gaza. my father, he is an old man, he had diabetes and a brain stroke and he had to take some medication, he couldn't move to other places, he couldn't have his healthy food and he had an injury from one of the airstrikes so it wasn't cured. at the end, we lost him. i have been recording and seeing many babies and children, they are losing weight and we don't have any of their baby milk or some eggs, which is very necessary for their health and we have witnessed one of our neighbours here actually, our friends son, he died from starvation. so what is your message to israel and to the international community when you say you are seeing and hearing about people dying of starvation? it's enough now. the gaza strip, like 80% of the gaza strip is completely destroyed. even if we came back to gaza city or north gaza, there is no place to go, there is no place to live in, there is no infrastructure actually. maybe we will go there and we will start to rebuild in new tents, in new shelters there, so my message again is, like, try to stop or put some pressure on both sides to stop this fighting, not as soon as possible, i am saying stop this fighting now. radah, thank you very much for talking to us and talking to our british audience and please take care. you are welcome. let's talk live to ehud olmert, who was prime minister of israel between 2006 and 2009. he's a critic of pm benjamin netanyahu and has said, "every minute he is prime minister he is a danger to israel". thank you for talking to us. the us secretary of state said today according to the most respected measure 1% of the population is at severe levels of acute food insecurity in gaza. why do you think israel will not let in more food aid? h israel will not let in more food aid? ., ., ~ ., ., israel will not let in more food aid? ., ., ~ ., ., , aid? i do not know, to be honest with you- — aid? i do not know, to be honest with you- i _ aid? i do not know, to be honest with you. i subscribe _ aid? i do not know, to be honest with you. i subscribe to - aid? i do not know, to be honest with you. i subscribe to what - with you. i subscribe to what secretary blink and suggested that israel should make every effort to provide supplies to the hundreds of thousands of people living in the gaza strip so that there will be no danger of starvation to anyone. we are fighting against terrorists, not against the people of the gaza strip and we have to make every possible effort to avoid unnecessary terrible humanitarian effects that secretary blinking referred to. it humanitarian effects that secretary blinking referred to.— blinking referred to. it does not a- ear blinking referred to. it does not a - ear to blinking referred to. it does not appear to the — blinking referred to. it does not appear to the outside _ blinking referred to. it does not| appear to the outside world that every possible human effort is being made to avoid that, is that fair? well you know very well... i'm asking what you think? i'm not in charge. i think, asking what you think? i'm not in charge. ithink, i believe some logistical difficulties also exist. i think we are providing humanitarian support to the people there but we should make more effort and make sure that everyone has the opportunity to get the necessary supplies that are needed to everyone. and if someone is not doing that it is very sad. we have to fight against the terrorists but not against the citizens and civilians that live there. america obviously is _ civilians that live there. america obviously is a — civilians that live there. america obviously is a strong _ civilians that live there. america obviously is a strong ally - civilians that live there. america obviously is a strong ally of- obviously is a strong ally of israel, is a former prime minister what is it say to you when america is criticising the government of israel in the way it is? lunfelll is criticising the government of israel in the way it is?- is criticising the government of israel in the way it is? well we are in a very bad _ israel in the way it is? well we are in a very bad situation. _ israel in the way it is? well we are in a very bad situation. as - israel in the way it is? well we are in a very bad situation. as you - israel in the way it is? well we are l in a very bad situation. as you know the majority of israel they trust the majority of israel they trust the prime minister and believe he is doing what needs to be done in order to bring back the hostages and stop the fighting. not that country is making any particular effort to bring it to an end but the difficulty with the united states, thatis difficulty with the united states, that is of enormous significance to us. america has supported us all along the way and provided weapons and support from the very beginning. he came to express his sympathies to the people of israel and met the families of the hostages because he cares. i think the government should listen to what the president says and should understand the complexities of the continuing turbulence that is alienating a large part of the international community to watch the state of israel without bringing any outcome of any significance to the goals that were set forth by the government of israel. we need to fight the terrorists but certainly do not need to fight america or fight civilians in the international community. hf fight civilians in the international community-— fight civilians in the international communi . ., �* ., ., community. if not ben'amin netanyahu dan who community. if not ben'amin netanyahu nan who what— community. if not ben'amin netanyahu nah who what is _ community. if not benjamin netanyahu dan who what is going _ community. if not benjamin netanyahu dan who what is going to _ community. if not benjamin netanyahu dan who what is going to bring - community. if not benjamin netanyahu dan who what is going to bring this - dan who what is going to bring this war to an end? i dan who what is going to bring this war to an end?— war to an end? i hope that the government — war to an end? i hope that the government of— war to an end? i hope that the government of israel- war to an end? i hope that the government of israel will- war to an end? i hope that the - government of israel will ultimately succumb to the demands and pressures of the international community and i certainly expect the american president to express his opinion in a way that will be understood by the government in israel. unfortunately as long as benjamin netanyahu is prime minister i really have serious difficulties in trying to bring it to a reasonable resolution in that we have to think about the next step and what comes after the military confrontation and how can we change the situation so that we try to come to some kind of dialogue with the palestinians. we certainly depend on the will of the palestinians which has not been clearly expressed for a long time. but from the point of view of israel i think we should make clear that after the military occupation we are prepared to embark on negotiations on a two state solution. . , , on negotiations on a two state solution. ., , , ., solution. that is interesting to hear ou solution. that is interesting to hear you say _ solution. that is interesting to hear you say that _ solution. that is interesting to hear you say that that - solution. that is interesting to hear you say that that you - solution. that is interesting to. hear you say that that you need solution. that is interesting to - hear you say that that you need to come up with some kind of political horizon because you were architect of the withdrawal from gaza during your term and came close to reaching agreement on that two state solution. you may remember president biden back in october said to israel justice must be done after october the 7th of course and the horrific hamas massacre of people in southern israel but he said while you feel like rage do not be consumed by it. after september the 11th we were enraged in the united states and we sought and gotjustice but also make mistakes. do you think that israel is making the same mistakes that the us state in iraq and afghanistan? riff us state in iraq and afghanistan? of course the circumstances are very different and i do not want to compare. i rememberthose different and i do not want to compare. i remember those terrible days of september the 11th and of course i will never forget the horrible days of october were so many people were massacred in the living rooms and bedrooms in the most brutal way by the murderers of hamas. but as a nation and as a people our leadership has to be able to take one step further because let's assume that we destroyed three completely and none of them remain. but all members of the terrorist organisations are wiped out we will still be left with 6 million palestinians and if we do not want to remain occupiers forever we have to remain occupiers forever we have to have a political plan that will change this pattern that has characterised us for so many years. so there is a lot to be said about the reluctance of the palestinians to take part in negotiations but for israel we have got to address ourselves to this and we have to be ready to come to a political process with the palestinians and bring back the hostages to end the military confrontations and to move forward to a different horizon. if we will not do it then we probably will have to fight forever which is not something that the people of israel need or want and this is not something that can be of any significance positively to the palestinians. 50 significance positively to the palestinians.— significance positively to the palestinians. , ., palestinians. so we must do it. thank you _ palestinians. so we must do it. thank you very _ palestinians. so we must do it. thank you very much _ palestinians. so we must do it. thank you very much for - palestinians. so we must do it. thank you very much for your l palestinians. so we must do it. i thank you very much for your time this evening, we really appreciate it. the us fentanyl epidemic shows little sign of abating. more than 100,000 died in the us last year of an overdose, the majority of which were from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. up to 50 times stronger than heroin, it s frighteningly easy to overdose when using it. our correspondent in san francisco james clayton has been speaking to a former addict about how addiction took over his life and how he nearly died. and a warning, this film contains distressing scenes from the beginning. my shit wasn't trashed. my shit was not trashed. what's going on? nothing. okay. i mean, are they, are you moving those guys or you just got to clean the sidewalk, or what? they're moving. okay. i'm just curious. i used to be right here, too, so... brian was on the streets of san francisco for three years between 2020 and 2023. mama, you want a cigarette? sorry, mama. you'll be all right. like i guess they're probably, like visibly smoking fetty on the street, you know? but it's kind of, they send you mixed messages because one day they'll cruise right by, and the next day they will take you to lockup. there's someone actually doing fentanyl right there. oh, yeah, that's... you're going to see that. like that's. .. and you saw, like, ten policemen were right over there, but it's... i mean, people smoke fentanyl on crowded trains, you know what i'm saying? like, people don't give a shit. over the last few years, fentanyl addiction in san francisco has been likened to a death sentence. we have had more overdose deaths in one year at one point than we did of covid deaths in our city. all right, all right. brian was in a small pocket of the city called the tenderloin. so many people overdosed here that a state of emergency was declared in 2021. have you've seen a picture of yourself from that time? wow, that's so crazy. i look like i'm 100 years old. he very nearly died. cities like san francisco are where young americans who are horribly addicted to opioids often end up. this is one account of what life is like on the streets. so i grew up in tampa. like that was where i was formed as a person, which was definitely via like skateboarding. so i was a user of various opiates, like since i was a teenager. so when i was in high school, oxycontin was wildly. .. i could probably get oxycontin easier than i could get beer, you know, like it was wildly available. i could buy it at school. he says his addiction slowly got worse, pills, then heroin, than fentanyl. after spending time in prison for a drug charge, he moved to san francisco. he slept on friends' sofas. i didn't even know coming out here how rampant it was and how affordable it was. like it was very cheap here. you know, i'd go on a run where i'd smoke fentanyl and crystal meth for three days straight and just like run around the streets, not sleeping, you know, just skating around. and then i'd pop back up and, like, crash on a friend's couch and shower and get my shit together a little bit and then go back out and do it again, you know? and itjust, istopped. i would imagine i was not welcome anymore, but ijust stopped coming around because, you know, i didn't have any good news. for like a year, i didn't go to sleep on purpose. where i fell is where i slept, you know, after like being awake for four days. so i would wake up, like, just laying on the bricks at civic center in the morning like that, like just flat on the ground, you know, like it wasn't uncommon. and i always wondered, like, how do you... why don't you go and get undercover or something? and it's because you're just exhausted. you're like just sheer exhaustion and you lay where you fall, you know? so, yeah, i've been there. i've been there plenty of times here. let's see if we can go in the church. so, yeah, there's definitely people there. in mornings, you can sleep in here, like in the pews, which i would do often, many mornings. there's definitely people in there now. but, yeah, somewhere dry and warm, you know, exceedingly warm. but, yeah, this was... they're open 6 am to 2.30. it's an all encompassing desire, like it's a 26 hour a dayjob. all you're doing is acquiring money to make sure you still have dope. because when you run out, like, obviously withdrawals are looming, like they're going to, they're going to come in a matter of hours. so it's... and it feels very bad. it's like the worst flu you've ever had, the worst hangover you've ever had. like you just feel poisoned. you have zero energy. like getting out of bed is like a daunting prospect. i was a booster. so what i would do is i would go to a store and i would steal shit. there was a time period when the stealing was so rampant in the city and surrounding bay area that they would kind ofjust let you do your thing. another brazen theft caught on camera at a san francisco walgreens. target is cutting its hours i at its stores in san francisco after a spike in thefts. it's a crime that's becoming all too common here in the bay area. overand overagain, i robberies not being done under cloak and dagger, but in broad daylight. i yeah, i don't know. i tried to not make anybody�*s life harder. like, even at my worst, but... obviously i know there's like, stealing from a company still affects somebody�*s life down the line and in the grand scheme of things, you know. so i canjust understand how you could be driven to stuff like that, you know? this was a period when authorities were widely criticised for not doing enough to tackle crime in and around the tenderloin. speaking to the bbc, it was something the city's attorney general denied at the time. we don't have any policy whatsoever that suggests non prosecution of shoplifting. the overwhelming majority of cases, police bring us, nearly 90% are prosecuted. yet brian talks of streets that felt lawless. this is the tenderloin police station. it's pretty much like the, it's at the heart of the tl. and, yeah, i used to sit like right there on that ledge and smoke fentanyl all night, so i would say... in front of the police station? in front, like in front on the police station's property. yeah. brian was just about surviving, but death was never far away. there was one time we were sitting on a ledge smoking dope like me and a few guys, near the drug dealers' spot. and there was a guy like laying down on the ground, kind of watching him, but he wasn't moving, but people laying on the ground, sleeping all over the place in that area, you know. and then somebody went over to him and he was dead. he was laying there on the side of the road, like a pretty busy... like one block from market by the federal building. like on the sidewalk of the federal building, there was a dead body sitting for hours. and that's just regular tuesday morning or whatever. brian had no phone, no id, nothing. his mum filed a missing persons report. for a time, she definitely thought i was dead. all my friends did too. like they had at least accepted that it was a real possibility. after finding out he was alive and in san francisco, his mum and her partner searched the city for him. theyjust came out and they went to this place called glide that gives out meals. and i happened to... i was never there at that time, but i happened to be there with my buddy, like on a fluke. and i ran into my folks like, they found me. she was definitely trying to not cry the whole time, like she was trying to put on a brave face and keep it together. chained to his addiction, though, brian wouldn't leave. you're embarrassed about it. you know, you've got to face the music and plus, just as time grew, it was like that much harder to contact her and be like, sorry. like, it's definitely the thing that i feel like the most regret about was, like making my mom and my family and friends worry. you know, like, ifeel terrible about it. in 2022, brian's feet were starting to get more and more swollen, a common problem forfentanyl users. he walked with a limp. i had cellulitis, like, which is a cellular infection in my legs due to poor circulation. and i would stand, like i wouldn't lay down for many days at a time, you know, so your circulation gets messed up and your legs, the toxins never drain. when you lay down, they drain and your kidney processes them. that wouldn't happen. so then you get sores on your legs. by the middle of 2022, brian could barely walk. there's very few pictures of him from this time, but he was caught briefly in this news piece. he eventually had to start using a wheelchair. by pure coincidence, we bumped into an old friend. good to see you, brother. how you been? how you do, doggy? i've known you for years, but you've definitely seen me like at my worst, for sure. you pushed me around in a locking wheelchair, like it's... you know?