Health secretary Victoria Atkins was shown a damning graph setting out how the lists have almost doubled in the last five years to almost 8 million.
Advertisement
That is despite the prime minister vowing at the start of the year that they would be lower within 12 months.
Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One this morning, Atkins refused to confirm that the lists would be down in time for the next election.
Pointing to the graph, Kuenssberg said: “This is what has happened to waiting lists. We know of course the pandemic made things much more challenging, but our viewers can see it was going up well before the pandemic.
“Lots more money has gone in, there are many, many more staff. This is the situation that people are having to deal with.
Advertisement
“This is the prime minister’s target and it’s going the wrong way.”
The minister claimed the long-running industrial action by doctors and nurses was to blame for the government’s failure.
“Since December last year we’ve seen some 1.1 million appointments have to be rescheduled,” she said.
Atkins said the government has reached a pay agreement with unions representing NHS consultants, and that talks were ongoing with junior doctors as well.
But Kuenssberg pointed out that Atkins’ predecessor as health secretary, Steve Barclay, had refused to negotiate with the trade unions for months.
“You’ve said that the strikes are a big reason why the waiting lists are sky high and people are suffering,” she said. “Why then did the government sit on its hands for months refusing to talk to the doctors. Isn’t that responsibility on you too?”
Advertisement
The presenter went on: “With the numbers going the wrong way, can you commit that you’re actually going to hit these targets before the general election?”
The minister replied: “We are looking to meet those targets, but I need the consultants to pass this settlement that we have put forward.”
Kuenssberg replied: “You’re saying that if the doctors accept the new deal, the prime minister might hit his targets. But if you don’t, he won’t.”
Atkins said: “We’re doing everything we can.”
The graph Atkins was shown setting out how waiting lists have soared.
Keir Starmer is facing a left-wing backlash after he lavished praise on Margaret Thatcher as he attempts to persuade Tory voters to back Labour at the next election.
He said the former prime minister – a hate figure for many – had “sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism” during her 11 years in office.
Advertisement
The Labour leader also said Thatcher, like ex-Labour PMs Tony Blair and Clement Attlee, had brought about “meaningful change” in the UK.
But his comments, in an article for the Sunday Telegraph, received fierce criticism from many of those on the left of British politics.
Andrew Fisher, a former senior adviser to Jeremy Corbyn when he was Labour leader said Thatcher had “set loose unemployment and inequality” in the country.
Writing in the Telegraph today, Keir Starmer says:
“Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism”
Avg GDP growth/year in the 1970s: 3.1% Avg GDP growth/year in the 1980s: 2.7%
Former Labour mayor Jamie Driscoll, who left the party after failing to get selected as an election candidate, accused Starmer of “abandoning the Red Wall”.
.@Keir_Starmer has abandoned his 10 pledges. He’s even deleted them from his own website. Now he’s abandoning the Red Wall. The North East lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs under Margaret Thatcher, my Dad’s job at ICI included. This is adding insult to injury. No wonder Labour… pic.twitter.com/b2feXQncPR
Left-wing singer Billy Bragg posted on X: “Oh fuck off.”
Labour-supporting Daily Mirror journalist Kevin Maguire said Thatcher had “turbo-charged inequality, created mass unemployment, flogged public assets on the cheap to her mates and tried to crush trade unions”.
Thinking of Keir Starmer’s praise for a Margaret Thatcher who turbo-charged inequality, created mass unemployment, flogged public assets on the cheap to her mates and tried to crush trades unions. pic.twitter.com/HcazPCgC1i
Asked about Starmer’s words on Sky News this morning, health secretary Victoria Atkins said: “I think the public will see this for what it is.
“Don’t forget he wasn’t appealing to Margaret Thatcher’s entrepreneurial spirit when he was courting votes from the hard left.
“And I suspect the great lady herself would view a man who is trying to ride on the coattails of her success with the following words: No, no, no.”
Elsewhere in his Sunday Telegraph article, Starmer said he wanted to “extend the hand of friendship to you, no matter where you are or who you have voted for in the past” – a clear pitch to disaffected Tories.
He said: “Across Britain there are people who feel disillusioned, frustrated, angry, worried. Many of them have always voted Conservative but feel that their party has left them. I understand that.
Advertisement
“I saw that with my own party and acted to fix it. But I also understand that many will still be uncertain about Labour. I ask them to take a look at us again.”
The Labour leader also accused the Conservatives of squandering “the possibilities of Brexit”.
King Charles caused quite the stir with his outfit choice during his keynote speech at COP28 on Friday.
While at first glance it may appear pretty subtle, upon closer inspection, the Greek flag appears to have been printed on the monarch’s blue and white tie, with a similar pattern seen on his pocket-square.
Advertisement
Earlier this week, prime minister Rishi Sunak triggered a diplomatic row with Greece when he decided to cancel a meeting with his Greek counterpart at the last minute.
No.10 claim it was because Kyriakos Mitsotakis broke his promise not to publicly discuss Greece’s demand for the UK to return the 2,500-year-old Elgin Marbles (or Parthenon sculptures) to their place of origin – Greece.
This has led to significant public backlash against Sunak for his supposed “petulance”.
Sending subtle political messages through clothing, while outwardly maintaining your place as an apolitical figurehead, was an art Charles’ mother Queen Elizabeth II was well-known for.
Worth looking closely, the King today, wearing a Greek flag tie at COP, after days of a simmering diplomatic row btw UK and Greek PM 👀👀👀 pic.twitter.com/CEwaFmBYW4
The Queen’s decision to wear a blue hat with yellow circles on it at the 2017 state opening of parliament was widely perceived as a sign of solidarity with the EU at a time when Brexit negotiations were pulling Westminster apart.
The Queen’s dresser Angela Kelly later denied any political intent behind the outfit, saying it “never occurred to her” that it would be comparable to the EU flag.
The King has managed to steer clear of direct intervention in politics since ascending the throne in September last year – as his role demands – despite his reputation as the “activist prince” when he was the heir apparent.
He does have Greek heritage through his father, the late Prince Philip who was born in Corfu as the Prince of Greece and Denmark, and has visited the European country on multiple occasions.
However, the King did also seem to wear the same tie last week, when meeting the South Korean president – before the Elgin Marbles row kicked off.
Advertisement
Charles meeting the South Korea president on November 21
The largest climate summit of the year began this week amid hope that world leaders may actually agree to an effective deal to target the environmental crisis.
The 28th Conference Of Parties – COP28 – is being held in Dubai, UAE, this year, and will run from November 30 to December 12.
Advertisement
Activists are looking for governments to agree for a more equitable management of the environment this year, as extreme weather hit almost every part of the planet over the last 12 months.
What’s decided at COP28 could therefore be very consequential – but it can be hard to understand what’s happening through all of the jargon.
So here’s a breakdown of some of the phrases we can expect to see this year.
It pops up regularly in climate commitment plans – it turned up seven times in the April G7 summit’s final statement – but the exact definition has not been spelt out by governments.
Critics see that as a means for the fossil fuel companies to continue selling the product, and it has been widely described as a delay tactic which stops companies from having to phase out fuels.
Supporters of abatement argue that this is needed for the foreseeable future, as the planet is not even close to phasing out fossil fuels altogether.
2. Climate finance
The UN describes climate finance as “local, national or transnational financing—drawn from public, private and alternative sources of financing—that seeks to support mitigation and adaptation actions that will address climate change”.
Effectively, developed nations promise to pass some funds onto developing countries that have fewer resources to defend against the climate crisis.
Advertisement
COPs have repeatedly agreed to pass more finances onto other countries since 1992.
Back in 2009, the parties agreed to share $100 billion a year from developed countries to developing countries by 2020, but this target was missed.
This year’s COP will see countries debate several controversial elements of climate financing: how the finance is allocated; how much goes to adaptation; and how much goes to loss and damage.
3. Carbon pricing
Carbon pricing ties the cost the public ends up paying for greenhouse gas emissions – from crop damage to sea level rise – to their sources through a price, according to the World Bank Group.
This usually means putting a price on the amount of CO2 emitted, in an effort to put the carbon burden back onto the producers of the fossil fuels, while also boosting revenue to help the environment.
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said in her opening remarks that there must be a “price on carbon”.
Advertisement
She said: “Carbon pricing nudges the private sector towards innovation. It makes heavy polluters pay a fair price. And the revenues can be reinvested in the fight against climate change, in innovation and in a just transition.”
Activists march with a Just Stop Oil banner during a demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
SOPA Images via Getty Images
4. The UN Global Stocktake (GST)
This is a measure for countries (and other stakeholders) to see where they’re collectively making progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, according to the UN.
It describes this as a “critical turning point” when it comes to addressing climate change, and akin to “taking inventory”.
The first ever global stocktake is going to conclude at the end of COP28, and will take place every five years after that.
Advertisement
It’s likely to be pretty damning considering scientists have warned we are still a long way off limiting global temperature change to 1.5C compared to pre-industrial levels.
“Governments will take a decision on the global stocktake at COP28, which can be leveraged to accelerate ambition in their next round of climate action plans due in 2025,” the UN said.
The GST is also meant to inform future NDCs.
5. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
These are the pledges at the centre of the Paris Agreement, and they’re unique to each country. They are submitted every five years to the UN – so the next ones will be due in 2025.
Each nation tries to see how it can reduce national emissions and adapt to climate change by taking these actions.
The UN understands these targets will be harder for developing countries to achieve, so emission reduction is “undertaken on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development as well as efforts to eradicate poverty”.
Locking the UK down three weeks earlier would have saved “many, many lives” during the Covid pandemic, Matt Hancock has claimed.
The former health secretary said the measures should have been introduced on March 2, 2020 instead of March 23.
Advertisement
He admitted that he was speaking with the benefit of hindsight and defended the government’s decision to hold off from locking down the country at the time.
Hancock was speaking during his second evidence session at the Covid Inquiry.
He said: “At the time, there was still enormous uncertainty, the number of cases was still very low – in fact, there were only 12 cases reported on March 1 – and the costs of what I’m proposing were known and huge.
“So I defend the actions that were taken by the government at the time, knowing what we did, but with hindsight, that’s the moment we should have done it, three weeks earlier, and it would have been, would have saved, many, many lives.
“Having obviously thought about this and reflected on this a huge deal over the last few years, the first moment we realistically could have really cracked it was on March 2, three weeks earlier than we did.”
Advertisement
Hancock was also accused by Dominic Cummings of lying to the inquiry over his claim that he had pushed then prime minister Boris Johnson on March 13 to order a lockdown.
Cummings posted on X (formerly Twitter): “Hancock flat out lying to inquiry claiming he privately pushed for lockdown on 13th with PM – but admits there’s no evidence for it .”
An ally of Hancock hit back: “Cummings is not a reliable witness and this tweet is wrong.
“Matt called Boris on 13th, argued for lockdown on 14th and then Boris invited Matt into the smaller meeting after Cummings had tried to exclude him.”
Dominic Cummings has accused Matt Hancock of “flat out lying” to the Covid Inquiry by claiming he was the first to push for the UK to go into lockdown.
The former health secretary Hancock claimed he urged then prime minister Boris Johnson to enforce a lockdown on March 13, 2020.
Advertisement
But in a scathing post on X (formerly Twitter) as Hancock was still giving evidence to the inquiry, Cummings said that was untrue.
He said: “Hancock flat out lying to Inquiry claiming he privately pushed for lockdown on 13th with PM – but admits there’s no evidence for it .”
Hancock flat out lying to Inquiry claiming he privately pushed for lockdown on 13th with PM – but admits there’s no evidence for it – and again on 14th in mtngs – when evidence from ALL others & paper trail is that he was still pushing Plan A herd immunity 13-15th – and his Perm…
Cummings also claimed that he “physically stopped” the then-health secretary coming to a meeting the following day because he “was bull****ting everybody about herd immunity”.
Advertisement
But an ally of Hancock said: “Cummings is not a reliable witness and this tweet is wrong.
“Matt called Boris on 13th, argued for lockdown on 14th and then Boris invited Matt into the smaller meeting after Cummings had tried to exclude him.”
Giving evidence today, Hancock told the inquiry that Cummings was a “malign influence” who created a toxic “culture of fear” in government.
Cummings is not the first witness to accuse the former health secretary of dishonesty.
And Helen MacNamara claimed he “regularly” told colleagues things “they later discovered weren’t true”.
Former deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara also said Hancock would say things “which surprise people because they knew the evidence base wasn’t there”. Hancock refuted these claims during his evidence session.
Advertisement
Covid inquiry counsel Hugo Keith also seemed skeptical at the legitimacy of Hancock’s lockdown assertions. He asked why there was no mention of it in his book, Pandemic Diaries.
“There is a whole page on how you woke up from the dawn flight to Belfast … you then went to Cardiff and so on.
“Telling the prime minister of this country, for the first time, that he had to call an immediate lockdown, is surely worthy of some recollection, is it not?”
Hancock replied: “I didn’t have full access to my papers for the writing of that, and this came to light in researching the papers ahead of this inquiry.”
Dominic Raab has said he was given “five minutes notice” that he was taking over the running of the country from Boris Johnson during the pandemic.
The former foreign secretary told the Covid inquiry on Wednesday he believed the government “did a reasonable job” during his time in charge.
Advertisement
He stepped up as de facto prime minister in April 2020 when Johnson was incapacitated due to being serious ill with Covid.
At the time, Raab was also first secretary of state, with Johnson having told him “you’ve got my back” if he ever became unable to do his job.
Raab revealed he was told by officials he would need to take charge moments after wrapping up one of the Downing Street daily press conferences on April 6.
“I was effectively told on five minutes’ notice,” he told the inquiry.
The chance Johnson could die triggered a crisis at the top of government and Raab said he needed to “steady the ship”.
Advertisement
“We actually did a reasonable job during that four, five weeks”, Raab said, thanks to “British pragmatism”.
Raab also said he was wary of imposing too much of his own will on the government while serving as interim-PM.
“I didn’t want anyone saying Dom Raab is enjoying this just a bit too much,” he said. “I wasn’t. I was there to do a job.”
“I was mindful of not looking like I was camping out in No.10 while my prime minister was ill-disposed.”
The Covid inquiry is still due to hear from Rishi Sunak, Johnson and Matt Hancock.
A Tory MP has called on politicians to be “honest with the public” about why the UK needs immigrants.
Former health minister Steve Brine said there wouldn’t be enough social care workers to “look after your ailing parents” without an influx of foreign labour.
Advertisement
Official figures last week revealed how net migration hit 672,000 in the year to June – three times higher than the government’s target.
Right-wing Conservatives have warned that the party could cease to exist if it fails to bring the number down before the next election.
Rishi Sunak has vowed to “clamp down” on immigration with new measures to reduce the numbers coming to the UK.
But on Times Radio today, Brine said “we need these workers” to do the jobs British people won’t.
And he took aim at former home secretary Suella Braverman, who said the immigration numbers were “a slap in the face to the British public”.
Advertisement
Brine, who is chair of the health and social care select committee, said: “Would that be a slap in the face to the care workers from outside the UK who look after your ailing parents?
“Would it be the Ukrainians that are living among us and contributing to our society, are they the slap in the face? Or would it be the people coming here from British Hong Kong?
“I hear this talk all the time and Labour has fallen into this trap as well. Oh, you know, ‘we need to get to the numbers down’, but which of the groups?”
The Winchester MP added: “We need these workers. We need them, particularly in social care.
“We’ve got around 152,000 vacancies in adult social care. And I just say it again, they are the people who look after your ailing parents and grandparents when families can’t because they’re working. They’re the people that pick up the slack.
“And we need to have a very serious look at ourselves as a society as to what do we actually want to be? Do we do we want to be honest with the public, because we need migration into this country.
Advertisement
“And if we’re just going to slash migration so that we can, you know, meet a political priority, and please the former home secretary then I don’t think we’re serving the society and the economy as we should be.”
The leader of the right-wing Reform UK party has been accused of “harking back to the 1940s” after he said high levels of immigration were “changing the nature of our country”.
Richard Tice clashed with Christine McAnea, general secretary of the Unison trade union, on BBC 1′s ‘Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg’.
The row came after official figures showed net migration – the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the UK – hit 672,000 in the year to June.
Tice said that was “changing the nature of our country, making us poorer financially and it’s making us poorer culturally”.
But McAnea said: “When I hear people saying things like ‘it will affect our country culturally’ – and I’ve heard you say it before – I don’t even know what that means because we are a country where people come from all over the world.
″I’m the grandchild of migrants from Ireland and my culture of probably very different from yours. It’s an appalling way to turn things into a culture war in this country.”
Asked what he meant, Tice replied: “That sense of Britishness, who we are, our heritage, our history, our Christian values and ethos. That is the base of our single British culture and that’s what we want people to unify under.
“We welcome sensible levels of immigration, but mass immigration – people living in silos, different cultures, is not good for our country.”
McAnea hit back: “This is like harking back to the 1940s or 1950s.”
The chief secretary to the Treasury repeated Conservative claims that her party is reducing the amount people are being taxed – despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Kuenssberg told Trott: “It’s very important that you are clear about the overall picture here.
″The overall picture for our viewers is that the tax burden is going up and up and up and up.”
But the minister said: “That’s actually not true. For people on average wages, their taxes would have been cut by about £1,000 on average since 2010.
“For some of the highest earners, we have asked them to take on more of the burden.”
Kuenssberg replied: “You know, and our viewers will have seen and heard on many occasions, taxes are going to reach a post-war high.
Advertisement
“The overall tax burden is going up. Shouldn’t you just be straight with people?”
Trott said: “I am being straight. If you are on an average income, because of the tax changes that we’ve made, your tax burden will have gone down quite significantly.”
Kuenssberg hit back: “You are going to bring some taxes down, but the overall tax burden is going up – I want people to understand that clearly.”