22/09/2014 The Papers

players. Championship action tonight as Wigan host Ipswich. More on that

after the papers. Hello and welcome to our look ahead

to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. With me are

the broadcaster, Jennie Bond, and the Times columnist, Matthew Syed.

Tomorrow's front pages...starting with... The Express says UKIP has

thrown down the gauntlet to the other political parties with its

pledge to scrap inheritance tax. The Sun leads on an alleged attempt

by a 37`year`old woman to kill her own mother using a deadly poison

echoing a plot line from the hit TV series Breaking Bad.

The front page of the Guardian gets its inspiration from Andy Warhol as

it reports on the news Tesco overstated its profits by 250

million pounds. The Mail has the same story`saying

Britain's biggest retailer faces the worst crisis in its 95 year history

over the claims its bosses 'cooked the books'.

The Telegraph reports that we could be ready to join air strikes against

jihadist extremists in Iraq within days, as David Cameron and President

Obama are due to meet in New York on Tuesday.

The Mirror has an exclusive interview with the mother of Stephen

Sutton` the teenager who died from cancer and raised millions of pounds

for charity. She claims that doctors missed his symptoms for six months.

And The Times says Labour will tomorrow pledge to use a new two

million pound mansion tax to help fund the NHS. So let's begin...

Labour will lead the ?2 million to fund the NHS and Ed Miliband wants

to terms to help meet national goals. It is a good story for those

people who feel that the NHS is under threat from the Conservatives

but ?2 million is not going to be enough. It will raise about 1.2

billion and that will be the centrepiece of the leaders speech

tomorrow but you are absolutely right, the central economic problem

for Labour is that only half of the fiscal deficit will have been

consolidated and they will have to raise another 37 billion over the

next two years of the next Parliament which is what Ed Balls

has said their objective is. This will be about far more than raising

that. They really want to take serious strides to get on top of it

and in addition to that, NHS England have said that the NHS itself will

be 30 billion in deficit by the end of the decade so they will have to

come up with far more serious attempts to convince the markets and

the electorate that they are going to get to grips with the real issues

facing the economy. They are walking a tightrope here, the Labour Party.

Their critics are suggesting that they are not fiscally responsible

but they know that protecting the NHS lays well to their core base ``

plays. It is a conundrum they have to balance. I think this is a move

in the right direction though I have to say I was expecting a big idea, a

new idea from the Labour leader. I think putting a levy on mansions

that are worth over 2 million is a worthwhile thing to do. It will

bring us 1.2 billion, it won't close the gap but every little bit helps

as they say. That could be a brilliant segue. I will get back to

that in a little while. There is the whole problem of people in London

being asset rich and cash poor. Ed Balls said they will have protective

measures that will solve that though he hasn't said how. I am not against

this at all. The devil is in the detail. Ed Balls has mentioned not

giving ministers a pay increase Thomas in fact, a pay cut although

I'm not sure how much that will raise. He has also said he would cut

the child benefit so there are other ways. I like what you're saying but

the other thing that strikes me is that this could be difficult in

London in terms of the electorate. Many homes are over the 2 million

threshold. Elderly people who don't earn any money and would not be able

to afford this to pay to the treasury. I think what he meant when

he said that there would be alternative arrangement is that it

could roll into the inheritance tax but I don't think that will be

popular either. You are right, the devil is in the details and it will

be interesting to see what Ed Balls says about this in the months to

come. There are some obscenely expensive mansions in London. Nearly

all owned by people who are overseas and don't even use them. If we can

get money off them, that will be a good start. Governments have

successively targeted properties. Stamp duty in the 70s... It reduces

the mobility of Labour. There are economic consequences for these

policies. But they do say that public satisfaction for the NHS has

improved recently. That does cross middle class as well as working

class as well as working`class households so some people may feel

that it is the right thing to do. I think that is right and I think that

is one of the electoral advantages of Labour. Its major problem is it's

deficit on the economy. They are 30% below the Tories when it comes to

trust in running the economy which is their biggest issue. On the

Telegraph. English home rule at the heart of Tory campaign. This is

following on from the Scottish Referendum last week and the West

Lothian question which I'm sure everyone out there knows. If they

are really going to put this issue at the heart of their campaign with

Labour putting the NHS in the heart of theirs, I think Labour are

winning. I'm not sure people really care that much about English home

rule as much as we in the media have made out over the past week or so.

Nonetheless, it has been very amusing to watch politicians

maneuvering and waffling and being so slimy and slithery as they have

in the past few days. I can get will put more people off politics and

politicians than any other issue. Do you think many other people out

there may be going to the Labour side and thinking that it was a bit

of a trick? Mr Cameron linking English home rule with Scottish home

rule and looking at the arithmetic and thinking that Labour are pretty

screwed because they have a lot of Scottish MPs ? I think Labour are in

serious difficulty here because they don't match up. If they accepted,

they will their Scottish MPs. They are talking about devolving further

down beyond... They are talking about cities and local councils and

that kind of thing. What she said is absolutely right. What people are

seeing and what should be a constitutional change would cross

party support, so that it secures a long`term consensus over a very

important part of our nation's governance, what they are seeing is

narrow and calculated self interest on everything. Everyone is doing

it. Labour need to have a convention to sort it out and the Tories are

going for the jugular. It is not about long`term interest and this

will have significant impact for generations. The problem with this

is that it is disastrous for political stability. The public

expects political classes to come to some kind of consensus. I don't

think anybody wants it. I think John Major once said that if the answer

is more politicians come out you are asking the wrong questions. Here are

the crowd going into the Ed Miliband speech, this cartoon. The caption

says, I am a Scottish MP, can I be excluded from this? Every little bit

helps in regards to Labour's economic policy but the problem is

that Tesco seem to have overestimated their profits for the

first half of the year. I feel very sorry for the chief executive who

has only been in his post for three weeks. He says that they have

uncovered a serious issue. Serious? This is staggering! The figures are

staggering. ?250 million had been wrongly attributed. I don't actually

understand the shenanigans that have gone wrong. The Guardian doesn't

seem to either. I don't understand why we have tomato soup. But I want

to know what the results of the inquiry are going to be. Is it

negligence or something a lot or sinister? ?2 billion wiped off their

share price today. I think this is breathtakingly overdone. If they

have lied, that is a serious issue of trust and it is significant but

if it is just that they have made a mistake, also serious but the other

question is whether or not Tesco is a ling as the company. It doesn't

matter that much `` floundering. If people are going to other places

because they are getting a better deal, that is good for consumers. In

capitalist societies, companies that struggle is an indication of

competition. It is a healthy part of the creative structure of which

capitalism is a part. Short`term pain for certain people but good for

the consumer. It would be extraordinary if it disappeared from

our high streets. But would it fundamentally alter our standard of

living? People would leave their jobs. `` lose. Yes, it is very

difficult in the short term but in the long`term, it is healthy for an

economy. Should they try and compete, down and dirty with the

discount retailers? I honestly don't know but what I do know is, if you

have a variation of different strategies, once you have that

variation and you have a test applied to it which is essentially

bankruptcy, that is what is healthy. The disaster is when you only have

one strategy which is when the consumer gets screwed every single

time. I don't care if the guy at Tesco is a visionary or not. So long

as you have variation, that is what leads to success and that is why I

find this whole emphasis on one particular company struggling, even

though it is a big importer... It is the biggest supermarket chain in

this country? But I think it is healthy. Survival of the fittest.

Now to the inheritance tax of all ocean and. `` abolishment. This is

all part of UKIP's strategy. I disagree with an awful lot that

Nigel Farage and his party stands for what I have to say that it is

hard to argue against this. A UKIP MEP says that they should be

respectful of those who earn money, pay tax on it, and wish to pass it

on to their chosen errors. `` heirs. I find that hard to argue

with. Remember a few years ago? They were a low tax libertarian group and

now it is something completely different. They're trying to get the

votes. It is politics. But it doesn't add up! When does it ever? I

don't know what the treasury would think about that. But inheritance

tax, I think it is very unfair. Just going back to the suggestion that

UKIP is positioning itself in order to become viable in the electorate

with less than a year to go before the election, it makes perfect

sense. I think people would typically vote for UKIP because of

their stance on the EU and immigration. They don't have to

implement any of these policies. What they're trying to do is secure

credibility by showing that it has ideas beyond the ones they are

principally known for. If this doesn't add up and credible

organizations don't agree, it could destroy their appeal on the core

issues that they want to get votes from and I think that is the basic

problem it faces. There could be quite a few people in the heartland

to think this is a good idea and they are the very people that UKIP

are trying to steal. More than quite a few I think. It is a scourge. If

you worked all your life and paid 40 `50% tax and can't hand it on to

your children, and with houses the worth what they are now, it is all

the more difficult. They can't even live in the houses you were trying

to leave them because they can't afford it. It is a very emotional

issue. This goes back to the election that never was when George

Osborne brought this up to his party conference and I think you are

right. What angers people the worst are the superrich who get around it

with overseas trusts. Great having you. Stay with us. Much more on Ed

Miliband's speech tomorrow at the Labour Party Conference in

Manchester where he is expected to signal a boost in NHS spending if

his party wins the next election. Now, it's Sportsday.

Hello and welcome to Sportsday. The two Ryder Cup teams have arrived

at Gleneagles ahead of the start of play on Friday. USA captain Tom

Watson has challenged his players to make amends for defeat at Medinah

two years ago. Merseyside police are continuing to

investigate abuse sent to the Liverool