12/12/2015 The Papers

the outcome of those climate change talks. With us now to look at the

papers. With me are Mihir Bose

from the Evening Standard Tomorrow's front pages,

starting with... The Observer welcomes the historic

climate change deal in Paris, quoting the words of the French

president Francois Hollande who described it as a "major

leap for mankind". The Independent shows a line

of dancing polar bears The paper also claims David Cameron

is to make a dramatic climb-down That story also makes the front page

of the Telegraph, pointing out the U-turn will be

on the Prime Minister's central The Mail carries an exclusive

interview with Shaker Aamer, the British man held

at Guantanamo bay for 14 years. The Express goes it alone saying

more than 400 miles of road works will be cleared for the great

Christmas getaway. The outcome of the talks in Paris.

Not all of them have gone with the climate change. What is interesting

about the Observer story, is that while it says it was a major league

for mankind, it says that temperatures will be rising to a

maximum of 5 degrees. It does not give any detail of what was agreed.

And the devil is in the detail. This looks to me like an agreement to

agree rather than actual agreement which can be implemented or maybe

invented. I think we are being a bit too... The leaders, understandably,

are a bit anxious and a bit too ambitious in the claims are making.

Do you think, Sunny, after Copenhagen which was such a

disaster, almost anything would be better? There is something to

celebrate, which is the fact that this was actually signed. But if you

look at the draft that was circulated earlier today, it is very

much an agreement that is a first step. Let's not forget that most of

the leaders who have signed it now have to go back to their own

parliaments. It has to be ratified. And regardless of -- what Obama has

said, it may not get through the house. We are going into a election.

The Republican side have made a virtue of denying climate change

completely. I am happy that this has happened, but I think this agreement

is something to be taken forward, an agreement to agree. And India for

instance says it will still be burning coal and India is a

developing country that wants to develop. We will have to see exactly

what India has agreed to do. China has changed tack but what will India

agree? The second most populous nation in the world. We will have to

see exactly how it is implemented. In a lot of praise compared to

Copenhagen, but we should be a bit cautious. I think that is always

sensible women are talking about getting 195 countries to agree. And

we don't have the clarity about emissions. You were saying Russia,

China, Japan and India. We have some clarity on some of these, but we

don't have clarity on what Russia has signed up for and where they

will stand on this particular agreement. Yes, it may be signed,

but where the details may come in, we are not sure. So we should hold

the champagne for a bit. Isn't this partly about sending a message to

the markets, to investors, that we are heading away from carbon fuels

and renewables are the place to put your money? And if the markets drive

that, we will end up using renewable energy. I think one of the big

shifts from Copenhagen has been a business signal that has gone out. A

signal from part of the private corporate world. But we still are

reliant on fossil fuels to a huge degree and unless that is addressed,

we will be in the cycle and yes, the signal has gone out, but we are

taking a tiny step. I am not sure if it is a step or a shuffle forwards.

And we have to tackle the wider questions of developing crop

countries, what is the model they are aiming for? Is it the model of

America, with two cars? But to be fair to America and China, they have

invested huge amounts of money in renewable energy sources. But they

have got to understand that for prosperity, you don't need three

cars. That's other model, we have not gone back from that. That is

what everybody wants. If you want that, where do you get that? We have

not discussed that enough. We haven't told you, but we are going

to get you to cycle home on a tandem! I will look forward to that!

I will be at the back. Let's stay with the Observer together. Oxford

and Cambridge condemned over the failure to improve state school

access. They are under fire from state school inspectors because they

have not increased state school pupils studying in their colleges. I

feel I have read the story a few times! We seem to be in a

perpetual... Groundhog Day! This comes up every six months and I

wonder where it goes. We get very similar figures, we get very similar

statements and then it is parked for another six months. So I'm really

not quite sure where this is supposed to go. Having said that, I

think there is a case to be made that diverse class rooms and diverse

workplaces are better for the economy and there are lots of

reports and studies on that. They are better for business and for

productivity. Having said that, how do you convince people that they

should change? I'm not sure Oxbridge will happen because the government

pushes it? The figures are pretty damning. Between 2004 and 2013,

independent school pupils still make up two fifths of the intake as

Oxford and Cambridge. So we still in a society where if you go to a

private school, you are likely to go to Oxbridge. And if you are going to

Oxbridge, it makes a huge difference to what happens to the rest of your

life. Do you still think that having an Oxford or Cambridge degree makes

a marked difference to people even in 2015? I think so, because it

gives you that network. You will onto a club and we know, with jobs

and things like that, if I'm looking for somebody, I will think of

somebody I know. That is the way it works. It is not nepotism, but it is

the structure of the world that works anyway. It might be nepotism,

it might not be. It is problematic because we have our government to

look at. It does change your life to be from that exclusion Oxbridge

club. -- exclusive Oxbridge club. But there are more issues that come

in which a more problematic for Britain in the long-term. Where you

have something that keeps entrenching itself and we are not

taking full advantage of the population and the talent that

exist. But what you do to force colleges to change their intake? We

have to look at our entire education system because the gap between a

good private school Andy Goode state school, even a basic state school,

-- and a good state school, is huge. Is that down to money? We have not

thought about how our state system works. We need people who have come

from a not very good state school system and they have been deprived

from expressing themselves which is unfair. There is something noted in

the story where the Inspectorate welcomed Oxbridge use -- Oxford's

use of other methods. That'll be interesting where does take into

account the point that we don't necessarily, the cultural capital

which is quite elusive. The confidence, the language that is

used, that helps private schools students to get through doors. Maybe

that is the way forward, if it can be used to identify talent without

necessarily using that. Let's look at the Telegraph.

Cameron's climb-down on the benefits. It is buried about two

fifths of the way down in the story. David Cameron is having a dinner

this week on Thursday where he is probably going to say, I know I'm

not going to get my limit of four years on people coming from other

parts of the EU, that they have to wait four years to claim benefits.

But on the other hand in here, they are saying they are going to park it

and hope we get it further down the line. Quite confused... The story is

not very well written in that respect. You would have expected the

Telegraph to have written it more sharply. Essentially, over dinner,

he's going to say, you are not inclined to support me in the four

year barrier to getting benefits, therefore I am willing to give way

on that and... Not a lot of choice! Probably, if you think about it

after the meal, we could come back. That might take a long time. But

essentially, he is giving way. And what is interesting if having given

away on that, it comes back on him. How does he justify it if he says

you should vote to stay in the EU. That'll be interesting. I think this

is a nonstory. This was such an unlikely demand because it is linked

to a larger issue of free movement of people. It is the absolute

fundamental basis of the EU. So, then to say that we are not pushing

it because we didn't think it was likely but we might come back to it,

it feels as if we are trying to make it sound as if we are having a great

U-turn, but it would only be a U-turn if there was a lack -- if

there was a likelihood. Isn't he playing two games, telling them he

is willing to put it on one side and telling the British audience that he

hasn't given up. Don't worry, I'm still there fighting for you. He is

playing a double game. Shall we look at another story on

Jeremy Corbyn. Another 100,000 new members to oust Jeremy Corbyn.

Critics who are going to try to flood the party with members who

would vote out Jeremy Corbyn at some point. They have also admitted that

it will not happen until 2017. The good thing about the story is that

they are at least not mentioning the moderates. Until quite far into it

which I find quite a strange use of the term "Moderate". But I would

love to know where they are going to find these people and whether they

will be quite as involved in ousting Jeremy Corbyn. It seems there is an

internal conflict and on a popular ground... And watchable sees Labour

Party member standing at street corners of saying a don't you join

the member ship -- membership. Free membership! I've sadly offended I am

not be offered free never ship. But you might get the pen -- free

membership. But you might be a potential leader.

Can I push you in this direction. Roadworks banished, exclusive. This

is the political editor who was one of our paper reviewers. She is

reporting this as a victory for our crusade. They have been mounting

one, apparently, to stop roadworks in the run-up to Christmas. Do you

know about those? I had to come through roadworks to come here! So I

don't know, has it been managed in London or other parts? Typical

express, this is obviously the story we have all been waiting for! Of the

more important than the Christmas dinner. But it is interesting.

Before the Olympics, the talk was that all the roadworks would be done

and it would all be finished. But it is clear that we are in for a long

season, several years of roadworks. Obviously we need infrastructure,

infrastructure is old in London of cities -- in London and other

cities. It is a hope. Ree. This may be the moment to check your car out.

Maybe. They were also -- also told that we were going to limit the

distance that roadworks could go across. They were trying to stop the

hotspots. The other story on the express is

trump's campaign Trail. Mixing up a comparison between Donald Trump and

Hillary Clinton and how much they are spending on their campaign. I

found this story quite strange because there are some points which

are quite fair, that he has had 100,000 supporters who have given

him donations of ?40. But at the same time, we are still in the

run-up to who gets to be candidate so it is a very odd way of comparing

his spending to that of Clinton. Different parties. Hillary Clinton's

spending at this stage it is not really as what -- Trump is doing,

but to do with party dynamics. If we were comparing Jeb bush who has

spent 35 and in to date and is really trailing that would be a

story as to why that is happening. But to compare candidates for

different parties is odd. You could almost be forgiven for thinking we

were talking about the presidential race, not the nominations. But the

story is that because Donald Trump is making these statements, and is

getting these publicity, he does not need to throw money around. And it

is his own money. The others had to go out and get the money. Trump is

spending his own money and maybe he has thought that the more outrageous

statements he made, the more publicity he gets. When, the last

time any primary nomination, did the candidate's words affect the British

political scene is Mac even Boris Johnson made a comment on Donald

Trump. I can't remember an occasion when a London Mayor commented on

somebody who is hoping to get his party's nomination. There is quite a

lot to be said for that and the fact that the police commented on it. So

it is something, whether we like it or not, if he is running for

candidate of the Republican party, and in some ways there is a joke

that if the US president claims to be the free world -- leader of the

free world, the free world should have a vote on it, which I can back!

But at this stage is getting a large amount of publicity and his

statements are outrageous. I will still hold of to see what happens to

nominations. We are still far away. This does not mean he will crash and

burn. But running a presidential nomination, it is not enough to have

a lot of airtime, you need an enormous infrastructure. I am not

sure he will be able to put that together. But he is a long way ahead

in the polls? And to think that is getting 35% of the support, even

though it is the Republican party, not in the election, suggest that he

is holding in on a sense of dissatisfaction, a sense of anger

that there is in some of the American public. One hopes that it

does not extend much further than that, but there is a sense of anger

and adapt he can articulate it in this fashion -- and that he can

articulate it in this fashion. He has not burned out yet, but

everything he says makes him more popular. That is it for the papers

this hour. A bit longer than normal, which will please some! Sunny and

Minir, we will see you again at 1130 when we will see other stories

making the news. Your weather forecast comes