07/01/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be

With me are Rowena Mason, the political correspondent

at the Guardian and Ben Chu, the Economics Editor

And we will start with the Financial Times. The turmoil on the global

financial markets. And the Metro reports on the killing

of Sian Blake and her children. And the Daily Express talks about house

prices and the cold weather. And Whitehall signing of an official

letter from the top medic questioning weather striking junior

doctors would be available to help in the event of a Paris style terror

attack. And the Daily Telegraph says that there are now he state alcohol

guidelines. And The Guardian with that advice, no more than one pint

per day for men. And Times talks about that Syrian town of macro

three -- of Madaya, with people dying of starvation.

And we will start with the markets turmoil. Global markets and fresh

term I'll -- fresh turmoil. Big sell-offs in China, then followed by

not quite as big but sizeable sell-offs in European and American

markets. China, the equity market there, people think this is

all-important, but not that important. What is important is the

slowing of the Chinese economy affecting the rest of the world.

People reading into what is happening in the financial markets

as a proxy indicator for that. That is why people are getting upset and

not help that the Chinese are making matters worse, but I think what they

will do is put more of the state money into the markets tomorrow to

try and prop it up. Which is what was done last summer when there was

an equally big sell-off. Politically, we have had the

Chancellor George Osborne saying that these sort of headwinds from

China and other markets around the world, developing markets

particularly, will cause ructions for the British economy, some

suggesting cynically he is basically putting his excuses out there ahead

of time or when he potentially does not meet his deficit reduction

targets? Rob Lee al little of that, he said that is a dangerous cocktail

of different factors that could be negative for the UK economy. --

probably little of that. And warning in advance of anything going wrong,

an insurance policy, so if things turn out all right he can claim

credit and if it goes wrong you will say that it's not his fault, it is

all these things happening abroad. And the factor of the opposition as

well, the Conservatives have quite a lead in most opinion polls against

Labour on economic matters. It helps them as the Chancellor to suggest

that he is in the best party to deal with any difficult economic

circumstances ahead. But the Chinese economy, you alluded to the problems

that existed last summer, so we know the Chinese economy has gone through

a bumpy patch but the Autumn Statement, on November the 5th,

suggested everything would be rosy with the British economy, an extra

?25 billion not used to offset the deficit, but used in various tax

breaks? Yes, forecasts have unchanged, and George Osborne was

not seeing the British economy will slow down but carry reasonably, this

is sort of an if that is some kind of headwinds that has not been

factored into the forecast that throws everything off kilter, that

is what he is alluding to, but nothing in the economic data for the

UK. There is slight slowdown but nothing that would cause anyone to

say this has changed dramatically since last month or even last

summer. And The Independent, revealing how Whitehall officials

sexed up the case against junior doctors, we know they will

potentially strike on Tuesday, the first of three stoppages they are

planning. But an interesting take on the whole situation? Yes, and this

will make the tense and Phoebe Ryle atmosphere over the we junior

doctors feel they have been treated even worse. It appears that the

director of NHS England was consulting with Jeremy Hunt about

this letter he released in November, which was questioning whether junior

doctors would be available if there was a strike on the day of Paris

style terror attack. And it was shortly after the terror attack.

That made junior doctors angry, questioning their professionalism

and sense of duty. They said, of course, they would come in and help

if that sort of thing happened during a strike, no one would be

denied treatment. What I think we'll Ryle people up is this sense of

Jeremy Hunt, our political figure, collaborating with an independent

Whitehall figure, who is part of the medical establishment that should be

neutral. The suggestion from the article is this letter was sexed up

to suggest that junior doctors, because they were on strike, would

not be able to cope or deal with potentially bothering coming in,

some have argued, if there was a Paris style terror attacks. Yes, and

offensive to doctors that if there was an emergency they would not

help, going against the ethos of their profession. Interesting that

he is supposed to be an independent figure, and the charge levelled

against Professor Sir Bruce Keogh tonight, but he has not disowned

what he has done, he has said, yes of course, representing NHS England,

having a duty of care against patients. Why should they not

consult about how to frame the issue of what is at stake if junior

doctors do go on strike? It is an interesting debate. I'm not sure

what side I come down on, I can see it from the junior doctors' point of

view, but this senior civil servant has to put patients first, and maybe

it is reasonable that he coordinated with the Health Secretary on this

matter. Let's go to the Times, Ken Livingstone, Labour slaps down him

for putting Nato status in doubt. A lot of toing and froing about the

status of Labour's defence policy on the shadow ventures as to whether or

not these should support the removal of Triton, supporting military

action in Syria, I'm no controversy over Nato status as well. It was a

sharp left controversy, because Khan Livingstone -- Ken Livingstone said

this at lunchtime, talking about the defence review he is helping to

cheer, and he said they would want to look at Nato, but he did not

think it was that big a deal, because the cold War is over now.

Something we would want to look at, Britain's membership of Nato, alarm

bells, silence, white incendiary words! I think those alarm bells did

go off in the Labour headquarters and it was a very short space of

time and a statement came out which said that the defence review was not

looking at Britain's membership of Nato, it has definitely been agreed

in the top levels of the party that this is not a subject up for debate.

But is there a lot of confusion on the part of some members of the

public as to where Labour stands defence wise? The leader is

committed pacifist, making that clear, but a member of the Stop the

War Coalition, you have him voting against air strikes in Syria, and

the Labour front bench team did vote for that, and he is not for the

removal of Trident and yet the message loud and clear following

what Ken Livingstone alluded to that they will maintain Britain's

membership of Nato. Welcome to new politics. Contradiction is the name

of the game. But they are struggling to get the policy. That is why Ken

Livingstone was put on this committee about renewing Trident,

and white Emily Thornberry is on it, because Jeremy Corbyn is trying to

shift the party in the direction he wants to go. He does not want a war

on two France, shutting down the Nato issue, and knows that getting

of Trident is enough of a challenge. -- two fronts. It is old politics,

he wants to help the party along. And to the Daily Telegraph, health

chiefs... Sorry, going over to David Cameron on the brink of an EU

benefit curve. He has been touring European capitals to drum up support

about Britain's status within the European Union. It looks like he has

been getting some good sounding? Yes, suggestions that within the EU

they are proposing this back door ghetto option for them on migrant

benefits, the major sticking point when it comes to him getting the

negotiation deals, he wants to ban migrants from getting benefits for

four years after first coming to the UK. The suggestion that he might,

that that might also apply to Britain's when turning 18 until 22,

that they might be given compensation for this in another

way, a sort of special deal given to them by the Chancellor and allowed

by the EU. Part of the deal, whatever he suggests, that could be

the case for new migrants and has to be part of the deal that Britons are

affected in the same way? Yes, and would be compensated in another way.

What is being suggested anyway. And floated in this piece this means it

could be done, the deal could be done quickly, maybe at the February

council. We have a story in The Guardian that negotiations are not

going as smoothly as he might have wanted, and it might slip into

March, affecting the timetable for the Hall EU referendum and make slip

further into the summer. What will his backbenchers think? I suspect

they will not be convinced. But some real ironies in this, the first is

young people have had it particularly hard over the past

eight years and this compromise will hit them again. There could be some

compensation for it but the principle is the will be

discriminated against to get this deal. The second irony is no

evidence that clamping down on migrant benefits will affect migrant

flows. The presumption this is what is drying them in with no evidence.

The people against the EU that think the real problem is people coming in

and we need this deal to stop them, that is not supported by the facts,

not achieving what everyone hopes it will. And if there is some slippage

in terms of getting the deal that means the referendum itself... No

date anyway but the consensus was it was beginning to form around June or

July but seems to be later in the year, maybe September? Yes, some of

their anti-EU campaigners have prepared for the referendum to be as

soon as 170 days, which puts it in June. If Cameron cannot get a deal

at the next EU summit, if it slips to March, it will take even longer

for all the preparations to be done. And certain limits under electoral

law that you have to have for the campaign. The summer holidays start,

I think in Scotland starting even earlier, so if it gets beyond the

point of March he will have to hold it in September. The political

problem will be some people around the in camp are worried the migrant

crisis could affect things. Finally, to Guardian. Do you like a tipple?

Some white wine? Note The Guardian is seeing cutting drinking 21 pen

per day is the best for men. -- cutting drinking to a pint a day.

According to guidelines, no alcohol is safe, the first guideline in 20

years, and none is safe and you should cut your limit from 21 units

to about 14. The ceiling has been brought down. Nanny state is the

accusation. Certainly the allegation from the Daily Telegraph. And the

Institute for Economic Affairs. I think they have a point. As long as

you drink modestly. But a hugely in the downward direction for the

recommended limits. Nanny state for me. Angry you might have to go down

to a pint a day to keep your liver in check? I could live with that.

Help chiefs attacked over nanny state guide, but incumbent upon any

society to protect citizens and offer advice that will keep them in

one piece? They have obviously got good evidence and research behind

this, but I think a lot of people will find it pretty alarming,

probably why it is on the front of so many papers. It will be

eye-catching, I'm just glad it came out after Christmas, when a lot of

people are doing the right January and May be some incentive to carry

on. -- dry January. Maybe that is why it came out this time of year.

Thank you both very much. More to come on BBC News, but now it is

Sportsday. Hello and welcome to Sportsday -

I'm Mike Bushell. The suspended Uefa

president, Michel Platini,