29/05/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our Sunday morning edition of The Papers.

With me are the economist Ruth Lea and Peter Kellner,

former President of pollsters YouGov.

The Sunday Times leads with accusations from Vote Leave

leaders that David Cameron has lost public trust over his failure

The Sunday Telegraph also goes with the EU referendum with claims

from eurosceptic ministers that the Prime Minister

is unconcerned with the impact of immigration on working families.

But an Observer poll suggests a boost for the Remain campaign

as experts warn that the economy will be harmed if Britain votes

And on the front page of the Express, a new protein jab

Let's begin. It's all Brexit, exit, Leave, Remain. Let's begin with

Boris and Michael Gove lash Cameron on immigration. They accuse the

promised off corroding public trust, that is a tough statement about your

boss. This is all about Brexit but it's full so about the parallel

story of the wars within the Conservative Party. You could almost

hint that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are looking for some leadership

challenge after the Brexit referendum result, whatever it is. I

think it's true that when Cameron came up with this promised to

restrict immigration to tens of thousands, it was something he

couldn't possibly deliver given what was happening in the EU with

migration. In a way he made a pledge that he couldn't deliver. The

figures we saw last week suggested that net immigration was 330,000, so

much for the tens of thousands of immigrants. This is one of the very

strong cards played by those who want us to leave the EU. Polling

suggests one of the things we really dislike about politicians is when

they promise much more than they deliver, and that was an

unachievable promise. It that the Luke Wright. At YouGov we did polls

on that a lot and what it shows is that nobody is trusted on

immigration. Labour isn't trusted but neither are the Conservatives.

One of the reasons for the rise of Ukip is the distrust of politicians.

I wonder whether Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are overstating the

case when they say the promise of reduced immigration is plainly not

achievable as long as the UK is a member of the EU. In the mail on

Sunday an interesting piece by Ian Birrell. He is no EU enthusiasts.

He's a deep sceptic but he's been to Norway, cited as one of the

countries that Britain should copy. He says that immigration to Norway

outside the EU is much higher than ours. That is true incidentally of

all the countries cited like Canada, Switzerland, Australia. Or America.

They have twice as high immigration relative to population. When you

look at what Ian Birrell says, this is about immigration shows the

absurdity of claims by the Brexit campaign is that leaving the EU. The

flow of migrants. Yes, David Cameron has a credibility problem but I'm

not sure Michael Gove... That's true but Norway is in the single market

and it has freedom of movement of labour so it is in a similar

situation. Would have to be out of the single market as well as out of

the EU. Canada and Australia have their own rules, twice as high

immigration. Switzerland also has a bilateral and on the freedom of

movement and immigration as well. I half agree with you but not the lead

in the sense that if we were to leave the European Union, and not

have freedom of labour, at least there would be some hope of

restricting EU immigration, if not non-EU immigration. There would be

more control. Whether they would get it down to tens of thousands I'm

very much doubt. Bail saying that they are not worried about high

immigration but what Tim Montgomery said is they would rather have fewer

people from Romania and more technicians from India, doctors from

Australia. It's not as if within the Brexit camp there is a single view

about what should happen to immigration. There would be more

control over it you migrants, that's the point. Picking up from what you

just said, there would be a non-discriminatory policy you would

have between EU and non-EU immigrants which I'm in favour of.

The Observer has got massive boost the PM as over 600 colonists reject

Brexit. -- 600 economists. I didn't participate in these surveys as it

was the royalty canonic society but I would have said, I'm in the 12%

that would have said no to this. This looks like groupthink. We

remember the 364 economists that condemned the budget in nearly

1980s. It was always a joke at the time, misses that you said,.

Economists who think it was terrific. She said, thank goodness I

wasn't asked for a third. As it happened the budget was the right

thing to do at the time and I remember when we were thrown out of

the ERM groupthink said this would be a disaster, and a few of us said

this is great. Again, groupthink over the euro. They said we must

join the year road, we're going to lose all this trade. A few of us

said this was nonsense and we were right. Pat Lam. -- hang-up on.

Entering the exchange-rate mechanism in 1990 and then joining the year

road, there was a large group of people including myself who said

these are an wise things. I think it's rewriting history to say it was

a tiny minority. After Black Wednesday a range of people said

with lower sterling growth will take. I don't think it's quite as

complete a groupthink as you are saying. I still think it was

groupthink. Ira member it clearly because I was in the bank at the

time. When we were thrown out of the ERM there was no doubt that there

were a vast majority of people who thought this would be a disaster

including people like the CBI. Can I link this to immigration. Oddly

enough, paradoxically, the one thing that would reduce immigration

sharply and quickly is if we voted for Brexit and the Remain Campaign

were right. If the economy goes into slump, there went been the jobs that

will attract people to come here. If the Brexit campaigners are right and

the economy takes off, we will need all these extra immigrants to fill

the jobs that become available. That is somewhat tendentious. There is

another argument which is that the benefits of otherwise of immigration

and who comes in. Robert Samuelson, his economist joke was that the

trouble with economists is we've predicted five of the last two

recessions. Whether people sitting at home think this is any better

than astrology I'm not quite sure. It's the old joke that economic

forecasting is there to make astrology look good. You raised it

that part of this is about the entire future of the country, part

of it is about the future of the Conservative Party. The mail on

Sunday has John Major savaging boorish Brexit. It's very

unpleasant. It is very unpleasant and both sides of the campaign have

come out with very few accolades. I was looking at the Treasury Select

Committee report that came out on Friday, they condemned both sides.

It was critical of both sides. I think on both sides there's been a

enormous distortion of the facts. I think they believe have distorted

how much money we send to the European Union and the remains I'd

have distorted the economic impact. I think Ruth is underselling

herself. Ruth used to be part of the Vote Leave campaign and you pulled

out because of the way it was campaigning and twisting economic

numbers which you disapproved of. I wish not told you that! LAUGHTER

Very interesting. Would you like to add to that? I think will change the

subject. I thought the really weird story of the day about this is the

Sunday Telegraph, Cameron is too rich to care about migration. A

pinny veld attack on Remain leaders, Priti Patel talking about David

Cameron and George Osborne saying they are too rich to care about

migration. Has she not met Boris Johnson? She thinks she can say it

because of her background which is very interesting. This again is

really about the Tory party. More and more wars within the Tory party,

its positioning as to what will happen after the referendum. I saw

the BBC website this morning suggesting there would be some

challenge to Cameron's position even if he won. I see this as another

Tory was story. It comes down to what Reid said about Priti Patel's

background. Her family were Ugandan Asians who were thrown out by Eddie

Armin. The Conservative Prime Minister took on the right of his

own party by saying as a matter of moral principle, we need to allow

these people to come to Britain. That is what allowed Priti Patel's

family to come to Britain. The other thing I find slightly odd about what

she said is that these rich people, then narrow self-interest failed to

pay due regard to the wider public. She is a minister in work and

pensions, this is a department involved in cutting housing benefit,

the bedroom tax, changes to tax credits, toughening up rules on

disabled people. I think it's slightly risky for a minister in

that department to talk about the wider interest, given their record.

She's not particularly associated with those policies. She's a member

of the department. She personally is particularly associated. If she

comes out now and says those policies are wrong, fairness. This

is the Sunday Telegraph, Nato generals saying an invader is vital.

Let's move on. -- in vote. I like the Telegraph story, books are now

status symbols. This is from the jefe stubble, Sean Hamilton has said

that books have become a way of displaying their taste of friends

when they would actually read the digital version. You can't show

what's on your iPad but you put the books on your shelf and you buy

them. What did you make of this? I think it has always been the case.

People buy books to say, look at me. Let's be honest about this. I've

always done it. LAUGHTER At least your honest! The number of American

politicians are used into view in their offices, they had all these

beautiful leather bound books which were bought by the yard and stuck in

and never opened. 20 of 35 years ago I bought Stephen Hawkins A Brief

History of time. I bet there are many people around Britain who have

unread copies. I got to page five. That's better than me! LAUGHTER One

of the other stories which is a rather sad story whatever happened,

we don't quite know the facts but the daily Mirror and the sun have

got it. Johnny Depp says, she just wants my millions. Actress wife says

she feared for her life. This is the story of the break-up of Johnny Depp

and his wife Amber. He is one of the best-known, highest-paid actors in

the world. It's a rather sad story. Yes. It's sad, unimportant,

irrelevant and absolutely fascinating. Welcome to the world of

newspapers! The daily Mirror has got his wife's version alleging that he

was high and drunk. The Sun has got his version accusing his wife of

having bisexual relations. I have no idea of the truth of any of these

allegations. But if this goes to court, and is thrashed out in

public, it's a bit like OJ Simpson. The drama on the BBC a few weeks

ago. This is going to be like that if it goes to court. I think I hope

it doesn't because I think it's a bit unseemly. But we are all going

to watch it. It's the sort of story some others tut-tut about but we

read because it's an interesting human drama that we think we know.

All I remember about Johnny Depp of course is the various acting roles.

The other thing one remembers is the apology by him and his wife about

the dogs they had in Australia. It was bizarre. When people say he was

off his head on drugs and Ring, they both looked but they were off their

heads. It was extraordinary. I think the Australians were fed up they

brought these dogs into the country. One Australian said something fairly

brutal as to where they could go. It really wasn't good enough. It was

very strange because when you saw that apology it was almost like

satire. As you agree, I'm told he got $95 million for one movie

appearance, that must make you a completely different person from the

rest of humanity, which is perhaps some of the reasons why we are

fascinated by this. It's a bit like footballers. At the age of 20 they

earn millions and millions. Perhaps the astonishing thing is how few of

them go off the rails because the good football managers look after

them and protect them. If you get this sudden amounts of money, some

of them are going to do strange things. Finally, the Sunday Times,

plastic fivers end is of dirty money. We've got plastic banknotes.

I liked dirty money. LAUGHTER Some of us like any old money! I'd not be

able to go off the rails with ?14 million. In Australia and New

Zealand they've had plastic money for years. It's much better, it's

cleaner, nicer, more enduring. Bring it on. This was one of Mervyn King's

last projects at the Bank of England, to prepare the grounds. Now

it's coming in. I think it's a really good idea. It means that

those of us who forget the odd fibre in a jeans pocket and stick it in

the washing machine will not have to pull out the bits and pieces. This

will survive a 95 degrees washing cycle. That's what I really wanted

to know on a Sunday morning. They are harder to forge. There are more

security measures built into them. Can we not for once say progress is

good, tradition is not always right? Sometimes. Let's agree. Progress is

good. I shall make a note. That's it for The Papers.

Thanks to Ruth and Peter. Just a reminder we take a look

at tomorrows front pages every