11/12/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers

With me are the broadcaster and journalist Shyama Perera

and the political commentator Vincent Moss.

The Sunday Times leads with news of a fresh challenge to Britain

The Mail on Sunday has a front page story about former education

minister Nicky Morgan being banned from meetings in Number Ten -

for criticising Theresa May's choice of trousers.

And the Express warns of a ?100 council tax rise.

Let's begin obviously with the political story of the day, trouser

gate. There are toxic texts over the PM's trousers and a couple of pages

inside. I think it is a really important story, Gavin, not the

story itself but what it throws up as a question. The story itself is

that Nicky Morgan is banned from Downing Street from having to make

some sort of remark about Theresa May's brown leather trousers which

cost nearly ?1000. She has been banned by Fiona Hill who rather than

having sent her directly text, said one to Alistair Burt saying don't

bring that woman here again. Day both want a soft Brexit. First of

all Fiona Hill using sexist terminology, don't bring that woman

again. Apparently Nicky Morgan said you can say to me directly. But

apparently Fiona Hill is also in charge of this makeover of Theresa

May and it is that kind of sexist dressing of the Prime Minister that

I was sort of exercised in the Green room because the reason Angela

Merkel is so powerful is you never noticed what she is wearing.

I have been fortunate to meet her and she buys a number of jackets and

pairs of trousers which are the same colour and no one talks about it.

Basically it is smart trousers and smart jacket. She power dressers.

Theresa May is dressing like a middle-aged Barbie. And actually,

you don't want to notice what your leader is wearing. What you want to

know is that the power is in their brains and in their actions, not on

their bodies. It is very hard because if you are a male politician

you just wear a dark suit and no one knows where it comes from and how

much it costs but people will ask how much the clothes cost and when

you get a price tag, in the case of Theresa May's leather trousers and

it is nearly ?1000, people will say that is a lot of money and you look

like you are out of touch and that is what has happened in this case.

It is also where the emphasis goes. The fallout is over trousers, not

over soft Brexit. It has become like a playground. Isn't it a simple

truth that women in politics are judged completely differently from

men, they are judged for the way they dressed. The President of

chilly came here and bet the Queen and she was really annoyed that the

chilly and press had focused on what she wore when meeting the Queen

rather than a very important relationship for Chile. Even here I

am taken in for the full works and make up, thank you Ray much, BBC.

Vincent was told he does not need it and I said that is a very sexist

thing to say. You probably needs it more than I do! But women are judged

completely differently. This is that's dresses and so on the came an

iconic thing, her handbags, nobody ever talks about Macmillan's 3-piece

suit. The truth is the public are interested in these things. I'm not

sure how much we can say about exit, we have years to go. People will

talk about these things. It is fascinating that somebody would

spend that amount of money. You can almost get a second-hand car for

that amount of money. You could get several poor families Christmas from

that pair of trousers. Do people think like that or do they think

here is a relatively wealthy woman who can dress as she pleases and

that is up to her. You should not be thinking how much Prime Minister's

clothes cost. I'm sure David Cameron's suits cost thousands of

pounds but we never thought about it. We should not be having to think

about what she is wearing. Somehow I think like Brexit that might run and

run. Let's move on to the Times now. AA Gill, giant journalism dies aged

62. A few weeks ago he announced he had the full English, as he put it,

of cancer. People are shocked at how quickly this happened. He only

announced it two or three weeks ago that he was suffering from terrible

cancer and now he has died. It feels as if he has been cruelly snatched

from not only his legions of fans but his family very quickly. The

Sunday Times plays great tribute to him and also another former

journalist who has recently passed away. He was at the peak of his

career. As a journalist also, what set him apart, I'm sure you have

friends and I certainly do, who make a name ploughing a particular

journalistic furrow and every time some of the needs of specialist on

that subject they get called out. What happens is that whatever their

brilliance is gets dilutive downed dilutive den to the point that you

are reading stuff with their name on it and the most interesting thing is

their name as they have run out of the vocabulary, they have run out of

the originality, they can no longer say something new. You just hear

people spouting the same. What set AA Gill apart if he could turn out

thousands of words a week on ten different subjects and every

sentence was worth reading. He was never dilutive. His brilliance was

never dilutive. It was constant across everything he did. For me he

is the journalist's journalist in many ways. Every time I read AA Gill

on Sundays, even a restaurant review, you learn things in it, you

got a world view. You laughed. And you laughed. His brilliance is such

a loss. It is. Let's also look at the other side of the Sunday Times

front page. A new court case threatens to derail Brexit. As we

have seen with the other court case it is a complicated matter. Perhaps

you could explain it, Vincent? Not really. This is about an article

called article 127. People say there will be a fresh court case over

this. It is another attempt to derail Brexit and I think we will

hear more and more of this as the months go on. What is interesting is

it has been brought by two people and one of them is actually at Leave

voter which makes it slightly different. But I think they leave

that that vote wanted is what we effectively call soft Brexit. I

don't know if you are getting is irritated by these terms as many of

us are. They are the only terms we have, hard, soft, red and white

blue, Brexit means Brexit. It will get increasingly bitter as it goes

on. The Observer shows a council tax rise is too small to help with care

costs. This is an interesting story as we are all getting older. Council

tax is set to go up because of this than people realise we have to do

something to pay for the cost of social care. It is out of control

and too expensive and everyone is struggling to find a solution. It is

about the Better Care fund wrought in by this government which is not

meeting any targets as far as I can see. The Observer has found that of

151 local councils who responded asking about their targets for

improving care for people in care homes, 58% missed their target. And

we have time for a couple more. The Sunday Telegraph, ministers demand

AIDS stop bashing Boris. The alternative view is he should be

more careful with his words. -- ministers' aides. Stop treating him

like a clown. He is the Foreign Secretary. I noticed Fiona Hill is

also implicated. I just wonder if this is the kind of new Alistair

Campbell? It takes two of them to become one Alistair. We have a

couple of minutes left. This is one of the good stories of Christmas,

eat up, fat is good for you. This is in the Sunday express. New dietary

research means we can enjoy a guilt free Christmas. I am not too sure

about that. There is no harm in having any fat. It is very hard for

me to comment on this but I certainly think with all food fads,

it is not about the food itself, it is about the quantity that is bad

for you. Is that good for you? Personally, so far, it has been good

for me both literally and figurative leaks, but I think this kind, it is

about fascism around what we eat. This fear of getting large, fear of

being unhealthy, which is all predicated on the fact we cannot

look after the people who are unhealthy or have problems. It is

all part of a big anxiety about society no longer being able to

service its citizens. But also, if you look at this kind of lifestyle

journalism over the last decade, you would either think there is no point

actually because one minute something is great for you it is a

magnificent food, the next minute it is no good for you and now we're

being told that fact, which we were told for decades is terrible for

heart disease and so on, it is not that bad, is carbohydrates we have

to avoid. You get conflicting advice on all these things. Today fat is

good for you. I think the key is sugar. That is the real killer. It

is to function on Sunday we started with Sunday supplements and now we

have content online all the time. You have to fill pages with stuff.

Lifestyle is great because you can regurgitate it in every form.

Tomorrow, if we could only have a single newspaper and a single page

on the website you would never read another story about what we eat.

Indeed, but the question is, what do you actually trust? Because some of

this information is contradictory, we are told the phases of super

foods and so on which are not that superb, it does seem as if a

balanced diet that the Romans would have understood is possibly the best

way to go. That and exercise. But the Romans were not that healthy!

That is indeed true. We will leave it there.

Thanks to the political commentator Vincent Moss

Just a reminder we take a look at tomorrow's front pages every

Good morning. It has been a fairly fresh start to the day compared with

recent days. Not as mild but there is plenty of sunshine out there.

Things are set