03/02/2017 The Papers

Welcome to our look ahead to what the newspapers will be bringing

tomorrow. Katie Martin joins us from the FT. And Oliver Wright, policy

editor at the Times newspaper. Nice to have the great. Tomorrow's front

pages, starting with the i. Its front page has the attack on the

Louvre. Npower is increasing its energy prices. The Daily Express

goes with the same story, describing it as a kick in the teeth for

customers. The Times is claiming that a senior MP has received

funding from a Chinese law firm with links to the Chinese government. The

paper says there is no suggestion of impropriety. The FT focuses on

Donald Trump smack the decision to review US financial regulations put

in place after the 2008 crash. The Telegraph leads with news that the

government will force developers to use land they have planning

permission for or risk losing it. The Guardian reports European

leaders at a summit in Malta have attacked Donald Trump for his

anti-EU rhetoric. And the Daily Mail brings us news of a shortage of

vegetables in Britain's supermarkets. Let's begin with the i

and the attack on the Louvre. An Egyptian suspect known to the

security services. Threat of terrorism here to stay. The French

have become used to wear high level of security and it isn't going

anywhere any time soon. -- to a high level. This is why we have scary

people holding guns outside tourist locations. It sounds like a scary

incident. But it also sounds like the authorities dealt with it very

well. This could have been a really nasty incident. And the soldiers

took action. They were only lightly injured themselves. The story could

have been worse. It reminds everyone that terrorism isn't going to go

away and it is going to be a really significant part in that election.

And the election is unpredictable as it is. Very early days and the

suspect was seriously injured as a result of the shooting. But had only

been in Paris for a short time and on assured Visa. Apparently the

authorities were aware of him already. Again, there will be loads

of questions about should they have done something sooner. -- on a short

Visa. But the truth is it is the Goldfinger used to say about the

IRA, they need to get lucky every time, but they only need to get

lucky ones and it is a difficult task. -- but the truth is it is like

the old thing we used to say. All of the things we've all been aware of

in the last 24 months has had an effect on the number of people

visiting Paris in particular. Yes. As the i is pointing out, it is the

most popular museum in the world. I understand the attack wasn't on the

museum itself, it was on the shopping mall attached to it.

Nevertheless, the French want to give the impression that their

biggest tourist attractions are safe and properly guarded. On balance,

that is the message coming across. The story in The Times suggesting

that museum and gallery admissions were down in London, people were

putting that down to people being worried, just the threat of

terrorism, but there has not been an attack in London. But people are

aware. People do think about that kind of thing. Let's move on. Let's

talk about... What is on the FT? Thank goodness you are here to

explain. No pressure. Trump starts drive to cut Wall Street rules.

Alarm as. Frank review is ordered. What is that? -- alarm as Dodd Frank

review was ordered. The idea that regulators wanted to protect

consumers. They wanted to clamp down on potential conflicts of interest

that banks had. Trump has decided it is too owner is. What I found

interesting, one of the many things I found interesting about this

story, is the rationale he has for rolling back on some of this

regulation. -- onerous. He says loads of my friends have nice

businesses and they cannot borrow money, which is the fault of the

regulation. And that this is disastrous. That sentence let off

the page to me. My friends have businesses. -- leapt.

What difference will this mean to the rest of us? The idea was it was

supposed to put safeguards in place so we didn't have the kind of

financial crisis we had in 2008. The conclusion is obvious, right? On

balance it opens up the system to more cracks like this. But certainly

in Europe where the banks were expected to hold more capital, so

that there was more elasticity in the system. And that's another

interesting thing about what he is doing. There have been

communications between certain Republicans in Congress and the

Federal reserve, which is the central bank, saying, actually we

want you to be independent from global framework around capital. All

of a sudden the kind of international agreements that have

held together the global banking system since the collapse of 2008,

everything has been called into question, is the US with us? Or are

they going to go out on their own? What does it mean for London? Does

it mean people who are in London at the moment might go back to the US?

It opens up the possibility that certain things will be allowed in

one jurisdiction and not in another. Brexit is another layer of

complexity on top of this. It certainly opens up the possibility

that you could have pockets of risk around certain types of risky

lending that are more exit -- more accentuated in one country than

another. China cache link to top Labour MP in The Times. ?180,000

fund for a pro-Beijing Shadow minister. -- cash link. This is

Barry Gardner, who is Labour's shadow international trade

secretary. What we discovered, and it's been declared, I should say, is

that over the last year and a half he has received around ?180,000 in

staff costs. Money somebody else has paid him so he can employ staff.

This money has come from a firm of lawyers who also act as legal

advisers to the Chinese Embassy in London and have quite significant

contacts to Beijing. A little bit more than that, the woman who

founded the firm who runs the firm, her son has been working in Barry

Gardner's Westminster office and being paid for by her to work for

him. As we say, there is no suggestion of impropriety, but

people at the Labour Party are worried, saying it doesn't look

good. We have a guy representing the Labour Party talking about things

like trade, of which China is a big part, of energy, which China is a

big part of, so should you be putting himself in that position --

so should he be putting himself in that position? If there is no

question of impropriety, what can you say about it? Well, it's very

much comes down to perception. And this, kind of, idea of what has the

influence been? It sounds like this MP has been quite fulsome when

talking about Hinkley Point, considering how much it is related

to Chinese business. The reason there is no impropriety is because

it isn't specifically banned in the rules. Question is, should the rules

allow someone to get their staff paid in this way, when they are not

working for them or the taxpayer, but working to somebody else who is

paying them. But there is nothing in the rules to stop them. That is

where we are. Let's look at the Telegraph. Europe talks tough to

Trump. This goes both ways, doesn't it? He talks tough about Europe and

Nato, so it is his turn to be on the receiving end. I think Theresa May

has had a little bit of a tough time. In Malta. She has been, in a

way, Trump's self-declared missionary, explaining the Donald to

the rest of Europe who have not been impressed with either him or Theresa

May. She was supposed to have a one-to-one with Angela Merkel. That

was cancelled last minute. They had a walk in the garden and discussed

everything that needed to be discussed, so there was no need for

a one-to-one, apparently, but you might want to question that. We are

in a difficult position on this. Trump has declared repeatedly he is

no lover of the EU but he's happy to cosy up to Britain. It is difficult

for us to play the role of his interpreter when he has made his

opinion so clear and he is utterly unpredictable. There is supposed to

be some sort of improving off relations prior to Brexit so we get

everybody on site. It does not sound like this has been happening if she

is threatening to cut taxes and under slash the EU. -- on side.

Similar to what Philip Hammond was saying. It is possible for a way

that the UK to become more competitive is cut taxes. But the

Eurocrats don't understand what the issue is. Jeremy Corbyn has talked

about his fear of Britain racing to the bottom. Once we are out of the

EU, we don't have to be subject to employment regulations, protection

for workers, that kind of thing, environmental standards, then there

will be this diving down. I think it is an empty threat but a clever one.

If you think about what we know about German domestic politics,

French domestic politics, the answer is not a lot. Theresa May and all of

her focus on just about managing, promising employment rights,

practically she cannot do anything. But the Europeans sort of think we

might. I think it is a negotiating stance. We need a threat. That is

how she is trying to position it. But would she do it? I don't think

so. It's gone down badly on the continent, this idea we might. But

they want it. To tyres down and get us to agree to all of these common

European regulations and taxes and we won't become this tax haven that

your border. They are more likely to give us free trade access on

services and goods that ideally we would like. Possibly. Staying with

the Telegraph. Good grief. No wonder I was off last week. Get building or

lose planning. 1 million more homes to be built, apparently, and we've

been promised loads for a long time. It is the national obsession with

house prices. And it is all about more houses. Supply and demand. Call

me old-fashioned. The story is saying to developers, you have your

planning permission, use it or lose it. Get on, build houses. The

Conservatives have promised the country will have built 1 million

homes by 2020. That is a lot. They better get cracking. And the number

of empty homes in the UK is apparently the highest in 20 years.

1.4 million empty homes. It seems crazy. A lot of those will just be

investment properties for people, won't they? If you park a lot of

money into property you don't necessarily need... Mainly empty,

that is what I don't understand. People who have holiday homes and go

for weekends, but what is the definition? It doesn't explain that,

does it? Very good question. Is the land available in the right places?

It'll only get into the argument about do you want to build on green

belt, on the countryside, are you building in the right places where

there is infrastructure? In these cases these are plots of land where

permission has been given. It is not about seeking permission for new

flats. The permission is there, get on with it. But these companies

won't want to do it. It goes back to supply and demand. They want to have

these houses coming out at a steady rate and at a steady price. The

government will have a battle on their hands. Once you have built a

house you have to light and heat it. Smoothly done. I blame Ralph, he

gave me that link, kind of... Fury at ?109 electric rise. This is about

nPower hiking prices. And it won't just be them. One company will go

first, takes the heat, then the others followed. Even if you are not

one of their customers, it is probably coming to you not too far

off. These are the standard rates. You do not need to sit on them as a

customer. If you are prepared to look around and find a different

deal you can lock yourself into weight fixed rate. It should be

easier these days to jump around. -- into a fixed rate. The dual fuel

package has gone up by just under 10%, which is slightly less scary.

There are definitely different ways to shop around. But there is no

getting around the fact that prices have gone up since September to

November. But don't they buy it ahead of time? It always only ever

feels like they are putting the prices up. That goes back to what we

were saying. There is a first mover disadvantage. They will all have to

do it. It is a feared to suggest they are not. It is about who goes

first and who gets the nasty headlines. And today, I'm afraid, it

is nPower. They drew the short straw, or took the lead fast.

Another consumer story. The vegetable shortage worsens. Ration

and panic buying is spreading. You cannot even buy certain vegetables

online. Bulk buying vegetables that goes off in three days seems

ridiculous. You cannot freeze an iceberg lettuce, can you? Despite

its name. It says here, so it must be true, as the's customers won't be

able to buy more than six of each item. Do you want six aubergines?

Who needs six iceberg lettuces? Unless you are running a kebab shop.

The shortage is caused by snow and floods in Spain, which is where they

grow a lot of this stuff at this time of year. It begs the question

about Hugh Fearnley witting storm about seasonal eating, root

vegetables, which you do not need to import from places like Spain. --

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall. Many people are used to this. We are so

used to buying things all year round. We expect to have tomatoes

that taste like tomatoes all year round. This kind of story, waited

just make things worse? Why do people go out and buy things they

did not necessarily wanted -- won't people go out and buy things they

did not necessarily wanted? If people are buying vegetables by the

half-dozen, good luck to them. They will be very healthy and will have

lost a lot of weight for this time of year. Thank you very much. Don't

forget, you can see all of the Papers on the website.

If you missed the programme, I know you would not dare, but you can

watch it later on BBC iPlayer. Thank you both. I will see you in a

minute. Good evening. It's been a windy

afternoon and evening across the southern half of the country and a

wet one, as well. It seems like this on the south coast is not surprising

as we have had gusts of wind in excess