10/02/2014 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines. Presented by Clive Myrie.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



career begins. He is not wanted by his country any more. And there is


the latest from Sochi. British medal hopes have been dashed by eight


crash. That is all coming up after The Papers. -- by a crash.


Welcome to our lookahead to what the papers will be bringing us tomorrow.


With me are the Deputy political editor of the Financial Times, Beth


Rigby, and the writer and broadcaster John Kampfner. We start


with the Independent, each has an exclusive story about the possible


influence of a lobbying company on the NHS. It claims NHS bosses


allowed the firm, which was employed by some of the world's biggest drugs


companies, to write a draft report which could help shape NHS policy.


The Metro has a pun on the weather situation. The Financial Times has a


striking photograph, showing the impact of all the floods, referring


to the claim by Lord Smith, the head of the Environment Agency, that he


had told ministers massive cuts would hit flood defences. The


Telegraph has picked up on slightly different comments from Lord Smith.


It says he has inflamed the situation by telling flooded


residents they were partly to blame I choosing to live in high risk


regions. The Prime Minister has waded into the row, according to the


Guardian, ordering ministers to stop the blame game. Finally, the Express


features the floods. It says, even Windsor Castle has got a new moat.


Some of those headlines, trying to have a laugh about all of this! The


Daily Telegraph, homeowners, you knew the risk, the boss of the


Environment Agency inflames tensions, it says, by saying anybody


who buys on a flood plain needs to think about that threat. Does that


not sound sensible? It does. But insensitive? Yes. The problem for


Kris Smith I do not think has been the actions of the Environment


Agency, or necessary his own actions, it has been the


perception, of which the Cabinet and the government are also culpable, of


just being a bit too slow and casual. And maybe,


behind-the-scenes, all of the stuff was happening which should have been


happening, within the financial and other constraints, but that


perception was allowed to be built up. But on the specific point, if


you live next to a river, and a high flowing river, or if you live in a


potential flood plain, if you are in America, and you live in an


earthquake zone, on a fault line or whatever, your insurance premiums


are much higher anyway. So, in that respect, everybody does calculate


risk. We do it all the time. I was on the Somerset Levels yesterday, in


Burrowbridge, by the River Parrett, and the people there, they are used


to flooding, it happens every year, it is part of life. It is the


frequency of the floods this year is freaking them out. And also, the


fact that they believe that with the increased frequency, there should be


increased government involvement and that does not seem to have


happened. And actually, tonight, David Cameron has cleared his diary,


off he goes. He now knows that he is in a crisis situation, where he


needs to be seen to be doing stuff. There was a COBRA meeting today, and


a flurry of it over to you tonight, apparently. They are cutting the


cost of flights from Newquay and increasing airport capacity. They


are centralising the control of sandbags, putting the military on


stand-by. Because what they are trying to do is actually to get a


grip on the situation. And what the Daily Telegraph is picking up about


homeowners who knew the risk is just a sort of inflammatory headline,


whereby Lord Smith is getting blamed for what is happening. It is a


situation where there has been a gradual build-up over many weeks, of


water. It does not help those thousands of people who have got


three feet of water in their living rooms. What is perplexing is that


for all of the previous inaction, and Beth has just come out with a


very good list of measures, but they have been having these COBRA


emergency committee meetings for weeks. They love the external


panoply, it sounds terribly military, they do it for


anti-terrorism, they do it for wars. It invokes a warlike spirit, and the


attempt is to show that the Government is in control, but on the


rather than glamorous and basic lists which you have just


reviewed... We were talking about the foot and mouth crisis earlier,


which set Gordon Brown, when he first became Prime Minister, and he


took it on and was at the forefront, and his son the ratings spiked. --


his poll ratings spiked. He was in a sweet spot. David Cameron knows that


this is going to put him in a really bad spot, especially if his cabinet


spends the whole time arguing about who is to blame. E-border not care


about that now. Have that discussion in a few weeks' time. -- people do


not care about that. Moving onto this one, Nick Clegg, we would tax


the rich to clear the deficit. You have just finished a book on the


super-rich. People got cross last time when I plugged a book! I am


looking for deep insight into this now. What would the Medicis have


felt about that? What is interesting is the differentiation. It is


obviously a policy thing, but it is Nick Clegg saying, not quite lying


in the sand, but it is saying that there is only so far -- line in the


sand -- that any government wants to go. This idea that you have to


always have low tax to encourage enterprise, but at what cost? Do


politicians really think that if tax rates go from 50 Pete to 40 5p,


somehow, you are going to stop this mass exodus to Switzerland in


Cyprus? -- from 50p to 40p. A lot of it is showboating. Nick Clegg is


making it clear, it is a rehash, but it is very calf early targeted


insane, -- very carefully targeted, in saying, while using the language


they like to use, we, the Lib Dems, are different. Lib Dems want to tax


wealth, not income. That is the point of the mansion tax. It is to


tax assets, not income. In this story, the Telegraph says, how could


this affect a possible second coalition deal with the Tories? I


think the Lib Dems are trying to find five or six key policies to put


on the manifesto, to say, this is what we are about, which can then


become their red lines. The fact that he is highlighting the mansion


tax, something that they wanted to do within the coalition, but they


could not, because the Tories are absolutely opposed to it, but does


that mean, what does that mean, for trying to form a coalition, if this


is Nick Clegg's redline? The Institute for Fiscal Studies last


week said that the top 1% pay 30% of income tax. Does that explain the


emphasis on taxing assets, because the rich are being soaked enough as


it is quick and Mark also, there is a principle, which is, why just tax


income, why not tax assets? Lots of people come here and have second


homes and live abroad. -- enough as it is? Why can we not start taxing


these properties instead of hitting everybody with income tax? The


problem is, if you are super-rich, if you are in not just the 1%, but


the 0.1%, you do not own properties in your name, they having credibly


completed devices, they are not even paying the council tax. The


extraordinary thing is, you look at those amazing ?70 million apartments


in Knightsbridge, a lot of oligarchs, they are doing it through


offshore devices, Cayman Islands, whatever, Westminster Council and


the others, they cannot get the money.


The Conservatives would argue with a policy like this that what is unfair


is that somebody might be a wealthy pensioner, in the sense that they


have an iPhone that they have lived in all their lives and it has


appreciated because it is in London. -- nice home that they have lived


in. They don't have disposable income to pay an extra tax. It is


interesting. It is a differentiating policy. It will not raise much


money, will it? Really? It is the same thing with is Labour are going


back up to 50% tax rate. It is not always just a question of how much


you can race but how much you will raise by people not disappearing.


You always get the counterargument against higher taxes by saying that


everybody will like it too Switzerland or somewhere else. And


actually for all the huffing and puffing, very few people, very


little happens. Let's go back to the flooding. The PM says stop the


flooding blame game. Chris myth of the Environment Agency issued a


warning to ministers. -- Chris Smith. It concerned the funding for


the Environment Agency. The FT did an interview late in the day-to-day


with Lord Smith, and it is on our front page, in which he says that he


did warn the Government that massive cuts to their budget, the


Environment Agency budget, would affect their ability to defend the


against flooding. This goes in direct contradiction to what the


Government have consistently said over recent weeks, which is that as


a whole, they have increased spending in this area. Actually the


independent climate committee, the details are in the FT, but they say


there has been cut to funding. Lord Smith has actually been slightly


hamstrung by the fact that he has not been able to put the money into


flood defences that he would have liked. That comes back to the point


of don't attack the Environment Agency when you are in the middle of


a crisis because what actually begins to happen is that he feels


defensive and said you are partly to blame. Ministers say they are to


blame and it is very tawdry. You would have thought that Eric Pickles


would have been brought up to speed with the exact situation with


funding and the Environment Agency and so on and so forth when he was


given the job of stepping into the breach to take over from Mr


Paterson. Which is what the Guardian and other newspapers are quoting. So


bizarre. Shooting from the hip? If that was the case, why was he not


briefed? Saying it was all down to Environment Agency and what a bunch


of bloggers they are. Today it is saying that it is entirely wrong to


say I have made the slightest criticism of their marvellous work.


It is ridiculously hammed up. My admiration for the Environment


Agency exceeds everything. And Owen Paterson, who has gone off to have


an eye operation, and according to the Guardian was so cross about Eric


Pickles's attacks on Chris Smith as the Environment Agency, and we had


two Cabinet ministers fighting each other, Pickles said of Paterson that


they are two peas in a pod. We are brothers from another mother. What


is he on about? I heard that as well! A mental typo. We will stop it


there. You guys will be back in another hour for a look at the other


stories. Stay with us on BBC News for that. At 11 o'clock we will have


much more on all the flooding situations and the developing


situation around the Thames Valley because more rain is forecast. Not


looking good. Stay with us for that. Now it is time for Sportsday.


Hello and welcome to Sportsday. I'm Hugh Ferris. Coming up on the


programme: He won't play T20 for England any more but he will be


playing in England. Kevin Pietersen re-signs for Surrey for the revamped


T20 blast. British medal hopes on day three in


Sochi are


Download Subtitles