12/02/2014 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 12/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



also bring you the details of England's cricket edition as they


seek to rebuild after their Ashes humiliation. That is after the


papers. Hello and welcome to our look ahead


to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. With me are


the journalist and blogger Susie Boniface, aka the Fleet Street Fox,


and political correspondent at the Financial Times, Kiran Stacey. The


Financial Times leads with the Bank of England's forecast of interest


rates, which are not expected to rise before the election. The Metro


calls today's storm "The Big One" and warns there is more bad weather


to come. The Telegraph has a picture of a woman who it says was blown off


her feet by the wind in Manchester. The Independent says the African


elephant could be extinct within a decade because of poaching. The


Express predicts "mortgage joy for millions" because of the prospect of


low interest rates. That's the Guardian's main story too,


underneath a satellite image of the storms engulfing the UK. And guess


what, that is what we are starting with, the storms. Susie, the metro


is talking about the big one, 100 mile an hour storms battering


Britain. We don't have hurricanes here, apparently, we can only have


storms. Those pictures are reminiscent of one that was released


a couple of years ago when we had a very big snow . We have a similar


picture than about how much of Britain was affected. This is not


just affecting people in Windsor or Datchet or Somerset, it is


everybody. This has been going on since the end of November, since the


St Jude's storm. Everywhere was flooded then and people died in that


terrible storm, and it is affecting everybody so badly now.


Unfortunately, where the coalition have in handling it is that all the


ministers have gone down their one-way after another, each of them


have found a way to screw it up. Owen Paterson did not even get his


feet wet. David Cameron visited only after Prince Charles. Philip Hammond


was wandering around Wraysbury in Berkshire this week in his Hunter


wellies and a long scarf and Barbour coat, looking like a squire going to


look at the peasants. They are not handling it well. I know they can't


influence how much rain is falling, but there was high spending on flood


defences after 2007, when more houses were affected. David Cameron,


in PMQs today, praised the Labour government for increasing spending


after that and saving more thousands of houses this time round. But it


has all been cut since 2010. Of course, the coalition says it has


spent as much as the last Labour government did. They say they have


spent more. They did take into account inflation. -- they did not


take into account inflation. So it is a cut in real terms. They are


some clever accounting tricks. It has only gone up in the last couple


of weeks, since they have announced more cash. But is spending more


money on flood defences the answer? These storms are going to happen


with increasing frequency, we are told. That is probably because of


climate change. 90% of scientists would say that. If this stuff is


going to happen, the Somerset Levels are a flood plain and they are going


to get flooded more often. We are also likely to see it in the


south-east and Norfolk. Building sea walls are bit higher will not really


tackle the problems we are likely to see if it happens year after year.


It works in the Netherlands, and they are below sea level. But that


would take a huge decision. The Netherlands has a tiny coastline


compared to the UK, and it is a relatively small country, and it


spends double what we do on flood defences. To get to that kind of


protection, we would be looking at 20, 50 times what we spend at the


moment. But money is no object! It was a strange day today, because we


were told yesterday that money was no object by David Cameron, and then


this morning other ministers were saying, we are not writing a blank


cheque. So money is no object, as long as people are bailing water out


of their houses. But preparing for the next one? The front page of the


Daily Telegraph says it is an unparalleled natural crisis. This is


the age Chief of defence staff, who is helping coordinates the military


involvement in this. Is that true? No, it is not true. I assume he


means in Britain, firstly. But even if we take it in that context, there


are at the moment 5800 homes flooded. In 2007, it was extra


thousand. This is not unparalleled. We have had floods before and they


have been worse. What is bad tonight is the winds. We are starting to see


power lines go down, train services affected. But even if they damage


buildings and power lines and, it is nothing compared to the flood damage


that creates absolute havoc. Not only does it bring the water in, it


destroys fields and homes. If we were looking at 60,000 people


underwater, that would be almost unparalleled. But at the moment,


there is a huge amount of water. We have seen pictures of the Somerset


Levels, where water has reached the roof. There used to be a road, and


it looks like an ocean. But it has not affected the same numbers of


April as a few years ago. But this is forecast to go on until the end


of March. For as long as the jet stream wants it to go on. But in


1947, when there were floods, 200 thousand people -- 2000 people died.


This is nothing on that scale. It is not an unparalleled natural crisis.


I like the forecasters telling us that the storms are remaining for


the foreseeable future. They just mean for a few weeks! Hopefully!


Staying with the Daily Telegraph, the three main parties unite to deny


a separate Scotland the pound. The Liberal Democrats, Labour and the


Conservatives are as one on this. And every time they have been as one


previously, it has gone wrong. They were as one on the European exchange


rate mechanism, which went wrong. They were as one on the Iraq war and


on intervention in Libya. They were not as one on the Iraq war. But the


vote was pretty much unanimous. They were as one on intervention in


Libya, which has now turned into one of the major terror training centres


on earth. They were as one on the Leveson report. But what about the


pound? Let's stick with that. They clearly do not think Scotland will


work if it has the pound, or they don't feel the relationship they


will have with an independent Scotland is what they would want. If


they deny Scotland the right to have the pound, they are pretty much


saying they all want Scotland to stay within the union. That is the


one thing which might make people vote to stay in if you were


otherwise wavering. If you don't have control of your own currency or


have some impact upon a currency like the euro, it is like being in a


car where someone else is controlling the brake and


accelerator. It is aft. You want to have some impact upon your own


currency. You can't have your cake and eat it. They want the pound, but


they don't want the national debt. It is all up in the air. Is this


lack male? That is what the SNP will say -- this is lack male. They have


said this is bullying by Westminster. Somebody else and they


are being bullied into accepting more independence. It is a step that


none of the parties have taken so far, for a good reason, which is


that they don't want to look like it is the powerful Westminster


government telling the Scots they can't run themselves. I wonder if,


in the last few weeks, the polls have started to close. There is more


worried in Westminster that actually, the Scots might vote to go


independent in September. Maybe they have thought, we have to press the


big red button and warned them that they can still have something they


can call the pound, but they can't share a currency and they can't make


interest rate decisions. They would not have the same fiscal constraints


they would have if they shared the pound and have a seat on the


monetary policy committee at the Bank of England. It is a massive


issue for Scots. They now have to say, what do we do? Create our own


currency? Or do we join the Euro? Which used to be the SNP policy.


They could return to bartering. Actually, there is a good case for


them to have their own currency. If they are supposed to be an


independent country, why not have their own central bank? If the SNP


had any guts, I would say they would say, that is fine. Full independence


means an independent currency. The Hubble is, they know that that


worries people and their entire policy since they announced the


referendum has been not to worry people. Onto the Financial Times.


Rate rise unlikely before election, according to the Governor of the


Bank of England. Forecast boosts Osborne's claims on the economy.


This is because they Governor of the bank of England, Mark Carney, came


across from Canada and said he would link fitting to a 7% rate of


unemployment. When we hit at level, good times are here again and


interest rate will go up and stop he has now said the opposite. I think


this is because... He made his first announcement after one week in the


job. While he has been here, he has realised the way we can unemployment


in this country. Our figures include people in part-time work and people


on zero hours contracts who are not necessarily earning. It includes


people who have been sanctioned from their job-seeker's allowance at


other benefits, who are not necessarily working. So he came over


here from Canada, thinking, they are going to count the unemployment


figures in a certain way, and I am going to base my entire policy on


the way that is counted. But in fact, they did a switch and started


counting unemployment differently. He has realised our unemployment


figures are bogus. Easy! Is that fair? Not entirely! The policy was


probably fairly nuts in the first place. Chris Charles, our economics


editor, has said right from the beginning that this means nothing.


We will get to 7% unemployment and then the Government will take a look


at the economy and say, if everything else is in the right


place, if people are getting wage increases, people are in full-time


employment, then there will be a rates rise. Why did he say it? He


wanted to give banks more certainty in the long run. He wanted to say,


don't worry, it will be a long time before we raise rates again. But now


we are wondering if they will move the goalposts again when some


indicator does not fit the methods that he had. He is being a good


banker, being cautious. It may be that unemployment would hit a


certain level and then it would be OK, but having got here it is not a


cave. The boom is not sustainable and could be temporary and we have


to be cautious. -- having got here it is not OK. He is being a cautious


man. The trouble is the Bank of England are talking about


underemployment, the number of people in part-time work wanting to


be working full-time. It is larger than they expected and it is not


changing. Over the last few months, unemployment rates have gone down


about underemployment rates are stable. People are going into work


but only getting part-time jobs. Lots of people want to do more work


but the work is not out there, which is the big worry. If businesses do


not feel confident enough to employ people on a full-time basis, are


they going to be strong enough to keep the recovery going next year?


All right. You will be back to look at more stories on half an hour. At


11 o'clock we will have much more on the ongoing problems with all the


storms and bad weather today. But now an BBC News, time the Sportsday.


Download Subtitles