11/04/2014 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.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/04/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



down from British cycling to concentrate on Team Sky and we'll


have the results of the meeting of the top two in Super League. That's


all after the Papers. Hello and welcome to our look ahead


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


Dreda Say Mitchell and Jeremy Cliffe of The Economist. Thank you both for


coming in, this evening. A look at tomorrow's front pages. We'll start


with the Financial Times. That says the Government will make it easier


to prosecute people who evade taxes by hiding money off`shore.


The Independent says Parliament's expenses watchdog will look into


claims the taxpayer indirectly funded a suite for what the paper


calls "a sex party" during a Conservative Party Conference. Of


the Telegraph says families with stay`at`home parents pay more tax


than most of their equivalents across the developed world.


The Mirror leads on the Oscar Pistorius trial.


The Mail reports on allegations that the liberal Party, police and MI5


covered up child abecause committed by the former MP, Smith.


The Express says there is confidence that the black box from the missing


Malaysian airliner will soon be found.


A senior Liberal Democrat MP has told the times his party is


"pointless." And the Guardian says the Attorney`General wants an


explanation from the Crown Prosecution Service about the failed


prosecution of public figures for alleged sex offences.


So, those are some of the front pages we have been getting in so


far. We'll start this evening with the Daily Telegraph and a story


about how actually ` well, it might be unfair or it might not. Why don't


you kick off, it is a story suggesting that couples with a


stay`at`home mum pay more than the international average It is unfair


depending of your point of view or family make`up. Most people in


Britain, the story resounts have lower tax than the average in the


OECD group. Apart from those of which one parent goes to work and


the other one stays at home to look after children. The tone of the


article is negative about this describing it as a failure of the


Government's intention to correct that, by allowing partners to


exchange tax allowances. That said, what struck me reading this is it


doesn't take into account the big elephant in the room in this story


which is childcare. Childcare in Britain is much more expensive than


other European countries which in a way is a tax on parents who go to


work. You were nodding vigorously. I was, not that I have any children.


But this is what I hear from people I know, how expensive childcare is.


It was interesting. When I looked at this story, the big thing that


jumped out at me, it seemed to be really saying about stay`at`home


parents, this is what we want mothers to be doing in Britain.


Well, hay hey, the rest of us have moved on. You were talking about


transferrable tax. Every time I see a story about tax, I get confused,


what is transferrable and what is this type of tax. I would imagine


many people in Britain are like me. Who are the winners and losers with


regard to tax? It would be true to say that this Government is trying


to encourage mums to stay at home while their children are young and


the tax regulations would be anything other than that, this would


suggest. They have tried to loaf that option open to people. The


story notes. They have tried to use a transferrable allowance to make it


possible. But as you say, I wonder how many parents would choose to


have one staying at home looking after the children if they could


afford the childcare. For many, going to work isn't worth the effort


because the money you earn goes straight back out to the nursery or


creche. We will stay with the Telegraph.


Another story which is interesting and one I know you feel passionate


about. The headline ` teach ten`year`olds Bill legal drugs says


the advisor. At the`year`olds, really? I think Professor Simon


Gibbons, he is passionate that ten`year`olds and it is not just


ten`year`olds, it is 10, 11, 12`year`olds, this whole notion of


not just primary schoolchildren, children in muddle school. It is a


much bigger agenda, it is not just about drugs on its own, about the


health agenda. If we are thinking about the National Health Service in


the future, what we need to be thinking about is about getting less


people to come to the National Health Service. Really what we want


to be thinking about is educating our children about thinks that


really influence their health and we know a big one is drugs. You know,


the impact that that has on someone's body. We should nted shy


away with it with children as long as it is done and I know teachers


will do it in a very responsible way. There is this argument that if


you, start talking about something, a bit like sex education that it may


try to en encourage them to doll something you are trying to prevent


them. I think it is a false argument. Do you want them to


encounter things like drugs and sex before they have learned about them


in school or the other way around? I think Professor Gibbons is right to


say it is taught in school before they come to hearing about it


outside the school walls. You are both in agreement, so we will move


on. The Financial Times, Osborne tightens net on takes havens. I


don't know. There has been a lot of this throughout the years. We'll


clampdown. Is there anything in it that you think is a good idea? To


give him credit, George Osborne is really shifting the Government's


policy on this. Before, you had to prove that someone had an intention


to evade tax before you could prosecute them. He is changing that


and saying ` even if you didn't know what you were doing was illegal, you


still risk criminal prosecution. I think it is a big step forward in


terms of prosecuting tax evasion. The point that the article makes,


rightly, is we hear even more about benefit fraud in the papers a and in


our political debates yet the amount lost from the exchequer to benefit


fraud is about 1% to the amount lost on tax evasion. He is right to crack


down and if I may say so, politically sensible. It brings


money into the Treasury and is on the side of the ordinary person.


Will it succeed? Absolutely. That's the problem. I wouldn't sayesque


kraing down. I think he is using a lot of words about this. He is using


` this article used words like "consult" and possibly have to


demonstrate." It sounds terribly long`winded. The thing about tax has


been that people have actually said that ` not a will the has been done.


However, if you think about small scale fraud a heck of a lot has been


done, like Jeremy sides with regards to benefits and other type of small


scale fraud. What is going to happen and this story is interesting ` they


are saying once we have cracked it we'll get billions. Well, don't hold


your breath basically. You are right the Chancellor has to follow`through


but making clear his intention can have an affect on people's


behaviour. People will be phoning up their lawyers and accountants. I


just don't think no`one is frightened because it all sounds so


lightweight. Where is the real heaviness here and the big guns? I


don't think anyone will be frightened. Same old, same old. You


need the nags law on your side. Unless everyone agrees it is


difficult, the tax haven will shift. This is part of an international


move. You are quite right to say the proof will be in the pudding.


Absolutely. On to the Mirror. And Dreda, why don't you start with


this. This is the Reeva Steenkamp story. It is one we have been


covering, the pus pus pis trial, of course, here `` the Oscar Pistorius


trial, of course, here on the BBC. The evidence being given, we can


only hear Oscar Pistorius's voice because he has elected not to be


televised but it is gripping, isn't it? This is the problem. There are


lots of problems I think with this. One of the things that we use words


like "gripping." This is a case about real people's lives. A woman


has been shot to death. We talk about it as if it is a thriller


almost. We can't wait for the next instalment. I think the big problem


I have with this story is "enough already", really, if we are going to


be reporting about South Africa, why are we not reporting about the


thousands of miners on strike in South Africa? But we are reporting


about a murder trial, who knows, a judgment has to actually be made and


we are making it sensational and trivialising it. Do you think the


papers shouldn't be reporting it? Sno not in a way. Why is it on the


front page? If we are going to do a story about South Africa, why not


the miners? Don't we do that with any news story. I don't think so. We


are talking about thousands of people's lives and incomes with


regards to the miners' story and the impact on all of those children and


their families. And what are we doing? We are sensationalising a


trial about a woman, that's about real people. They are not fictional


characters. Jeremy, does the Economist do such? I don't think we


have written on this but I think that there is a substantive policy


issue in this, which is the question of cameras in court which has been


discussed recently in Britain, I think and some Government ministers


have suggested it would be a good thing to open up, to bring more


transparency into our legal system but as you say, the great risk is


that it ends up turning serious trials into soap operas by providing


so much material that broadcasters and papers can use. There has almost


been criticism at Prime Minister's Questions and while on the subject


of politics, let's switch to the Times. An amazing headlines,


"Liberal Democrats are pointless", according to one of the party's most


senior MPs. Who is this and why? You would think he had a book to sell,


which he does. This is the former minister who is very much on the


classical liberal side of the liberal Democrats. He is having a go


at Nick Clegg, saying he is selling out to the left of his party. The


Jeremy, this is a great betrayal in that he supported Nick Clegg because


he saw in him a classical liberal approach to government, which is to


say small tax, small government, getting out of people's we. But the


pragmatic reality for Nick Legos that he has a party that has both


that win, but also a more social democratic, left`leaning wing, and


he has to reconcile the two. Do you think this would be damaging or will


people not be that bothered? I don't think people will be that bothered.


When I read this story, I read that someone was personally unhappy with


somebody else. I am sure if I can make it up, they could say that.


Going on to the Daily Express. And the ongoing search for Malaysian


flight MH 37 stop `` 370. The Australian prime minister has not


quite said the black box has been found. He is saying they are getting


very close. This story has continued to dominate. It has, and even though


he did not say it, once again, you have this thriller element. If you


think about this story, it is tragic. We don't know what happened


to these people. The tragedy is probably that they are no longer


with us, but we are treating it almost like everyday, there is a new


episode. It's a bit like Dickens, years ago. So in the same way that


you were criticising the media for the Oscar Pistorius coverage, they


are overdoing it on this as well? Well, what is new? We are getting


nearer to the black box. How many times do we have to hear that they


are detecting sound? Once again, remember that these were real people


who have got families out there. We need to think about how we deal with


emotional things and trauma for people. I hope we have found the


black box. Jeremy? This was always bound to be a big story, simply


because of the mystery surrounding it. It would be hard to resist it as


a newspaper editor. Thank you both very much for your input this


evening. That is it for the papers. I hope we will be back at 11:30pm


for a follow`up. But stay with us on BBC News. At 11, we will have the


latest on the man accused of the Omagh bombing and the 29th death is.


Next, Sportsday.


Download Subtitles