25/04/2014 The Papers

159`7 `` trailing 9`7. We will have the live sports results, that's in

15 minutes after the papers. Hello. Welcome to our look to what

the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. With With me are Jennifer

Howze, co`founder of BritMums, and Martin Bentham, social affairs

editor of the Evening Standard. Welcome to you both. Tomorrow's

front pages then, starting with The Independent.

It blames Barack Obama for the collapse of the Middle East peace

process which it calls a betrayal of the Palestinians.

The FT leads on the Government's decision to cap RBS bonuses. The

Mail says the teenager cancer patient Stephen Sutton has sparked

one of the most extraordinary fundraising campaigns the country

has ever seen. The Mirror has an interview with the

former BBC presenter Susannah Reid who will launch ITV's new breakfast

show next week. Prince George is on the front of the

Daily Express. The Telegraph says David Cameron's

new treasuary Minister has called for a dramatic rethink of the high

speed two rail project. The Times says new mortgage rules

are prompting lenders to increase their rates.

And The Guardian looks at UKIP and asks why Nigel Farage has the other

parties rattled? Let's begin and start with the I and

the head headline: Bonfire of the bonuses. RBS forced to half its

bonus plan. They can do this because we own most of the bank. There are

European Union rules which say that if a bank or any business wants to

award bonuses of more than the level of the salary, 100% of salary or

more, then the shareholders can block it and because we are a

shareholder we are able to, or the Treasuary is able to block it on our

behalf and that's what they've done on this occasion. What's interesting

about this is not only the RBSveto but the other ones that have been

going on where there have been revolts and they haven't succeeded.

The Barclays one yesterday. I think it's happened with the owners of the

FT. There's been a spate of these revolts which is an interesting

trend. Before people used to ` the view was everything got waved

through, it was the same people approving pay packages for other

people of like minds and so on and nothing was going to change. This

seems to be a bit of a different wind. Is anything changing? You get

the sense there is more visible anger, but there still seems a bit

of a disconnect. Once again banks are saying we have to pay these

bonuses, we have to keep people. I am really wait g waiting for a bunch

of stories about bankers say saying I left my job here and went

somewhere else. It feels like there's that constant threat. We are

going to lose our great people if we don't pay these bonuses so we are

held ran some to it, is that happening `` ransom? I could be

convinced there is a problem if there is an exodus of talent. There

is a suggestion some are going to go to the US, for example. If that

starts to happen, we are yet to see real evidence, proper evidence

that's happened. It's always raised as a possibility. It may happen, but

I think the industry needs to make that argument more strongly and more

in concrete terms. Under these new EU rules they can still receive a

bonus of 100% of their salary. Most of us would be thrilled with that

idea. I would be delighted with about 3%. Of course there are other

ways of perks and housing allowance and those kind of things that some

these folks get, as well. They could dress it up as something different

to get around the rules. That's one of the arguments, actually what

happens is the salary is increased and they get the same amount of

money and so on. There is clearly from the Treasuary's point of view a

PR exercise here and maybe there should be. Especially if a bank is

not performing as well as it ought to. It's done very badly. Let's move

on and look at the FT. Angela Merkel warning Russia it faces fresh

sanctions as the West toughens its stance. It feels like we have been

waving the idea of tougher sanctions for sometime. Is it making any

difference? It was interesting this week John Kerry's kind of tough

anti`Russian stance, criticising it of destabilisation. I mean, they're

talking here about sanctions and it says these are going to be in the

forms, likely to add names of 15 Russian or Crimeaen individuals to

those already facing travel bans and asset freezes and the US is

considering adding banks or state`owned companies to the list of

sanction entities. That doesn't seem like huge sanctions. It could be.

It's interesting Angela Merkel is now talking about it because the

Germans are the ones who have been holding Europe back because they've

this big gas deal with the Russians. They've cancelled their nuclear

programme. They're dependent on Russian gas. They've been the ones

restraining others in the European Union who have been pushing for

tougher sanctions. That's significant in itself. On the other

hand, sanctions are still fair fairly paltry at this stage. The

Americans have come out with stronger stronger ones. It's a test

for Europe. They've still got to go to the whole of the European Union,

the 28 Foreign Ministers and get agreement. Things are dropping on

the news wires as we speak. One quote source sourcing ` one quote,

sources familiar with the matter, additional sanctions on Russian

individuals on Monday over Ukraine. This story is also on The Telegraph.

It's in a different guise with a more sort of British slant,

suggesting our army cuts have given Putin muscle. Military cuts have

emboldened Britain's potential enemies and diminished our global

influence according to the Commons defence committee, that's what

they're warning. Really? Do you think that he is sitting in the

Kremlin, ha`ha, they've cut a few battalions, so off we go? The

In relation to this, yes, it's hard to see we could be sending, 100,000

troops, deploying people down there, we had new aire craft carriers ready

to go `` aircraft carriers ready to go, I can't see that making any

difference. Nobody wants boots on the ground. The Americans backed out

of Syria and clearly would be reticent about taking on Putin. We

are hearing the Pentagon has confirmed Russian military aircraft

have entered Ukrainian air space on several occasions over the past 24

hours. It is the economic thing that's ultimately damaging to

Russia. Their economy is not in a great state. The credit rating has

been downgraded again today by one of the credit rating agencies. The

interest rates have gone up. They've weaknesses there that in the

long`term they could suffer. Let's move on to another story that's

still on the front of The Telegraph. Ministers battle to scrap HS2. A new

Minister who has warned that the ?50 billion scheme doesn't represent

value for taxpayers' money. This will be music to the ears of a lot

of Conservative MPs for whom ` they think this would blight their

constituencies. Yes, apparently lots of people who feel it's going to

blight their constituency are against it. I think it's quite

interesting how the story talks about things that she said and the

votes ` what she voted in the past. Then it seemed unclear whether the

information had disappeared from a website. I don't know. A dramatic

rethink is what is being urged. Her constituency is one of those that

the line is going to go through. I think the question with this, I mean

she talks apparently about irreversible damage to areas of

natural beauty and heritage sites. That is a concern. Personally the

bigger issue is whether it's the right investment for that sum of

money and whether actually this idea it's going to bring extra business

to the north, for example, is the right way to bring business to the

north and build the `` and whether the alternative that was raised

recent recently by one of your BBC colleagues, about a megaCity in the

north and better links. It still keeps London as the sort of hub in

the south. That's the bigger question. The Times. We have been

talk being this, it concerns a lot of people getting mortgages. Home

loan costs raised to cope with new checks. New checks that come in at

midnight tonight where anyone applying for a north has to answer a

lot more questions. Harpwiring in `` hardwiring in common sense is what

we are told it will do. It appears ` it seems to be slowing the process

down a little. The suggestion is that maybe some lenders don't want

the business at the moment. Perhaps it is eminently sensible to do

slightly better checks on what people actually can pay, especially

if interest rates might go up in the future. Certainly going from the

days when you could just walk in and say, I own such and such, it was all

self certified. This is saying that mortgage lenders are simply putting

up the rates to slow the process down, because they can't cope. That

could be a real heartache for people. Now you can only get your

mortgage approved when you have an offer in. Because property prices

are inflating, there is this whole trend reappearing of offenders,

halfway to the process, saying, can you give me an extra ?20,000 because

the price has gone up in the time it has taken for the sale? If the

lenders aren't able to get it moving quickly, quite a few buyers will be

vulnerable to that. The price might go up during the sale, but during

your mortgage vetting meeting, these can take three hours, they can ask

about things like how much you spend on trips to the hair salon. It's

important that banks are asking the right questions about your financial

picture, but some of these, they seem a little bit laughable. In

terms of delving into the specific household budget issues. There's an

interesting quote here, some lenders are deliberately inflating rates to

deter applicants while they deal with the new regime, says a broker

at Trinity Mortgages. I think the site they have to use, the website

has found it difficult to cope with demand. It will be interesting to

see what happens over the next few weeks when we all have to start

answering those questions. Let's go back to The Telegraph. It's doing

very well tonight. Third story. Parents, the online monitors, it

says. We are being encouraged to use intrusive supervision on how our

children behave online. This is coming from Keith Bristow, from the

National Crime Agency. Are you poking around to find out what your

children are doing online? Well, yes. I used to be a bit more classy

a lot safer `` relaxed about it. I might get slammed for this, but I

don't think there is anything wrong with you invading your children's

privacy. When they are young, they need to learn about the rules for

using the internet. Some of this is, yes, social media, what you should

say and what you should not say. Some of it is pop`ups, clicking on

things that can affect the security of your computer. Are you... I mean,

I don't know, I have only just met you this evening, you might be very

technically minded. Are your kids ahead of you? Well, I am in the

online and social media world all of the time, so they are not. I need

some lessons from you! My daughter is well ahead of me, I can tell you.

In one way it is sensible to have some sort of awareness. I think it

is also slightly impractical, overall. I think the real key to it

is the education thing. And trust? Yes, I have a daughter, you trust

her to do the right things. Hopefully you tell them about the

risks and let them apply themselves in a sensible way. I think the idea,

when you get teenagers now and they are spending power after hour to

keep going and... I just think it's difficult. Isn't it justified if you

are keeping them safe to be intrusive? They've got to learn to

cope with risks. In society we can get absolutely paranoid. Of course,

terrible things happen, but they don't happen to many people. There

is a danger that you get completely paranoid and destroy children's

freedom. Not just this, going out in the streets, out and about, those

kind of things. I think there is a danger that we get obsessed with a

potential risk that does exist at the price of people growing up and

learning to be individuals. But keeping tabs is not the same as

crushing their freedom. It depends on the balance, doesn't it? I thing

sometimes we think that children, and 18s in general, might be more

sophisticated about the internet and social media than they are. They

might use it a lot, but they might not know what they think. The

Express, millions face crisis in old age. Not saving enough, facing

meltdown, apparently we are sleepwalking towards financial

meltdown. We need to save up to ?600,000 to enjoy a comfortable old

age. Where is that supposed to come from? Well, who knows, these days?

It is interesting, it does not say exactly where these figures came

from. You want evidence as well? Indeed. There is an important topic,

there is something perennial about this story, we are not saving

enough, we need to think about it more, maybe worry about it more. It

is pretty alarmist. It brings appear, you know, it means millions

will be forced to rely on the state. We will come back to this story and

I will let you have your say later on. We will be back again at 11:30

with Jennifer and Martin for another look at the front pages of the

newspapers tonight. Stay with us on BBC News. Coming up at 11 o'clock,

more on those new rules that are going to affect mortgage lenders.

Now, time for Sportsday. Hello and welcome to Sportsday. I'm

Lizzie Greenwood Hughes. The headlines tonight: Happy but

nervous, Ryan Giggs says taking charge of Manchester United is the

proudest moment of his career. Brighton condemn Yeovil town to

relegation from the Championship, beating them 2`0. And