:00:00. > :00:00.Tottenham's 10th manager since 2001, replacing Tim Sherwood. And we
:00:00. > :00:00.will tell you how Heather Watson and Andy Murray got on in the French
:00:00. > :00:18.Open in 15 minutes, after the papers.
:00:19. > :00:25.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing
:00:26. > :00:29.us tomorrow. With me is a psychotherapist and writer Philippa
:00:30. > :00:33.Perry, and Simon Watkins from the Mail on Sunday. Let's look at the
:00:34. > :00:36.front pages, starting with the Financial Times, which carries a
:00:37. > :00:42.warning from head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, which warns that
:00:43. > :00:45.delays to banking reforms risks destabilising the global economy.
:00:46. > :00:49.And a polling station on the front of the Independent, but they are
:00:50. > :00:54.leading on the botched coup against Nick Clegg. The Metro has more
:00:55. > :00:58.detail from Rolf Harris's court case. He and his daughter are also
:00:59. > :01:03.pictured on the front of the Daily Express but they headline that ?30
:01:04. > :01:08.million a year of child benefit is sent abroad. The Daily Telegraph is
:01:09. > :01:12.reporting on new guidance that one third of the population should be
:01:13. > :01:18.sent to state funded slimming classes. That story is also on the
:01:19. > :01:20.front of the Daily Mail. The Guardian is reporting on the rising
:01:21. > :01:26.tide of racial prejudice across Britain. We are going to discuss
:01:27. > :01:32.that a bit later, that particular story, but we are going to start
:01:33. > :01:38.with the Independent. Liberal Democrat disarray over claims the
:01:39. > :01:42.Oakeshott commission did secret polling to undermine Nick Clegg.
:01:43. > :01:49.Yes, it is a bit of a mess, it seems to me. Oakeshott and Vince Cable. He
:01:50. > :01:53.has long been regarded by a lot of people as being an unofficial
:01:54. > :01:56.mouthpiece for Vince Cable. They are certainly close and they share
:01:57. > :02:00.views. Vince Cable has gone out of his way to say this is nothing to do
:02:01. > :02:04.with him. He has always protested that Oakeshott is not his mouthpiece
:02:05. > :02:08.but they are regarded as being closely linked. It is a dramatic
:02:09. > :02:15.turn out so shortly after the election, it seems to me. The
:02:16. > :02:19.wording is that his actions are totally inexcusable and an
:02:20. > :02:23.acceptable. It has got quite fierce quite suddenly. Why would Oakeshott,
:02:24. > :02:30.a back and a firm friend of Vince Cable, want to put him forward for a
:02:31. > :02:33.job that is frankly a poisoned chalice? We know the Liberal
:02:34. > :02:39.Democrats will have a tough time next year. I agree. That is a very
:02:40. > :02:44.odd question. With the best will in the world... It is difficult to know
:02:45. > :02:47.what the motivation for people's actions are. We can only guess at
:02:48. > :02:53.them. But when people are down and vulnerable, that is when they get
:02:54. > :03:00.attacked. Maybe this is a case like that. Philippa, is there any way the
:03:01. > :03:06.Liberal Democrats can rescue the situation? Is a change of leader the
:03:07. > :03:11.way forward? I always think it is a shame that when a leader has made a
:03:12. > :03:16.mistake, or is doing badly, and I am not saying Nick Clegg is or has,
:03:17. > :03:21.that we seek immediately to replace them because surely we learn from
:03:22. > :03:26.our mistakes and we would be better to stay in power? I am not always
:03:27. > :03:32.sure that if somebody is doing badly that it is always the best policy to
:03:33. > :03:36.replace them anyway. I have to say that I find it hard to believe that
:03:37. > :03:40.with only one year to go before a general election that a change of
:03:41. > :03:42.leader could dramatically alter Liberal Democrat fortunes,
:03:43. > :03:47.particularly since it would take a couple of months at least. I am not
:03:48. > :03:50.sure what machinations they would have to go to to change their leader
:03:51. > :03:58.but it is more corrugated than other parties. The way people vote anyway
:03:59. > :04:03.is not necessarily rational. If Nick Clegg could be more relaxed and
:04:04. > :04:10.open, and he is very handsome, then he could win votes, just by relaxing
:04:11. > :04:18.a bit. And stuttering less. Well! One suspect it is deeper than that
:04:19. > :04:21.really. If you are a party leader and you say you will not raise
:04:22. > :04:27.tuition fees and then you do in power, there is a credibility gap,
:04:28. > :04:31.isn't there? That is a credibility gap are fundamentally part of the
:04:32. > :04:35.problem. There is a huge credibility gap and he does not seem to have the
:04:36. > :04:40.charisma to fill that gap yet but who knows what next year will bring?
:04:41. > :04:47.Doesn't have the charisma? He was flying high in the run`up to 2010. I
:04:48. > :04:55.agree with Nick, as everyone said. So what happened? Power is what
:04:56. > :04:59.happened. The wheels hit the road. Isn't that the problem? He may have
:05:00. > :05:03.been corrupted by power. I am not saying he was corrupted that there
:05:04. > :05:06.are realities that kick in when you are in Government. He has been
:05:07. > :05:12.attacked again and again and again in all forms of media. Why would
:05:13. > :05:15.that not have an impact on him? He is looking pretty vulnerable these
:05:16. > :05:20.days. That makes me warm towards him than I have for a long time. The
:05:21. > :05:23.difference between Nick Clegg and Vince Cable and the way they have
:05:24. > :05:27.come across in the coalition is that the line from Nick Clegg has always
:05:28. > :05:31.been they have been a beneficial force, reining in the Conservatives
:05:32. > :05:35.from extreme things they might have done, but nobody can rightly or
:05:36. > :05:39.wrongly see that in him but they can see it in Vince Cable. If you think
:05:40. > :05:42.about who has been a troublemaker in the Liberal Democrats and has
:05:43. > :05:47.occasionally run up against the Conservatives, it has been Vince
:05:48. > :05:50.Cable. Rightly or wrongly, in actual fact he probably personifies Mork
:05:51. > :05:58.the thorn in the side of the coalition, stopping it being quite
:05:59. > :06:05.as Tory as it could have been. `` personifies more. So it is
:06:06. > :06:10.potentially perception? Yes. Very interesting. Now the rising tide of
:06:11. > :06:13.race prejudice across Britain. Parties struggle with the
:06:14. > :06:23.immigration message. What is this about? Well, racial prejudice is
:06:24. > :06:31.pretty high at the moment. The UKIP success in the European elections
:06:32. > :06:35.has been ascribed to that. When you are feeling fearful because your
:06:36. > :06:39.income is going down and your money is less, rather than blame the
:06:40. > :06:44.oppressors, what people seem to do is blame the layer underneath them,
:06:45. > :06:51.which might be the newest immigrants into the country. They seem to want
:06:52. > :06:57.to attack those that they see may be coming up just behind them and they
:06:58. > :07:02.feel a threat from that. It is not a real threat, I don't think. It is
:07:03. > :07:09.just an easy threat. An easy threat to identify. But I don't think it is
:07:10. > :07:16.justified. You don't think it is any deeper than that? I think that when
:07:17. > :07:23.we feel fearful, we want to find an object to project that fear onto,
:07:24. > :07:26.and to blame, to blame for our fear. I think people do feel fearful when
:07:27. > :07:32.they don't know whether they are going to be able to make ends meet.
:07:33. > :07:36.OK. This is new data from a British social attitudes survey.
:07:37. > :07:39.Interestingly, it said that London is the place reporting the lowest
:07:40. > :07:44.levels of racial prejudice, according to the survey, and of
:07:45. > :07:49.course UKIP did the worst in London. And it is also the most mixed
:07:50. > :07:54.ethnically in the country, along with some other urban conurbations.
:07:55. > :07:59.So people of a different race are less likely to be the other and more
:08:00. > :08:06.likely to be your friend. Your neighbours, yes. Interesting. Let's
:08:07. > :08:09.go on to the business pages of the Independent. Rising inequality as
:08:10. > :08:16.the average USG's paid topped $10 million. It is extraordinary and
:08:17. > :08:20.something that I think paves the way to things we have been talking
:08:21. > :08:25.about, the public's perception of what is going on in society at the
:08:26. > :08:28.moment. Ordinary wages have not been rising in line with inflation. They
:08:29. > :08:33.are just about beginning to rise at the rate of inflation but only
:08:34. > :08:37.just. Ordinary people have been lagging behind. Rising inequality,
:08:38. > :08:42.senior executives earning more and more, it throws it into horrible
:08:43. > :08:49.sharp relief and causes discontent. From Mark Carney's point of view, it
:08:50. > :08:52.threatens social cohesion and the stability of the economic system,
:08:53. > :08:55.concern. This has been going on for concern. This has been going on for
:08:56. > :09:00.a long time and we don't seem to be bothered about changing things, do
:09:01. > :09:07.we? It would seem that we are not and that is quite worrying really.
:09:08. > :09:19.When we don't regulate bankers, they seem to justify taking more and more
:09:20. > :09:22.and giving less and less. So I am behind Christine Lagarde and Mark
:09:23. > :09:27.Carney wanting to regulate more. I don't think any of us humans can be
:09:28. > :09:31.trusted in a position of power. We can always justify why we should
:09:32. > :09:36.take more. I think we need to take that into account and forget about
:09:37. > :09:42.acting honourably and ethically just because we went to public school or
:09:43. > :09:47.something. That hasn't been shown to pan out. Gentleman capitalism died a
:09:48. > :09:53.long time ago. I have to explain that now. It died a long time ago!
:09:54. > :09:56.You bring us onto the front page of the Financial Times. Christine
:09:57. > :10:01.Lagarde warns about delaying tactics on new rules. You have alluded to
:10:02. > :10:07.it. Five years after one of the worst economic crashes since the
:10:08. > :10:11.great depression, the early 1920s, late 1920s, whatever. And we are
:10:12. > :10:16.still having to talk about whether or not the banks need for regulation
:10:17. > :10:19.because nothing has changed. And Christine Lagarde speaks explicitly
:10:20. > :10:25.about the pushback from the banking industry to regulation. It is
:10:26. > :10:30.clearly there. As a financial journalist, I see it constantly, new
:10:31. > :10:35.waves of regulation coming in and a constant resistance from the banking
:10:36. > :10:39.industry to it. At some quite deep level, they have not quite got it
:10:40. > :10:44.and they have not quite accepted how much things have to change. Thing
:10:45. > :10:49.that Christine Lagarde picks out as one of the key things is tackling
:10:50. > :10:55.the issue of banks that are too big to fail and Mark Carney raises it as
:10:56. > :10:58.well. In some ways this is more important than people that are
:10:59. > :11:02.genuinely crooked and deceiving. The question is whether we have a
:11:03. > :11:05.banking system that can weather future storms. It is pointless to
:11:06. > :11:09.pretend there will not be future storms and we need regulation in
:11:10. > :11:12.place that allows banks that fail, because they will fail in the
:11:13. > :11:16.future, to fail in a way that does not take the rest of us down in the
:11:17. > :11:21.future. That is what I think Mark Carney and critically guard are
:11:22. > :11:31.concerned about not having been done globally adequately yet. ``
:11:32. > :11:34.Christine Lagarde. It's very odd that it seems to be so similar foul
:11:35. > :11:40.push through legislation for something like the bedroom tax and
:11:41. > :11:44.yet, so difficult to regulate the banks. It seems very unfair. But
:11:45. > :11:48.that is an international, dealing with the banks is an international
:11:49. > :11:55.question. It is, so of course there's a lot more legalees to get
:11:56. > :11:58.through. But it's been shown that unregulated banks are not a good
:11:59. > :12:09.thing and we need more regulation. Yet... Or smarter regulation. Yes
:12:10. > :12:11.and yet we seem unable to do it because of objections by the banks.
:12:12. > :12:21.What are the objections to more regulation? I can imagine the head
:12:22. > :12:25.of City bank and JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have President Obama
:12:26. > :12:29.number's `` President Obama's number on speed dial. Almost certainly.
:12:30. > :12:34.Talking about protecting their turf. The thing is the banking system is
:12:35. > :12:39.so intertwined with our economy and it is very easy for them argue rgs
:12:40. > :12:43.rightly or `` argue, rightly or wrongly, that the profitable
:12:44. > :12:48.function of their banks is important to all of us. If you regulate us too
:12:49. > :12:52.much will risk killing us. I'm ignorant on the subject of banks,
:12:53. > :13:00.but I don't understand why we can't nationalise the bank. It seems too
:13:01. > :13:04.important a system to give over to the profit`making enterprise. We are
:13:05. > :13:11.all dependent on it. Shouldn't it be run by central Government? Are you a
:13:12. > :13:15.Communist? It's just an idea. Is that a Communist idea? I'm not
:13:16. > :13:20.saying anything. Briefly, the Express, texting is ruining family
:13:21. > :13:25.meals. Is it? Apparently. That's what the Express says. I find it
:13:26. > :13:28.jolly handy to have Google at meal times. It helps widen the
:13:29. > :13:36.conversation sometimes to get a little bit of information in. I'm
:13:37. > :13:42.not a great advocate for having very strict rules like thou salt not text
:13:43. > :13:47.at meal times. `` shalt not text at meal times. It's great to stay
:13:48. > :13:52.around the table and eat together. Fwou say you must never, ever text
:13:53. > :13:58.and sometimes, I expect one's parents are really annoying and you
:13:59. > :14:04.need to talk to your friends about that. I'm not going to have a, like,
:14:05. > :14:08.you know, kick back reaction saying oh, this is terrible. . On that, I
:14:09. > :14:11.think controversial note, Philipa, Simon, you're back in an hour's time
:14:12. > :14:15.to look at more of the stories behind the headlines. Many thanks
:14:16. > :14:20.for that. Stay with us on BBC News. At the top of the hour, we could
:14:21. > :14:23.well have a press conference coming out of Brussels, after the meeting
:14:24. > :14:27.of leaders there, to try and work out how best to deal with the likes
:14:28. > :14:31.of Syriza in Greece and the Front National in France and UKIP in
:14:32. > :14:52.Britain. Now, though, it's time for Sportsday.
:14:53. > :14:54.Hello and welcome to Sportsday with me Will Perry, the