27/05/2014 The Papers

Tottenham's 10th manager since 2001, replacing Tim Sherwood. And we

will tell you how Heather Watson and Andy Murray got on in the French

Open in 15 minutes, after the papers.

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing

us tomorrow. With me is a psychotherapist and writer Philippa

Perry, and Simon Watkins from the Mail on Sunday. Let's look at the

front pages, starting with the Financial Times, which carries a

warning from head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, which warns that

delays to banking reforms risks destabilising the global economy.

And a polling station on the front of the Independent, but they are

leading on the botched coup against Nick Clegg. The Metro has more

detail from Rolf Harris's court case. He and his daughter are also

pictured on the front of the Daily Express but they headline that ?30

million a year of child benefit is sent abroad. The Daily Telegraph is

reporting on new guidance that one third of the population should be

sent to state funded slimming classes. That story is also on the

front of the Daily Mail. The Guardian is reporting on the rising

tide of racial prejudice across Britain. We are going to discuss

that a bit later, that particular story, but we are going to start

with the Independent. Liberal Democrat disarray over claims the

Oakeshott commission did secret polling to undermine Nick Clegg.

Yes, it is a bit of a mess, it seems to me. Oakeshott and Vince Cable. He

has long been regarded by a lot of people as being an unofficial

mouthpiece for Vince Cable. They are certainly close and they share

views. Vince Cable has gone out of his way to say this is nothing to do

with him. He has always protested that Oakeshott is not his mouthpiece

but they are regarded as being closely linked. It is a dramatic

turn out so shortly after the election, it seems to me. The

wording is that his actions are totally inexcusable and an

acceptable. It has got quite fierce quite suddenly. Why would Oakeshott,

a back and a firm friend of Vince Cable, want to put him forward for a

job that is frankly a poisoned chalice? We know the Liberal

Democrats will have a tough time next year. I agree. That is a very

odd question. With the best will in the world... It is difficult to know

what the motivation for people's actions are. We can only guess at

them. But when people are down and vulnerable, that is when they get

attacked. Maybe this is a case like that. Philippa, is there any way the

Liberal Democrats can rescue the situation? Is a change of leader the

way forward? I always think it is a shame that when a leader has made a

mistake, or is doing badly, and I am not saying Nick Clegg is or has,

that we seek immediately to replace them because surely we learn from

our mistakes and we would be better to stay in power? I am not always

sure that if somebody is doing badly that it is always the best policy to

replace them anyway. I have to say that I find it hard to believe that

with only one year to go before a general election that a change of

leader could dramatically alter Liberal Democrat fortunes,

particularly since it would take a couple of months at least. I am not

sure what machinations they would have to go to to change their leader

but it is more corrugated than other parties. The way people vote anyway

is not necessarily rational. If Nick Clegg could be more relaxed and

open, and he is very handsome, then he could win votes, just by relaxing

a bit. And stuttering less. Well! One suspect it is deeper than that

really. If you are a party leader and you say you will not raise

tuition fees and then you do in power, there is a credibility gap,

isn't there? That is a credibility gap are fundamentally part of the

problem. There is a huge credibility gap and he does not seem to have the

charisma to fill that gap yet but who knows what next year will bring?

Doesn't have the charisma? He was flying high in the run`up to 2010. I

agree with Nick, as everyone said. So what happened? Power is what

happened. The wheels hit the road. Isn't that the problem? He may have

been corrupted by power. I am not saying he was corrupted that there

are realities that kick in when you are in Government. He has been

attacked again and again and again in all forms of media. Why would

that not have an impact on him? He is looking pretty vulnerable these

days. That makes me warm towards him than I have for a long time. The

difference between Nick Clegg and Vince Cable and the way they have

come across in the coalition is that the line from Nick Clegg has always

been they have been a beneficial force, reining in the Conservatives

from extreme things they might have done, but nobody can rightly or

wrongly see that in him but they can see it in Vince Cable. If you think

about who has been a troublemaker in the Liberal Democrats and has

occasionally run up against the Conservatives, it has been Vince

Cable. Rightly or wrongly, in actual fact he probably personifies Mork

the thorn in the side of the coalition, stopping it being quite

as Tory as it could have been. `` personifies more. So it is

potentially perception? Yes. Very interesting. Now the rising tide of

race prejudice across Britain. Parties struggle with the

immigration message. What is this about? Well, racial prejudice is

pretty high at the moment. The UKIP success in the European elections

has been ascribed to that. When you are feeling fearful because your

income is going down and your money is less, rather than blame the

oppressors, what people seem to do is blame the layer underneath them,

which might be the newest immigrants into the country. They seem to want

to attack those that they see may be coming up just behind them and they

feel a threat from that. It is not a real threat, I don't think. It is

just an easy threat. An easy threat to identify. But I don't think it is

justified. You don't think it is any deeper than that? I think that when

we feel fearful, we want to find an object to project that fear onto,

and to blame, to blame for our fear. I think people do feel fearful when

they don't know whether they are going to be able to make ends meet.

OK. This is new data from a British social attitudes survey.

Interestingly, it said that London is the place reporting the lowest

levels of racial prejudice, according to the survey, and of

course UKIP did the worst in London. And it is also the most mixed

ethnically in the country, along with some other urban conurbations.

So people of a different race are less likely to be the other and more

likely to be your friend. Your neighbours, yes. Interesting. Let's

go on to the business pages of the Independent. Rising inequality as

the average USG's paid topped $10 million. It is extraordinary and

something that I think paves the way to things we have been talking

about, the public's perception of what is going on in society at the

moment. Ordinary wages have not been rising in line with inflation. They

are just about beginning to rise at the rate of inflation but only

just. Ordinary people have been lagging behind. Rising inequality,

senior executives earning more and more, it throws it into horrible

sharp relief and causes discontent. From Mark Carney's point of view, it

threatens social cohesion and the stability of the economic system,

concern. This has been going on for concern. This has been going on for

a long time and we don't seem to be bothered about changing things, do

we? It would seem that we are not and that is quite worrying really.

When we don't regulate bankers, they seem to justify taking more and more

and giving less and less. So I am behind Christine Lagarde and Mark

Carney wanting to regulate more. I don't think any of us humans can be

trusted in a position of power. We can always justify why we should

take more. I think we need to take that into account and forget about

acting honourably and ethically just because we went to public school or

something. That hasn't been shown to pan out. Gentleman capitalism died a

long time ago. I have to explain that now. It died a long time ago!

You bring us onto the front page of the Financial Times. Christine

Lagarde warns about delaying tactics on new rules. You have alluded to

it. Five years after one of the worst economic crashes since the

great depression, the early 1920s, late 1920s, whatever. And we are

still having to talk about whether or not the banks need for regulation

because nothing has changed. And Christine Lagarde speaks explicitly

about the pushback from the banking industry to regulation. It is

clearly there. As a financial journalist, I see it constantly, new

waves of regulation coming in and a constant resistance from the banking

industry to it. At some quite deep level, they have not quite got it

and they have not quite accepted how much things have to change. Thing

that Christine Lagarde picks out as one of the key things is tackling

the issue of banks that are too big to fail and Mark Carney raises it as

well. In some ways this is more important than people that are

genuinely crooked and deceiving. The question is whether we have a

banking system that can weather future storms. It is pointless to

pretend there will not be future storms and we need regulation in

place that allows banks that fail, because they will fail in the

future, to fail in a way that does not take the rest of us down in the

future. That is what I think Mark Carney and critically guard are

concerned about not having been done globally adequately yet. ``

Christine Lagarde. It's very odd that it seems to be so similar foul

push through legislation for something like the bedroom tax and

yet, so difficult to regulate the banks. It seems very unfair. But

that is an international, dealing with the banks is an international

question. It is, so of course there's a lot more legalees to get

through. But it's been shown that unregulated banks are not a good

thing and we need more regulation. Yet... Or smarter regulation. Yes

and yet we seem unable to do it because of objections by the banks.

What are the objections to more regulation? I can imagine the head

of City bank and JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have President Obama

number's `` President Obama's number on speed dial. Almost certainly.

Talking about protecting their turf. The thing is the banking system is

so intertwined with our economy and it is very easy for them argue rgs

rightly or `` argue, rightly or wrongly, that the profitable

function of their banks is important to all of us. If you regulate us too

much will risk killing us. I'm ignorant on the subject of banks,

but I don't understand why we can't nationalise the bank. It seems too

important a system to give over to the profit`making enterprise. We are

all dependent on it. Shouldn't it be run by central Government? Are you a

Communist? It's just an idea. Is that a Communist idea? I'm not

saying anything. Briefly, the Express, texting is ruining family

meals. Is it? Apparently. That's what the Express says. I find it

jolly handy to have Google at meal times. It helps widen the

conversation sometimes to get a little bit of information in. I'm

not a great advocate for having very strict rules like thou salt not text

at meal times. `` shalt not text at meal times. It's great to stay

around the table and eat together. Fwou say you must never, ever text

and sometimes, I expect one's parents are really annoying and you

need to talk to your friends about that. I'm not going to have a, like,

you know, kick back reaction saying oh, this is terrible. . On that, I

think controversial note, Philipa, Simon, you're back in an hour's time

to look at more of the stories behind the headlines. Many thanks

for that. Stay with us on BBC News. At the top of the hour, we could

well have a press conference coming out of Brussels, after the meeting

of leaders there, to try and work out how best to deal with the likes

of Syriza in Greece and the Front National in France and UKIP in

Britain. Now, though, it's time for Sportsday.

Hello and welcome to Sportsday with me Will Perry, the