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.
Browse content similar to 26/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
away. We will all see some sunshine. In the sunshine it should feel OK.
Much more detail online. Welcome to our look ahead to what
the papers will bring us tomorrow. With me is Joe `` Jo Phillips and
Hugh Muir. Let us have a look at what some of the front pages are
bringing us. The Express says a routine test could soon predict
whether women are at risk of developing breast cancer. EU leaders
are questioning the lifestyle of the man expected to be the next
commission president. The Metro reports on a Jimmy
Savile's abuse. The Guardian also focuses on Jimmy
Savile and who was responsible. This is the Times. Britain's
population is the fastest`growing in the European Union and is expected
to increase more than 74 million in a quarter of a century.
The FT focuses on the allegations facing Barclays.
And the Independent says that Britain is in the middle of a green
energy revolution is. The Daily Mail says that British energy companies
have seen their profits soar over the past five years.
We are going to start with that one. Making ?101 profit per family per
year. Under a lot of scrutiny, major firms. Yes. It is not even the ?101
profit, it is 1000% increase in the last five years. Anyone who pays for
their electricity will not the surprised. At last, an enquiry has
been announced. Jim says it will have an enquiry. `` the regulatory
body. We do not know when it is going to report or if it will report
before the general election. Is it going to say anything other than the
fact that we know we are being ripped off? Energy companies argued
the cost of producing electricity and gas is increasing all the time.
They are developing new, alternative energies. They have the most
appalling credibility problem. People do not believe what they say.
People think their bills go up, but never notice if they go down. This
is bashing the energy companies and it is a game that we can all play.
All companies will see advantage in bashing the energy companies. Ed
Miliband will seize upon this. That has been one of his main policy
successes so far. Other parties have had to try and follow him down the
road. I suspect in the next few weeks we will see a lot of the
parties bringing a lot of attention to the energy companies. Do they
think this is such a central issue to so many people? There are so few
people that politicians can talk about that impact directly on the
voters. This is one of them. Every voter is affected. Politicians find
this a good way to connect. There is not much consensus. Nobody
disagrees. That is why you will see which of them complained the
hardest. It does make you wonder whether, if this is a nice
pre`election ploy? I had an interesting chat with a man
who works for an energy company. He says we are using up reserves of gas
and oil. These companies have to find an alternative. And with all
the unrest happening in the Middle East and Russia, it is inevitable
that we have to do something. And look to either saving energy or,
this is a segue into the next story. Indeed. The gentleman I was
referring to, his job is to find gas and oil and he is running out of
places to find it. Now they are looking at green power, which
features on the front page of the Independent. Britain sees the light,
says the paper. This is staggering. Up 43% in a single year. Amazing. I
think that would surprise a lot of people. Green energy has very much
gone off the agenda, politically. Who wants to talk about it, because
it is toxic? Who wants a wind farm near them. Sections of the
Conservative party almost have it as a token of faith that we don't want
any more windfarms. The new talk about the impact upon rule Britain.
`` rural. How does it benefit politicians to even talk about it?
It comes back to the point where if we can provide our own energy and if
we can do it, then we aren't dependent on the `` for the reasons
we just said, dependent on the Middle East or Russia for oil. That
is able to argument. Don't forget they are offshore windfarms. There
is a huge one near London and around Scotland. But your cynical point of
view, that governments will focus on this type of thing to try to win
over votes doesn't quite stack up across the Conservatives have said
they aren't going to expand windfarms if they win the next
election. It's not going to have any renewed enthusiasm is for windfarms
or renewables. The Conservatives will look at the prices. That will
be their electoral cell. You are saying there is public support for
renewable energy but not a wind farm. `` electoral sell. I think
this is interesting. There is another story to this, the amount of
subsidy that has gone into this. I think there is this central benefit
of windfarms and energy that we create in this country, which is
jobs and reduce `` the Juve `` rejuvenation. If we can say we have
one fifth of the energy, if this is doing something about unemployment
and the social capital in areas that I think that would be an even better
story. Let's move on. Staying with the Independent. The headline, poor
white pupils need extra help with English. This is off the back of
Ofsted's announcement last week, that they felt schools were letting
down white working class children. That they should be entitled to the
same kind of language support as people who have English as a second
language. The paper quotes that. What this really shows is that we
don't really know what the problem is with the white working class.
Last week, the problem was the ``, the suggestion was it was poor
parenting. This week it's that they are and keeping up with pupils who
have English as a second language. The people who work in schools...
You recognise the phenomenon where some migrant children come in with
no English at all and very quickly get the English and very quickly
leapfrog some of those white working class children. The phenomenon is
clearly they are. We know it is there. I don't get the sense that we
really know why it is happening. There's a lot of flailing around and
different theories. The London figures didn't quite stack up with
the rest of the country as well. Especially in London. What came out
of the report last week, to a certain extent underlined by this,
is the fact that there are many parts of Britain, especially the
provinces and coastal towns, where there aren't the resources and not
least of all it's not very easy to attract good teachers. In actual
fact, there was report yesterday, that a lot of kids are doing better
if they are a more mixed ethnic and language `based groups of children.
Actually, money and resources have been given to inner cities and so
maybe it's a moral. Tesco's features on the front page of the Guardian.
It owns enough land to fit 15,000 new homes, homes that are very much
needed. I right in thinking Tesco's buys a lot of land near supermarkets
to try to stop the competition from building near them? They do huge
amounts of land. `` do own. We are talking about the same number of
homes that is proposed for an area in Kent, the new garden city. Given
we talked in the last lot about this population explosion, and we all
know about the house price bubble, unless you are Eric Pickles, there
is a shortage of housing. Tesco's is sitting on this land. What are they
going to do? This ties in with the Labour Party's idea, you can't sit
on it. Use it or lose it. That's a policy that yet to be fleshed out
all worked out. But it will make people think, hang on a minute, how
does this stack up? This story is about Tesco's but other supermarkets
in particular have gone out to buy areas of land to make sure that
competitors can't build out of town supermarkets close to tears. Some
new supermarkets do have flats above them. `` close to theirs. That can
happen. But when we are in a situation where we need more houses,
where house prices rise because we don't have enough... We don't have
the supplier, I think people will get angry about this sort of thing
and they should get angry. There is a disparity between what politicians
say, we need more houses, it doesn't happen and if it's a matter of
getting the land why do they just do it? But they still have to apply for
planning. We do need more houses because there is a population
surge. The Times reports on Britain being the fastest population surge
in the EU. Immigration is partly to blame. That may surprise people.
Also at increased birth rate. They are talking about 74 million people
in 25 years. The population has grown by 5 million since 2001.
That's the same amount as it gained in the 37 years between 1964 and
2001. That is astonishing. It is going to put pressure on
everything. Schools, hospitals, roads, homes, jobs. What are we
going to do? What it will mean is that areas that haven't seen a surge
in the population so far, because it hasn't been even in the country, are
going to see new people arrive and they will have to get used to that.
In somewhere like London, people are used to different faces and
languages but that's going to be the case in other parts of the country.
I just want to show the picture on the front page of the Times. It's
time for celebrity spotting at Wimbledon. Pippa Middleton bear. And
her friend, who plays Lady Mary in Downton Abbey. `` Pippa Middleton
there. She is grinning. Michelle is looking very serious. Should they be
sitting so close together? She is looking a bit toothy, like Suarez!
At midnight we will have the latest headlines and more on the shocking
reports into the abuse carried out by Jimmy Savile at NHS hospitals.
But coming up next, it's time for World Cup