29/10/2015 The Papers

respects to Howard Kendall. And, the best of the action from the

world gymnastics Championships in Glasgow.

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers

With me are the former trade minister Lord Digby Jones

Let's have a look at those front pages, or some of them. The

Financial Times says David Cameron and George Osborne are looking for

an emergency brake on laws affecting economies outside the US own. A new

report here saying that young people suffering the worst economic for

several generations. The Independent has the beast that China has

announced the end of its one child policy. The Guardian features the

China story along with the news that the report from the Chilcott enquiry

into the Iraq war is scheduled to appear next summer. Spending on

credit is at its highest for a decade, borrowers owe ?176 billion,

according to the Metro. The Telegraph says one Anne Boleyn 's

trust is making patients wake twice as long for help if they dial 111,

even if have a life-threatening condition. The police have demanded

the power to see the Internet browsing history of everybody in

Britain. And a police pilot scheme is telling victims of crime to call

them on Skype. Let's get started, with the Financial Times. This is a

bit complex, on picket a bit. The top helicopter view would be that

this will happen a lull in the next few months, a newspaper of an

inclination ovary give up, and they will lead with a leak or

understanding that puts the state in Europe or, out of Europe argument

onto the front page. No other newspaper is carrying this, the

others refer to it in little columns. It is a leak, the Financial

Times wants to stay in Europe, they say you have the Eurozone and these

19 countries, amongst 28 of the EU, in one currency, one basic financial

management, with all of the problems that causes, and the biggest

financial centre in the world, with respect to New York, is London, it

is not in the euro. You have got this impetus in Brussels, mainly led

by the French, who say, we will do anything to move the power out of

London and into Frankfurt, into Paris. If you are London, you say,

we want to be in the EU but not the euro. We cannot understand why you

keep passing these laws which are hurting London more than anywhere

else. If you are in the Eurozone, you say it is because we do not want

another 2008 crisis, but outside, you say, it has worked for years.

George Osborne and David Cameron are going to Brussels and saying, as

part of the reform package I want to put to the British people, will you

say you will leave our market alone and stop interfering? If you are

friends, you will say, certainly not. If you are London, you will

say, yes, I do. Spin doctor work going on, they are under pressure to

say what their stance is, because a number of countries and foreign

ministers have said, we do not know what the Brits are negotiating.

There is pressure on those who stay in against those who stay out,

because we do not know with or not being Norway or Switzerland will

make us more independent, stronger, able to organise bilateral deals

with, say, India, China or the US. This is apparently the key thing for

George Osborne in the negotiation which will strike people as bizarre,

because it is technocratic, they would have expected the key plank to

be migration, subsidies. David Cameron will make immigration high

up the agenda, but for George Osborne, this is very important. In

the first paragraph of the first column, it breaks into something

else which strikes me as important, Standard and Poors warned, you come

out of Europe, we will cut your rating. That is a wonderful scare

story put out by those who want to stay in Europe. There will be

another one that will say, if you do not come out, it will be the other

way. You will get a lot of this. These are independent agencies with

couple bottomed reputations. No. They have opinions, like everybody

else. It depends what governs their opinions. The thing that gets me is,

if you are heading for a negotiation on reform, you do not want to say, I

am going after that, because when you do not get it, you have failed

before you even start. At some point, you have to declare your

hand. We are agreeing! If you do not do that, somebody like me, I do not

want to stay in and on reform Europe,... What does reform look

like? Is this reform? There will be so much of this. Henry, the Daily

Telegraph, the top story, patients punished. Yes, for calling 111, the

alternative to 909. People often call it because they may have deemed

their condition. To have been life-threatening. Or they do not

want to burden the 999 system. The service, is Coast ambulance, decided

to delay helpful patients who may have suffered from strokes or other

potentially lethal conditions because they called 111 instead of

999. If they had called 999, and Anne Boleyn 's should get to you

within eight or nine minutes, but this service allowed itself an extra

ten minutes to reach those people. This is a bridge of the rules, the

NHS is investigating. I live in that area. Kent, Surrey. We were talking

about this, it is difficult to understand why. A rule introduced

without consent from on high to say, dial 111, we will take 18 minutes,

dial 999, we will take eight minutes, but what is the

justification? It seems as though an administrator is arbitrarily doing

it. Unless somebody says that as a rule, it is playing with lives. The

thing that will annoy people, this trust is refusing, despite attempts

by the media, to say how many patients have been affected, whether

anybody died or who introduced it. It says, we look after Nick Owen! As

long as he is dialling 111, we will get there within 30 seconds! When it

comes to the NHS, everybody knows there is greater demand, but do more

funding to with it at your peril, especially at local level. Your

turn, divided written, generation betrayed, this is one of their

special stories. It has been carried in the Independent as well, the

sister paper. What are they saying? Take spot on, this is one of the

great unspoken divisions in our society. The worst economic

prospects for generations. How old were you when you bought your first

house? About 21. 21. 26. This lot are going to be 30, 35, that is one

of the best ways of explaining this. I am not sure people will be buying

houses like they'd used to. They cannot afford it, most of them will

live to their 90s, so they will have to save more for their retirement

and have pension contributions taken off them, so they will have less

spend ability, they cannot look forward to the same size of

pension, they will work longer and have less at the end of it. They can

not afford to buy a house. There is an educational side, this has come

from the equality and human rights commission, Watchdog, look at a huge

range of socio economic groups, and white schoolboys born into poverty

fare the worst in education, bottom, below a range of other

ethnic groups, including African Caribbean boys, who were receiving

great attention for a long time, 28.3% of white boys receiving free

school meals got five GCSEs in England, Chinese pupils, even those

on free school meals, got around 76.8%. It is not just a British

issue, it is a western democracy issue, America, France, Germany,

Australia, Canada. I am not too sure it is relevant. It is another

barometer. You are talking about age of first house. Comparing with China

is not a fair comparison. It is Chinese children in Britain. What is

important is no politician of any party will have a fix. Society has

gone past that, we were the baby boom generation, people came home

from the war, and they bred like bunny rabbits. It is true. You had a

bulge in the population, and they never had it so good. The medical

advances, employment, they were building houses. The story does not

say who has betrayed whom. Is this generation -- has this generation

been betrayed, and by whom? The implication is that we have done it.

Guilty as charged? You have become the oldest oration, where you had

been part of your own generation! China. What an introduction! I do

not want to associate myself with that! It came from Digby! It

abandons its famous policy. Introduced by the former premier,

because he and the Politburo were concerned about a booming

population. And the terror of famine. They credit it with

preventing an extra 400 million births, but the population still

stands at nearly 1.4 billion. They are relaxing the rules, people will

be allowed to have two children as opposed to one. Some say this is

good, it shows that the Politburo is listening and understands and can --

but others say they are doing it for economic reasons because the

population is too old. They are going to get old before they get

rich. This will take a long time. It is generational, and in so many

parts of China this policy felt away as China got richer, and people did

not impose it quite so much, and so they are calling it for what it has

been. I am sure that is not for the whole of China. What we have to

understand is they have a deep fear of famine. This sorted that out, but

the price they have paid is that they do not have enough people in

their 40s and 50s, especially men, to look after the 70 and

80-year-olds, so you have got loads of 70 and 80-year-olds who are

falling on the state as a burden, because they have none of the family

to look after them. And the issue of infanticide, and 30 million or so

Chinese men will not be able to find a Chinese partner. History shows

that countries with large numbers of unmarried or partnered men are more

likely to pursue aggressive militaristic foreign policy is. We

have to stop, thank you. We have rushed through. I should call! We

might come to that. If we are lucky. It is time now, I think, for