22/11/2015 The Papers


No need to wait until tomorrow morning to see what's in the papers - Martine Croxall presents a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers


With me are Matthew Syed, author and Times columnist, and Zamilla


Bunglawala, the former government policy advisor and academic.


Do you still play a lot of ping-pong? I have moved on to


tennis. Every so often, I get a chance to have a game. More on


tennis in a minute. I am still an Olympic weightlifter! Tomorrow's


front pages, starting with the Financial Times, reports that the


police are braced for more cuts to fund an extra ?12 billion for the


defence department. The Times says the fight against terrorism will be


at the ?178 billion defence overhaul tomorrow. The Merrimack Rogue also


goes with that sorry, -- story, focusing on elite troops. Claims


that there may be attempts to do something. The Telegraph said the


army may be restructured to get those two Stryker brigades. The


Guardian leads with news that Brussels faces an unprecedented


security lockdown because they had a serious and imminent threat. The


Daily Mail splashes on the refusal of leading UK cinemas to show an


advert featuring The Lord's Prayer. We will begin with the Daily


Telegraph. The headline, Army Stryker brigades to tackle terror.


This is a defence review to order a restructuring of certain units. What


is the proposal? It is extensive, partly to meet 2% of GDP as part of


the noted defence target, but ?170 billion on military equipment will


buy a lot of hardware. Partly, it is to tackle terror. 9000 extra


soldiers will be deployed for immediate deployment. That is quite


serious in terms of numbers, because we have seen serious cuts to the


military. What it doesn't talk about is how this will deal with


countering terrorism in the sense of disadvantaged youth, disengagement,


what it will do on the domestic level, which is important. Defence


forces in the Army internationally will be important and that budget


does tackle that, but it doesn't mention that in this article. I


think it will be interesting to find out that. How clear is it, whether


this is coming from politicians or from military leaders? I think a bit


of both. Clearly the government has to do a lot of things, improved


intelligence, pre-emptive action against radicalisation, but a lot of


the debate has moved on to what happens if, God forbid, there are


machine guns on the streets of London. 10,000 police, two crack


forces of 5000, instantly -- instantly deployed to shoot down


religious psychopaths if they end up in London. Another story is


improving the training of doctors and medics so, if they arrive on the


scene of a potential atrocity, they can deal with bullet wounds. It has


to be a multifaceted strategy, but this has to be a part of it. Whether


or not the other departments will think it is worth it, though. There


is only a certain amount of money to go around. It seems that certain


departments will struggle if the defence department get this cash.


Absolutely, I am sure the Chancellor is juggling in terms of what he will


spent on welfare, the NHS and police, which is the numbers that


keep coming up. Nationally, what are we going to do? Things like prevent


haven't gone down well. They haven't been successful. What are you going


to cut and spent on? We really don't know. It will be an interesting week


in terms of budgets. There are so many ways in which Paris is forcing


politicians to rethink so many aspects, in terms of migration,


border controls, how we police... Who we stop and who we search in


this country. I think it is important, not just that, but


potentially using British planes to bomb IS targets in Syria. Isil is a


crazy death cult, but it is sophisticated in terms of its


strategy, is use social media, the way its strategies have altered over


time to reflect the response. They want to build into a narrative of


crusading Westerners going after the Islamic world and I think it is


important to try and make sure that, when we make strategic decisions, do


what they don't want us to do. Or you are feeding into their strategy


of creating more wars and more disenfranchised people. The metro


says, ghost town, a picture of Brussels, in a third day of


lockdown. A soldier watching over a deserted street. Some kind of


operation going on close to the Grand Place earlier. It seems that


it passed without incident. They are really thinking they have got to


keep schools and the Metro shut tomorrow. It is astonishing to see a


western capital shut down. The headline and image are striking. It


is impossible to second-guess the politicians in conjunction with the


security services, because we haven't seen the intelligence.


However, just to go back to what I was saying, over reaction is a


dangerous thing. This is just manner to the Isis sympathisers. Our


capacity to defeat these people is constructed upon power play our


economic strength. -- partly. It will take a long time to make a


difference in terms of our relative advantage, but I think there is a


danger in terms of politicians being overly risk averse and shutting


cities down. If you keep doing that, that encroaches upon Eldon GDP.


People will say, if anything were to happen and they hadn't carried on,


why didn't you protect us? It is a difficult call. You are talking


about fear in the wake of the Paris attacks so it is natural that


civilians will feel different. This is unprecedented. The Grand Place is


a busy place, so the idea of an armoured vehicle, is that going to


make people safer? People are not meeting in public places. If you


look at that, Isis has already won. It is affecting our day-to-day


lives. It is important to take a measured approach. I don't want to


in any way diminish the tragedy perpetrated on the streets of Paris,


but the number of people who died is less than the number of people who


died in traffic accidents since the atrocity, less than the number who


avoid -- die through avoidable medical errors every week in


Britain. But if those bombs had gone off in different places, inside the


Stade de France, if the elite force hadn't stormed the Bataclan... I


couldn't agree more, and we know that traffic accidents typically


follow a predictable distribution. Accidents is different to people


being gunned down in public. I agree, but the emotional response


and potential for over reaction can make the problem worse. Police


braced for more cuts to find ?12 billion for defence. George Osborne


has said the police are still going to have to take their share of the


pain. Sure. It is strange when we asked seeing 100 and eight to the


Army and we are expecting the police to be cut. I don't know how that


will go down in the Treasury or the Home Office. Part of this is


important in terms of, we need better cyber security, more forces


on the seat, better intercommunity relations, and most of that is done


by the police. -- more forces on the street. The article mentions


counterterrorism rising by 30%. What exactly does that mean? Prevent has


been proven not to work, so what exactly will happen? Are we going to


raise divisions between Muslim communities and try to understand


them better? It doesn't deal with that. It doesn't mention that there


will be welfare cuts as well as business cuts, so it isn't just the


Home Office that will find it difficult. This is a big issue, but


the political choreography is interesting, George Osborne


delivering his statement on Wednesday, his budget potentially


falling apart, tax receipts down will stop will he renege from his


desire to have a ?12 billion surplus? But then the manoeuvring,


Theresa May, Boris Johnson, George Osborne, thought to be the top


successor, dropping behind in the poles. There is a lot of jockeying


in the background. More politics on the i. Stop sniping at Corbyn,


Labour grandees warned. He is in an interesting position. If we have


this vote on air strikes in Parliament, we don't know whether or


when, what does he do? He has always said no. He is in just an invidious,


self-made position. We all know he is against the strikes and I think


for legitimate reasons. He is worried about inflaming more


fanaticism, worried that, without a political solution, it won't make a


difference. He worries that air attacks on their own won't defeat


the enemy. Above all, he recognises that the problem is one of ideology


and religious psychopathology. You can't defeat that with bombing.


You've got to go after the fundamental problem, which is that


people believe we have the absolute truth because we have the hotline to


Allah. For me, it is a very tile but, if you don't agree with us, we


will kill you! -- it is a fairy tale. You have to get on top of it


with science, evidence. Just go back to the issue of Corbyn struggling,


he will look so silly if he is against it and the Shadow Cabinet


overruled him. Except if he says it is a free vote, then it doesn't look


like the party is divided and have defied him. That would probably be


the more tactical mood does not remove for him. But MPs also said


the UN sanctioning isn't clear so he might have legitimate ground to say


we can't go further. He doesn't have many friends within the PLP and he


constantly get negative briefing against him so it isn't quite fair


to say it is all his fault. The party itself is falling apart. Every


time I seem interviewed, I warm to his integrity. His knowledge that


knowledge is very broad and deep but so many of the key policies are


playing so badly with the public and I think they are wrong. The Daily


Telegraph, business dinners are not women friendly. Why not? Part of the


article is about how rarely ended these events are by Wigan, partly


due to timing, childcare, other commitments, but in language we call


it black tie. Why can't we call it black dress, black cocktail dress,


more inviting to women? Fair enough! I want to go! I am not a wearer... I


very wet -- very rarely wear a tie. I prefer informality. Dressing down.


An early evening... I prefer that. We liked all of the meals,


basically. I can understand why women think, 7:30pm, they can be


quite long, laborious. I've been to some which seized with ideas and


champagne but I get this sentiment. The quality of the ideas probably


deteriorates in inverse proportion to the amount of bubbly drunk.


Finally, we will hand the talking stick to Matthew's side. Djokovic


finishes with a smashing triumph. He has won again. Set up the story. He


has won the ATP world turf finals in London. It is a record fourth


successive victory. Djokovic, number one in the world with an


extraordinary track record. But, whenever he plays better run,


everybody in the crowd except as parents, his wife and coach are


supporting the other guy. -- whenever he plays Roger Federer. He


is an aesthetically pleasing player, his indomitability. I just wanted to


put out a little shout for Djokovic tonight. We will start rooting for


him, Martine. Who would you support, fed a ruck or Djokovic? I think it


was Roger Federer. You have to go with your gut. You don't know these


people. I haven't met them. You have to go with the way that they appear


to you, interviews, on TV, even their playing manner. That is


extraordinary. Roger Federer has occasionally been bitter after


defeat. Djokovic, when he lost to Andy Murray in the final at


Wimbledon, as he does whenever defeated, he was so gracious to Andy


Murray, the crowd and the nation. He is a real gentleman. We had better


help him out next time. We have had indomitability and psychopathology


in this hour. I wonder what they will bring back at 11:30pm! Stay


with us. Coming up next, Click.


Download Subtitles