01/12/2015 The Papers

in the quarterfinals of the Capital One cup. And Chelsea plans for a

brand-new home. That is in 15 minutes. First, the papers.

Welcome to the look ahead at what will be in the papers tomorrow. With

this is the political correspondent from the London Evening Standard and

broadcaster John Stapleton. We can take a look at the papers, starting

with the Financial Times which says the Bank of England has drawn a line

under the era of bank bashing by signalling it will not tighten

restrictions on financial institutions. And in the Independent

newspaper, saying air strikes on Syria is based on wishful thinking,

it says. In the Daily Telegraph... David Cameron branding Jeremy Corbyn

and allies as terrorist sympathisers. Anti-war demonstrators

pictured in the Metro. And a poll in The Times newspaper suggests UK

taking action is serial is now supported by less than half the

country, falling from 59% down to 48%. The daily express has on its

front page the story of a cure for type 2 diabetes. Let's begin with

the Independent newspaper and a dramatic front page. It quotes from

one of their most famous correspondence, saying strategy is

based on wishful thinking and poor information. It is a striking and

typical Independent front page with a strong quote from Patrick Hoban's

peace. It probably does not -- Cockburn will stop this is an issue

that will be debated at length tomorrow but it is one that has

divided the Labour Party, dividing Westminster and dividing the

country. I think there will be readers and viewers tuning in

tomorrow, probably to get clarity themselves, because there are many

conflicting arguments and I think a lot is struggling to come to a firm

view. The result of the vote is probably not in much doubt. It is

not in much doubt tonight but who knows what will happen? There are

undecided MPs. Quite a lot and some on the Tory side and on the Labour

side. I think what he has in mind while writing this, the political

and military strategy being based on wishful thinking is the fact we do

not know the end game and we will probably send aircraft to bomb Syria

on the basis prices do not recognise borders, so why should we? We bomb

in Iraq, so why not in Syria, it is like bombing in Dresden and not in

Berlin for example, is one argument. We are told about the 70,000 or so

free Syria army people. There is no doubt air strikes alone will not

solve the issue so what will the 70,000 people, if they exist, will

they do to help? Do they agree among themselves, do they agree with us,

do they agree on an outcome for this troubled country? The Times

newspaper has a front page of public opinion, what the polls seem to

think public opinion is. They say less than half of voters now back

air strikes having gone down from 59 down to 48%. Will that be a fact on

the minds of MPs when they vote? If some are undecided and the latest is

about 50 Labour MPs are likely to vote for and 30 have not made up

their minds yet, public opinion is a key element on what's they will

decide to do, as is opinion in their constituencies and constituency

parties. A lot of Labour MPs backing action are complaining they are

coming under pressure indirectly from the leader's office and

directly by comments we have seen from Jeremy Corbyn suggesting there

is no hiding place for his MPs and there would be repercussions for

those pushing for war. Not exactly veiled threats. I think public

opinion is at variance with the mood in the House of Commons. I know

Jeremy Corbyn got stick for taking the line he took, eventually

allowing a free vote. You could argue he was bullied into it and he

had no option because the Shadow Cabinet would resign but I suspect

outside the Westminster bubble a lot of people respect Jeremy Corbyn for

taking that line and saying yes, it is a matter of conscience, it is

important, nothing more important than putting armed services at risk

and possibly killing innocent people in Syria and it should be a free

vote. In that sense the House of Commons is out of tune with a lot of

people. And the controversy with David Cameron and Tory backbench

MPs. Saying those who oppose this are terrorist sympathisers, which

does not go with the sentiment that people can vote according to

conscience. This was striking and it is at odds with Cameron's general

tone during the Syria statement in which he replied to Jeremy Corbyn

after he issued his list of seven questions and said he respected him

for his long-held beliefs and understood where he was coming from,

even if he did not agree and he took a calm and measured tone. A lot of

Labour MPs and some Tories, who possibly do not support him, said

they appreciated that and said it was a sensible approach. Why has he

used the harsher language now? Because it has got political. I

think it is extraordinaire me, he has been mindful of opinions and

measured. To come out with a statement like this on the eve of

the vote is extraordinary. Is it because he was in a meeting of Tory

MPs and a heated atmosphere? Is he saying David Davis is a terrorist

sympathiser? And also the 50 Labour MPs, most of whom have valid

opinions. It is the Flashman side of his character. He had an audience of

the faithful and came out with this comment. Tom Watson has called on

the Prime Minister to apologise for saying that. On Twitter he said it

was appalling. I think it might be counter-productive. It might be

there are some MPs who had not made up their minds who will have their

mind made up by that comment, not necessarily to influence the vote.

In terms of public opinion, as well, I think people will think it is

disrespectful. We will run through quickly the other stories on the

front pages. We will stay with the Telegraph and they have a story how

foreign students will be excluded from migration figures and

accusations it is an attempt by the government to massage the figures. A

lot of international allies and universities and business in Britain

will think it is good news because what is happening to date, because

the government has set a net migration target, it which it is not

meeting, it is concerned about breaching that and anything that

might push them higher they have resisted. Students are being

penalised and universities are penalised and businesses who need

well-trained people are being penalised by this arbitrary

immigration target. It looks like he has decided to remove them from the

cap. The Financial Times, John, the end to an era of bank bashing. It

means they are shying away from more regulation of the banks and giving

them an easier ride and there will be no restrictions on buy to let

mortgages and unsecured lending. I thought you were going to refer to

the story about Manchester City. Let's talk about that. John, you are

a Manchester City fan. And I think your husband is a Manchester City

fan. The Chinese have taken a stake in Manchester City. They have taken

13%, worth about ?250 million in total. Good news for everyone around

Manchester and good news for the club, the area, because the people

who own the rest of the club have done a great deal to redevelop the

area in terms of housing, building a training complex, and brought

employment there and it can only strengthen the hand of the club.

Does it give them more money? It gives them equal market

capitalisation to Manchester United. The Chinese president visited

Manchester as part of his Tour of Britain. And we are told he is a

Manchester United fan. What about the Chinese human rights record? It

has not come into it in Chinese investing in power stations and

infrastructure so I cannot imagine it would come into it when investing

in football. The Chinese are prepared to put money into British

businesses, there seems to be an ability to overlook genuine

concerns. It is encouraged by George Osborne and the main beneficiary is

Sheikh Mansoor cause he spent money investing in Manchester City. Thank

you very much. We will see you in an hour. You will be back at 11:30pm to

look at the stories making the news