10/12/2015 The Papers

Erik Lamela having a good night at White Hart Lane. We will also hear

from Alastair Cook about who might open the batting with him in South

Africa. -- the destinies of the Europa league teams.

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

With me are the Guardian's political correspondent Rowena Mason

and the Independent's economics editor Ben Chu.

The Telegraph leads with our top story tonight, the delayed

The paper says the CBI has branded it "gutless".

The same story dominates the Times front page with claims that

the owner of British Airways could threaten to "give up on Heathrow"

The Metro reports on more weather misery in Cumbria, describing how

residents in Glenridding fled the village as flooding returned.

According to the Independent private investors are being enticed

"Obesity in women as dangerous as terror threat" is the Mail's

headline, after comments by England's Chief Medical Officer.

the Guardian leads with the latest in a series of allegations

And the Express claims that the number of asylum seekers coming

to the UK has increased by 60% in three months.

We are going to start with Heathrow, and the delay in the decision about

whether there would be another runway. They are getting a lot of

flak from the authorities on this one. They are, gutless was one word

used to describe David Cameron for delaying the decision for another

six months. It is not hard to see why they are up in arms, they

commissioned this report to determine where the new airport

capacity should be. They came out after that saying it should be at

Heathrow, and everyone assume that after the election was over there

could be a quick decision because it would not be so politically toxic.

But they have found it is politically toxic even though the

general election has passed. It is suggested that this is all about the

London mayoral elections, because Sadiq Khan said he would... The Tory

candidate said that he would resign if they gave it the go-ahead. So

they are going to take the decision six months after that election is

over. I suppose the government, Patrick McLauchlan and David Cameron

could have taken a decision that it would be Gatwick. That would have

solved the problem, wouldn't it? Possibly, but it is suggested that

Heathrow is poor will be the preferred option, but so is Gatwick.

-- bobbly. It seems that David Cameron would rather take all the

sound and fury from Labour for one-day calling him gutless and

shambolic over this decision, it won't last all that long. Not only

that, he has several cabinet ministers who could potentially

resign over the issue as well. Their constituencies would be affected by

Heathrow, for example. So they would resign, some might resign? She

hasn't said it, she has kept quiet on Heathrow while a cabinet

minister, but it is a possibility that that could happen. That might

have been part of the calculation? It all seems very political, a cynic

would say. Absolutely, it is most likely to be the London mayoral

election, but also factoring in all of these discontents who would

create a lot of opposition if he did give the go-ahead to Heathrow. OK,

the CBI, business leaders up in arms as well as some politicians, the

front page of The Times. BA threat to abandon Heathrow will double the

losses, according to the paper. This is another interest in the story. It

underlines the number of different angles from which David Cameron is

being bombarded with lobbying. Gatwick has mounted a huge campaign

to say they want the expansion, Heathrow is lobbying very hard, and

now Willie Walsh on BA is saying that the pricetag on Heathrow is too

expensive, even though Heathrow is still the preferred option. It is

another bit of headache for the PM to negotiate when he does it

eventually take this decision. When this is being debated ad infinitum

in the decision put further into the future of stomach, -- the decision

is put further into the future, with all the different other airports

around Europe, that is what they are competing with. That is why business

people want a decision sooner rather than later. Yes, it is not only

about businesses go, but about the quality of life of those who live

under the runways. There is always the idea that we need a big hub

airport in the south-east, but do we need that? Do we need a place where

people just change planes and fly to New York? How does it benefit the UK

economy? It benefits Heathrow because people go shopping when they

are waiting for their plane, that is that what the country needs? Are the

patterns of airline use going to follow the way that it has been in

recent decades? Perhaps it won't. OK, let's go to the Times... No, the

Independent. The scandal of buy to let care homes. Speculators been

promised 10% per year returns. It seems an extraordinary amount, the

terms that this investment company is offering, and we have already had

the situation of private equity investors squeezing every last penny

of profit out of care homes, although potentially quite a small

scale, this is another example of what seems to be a lack of

regulation in the sector. That is what this has revealed, but 10%

return is pretty good, isn't it? If you have some spare cash and someone

offers you 10% in this environment it means they are taking a lot of

risk. That is what is frightening, how can they possibly generate that?

Will it be by squeezing the quality of care available to people in care

homes, or by running it in a way that it is likely to go bust, which

is bad for people in the care home in the taxpayers who would

ultimately have to battle it out? It really underlines the fact that this

is not a very well regulated sector -- Bailiff out. -- bail it out. This

brings home how unsatisfactory it is and how they will be pressure as the

population ages and the pressure increases to properly regulate and

make sure this exploitation can't happen. Local councils have been

allowed to raise rates by 2% in order to cover social care. Many are

saying that is not enough. The sector is in a lot of difficulty at

the moment, and this sort of highlights the lengths to which some

private care home operators are going to to raise cash to build new

homes, it doesn't seem very satisfactory. Let's move on, back to

the Telegraph, and Jeremy Corbyn is on the front page. Jeremy Corbyn in

the con artist accused of funding ISIL. This is a strange story.

Jeremy Corbyn appears to have written a letter on behalf of

someone who was a constituent or whose family is a constituent of

his. He did this in May, and he was making the case that this person

should get bail, and it transpires that later in the court case he has

been implicated in being part of a gang that was defrauding old people

out of their life savings, and separately the Metropolitan Police

have said there is a link to some funding that ended up in Syria. So

it is quite a chain of events, and we should stress that Jeremy Corbyn

probably had no idea there was a to terror this case, and it is not

particularly unusual for an MP to lobby and intervene on behalf of

their constituents to give them a character reference or a description

of them that suggests they should get bail. The problem with this is

that Jeremy Corbyn is perceived in the public mind as having a weakness

on the issue of security. There have been a lot of stories on this, so it

is unfortunate. It doesn't help his public image at a time when he is

trying to move away from this argument. Just to be clear, Jeremy

Corbyn had no idea he was a con artist, he had no idea that he might

have some relationship with Syria in terms of Islamic State. Yes, but as

Ravindran says, it is terrible timing. -- Rowena. Many people have

been demanding an apology for the PM's characterisation of Jeremy

Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser. This is just terrible timing, that

he has vouched for someone who has defrauded people of money that has

ended up going to the Middle East. This happens a lot, an MP will have

someone come to them and ask for a character reference if they are

involved in some kind of activity. I don't think it is that unusual for

an MP to try to help out a constituent who is facing legal

problems. There have been things in the past I think about MPs getting

into trouble with the families of them is when they have tried to

argue on their behalf in a court case, so it is not the first time it

has ever happened. It is just very fortunate timing -- unfortunate

timing. This one, obesity in women as dangerous as the terror threat.

That is not exact live what she claimed. So it is wrong? Let's move

on them! She said that obesity is a serious health risk, and it should

be classified on this civil register of emergencies. Also on that list

are things like terrorism and flooding and war, so she is saying

it should be considered to be a serious civil risk. That is not

saying it is as bad as terrorism, but we should take it seriously. She

is trying to say it is very serious and we should take it seriously. She

is the chief medical officer, the head doctor of the UK. She has an

audience now! Let's see the message gets through. Is it any worse for

women than men? This report is actually all about women's health,

which is why she is focusing on women and obesity, and she has made

a number of other recommendations as well. One thing she says is that you

are not allowed to eat for two during pregnancy, which is surely

one of the silver lining is! Very sad. Worse than terrorism! OK, the

headline draws us in, the facts are little bit less... Obesity and

terror are not really things people are used to seeing in the same

storyline. Finally, to the big story of the night, celebrity bake off.

Here are some photographs of their competitors. John Simpson included.

Alison Steadman, Wil Young. Ed Balls is one of the contestants, and he

was famously once described as the most boring than in politics. I

suppose he has nothing else to do, why would he get involved in this

kind of thing? Maybe he just loves baking. I think it is more

surprising that we have Samantha Cameron on a given that she doesn't

really appear talking or giving interviews on television very

extensively. She has been quite a quiet wife of the PM. We have a

quote from her where she is lifting the lid on home life with David

Cameron, saying that he and their daughter Nancy are very keen cooks

and very competitive. Marshmallows, Carmont and lemon drizzle cakes --

almond. What would this have been vetted? Would it have gone through

the PR team at Number Ten? Absolutely, they would have seen

that this was a satisfactory activity for the wife of the PM to

do. As long as it doesn't get onto political conversation. Many people

have been critical about her sconce, especially if they don't come out

right. Is this what we are going to see politicians or ex- politicians

getting involved with more in the future? I don't think I have ever

seen anyone like that on this kind of show. If you want to reach the

great British public there is no better way than going on the great

British bake off. If politicians want to get their message across in

a soft way, this is the ideal vehicle, just to show that the walls

is -- Ed Balls is in a situation to capitalise on it. It is not like

they are going into the jungle or anything. I suppose neither of them

are actually active politicians at the moment. Thank you so much for

looking at some of the stories behind the headlines. Many thanks.

Much more coming up, now time for Sportsday.

Coming up on the programme: Erik Lamela's hattrick takes Spurs