:00:00. > :00:00.the outcome of those climate change talks. With us now to look at the
:00:00. > :00:09.papers. With me are Mihir Bose
:00:10. > :00:12.from the Evening Standard Tomorrow's front pages,
:00:13. > :00:14.starting with... The Observer welcomes the historic
:00:15. > :00:17.climate change deal in Paris, quoting the words of the French
:00:18. > :00:19.president Francois Hollande who described it as a "major
:00:20. > :00:21.leap for mankind". The Independent shows a line
:00:22. > :00:23.of dancing polar bears The paper also claims David Cameron
:00:24. > :00:27.is to make a dramatic climb-down That story also makes the front page
:00:28. > :00:33.of the Telegraph, pointing out the U-turn will be
:00:34. > :00:36.on the Prime Minister's central The Mail carries an exclusive
:00:37. > :00:43.interview with Shaker Aamer, the British man held
:00:44. > :00:51.at Guantanamo bay for 14 years. The Express goes it alone saying
:00:52. > :00:54.more than 400 miles of road works will be cleared for the great
:00:55. > :01:12.Christmas getaway. The outcome of the talks in Paris.
:01:13. > :01:16.Not all of them have gone with the climate change. What is interesting
:01:17. > :01:22.about the Observer story, is that while it says it was a major league
:01:23. > :01:26.for mankind, it says that temperatures will be rising to a
:01:27. > :01:31.maximum of 5 degrees. It does not give any detail of what was agreed.
:01:32. > :01:36.And the devil is in the detail. This looks to me like an agreement to
:01:37. > :01:41.agree rather than actual agreement which can be implemented or maybe
:01:42. > :01:47.invented. I think we are being a bit too... The leaders, understandably,
:01:48. > :01:52.are a bit anxious and a bit too ambitious in the claims are making.
:01:53. > :01:56.Do you think, Sunny, after Copenhagen which was such a
:01:57. > :02:01.disaster, almost anything would be better? There is something to
:02:02. > :02:05.celebrate, which is the fact that this was actually signed. But if you
:02:06. > :02:09.look at the draft that was circulated earlier today, it is very
:02:10. > :02:14.much an agreement that is a first step. Let's not forget that most of
:02:15. > :02:19.the leaders who have signed it now have to go back to their own
:02:20. > :02:28.parliaments. It has to be ratified. And regardless of -- what Obama has
:02:29. > :02:34.said, it may not get through the house. We are going into a election.
:02:35. > :02:40.The Republican side have made a virtue of denying climate change
:02:41. > :02:45.completely. I am happy that this has happened, but I think this agreement
:02:46. > :02:50.is something to be taken forward, an agreement to agree. And India for
:02:51. > :02:54.instance says it will still be burning coal and India is a
:02:55. > :02:59.developing country that wants to develop. We will have to see exactly
:03:00. > :03:04.what India has agreed to do. China has changed tack but what will India
:03:05. > :03:09.agree? The second most populous nation in the world. We will have to
:03:10. > :03:13.see exactly how it is implemented. In a lot of praise compared to
:03:14. > :03:19.Copenhagen, but we should be a bit cautious. I think that is always
:03:20. > :03:23.sensible women are talking about getting 195 countries to agree. And
:03:24. > :03:31.we don't have the clarity about emissions. You were saying Russia,
:03:32. > :03:36.China, Japan and India. We have some clarity on some of these, but we
:03:37. > :03:40.don't have clarity on what Russia has signed up for and where they
:03:41. > :03:46.will stand on this particular agreement. Yes, it may be signed,
:03:47. > :03:54.but where the details may come in, we are not sure. So we should hold
:03:55. > :03:58.the champagne for a bit. Isn't this partly about sending a message to
:03:59. > :04:02.the markets, to investors, that we are heading away from carbon fuels
:04:03. > :04:07.and renewables are the place to put your money? And if the markets drive
:04:08. > :04:15.that, we will end up using renewable energy. I think one of the big
:04:16. > :04:20.shifts from Copenhagen has been a business signal that has gone out. A
:04:21. > :04:24.signal from part of the private corporate world. But we still are
:04:25. > :04:29.reliant on fossil fuels to a huge degree and unless that is addressed,
:04:30. > :04:35.we will be in the cycle and yes, the signal has gone out, but we are
:04:36. > :04:40.taking a tiny step. I am not sure if it is a step or a shuffle forwards.
:04:41. > :04:44.And we have to tackle the wider questions of developing crop
:04:45. > :04:52.countries, what is the model they are aiming for? Is it the model of
:04:53. > :04:55.America, with two cars? But to be fair to America and China, they have
:04:56. > :05:01.invested huge amounts of money in renewable energy sources. But they
:05:02. > :05:05.have got to understand that for prosperity, you don't need three
:05:06. > :05:09.cars. That's other model, we have not gone back from that. That is
:05:10. > :05:15.what everybody wants. If you want that, where do you get that? We have
:05:16. > :05:18.not discussed that enough. We haven't told you, but we are going
:05:19. > :05:25.to get you to cycle home on a tandem! I will look forward to that!
:05:26. > :05:31.I will be at the back. Let's stay with the Observer together. Oxford
:05:32. > :05:38.and Cambridge condemned over the failure to improve state school
:05:39. > :05:42.access. They are under fire from state school inspectors because they
:05:43. > :05:48.have not increased state school pupils studying in their colleges. I
:05:49. > :05:54.feel I have read the story a few times! We seem to be in a
:05:55. > :05:59.perpetual... Groundhog Day! This comes up every six months and I
:06:00. > :06:05.wonder where it goes. We get very similar figures, we get very similar
:06:06. > :06:09.statements and then it is parked for another six months. So I'm really
:06:10. > :06:14.not quite sure where this is supposed to go. Having said that, I
:06:15. > :06:21.think there is a case to be made that diverse class rooms and diverse
:06:22. > :06:25.workplaces are better for the economy and there are lots of
:06:26. > :06:28.reports and studies on that. They are better for business and for
:06:29. > :06:35.productivity. Having said that, how do you convince people that they
:06:36. > :06:39.should change? I'm not sure Oxbridge will happen because the government
:06:40. > :06:48.pushes it? The figures are pretty damning. Between 2004 and 2013,
:06:49. > :06:52.independent school pupils still make up two fifths of the intake as
:06:53. > :06:59.Oxford and Cambridge. So we still in a society where if you go to a
:07:00. > :07:02.private school, you are likely to go to Oxbridge. And if you are going to
:07:03. > :07:07.Oxbridge, it makes a huge difference to what happens to the rest of your
:07:08. > :07:11.life. Do you still think that having an Oxford or Cambridge degree makes
:07:12. > :07:16.a marked difference to people even in 2015? I think so, because it
:07:17. > :07:21.gives you that network. You will onto a club and we know, with jobs
:07:22. > :07:25.and things like that, if I'm looking for somebody, I will think of
:07:26. > :07:31.somebody I know. That is the way it works. It is not nepotism, but it is
:07:32. > :07:36.the structure of the world that works anyway. It might be nepotism,
:07:37. > :07:41.it might not be. It is problematic because we have our government to
:07:42. > :07:48.look at. It does change your life to be from that exclusion Oxbridge
:07:49. > :07:51.club. -- exclusive Oxbridge club. But there are more issues that come
:07:52. > :07:57.in which a more problematic for Britain in the long-term. Where you
:07:58. > :08:01.have something that keeps entrenching itself and we are not
:08:02. > :08:05.taking full advantage of the population and the talent that
:08:06. > :08:11.exist. But what you do to force colleges to change their intake? We
:08:12. > :08:14.have to look at our entire education system because the gap between a
:08:15. > :08:21.good private school Andy Goode state school, even a basic state school,
:08:22. > :08:28.-- and a good state school, is huge. Is that down to money? We have not
:08:29. > :08:32.thought about how our state system works. We need people who have come
:08:33. > :08:36.from a not very good state school system and they have been deprived
:08:37. > :08:43.from expressing themselves which is unfair. There is something noted in
:08:44. > :08:50.the story where the Inspectorate welcomed Oxbridge use -- Oxford's
:08:51. > :08:57.use of other methods. That'll be interesting where does take into
:08:58. > :09:02.account the point that we don't necessarily, the cultural capital
:09:03. > :09:06.which is quite elusive. The confidence, the language that is
:09:07. > :09:12.used, that helps private schools students to get through doors. Maybe
:09:13. > :09:17.that is the way forward, if it can be used to identify talent without
:09:18. > :09:23.necessarily using that. Let's look at the Telegraph.
:09:24. > :09:28.Cameron's climb-down on the benefits. It is buried about two
:09:29. > :09:32.fifths of the way down in the story. David Cameron is having a dinner
:09:33. > :09:38.this week on Thursday where he is probably going to say, I know I'm
:09:39. > :09:42.not going to get my limit of four years on people coming from other
:09:43. > :09:46.parts of the EU, that they have to wait four years to claim benefits.
:09:47. > :09:51.But on the other hand in here, they are saying they are going to park it
:09:52. > :09:57.and hope we get it further down the line. Quite confused... The story is
:09:58. > :10:02.not very well written in that respect. You would have expected the
:10:03. > :10:07.Telegraph to have written it more sharply. Essentially, over dinner,
:10:08. > :10:13.he's going to say, you are not inclined to support me in the four
:10:14. > :10:20.year barrier to getting benefits, therefore I am willing to give way
:10:21. > :10:24.on that and... Not a lot of choice! Probably, if you think about it
:10:25. > :10:29.after the meal, we could come back. That might take a long time. But
:10:30. > :10:35.essentially, he is giving way. And what is interesting if having given
:10:36. > :10:41.away on that, it comes back on him. How does he justify it if he says
:10:42. > :10:46.you should vote to stay in the EU. That'll be interesting. I think this
:10:47. > :10:50.is a nonstory. This was such an unlikely demand because it is linked
:10:51. > :10:57.to a larger issue of free movement of people. It is the absolute
:10:58. > :11:01.fundamental basis of the EU. So, then to say that we are not pushing
:11:02. > :11:08.it because we didn't think it was likely but we might come back to it,
:11:09. > :11:13.it feels as if we are trying to make it sound as if we are having a great
:11:14. > :11:20.U-turn, but it would only be a U-turn if there was a lack -- if
:11:21. > :11:24.there was a likelihood. Isn't he playing two games, telling them he
:11:25. > :11:28.is willing to put it on one side and telling the British audience that he
:11:29. > :11:34.hasn't given up. Don't worry, I'm still there fighting for you. He is
:11:35. > :11:41.playing a double game. Shall we look at another story on
:11:42. > :11:45.Jeremy Corbyn. Another 100,000 new members to oust Jeremy Corbyn.
:11:46. > :11:48.Critics who are going to try to flood the party with members who
:11:49. > :11:54.would vote out Jeremy Corbyn at some point. They have also admitted that
:11:55. > :11:58.it will not happen until 2017. The good thing about the story is that
:11:59. > :12:05.they are at least not mentioning the moderates. Until quite far into it
:12:06. > :12:10.which I find quite a strange use of the term "Moderate". But I would
:12:11. > :12:17.love to know where they are going to find these people and whether they
:12:18. > :12:20.will be quite as involved in ousting Jeremy Corbyn. It seems there is an
:12:21. > :12:28.internal conflict and on a popular ground... And watchable sees Labour
:12:29. > :12:34.Party member standing at street corners of saying a don't you join
:12:35. > :12:39.the member ship -- membership. Free membership! I've sadly offended I am
:12:40. > :12:45.not be offered free never ship. But you might get the pen -- free
:12:46. > :12:51.membership. But you might be a potential leader.
:12:52. > :12:56.Can I push you in this direction. Roadworks banished, exclusive. This
:12:57. > :13:00.is the political editor who was one of our paper reviewers. She is
:13:01. > :13:06.reporting this as a victory for our crusade. They have been mounting
:13:07. > :13:12.one, apparently, to stop roadworks in the run-up to Christmas. Do you
:13:13. > :13:17.know about those? I had to come through roadworks to come here! So I
:13:18. > :13:21.don't know, has it been managed in London or other parts? Typical
:13:22. > :13:26.express, this is obviously the story we have all been waiting for! Of the
:13:27. > :13:30.more important than the Christmas dinner. But it is interesting.
:13:31. > :13:37.Before the Olympics, the talk was that all the roadworks would be done
:13:38. > :13:41.and it would all be finished. But it is clear that we are in for a long
:13:42. > :13:50.season, several years of roadworks. Obviously we need infrastructure,
:13:51. > :13:59.infrastructure is old in London of cities -- in London and other
:14:00. > :14:06.cities. It is a hope. Ree. This may be the moment to check your car out.
:14:07. > :14:10.Maybe. They were also -- also told that we were going to limit the
:14:11. > :14:13.distance that roadworks could go across. They were trying to stop the
:14:14. > :14:23.hotspots. The other story on the express is
:14:24. > :14:28.trump's campaign Trail. Mixing up a comparison between Donald Trump and
:14:29. > :14:33.Hillary Clinton and how much they are spending on their campaign. I
:14:34. > :14:37.found this story quite strange because there are some points which
:14:38. > :14:42.are quite fair, that he has had 100,000 supporters who have given
:14:43. > :14:48.him donations of ?40. But at the same time, we are still in the
:14:49. > :14:54.run-up to who gets to be candidate so it is a very odd way of comparing
:14:55. > :15:00.his spending to that of Clinton. Different parties. Hillary Clinton's
:15:01. > :15:10.spending at this stage it is not really as what -- Trump is doing,
:15:11. > :15:17.but to do with party dynamics. If we were comparing Jeb bush who has
:15:18. > :15:23.spent 35 and in to date and is really trailing that would be a
:15:24. > :15:30.story as to why that is happening. But to compare candidates for
:15:31. > :15:35.different parties is odd. You could almost be forgiven for thinking we
:15:36. > :15:40.were talking about the presidential race, not the nominations. But the
:15:41. > :15:44.story is that because Donald Trump is making these statements, and is
:15:45. > :15:49.getting these publicity, he does not need to throw money around. And it
:15:50. > :15:53.is his own money. The others had to go out and get the money. Trump is
:15:54. > :15:57.spending his own money and maybe he has thought that the more outrageous
:15:58. > :16:06.statements he made, the more publicity he gets. When, the last
:16:07. > :16:10.time any primary nomination, did the candidate's words affect the British
:16:11. > :16:14.political scene is Mac even Boris Johnson made a comment on Donald
:16:15. > :16:18.Trump. I can't remember an occasion when a London Mayor commented on
:16:19. > :16:24.somebody who is hoping to get his party's nomination. There is quite a
:16:25. > :16:28.lot to be said for that and the fact that the police commented on it. So
:16:29. > :16:33.it is something, whether we like it or not, if he is running for
:16:34. > :16:36.candidate of the Republican party, and in some ways there is a joke
:16:37. > :16:42.that if the US president claims to be the free world -- leader of the
:16:43. > :16:49.free world, the free world should have a vote on it, which I can back!
:16:50. > :16:51.But at this stage is getting a large amount of publicity and his
:16:52. > :16:57.statements are outrageous. I will still hold of to see what happens to
:16:58. > :17:03.nominations. We are still far away. This does not mean he will crash and
:17:04. > :17:08.burn. But running a presidential nomination, it is not enough to have
:17:09. > :17:11.a lot of airtime, you need an enormous infrastructure. I am not
:17:12. > :17:17.sure he will be able to put that together. But he is a long way ahead
:17:18. > :17:21.in the polls? And to think that is getting 35% of the support, even
:17:22. > :17:26.though it is the Republican party, not in the election, suggest that he
:17:27. > :17:31.is holding in on a sense of dissatisfaction, a sense of anger
:17:32. > :17:34.that there is in some of the American public. One hopes that it
:17:35. > :17:41.does not extend much further than that, but there is a sense of anger
:17:42. > :17:46.and adapt he can articulate it in this fashion -- and that he can
:17:47. > :17:49.articulate it in this fashion. He has not burned out yet, but
:17:50. > :17:54.everything he says makes him more popular. That is it for the papers
:17:55. > :18:01.this hour. A bit longer than normal, which will please some! Sunny and
:18:02. > :18:05.Minir, we will see you again at 1130 when we will see other stories
:18:06. > :18:06.making the news. Your weather forecast comes