:00:00. > :00:16.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers
:00:17. > :00:20.With me are Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor for the
:00:21. > :00:26.London Evening Standard and the broadcaster Petrie Hoskin.
:00:27. > :00:28.The flooding in northern England is again on
:00:29. > :00:31.a number of tomorrow's front pages with the Guardian saying the cost
:00:32. > :00:38.The Telegraph has a photograph of a RAF Chinook flying past
:00:39. > :00:41.York Minister as it helps with the efforts to
:00:42. > :00:47.The paper's main story is about a planned change to stamp duty
:00:48. > :00:51.on second homes which critics have dubbed a tax on marriage.
:00:52. > :00:53.The Financial Times reports that 10,000 homes are built
:00:54. > :00:56.on floodplains every year and says David Cameron has been
:00:57. > :01:01.accused of a north-south divide on flood prevention.
:01:02. > :01:03.The Mirror also says that anger is mounting in affected
:01:04. > :01:10.The Daily Mail has a striking image of a woman cleaning the window
:01:11. > :01:16.in a wine bar in York as flood waters wash against the other side.
:01:17. > :01:18.Its main story is about the fatal shooting
:01:19. > :01:24.And that shooting by a fellow resident at an Essex care home
:01:25. > :01:30.The Independent focuses on politics saying that Jeremy Corbyn
:01:31. > :01:34.has challenged Davie Cameron to take part in an annual TV debate.
:01:35. > :01:37.And the Times returns to the flooding, reporting that uninsured
:01:38. > :02:00.Uninsured flood that Adams, ?1 billion bill? This is talking about
:02:01. > :02:06.the financial cost, particularly the five DN pound cost, economic damage
:02:07. > :02:12.predicted by financial experts involved in looking at this. -- ?5
:02:13. > :02:18.billion. Some of that cost will be borne by people who have been unable
:02:19. > :02:22.or failed to insure their homes. In the past, it has been talked about
:02:23. > :02:27.some people not being able to get insurance because of where they
:02:28. > :02:37.live, and there should be a government backed scheme that was
:02:38. > :02:42.supposed to allow people to insure, that has taken too long, and a
:02:43. > :02:46.Federation of Small Businesses has said that 50,000 small businesses
:02:47. > :02:51.have been refused cover, and areas have become uninhabitable because of
:02:52. > :02:56.that problem. Nvidia wants to buy or run a business in a place where you
:02:57. > :03:01.can't get flood insurance, and they will be potentially regularly hit by
:03:02. > :03:06.floods. It is a particular take on the chaos that we have seen, the
:03:07. > :03:10.terrible scenes we have seen affecting people, and it clearly is
:03:11. > :03:15.a big issue. If we have people in vulnerable areas and they can't get
:03:16. > :03:21.cover, it seems wrong. There may be people who just don't know they are
:03:22. > :03:24.not covered. Exactly, there will be several people who have just
:03:25. > :03:34.discovered that because of the insurance policies they have. I
:03:35. > :03:40.don't know where people whose cars have been submerged... Isn't that an
:03:41. > :03:47.act of God? Isn't there some kind of loopholes, and can you even insure
:03:48. > :03:51.against that? The terrible ripple effect just goes on and on. But the
:03:52. > :03:55.question will be, and the insurance company will be asking this because
:03:56. > :03:59.they might be asked to do something they don't want to do, which is
:04:00. > :04:03.paying out to everyone, should the government pick up the bill where
:04:04. > :04:07.people are not adequately insured? If that is the case, are you opening
:04:08. > :04:11.a problem around the rest of the country for the rest of us who may
:04:12. > :04:15.not be adequately insured, and they think, its OK, the government will
:04:16. > :04:20.pick up the bill. We know the human misery of this, that if the
:04:21. > :04:27.government does pay for people who haven't been adequately insured,
:04:28. > :04:32.that could be a problem. That would be a lot of money, and at the moment
:04:33. > :04:35.it was the north-east and north-west, the Somerset Levels was
:04:36. > :04:41.washed out, and further down towards Dorset and Cornwall. We are talking
:04:42. > :04:48.billions of pounds potentially. There is no suggestion they will.
:04:49. > :04:58.No, but if they do, and they will be called to. The question should also
:04:59. > :05:02.be that there has been talks of getting a proper industry scheme
:05:03. > :05:10.that allows people to be insured, but has that happened? The misery of
:05:11. > :05:14.what people have faced is direct and immediate at the moment, but it is
:05:15. > :05:19.compounded by the fact that you can't then recover your business or
:05:20. > :05:24.home or replace the items. If this scheme was up and running, the
:05:25. > :05:27.government would be underwriting it. There has to be a way that the
:05:28. > :05:32.government is not becoming an insurance policy, and that the flood
:05:33. > :05:37.defences are there. We don't build on floodplains, all of these other
:05:38. > :05:43.things, so the government does not become an insurance company. People
:05:44. > :05:46.are saying the government could mitigate the effects of these, and
:05:47. > :05:51.one of them is stopping developers building on floodplains. Figures
:05:52. > :05:58.show 10,000 homes are still being built on floodplains every year. The
:05:59. > :06:02.latest figures they have a 2013-14, but one in every 14 homes is still
:06:03. > :06:07.built on a floodplain. This is what I'm talking about, it is too late at
:06:08. > :06:17.the end of the day to get a big bill and then just pay it. Why don't we
:06:18. > :06:21.look at where you build. If you build on a floodplain you have to
:06:22. > :06:28.pay for flood defences, and when they burst you have to have paid the
:06:29. > :06:30.people's homes. This is a long-standing issue, concerned that
:06:31. > :06:42.homes are being built in high-risk areas. It continues to happen. It
:06:43. > :06:46.has been talked about at times that there should be better flood
:06:47. > :06:50.proofing of homes, so they have waterproof plaster and electrics
:06:51. > :06:57.further up the walls, et cetera. It will be interesting to know how many
:06:58. > :07:07.homes in these areas have any of those. I would bet it would be very
:07:08. > :07:13.few. One suspect it is cheap to build on a floodplain. The land is
:07:14. > :07:16.probably quite cheap to buy, but not for the homeowner who then has to
:07:17. > :07:22.pay higher insurance or is not insured and can't get insurance. And
:07:23. > :07:27.also, leaving aside the underwriting of insurance, because of course they
:07:28. > :07:32.are having to deploy the army and all of these emergency services. It
:07:33. > :07:43.is understandable with a direct me emergency like this, but all of that
:07:44. > :07:46.costs money. A big up to the armed forces who are doing this, let's
:07:47. > :07:51.hope there are no more cuts to their numbers, because they are working
:07:52. > :08:05.very hard. The front page of the Daily Mirror, anger mounting over
:08:06. > :08:11.cuts to defences as cost of misery rises. This is really picking up on
:08:12. > :08:22.the North/ South divide feeling that we have coming through, with a Leeds
:08:23. > :08:26.City Council complaining that only a small scheme was approved,
:08:27. > :08:31.protecting a small part of the city. But a much larger amount for the
:08:32. > :08:35.Thames Valley in the south has been approved, and there is this issue
:08:36. > :08:43.that not enough money is being spent on the north. David Cameron says in
:08:44. > :08:48.terms of per head of population more money is spent in the north. I think
:08:49. > :08:52.that is highly spurious, because it depends what the risk is, and I
:08:53. > :09:03.think the risk is more in the north and the south. Yes, it is obviously
:09:04. > :09:09.going to be a continuing political debate, which I'm sure the
:09:10. > :09:12.opposition will push. Is there something in your estimation that
:09:13. > :09:16.could seriously harm David Cameron and the government in terms of
:09:17. > :09:21.popularity? I'm not sure that that is his heartland. Say you are
:09:22. > :09:35.reinforcing the point that he doesn't give a monkey? -- a
:09:36. > :09:42.monkey's? I think there are previous governments that have failed in this
:09:43. > :09:48.way as well. That ?180 million bill looks very small now, but we don't
:09:49. > :09:51.know if it would have worked. We could all say, that would have saved
:09:52. > :09:57.everyone, and it might have done but it might not. This weather is
:09:58. > :10:00.unprecedented. And while many politicians think that they are
:10:01. > :10:06.God, they are not responsible for the rain. Let's go on to the
:10:07. > :10:11.Independent and move away from the floods for a while. Jeremy Corbyn
:10:12. > :10:21.challenges David Cameron to an annual TV debate, taking his cue
:10:22. > :10:27.from recent elections. You think this is a terrible idea. I think it
:10:28. > :10:33.would be boring. First of all, I actually want politicians to do
:10:34. > :10:37.something quite extraordinary, and that is the jobs that we pay them to
:10:38. > :10:42.do. I don't want them to be worrying about cameras and TV programmes and
:10:43. > :10:49.script writing, and more platitudes and arguments and... I am so bored
:10:50. > :10:54.of it. And I think the nation is. Once every five years, fine, if that
:10:55. > :10:59.is what you want to do, and you might have something interesting to
:11:00. > :11:04.say. But once a year? Even people who like sport wouldn't want the
:11:05. > :11:07.Olympics every year, would they? I suppose Jeremy Corbyn is making the
:11:08. > :11:12.point that it is trying to hold the government to account. Then do it in
:11:13. > :11:16.the Commons as an opposition leader. This might be the real point for
:11:17. > :11:22.some people, that perhaps Jeremy Corbyn hasn't really been doing
:11:23. > :11:28.that. He started well with his first one, people quite like that
:11:29. > :11:34.different style, perhaps he hasn't been doing it, but why not see it?
:11:35. > :11:39.Why not give him a chance. Do it in the Commons, he gets that every
:11:40. > :11:42.week. It is quite short, and controlled, and anything that gives
:11:43. > :11:49.a chance to see more politics if they want to, it is not a bad thing.
:11:50. > :11:54.You know as well as I do it will be used as a sort of nothing nonsense.
:11:55. > :12:00.They won't say or do anything, or actually achieve anything, they are
:12:01. > :12:06.just going to be themselves up. It is better than hiding behind a few
:12:07. > :12:09.partly filmed broadcasts. To be a good opposition leader you don't
:12:10. > :12:17.need to be on television, you need to do it with your policies. There
:12:18. > :12:25.is nothing wrong with television expert a lot of jibber jabber. But
:12:26. > :12:29.you actually believe it would open the government to some scrutiny. You
:12:30. > :12:40.would be watching it every five minutes. OK, The Times. The honours
:12:41. > :12:50.list is dominated by public school elite. Yes, this is no progress
:12:51. > :12:55.story. The domination of private school people is just as great as it
:12:56. > :12:59.was 50 years ago, and 48% of honours recipients are former public school
:13:00. > :13:05.people, and that is pretty much the same as it was in 1955. It is a
:13:06. > :13:11.shame, of course there are arguments as to why that is, but it doesn't
:13:12. > :13:15.seem right that 6% also go to private schools, and yet they are
:13:16. > :13:20.still dominating society, not just in terms of the honours, but in
:13:21. > :13:28.terms of the professions and all sorts of main areas of public life.
:13:29. > :13:32.37% of them went to Oxford or Cambridge. I don't know what that
:13:33. > :13:36.says. Does it say that private education is just that much better?
:13:37. > :13:43.Does it say that people are more aspirational. I'm not saying that it
:13:44. > :13:48.does, I'm asking. What does it say about society? And oldboys'
:13:49. > :13:53.network? I'm sure some of that is the case, not all of them. Some of
:13:54. > :13:57.them are very good schools, and people can't be faulted for going to
:13:58. > :14:03.a good school and making the best of it, but it is not a satisfactory
:14:04. > :14:14.situation. I will say that I am annoyed, Clive, by actors who get
:14:15. > :14:23.these gongs for just being actors. Fair enough, Babs Windsor, but if
:14:24. > :14:30.you are well played person -- well-paid person doing the job you
:14:31. > :14:34.love to do, would I give them an award? Not unless they have done
:14:35. > :14:44.something special. They are doing exactly what they want to do. And,
:14:45. > :14:50.we are spending loads of cash due to the extra shopping day. ?1.75
:14:51. > :14:58.billion, according to this front page. Did you buy anything special?
:14:59. > :15:05.Absolutely not, I don't like shopping. We couldn't have spent
:15:06. > :15:10.that much. I have come through London quite often on Boxing Day at
:15:11. > :15:19.about 9pm, and it is always absolutely rammed with people. We
:15:20. > :15:22.will end up there. Many thanks. Stay with us, Sportsday is next.