28/12/2015 The Papers


No need to wait until tomorrow morning to see what's in the papers - tune in to BBC News and hear a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers


With me are Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor for the


London Evening Standard and the broadcaster Petrie Hoskin.


The flooding in northern England is again on


a number of tomorrow's front pages with the Guardian saying the cost


The Telegraph has a photograph of a RAF Chinook flying past


York Minister as it helps with the efforts to


The paper's main story is about a planned change to stamp duty


on second homes which critics have dubbed a tax on marriage.


The Financial Times reports that 10,000 homes are built


on floodplains every year and says David Cameron has been


accused of a north-south divide on flood prevention.


The Mirror also says that anger is mounting in affected


The Daily Mail has a striking image of a woman cleaning the window


in a wine bar in York as flood waters wash against the other side.


Its main story is about the fatal shooting


And that shooting by a fellow resident at an Essex care home


The Independent focuses on politics saying that Jeremy Corbyn


has challenged Davie Cameron to take part in an annual TV debate.


And the Times returns to the flooding, reporting that uninsured


Uninsured flood that Adams, ?1 billion bill? This is talking about


the financial cost, particularly the five DN pound cost, economic damage


predicted by financial experts involved in looking at this. -- ?5


billion. Some of that cost will be borne by people who have been unable


or failed to insure their homes. In the past, it has been talked about


some people not being able to get insurance because of where they


live, and there should be a government backed scheme that was


supposed to allow people to insure, that has taken too long, and a


Federation of Small Businesses has said that 50,000 small businesses


have been refused cover, and areas have become uninhabitable because of


that problem. Nvidia wants to buy or run a business in a place where you


can't get flood insurance, and they will be potentially regularly hit by


floods. It is a particular take on the chaos that we have seen, the


terrible scenes we have seen affecting people, and it clearly is


a big issue. If we have people in vulnerable areas and they can't get


cover, it seems wrong. There may be people who just don't know they are


not covered. Exactly, there will be several people who have just


discovered that because of the insurance policies they have. I


don't know where people whose cars have been submerged... Isn't that an


act of God? Isn't there some kind of loopholes, and can you even insure


against that? The terrible ripple effect just goes on and on. But the


question will be, and the insurance company will be asking this because


they might be asked to do something they don't want to do, which is


paying out to everyone, should the government pick up the bill where


people are not adequately insured? If that is the case, are you opening


a problem around the rest of the country for the rest of us who may


not be adequately insured, and they think, its OK, the government will


pick up the bill. We know the human misery of this, that if the


government does pay for people who haven't been adequately insured,


that could be a problem. That would be a lot of money, and at the moment


it was the north-east and north-west, the Somerset Levels was


washed out, and further down towards Dorset and Cornwall. We are talking


billions of pounds potentially. There is no suggestion they will.


No, but if they do, and they will be called to. The question should also


be that there has been talks of getting a proper industry scheme


that allows people to be insured, but has that happened? The misery of


what people have faced is direct and immediate at the moment, but it is


compounded by the fact that you can't then recover your business or


home or replace the items. If this scheme was up and running, the


government would be underwriting it. There has to be a way that the


government is not becoming an insurance policy, and that the flood


defences are there. We don't build on floodplains, all of these other


things, so the government does not become an insurance company. People


are saying the government could mitigate the effects of these, and


one of them is stopping developers building on floodplains. Figures


show 10,000 homes are still being built on floodplains every year. The


latest figures they have a 2013-14, but one in every 14 homes is still


built on a floodplain. This is what I'm talking about, it is too late at


the end of the day to get a big bill and then just pay it. Why don't we


look at where you build. If you build on a floodplain you have to


pay for flood defences, and when they burst you have to have paid the


people's homes. This is a long-standing issue, concerned that


homes are being built in high-risk areas. It continues to happen. It


has been talked about at times that there should be better flood


proofing of homes, so they have waterproof plaster and electrics


further up the walls, et cetera. It will be interesting to know how many


homes in these areas have any of those. I would bet it would be very


few. One suspect it is cheap to build on a floodplain. The land is


probably quite cheap to buy, but not for the homeowner who then has to


pay higher insurance or is not insured and can't get insurance. And


also, leaving aside the underwriting of insurance, because of course they


are having to deploy the army and all of these emergency services. It


is understandable with a direct me emergency like this, but all of that


costs money. A big up to the armed forces who are doing this, let's


hope there are no more cuts to their numbers, because they are working


very hard. The front page of the Daily Mirror, anger mounting over


cuts to defences as cost of misery rises. This is really picking up on


the North/ South divide feeling that we have coming through, with a Leeds


City Council complaining that only a small scheme was approved,


protecting a small part of the city. But a much larger amount for the


Thames Valley in the south has been approved, and there is this issue


that not enough money is being spent on the north. David Cameron says in


terms of per head of population more money is spent in the north. I think


that is highly spurious, because it depends what the risk is, and I


think the risk is more in the north and the south. Yes, it is obviously


going to be a continuing political debate, which I'm sure the


opposition will push. Is there something in your estimation that


could seriously harm David Cameron and the government in terms of


popularity? I'm not sure that that is his heartland. Say you are


reinforcing the point that he doesn't give a monkey? -- a


monkey's? I think there are previous governments that have failed in this


way as well. That ?180 million bill looks very small now, but we don't


know if it would have worked. We could all say, that would have saved


everyone, and it might have done but it might not. This weather is


unprecedented. And while many politicians think that they are


God, they are not responsible for the rain. Let's go on to the


Independent and move away from the floods for a while. Jeremy Corbyn


challenges David Cameron to an annual TV debate, taking his cue


from recent elections. You think this is a terrible idea. I think it


would be boring. First of all, I actually want politicians to do


something quite extraordinary, and that is the jobs that we pay them to


do. I don't want them to be worrying about cameras and TV programmes and


script writing, and more platitudes and arguments and... I am so bored


of it. And I think the nation is. Once every five years, fine, if that


is what you want to do, and you might have something interesting to


say. But once a year? Even people who like sport wouldn't want the


Olympics every year, would they? I suppose Jeremy Corbyn is making the


point that it is trying to hold the government to account. Then do it in


the Commons as an opposition leader. This might be the real point for


some people, that perhaps Jeremy Corbyn hasn't really been doing


that. He started well with his first one, people quite like that


different style, perhaps he hasn't been doing it, but why not see it?


Why not give him a chance. Do it in the Commons, he gets that every


week. It is quite short, and controlled, and anything that gives


a chance to see more politics if they want to, it is not a bad thing.


You know as well as I do it will be used as a sort of nothing nonsense.


They won't say or do anything, or actually achieve anything, they are


just going to be themselves up. It is better than hiding behind a few


partly filmed broadcasts. To be a good opposition leader you don't


need to be on television, you need to do it with your policies. There


is nothing wrong with television expert a lot of jibber jabber. But


you actually believe it would open the government to some scrutiny. You


would be watching it every five minutes. OK, The Times. The honours


list is dominated by public school elite. Yes, this is no progress


story. The domination of private school people is just as great as it


was 50 years ago, and 48% of honours recipients are former public school


people, and that is pretty much the same as it was in 1955. It is a


shame, of course there are arguments as to why that is, but it doesn't


seem right that 6% also go to private schools, and yet they are


still dominating society, not just in terms of the honours, but in


terms of the professions and all sorts of main areas of public life.


37% of them went to Oxford or Cambridge. I don't know what that


says. Does it say that private education is just that much better?


Does it say that people are more aspirational. I'm not saying that it


does, I'm asking. What does it say about society? And oldboys'


network? I'm sure some of that is the case, not all of them. Some of


them are very good schools, and people can't be faulted for going to


a good school and making the best of it, but it is not a satisfactory


situation. I will say that I am annoyed, Clive, by actors who get


these gongs for just being actors. Fair enough, Babs Windsor, but if


you are well played person -- well-paid person doing the job you


love to do, would I give them an award? Not unless they have done


something special. They are doing exactly what they want to do. And,


we are spending loads of cash due to the extra shopping day. ?1.75


billion, according to this front page. Did you buy anything special?


Absolutely not, I don't like shopping. We couldn't have spent


that much. I have come through London quite often on Boxing Day at


about 9pm, and it is always absolutely rammed with people. We


will end up there. Many thanks. Stay with us, Sportsday is next.


Download Subtitles