No need to wait until tomorrow morning to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.
Browse content similar to 17/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
of the redundancies expected at the port Talbot site. And coming up, we
explore the growing murky for robotic pets. -- the growing market.
Welcome to our look ahead to the morning's papers. The front pages,
starting with the express. It leads with Britain's future in the EU,
saying there is growing support for Britain to leave. The Telegraph, the
main headline, GP waiting lists. It says 10 million patients struggle to
get appointments and record numbers wait over a week. The times, the
plans of David Cameron to integrate Muslim woman into mainstream society
including English classes for migrants. The Guardian, plans by the
NHS to watch a sugar attacks on British hospitals. The Daily Mail,
mounting pressure on Scotland Yard to apologise to award at Bramall
after child abuse allegations were dropped. -- to Lord Bramall. We
start with an interesting front page on the Sun about Jeremy Corbyn's
idea for the Trident submarine fleet. There fears, trapped a
missile. It has a hat on.
It is not a very good pun. Not one of their best.
They have not got a lot to work with. We can tell what they think of
it. We can, but it is wilfully
misunderstanding. The subject of Trident is up for review, many
options are being considered, we don't know what all of them, but one
of them is to to avert potential job losses from scrapping Trident. That
has come up, whereby you would retain the capability that you would
not actually have the warheads. The capacity to fire them, but not the
actual warheads. Which is not as daft as it sounds, as long as you
are still within Nato. It depends what kind of nuclear deterrent you
want. I thought he was a principled
unilateralist who wanted nothing to do with nuclear weapons because they
are a moral abomination. To say that in an -- the event of a war we are
here to fire them if you need is two, that is not unilateralism. And
it's a nonsense of the point of having Trident. Trident has a ship
permanently and patrolling so that within minutes it can act in a
crisis. But if you don't have bombs on the submarine cannot act within
minutes. So the idea of an immediate response from Britain within Nato is
undermined, so it does not serve anyone.
It is wilfully misunderstanding the conversation, not you, I hasten to
add... I am sympathetic to him try to find
a way through this. It is almost as if, you would have
to be not to get rid of Trident. Yet all defence officials have in saying
that Trident is not an effective deterrent -- you would have to be
nuts. It is not a deterrent to the risks we face such as terrorism, it
is an obsolete counter to that. So let's try to find alternatives.
Because claiming that Trident is an effective deterrent is a redundant
conversation. The Telegraph asks whether it would
be any kind of deterrent at all. It probably wouldn't. He is trying
to deter the Blairites from revolting against him. I like the
fact he is a man of principle. I don't share them but it is good to
have somebody who has got some. What a pity, having won the massive
mandate he cannot say, I don't believe we should have nuclear
weapons, they did not help us out in the Falklands, the Gulf War, Iraq,
they are no longer needed, the Cold War is over, my promises to get rid
of them. There are trade unions worried about jobs. MPs who
represent the yards that house Trident. Of course they don't want
to get rid of them. So why not to say, you know what, I'm taking a
bold stance, that is rid of the nukes -- to get rid of.
The times, Cameron tells Muslims women must integrate, is this a good
thing, or interference where it is not needed?
It is hard to tell, I have not seen the editorial. I am in two minds
about this. On the one hand many people are concerned that there are
people in the country who have not integrated into western
understandings of women's rights. And the idea that because society is
too worried about saying something politically incorrect that it will
not challenge things which go against not just Western tradition
but also our laws, when it comes to things like female genital
mutilation. It is right that the government should say to new
immigrants, there is a list of standards of behaviour we expect. On
the other hand, having said that, a defining principle of being British
is that you are left alone unless you break the law. And when Cameron
says he wants to overturn what he says is passive tolerance, I think
he is overturning a cornerstone of the relationship between the British
individual and the state, which is that you are left alone unless you
break the law. I find it hard to stomach, coming
from Cameron, specifically targeting Muslim woman. He is simultaneously
closing woman's refuge centres. For female victims of domestic abuse. So
you suddenly care about women now? Muslim women? I think you would
probably find that most people who migrate to the UK wants to learning
good. But a lot of them haven't. This
would surely at least give a woman the option of knowing what was out
there, what opportunities exist for them...
But those opportunities are not out there from him, that is the point,
he has not provided opportunities, schools for learning
foreign-language is quite the opposite, those services are being
cut along with everything else. If you provided that access you could
then say, are you aware of this resource? They cannot cut it and
then say they should be getting access to it at the same time.
The Telegraph, millions waiting longer to see a GP. I feel I have
been reading these headlines for a long time. Is it getting worse or
staying the same? I don't know if it is getting worse
but more than 10 million patients are struggling to gain appointment.
Again I think this is related to cuts. If you cut social services you
but an additional burden on the NHS which would not otherwise be there.
And as you say this is a continuous story about the NHS struggling in
the face of an onslaught and being squeezed by cuts to cope with an
expanding demand. But I think this story is slanted in a way to suggest
that people want surgery to be open out of hours on the weekends. And,
you know, therefore that should be made possible. I don't think it is
slanted. From reading it. That is where it is going.
But if it is slanted I would not have a problem with that, because it
highlights an unacceptable rise of people waiting a couple of weeks.
And picks up on the fact that receptionists can be rude. There are
issues of funding and there are issues of management.
And issues of manners. Manners as well. There are some
reports showing that do not match what people expect from the NHS.
This is partly due to very generous contracts that Labour negotiated.
Partly due to the fact that there aren't staff at weekends, which is
what the government is trying to work with right now, either way,
funding, yes, but I think this points to questions about how people
manage their surgeries. Should we not change the
expectations of doctors? That it won't be 9-to-5? GPs, I mean.
Because of course, in hospitals, many doctors claim they work
round-the-clock. I don't get this suggestion that GPs
are saying they don't seem to need to work extra hours. But then used
to be more funding. If they are overstretched they will start making
mistakes, which no body wants. The express, the headline, Britain
is ready to quit the EU. Huge boost for the leave campaign. Whereas this
boost come from? A new opinion poll giving a
cessation of 6-point lead to the exit. I am thrilled by that. Why?
Because I want to leave the EU. I have my cards on the table. If you
read on page five, the express makes a link between the desire of people
to leave and they sort of foreign policy crisis taking place in
Europe. Refugee crisis, the terrorist attacks. That is
interesting because pro Europeans could argue that being a member of
the EU actually helps when it comes to security, but they could also
argue that because we are not members of the Schengen zone we are
outside of the issue of how one deals with refugees. Britain is
already cauterised from that. It is frustrating for somebody who wants
to see the EU debated on the basis of economics because I think there
is a business case for leaving. But also on the basis of sovereignty. It
is frustrating, I fear this referendum will be all about
immigration and terrorism. It really should not be.
That is the way that the far right has presented it, to be fair.
I don't think it is the far right doing it.
We can argue about the definition but people are reacting to austerity
and the threat of terror and a perceived threat of migrant drains
on jobs and resources, which actually is a fair and of fear, a
time of austerity, has a few worried about your job, you will be worried
about somebody taking it. But they are not the target, migrants are not
the target. I would personally rather we stayed in Europe but made
it more democratic and accountable. And progressive. Because I do think
freedom of movement is important. And I think the baseline of work
-labour arrangements we have aren't And I think the baseline of work
-labour arrangements we have -- are great, and if we didn't have them,
this government would very quickly take them away.
The NHS to introduce a sugar tax. Internally. Not dependent on the
Treasury. How will they do it? Sorry, really rude, but I just want
to throw in, because I'm so staggered by this, it is the
weirdest front page I have ever seen.
Tell us why in a moment. Rachel, tell us what they are planning.
It will be internal, only operational in hospitals, which I
worry will only affect visitors like us who come in and want a sugary
snack. So they will make a sugary snacks in
the cafe too expensive to bother with?
Yes, yes. But I think it is more of a statement, you know, this is what
the government should be doing. A potential advisory thing. I don't
know how impactful discount to be. Why is it a weird front page?
The colour. I am not being odd! But it looks like clip art. It is a
weird nonstory about the NHS charging you a bit more for
something in the cafe. Is it not about obesity, all of us
eating too much sugar... ? Well that is nice but I don't
suppose the idea of a tax for sugar echoes in terms of intake the
British consume far less sugar than they have done since the 1970s. The
intake is way down. The reason we are fat and abuses because we do not
exercise. We are not moving. This will simple punish poorer people, it
is a kind of VAT, a cost added onto your Coca-Cola. What we really
should be doing to people, the NHS, saying to people, get out, stop
driving around, sitting at your desk all day, exercise.
We actually agree! On a lot of things!
I don't know about a lot of things! We got through it. Still to come,
President Obama hails the deal with