23/01/2016 The Papers

Labour reveals more details of the tax deal between the Chancellor and

Google. Hello and welcome to our look ahead

at the papers. With us is the deputy opinion editor. You have been

rebranded. Neil Midgley is still the media commentator at Forbes. The

front pages. Starting with the Observer. It says David Cameron is

considering plans to allow unaccompanied migrant children into

Britain. The Sunday express leads with the falling on a plan to attack

London, Brighton, Bath and Ipswich. Conservative infighting deepens over

staying in the European Union. The independent shows rows of cars under

snow on the US East coast. The Sunday Times has the story that a

former British spy will expose what he says was an MI5 knowledge of

torture at Guantanamo Bay. Let's begin with the Telegraph, give a

share in the Falklands to Argentina says Corbyn. What is he proposing?

Many people compared him to Michael foot taking the leadership of the

Labour Party in the early 80s and it looks like Corbyn is trying his

hardest to turn the next election in 21983 and a Tory landslide by

apparently telling the outgoing Argentine ambassador to the UK

Alicia Castro that there should be a power-sharing deal over the

Falklands. In the same manner as Northern Ireland so Argentina would

get a say in how they are run. It is a view. It's interesting that the

plan was first discussed before Jeremy Corbyn became leader which

implies maybe the whole thing was a story from before he was leader and

it's not actually a current dialogue airing on. It has only just come to

light now that he is leader. It is just the back catalogue of Jeremy

Corbyn being slowly released. A retrospective! When he was on The

Andrew Marr Show he did talk about the Falklands and in a way, if you

look at it logically, why should Britain have these bunch of

Ireland's that are just off the coast of Argentina on the other side

of the world? Obviously the reason... Why should it? Mainly

because Argentina invaded the islands and because of that it is

rewarding that illegal activity. Therefore it would be seen as

rewarding a bully but it can be the only real explanation. Isn't the

more common-sense reason which is that the islanders themselves

rightly or wrongly want to be British? Overwhelmingly. Because

they are. If you are a colonial power you can go to Ireland, drive

away the natives and install your own population. By your logic

whatever happens they should hold them in perpetuity. It happened a

long time ago and they are descendants of the original

settlers. The idea of democracy is a grey area in this case. I'm not sure

it is. They are an indigenous population, whether you like the way

they got there in the first place or not. These are windswept islands in

the South Atlantic with a small number of people who are Brits and

want to be British. It's not like Northern Ireland where there are

genuinely two sides and there are still people who want to be part of

the Irish Republic and some sort of deal had to be done in order for the

people who live there to get some sort of satisfaction but in this

case we are talking about satisfying the theoretical requirements of the

Argentine government, and presumably electoral popularity for whichever

party is in power in Argentina. Whether this is an old story or not,

if Corbyn wants to give a bump to the Tories in the opinion polls,

there is no better way! It is absolutely true that British people

want the Falkland Islands to remain British which doesn't necessarily

mean it is correct, whether it is justified, but certainly

electorally, if I was Jeremy Corbyn I would leave that aside. I have let

them disagree long enough. I enjoyed that. Well done. MPs need help

against violent public according to a report by psychiatrists? This is a

deeply worrying report in a way. Obviously the fact that MPs are

getting abused as they leave the front door is really awful and you

can see that there are stories, regular stories in which MPs are

vilified and accused of fiddling expenses and all manner of things.

They are talking about having to see their therapists and take medication

for anxiety or depression because of their experiences at the hands of

the public with marriage is close to breakdown. One MP has to get her

husband look down the street before she can leave the front door and has

panic attacks several times a day. These people are running the country

and they are meant to be debating and looking after our interests and

if they are all in need of extreme psychiatric help then it does make

you worry about how we are being represented. And also their mental

health and what on earth is going on that has created this situation? It

is a very serious story, one mentions marriage close to breakdown

the spouse was holding BMP spouse -- the MP spouse responsible for the

amorous attentions of a constituent which is difficult to navigate. It

is a difficult story. My response was that a lot of Labour MPs of

course potentially need help against violent supporters of their own

leader! He made threats against them on Twitter the day after they voted

in favour of bombing Syria. They now face deselection. Any violence,

humour aside, any violence or threat of islands in politics is not the

British way. It is not acceptable. In the age of social media where

people can make very nasty threats at the click of a button very

publicly, it makes it even more difficult. I think that is right,

because the threats that you mentioned come through Twitter and

Facebook. People have much more... They can talk to their MPs and have

more contact now than they had before. They can never switch off.

Always accessible. Britain poised to open the door to thousands of

migrant children. The PM is considering calls by charities.

There has been criticism for months about the fact Britain is not doing

its fair share to help those trying to reach the EU. Yes, and apparently

around 3000 unaccompanied young people, this is the key. It is not

children who are migrating or who are refugees with their parents,

these are kids who have somehow got separated from their parents. And

who could potentially fall prey to people traffickers and apparently

the UK might back seat to a charitable request to take some or

all of those kids in. On a humanitarian level you have to say

it's hard to see an argument against that. The one thing that did cross

my mind when I read the story is the law of unintended consequences, what

do you encourage in the future if you say in unaccompanied child, we

will take them in no matter what? Do you then encourage people in Syria

or elsewhere to push their kids out into the world by themselves? And it

has to be properly planned, if these children are coming to the country

they have to be put in safe environments and they would be the

responsibility of social services which in many places are stretched.

It's not to say that people shouldn't try to do it if that is

the decision. The pitiful pledge that David Cameron made a few months

ago to take in 4000 migrants a year when hundreds of thousands are

coming into Europe, at least this goes a little way to redressing

that. These children are deeply endangered. I don't know many

parents who would send their children out just on their own, to

children out just on their own, to take their chances in Europe.

Parents are already risking their lives by taking them on small boats

from Turkey. Absolutely, and we know the risks that families are taking

and these children may have been separated in the perilous crossings.

They have already been suffering I being separated from their family

and they are young and unaccompanied. If Britain can do

something to help it has to be applauded. Look at the Independent

on Sunday, schools are being told to drop university snobbery and stop

thinking that a degree course is better than having a skill. Discuss.

Is it still? We have had 20 years in which higher education has been seen

as the entry to achievement and aspiration... And higher earnings.

As has always been the argument when tuition fees have been introduced

and increased, you know, graduates will get higher earnings and we have

had 20 years in which we have now achieved 50% of the population going

to higher education, and it now seems that the government's

education Minister Nicky Morgan wants to turn back the clock and

have children going back towards apprenticeships even if they are

qualified to go to university so it seems a very strange thing. There

are some statistics. A recent study by the Sutton trust, and educational

think tank, found that 65% of teachers would not advise a pupil

with the grades necessary for university to pursue an

apprenticeship. What are the other 35% doing? If the kid is bright

enough to go to university, and all other things are equal, they should

be going to university, surely? It depends whether their preference

would be to have an apprenticeship in something else that wasn't so

academic necessarily. Maybe more practical. There are not degrees in

everything but there are in like subjects and if you're

apprenticeship will be in napkin folding or something equally light,

then there is and a great deal to choose. We need more plumbers and

electricians and engineers. If those are the kind of apprenticeships that

Nicky Morgan is pushing, then of course for the right candidates that

is the right thing to push. If you have got a kid who has got the

grades to study maths at Imperial College London, to say, it is

equally valid for you to think an apprenticeship in hairdressing is OK

is bonkers. We have too many kids going to university. Lifting the cap

on student numbers. It is getting so expensive that many people will

choose not to go. The Daily Mail, Muslim peer says, axe minarets to

make masks fit in. A bit of architecture competition? Baroness

Warsi, always good value. She will launch a competition to design a new

mosque will stop boosting religious tolerance. -- a new mosque. She

thinks they should fit in better with the British landscape. Maybe

that means having steeples or bell towers or pews or stained glass.

Instead of... Mosques do have minarets,... The idea is that they

call people to prayer, but now they use loud-hailers and they don't need

a minaret. It is rebranding is land? Making it British. -- rebranding

Islam. Lots of people think Islam is from the Middle Ages and they see it

as... The regular media portrayal of Islam is as a religion living in the

past and she is attempting to redress that by modernising it. In

some ways it may actually help, it seems a crazy idea, but why... I'm

not Muslim and I don't know the essential elements of a mosque, but

possibly minarets aren't? He has looked perplexed throughout the

entire review. It is a perplexing story. I love it actually. They will

be back again perplexed or not at 11:30pm. Thank you. Coming up next

it is Reporters.