23/01/2016 The Papers


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.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles