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 24/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Let's see if we can get through the papers.
Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers
With me are Reuters business correspondent and author,
Tom Bergin, and broadcaster Joan Bakewell.
The Metro leads with the killer storm in the US, saying
Britain is poised for new floods as the storm crosses the atlantic.
The Telegraph's headline says patients are being given replacement
"IVF hope for older women," is the i's lead, saying
a controversial cell technique aims to make older eggs young again.
The Independent features a picture of one
of four dead whales, which have washed up on the North Sea coast.
The Express looks at why diet is key to beating arthritis,
saying that simple changes could ease agony for millions.
"Osborne in 3 billion pound vow to beat malaria," is the Times's lead
story, which says taxpayers are to fund the bulk of a new deal with
And the Guardian says asylum seekers in Cardiff are being issued with
coloured wristbands for food handouts.
We will start with the story on the front of the Times, George Osborne
in ?3 billion vow to beat malaria. I never liked the word vow. Taxpayer
funds with deal with Bill Gates. Him and his wife, Melinda, have been
battling malaria three years. They have been very generous and their
foundation has poured money into this. The vow of 3 billion is not
new money. It is coming from the existing budget. It is not new cash
at all -- three million. It has been taken from the budget, the
international development budget, and it will help do something about
this. I am not sure people welcome because the spill of malaria affects
us all, if it is affecting Africa, as it does and the idea is to
eliminate malaria, building on a commitment made by George Osborne
when visiting Uganda. This is the kind of deal that gets done in
Davos. In the luxury surroundings. I can guarantee you some of the
development budget over a drink. The fact it isn't you money, I wonder if
it will make a difference to the effectiveness in other parts.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul? I suppose it is not new money, so it will have
an impact... George Osborne made clear he wanted to spend the aid
budget more effectively. One of the things that jumps out at me, I can't
help but wonder if it is not also about helping George Osborne. He
obviously has ambitions to succeed David Cameron but he has got an
image problem. He doesn't look like a nice guy. He has been the person
to deliver the bad news art Bell over -- deliver the bad news over
the last couple of years. This mightn't be hurtful to his political
career. This would obviously serve that purpose. It would help his
image if he gave up the high viz clothing. And stop being
photographed in factories which are closing down. I suppose he is trying
to show that Britain can be effective overseas. That is very
good. Not just handing out money. It is often criticised that we give
money to places and we don't know where it will end up. It is easy to
knock the international development. What does it mean? Giving to people
money. This is going on a thoroughly good cause. Let's look at the Daily
Telegraph. Send soldiers to EU borders. Britain is told this. Who
is doing the telling? The Czech President giving this advice.
Britain does not take orders from the Czech President, as wise as they
might be on occasion. In this particular case, he is advising,
maybe a more kind of robust response, a militaristic response to
the refugee crisis. Clearly, eastern European countries are very
concerned. And there is a problem. Vast numbers are coming to Europe.
Certain countries say they cannot handle those. The question is what
to do. The suggestion is Britain and others should send soldiers to the
borders and take a more robust approach. The question is, are
people ready for that? Do people want a situation whereby there is a
heavily militarised European border? Whether the public is ready is
unclear. We get away with it a little bit, don't we? When you call
in the military, you are taking another step. This is the difference
between Eastern European members of the European Union and the West. In
fact, they are much more aggressive in keeping people out. The barbed
wire is going up in Hungary and elsewhere. They want the European
countries to send in 500 soldiers to patrol the border is. It is just
another step -- borders. The whole thing is a mess. The crisis will get
better. There are big meetings going on, they will go on until some
solution, which is not yet on the horizon, arises to deal with this
problem. Shall we move on to the FT? A couple of stories. First, leaving
the EU will damage UK's global influence according to big Pharma.
This is drug makers this time. We have heard warnings from other parts
of the industry. Saying that it would mean isolation for
scientists. I've heard that they would really miss not so much
funding from the EU but the opportunity to participate in
research. I think there is a sense that... Being part of the EU opens
up science to mutual sopping of information, research, enterprise,
checkouts, various ways for testing drugs. I think that Big Pharma is
probably right. The influence would be diminished. It is in the interest
of global companies to see we remain part of a strong EU. There were huge
drug companies before the European Union was in its current form. So,
some might argue, if you want to collaborate, you will find our way.
S universities have made a similar comment. -- universities. It is
quite well understood that big businesses favour membership. We are
just seeing more of the same. I am not sure if this is the strongest
thing, participation in favour of the campaign. The exit campaign is
saying that actually small businesses are much more mixed and
would prefer to go out. But we have not seen any polls that are very
good on that. It is interesting. He says, she says, it is quite a
superficial level. It would be interesting to take it to a more
detailed level. That is quite complicated. Trade deals, we have
the exit campaign saying we should leave and cut trade deals, for those
who want to stay in the issue is, well, that is not very realistic.
Almeida trading partners don't want to cut deals with us -- our main
trading partners. This is a level of detail which is more difficult to
publish. Plenty of deals going on with Iran, 114 Airbus jets to
Rahane's business bonanza -- Rouhani. And the Chinese are right
on the next plane and did a deal. Now they are doing a deal with the
French. They were in readiness. They had made big plans. So have other
countries. We are not there yet. We tried to. We hope to be. It is
interesting, they upload and in to become a major country in the
region. We all know the great rivalry with the Saudis will be
problematic. They are getting stuck in. It will be very interesting.
With lots of planes flying to and fro it could be a big travel hub.
Absolutely. And Iran have said they want to be a travel hub. They want
to be players in the aviation industry. Maybe come rivals to the
Gulf players like Qatar and MRes. That is a reflection of their bigger
political ambitions, to be a regional superpower -- Emirates. Not
just in terms of security but also economically. They have potential to
do that. They have vast oil reserves and they have population. This will
be something that will start to worry their neighbours. We know that
oil prices are going down and the industry isn't booming. Tourism
could boom, couldn't it? They could well start with weekends over there,
or longer, or tours. Once the country opened up we will be
queueing up. Returning to the Times. BBC will plead with pensioners to
give up free TV licences. This is because the BBC is going to bear the
cost of free licenses for the over 75. The idea is that well-known
people connected with the BBC will be asked to support this idea. S not
wheeled out but asked to support -- not wheeled out. They will stride
out. This is an interesting one. It is a campaign to ask people to not
accept the free licence fee and to pay it and help make up the
shortfall that has been imposed upon the BBC. I have to say, if we look
at previous campaigns, where people are encouraged not to accept things
for free, they don't work very well. The winter fuel allowance is an
example. It is a bigger issue here, the government was looking at the
BBC are many in the Conservative Party are not the biggest fans of
the BBC and feel it is not their biggest fan, despite the fact that
BBC gives a considerable amount of time to politicians. Maybe
politicians might want to think about that. So, whether this
particular campaign will work, that'll be open to see. Of course,
Joe, with your track record, they might ask you to... I do back the
idea but I think it is more symbolic than anything else. We back the BBC.
Don't let them ruin it. We have one of the most precious institutions in
the world of media, and the Tories seem to want to dismantle it, and
people are speaking out and trying to defend it. A has said it is to be
in places and that it has to think carefully about how it spends the
license fees and whether it should be trying to fulfil the areas of the
market refuses to fulfil. The market is quite busy and it is not to be
unremarked that there are voices in the year of the government that are
trying to dismantle it. Not to mention the person who owns the
Times. That is true. Also, it is a deliberate attempt to deal with the
BBC why hamstring tactics. It is virtually unconstitutional in terms
of the way the BBC was set up. And Murdoch is having a big say.
Well... What am I supposed to say to that? What I will say is the
government will say it can spend its money it chooses. Our money. Our
money. Crikey, let's move on. You are going to get me into trouble.
Falling giant, spectators transfixed by one of format dead whales on the
beach -- four. They are drawn to this sad sight. It is heartrending.
The photography is, you know, beautiful journalism but a tragic
story. And a terrible moment to find beautiful creatures like this on the
shores having been beached against their instincts. Not supposed to be
close to shore. They are the most beautiful creatures. People are
drawn to them. There is fascination about a major national tragedy.
Hopefully the investigators can find out why they are. People have been
looking at this for a long time with thoughts about chemicals in the
water, whether it could be Sonar, with suspicions in the past, or
perhaps it is something seismec, and we would love to get more
information. Too many are beaching on the coast. Tom and Joe, lovely to
speak to you. That is it from the papers tonight. Coming up next, it
is the Film Review.