24/01/2016 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 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.


Download Subtitles