13/02/2016 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 13/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers


With me are the political commentator


Jo Phillips and the Political Editor of the Sunday People, Nigel Nelson.


According to the Sunday Times the boss of EasyJet has warned that


cheap flights are at risk if the UK leaves the European Union.


Ahead of the EU referendum the Mail on Sunday says a senior aide to


Angela Merkel claims the UK cannot survive on its own.


"Public faith in Cameron drops" is the Independent


on Sunday's headline, with a new poll claiming 6 out of 10


expect the PM not to secure good deal in Brussels talks this week.


The Telegraph claims the government could soon fund new onshore wind


Should we start with the Observer? It is just in. There is a lot of EU,


and this paper is focusing on Jeremy Corbyn. It is interesting, another


battle with his own party. Apparently what Jeremy Corbyn is


going to do is before David Cameron goes off to negotiate in Europe, he


is going to make a big speech and he is going to say that European


migration is a good thing, but that is what we should be encouraging,


that we shouldn't be discriminating against Eastern Europeans. Well...


It won't cut very much ice with people who are not very keen on


migration. This is the weakest card of it in campaigners. 50,000 people


who come from abroad and keep the NHS going, those other positives.


The question is the timing, whether it is a clever idea to be doing it


this week, maybe further down the road. Do you agree? It is fine to


Jeremy Corbyn to be doing it because he wants to make some kind of


statement, but it is David Cameron's worst nightmare, because


this will just fuel the people who feel that this whole debate is now


focusing on migration and borders, and free movement of people and the


refugee crisis that is going on. This will now paint a picture that


you have a Labour Party that wants a free for all, because that is how it


will be portrayed, because it doesn't help it in campaign --be in


campaign. There have been countless debates, with many people agree with


Jeremy Corbyn, a lot of people thinking we can't bring any more


migrants, and people who think we should welcome them. Migration is


probably the most contentious issue with in this whole thing and I think


the difficulty comes down to... It is not about racism, it is about


somebody who either imagines that his job has been taken by an Eastern


European worker. It is that kind of problem. My argument would be that


the intervention has to come in at some point, but not quite yet. It is


not just about the migrant crisis, let's go to the Independent on


Sunday. They have gone to a poll. This is before a proper debate, and


its headline... Nearly half the voters say that the UK would have


more control of borders outside the EU. Quite revealing poll about the


state of play now in the referendum. As far as the trouble with borders,


that is quite clear. If we are out of the EU we will be able to control


our board is much better because EU migrants won't be able to come in as


a right as they do at the moment. That is sort of stating the obvious.


People seem to have no faith in David Cameron's ability to


renegotiate the deal this week, with six out of ten saying he won't come


back with anything. I'm not sure it all means a great deal. I don't


think people know what he is going to negotiate anyway. It is one of


those things were actually it is very hard to ask people what they


think about something when it is not clear what is being negotiated. That


won't be the question we will be asked when the referendum happens.


Interestingly, if 58% of people say David Cameron will get a bad deal,


but then you are almost evenly split on people saying that the economy is


better being in the EU or out of it. Clearly there is a muddle and


confusion, but there is some comfort that the government in this that


there is still a 14 point lead over Labour. It is just that David


Cameron's personal rating has fallen considerably. It is an interesting


poll but it is way ahead of when the argument has been started proper,


but the argument has of course already started in some ways. Let's


have a look at the Mail on Sunday. This is an argument between British


MP Bill Cash, and a German MP, who is saying that if we leave, Europe


will impose crippling trade tariffs on Britain. Maybe, maybe not. I


think it is unlikely. I think if Europe would pull in its horns and


say we want to keep outsiders out... This is just a row between


two MPs. It is not the position of Germany, is it? I don't think so.


You would think it looking at that front page. I don't think he is part


of Germany's diplomatic corps. He has form attacking David Cameron, he


accused him of trying to black out the EU. He then mocked the


flip-flopping MP. In 2014 he said he would get a bloody nose if he curbed


immigration without EU permission. This is a three page story based on


argument between two people that frankly are not hugely important. We


haven't even got started yet! There are some other stories knocking


around. We had to read this one carefully, the Sunday Times. The


headline, Osborne profits as firm pays no corporation tax. This is an


interesting story. Only because I think it is again, and we often say


this on this programme, quite often the headlines they're very little


resemblance or relationship to the actual story. Nigel and I both know


that that is the Saabs, not the person writing the story, quite


often. You can't say that because you have to go to work tomorrow.


This is a story about the Chancellor George Osborne who has shared in the


dividend payment in the company that his family owns. The company has not


paid any UK corporation tax for the last seven years. If you read it all


the way through, what you will discover is that company records


show that the Chancellor holds less than 1% shares in this company and


he got a dividend of about ?1200. The idea that this is some sort of


walloping great windfall from a company that hasn't paid corporation


tax because it hasn't registered any profits, I would expect a bit better


of the Sunday Times. But it is a story that pushes all the right


buttons. It got you reading the whole lot, didn't it? That headline!


That is my argument. It is so easy, that every story we look at every


time we do this, and everytime anyone else does it, you look at the


headline, you see them on the television, and actually, is that


actually the story? We are going to stick with the Sunday Times. Another


interesting story, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is to face the widower of


Lord Britain. There have been long campaigns for him to apologise --


the widow. Yes, this is about the investigation into her husband. If


you are going to investigate crimes like this, then you have to do the


whole thing properly. On the basis of that, if you have evidence that


you believe in, do you then apologise for collecting that


evidence after the event? Even if you haven't got evidence, there has


or has been an argument that it is really important for the them to be


believed. That is the other danger. How many other victims won't come


forward because of what has happened? It is very difficult, that


anybody who is innocent of a crime like this, it is appalling that they


find themselves in the public eye and in the middle of a police


investigation. But does that mean that the police shouldn't


investigate? Could they investigate without the person being named? In


that case they're going to a different area about whether or not


we name people before they end up in court, and why then should a sex


crime be particular? If you were a police officer dishonesty would be


quite serious. Once you start going through the different grades of


crime you could argue that no one should be named until the trial.


Police have agreed that they won't allow MPs to be named if they are


arrested, unless it is in connection with something they have done in


office. The other danger with not naming people is that part of the


justice system is that justice is seen to be done. If you have a trial


where the defendant is anonymous, it won't be seen to be done. I think in


this particular case, they are damned if they do and damned if they


don't, for the reasons you have just said. They paraded this alleged


victim, called Nick, who had apparently come forward with this


credible evidence. They didn't have to make that public, actually. They


could have arrested or investigated... Police always


maintained that they don't release the names of suspects. We are


journalists, we can draw our own conclusions. This comes down to the


fact that Lord Britain was not told that there wouldn't be any charges


before he died -- Leon Brittan. Do you believe this is a debate that is


needed? Yes, I do. There is a review... It is very difficult for


them. It is very difficult for anybody, but the sooner justice


Cotes Art can get on with the proper enquiry. That is the key to it. What


seems to have happened is that what we do know is that there were


paedophile rings, there was an establishment cover-up. What we


don't know if the extent of it, and quite clearly certain people who


have been named will have imparted that. We only have a couple of


minutes left. A couple of interesting stories on the front


page of the Sunday Telegraph tomorrow. Talk us through this home


saliva test for cancer. This is not one of the stories you would


normally see on the front page of the Express. This seems to be quite


sensible. The University of California have done a lot of


research saying that tumour DNA is in bodily fluids like saliva, so it


would in fact give you the ability to have a liquid biopsy, instead of


going through the often traumatic and painful and uncomfortable


surgical procedure. This is 100% accurate. If you stop and think


about it, given that you can get DNA from a tiny bit of saliva, it makes


sense that you would be able to do this. But this will have a huge


impact on people. It can be carried out at home, by a dentist, Hugh who


are hugely good at looking for cancers. You might not want to do


it, but you might be worried about the spread of it. In alternative to


a biopsy you would definitely want to do it, and if it means you don't


have to have a biopsy. In future they are saying it could be for


multiple tests. I don't know if I would like to do that. But if it


makes somebody do it rather than... Early diagnosis is so important with


cancer. We just had time to talk about Chris Grayling and Michael


Gove. The Valentine couple of the night. This is the present justice


secretary saying he agrees with the previous justice secretary, Chris


Grayling, and they have written a joint letter together saying that


they have kissed and made up. It is tough love. It takes us back to the


EU a bit, because Chris Grayling has been widely tipped to run the Grexit


campaign. And we still don't quite know how Michael Gove will go. It


may well be that this new friendship... At the moment Michael


Gove seems to be veering towards Brexit as well. Thank you both,


always a pleasure. More headlines at the top of the hour. Next, film


review. -- The Film Review.


Download Subtitles