28/02/2016 The Papers


A lively, informed and in-depth conversation about the Sunday papers.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



That's all the sport, now The Papers.


Welcome to the Sunday morning edition of the Papers. With me are


Nigel Nelson and Vincent Moss. The Sunday Times reports that


David Cameron is at threat of a leadership challenge


even if Britain votes to stay The introduction in the House


of Commons this week of the Government's Investigatory


Powers Bill is the Independent The Observer has an interview


with the Europe Minister David Lidington - who says Britain voting


to leave the EU would spark a decade The Sunday Express leads


with a survey suggesting 25 out of the 28 EU member states feel


"negatively" about the future And sticking with the EU debate,


the Mail reports on divisions within the Conservative party -


with reports of the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond clashing


with his Eurosceptic Let's begin. It is all Europe, all


the time. We will find some other things to talk about. The Sunday


Times, Tory threat to oust PM after the EU vote, win or lose, Cameron


faces challenge? Well, I think he very definitely is out if he is


losing the referendum. This is the kind of stuff we will hear a lot


about over the next 100 days. I don't think it is very likely that


Tory MPs would be in a mood, then, to get rid of Cameron after he has


won the vote. It seems to me that it could not work. At these kind of


scare stories, if you do this, we are going to get you, this kind of


stuff, there will be a lot of this. Project Fear twice over? The story


is based on an unnamed backbencher who says even if he wins, if he


carries on like this, there will be no problem getting the 50 names


required for a leadership challenge. Some Conservative MPs I speak to


never liked him and would like to see the back of him. If there is a


challenge with the Reid if he wins is unlikely, but David has already


said he's going in 2020. If you have a new election that needs to be


fought, many people would quite rightly say we want a new leader to


set out his temper late. At some point between the European


referendum on the 2020 election, it is likely, in my view, that he will


go. They are really just arguing about the timing of when. Do any of


you think this will be never-ending, even if they stay in? You have


spoken to Conservative MPs saying it is not going to stop even if we


lose, because we feel strongly about it, this is a core issue? The


trouble with too many Tories is that it has become an obsession, almost


an illness. So, whatever happens, they will agitate. I can see that


going on. In or out, I think we have to abide by that. At the very least,


you are talking about a generation. The last referendum was 1975, I


would imagine a similar time to elapse before another one. In


Scotland, they want one a year later? How is that going? The


Telegraph have almost the reverse of that story, they can sack me, Iain


Duncan Smith, but Europe goes over everything, we are bound to this


ship sailing perilously close to the rocks. They voted to leave is a


gamble, says the Prime Minister. The two sides and Eurosceptics fearing


they might be purged? The interesting thing is Iain Duncan


Smith's point, the real challenge, that he has a constitutional right


to get hold of Cabinet papers as a secretary of state, which is true.


This story particularly shows the absolute muddle about allowing


Cabinet ministers to campaign as they wish. It was always going to be


impossible. The civil service have to obey the government line. Iain


Duncan Smith makes the point that he might need, as the day job, to get


hold of figures on EU migration, who is getting benefits, are they going


to deny him that? Sorry, the department says you can't have that


because it impinges on the EU. Sir Humphrey, or Sir Jeremy, taking the


view, as I understand, that the Government line, it goes to the


government, but if he is opposing the government line on this, he does


not get it? That is my point, who makes the decision? If the Secretary


of State is calling for Cabinet papers, clearly, it was never going


to work by saying Cabinet ministers can campaign against the Government.


That was the mistake he made. Maybe the cartoon get it right, mods and


rockers in Brighton, I hear gangs of Tory Eurosceptics and Europhiles are


coming here for a fight? The point they are making is that top civil


servant Jeremy Heywood is going to be summoned before a committee where


he will have to explain this position where they might not be


able to see papers they feel are relevant. The interesting thing


about Iain Duncan Smith, they can sack me if my face no longer fits,


that is the other issue after the referendum. With these five Cabinet


ministers plus the employment minister, Priti Patel, what happens


to them? Are they purged in what the Telegraph refers to as a revenge


reshuffle? Or do you have what other people are calling for, a unity


reshuffle and keep them in? You think whoever wins it would be


unwise for the future of the Conservative Party to purge people


you don't get on with straightaway? True, but I don't think the


Conservative Party are worrying about who is in the Cabinet. If they


felt so strongly about it, against an official government position,


what you do is you quit. The Observer has a different take,


Brexit would start decade of economic limbo, says top Tory. Boris


Johnson in U-turn over second vote, he says they could get better terms


if there was a second vote, now he's saying out is out? Almost


self-evident. We are back to the confusion. The idea that you could


actually vote out in a referendum to stay in Europe was just ludicrous.


Clearly, Alt must mean out. You can't start playing around with the


referendums and things like that. The interesting thing about the


Observer story is that we have the Europe minister coming out on this


one. The trouble is, we are not really dealing with core, basic


issues, people want to know, how will it affect my job, wages,


working conditions, schools, health. At the moment, the people arguing


seemed to be arguing up there somewhere, without getting down to


what ordinary families want to know. An interesting point. When you hear


yesterday the G20 came out and said, we think it would be disastrous for


the world economy, a shock, that is what the communique said, this


involves China, the United States, the IMF, people Britain might ask to


do certain things, but could not tell them this is their view, do you


think voters care about what the G20 think or what the economists think?


Not too much. The idea that other world leaders come out for somebody


in their cosy club of 20 leaders is not a great surprise, neither is it


a surprise that David Lidington, the Europe minister, comes out in favour


of Europe! But he is making the point that it has become the mantra


of the in campaign, it is all about job security, it would be really


hard to negotiate trade deals, the truth is nobody ever knows. It is


the control experiment. If you are not running contrasting scenarios,


if we come out of Europe, will it get harder to get trade deals than


when we were in, we will never know the answer. Europe turns against the


EU, fresh boost for exit campaigns as strong anti-Brussels feelings in


24 out of 25 countries. You could say there is a degree of


Euroscepticism in Europe and Turner to Mr Cameron's Brundage, saying we


are not alone, we can continue to reform Europe if we stay in? Also


when you look at the figures, Greece is pretty upset about it. Greece is


having a huge problem with refugees. Europe is trying to seal them off.


You can understand that the ordinary people in Greece will be incredibly


Euro sceptic about something like that. Migration becomes a major


issue in many countries, people are worried about it. The scepticism is


not to be unexpected. Shall we move on? Page seven, also, we have spoken


about what has been an intra- Conservative fight, that is the has


been presented. Sturgeon and Corbyn revive the spirit of the 1980s at


the Trident protest. A lot of people protested yesterday. Again, this is


something that has been going on for generations. Quite small, in


comparison to 25 years ago? I think so. It was supposed to be the


biggest march for a generation. The Observer have used an impressive


picture of the march, where it looks like there are lots of people. At


the aerial shots of Trafalgar Square, it looks like no more than


5000 people. Some of those might have been bemused tourists that


wandered in. It did look a very small scale event. I don't think it


was particularly dramatic. If you would think the Labour leadership


would want to be revelling in disarray at the Conservative Party


over Europe, yet again, tearing itself apart, you would think they


would want to focus on core issues like housing and employment.


Instead, they are having an arcane argument, to the vast majority of


the population, about whether or not a nuclear deterrent is needed at


some time in the future. Nicola Sturgeon made that argument,


yesterday, she said we were promised more austerity by the Chancellor,


why are we spending... The figures might change, whatever it is, but


she did try to connect the dots? She did. It was quite right Nicola


Sturgeon should be there. Her party has actually got a position on


Trident, to get rid of it. Jeremy Corbyn's party has not. I think he


ought to accept he is Labour Leader now, not just simply a backbencher,


perhaps it would have been wise not to turn up. He didn't say anything


controversial, it was completely anodyne, but perhaps he should not


have done it. The Sunday Times, charity 's chief clamps down on


chuggers. Charities have got bad press recently for various things.


They are saying, William Shawcross, from the Charities Commission, it


cannot be right for vulnerable and older people to be hounded through


the telephone, through the letterbox and on the street? Politicians will


be delighted charities are taking some of the heat, to some extent. An


important speech by the charity chief. It is not just chuggers, also


the direct mail, the pressure calls. It has got to a point where many


people cannot be stopped for legitimate reasons on the streets,


not saying charities are illegitimate, you are very wary of


stopping in the street because somebody is probably going to ask


you not just for a few quid to put in a bucket, but to commit for


months or years through direct debit to a charity. It has become a


problem. I think charities are going to have to think about realigning


the way they behave. You are not surprised? I am totally with


Vincent. I object hugely to aggressive charity collecting. I


think it is appalling that charities do commercial deals with companies


to offer credit cards or energy tariffs and whatever, especially


when they are not the best rate for people. All of these things should


be banned. Charity giving should be absolutely voluntary. You should


want to do it, not be cajoled into doing it. The Sunday Telegraph story


was interesting. Shops row unites churches. It is unsurprising that


churches want to keep Sunday and Sunday. But for some businesses,


they say, what you do is you get on Amazon, do something online, get a


delivery, we can't compete? Probably, the church is about 30


years now out of date with the argument. This was the kind of


battle we had when Sunday trading first came in. It was very much on


these lines, keeping Sunday special, whether or not people would be


forced to work on Sunday, we have moved on. Personally, nobody should


be forced to work on a Sunday. However, that is the way things are.


I think the church are whistling in the dark. We appear to be working on


Sunday! But we volunteered. Even the shops themselves are split, they


don't know if profits will go up. There is a slight effort of the


government trying to look like it is doing something. The Europe story,


going back to that, there is a legislative logjam. There is very


little happening. You might say there is little happening most of


the time in Parliament! Now, actually, I thought this was an


interesting story in the Observer. Finding it hard to get a ticket for


a Dell? There is one on sale for just ?24,000! We complain about


football tickets? -- Adele. This is appalling, the idea it can be sold


for above its cover price. There are people in Parliament, Sharon


Hodgson, the Labour MP, chair of the all-party ticket group, she said


there has to be legislation. Of course there has. It should be


illegal to sell any ticket above the list price. What you discover with


something that is within minutes all the tickets have gone. They have


been taken by touts. Adele has campaigned against it, Elton John


has. There is a general feeling from the industry and the public that it


should be stopped. To be blunt about it, she doesn't get the ?24,000. She


is not short of cash, but it goes to some... There might be an element of


that, it is still a rip-off. If you can't go to a concert for a


legitimate reason, you can put it on a website and sell it for pretty


much cost price. That takes them out of the market, the touts. We are


going to see more and more of this. The demand to see live music, live


shows, it increases as people know you can get music online. Think it


is going to be made illegal, there is enough agitation in Parliament to


do something. It might be something like pulling the parties together?


Yes, after Europe, that will be the argument! Thanks to Nigel and


Vincent. We take a look at tomorrow's from pages every evening


at 10:30pm and 11:30pm here on BBC News.


Download Subtitles