04/03/2016 The Papers


No need to wait 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 04/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



That leaves of one rubber apiece. We will bring you the results from a


host of rugby matches across both codes. That is in 15 minutes after


the papers. Hello and welcome to our look ahead


to what the papers will be With me are the Mirror's


Deputy Political Editor, Jack Blanchard, and the Daily


Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley. The Independent claims that Facebook


may pay "little or nothing" in additional tax for the next few


years, despite today's announcement The Culture Secretary,


John Whittingdale, tells the Telegraph that the Prime


Minister should release figures that show "the true number


of European Union migrants" A Home Office Minister tells


the Daily Mail that human rights laws mean some illegal immigrants


can't be deported from the UK. Meanwhile, the Express says


the number of new asylum applications lodged across the EU


last year rose to 1.2 million. According to The Times,


George Osborne has abandoned an overhaul of pension tax


after a revolt from Tory MPs. 20 years since 16 pupils


and a teacher were killed at Dunblane Primary School,


the headteacher back in 1996 has given an emotional


interview to The Mirror. We are going to start with pensions,


which I know will have everyone on fire! Threat of the new Tory revolt


before the referendum. What is he abandoning? Good question. It is a


plan that has been floated about for a couple of weeks, it is about


cutting pension tax relief. It is another screeching U-turn from the


Chancellor that is made at something of the trademark of his, and he


tends to do it on a Friday night as well, maybe he thinks people will


notice. There has been lots of opposition from Conservative MPs and


papers, like yours. He has decided that this isn't the time to do this.


He is feeling a bit sensitive about backbenchers and at don't think he


thinks he has the strength to do it. Well, we bang your head a brick wall


if you are not going to get it through? Maybe he shouldn't have


floated the idea in the first place. By taking more from higher rate


earners to discourage them from putting money in the pension pot.


The payoff of taking more when people invest is that he said he was


going to allow them to enjoy their pension income tax-free. The problem


with that is it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Treasury will get lots


of money now, 10,000,000,000-a-year, but down the road it would have


meant there would be less income coming in and do you trust a future


government not to decide we do think we will tax pension income. It has


to be said, fans of Boris enemies of Georgia starting to say that he is


of Gordon Brown. First of all, being somebody who likes to tinker


cleverly in ways that squeeze more money out of the middle-class


taxpayers, but also somebody who has a habit of U-turns. There was


U-turns over the tax credits, a bit like the 10p rate under Gordon


Brown. Why did you give him some credit for changing his mind when he


sees it is not politically expedient or not as good an idea as he thought


it was. Normally you would give somebody credit for changing their


mind because maybe the situation has changed. The truth is he doesn't


have the strength to push this through. They are fighting in the EU


referendum on all fronts at the moment. The government are taking a


lot of stick from their own party and their own press and I think this


is one battle he has decided it is not the right time. He is going to


have to make big cuts. This was his big idea. It is quite complicated,


not many people would understand that, maybe he thought he could do


it without people really noticing the people have noticed that they


Dorff. A problem with this reform is that it is so complicated. That is a


Gordon Brown style trait of doing things which seem very clever


because they are very complex in the hope that nobody will notice that


what you're actually doing is simply taking more money from people. They


were supposed to be handing more money over in tax, Facebook to pay


more tax, but not yet. Facebook apparently was written in thinking


through Ireland's, meaning it could avoid paying tax but they say they


will not do that. The Independent has pointed out that it is sitting


on ?21.4 million in deferred tax relief so could be some time before


that money is paid to the Treasury. You can do very losses, can't you.


You can if your Facebook. They haven't actually told us what the


new structure will look like. The still have an extremely public at a


corporate. How much more they will be playing we have no idea. It seems


like there are larger customers will have their business processed here


rather than in Ireland and smaller customers will still be held in


Ireland, as I understand that. We don't know how much business they


are actually going to do in the UK. They are not compelled to tell us.


Right, and this is about us moving away to add kind of economy where


big companies can pay that kind of tax they want to wherever they want


to. That is the nature of capitalism. It is hard to find a


global policy Forum getting tax, is that? Really they just pay as much


tax as they feel like. Deviously they felt like paying next to no


tax. People got very angry, they want to get some good PR, but really


they are deciding we will pay this much now. They are not paying the


same sort of level that a small business pays, and they don't get a


say. Paying tax should not be a matter of PR. Reputation believe,


how bad is it for Facebook? To advertise to stop advertising if the


company they are using to advertise have good ways of getting around tax


law? I don't think so. It comes down to the nature of this kind of


corporation, the nature of capitalism today. He used to know


that a coal mine, a physical thing, you could go to it and tax it.


Migrants next. The Daily Mail first of all. Human rights mean there is


nothing we can do to deport them. Who are at this particular group of


illegal migrants? I don't think it is any particular group. They are


the ones who are in this country, are still coming to this country. Of


course there is an ongoing problem of illegal migration and many


countries are at tackling this problem of illegal migrants. I don't


think it is a new situation. The problem is it is now very prescient


because of the situation in Europe. Suddenly the sorts of issues become


very politicised. Richard Harrington, Home Office Minister, he


seemed to be speaking about these immigrants who come in having burned


their passports and they would say where they come from. If you don't


know the country of origin, you can't send them back there. The


thing to do is ask the asylum seekers! I'm sure that tried that!


If somebody has come on has burned their passport and was not


cooperating, they should be arrested and face jail. I'm sure in the


process of going to the criminal justice system we will find at some


point where they have come from. If so we can make a good guess on


whether or not they should be sent back. If we put them in prison, we


still don't know where to send them back to when they come out. Some


Tory MPs were trying to push for a change in the law, where we could


lock them up for six months. What Harrington said to them in the House


of Commons, what happens after the six months? Will this really deter


people from trying to get to this country? They will risk of hunger


and disease the rest of the top six months in a British prison, no, I am


not doing that! It is an intractable problem. The whole world is trying


to deal with this. It could be solved if people were processed


outside the United Kingdom. They are supposed to be processed in Greece


and Italy. The numbers are too high. Italy and Greece can't afford to do


it. France has got the nerve to talk about the handling of Calais. They


shouldn't be in Calais, they should have been returned to Italy or


Germany. It is a breakdown of the Dublin agreement. Asylum seekers


should be processed in the first country they arrive in. A lot of


refugees don't want to stay with a full slant -- where the first line,


do they? Tough cheese. It got to you. If they don't, they are


breaking the law. It is not a humanitarian issue in the sense that


we should take people, I am not denying that, but there has to be


illegal struck at the people obeyed. The culture secretary has called for


the Prime Minister to reveal the true number of migrants. This is the


latest attack of the Eurosceptic movement, to seize upon this.


Understandably so. It is a genuine question first Group just before


Christmas by an economist, the difference between our official


migration figures and the number of people from abroad who have


registered for a National Insurance number, there was a huge difference.


There are many more of these National Insurance numbers and there


are officially people here. Why is there of this disparity question are


a lot more people here than official figures show? It was raised to prime


ministers questions on whether he batted it away, but this is clearly


not a coordinated attack by the Eurosceptics to put some pressure on


him, to suggest that migration is served an even bigger figure. You


could come for a short while, get yourself a number and go again. You


could, absolutely. I don't think it is about trying just to figure out


how many people here. I think he's trying to prove point about why


people come. When David Cameron came back from Brussels with a great deal


he put the emphasis on benefits, saying we will delay access to in


work benefits on the principle that people come to Britain in such large


numbers in order to access benefits. Eurosceptic Sir saying that isn't


true, that is only a small proportion of people. People come


for the work. That is what I think John Whittingdale is trying to


prove, that unless you can sort the borders, stick to a number... I


think most people think migrants come here to work. It is true, isn't


it? Let's finish with the times and the picture of a newly married


couple. The man owns the paper. It is a flattering photograph! Can we


be nice about this? Yes, why not? I am pleased. It is the Roman Spring


of Rupert and Jerry. Her first wedding, his fourth. You can be as


mean as July, but I to join in. The Mirror has done this page three


tomorrow, and I hope Rupert thinks is appropriate.


Thank you Jack Blanchard and Tim Stanley.


You'll both be back at 11.30pm for another look at the stories


Coming up next it's time for Sportsday.


Download Subtitles