09/04/2016 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 09/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be


With me are Nigel Nelson, political editor of the Sunday People,


and the political commentator Jo Phillips.


There is a lot of politics to commentate on. They happen decent


and have brought -- they have been decent and have brought their tax


returns! The Sunday Telegraph leads


with details of the Prime Minister's financial affairs after


David Cameron took the unprecedented step of publishing details


of his tax returns. The Sunday Times also has that


story, including a claim that the PM could avoid -- could have avoided


paying inheritance tax on a gift from his mother. The Mail On Sunday


says this is a historic moment for David Cameron. The financial


disclosures also make the front of the Observer, which it concedes is


unprecedented by a sitting Prime Minister. The express also pours


over the details, but it also wants to know how rich Samantha Cameron


is. It is everywhere, then, isn't it? Let's start with the Observer on


how it reports the story. Cameron discloses his tax affairs in bed to


defuse Panama crisis. It is an unprecedented release of personal


tax details, but we have had a week where the statements have been


partial disclosure after partial closure. It is like the Archers,


isn't it? He is the first Prime Minister in history, and I believe


the first leader of a political party, to publishers tax return.


He's going to establish a task force led by HM RC to look at the legality


of the financial affairs of the Company is named in the Panama


papers. There will, I'm sure, be pressure on all politicians and


people seeking public office to publish their affairs as well


thought out if there were anything untoward, he wouldn't publish the


details, would he? I have poured over them all afternoon. The kind of


thing you see is what he pays tax on. For the first time, we now know


that he gets his share of the house that he rents out, the family home.


He shares that with Samantha, they take off each. He gets about ?46,000


a year in rent and pays tax on that. On his overall income, he pays a


total of about ?76,000 for last year. Although those things are not


a surprise in the sense that we knew his salary beforehand, at least the


public get a chance to look at that what really, it's what he should


have done on Monday, if he'd been sensible about it. He would have


said, OK, if there is any question, let me show you what I do. And he


did say four years ago that he would publish his tax will stop four years


to the day. If he had done it four years ago... Will it defuse the


Panama crisis? It is much bigger than just him, isn't it? I don't


think it will defuse the crisis. As we'll see from looking at the


papers, this is a story about David Cameron and his leadership. While it


is interesting and gives us something to talk about, I think it


detracts from the much bigger issue, which is what the Panama papers have


revealed, which is companies and organisations and crocs and tyrants


hiding their money in a way that is much more damaging. I think the


damaging bit... All that is true, by the way. But the actual damaging bit


is to do with offshore accounts at all. It is not that there are


necessarily as anything dodgy about it, but what we're dealing with here


is that these are places where people hide money and hide the


ownership of that money. Hiding anything creates suspicion. The


moment you are linked to one of these places, doesn't mean you have


done anything wrong at all, but the question is, why? Why do you want to


go? The thing that some people regard as a model is the fact that


in certain places no tax is paid by these companies that hold the money.


That's right. The tax is only paid when the money comes back on shore.


It is the issue about hiding. You can understand why, if you have a


load of money in a country where you are likely to have it taken away by


her dodgy Government, you would want to get it out of that country. Why


do people in Britain need to do the same think was back let's look at


the Mail On Sunday. -- why do people in Britain need to do the same?


Let's look at the Mail On Sunday. He was below the in camera to and


stacks threshold, so keep -- he was below the inheritance tax threshold.


Had it been a lump sum from his father, clearly, he would have paid


somewhere between ?70,000 and ?80,000 on that. He didn't, he


actually invested in land. The question is, was he trying to avoid


anything? If she lives for other two years, he won't pay any money at all


and it will be a gift. The Mail On Sunday is getting ahead of itself,


it is saying that he has avoided this, but it depends on his mother


living another two years. The Sunday Telegraph explained that more


clearly. Those arrangements are open to everybody. Absolutely. I dare say


you could look at the personal finance columns in any of the Sunday


papers and they would be advising people how to do that. It is quite a


common thing that people want to give money to their children, and it


is absolutely the parent or the person giving the money who has got


to live for seven years in order for you to avoid paying inheritance tax.


It is pretty standard procedure, it's not illegal. But it is the sums


of money involved, which to a lot of people will look like a lottery win.


I think that is the problem, Martine, as things in politics often


are, it is about perception. And the perception is, here he is, this Tory


toff with loads and loads of money, beyond the dreams of a lot of


ordinary people. The fact that he is getting a rental on a house in


London, which is par for the course, friendly, and that his family are


only doing what many millions of families around the country do, and


there is no suggestion that he has done anything illegal or is trying


to fiddle his taxes in any way, but it is about the perception. In the


same way as MPs' expenses, who had forgotten that he had paid off his


mortgage, which most of us would celebrate was not quite. Some of


those figures you were talking about, Nigel but


inside the Mail On Sunday we get on to what some, it is -- what some


commentators say it is about, which... Ian Birrell in the Mail On


Sunday says it is all about Brexit. Perhaps it is. You now have a


complete divide only middle in the Tory party between those who want to


get Britain out of Europe and those who would have us stay in. Anything


David Cameron does wrong then upsets the people who want to take Britain


out of Europe, and they slam him for it. They did the same thing with the


budget. They are not the normal suspects for disability campaigners,


and yet they were furious over George Osborne taking money off the


disabled. The same thing applies here - they're having a go at


Cameron because of Brexit. And there is a danger at the moment to his


leadership will stop some of them are talking about, we're not sure


how long he can last. It is that kind of conversation that is


happening in the Commons. Even in sections of the press that the


Conservatives can normally rely on, Cameron cannot rely on them. It is


interesting to see in the papers that we have so far that there is a


unanimous if slightly not hugely obvious... They are not being


sympathetic. I think this comment piece in the Mail On Sunday, he is


saying, and we saw it with Blair and Brown as well, this is the end of an


error mood. -- the end of an era. Let's pause for a moment. One of our


producers is also, it would appear, a high finance expert, he said, the


inheritance taxes paid by the not the individual.


-- not the beneficiary. Let's look at the Telegraph. If how Downing


Street, the Prime Minister, has handled the tax affair is and how to


do, there is someone else who seems to have shown a masterclass in how


to deal with a difficult subject. You hear is, the Archbishop of


Canterbury. Who, it was revealed today, is the son of Sir Anthony


Montague Browne, a civil servant and aide to Churchill. He has handled


this with astonishing dignity, great aplomb, he said, I am not fazed, I


know who I am through my faith. There has always been a slight


question. And he is like, and? Next point. Absolutely. Justin Welby


today has the respect and love of the British public because he came


out immediately and said, yes, I was really surprised, but this is the


case. The comparisons are remarkable. Justin Welby was worried


about his mother, who is in her 80s, and the effect on her, in the same


way that David Cameron was worried about the effect on his mother of


what was going on. Elderly people commenting aims to me, are a lot


more resilient than some of their offspring give them credit for.


David Cameron has spoken to our paper tonight. Justin Welby's mother


came out and went through the circumstances, seemingly quite


happy. This was fantastic, get it out there and hold your head up


high. It will be gone in no time, won't it was not staying with the


Sunday Telegraph, spies to vet the Chilcott report. This report into


the Iraq war that it feels we will never see. It's just... This is yet


another delaying tactic, it seems. The Sunday Telegraph has discovered


that a team of national security officials are going to go to the


offices of the Chilcott enquiry and they are going to start the security


vetting procedures. Which means that they can remove yet more sections


from the final report. We believe that there are about 150 ministers,


civil servants and military people who are named or criticised in the


report. And if this team of national security experts can read act that,


you do wonder what you're going to end up with apart from something


that says the Chilcott Report and the Leicester that black lines. We


still don't know. The latest is that it was meant to come out in the


summer, but they said that last summer. At they start redacting any


more, there would be anything left. This process was supposed to happen


at the beginning when they said what evidence could be given. It is not


for looking through now and taking bits out. Who gets the chance to


say, no, that needs to stay back in? There is up process going on at the


moment where they are asking the people who are named and criticised


in the report so that they can have their tuppence worth and say that


they don't like that bit. The intelligence agencies might get


dizzy, we're giving away one of our secrets. That is a process that


should have happened at the beginning. And they should have laid


it out at the beginning the parameters. We will stay with the


Sunday Telegraph. Host in a very tight spot in the studio. This is


Stephen Nolan who is a very well-known colleague and well liked


presenter. He got into a bit of bother in the studio. I think we


have some video. Leaning on the back of the chair, and I was swinging


around. What is wrong with this chair? It is stuck to the wall. This


bloody thing. What is wrong with the? This chair is actually stuck to


the door. He got wedged somehow. He was recording something on Facebook,


so we have the evidence. We will be shutting the door here very


carefully so that we can get out! We will wheel him down the ramp at


speed. Oh dear! C? We're used to things going pear shaped. See you


later. 11:30pm. Coming up later, stay with us. We


will tell you more about those arrests in Brussels. The authorities


say that Mohamed Abrini has admitted to being the so-called man in the


hat. He was pictured on CCTV shortly before the attacks on the Belgian


capital. Next, Reporters.


Download Subtitles