:00:00. > 3:59:59final day of the championships from 2:50pm this afternoon. That's all
:00:00. > :00:13.the sport for now. Hello and welcome to our Sunday
:00:14. > :00:16.morning edition of The Papers. With me are economic advisor
:00:17. > :00:19.Ruth Lea and Peter Kellner, political analyst and former
:00:20. > :00:21.President of pollsters YouGov. The Sunday Telegraph leads
:00:22. > :00:30.with the story that dominates this morning's papers -
:00:31. > :00:32.the details of the prime minister's financial affairs,
:00:33. > :00:34.after David Cameron published The Sunday Times also has the story
:00:35. > :00:40.and analyses what the paper says The Sunday Mirror claims PM
:00:41. > :00:46.could avoid paying on inheritance tax on a gift from his mother,
:00:47. > :00:49.following his father's death. Cameron's decision to be transparent
:00:50. > :00:52.is hailed as "historic" But it says the PM now faces a fresh
:00:53. > :00:58.row about his wealth. The financial disclosures also make
:00:59. > :01:00.the front of the Observer which is concedes is "unprecedented"
:01:01. > :01:03.by a sitting prime minister. And The Sunday Express also pours
:01:04. > :01:06.over the details but says it also wants to know how rich
:01:07. > :01:25.Samantha Cameron is. There will obviously be no end to
:01:26. > :01:29.this given the various things going on
:01:30. > :01:36.We will take this in tandem with the mail, which has Cameron tax bill
:01:37. > :01:42.Dodge on moderate's 200 K gift. This is about inheritance tax. It is
:01:43. > :01:49.revealed the family may avoid ?70,000 in debt.
:01:50. > :01:52.This is obviously a major story. For the first time, the Prime Minister
:01:53. > :01:57.discloses his tax bill. The Sunday Times, in the course of that story,
:01:58. > :02:02.uses the word Dodge. The mail on Sunday has it on the front page
:02:03. > :02:06.headline. I take issue with that. No one ever accused me of kowtowing
:02:07. > :02:12.conservatives. I think David Cameron has a pretty raw deal from a number
:02:13. > :02:18.of this morning's papers. It is the term tax avoidance. Legal but
:02:19. > :02:21.perhaps questionable. I think we should ban the word avoidance and
:02:22. > :02:27.have tax dodging and tax planning. Tax dodging is when you abide by the
:02:28. > :02:31.law to the letter that you do things which are questionable. Like Jimmy
:02:32. > :02:36.Carter, the comedian, two or three years ago. What we are talking about
:02:37. > :02:42.today is David Cameron's mother living in ?200,000. If she gives for
:02:43. > :02:47.seven years, the wrist inheritance tax. That is not tax dodging, that
:02:48. > :02:51.is doing what the law is, what you're supposed to do under the law.
:02:52. > :02:55.If you put money into a pension fund or into an ice as an individual and
:02:56. > :03:03.don't pay tax, that isn't tax dodging. What we have is proper,
:03:04. > :03:08.innocent, sensible tax planning. I think to use the word Dodge is wrong
:03:09. > :03:15.and unfair and inappropriate. Can I suggest that for many people, the
:03:16. > :03:19.scandal is not the details, not what is in -- not what's illegal, what is
:03:20. > :03:23.legal and it's about wealth and partly about class. It's partly
:03:24. > :03:26.about a lot of money, which the Prime Minister takes head on, but
:03:27. > :03:31.most of us don't get this kind of money from mum and dad. As Peter
:03:32. > :03:38.says, this is just ordinary tax planning. You have Mrs Cameron, the
:03:39. > :03:41.mother, is to live seven years and then it's tax-free. The problem is
:03:42. > :03:45.that he is a wealthy man and his wife is a wealthy woman. If they
:03:46. > :03:47.were just open and honest and transparent from day one, I don't
:03:48. > :03:52.think there would be the problems are today. It was interesting last
:03:53. > :03:58.week when the whole pan papers blew up and it was obvious that Cameron
:03:59. > :04:02.been involved. Camera's father. At that point, Cameron says, actually,
:04:03. > :04:05.we did benefit from some of these offshore funds. Let's just admitted
:04:06. > :04:09.now and get the whole thing out the way. They came up with this woolly
:04:10. > :04:13.statement that they wouldn't be benefiting from these offshore tax
:04:14. > :04:19.funds in the future. But the location is that it was in the past.
:04:20. > :04:22.If you just said there and then, I benefited from these offshore funds,
:04:23. > :04:26.I think these stories would have started to die. Because there was
:04:27. > :04:29.that very occasion, that obfuscation, I'm afraid this has
:04:30. > :04:33.undermined his authority as a time when there are all sorts of other
:04:34. > :04:38.things happening within his party, within politics, which are quite
:04:39. > :04:43.damaging. Are you surprised by how cack-handed it has been? He is a PR
:04:44. > :04:48.person, that was part of his profession in the past. He knows
:04:49. > :04:52.above anybody that if it is bad news, you get it all out at once and
:04:53. > :04:57.then you make your apologies. You are right. I think David Cameron is
:04:58. > :05:00.innocent on what the papers say on the substance of the issue, but he
:05:01. > :05:08.has handled this in a ridiculous way. Whenever he is faced with
:05:09. > :05:16.issues, what do I say today to get me pass tomorrow's headlines? Three
:05:17. > :05:20.or four years ago, he would probably be in internal three party
:05:21. > :05:25.management. What he did when the Palmer story broke, he thought, how
:05:26. > :05:29.can I get this past Tuesday's headlines? He said it was a private
:05:30. > :05:34.affair. But he didn't get it past Tuesday's headlines. They buy day,
:05:35. > :05:37.he thought 24 hours ahead and got it wrong. I think it is right. He
:05:38. > :05:43.should from the beginning have said, this is everything. If you have
:05:44. > :05:46.thought strategically rather than tactically, he would have done that.
:05:47. > :05:51.But he is tactical rather than strategic. When he was talking about
:05:52. > :05:55.offshore funds, the indication is that he still benefits from onshore
:05:56. > :06:02.funds or trusts, which he broke windows, but not another?.
:06:03. > :06:05.TUC, as some have said, that part of this has got to do with internal
:06:06. > :06:14.convulsion within the Conservative Party over Brexit or not Bradford?
:06:15. > :06:19.-- do you see? Some people in the party are rubbing their hands in
:06:20. > :06:22.glee as Mike in glee at posts Cameron politics. I don't know them
:06:23. > :06:27.well enough to know whether they are rubbing their hands in glee. The way
:06:28. > :06:33.this story has just gone on and on, I think it's actually caused quite a
:06:34. > :06:42.lot of damage now. That clearly will be well come in some parts of the
:06:43. > :06:45.Tory party. Let's move on to the Telegraph, which has capitalised on
:06:46. > :06:50.this great story we have about Justin Welby and the way he handled
:06:51. > :06:54.his paternity issue. It is extraordinary that everybody has
:06:55. > :07:00.kind of rallied around him and said, fine, well done. Perhaps he has done
:07:01. > :07:04.what you suggested people should do. It has happened is that we have got
:07:05. > :07:09.it out into the open and people have accepted it. When I read this story
:07:10. > :07:14.and his mother's liaison with this gentleman, who in the private sector
:07:15. > :07:19.worker Winston Churchill, the thing that struck me forcibly was how
:07:20. > :07:23.there were lashings of lashings of alcohol that seemed to accompany
:07:24. > :07:27.these activities. It was so 1950s. This is sort of like Agatha Christie
:07:28. > :07:32.and Miss Marple were anyone who was fatally upper-middle-class bans most
:07:33. > :07:37.of their time absolutely blotto. To him, I don't think he really had
:07:38. > :07:41.much alternative. If he hadn't come out with it, there would have been
:07:42. > :07:46.whisperings, head and he might have had the odds denial and the odd bit
:07:47. > :07:52.of obfuscation and clarification. At the end of the day, this would have
:07:53. > :07:57.come out. As it happens, it is out. That's right. There's another
:07:58. > :08:02.dimension to this which is that scandals, I use the term in inverted
:08:03. > :08:08.commas, over the last 30 years, most of them have been sexual scandals or
:08:09. > :08:16.financial scandals. The public has actually ceased to care about what
:08:17. > :08:24.happens in bad. They are much more concerns. Not only is Justin Welby
:08:25. > :08:29.right to come straight out with it candidly, fully and in a way which
:08:30. > :08:35.gets lots of sympathy, it was on an issue that people don't think is
:08:36. > :08:44.that bad. I shall be quoting calmer's law of what the public
:08:45. > :08:49.finds scandalous in the future! He had thought Gavin Welby was his
:08:50. > :08:53.father for 60 years of his life. He also says he finds his identity in
:08:54. > :09:00.Christ. Perhaps you would expect that. He is also quite clear about
:09:01. > :09:04.who he is. He is a very stable, focused, centred person which is
:09:05. > :09:12.helpful. Even so, it must have been quite a surprise. He will get a lot
:09:13. > :09:17.of wrath from his viewers. Georgia was a tax dodger. If you look at
:09:18. > :09:23.Churchill's financial arrangements... Tax planner, do you
:09:24. > :09:29.mean? No! He got royalties for his book which looked like capital gains
:09:30. > :09:32.which were attacked law than income. It was perfectly acceptable in his
:09:33. > :09:39.day and secrets. If Churchill were alive today, doing the things he did
:09:40. > :09:44.then, he would people are far more than David Cameron. That is one to
:09:45. > :09:51.think about. Let's move on to the server. This story on the EU. Labour
:09:52. > :09:56.MPs urge Corbin to fight harder for EU in June. This is also striking.
:09:57. > :10:00.We have heard from quite a lot of people about this, mostly within the
:10:01. > :10:04.Conservatives, having a go at each other. There are those that think
:10:05. > :10:09.Jeremy Corbyn is focusing on local elections and will leave the June
:10:10. > :10:16.poll till after May. He does seem very unenthusiastic about Brexit,
:10:17. > :10:20.with a British campaign. He is officially in favour of staying in
:10:21. > :10:24.the EU, but he is saying it without any conviction. You do wonder what
:10:25. > :10:28.his inner beliefs are. What's happening is the Labour Party isn't
:10:29. > :10:32.really campaigning very hard to stay in Apple moments, at a time when the
:10:33. > :10:37.people who are voting for Brexit seem much more energised and
:10:38. > :10:45.dynamite. Whatever happens at the 23rd of June, I think we can say
:10:46. > :10:51.that those campaigning for Brexit seem much more highly motivated than
:10:52. > :10:54.the people who want to remain in. Is the rain methodology behind that? I
:10:55. > :11:01.detect that to that people like Ruth are going to boats... People who
:11:02. > :11:07.were supporting Brexit are more likely to turn out than people who
:11:08. > :11:12.want to stay in. The paradox with David Cameron's position is that if
:11:13. > :11:15.he survives, he will win the referendum. To win the referendum he
:11:16. > :11:25.needs Labour supporters to turn out to vote. Voters are on the whole
:11:26. > :11:30.bracelets. The problem with Jeremy Corbyn, when he stands up to save
:11:31. > :11:37.Labour's position is to stay in, he looks to me like a hostage saying
:11:38. > :11:41.the form of words his captors have forced to say. He doesn't look like
:11:42. > :11:49.he has any enthusiasm. What you got, as some of his critics in the party
:11:50. > :11:56.have said, he needs to be more enthusiastic. I think they're right.
:11:57. > :11:59.If Britain is to vote to remain in, because if Corbyn remains
:12:00. > :12:03.unenthusiastic, it will be a slice of the Labour electorate. I don't
:12:04. > :12:07.know if they will turn out at all. I'm sure you agree it is one of the
:12:08. > :12:12.most important votes that any of us will be called to make in our
:12:13. > :12:16.lifetime. Absolutely. In the Observer column, they're talking
:12:17. > :12:20.about his natural and historic opposition to the EU, which could be
:12:21. > :12:27.true. That makes him look even more... Is part of the Cameron story
:12:28. > :12:34.is we just want to know what the real person is and don't mind too
:12:35. > :12:40.much providing you are open about it, given that Mr Corbyn, one of his
:12:41. > :12:45.big selling points is his authenticity, always having said the
:12:46. > :12:48.same things, is that a problem? I think it is. If people really
:12:49. > :12:54.believe he has this natural and historic opposition to the EU. It
:12:55. > :13:00.somehow suggests, as Peter said, he is almost a hostage to his party. In
:13:01. > :13:06.terms of the Labour Party, what Corbyn should come out, in terms of
:13:07. > :13:09.the view from remaining in, he should say I have historically been
:13:10. > :13:15.sceptical but I have changed my mind and this is why. And put some
:13:16. > :13:20.passion behind that. He could say that that would people believe them?
:13:21. > :13:24.It's like so many of the Tory quotes, the ex-Eurosceptics who have
:13:25. > :13:31.said they're going remain in. Philip Hammond, Theresa May. All these
:13:32. > :13:35.people were out and out Eurosceptics and then suddenly decided to remain
:13:36. > :13:39.in. Quite honestly, it doesn't look very authentic. We want
:13:40. > :13:44.authenticity. The man is authentic that is not authentic on this. Let's
:13:45. > :13:49.move on to the Sunday Times anti-doping row. I thought this was
:13:50. > :13:57.interesting for a number of reasons. It was the biggest story a week ago
:13:58. > :14:00.today. Because of the pan papers, it was blown off the front pages. What
:14:01. > :14:03.struck me was that has been a good week for the British press. They
:14:04. > :14:10.have turned out some great stories and this was one of them. I shot
:14:11. > :14:16.doctor dope but watchdog ignored me. The Sunday Times kept out of the
:14:17. > :14:22.story on the front page. I think this story will come back. The drugs
:14:23. > :14:26.in sports story is not going away. It may lie dormant because of Panama
:14:27. > :14:29.for a while but it won't go away. The story today is about the racing
:14:30. > :14:33.cyclist called Dan Stevens, who has now admitted that he took banned
:14:34. > :14:39.performance enhancing drugs from Doctor Mark Bowler, who was in last
:14:40. > :14:45.week's story. He has denied any wrongdoing. The evidence is piling
:14:46. > :14:55.up of things going badly wrong and perhaps worse, that the anti-doping
:14:56. > :14:58.agency failed to act on any of it. This is as much as anything a
:14:59. > :15:05.regulatory failure as well as an intrinsic scandal of wrongdoing. Is
:15:06. > :15:08.anybody surprised? Right through my life, there have always been stories
:15:09. > :15:14.about doping in sport, not least in cycling. But those people who are
:15:15. > :15:18.not interested in sport, we just shrug our shoulders and say that's
:15:19. > :15:24.how it is. I suspect that it will re-change that much. What is
:15:25. > :15:27.interesting now is that, for whistle-blowers from the Panama
:15:28. > :15:32.papers to Snowdon to people in Fifa to be either we yes, whatever you
:15:33. > :15:37.think about it, if you are up to some dodgy dealings, it used to take
:15:38. > :15:45.spies in cloak and dagger and perhaps a truckload of papers to get
:15:46. > :15:54.you. Now it just takes much less. When we were all much younger, these
:15:55. > :16:00.things were hidden. They were much less important -- much less reported
:16:01. > :16:04.and people were much more trusting. Perhaps trusting on a false basis.
:16:05. > :16:09.When things started to go wrong, we entered this age of transparency.
:16:10. > :16:14.Transparency is meant to restore trust, but what actually happens is
:16:15. > :16:19.transparency... People are behaving better but they are not behaving
:16:20. > :16:24.perfectly. When imperfections, which are much more trivial than they were
:16:25. > :16:28.50 years ago, are much more widely reported, the end result is better
:16:29. > :16:36.behaviour but more distrust. I'm not sure we are behaving that much
:16:37. > :16:39.better! Speak for yourself! I thought the Pamela leaks were
:16:40. > :16:44.incredible. That was a terrific story.
:16:45. > :16:49.There is a lot more to come, apparently. It has been interesting
:16:50. > :16:53.how well it has been curated by various news agencies. Let's move on
:16:54. > :16:57.because one of the great stories is in the mail on Sunday. Lady
:16:58. > :17:02.Thatcher's daughter Locksley ?300,000 statue because the sculptor
:17:03. > :17:06.omitted the one vital accessory, which the mail had helpfully added.
:17:07. > :17:13.That is the handbag. What do you think of this?
:17:14. > :17:25.I don't know why you are looking at me! You either go to Guy! Can I
:17:26. > :17:31.delicately hand this over to route? I think that's just bizarre because
:17:32. > :17:34.I think she looked, if I may say so, for better without the handbag. Not
:17:35. > :17:39.least of all because it is held unnaturally. You wouldn't all the
:17:40. > :17:47.handbag like that. Would you? I personally know -- I personally
:17:48. > :17:51.wouldn't know! It looks ridiculous. The whole poses completely bonkers.
:17:52. > :17:56.I don't see why she shouldn't have a handbag bearer because, when she was
:17:57. > :18:01.in the House of Commons, she wouldn't have a handbag, would she?
:18:02. > :18:04.She wouldn't be carrying it. When she was making the huge conference
:18:05. > :18:18.speeches, she wasn't holding a handbag. Do we have time for the
:18:19. > :18:23.other story, the great story of the week, in the Sunday Mirror? It's
:18:24. > :18:26.page 22, the death of the long dress, apparently. High street rents
:18:27. > :18:38.are rocketing for them that smacks of the launderette is finished. Do
:18:39. > :18:42.people still go to the launderette? You do see people in there. Also
:18:43. > :18:49.during the winter, very cold cats sitting on the tumble dryers. Well,
:18:50. > :18:57.that justifies it. Being a cat lover, that justifies it. I've used
:18:58. > :19:01.them in the 70s and 80s. This is a series -- just like public telephone
:19:02. > :19:08.boxes, they are more or less disappeared from lots of places.
:19:09. > :19:17.People no longer needs the public facility. But some do. What happens
:19:18. > :19:20.if a business of telephone boxes or launderette is, there are not enough
:19:21. > :19:23.people around for them to be viable. You are cutting off perhaps a small
:19:24. > :19:27.minority but they minority who really need these services. I don't
:19:28. > :19:33.know what the answer is. Should we subsidise the one launderette in
:19:34. > :19:36.every area? One should not forget the minority who were deeply
:19:37. > :19:37.affected. We will leave it there. Just a reminder, we take a look
:19:38. > :19:42.at tomorrow's front pages every evening at 10:30 and 11:30pm
:19:43. > :19:44.here on BBC News.