10/04/2016 The Papers


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



final day of the championships from 2:50pm this afternoon. That's all


the sport for now. Hello and welcome to our Sunday


morning edition of The Papers. With me are economic advisor


Ruth Lea and Peter Kellner, political analyst and former


President of pollsters YouGov. The Sunday Telegraph leads


with the story that dominates this morning's papers -


the details of the prime minister's financial affairs,


after David Cameron published The Sunday Times also has the story


and analyses what the paper says The Sunday Mirror claims PM


could avoid paying on inheritance tax on a gift from his mother,


following his father's death. Cameron's decision to be transparent


is hailed as "historic" But it says the PM now faces a fresh


row about his wealth. The financial disclosures also make


the front of the Observer which is concedes is "unprecedented"


by a sitting prime minister. And The Sunday Express also pours


over the details but says it also wants to know how rich


Samantha Cameron is. There will obviously be no end to


this given the various things going on


We will take this in tandem with the mail, which has Cameron tax bill


Dodge on moderate's 200 K gift. This is about inheritance tax. It is


revealed the family may avoid ?70,000 in debt.


This is obviously a major story. For the first time, the Prime Minister


discloses his tax bill. The Sunday Times, in the course of that story,


uses the word Dodge. The mail on Sunday has it on the front page


headline. I take issue with that. No one ever accused me of kowtowing


conservatives. I think David Cameron has a pretty raw deal from a number


of this morning's papers. It is the term tax avoidance. Legal but


perhaps questionable. I think we should ban the word avoidance and


have tax dodging and tax planning. Tax dodging is when you abide by the


law to the letter that you do things which are questionable. Like Jimmy


Carter, the comedian, two or three years ago. What we are talking about


today is David Cameron's mother living in ?200,000. If she gives for


seven years, the wrist inheritance tax. That is not tax dodging, that


is doing what the law is, what you're supposed to do under the law.


If you put money into a pension fund or into an ice as an individual and


don't pay tax, that isn't tax dodging. What we have is proper,


innocent, sensible tax planning. I think to use the word Dodge is wrong


and unfair and inappropriate. Can I suggest that for many people, the


scandal is not the details, not what is in -- not what's illegal, what is


legal and it's about wealth and partly about class. It's partly


about a lot of money, which the Prime Minister takes head on, but


most of us don't get this kind of money from mum and dad. As Peter


says, this is just ordinary tax planning. You have Mrs Cameron, the


mother, is to live seven years and then it's tax-free. The problem is


that he is a wealthy man and his wife is a wealthy woman. If they


were just open and honest and transparent from day one, I don't


think there would be the problems are today. It was interesting last


week when the whole pan papers blew up and it was obvious that Cameron


been involved. Camera's father. At that point, Cameron says, actually,


we did benefit from some of these offshore funds. Let's just admitted


now and get the whole thing out the way. They came up with this woolly


statement that they wouldn't be benefiting from these offshore tax


funds in the future. But the location is that it was in the past.


If you just said there and then, I benefited from these offshore funds,


I think these stories would have started to die. Because there was


that very occasion, that obfuscation, I'm afraid this has


undermined his authority as a time when there are all sorts of other


things happening within his party, within politics, which are quite


damaging. Are you surprised by how cack-handed it has been? He is a PR


person, that was part of his profession in the past. He knows


above anybody that if it is bad news, you get it all out at once and


then you make your apologies. You are right. I think David Cameron is


innocent on what the papers say on the substance of the issue, but he


has handled this in a ridiculous way. Whenever he is faced with


issues, what do I say today to get me pass tomorrow's headlines? Three


or four years ago, he would probably be in internal three party


management. What he did when the Palmer story broke, he thought, how


can I get this past Tuesday's headlines? He said it was a private


affair. But he didn't get it past Tuesday's headlines. They buy day,


he thought 24 hours ahead and got it wrong. I think it is right. He


should from the beginning have said, this is everything. If you have


thought strategically rather than tactically, he would have done that.


But he is tactical rather than strategic. When he was talking about


offshore funds, the indication is that he still benefits from onshore


funds or trusts, which he broke windows, but not another?.


TUC, as some have said, that part of this has got to do with internal


convulsion within the Conservative Party over Brexit or not Bradford?


-- do you see? Some people in the party are rubbing their hands in


glee as Mike in glee at posts Cameron politics. I don't know them


well enough to know whether they are rubbing their hands in glee. The way


this story has just gone on and on, I think it's actually caused quite a


lot of damage now. That clearly will be well come in some parts of the


Tory party. Let's move on to the Telegraph, which has capitalised on


this great story we have about Justin Welby and the way he handled


his paternity issue. It is extraordinary that everybody has


kind of rallied around him and said, fine, well done. Perhaps he has done


what you suggested people should do. It has happened is that we have got


it out into the open and people have accepted it. When I read this story


and his mother's liaison with this gentleman, who in the private sector


worker Winston Churchill, the thing that struck me forcibly was how


there were lashings of lashings of alcohol that seemed to accompany


these activities. It was so 1950s. This is sort of like Agatha Christie


and Miss Marple were anyone who was fatally upper-middle-class bans most


of their time absolutely blotto. To him, I don't think he really had


much alternative. If he hadn't come out with it, there would have been


whisperings, head and he might have had the odds denial and the odd bit


of obfuscation and clarification. At the end of the day, this would have


come out. As it happens, it is out. That's right. There's another


dimension to this which is that scandals, I use the term in inverted


commas, over the last 30 years, most of them have been sexual scandals or


financial scandals. The public has actually ceased to care about what


happens in bad. They are much more concerns. Not only is Justin Welby


right to come straight out with it candidly, fully and in a way which


gets lots of sympathy, it was on an issue that people don't think is


that bad. I shall be quoting calmer's law of what the public


finds scandalous in the future! He had thought Gavin Welby was his


father for 60 years of his life. He also says he finds his identity in


Christ. Perhaps you would expect that. He is also quite clear about


who he is. He is a very stable, focused, centred person which is


helpful. Even so, it must have been quite a surprise. He will get a lot


of wrath from his viewers. Georgia was a tax dodger. If you look at


Churchill's financial arrangements... Tax planner, do you


mean? No! He got royalties for his book which looked like capital gains


which were attacked law than income. It was perfectly acceptable in his


day and secrets. If Churchill were alive today, doing the things he did


then, he would people are far more than David Cameron. That is one to


think about. Let's move on to the server. This story on the EU. Labour


MPs urge Corbin to fight harder for EU in June. This is also striking.


We have heard from quite a lot of people about this, mostly within the


Conservatives, having a go at each other. There are those that think


Jeremy Corbyn is focusing on local elections and will leave the June


poll till after May. He does seem very unenthusiastic about Brexit,


with a British campaign. He is officially in favour of staying in


the EU, but he is saying it without any conviction. You do wonder what


his inner beliefs are. What's happening is the Labour Party isn't


really campaigning very hard to stay in Apple moments, at a time when the


people who are voting for Brexit seem much more energised and


dynamite. Whatever happens at the 23rd of June, I think we can say


that those campaigning for Brexit seem much more highly motivated than


the people who want to remain in. Is the rain methodology behind that? I


detect that to that people like Ruth are going to boats... People who


were supporting Brexit are more likely to turn out than people who


want to stay in. The paradox with David Cameron's position is that if


he survives, he will win the referendum. To win the referendum he


needs Labour supporters to turn out to vote. Voters are on the whole


bracelets. The problem with Jeremy Corbyn, when he stands up to save


Labour's position is to stay in, he looks to me like a hostage saying


the form of words his captors have forced to say. He doesn't look like


he has any enthusiasm. What you got, as some of his critics in the party


have said, he needs to be more enthusiastic. I think they're right.


If Britain is to vote to remain in, because if Corbyn remains


unenthusiastic, it will be a slice of the Labour electorate. I don't


know if they will turn out at all. I'm sure you agree it is one of the


most important votes that any of us will be called to make in our


lifetime. Absolutely. In the Observer column, they're talking


about his natural and historic opposition to the EU, which could be


true. That makes him look even more... Is part of the Cameron story


is we just want to know what the real person is and don't mind too


much providing you are open about it, given that Mr Corbyn, one of his


big selling points is his authenticity, always having said the


same things, is that a problem? I think it is. If people really


believe he has this natural and historic opposition to the EU. It


somehow suggests, as Peter said, he is almost a hostage to his party. In


terms of the Labour Party, what Corbyn should come out, in terms of


the view from remaining in, he should say I have historically been


sceptical but I have changed my mind and this is why. And put some


passion behind that. He could say that that would people believe them?


It's like so many of the Tory quotes, the ex-Eurosceptics who have


said they're going remain in. Philip Hammond, Theresa May. All these


people were out and out Eurosceptics and then suddenly decided to remain


in. Quite honestly, it doesn't look very authentic. We want


authenticity. The man is authentic that is not authentic on this. Let's


move on to the Sunday Times anti-doping row. I thought this was


interesting for a number of reasons. It was the biggest story a week ago


today. Because of the pan papers, it was blown off the front pages. What


struck me was that has been a good week for the British press. They


have turned out some great stories and this was one of them. I shot


doctor dope but watchdog ignored me. The Sunday Times kept out of the


story on the front page. I think this story will come back. The drugs


in sports story is not going away. It may lie dormant because of Panama


for a while but it won't go away. The story today is about the racing


cyclist called Dan Stevens, who has now admitted that he took banned


performance enhancing drugs from Doctor Mark Bowler, who was in last


week's story. He has denied any wrongdoing. The evidence is piling


up of things going badly wrong and perhaps worse, that the anti-doping


agency failed to act on any of it. This is as much as anything a


regulatory failure as well as an intrinsic scandal of wrongdoing. Is


anybody surprised? Right through my life, there have always been stories


about doping in sport, not least in cycling. But those people who are


not interested in sport, we just shrug our shoulders and say that's


how it is. I suspect that it will re-change that much. What is


interesting now is that, for whistle-blowers from the Panama


papers to Snowdon to people in Fifa to be either we yes, whatever you


think about it, if you are up to some dodgy dealings, it used to take


spies in cloak and dagger and perhaps a truckload of papers to get


you. Now it just takes much less. When we were all much younger, these


things were hidden. They were much less important -- much less reported


and people were much more trusting. Perhaps trusting on a false basis.


When things started to go wrong, we entered this age of transparency.


Transparency is meant to restore trust, but what actually happens is


transparency... People are behaving better but they are not behaving


perfectly. When imperfections, which are much more trivial than they were


50 years ago, are much more widely reported, the end result is better


behaviour but more distrust. I'm not sure we are behaving that much


better! Speak for yourself! I thought the Pamela leaks were


incredible. That was a terrific story.


There is a lot more to come, apparently. It has been interesting


how well it has been curated by various news agencies. Let's move on


because one of the great stories is in the mail on Sunday. Lady


Thatcher's daughter Locksley ?300,000 statue because the sculptor


omitted the one vital accessory, which the mail had helpfully added.


That is the handbag. What do you think of this?


I don't know why you are looking at me! You either go to Guy! Can I


delicately hand this over to route? I think that's just bizarre because


I think she looked, if I may say so, for better without the handbag. Not


least of all because it is held unnaturally. You wouldn't all the


handbag like that. Would you? I personally know -- I personally


wouldn't know! It looks ridiculous. The whole poses completely bonkers.


I don't see why she shouldn't have a handbag bearer because, when she was


in the House of Commons, she wouldn't have a handbag, would she?


She wouldn't be carrying it. When she was making the huge conference


speeches, she wasn't holding a handbag. Do we have time for the


other story, the great story of the week, in the Sunday Mirror? It's


page 22, the death of the long dress, apparently. High street rents


are rocketing for them that smacks of the launderette is finished. Do


people still go to the launderette? You do see people in there. Also


during the winter, very cold cats sitting on the tumble dryers. Well,


that justifies it. Being a cat lover, that justifies it. I've used


them in the 70s and 80s. This is a series -- just like public telephone


boxes, they are more or less disappeared from lots of places.


People no longer needs the public facility. But some do. What happens


if a business of telephone boxes or launderette is, there are not enough


people around for them to be viable. You are cutting off perhaps a small


minority but they minority who really need these services. I don't


know what the answer is. Should we subsidise the one launderette in


every area? One should not forget the minority who were deeply


affected. We will leave it there. Just a reminder, we take a look


at tomorrow's front pages every evening at 10:30 and 11:30pm


here on BBC News.


Download Subtitles