17/04/2016 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 17/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



impeach their President, Dilma Rousseff.


She's been accused of fiscal impropriety in concealing the scale


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


With me are the former Sunday Express editor,


Eve Pollard, and columnist for The Telegraph, Tim Stanley.


The Daily Telegraph headlines a warning from the Chancellor that


public services including the NHS would suffer if there


The FT says there's evidence of a slowdown in hiring


and investment because of uncertainty over whether the UK


The Metro reports on the 14-year-olds charged with a double


The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is to take a U-turn in the dispute


with junior doctors, says the Guardian.


The i leads with a fierce condemnation of Europe's


policy towards Syrian refugees in a recent report.


The Daily Express headlines a survey on migration into the UK.


71% of those asked thought migration has been too high.


The news that a drone hit a plane on its approach to Heathrow


And it's back to the EU referendum on the front of the Times,


with the Chancellor saying households will be over ?4,000 worse


So, plenty to talk about. Things being dominated by Brexit but let's


start with the Guardian, claims that Jeremy Hunt is in a U-turn over his


threat to junior doctors. Two different words, talk of an


imposition of a contract but now talk of an introduction of a


contract. Extraordinary because we've been hearing Jeremy Hunt


saying that he will impose the contract on doctors and now it seems


that the government lawyers, what have they been doing for the last


three months? They have said that legally he can't do that. He can


introduce the idea of a contract, he can't impose it. The whole point of


them going on strike was that he said he could impose it and the


government lawyers, it has gone to some kind of court, there is a


letter from government lawyers seen by the Guardian, confirmed by the


department, saying he can only introduce it. Strange way of running


things. There isn't long because the fifth strike will be on the 25th of


April. Yes, most people will be wondering why the strike is going


ahead, not just why are the doctors doing it, different issue, but why


the government is pursuing this line, if it didn't have the


authority to impose the contract. From what position is the government


arguing and negotiating? It isn't clear. If he can't impose it, what


authority does the government have? It has given into most of the


demands by the doctors, it has met most of the demands they've made. By


the time the strike comes around, if it goes ahead, it will affect all


services including maternity, accident, services affecting


children and the public are going to be wondering why the doctors are


doing it and why the government has allowed things to go this far. If


that's the case, as the Guardian says, it may mean that he has misled


Parliament. He might have misled all of us because he said that he's not


going to discuss it, he's going to impose it, if they can't agree, he


will impose the rules. Now he's going to introduce them. You wonder


why nobody spoke to the government lawyers at the beginning of this.


We'll wait and see what the response is. Quite scary if you have somebody


about to have an operation. We are going to go into the Brexit


argument, starting with the Times, the long-awaited report from the


Treasury about how much leaving the European Union is calculated, it is


alleged, to cost Britain and according to the Times, 4300 pounds


a household. Based on the idea that the economy would shrink because


things like trade and investment with the EU would be affected.


George Osborne is claiming that by 2030 the economy would shrink by 6%,


the equivalent of each household losing up to ?4300. Of course that


is a projection, the worse case scenario. It may be the thing that


this entire argument may be what wins the referendum for the


remaining campaign because economic risks and fear is their strongest


card but many people are going to be asking themselves why is it that the


government has pushed for renegotiation, why has it used such


Eurosceptic language if, having called the referendum, it is


throwing everything, the Treasury, the civil service, against leaving?


So you are sceptical? The other thing I would like to ask, if Mr


Osborne was here, why is it that the Prime Minister before he entered


negotiations told the public that he thought Britain could flourish


outside the EU and after the negotiation and he has decided he's


against leaving, he says it will sink? Do you buy this? I think that


4300 does not seem a lot. I've come back from America and for ages,...


At the moment, you get $1 for ?1 40. You don't feel rich in the States,


it used to be a much better deal and I think the same is true for the


Euros, you get far fewer euros to the pound and the Financial Times


has a story that hiring and investment have dropped a lot.


Seamlessly going the next headline. The Financial Times head page that


FrontPage, another Brexit story. Says there is a 20% fall in hiring


in financial services. Why would be the -- why would we be the centre of


finance if we are not in the EU? The City would vanish. 20% of European


groups say they are not investing in Britain at the moment, they are


waiting to see what happens. It's quite interesting. In London, which


is different from the rest of the country, houses are not selling,


everyone is waiting to see what happens. One of the Sunday papers


today in the business section says that two large companies are looking


to float in London next year and they don't give a hoot about


uncertainty. It seems to depend on what you read. And what business you


are in. Why is there any surprise that there is uncertainty? There is


always risk involved in any kind of political decision, there is risk


when there is an election, there is an effect on the currency markets


when there is a threat of the Labour Party winning the election. What are


we supposed to do, not have a referendum? Our decision-making


should be entirely decided by this kind of calculation? I think that


families are right to decide, I mean, a lot of us don't approve of


the way the EU is run, thinking it is too large, overly bureaucratic,


we spend too much money on it, it isn't what we signed up to, but on


the other hand, the idea that the next ten years, perhaps, are going


to see us poorer, I think that the EU will be very angry with us if we


pull out. It will be very hard to negotiate deals. If they wanted to


enter that kind of game, if they are going to threaten us, we can


threaten them back. The idea that Europe wouldn't want to trade with


us, that they would stop investment if we left, it is nonsense because


we could respond and not invest in them. Staying with Brexit in the


Telegraph, George Osborne saying that because the country would


supposedly be worse off, it would lead to NHS cuts. The NHS has become


the eternal political football. You had those in favour of leaving


saying that we should take the money we give to Europe and put it in the


NHS, but they weren't entirely accurate about how much money we


give to Europe and how much money we get back. Lovely idea but I think we


have to stop dealing with the NHS as a political football. Would you


agree? Not the first headline linking the NHS to it. The EU


referendum may turn into a debate about something else, about the NHS


and priorities, which case the government is on a sticky wicket


because if it is going to argue that the NHS is imperilled, many people


why ask -- might ask why. Why is the NHS in a bad position, they might


ask? The Daily Mail talks about the drone that has been in the headlines


that was hit by a plane. They cost as little as ?25 and we are still


looking at legislation. Quite scary, isn't it? I bought a little one for


my grandson at Christmas, I didn't think it would get very far and


high. The idea that they can, bigger ones, more expensive ones than the


one I bought, could actually damage a plane, means we should legislate


pretty quickly. I think that they are an awful thing, I would ban them


all together, I don't like the idea of drones. I think in America they


will make you register them so that they know where it came from if it


crashes. The idea that it may fall into the hands of extremists, very


scary. Back to the Telegraph, Boaty McBoatface, this is what happens


when you asked the public what they want and they have said Boaty


McBoatface. Isn't it interesting, you ask the public and they don't


give you a ratio Nelson or whatever you thought you might have got --


Horatio Nelson. Obviously losing a sense of humour in this case because


this person says they are going to be looking at it, reviewing it. What


does that mean? It probably won't be called Boaty McBoatface. I wouldn't


have asked the public in the first place, it shows how immature they


have become. The idea of reducing every government decision to a kind


of version of the X factor, as if the public would only care if you


let them vote on it. This isn't democratic, it is the opposite, it


is a display of snobbishness to assume the only way you can in gauge


with people is to introduce an element of a talent show contest --


engage with people. I think it would have been a good idea to ask


children at school because they are the ones you want to interest in


science. They are doing the science lessons. Perhaps they might have got


a different response. You don't think it will be called Boaty


McBoatface? I don't think so. I think there is a horse with a


similar name in Australia. I know that Tim is very interested to talk


about the last story which is in the the i. Leicester City, what an


amazing story if they win the premiership and a late penalty saves


them a point, getting a draw. I don't care much about football but


this is a Hollywood story, isn't it, and I gather they have had interest


from Hollywood. Have they? It is little left of -- Leicester City


battling through and you can see it becoming one of those movies that


people will go and see. There are none of those six pointer fixtures


left. I wouldn't go and see the movie, I'm afraid. I can't pretend


to care or know anything about football so I warn people, it is the


equivalent of saying I don't do nude, I have a blank thing in my


head, when it comes up, I switch off. As an editor of two Sunday


papers Island more about football than I ever wanted to. It sells.


Thank you for joining us. We will be back at 11:30pm. Shortly we will be


having Meet The Author.


Download Subtitles