24/04/2016 The Papers


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to our Sunday morning edition of The Papers.


With me are Jenny Anderson, author and reporter for Quartz.com,


and Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor at The Standard.


Let's take a look at what the papers are saying.


The Observer reports that US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton


shares Barack Obama's opposition to the UK leaving the EU.


The Mail leads on Boris Johnson's anger at Mr Obama's intervention


The Sunday Telegraph says pregnant women are among those whose hospital


treatment has been postponed ahead of the first all-out


The Sunday Times reports that this year the super-rich have suffered


the worst decline in their fortunes since the financial crisis.


The Independent carries a photo of one of the many events to mark


the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death.


Its main story is about a hospital in Lancashire asking


The Sunday Express says that cold calling firms could face fines of up


And the Sunday Mirror has a photograph of what it says


are the ashes of the singer Prince being carried to a car


It has been the worst week for the Brexit campaign. Absolutely. We had


Boris Johnson channelling his inner Donald Trump vaguely racist comments


about Barack Obama and completely fabricated facts about the busts. We


had PMQ and David Cameron did a great job, and President Obama


stayed the demand that everything would be just fine if Britain were


to leave the EU in terms of trade with the US. What did you make of


it, particularly Boris Johnson because various papers have given


him a hammering. The Winston Churchill bust. There are real


issues of substance facing the British people and he goes on about


whether the Churchill bust was or was not removed by Barack Obama. It


is a classic bit of Boris hyperbole. The actual explanation is rather


different, that Churchill is still very close and just making room for


Martin Luther King. It is a classic bit of Boris hyperbole, that maybe


some of what he said around the edges he would regret, but I suppose


his key point remains that it is about sovereignty and Barack Obama


of physique has a perfect right to say what he wants to say about what


he thinks the impact would be, but Boris disagrees with that and he


believes that our ability to control our personal affairs is the main


thing. He has dressed it up in the usual way with lots of colour and


examples which are somewhat over the top, but the argument remains the


same. Interestingly, they took the debate away from immigration, which


is where I think the Brexit campaign has a good case to make. There was a


strong case made earlier this week about immigration, but the whole


debate became economics and trade, and in that sense we are saying this


is the worst week ever. Were you surprised that a president was so


clear about this? Foreign leaders, generally, don't interfere when


there is an election or referendum. Not only did he say back of the


queue, but in a BBC interview he said it could take five or ten years


because trade deals, and he is right about this, are very complicated so


they can take a long time if there is no particular will to push ahead.


I am surprised that the US batted in, but actually I am not surprised!


This is a consequential debate and the US would be silly to not weigh


in. If you imagine the outcome, say Britain leaves and there are


problems, everyone would turn to the US and ask why they said nothing. It


is damp if they do, dammed if you don't scenario, but I think he has a


right to say your decision, but here is our opinion, and by the way we


are and important factor in this decision because the exit campaign


has really stated everything will be fine if we stay in, but Obama wanted


to say what we think about this agreement. I think actually the idea


that we turn around to the US and say, why did you not help us? I


disagree with that. I think people don't expect anyone else to help us


out, so to speak. Going back to the point you just made about Barack


Obama, I think he did speak more robust than was expected, even on


his own side. Today, he has slightly changed his tune. He's said five or


ten years, not quite the back of the queue, but at the same time there is


not an EU trade deal at the moment. He has been there for eight years


and there has not yet been won. There is potentially going to be


one, although the US president candidates have all expressed


reservations about various aspects of it. In the spread of history,


even five or ten years, if we are fighting about something, in the


last vote it was 50 years ago, even if it does take some time to


achieve, the balance them is between the economic price that that might


cause us, although some would argue there isn't one, against the issue


of sovereignty and democratic control. Part of the argument also


raised is that he is not quite a has-been but he is on his way out.


But Hillary Clinton's intervention, or at least to a senior staff


member, suggests she is slightly more likely thought to be the next


president of the US, we don't know what number Trump would do if he


became the American President, let's not go down that road just now, but


she is saying something similar, isn't she? Not surprising. With your


experience of Washington, certainly in my eight years I never met a


senior American politician who thought it would be a great idea for


Britain to leave. I have never met anyone who would disagree with what


President Obama said. There are two components to this. One is that they


don't have any sense as to what some of the frustrations are because, as


you say, from the hypocritical point they don't know, they have quite a


bit of sovereignty and they exercise it quite aggressively all the time.


For them to say, you know, that is the conventional wisdom but very few


people have a sense of some of the frustrations of being part of that


kind of block. Could we move on to the mail was my great take on this


story, Boris rage at ridiculous we had a Obama. Extort restatement --


extraordinary statement. Inside page 29, Andrew Gibson, the biographer of


Boris Johnson, says after that stinging slap down, it begs the


question, has Obamacare busted Boris? It is quite a clever


headline. What do you make of this? To go back to the issues of


substance, when you have got somebody who is at least seem to be


the figurehead of a campaign, and who is talking about a bust of the


leader of the inactive state being half Kenyan and him being irrelevant


and so on, where is the real issues of substance are not, according to


some of his people on his side, being addressed. It is not doing


very well? No, I think there is a fair criticism there, if you look at


Michael Gove, for example, he takes the same view as Boris Johnson about


the fundamental issue and he has been more measured in his comments,


although he did give a speech this week in that direction. If you are


looking at it through the prism of who is going to be the next


Conservative leader, some people think that Boris Johnson, and the


fact that he took a long time to decide which way he was going to


jump on this, some people see it as he is positioning himself to take


over from David Cameron, and that is why he has taken this position. If


you look at it through this prism, and then you think actually he is


indulging in cheap shots, which is the allegation, that is not very


statesman-like, and that therefore could be damaging. I think there is


something in that. Of course, those who favour his arguments will


probably not be too worried about that, but in the middle ground of


the Tory party, if it exists at all in this area, it might lead people


to question whether he is sufficiently dramatic. What did you


make of it because again there is a case that he is making, which was


right at the very start of our discussions here, George Osborne


made a comment about suggesting that this is not a joke, you can't treat


this lightly, it is such a serious matter, and he did not mention Boris


Johnson macro shot. Him saying actually on this issue he is a


lightweight, he does not argue the substance of the issues. He does and


there is plenty to argue on the substance. There is so much in there


with trade, immigration, the economy, sovereignty. There is a lot


to work with here, and to go down this road when there is this


caricature running for president of the United States and everyone here


making fun of him, to assume that mantle of trivialising things,


making things up, insulting comments, bringing the level of


civil discourse down quite a bit, I think he has damaged itself quite a


bit. To be fair to him, he has also focused, he has been quoted in the


Mail on Sunday, nobody has come close to answering my point, the US


is commenting on something they were themselves would never dream of


doing. He does address that, but... But do you think that argument is


actually cutting through question or even Barack Obama's argue at cutting


through? The question is, does any of this matter? This visit and this


argument, does he have a right to make a case question mark the


question is, does it matter? He has a right to make a case, and it


probably does matter to an extent in that you have had George Osborne


this week saying, because the strongest argument is the economic


one, and the rest of it is not as strong, national-security, there may


be a marginal benefit to remaining in, but I think it is fairly


marginal will stop on the immigration thing, it is a key issue


for some come about on trade and the economy, that is the strongest


weapon. I think actually when you have got George Osborne and the


government saying it repeatedly saying it officially, and then you


have got the president of the United States coming in, there has been a


lot of coverage of it, and I think that will affect some people, and


that is the way that most people who vote stay in. I think they will be


scared of the potential negative consequences, and it is all about


the point of view of the Remain people think that there is too much


of a risk economic league. I don't think they will lose, but that is


what they will lose if they can't win that battle. There are two


months to go and then I will be so many more reports coming out. He is


a lame duck president, but a lot can happen in two months. This is an


emotional issue. People will base their decision on some facts, but


mainly on emotion. Facts completed beyond the control of any


politician, for example a terrorist attack or boats coming across. Yes,


people will vote based on how they feel that day. One other point about


what was said here, she speech yesterday where he talked about


rejecting cynicism and encouraging the young to engage in politics, I


fully agree with that, people should get involved and take part. But if


young people in this country listen to that message and actually them


vote in the referendum, most opinion polls show the young are more likely


to vote in favour, though funnily enough it could have an impact that


way! That is a good point. The express says Obama bully boy tactics


and we have already touched on that. That could backfire. Let's move on


to the Sunday Times Rich list. There are two views about which lists. One


says it is fantastic because it sells newspapers, but the other is


and I am a bit like this, I hate stories like this. I find it really


boring. I am going to have two side with the editor of the Times and say


run the list, get the readers. Dirty pleasures, right? If this is your


worst vice. One of them. What did you make of it. The poor rich are


poorer than they were before, but they are still extremely rich. Let


me find my very small violin. The numbers are still staggering, and


there is a huge impact here from the commodities slump and let's not


underestimate that, and let's not underestimate the fact that can


change frequently. A lot of people have lost a view of their many


billions because of what is happening in those markets. Oil


might not, from where it is right now, it might not be heading back to


100, but it might do better. For many of these people, this is a


temporary phenomenon. The point I found most exciting was busier you


need at least ?103 million to make it onto the rich list. Rate of


growth is slowing, so the rich are not getting so much richer as fast


as they have been. The question is, is inequality, is the art of justice


finally coming back towards... Less inequality? It has a long way to go.


What did you make of this, Martin? It does not entirely excites me


because it is so far out of the stratosphere of any normal person's


reality, and also some of it is slightly artificial as you say, it


is all about movements in the commodities markets and so one, so


some of these figures will go back up again. The other interesting


thing is you get more and more people coming from the creative arts


world and so on, the sports world, making an appearance in it. You have


got Sasha Baron Cohen who is on the list for the first time. Lewis


Hamilton is on it. 106 minute pounds. You have got the Beckham is


on it. They are behind the Queen. There is a changing nature there, I


suppose, people making an awful lot of money out of sporting prowess and


TV, films and so one, and that is perhaps the changing nature of this.


One thing that struck me is that I have not heard of most of these


people. Nor have we. I the sea move in the wrong circles. You read about


them and I think, I know the product or that sector, steal or coal


whatever it is, the Barclay brothers, but a lot of them are not


people, they are under the radar. Another interesting point to this is


why did we even like these lists, but I think the Panama papers


revealed that we don't actually have any idea how much money anybody has,


so there is something to be said about these numbers. Of course there


are very rich people, but they in no way are representative of the actual


wealth. Let's move on my finally, to the Queen's birthday celebrations.


There are some absolutely lovely pic pictures of the Royal family and of


the Queen herself. Whatever anyone thinks of the monarchy, she has done


an amazing job. She has and the tributes are all incredibly well


deserved. She is one of my favourite people in the world. That holds true


for many other people, including 70 roles in other countries who were


calling the palace wish her a happy birthday. It is the three macro


heart-warming. Yes, the good news story of the week. People singing


happy birthday down the phone line! One other thing, which has kind of


been touched on this week, is how much the popularity of the monarchy


as an institution depends on the popularity of the monarch. It is


difficult to find anyone who has a bad word to say about the Queen, but


that not delete macro does not necessarily mean that the


institution is still something we like... It will seem worried about


whether that mantle might pass. Obviously she will be impossible for


anyone to follow, but on the other hand, I think you are right, the


change in mood when she has been Queen, with the death of Diana and


so on, there has been a tremendous success bringing it back into


national popularity, and the Queen has done brilliantly. At at that


period it looked rather differently. It is also interesting, the


photographs of President Obama with Prince George and the families, and


he is to seek comfortable about talking about his family, is


children and so on. There is a difficult balance. But the so much


in the public eye to know how much to actually give of your real life,


your family life. It is a tough balance. Everyone must want some


privacy, but you sign up for these roles and you have to share some of


this. We saw a bit of that for sure. Back to the point of the Queen, with


all the volatility and the rise of Isis and so much uncertainty in the


world, part of the state fast rock nature of the monarchy, people are


turning to that right now because there is so much uncertainty


everywhere else. I be what happens in the rest of the world will define


this a little bit macro people respect people performing public


duty. That is why people delete macro Prince Charles will do well


because he clearly seeks to do his duty as a public servant and I think


people like that. Indeed, thank you both for joining us.


Just a reminder we take a look at tomorrow's front pages


every evening at 10:30 and 11:30 here on BBC News.


Time now for a look at the weather with Matt.


Don't forget, all of our reviews are on our website.


Hello. More cloud around compared with yesterday, but still some


sunshine breaking through every now and again. The early rain in the


south-east has


Download Subtitles