20/05/2016 The Papers


No need to wait 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 20/05/2016. 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 The Times columnist, Matthew Syed,


and The Daily Telegraph's political correspondent, Ben Riley-Smith.


The only one that matters tonight, don't tell Christopher Hope.


Tomorrow's front pages, starting with...


The Times reports on the financial deficit facing the NHS,


claiming up to 50 hospitals face losing A departments as a result.


The i focusses on the anguish of the families affected


The Telegraph says the BBC could avoid disclosing the salaries


of some of its higher paid actors, because of a loophole


regarding the terms of their employment.


Hidden charges that can claim more than a third of people's pension


The Mirror leads on the security alert at Buckingham Palace.


And the Express focuses on the same story.


Asking how a convicted murderer was able to get into Palace Grounds? The


Sun also leading on that story. Let's begin with the i. And that


Egypt-Air crash, family sold to inspect the survivors because of the


age of the wreckage, also finding human remains. A very moving account


by Chris Green in the i. Gives you an idea of the scale of the tragedy.


Passengers and debris strewn across the Mediterranean. We're still no


closer to working out what happened. Could have been on terror incident.


None of the passengers whereon the terror list. Committing 25,000 feet


into the sea, wildly swerving from side to site, really horrific.


Brings out the emotional side of the story. The thinking is, I was


reading, because the crew did not contact the ground, the control, it


must've happened really fast. That is probably something that, in


difficult circumstances, will be of comfort to the families. One can


only imagine how horrible that is being on a plane knowing death is


imminent, having time to contemplated. Aviation is still the


safest form of transport. The method that they use from learning about


near misses, planes almost hitting in midair. Both pilots submitting


reports. The totality is analysed to figure out the weaknesses are what


we can reform. When an accident happens, these are very infrequent.


Two indestructible black boxes, often recovered, that can tell the


air accident investigation Branch, they build up the data, telling them


exactly what went wrong, so reforms can be made so the same mistake


cannot happen again. 2014, one crash for every 8.3 million take-offs.


Impressive safety record. It surprises me the speed in which some


authorities in certain countries are prepared to say what the cause was,


or what was more likely. More likely terrorism than a technical failure,


when it was so early on. People waking up on Thursday morning to


this news, surprising how quickly people were reaching that idea, a


sad reflection on how frequent these things were becoming. This was a


flight from Paris. We have no idea what the causes were, but Paris has


seen terrible terrorist attacks. The Charlie Hebdo shootings, Bataclan,


the Stade de France. This is becoming increasingly common. We


have no idea. Funny, as you say, plane crashes happen so rarely, yet


it does feel like we have had some extremely big stories around planes


coming down for one reason or another, disappearing, explosions.


For a very long time, the problems with most formal trance fought, not


sabotage, technical problems, human error. A luck to do with humans


deliberately bringing the planes down. The two big incidents in 2015,


an act of sabotage by the pilots, the Russian flight out of Egypt,


almost certainly an Isis bomb. Aviation has major issues trying to


address. That is why they have a good record. Now it is deliberate


sabotage. Not the problem that has been familiar over so many decades


up until recently. Completely different phenomenon, most easily


mitigated through additional security, which we have to admit is


massively costly, in terms of wasted time for passengers across the


world. One of the ways that the terrorists, although we will not let


them win, they are making small gains in our daily lives, through


the security apparatus we have to endure. After September the 11th,


they put the additional security in the cockpit, as I remember part of


the German Wings, people were hammering on the door once they


realise it was the person on the other side, and there was nothing


they could do. Interesting, when accidents happen, there is a


plausible interpretation of why, before they wrote it out across the


industry, they try to work out whether the relevant reforms will do


what they want by trialling it in simulators. There is a good


systematic way of trying to avert that kind of mistake. The Times,


record NHS deficit putting emergency care at risk. Accident and emergency


phase closures. You wonder whether you can afford to lose that many


centres, when a unique are on the front line. -- accident


and emergencies are on the front line. We're not offering any


additional resources, that will make this problem go away. You either say


we are going to give up a higher proportion of GDP to the National


Health Service, higher taxes, people will not vote for that. How do you


get the resources you have to go further. There is a culture in the


NHS, there are massive variations in efficiency between all the


hospitals. If all the hospitals came up to standard, it would save ?5


billion a year. In the way they order supplies, agency staff, the


way they learn, what aviation does, learning from near misses, avoidable


harm. So they reduce litigation costs, other sorts of things. Not


doing that are not. We were talking to a journalist from the health


service Journal. He said where hospitals are running up large


deficits, the care is generally worse. Not spending it to give you


better care. Part of the general malaise within the whole Trust.


There are questions about efficiencies, there could be a link


that the most inefficient hospitals, the one running up the biggest debts


are the ones providing inefficient care. The political angle, reading


down into the Times story, so Simon Stephens came up with a plan saying


we need 30 billion by 2020 20 make sure we get we need. The politicians


needing to come up with 8 billion. The Tories eventually coming up with


it. Chris Hanson, the head of NHS providers saying some of these


issues are too big. We cannot make these efficiencies so suddenly. The


funding crisis, why four fifth of hospitals are in the red. The Tories


may have to stump up more cash. Whether official hospitals provide


better care, absolutely they do. Preventable medical incidents,


killing about a year. People in hospitals say if we have to learn


about mistakes, it costs money to reduce avoidable mortality. The


hospitals that do have the best balance sheets. They comes from the


culture being efficient in all the different dimensional they are


involved with. The question of how much of our GDP we give to the NHS,


there is the absolute imperative to improve the culture, so they are


learning all the time, deploying resources in the most efficient way


to protect patients. How do you remember those statistics? I don't


know. Good question. It is extraordinary. I am not very good at


sincerity. The FT, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail looking at what with


Brexit mean for house prices? There is George Osborne bricklaying in his


spare time, saying they would be a 10% house price fall. Where has he


got this from? Critics would say he has plucked it out of the air.


Extraordinary claim. Quite interesting. The message that the


government want every voter to have when their pen is wavering over both


ballot boxes, is that this is going to hit you economically. Tomorrow


George Osborne will say between ten and 18% of the value of your house


could go. About 50 grams to the average house. Critics are pointing


out, this is not from the Value currently, this is projected growth,


value don't have, but you will have by 2030. You could imagine the


specifics will be lost in the simple fact people will wake up one month


from now and remember what is going to happen with my house. The Daily


Telegraph saying it will be worse than that. Once this. 20%. -- one


fifth. Is this such a smart thing? If house prices go down, is this not


good for first-time buyers. This is one of the thing haunting the


British economy. High house prices create inequality between the haves


and the have-nots. Except people who were already homeowners. They could


backfire. The younger voters in favour of remaining, they may be


alienating some of the base. Two points. He tries to get around that


saying it is a double whammy, mortgage rates will also rocket,


because interest rates will sort, hitting first-time buyers. Secondly,


who gets out to votes, the older voters? Britain won't rebalance, it


could push people into negative equity. You are able to get 95%,


100% mortgages. We are saying he's right. Let's a grip. I am broadly in


favour of remaining in the EU. Broadly? You don't have the option


in the ballot box. The proviso. Does this make you want to stay in? The


level of desperation on both sides, Boris Johnson comparing the EU to


Hitler, Osborne saying the economy is going to pot, interest rates


going sky-high, alienating me from both arguments. I want to see a more


rational debate. Their arguments on both sides, you can leave one way or


another. Demonising from each side alienating. The gamble is that fear


motivates people to the ballot box. Daily Mail, Osborne saying Brexit


will hit the value of your home. There is an extraordinary quote, the


perilous state of the euro is the biggest threat. Blue on blue.


Honestly. They love to come up with ludicrous, often warlike tags. Long


time since Tory attacking Tory. When you unwind the pathway, Cameron


calling the referendum trying to call off the Ukip threat. Now he


would definitely lose the Premiership if we vote Brexit. I


think he's vulnerable even if we stay in, he has alienating so much


of the party. Given he has said he will resign before the next


election, there could be a critical mass. A slight irony, he did it to


head off Ukip. In Scotland they voted no, a surge of Scottish


nationalism. If we vote yes, there could be a surge in English


nationalism. We will see. The Telegraph. Pay of BBC's top actors


to stay secret. Earning ?450,000, they would have to devise the


earnings. My question is, what are you earning? I would gladly tell you


if I were. What is the loophole? If it is an actor, appearing on the


BBC, hired by an independent production company, not a member of


staff, they will not have to die vaults. For me, if there is a


genuine talent, worth to the BBC paying a lot of money, I don't have


a problem with that. I don't. I know people are scared. These things are


licence fee funded, should anyone be earning that kind of money from a


publicly funded organisation like the BBC? Which is having to make


savings? The people who do not want to reveal it by the unnamed


household presenters, kicking open the Telegraph. One calling it a


cheap hit. A mystery why these actors are getting away with it,


while they stump up. A third kicking off, saying the small thing. When


you look at the small details. Clearly some people wound up by the


new change. Fairly annoyed. I don't know what taxpayers think. Licence


fee payers. Not a tax. Licence fee payers, my gut feeling... Straight


off-the-cuff. What is the difference between tax payers licence payers?


Doesn't go to the Treasury, comes to us. People who pay the licence fee


don't necessarily pay tax. I don't want to get bogged down. I want to


talk about the cartoon. Muirfield toilets. Two doors, caddie, men on


one door, men in kilts on the other. He nails it every time. Brilliant.


Mind-boggling. This club which hosts one of the great golfing


competitions, the Open Championship for jeopardising the hosting of this


to prevent women joining the club. Why would they be so anti-women?


Brilliant golfers, wonderful company, what is going on? They


needed two thirds, they almost got it. Not quite. Over 50%. Almost two


thirds. It seems in 2016, having a debate about whether women can


engage in certain parts of Scotland, partaking in a game 150 years old.


It seems bizarre. Golf is struggling in participation. Going down, a lot


of debate about why. Stop it. Often perceived as trustee.


This is going to play into that, in my opinion. Goal. Or as a


consequence. They need to revolutionise the image. I quite


like the plus fours. Lovely to see you.


That is it from us. We will have a look at the weather,


Download Subtitles