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.
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,