20/05/2016 The Papers

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,