04/09/2016 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 04/09/2016. 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 Tom Bergin, who's Reuters' Business Correspondent and


the Senior Political Correspondent at the Times, Lucy Fisher.


Is that what you were the last time you came in? I think we give you


many different titles! Welcome to both of you, fresh from a summer


break! Tomorrow's front pages now... The Daily Express leads on words


of optimism by the prime minister about Brexit


and the UK's economic future. Allegations against Labour MP -


and Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee -


Keith Vaz paying to meet male more on the Keith Vaz story -


but a smiling Theresa May enjoying the limelight in China


takes centre stage. Brexit makes the lead


in the Guardian - the paper claims the Prime Minister has declined


to endorse pledges made by the Vote Leave camp for a points


based immigration system. The Times continues the theme,


saying Theresa May has ruled out a points-based system


for EU migrants. It also has a picture of the


impressive replica of the Great Fire of London, set alight to commemorate


their epic blaze that happened in 1666.


Finally, the Daily Mail also runs the Keith Vaz


So, let's begin with a few of the stories to do with the Prime


Minister and Brexit. Warnings that are coming from various members of


the G20, in particular. Let's begin with the Daily Express, may, no fear


over a year exit but Prime Minister warns off watering the deal down


with Brussels. What would that look like according to the Daily Express?


They've been pretty clear that means we cannot stay in the single market.


What is also interesting is coming onto the front pages of The Daily


Telegraph, and whether she will accept some of the pledges made by


the league campaign through the EU referendum, of course they were


supported by the big beasts in the government by John Whittingdale,


Chris Grayling, but it was not government pledges -- Leave


Campaign. The idea that 100 million extra pounds a week would be given


to the NHS after leaving the EU. VAT should be cut, she's not giving into


those ideas and leaving the door open at the moment. Watering down is


not necessarily Britain's choice, is it? There are people in other parts


of the EU we had to negotiate with? Obviously, the Brexit campaigns were


clear that they wanted to have a single example with Boris Johnson


describing it as having your cake and eating it. But we live in a


real-world, and our partners, or potential partners, have ground


rules. They say that you can have free movement of access if you want


it to the market. And you have other things are potentially not just


mutually exclusive, but they also said that they wanted access to


regulated markets without following regulations of those markets. This


means Theresa May is in a difficult position as she has so many


conflicting objectives that it is very difficult for them to achieve


theirs. The Daily Express does not want her to compromise on anything


and achieve everything at the same time. But some in favour of Brexit


don't want to be part of the single market anyway? Because of all of the


other elements that have to go along with that, like freedom of movement?


Absolutely, there is such a plurality of opinion, Theresa May


can continue to say Brexit means Brexit but we are no more clear on


what that means. I understand David Davis, the Secretary of State, will


make a statement in the house tomorrow, I don't think we will see


more detail then but it's interesting, the tone of the Daily


Express is still a paper that pushed leaving the EU, they have had that


is a key agenda for years now, they are optimistic, reporting her


optimism, telling the G20 that Britain is open for business.


Everyone is waiting to see what happens, pressure is behind her.


Everyone is weighing up what is going on. But she can only wait so


long, the reality is people of investing as the Japanese pointed


out, but we don't know what will happen. The ex-head of the European


bank has said that you have to get a move on with this. The Daily


Telegraph, PM could stop Boris is plan for a points-based immigration


system, this was muted by Boris Johnson during the campaign to


suggest that we could have something like the Australian system where you


get access to Australia if you meet certain criteria and gain certain


points. Why is she thinking this would work for us? A couple of


things, there's this watering down question, is this a possible


trade-off? Basically, the Financial Times goes into more detail, Theresa


May may have a more relaxed system for EU citizens, so they can come to


the UK without fulfilling all of the criteria that non-EU people would


make. She would be doing that with a view to getting access to the single


market. On the other hand, the other reason she may want to do it is if


you talk to businesses, if they've spoken to international businesses


since the vote, they make it clear that one aspect they like about


Britain is that they can get a lot of people in easily. It's all very


well talking about these systems but the easiest ones to get still take


six months. If you are a business that relies a lot on bringing in


talent, you don't like these kinds of systems. It might be another


factor Theresa May is thinking of, if the economy goes south, she won't


want to bring in new elements that could slow it down further. And


seasonal workers who come in to help, particularly with agriculture?


You are right, if she tries to curb immigration, that is what many


Brexiteers are saying, she gets net migration to come down, but today


she said there was no evidence that a points-based system works. The


suggestion may be that Number ten is looking more and quotas for work


permits, the idea being that if you judge people by age and skills, they


have to tick the boxes and many people could fulfil those criteria


so it may be better to set a concrete upper level for people


coming in. Let's look at The Guardian on this story, Mae refuses


to guarantee Brexit pledges, promises on NHS and immigration in


doubt. Another subheading, Japan and US warned Prime Minister of exit


risks to Britain. Barack Obama not going back on what he said during


the campaign, saying we would negotiate with the EU before we talk


to the UK. A stern warning from Japan? Yes, it's interesting,


doubling down on his warning, making it clear he believes Britain made


the wrong decision in the EU referendum, they not only is it more


important for the US to negotiate with the EU, but also in the block


of Pacific nations, he's making clear that we are at the back of the


queue. And Japan have said we have a lot of workers in the UK, in the,


new factoring and technological industries, we expect the same


privileges and access that we currently enjoy -- in the car


manufacturing business. Won't this smack of more interference by


foreign countries? That really got people's backs up in the campaign?


Possibly, but we have a statement coming out today, Britain will lead


the way on free trade. There's the idea that Britain can push ahead


through sheer determination. It does not really fit with the way that


trade deals work. You cannot lead a trade deal, you need two people.


The whole perception in how it works, what is being depicted is


that it is very much by good. Trade deals now are about regulation and


not tariffs, they are pretty passed as an issue since the WTO. There is


the fundamental problem when you negotiate trade deals like


regulation, that is what they are about now. And they take a lot of


time, the WTO is still going on! The Metro, a very different story,


this is what has been happening with the story surrounding Keith Vaz, the


Leicester East MP, a Labour MP, here is chair of the home affairs select


committee or he has been. It says that he steps down as head


of home affairs committee after paying for male ex-Scots.


They are all allegations, nothing is against the law -- escorts.


Nothing has been confirmed, but there are whisperings that he's


planning to step down on Tuesday when the committee meets. He's been


head of the committee for nine years.


One of the most influential in Westminster, but it does of course


mean dealing with the Home Office and policies looking into those, it


deals with advice and there's an enquiry on prostitution and laws


around sex workers. There will be questions raised about


appropriateness of him remaining as head when he is alleged to have


engaged with prostitutes. Over the weekend it has been stated


over and over again that there is nothing illegal about paying for


sex, it is illegal in some parts of the UK?


It is a difficult area. Had he solicited a prostitute from a car it


would be illegal, in certain circumstances in the UK and Northern


Ireland it is illegal to pay for sex in most circumstances. It's a tricky


legal area to be in. It seems, as Jeremy Corbyn said, even if the


allegations are true, Mr Vaz has not done anything illegal. But the fact


that this is an area where the legality of alleged activity, there


is a broad dispute over it, and it puts them in a difficult position.


Yes, these are all allegations at the moment, nothing confirmed but


also Mr Vaz has said he is deeply disturbed by The Sunday Mirror


choosing to pay for access to this story.


Let's move on and look at The Times newspaper. NHS blows nearly ?2


million in payoffs to bosses, who is getting these hand-outs? It seems


these are the bosses of NHS various units, who are getting very


significant pay-outs for leaving their jobs, partly because there was


a rationalisation and more people were made redundant than might


normally be the case. In one sense, the NHS... It is big,


or the numbers will be big and we will be outraged by the payoffs to


bosses who we may not feel huge amounts of sympathy for. The


government said that there would be payoffs that would be capped at a


certain level of ?95,000. It seems we had pay-outs going up to


several times that amount. There seems to be a case to answer,


as to why the rules have been broken and the figure is big not just


because the NHS is big but because rules were not followed.


We don't know exactly what their individual contractual agreements


were with some people and if they were entitled to these bonuses and


payoffs? We do not have the details here but the real nub of the story


is that this goes back to the widely criticised top-down reorganisation


implement it by Andrew Lansley in 2010 during the coalition


government. That is when he abolished 150 bodies, and created


more. It was the largest restructure in the history of their NHS and has


led to payments that people have said are down to the restructuring.


There's been a revolving door system in many cases, people leaving one


unit only to become re-employed by the health service in another


capacity, some people have said it smacks of waste. Let's look at the


Express, page two, Mother Teresa, she was made a saint.


It attracted huge crowds in the Vatican.


In 2016, the canonisation of the woman who died in 1997, it has been


greeted with great enthusiasm. And the


compassion that she had for the working Kolkata, it has captured the


public's imagination. -- the poor in Kolkata. It is a touching moment,


whether you are Catholic or not, seeing someone canonised who gave so


much of their life to eliminating poverty. She is controversial in


some of the things she did, some think that her legacy was entirely


good? Growing up in Ireland, people took for granted that she was


already a saint, she was a significant figure among Catholics


for a long period of time. The controversy, yes, that's been here,


you made the point of alleviating poverty, the accusation was that she


did not tackle the causes of poverty.


Regarding compassion, the questions around alleviation of pain, and in


Ireland, in the past, one of the issues was that in Catholicism,


Payne brings you closer to God. That may have led to pain relief not


being distributed as otherwise it would have done -- pain. The whole


issue of sainthood is difficult for some Catholics as the idea of


granting miracles is something that maybe does not tell nowadays with


our scientific outlook. It's not without controversy but as Lucy


said, is hugely popular to the faithful.


And The Daily Star, Struck the winner decided already, and the


dancers have not even taken to the floor yet, they've been rehearsing.


A fixed claim made by James Jordan, who used to be one of the


professionals on the show. It is shocking. The late has gone off,


what can you believe in! Fairies! Obviously you can, I'm not a major


Struck a fan, but it captured my attention, if they are reading a


contest based on career political trajectories, it can be serious.


Similar claims made last year during the competition that it was a fix?


It overlooks the fact the audience gets to vote? I'm not sure on the


basis of this former dancer who no longer appears on the show... I


don't know their claims, but as we approach the anniversary of 9/11


Mac, conspiracies of truth, Jeremy Corbyn supporters...


People see conspiracies and wrecked contests where there are none.


Amanda is our editors tonight, and a fishy order low of Stictly, they


have not even began to dance yet. -- aficionado. That's all for now,


but Tom and Lucy will be back in an hour but now, time for Meet The


Download Subtitles