19/09/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be

With me are Rob Merrick, Deputy Political Editor

of the Independent, and broadcaster Natalie Haynes.

Let's have a look at the front pages. We are going to start with

the Times, reporting that NHS doctors will be required to register

income from private work. The Financial Times focuses on Germany,

where Angela Merkel has expressed regret over the refugee policy. Her

party suffered defeat in regional elections. The Metro leads with the

conviction of Christopher Halliwell for the murder of a woman. The

Express says that Theresa May has rejected the idea that a good trade

deal with the EU is impossible without free movement of people. The

Guardian leads with the catch of the prime suspect for the New York bomb

attack. The Telegraph has the same, saying that police are investigating

whether the suspect was involved in other Islamist plots. The Mirror as

the story about an illegal puppy farm where the owners made ?100,000

but kept the animals in squalid conditions. The Mail says that GPs

surgeries will offer consultations via WebCam in an attempt to reduce

waiting times. We start in America, a New York bomb's Islamist links,

front page of the Telegraph. 29 injured, amazingly nobody killed

over the weekend in a series of what the police are now saying were

coordinated attacks. Yes, and more by luck than judgment for some of

the bounds -- bombs that they found didn't go off, this one which did go

off was in a dumpster. And then an enormous number of questions. The

first, most urgent one, who is it and can we catch them, is now

answered, it appears, but the endless questions that produces, who

were his contacts, are there other people, they seem to have suggested

there isn't a cell he is part of in the New York area, so there's that.

Five of his relatives have been stopped and questioned. He appears

to have gone to and from Afghanistan. It is being roundly

politicised, as you'd expect, by Donald Trump and in rebuttal, by

Hillary Clinton. This all plays into the US election campaign. The

authorities suggesting that these Islamist links, as a result of him

going over to Pakistan, Afghanistan, not necessarily linking up with

anyone else who may be involved in this specific plot in the States.

That's right, as soon as you have considered the people who mercifully

were not killed, that were injured, you immediately think about the US

elections only six or seven weeks away. Donald Trump is quick out of

the traps. He immediately launches what is a very familiar rant we have

heard many times, if only he was president and he was tough and they

didn't have a week immigration policy that he alleges that this

sort of thing wouldn't happen. When we read about the prime suspect,

it's a familiar tale. He's an American citizen, who in a fried

chicken restaurant and loves cars. That is what the people interviewed

today were apparently saying. His previous clashes with the law have

the bane -- have been about noise disruption. He could have been

radicalise, but the suspicion of them is that people are seizing on

because of radical Islam to almost give themselves a cause in their own

lives to carry out some sort of dramatic, headline grabbing act

rather than having a history of radical Islam. The first week of

that leaves you in that direction. Perhaps there are other suspects,

the Telegraph suggests one person would need outside assistance to

make aid bombs but elsewhere there are quotes that there is nobody

connected with it and no terror cell. The fact is, you can get

fertiliser and a timing device, you can get nails and all of these

things off a shelf in Walmart. Yes. And loads of guns! That's another

matter. Yes, but the numbers are not super convincing in terms of, you

know, in order to make bombs in the US, where so many things we would

consider to be weapons of war are readily available, it seems

impossible to suggest that could be so. Back here, the Times, doctors

told to review all income from private work. It is to expose

conflicts of interest. A long time ago, before the junior doctors

dispute, which feels like it's been going on for years, they were trying

to enforce a new contract on the consultants. I think I'm right to

say that they broke away from that attempt. This reminds us that at

some point they have to go back to consultants and try and impose a new

contract on them. That might be tougher, because the consultants are

at the top of the tree and presumably have more power, but I

suspect they might have less public sympathy. We think about the fact

that they may not be available on weekends and they are probably on

the golf course, that's the stereotype. This story suggesting

they will be forced to expose private earnings. It says that about

half of 46,000 consultants carried out private work. There don't seem

to be any figures for how much they might earn. A figure from a decade

ago of 30 4000. If they are forced to reveal private earnings, they

will oppose it fiercely, I'm sure. The chairman of consultants saying

here it will be used for political reasons. The reason would be to try

and shame the consultants into doing more NHS work. On the face of it, it

seems fair enough, doesn't it, if there is a potential conflict of

interest? You should have to declare that, surely? The conflict of

interest seems to be at one extreme, an ugly suggestion that perhaps,

let's say, a not very ethical doctor might allow is waiting list to

extent on the NHS because then he would get more private patient.

Given that the average earnings of these consultants are ?112,000 per

year, call me extremely naive, but that seems to be quite a whack of

money. Seems like perhaps a very small number of not very nice people

might then go, perhaps I can also do this to my financial advantage. You

would assume that the conflict of interest was relatively rare. And

that we were trying to think before we came in of other jobs where you

have to declare if you have another income, other than being a

politician, because then the conflict of interest would be over

it. I don't think you have to declare it if you are a teacher and

do private tutoring. Nobody as far as I know is that, you know those

teachers who deliberately teach badly to an exam so they can get

extra tutoring money... It is to shame consultants into doing this

other NHS work. Using junior doctors to sweep up. They are trying to

force junior doctors into working longer hours and the same must refer

to consultants. The Guardian, attempt at peace deal, as key labour

vote nears. Mr Corbyn is going to win, but the point is, will he be

able to get back the majority of the Parliamentary party? Sigh and people

lots desperate lots of people might wonder why this subject is so

important because with Labour so far away from power it doesn't feel very

important. The reason it is important, I think, is that, if

Corbyn agrees and the NEC vote in elections to the Shadow Cabinet, it

would provide a reasonable justification for some of the big

names who quit over the summer to come back, on different terms, that

they had been elected rather than chosen by the leader. Perhaps there

is still going to be a showdown meeting tomorrow. This story

suggests perhaps a peace deal is in the offing and it won't quite be the

showdown with expected and perhaps there will be a deal under which the

Shadow Cabinet, or some of it is elected, with the proviso that if

they then Mr Hague and are seen to be undermining Corbyn, that he would

have power to remove them. -- if they then misbehaves. Perhaps this

just postpones the inevitable. Jeremy Corbyn knows that, if he is

to have any success at all, at least at PMQs, he needs the mob behind

him, baying and screaming and shouting and backing him to be held.

Yes, as opposed to giving him the baleful eye. Saying nothing. He

needs them as much as they might need a job in the Shadow Cabinet. I

think that's true. It doesn't always seem that he thinks that. There's a

lot of talk about the membership. It seems that certainly his rhetorical

choice is to say, basically, I have the support of hundreds of thousands

of people and it sort of doesn't matter what a bunch of people who

happen to work in the same building as me think. Perhaps that is true,

but it doesn't look like it is true from the outside. From the outside,

it looks like a backstabbing mess. I think they probably do need each

other. Is that there are enough to say? He need some of them, purely

from a numerical point of view. He runs the Queen 's official

opposition. They need to scrutinise legislation, to hold government to

account. Purely for that reason, he needs more people. If he is to be

able to claim that he can somehow bring Labour back together, he has

to to persuade some of the big names to come back, and this might be a

way of doing it, at least in the short term. This is all for you,

algorithms. I love them! Humans can beat algorithms by relying on gut

reading. This focuses on 18 hedge funds and edges, not a statistically

significant sample. I would imagine there are more than that in the

world. -- 18 hedge funds managers. It turns out that gut instinct is a

more reliable indication of trading them algorithms. And so it's

interesting, I suppose. It's not, as I say, authoritative, not least

because I would guess that people who don't have very good gut

instincts have long since lost their job, having lost their hedge funds

hundreds of million pounds in a matter of seconds. Wood George W

bush famously said that he uses his got to make decisions. That went

well! Your gut tells you good things, doesn't it? This story

introduces a flat in the -- a fascinating new word which I've

never heard, the ability to sense the state of 1's own body and

apparently count your own heartbeat without holding your pulse. I know

that my number of heartbeat went up when I was asked to talk about his

story involving algorithms. Eye of the tiger, that's what happened to

me. It appears to be good news for hedge fund traders, that they can

convince people they are better than algorithms and still received

obscene bonuses. Finally, the Brownlee brothers, what a story,

brotherly love, one helping the other over the finish line. I almost

can't talk about this without crying. In a minute, when my

mascara... I can barely talk about it. In which Alistair Brownlee

defend his Olympic gold and we watch Jonny, who won silver at Rio and had

won bronze at London, we watched him be outstripped by his brother. We

were all going, well, the World Series and it will be fine. Alistair

couldn't win the World Series, because he missed races at the

start, so it was Jonny's for the losing and he was in the lead but it

was so hot and he overheated and he got disorientated. To see his

brother just stop, he came and picked him up and dragged him over

the line. People have said, he should have left him because he

would have got help quicker, but I'm not sure that is true. He was on a

stretcher about the second after crossing the finishing line. My

favourite bit is where Alistair is basically carrying his brother and

he basically pushes them over so he gets there first. A girl could cry

about this. We would all do this for our brother, wouldn't we must remark

my brother is heavier than me! I have got a big brother and I can't

imagine I would do that. Surely the greatest satisfaction comes from

beating your own... It doesn't feel like sport! You are head of the

Parliamentary football team as well. Here it comes.

Don't forget, all the front pages are on the BBC News

website, where you can read a detailed review of the papers.

It's all there for you seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers.

with each night's edition of The Papers being posted

on the page shortly after we've finished.

Thank you, Rob Merrick and Natalie Haynes.