:00:15. > :00:17.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be
:00:18. > :00:20.With me are Jack Blanchard, deputy political editor
:00:21. > :00:23.of The Mirror and Hugh Muir, columnist for The Guardian.
:00:24. > :00:27.Let's have a look at tomorrow's front pages.
:00:28. > :00:29.The Telegraph reports that British troops who served in Afghanistan
:00:30. > :00:32.could face criminal investigation over alleged abuse in the war
:00:33. > :00:36.after an inquiry was set up by the Ministry of Defence.
:00:37. > :00:40.The Mirror splashes on allegations that thousands of breast cancer
:00:41. > :00:43.patients are being denied a crucial pill which costs 34p
:00:44. > :00:49.The Times says MI6 is on a recruitment drive,
:00:50. > :00:53.hiring hundreds more spies to fight global terrorism and exploit
:00:54. > :00:59.The Guardian leads on the economy, saying that gloomy pre-referendum
:01:00. > :01:01.predictions have been confounded by the initial post
:01:02. > :01:07.The Express also reports on recent economic figures,
:01:08. > :01:12.saying "Britain is thriving" after the vote to leave the EU.
:01:13. > :01:15.The FT highlights divisions within the US Federal Reserve over
:01:16. > :01:21.The Metro carries the the headline "King Con" on a story
:01:22. > :01:23.about a fraudster who is believed to have taken
:01:24. > :01:27.more than ?100 million from 750 firms.
:01:28. > :01:30.And The Sun continues its coverage of the break-up of Angelina Jolie
:01:31. > :01:45.Continues its coverage! That is going to go on for some time. The
:01:46. > :01:50.Telegraph, Jack, Afghanistan veterans facing investigation into
:01:51. > :01:55.Taliban claims and a lot of controversy over potential
:01:56. > :02:00.prosecutions and the suggestion that former Iraq soldiers are being
:02:01. > :02:05.treated unfairly as regards lawsuits and so forth. Afghanistan, too?
:02:06. > :02:08.Apparently so. We have known for some time that the soldiers involved
:02:09. > :02:11.in Iraq have faced investigation, the Iraq historic litigation steam
:02:12. > :02:16.has been subject of a lot of controversy the quite the years. --
:02:17. > :02:19.historic allegations team. The Telegraph says the Ministry of
:02:20. > :02:24.Defence has set up a June in quarry into even older cases, some cases
:02:25. > :02:28.even older, allegations against troops in Afghanistan. It is big
:02:29. > :02:31.numbers, they are saying more than 550 allegations of war crimes in
:02:32. > :02:37.Afghanistan are being investigated by the MOD, taking the total to 2200
:02:38. > :02:40.cases across the two complex. It is a big deal involving a lot of people
:02:41. > :02:44.with millions of pounds in investigations and people are
:02:45. > :02:47.getting very upset. Some of the right-wing newspapers have been
:02:48. > :02:51.campaigning against this for years. Tory MPs are quoted and former army
:02:52. > :02:57.colonels who are upset that the scale of this is going on. But Hugh,
:02:58. > :03:00.one can't ignore serious allegations, can one, about the
:03:01. > :03:05.Armed Forces if there are allegations that they may have been
:03:06. > :03:09.involved in activity that is less than suitable? Of course not, so it
:03:10. > :03:14.is about striking the balance, isn't it? We woke up to Theresa May saying
:03:15. > :03:18.she won't stand by while spurious claims are made against soldiers and
:03:19. > :03:23.I think everyone agrees that you have to protect the soldiers because
:03:24. > :03:28.we send people into harm's way. But at the same time, there is a
:03:29. > :03:32.balance. You can't absolve them of responsibility if there is
:03:33. > :03:37.behaviour, if they behave in a way they oughtn't. I think what
:03:38. > :03:42.surprises one about this row and the number of cases is that there does
:03:43. > :03:48.not seem to be a filtering system that everyone can be confident
:03:49. > :03:52.about. If these were normal criminal cases then obviously, the police
:03:53. > :03:58.investigate, they go to the CPS and they would decide whether or not
:03:59. > :04:00.there is a valid case or whether it is spurious and that they would not
:04:01. > :04:04.let it go forward. There does not seem, from what they are saying, to
:04:05. > :04:09.be a parallel structure for these cases and so you then get into the
:04:10. > :04:12.situation where cases that reasonable people might say should
:04:13. > :04:19.not go forward seem to be going ahead. OK, the corollary of this is
:04:20. > :04:23.the story on the front of the Daily Mail, 200 soldiers going to war with
:04:24. > :04:29.MOD, hounded heroes plan to take top brass to court, soldiers handed over
:04:30. > :04:33.incidents in the Iraq war threatening to take the MOD to
:04:34. > :04:37.court. This is a very similar story but this is the soldiers fighting
:04:38. > :04:40.back, if you like. They are grouping together and they have got their own
:04:41. > :04:45.law firm and they are threatening to take the MOD to court for what they
:04:46. > :04:49.say is harassment. I guess every individual case is going to be
:04:50. > :04:53.different but if an allegation is made, presumably the MOD feel they
:04:54. > :04:55.have to make some kind of basic investigation, which might be no
:04:56. > :05:00.more than speaking to the soldier involved and it might not go any
:05:01. > :05:03.further. We talk about large numbers of investigations but we don't know
:05:04. > :05:07.how specific each one is and how detailed it is and how much risk
:05:08. > :05:11.there ever was of that person being prosecuted. But the 200 soldiers
:05:12. > :05:15.going to war with the MOD, presumably they believe they have
:05:16. > :05:20.been produced or hounded or whatever, in a way that does not
:05:21. > :05:23.want it? Again, you have to worry if they feel they have no option but
:05:24. > :05:27.for them to go to the law as well. It seems that the way things are
:05:28. > :05:36.panning out, the only people benefiting from this are the lawyers
:05:37. > :05:39.who can take on a lot of cases. You wonder if maybe MPs should not look
:05:40. > :05:44.at the structures involved here as to whether or not there is a way to
:05:45. > :05:48.look at some of these cases, as I say, to sift out the spurious ones
:05:49. > :05:54.but also to have some kind of protections for soldiers to ensure
:05:55. > :05:58.they are not subject to dubious claims. Has the armed services
:05:59. > :06:02.committee heard anything on this? It has been discussed in Parliament
:06:03. > :06:06.endlessly for the last few years. It is a very big issue and some MPs
:06:07. > :06:09.feel incredibly vexed about it. You can understand why. But I think at
:06:10. > :06:13.the same time, we should be proud that we live in a country where we
:06:14. > :06:17.do scrutinise these things. And there is the rule of law. And we
:06:18. > :06:20.take it seriously because it does not happen in plenty of countries
:06:21. > :06:25.and I don't think we should push back so far that we turn a blind eye
:06:26. > :06:29.to things that happen in any conflict. Let's go to your paper
:06:30. > :06:34.comes you, UK economy defies gloom after EU shock, it is just one day
:06:35. > :06:38.of good news after another following the Brexit Road, at least following
:06:39. > :06:42.the decision to leave the Union, Brexit actually has not happened
:06:43. > :06:45.yet. You have hit the nail on the head because they are all looking
:06:46. > :06:50.for signs as to whether the vote in June was a terrible thing or a good
:06:51. > :06:55.thing. Looking at various indicators and the problem is they have been
:06:56. > :07:01.going off in different directions. In an attempt to try to make sense
:07:02. > :07:04.of it, we have this Brexit Watch exercise at the Guardian. We have
:07:05. > :07:09.looked at various indicators and what it says is that there were
:07:10. > :07:12.fears we would plunge into a post-referendum recession and that
:07:13. > :07:17.does not seem to be happening. But there is a very good set of
:07:18. > :07:20.indicators, consumer spending is strong, unemployment is low and the
:07:21. > :07:29.housing market is holding steady. At the same time, the OECD, who were
:07:30. > :07:34.quite worried about the immediate prospects, seem to be a lot calmer
:07:35. > :07:36.about things as well. Government borrowing was slightly higher than
:07:37. > :07:42.economists expected but again, nothing to worry about. So far, so
:07:43. > :07:46.good but I think that is about as far as you can go at the moment.
:07:47. > :07:49.What we are trying to do is say here is a snapshot of where we are at the
:07:50. > :07:53.moment but it does not tell you where we will be in a few months'
:07:54. > :08:01.time goes as you say, we not triggered Article 50 yet. Will the
:08:02. > :08:05.sky fall in as soon as Theresa May prices the Article 50 button? I have
:08:06. > :08:11.long do not making predictions in this game! As you say, so far it
:08:12. > :08:14.hasn't happened but all of those predictions, as we were saying
:08:15. > :08:17.before we came in, all of those predictions that were made about an
:08:18. > :08:22.instant economic crash were made on the basis that David Cameron says he
:08:23. > :08:26.would trigger -- said he would trigger article 50 the day after the
:08:27. > :08:30.vote to leave the EU. That is what he said he was going to do. So all
:08:31. > :08:33.the predictions suggesting everything was going to go wrong was
:08:34. > :08:37.based on the fact we were going to leave, or the suggestion was we
:08:38. > :08:39.would leave as soon as we lost the vote? That is what the Prime
:08:40. > :08:43.Minister said he would do. He also said he was not going to resign. He
:08:44. > :08:47.said a lot of things but obviously that hasn't happened and most people
:08:48. > :08:52.are pretty glad because Britain needed a bit of time to get its
:08:53. > :08:55.house in order. But that is going to happen probably early next year, we
:08:56. > :08:58.are expecting it in January or February and at that point, there
:08:59. > :09:04.will be some fluctuation, I would imagine. But I think the idea of
:09:05. > :09:07.tracking this as it goes is a very good one. As you says, there are
:09:08. > :09:13.many different measures of how the economy is doing. There are certain
:09:14. > :09:17.newspapers who have been very keen to give a good reflection of how it
:09:18. > :09:23.is doing since we voted to leave the EU. Nice to see the Guardian joining
:09:24. > :09:27.them! It is too early to say and it is worth saying that the OECD has
:09:28. > :09:33.still got a pretty grim economic forecast for Britain next year. It
:09:34. > :09:36.reckons the Eurozone is going to have higher growth than we are in
:09:37. > :09:41.Britain. It's not a catastrophe but it is pretty sluggish. But these
:09:42. > :09:46.people are wrong a lot of the time. Indeed, and let's hope the economy
:09:47. > :09:51.continues to motor. The Financial Times, Theresa May is pushed to
:09:52. > :09:53.publish pay ratios. This is an interesting story, particularly
:09:54. > :10:00.comparing Goldman Sachs and Waitrose. Before she took over, she
:10:01. > :10:06.said she would have a Britain that works for everyone. Boardroom pay
:10:07. > :10:11.and company pay was one of the things that she decided to focus on
:10:12. > :10:15.and wanted to make sure that the differentials within a company were
:10:16. > :10:18.not too huge, that the people at the top were not earning massively more
:10:19. > :10:26.or outrageously more than the people at the bottom. And so, she promised
:10:27. > :10:29.the figures would be transparent, that she would publish them. What
:10:30. > :10:32.this story says is that there is a warning to her that if she does
:10:33. > :10:37.that, she might not get the results she likes. The assumption would be
:10:38. > :10:42.that banks, for example, would come out of this very badly, that the
:10:43. > :10:46.ratio between those at the bottom and that would be very high in terms
:10:47. > :10:50.of banks. What this is warning is that if you look at a company like
:10:51. > :10:53.John Lewis, actually, the ratio might not be so good, there. The
:10:54. > :10:57.rationale is that within banks, someone is being pay phenomenal
:10:58. > :11:01.amounts of the top but also, in the middle, you have people being paid
:11:02. > :11:06.very well. So the ratio was not so high whereas somewhere like John
:11:07. > :11:10.Lewis, you have someone being paid a lot of money but people on the shop
:11:11. > :11:14.for not being paid very much. That ratio figure might not tell us what
:11:15. > :11:18.Theresa May hoped it would and might not give her the kind of political
:11:19. > :11:24.leveraged, the ammunition she hoped for. But won't people understand
:11:25. > :11:29.that there would probably be a difference between Goldman Sachs and
:11:30. > :11:33.Waitrose, that you are going to have people who are on a lower salary,
:11:34. > :11:36.much lower because they do a very different job in relation to many of
:11:37. > :11:41.those people who might be above them in the pecking order of the company?
:11:42. > :11:44.To some extent, yes, definitely although I would argue it is quite
:11:45. > :11:49.outrageous that there is such a pay differential at Waitrose but they
:11:50. > :11:52.and others are seen as more of a model company than Goldman Sachs in
:11:53. > :11:54.the way they are set up. I was at the talk that Vince Cable, the
:11:55. > :11:57.former Business Secretary gave the other day when he said some of this
:11:58. > :12:01.stuff and he was quite scathing about this as an idea. He said they
:12:02. > :12:05.looked at it when he was in government... Publishing the
:12:06. > :12:08.figures? Yes, and he said the problem is it makes people like
:12:09. > :12:11.Goldman Sachs lookalike bastions of virtue when no one would think that
:12:12. > :12:14.was the. I suspect this is more about Theresa May trying to signal
:12:15. > :12:19.she's doing something very serious about corporate pay than actually
:12:20. > :12:23.doing it and frankly, the idea you can shame these guys and senior
:12:24. > :12:29.women into reducing their pay rate is unproven, I would say. Symbols
:12:30. > :12:32.are important but one of the consequences of the Brexit vote was
:12:33. > :12:37.that Theresa May have to show all of those people who voted to leave that
:12:38. > :12:42.she is on their side and things like this, clamping down on outrageous
:12:43. > :12:48.pay is one of those symbols. All right. Apparently we are going to
:12:49. > :12:53.get more spies because MI6 is hiring hundreds more in the war against
:12:54. > :12:57.terror. Theresa May Lars Spies. We have learned that after six years of
:12:58. > :13:00.having her in the Home Office! -- loves spies. She's a big fan of
:13:01. > :13:06.spooks and to be fair, they seem to be doing a very good job keeping
:13:07. > :13:09.Britain protected domestic league and better what we have seen in
:13:10. > :13:12.other parts of Europe so I think there will be lots of public support
:13:13. > :13:15.for this. I think it was announced last year in broad brushstrokes by
:13:16. > :13:19.George Osborne but we are starting to see it filtering through, how it
:13:20. > :13:23.will affect different services. It is a huge increase in the number
:13:24. > :13:28.that MI6, 40% increase in the number of spies which is a massive increase
:13:29. > :13:32.in manpower at a time when most of the public sector is being strained.
:13:33. > :13:37.But I think people basically believe in this and think it is a good idea.
:13:38. > :13:41.Very briefly, the Telegraph, Mark Zuckerberg is going to spend ?3
:13:42. > :13:48.billion apparently getting rid of all of the world's diseases. Is that
:13:49. > :13:51.going to be enough? ?3 million? One thinks not if you bear in mind in
:13:52. > :13:57.January, the government and Bill Gates of Microsoft pledged ?3
:13:58. > :14:02.billion to fight malaria alone. I can't see all disease being wiped
:14:03. > :14:06.out with ?3 billion from Mark Zuckerberg. But I can see what they
:14:07. > :14:10.want to do it but I'm sure there an altruistic motive as well, without
:14:11. > :14:15.wanting to be cynical, God forbid! You work for the Guardian! Greg blue
:14:16. > :14:18.when you hear about tech firms at the moment, you hear about
:14:19. > :14:23.multinationals who are beyond the control of governments, worries
:14:24. > :14:27.about their tax arrangements and things like that. This is the kind
:14:28. > :14:29.of publicity that they need. Good news story, at least on the of it.
:14:30. > :14:33.Thank you for joining us. Don't forget all the front pages
:14:34. > :14:36.are online on the BBC News website, where you can read a detailed review
:14:37. > :14:38.of the papers. It's all there for you, seven days
:14:39. > :14:41.a week at bbc.co.uk/papers. And you can see us there,
:14:42. > :14:43.too, with each night's edition of The Papers
:14:44. > :14:46.being posted on the page shortly A full weather forecast
:14:47. > :15:12.coming up next. A chilly night across parts of the
:15:13. > :15:13.North West and a warm night across parts of the South