02/10/2016 The Papers


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



away from winning the Malaysian Grand Prix. That is all the sport


for now. Now on BBC News here's


Gavin Esler with The Papers. Hello and welcome to our Sunday


morning edition of The Papers. With me are Ben Chu


of the Independent and Eleanor Mills has fired the Brexit starting gun,


saying she'll launch a Great Repeal Bill in the spring,


scrapping the law that took Britain Brexit also leads the Telegraph -


the headline reads May Takes The Axe It also has an interview


with Samantha Jefferies, the widow of a Falklands hero,


who this week won a High Court Brexit also leads the Observer,


with claims from former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan


that the UK turning its back on the single market


and closing its borders risks The Express also has


that story, proclaiming The Mail on Sunday has a story


featuring the claims of comedian Jon Holmes,


who says he was sacked from his Radio 4 programme The Now Show


for being "white and male." The BBC says it was creating


opportunities for more Let's begin with the splash on Me


firing the Brexit starting gun, the Great Repeal Bill to scrap EU


membership. This is the first time we are getting a sense of what to


race in -- Theresa May means when she says Brexit means Brexit. She


says this will be a vote under this new bill to repeal all the former


legislation meaning EU rules were sovereign over British law, which


has been hailed in many papers as a great start. Given how very slim


majority in parliament, only 12, it would be interesting to see how that


vote goes down and whether MPs really do abide by the referendum,


or whether they go more on their own gut. As we know, in Parliament,


Brexit was not popular. I think it is interesting, and the other thing


that comes out of the interview today and stories on the other


papers is the widening sense between a hard Brexit under soft Brexit. Had


Brexit being pulling out of the EU quickly, invoking Article 50, then


maybe going back to World Trade Organisation tariffs and not trying


to have a proper deal allowing us passports to the city so they can go


on training. It is a much more hard sense that this is all over. Or a


soft one which is more of the status quo, which more centrist people in


the Tory party preferred. She is hoping, I think, as she goes into


the party conference this week, the this will put a dampener on Brexit.


I think it is like chucking a grenade into a tank of petrol, they


will go crazy about what this means. I think it is a cracking story, but


it raises so many other questions, she has a majority of 12 in


Parliament, we know the Conservatives are as divided as the


Labour Party on this issue they are particularly divided, and she might


not win a vote. We have the supremacy of Parliament after a


referendum which the British people made it clear what they think. I


think this is more of the media management announcement than


anything substantive. There was a great comment on Twitter this


morning saying this is the legislative equivalent of the phrase


Brexit means Brexit. It sounds dramatic but the content is not


there. Why would the UK keep this bill in place after Brexit? Of


course it wouldn't, but it doesn't tell us anything about the single


market access, it tells us nothing about the customs union,


contributions to the EU budget, migration, all these key issues


people want to know the answers to are not covered by this Great Repeal


Bill, so Great Repeal Bill obviously sounds dramatic but there is no


content. But it's very clever, isn't it? She has skirted over this whole


business when the big fight in the Tory party is between hard and soft


Brexit. We will move on in a moment to Nicky Morgan's story in the


Observer where she says she is calling for what she calls a soft


Brexit. They have set up a new group called Conservative Mainstream, the


more Remain end of the Tory party trying to say we should have the


same relationship that we do with the EU. That's go on to that now.


The Observer says had Brexit will mean new bigotry according to Nicky


Morgan. She fears "Trump like attitudes", we risk losing the


centre ground which Theresa May is trying to capture, and Theresa May


has been speaking on the Andrew Marr Showed saying she will trigger


Article 50 and begin the formal process of leaving the EU before the


end of March next year, so we have at least the beginning of a


timetable, but she still has the problem, and this has brought down


Tory leaders in the past. Article 50 of March confirms what everyone


suspected. Boris Johnson said something similar. He was slapped


down so it is not exactly news. You are right in terms of the two wings


of the Conservative Party sniping at each other now. Yes. Nicky Morgan is


saying this morning something which is direct against people like Liam


Fox, Iain Duncan Smith, David Davis, saying if you dally with hard Brexit


it is dangerous, not just because of the economic impact but social-


political impact. If you have the hard right saying we can do all


these things and not cooperate with Europe, it is like Trump's view of


the world, that you need not cooperate, you just assert yourself


and don't need to consider others in your mind. That is an interesting


attack because it is different to the usual economic critique we have


had before now. It sounds very high-minded but this may be sour


breaks, Nicky Morgan was at the ceremoniously tacked on Macs sacked


by Theresa May -- may be sour grapes. It is the second time she


has had a pop at her since she was relegated. She had a go about


grammar schools and now says she is for soft Brexit. There is definitely


animosity between these ladies. What is interesting in the Sunday Times


interview with Theresa May is how she is positioning herself on the


centre ground. It is about social mobility agenda, saying I made it


because I was talented, selective education but not a privileged toff


like Cameron and his like, and she is campaigning on behalf of people


she says had just managing. She says, we need to think about people


for whom on the surface it seems OK but life is difficult, they are


still struggling. That is really putting her tanks on the centre


ground where the Labour Party should be, but of posts do it mac Kos


Corbyn has taken them so far into the crazy left-wing wilderness that


there is a huge open goal for the Tories, and she is quite right wing


but sitting on it because she wants to win. This may be the biggest


story of the next two or three years. Very interesting. And the


irrelevance of the Labour Party in all this discussion, it you are


talking about a fight between the wings of the Tory party, Labour is


out of the discussions. Let's move on to the more cheerful subject of


American politics! Janet Daley in the Telegraph saying she understands


why Americans will vote for a dangerously ignorant demagogue.


Quite a few conservatives are very worried about the prospect of a


Trump presidency on both sides of the Atlantic. And rightly so! Her


column ends up by saying people hate Hillary more than they are offended


by Trump, which is probably true. Or true to some extent. But, I mean,


Trump is such a peculiar thing it is difficult to say where he fits in


the history of American politics. It is an insurgent thing and we don't


know where it will end. I am interested in the New York Times


revelations about his tax affairs, because they have evidence that he


had a stonking great loss on his businesses in the mid-90s, which


they think maybe the reason why he was able not to pay income tax for


18 years, because even offset losses against profits going forward. That


goes to the heart... You may be right that he is unique but he


claims to have done it himself of the great businessman and so on, and


he isn't. That is the point of Janet baby's column, she is saying what is


hard for those in the UK to understand, and I think it is true,


having been in America when they were talking about the health Bill


and people talking about how awful it is that people might have


insurance to give them health care, from a British perspective it is


bonkers, but there is this individualistic, I made it myself,


section of American politics, this puritanical, I did it my way... They


think Trump stands for that. And he inherited his wealth. Exactly, he


doesn't stand for the little man although that is how he is


positioning himself. You could say Hillary is the presidential


candidate because she was married to Bill Clinton and from that things


follow, so you have two candidates neither of whom can claim they did


it alone. Many people in America say they can't stand either but they


have a Hobson's choice. For a lot of Americans who believe in this self


actualisation as the defining freedom of the American way, they


can't bear it, they see Clinton as a socialist who wants to even everyone


up, and it stops Americans being able to do it their way. It is hard


for us to get our heads around it but there is a strong thought like


that in America. Two countries divided by a common language! I


think this is also a cracking story, and other in the Sunday Times, Lord


Bell ran a $540 million covert operation in Iraq for the Pentagon.


How well did that persuade the Iraqi people? To explain to our viewers


what this means, this is the American government giving $540


million to a British PR firm to run psychological operations, things


like putting lines into soap opera plots in the Arabic media, saying, I


hang out with the Americans, or I stopped being a jihadi and now my


life is great. It is that kind of propaganda, we are talking about


propaganda. They should put them in the Archers, that is the answer! It


doesn't seem to have worked. We all know about psychological operations,


but it is interesting that this was so privatised. Everything in Iraq


was privatised, security, catering for troops etc, but is interesting


they gave it to a British company, and they reckon they made ?15


million in fees, a lot went to distributing leaflets and probably


paying scriptwriters or whatever, but it is a fascinating window into


this world. Fascinating, isn't it? It is, but as you say, talk about


money badly spent! How much worse could it have been if they haven't


done this deep psychological manipulation. It may be made things


worse, it was so crude! Our last story of the day, the Mail on


Sunday, BBC sacked me for being a white man, I am not speaking


personally as far as I know! Radio for comic told he was the wrong and


colour, even the former diversity boss says it is unfair, John Holmes


sacked from radio fours. As the chair of Women in journalism I bang


the drum for diversity a lot and it is true that the airwaves are often


filled with what could be called stale pale males. I am usually in


favour of diversity, but I think he is great on And Now Show, it is


funny, and you need a balance on these things. People think there is


positive discrimination so people only get jobs because they are a


woman or from an ethnic minority. That is hopeless, it is bad for


everybody. People than think you are not as good. Or there is a token.


There are many extremely talented women and people of colour out there


who could get these jobs but because the way society works, it tends to


privilege people who have fitted a prior mould. There are more white


chaps at the top than other people, and we do need to do something about


that. In FTSE 100 companies if you left it as it was, or politics, it


would take 100 years to get parity is something needs to be done but it


is hard when people feel they are being squeezed out. And it can be


windowdressing, could have -- put a couple of people in low positions


because it takes a race box or agenda box, and the people at the


top don't change. And they are behind-the-scenes so people don't


see them. Box ticking is obviously the approach in one wants. It is


analogous to the debate about social mobility, everyone is in favour of


it but to have it some people you'll need to move down as well as some


moving up. People complain when they move down but you have to understand


if you had to get change in big organisations, you sometimes have to


push people down and give people bad news. There will be some losers. We


should talk about the people who win as well as those who go down. It


sounds like it was phrased in a crass way, the person who told in


this bad news, so you have sympathy. But the principle is that you should


try to get more women into these shows. What is telling in the


coverage is the picture of the people running Are Now Show, three


white blokes. There are women and people of colour and they don't all


need to be white chaps. Thank you very much, that's it for The Papers.


Thanks To Ben And Eleanor. Just a reminder, we take a look


at the next day's front pages every


Download Subtitles