:00:00. > :00:00.cricket, another wicket gone for England, Gary Ballance for five,
:00:00. > :00:14.England are 124-3. Now on BBC Sport, it is Gavin with the Papers.
:00:15. > :00:16.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to the papers.
:00:17. > :00:19.With me are Josie Cox from the Wall Street Journal
:00:20. > :00:23.and the Independent's economics editor, Ben Chu.
:00:24. > :00:27.The Observer leads with reaction to the FBI reviewing its investigation
:00:28. > :00:29.into Hillary Clinton's emails, with senior Democrats accusing
:00:30. > :00:34.the bureau's head of compromising its political neutrality.
:00:35. > :00:37.That story's also featured on the front of the Sunday Times,
:00:38. > :00:39.which also claims that Hillary Clinton's lead
:00:40. > :00:43.The Mail on Sunday criticises the BBC for a show
:00:44. > :00:50.which it says is available on the CBBC website.
:00:51. > :00:52.A novel solution for the country's housing crisis
:00:53. > :00:55.is unveiled on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph -
:00:56. > :00:57.it says the Government is to offer help to build
:00:58. > :01:02.While the People carries an interview with the mother
:01:03. > :01:05.of murdered toddler Jamie Bulger, who says she's living in fear
:01:06. > :01:19.Let's begin with what is clearly one of the biggest stories anywhere in
:01:20. > :01:25.the world, Hillary at war with FBI as a lead slumps, that is the Sunday
:01:26. > :01:28.Times' take on that, and the Observer has angry Democrats cry
:01:29. > :01:33.fowl with new probe into Clinton, what you make of this and the timing
:01:34. > :01:36.of it? The timing is very interesting, only ten or 11 days to
:01:37. > :01:43.go until the election, and this is very much in line with what we have
:01:44. > :01:46.seen so far in this campaign, very messy. I cannot run any campaign
:01:47. > :01:52.similar to this one being quite as messy and quite as full of lewd
:01:53. > :01:56.comments and insults being thrown around. This underscores what I have
:01:57. > :02:01.been saying for a while, this will not be about people voting for who
:02:02. > :02:05.they want to be the next president but people voting for who they do
:02:06. > :02:09.not want to be the next president, voting for someone to avoid the
:02:10. > :02:12.other person coming into power. And some people possibly do not want
:02:13. > :02:16.either of them, it has not been, what shall we say, given the
:02:17. > :02:20.standard of American politics over the last 200 years, some of the
:02:21. > :02:25.greatest thinkers, Jefferson and Roosevelt, this has not been a great
:02:26. > :02:30.election. Absolutely, and it hones in on the prospect of this being a
:02:31. > :02:34.lame-duck presidency, because, you know, the polls still predict that
:02:35. > :02:41.Hillary will take the lead on the day. The league is slimming down,
:02:42. > :02:45.but if she does get in, she will no doubt have to battle those trust
:02:46. > :02:49.problems. She has been criticised for being very closed, not very
:02:50. > :02:56.emotional, not being very trustworthy, not being able to be
:02:57. > :02:59.read by the public. That is a very good point, because actually whoever
:03:00. > :03:05.wins is going to face continuing investigations and scandals. We know
:03:06. > :03:09.Donald Trump faces a lawsuit about Trump University, which has
:03:10. > :03:13.allegedly defrauded people, we have heard about allegations of sexual
:03:14. > :03:17.misconduct and other things. And now these e-mails, and we do not even
:03:18. > :03:22.know what is in them. There will be huge damage done by this election,
:03:23. > :03:28.not only the way it has been fought, but the way the whole democratic
:03:29. > :03:33.system has been seen to be much messier and much dirtier than we
:03:34. > :03:37.would like. I think it is really interesting, this latest episode, in
:03:38. > :03:41.the sense that what we have had, the smears based on no evidence at all,
:03:42. > :03:45.the FBI director has not come out with anything that proves
:03:46. > :03:52.anything... Eat hasn't even looked at them. And yet Trump is saying she
:03:53. > :03:56.is corrupt, this is worse than Watergate, and yet somehow it is
:03:57. > :04:00.Hillary who seems to be on the ropes over this episode, when actually the
:04:01. > :04:03.disgrace is that he is trying and finding her guilty based on no
:04:04. > :04:08.evidence whatsoever, which is really in keeping with a lot of the
:04:09. > :04:14.campaign so far. The flavour of both the Observer and the Sunday Times,
:04:15. > :04:17.Hillary at war with the FBI, it does suggest that if she does become
:04:18. > :04:22.president, well, let's put it this way, the head of the FBI might not
:04:23. > :04:25.have a long career in that position, who knows? Because he has done
:04:26. > :04:30.something which is against the advice of the Attorney General, as
:04:31. > :04:33.far as one can establish. Absolutely, and the other thing
:04:34. > :04:41.about this story is that it once again highlights Hillary Clinton's
:04:42. > :04:45.highlights with her close political aide, the separated wife of Anthony
:04:46. > :04:52.Weiner, the disgraced congressman, who was involved in all those
:04:53. > :04:56.horrible sexting scandals. No doubt this is more ambition for Donald
:04:57. > :05:02.Trump's rhetoric. The thing about that, it is not necessarily the fact
:05:03. > :05:05.that matter in politics, it is the fact that, emotionally, there is
:05:06. > :05:08.something funny going on with the Hillary Clinton campaign, that is
:05:09. > :05:15.what many people take out of its - why has she not put all of these
:05:16. > :05:18.allegations to bed? Whether there is any equivalence between what she is
:05:19. > :05:23.accused of and what Donald Trump is accused of is another matter. I
:05:24. > :05:26.think this false equivalence is a very legitimate point, legitimate
:05:27. > :05:30.for the Hillary Clinton campaign and her supporters to bring it up,
:05:31. > :05:36.because as you rightly say, what is the evidence here? It is an FBI
:05:37. > :05:41.director, a former member of the Republican Party, saying, we are
:05:42. > :05:46.investigating, going against all precedent, against the advice of the
:05:47. > :05:51.Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and then on the Trump side, with the
:05:52. > :05:54.sexual abuse claims, women coming forward to testify, actual evidence
:05:55. > :05:59.for people to base their judgment on. I think Josie is right, a lot of
:06:00. > :06:03.people are weighing it up on emotion, but if they looked at the
:06:04. > :06:09.facts, it is pretty clear which way the balance would come out. A former
:06:10. > :06:19.director, Rudi Giuliani, a very prominent Trump supporter. Now this
:06:20. > :06:25.is interesting, Putin's trueblue Tory friends, it talks of various
:06:26. > :06:28.people, Russia's state funded apparatus of soft power is targeting
:06:29. > :06:36.British politics, it names the director of the Bruges Group group,
:06:37. > :06:42.whose first president was Margaret Thatcher. It talks quite a bit about
:06:43. > :06:47.the Bruges Group, what do you make of that? If you were an MP, or if
:06:48. > :06:52.you were in politics, you would be expected to engage with Putin,
:06:53. > :06:56.wouldn't you? Absolutely, but I cannot think we can denied that it
:06:57. > :07:02.makes for a good story, the way that it is presented, Putin has all these
:07:03. > :07:06.political connotations, he is a very controversial figure, so the
:07:07. > :07:10.headline is how Putin pulls the strings. So that is once again
:07:11. > :07:15.portraying him as this kind of puppet character, which makes for a
:07:16. > :07:20.good image. I think it is hard to make... It is hard to understand how
:07:21. > :07:23.influential this story is actually going to be, how much it really
:07:24. > :07:28.matters. I am not particularly familiar with these figures who are
:07:29. > :07:36.being discussed. Not exactly household names. Exactly, and it is
:07:37. > :07:39.not really clear how these groups would be in general relations
:07:40. > :07:42.between the UK and Russia going forward. I think what is
:07:43. > :07:47.interesting, the background to all this is we have got Nato reinforcing
:07:48. > :07:51.in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, extremely worried about the
:07:52. > :07:54.rumblings in Russia, the big aircraft carrier going through the
:07:55. > :07:59.Straits of Dover, we know what is going on in Syria, Ukraine remains a
:08:00. > :08:03.running sore that will not go away, Russia very sensitive about it. So
:08:04. > :08:11.that seems to be the big picture, that somehow we have got to engage
:08:12. > :08:14.with Russia, but at what level and how? I think that is right, the
:08:15. > :08:16.context is quite interesting, because the Bruges Group, one of
:08:17. > :08:19.these think tanks which is accused of getting too close to the Kremlin,
:08:20. > :08:29.was founded on the back of Margaret Thatcher's very anti-European Bruges
:08:30. > :08:33.speech, and the indication is that this has led them into the arms of
:08:34. > :08:38.the Kremlin, their Euro scepticism. They are so anti-Europe that they
:08:39. > :08:44.Russian allegation that Ukraine started the Rodeo by getting too
:08:45. > :08:49.close to Europe, that forced Russia to get involved, they want to see
:08:50. > :08:51.Europe in the worst possible light. Although Thatcher was this great
:08:52. > :08:59.anti-Communist Prime Minister, they were founded on the back of her
:09:00. > :09:03.hard-line views, they have been led into this... It is difficult to
:09:04. > :09:08.imagine that Margaret Thatcher would approve of going into occupied
:09:09. > :09:11.eastern Ukraine, that would be rather controversial, one would have
:09:12. > :09:18.thought, with anybody, which is the other part of the story. Absolutely,
:09:19. > :09:29.and the nature of the trips that are being funded by Russian officials is
:09:30. > :09:33.also very questionable. There is an extra added dimensions of political
:09:34. > :09:37.controversy in terms of Russian anti-gay policies. I think we're
:09:38. > :09:44.reading that Putin plays a weak hand extremely well! The Sunday
:09:45. > :09:49.Telegraph, hard Brexit will pave the way to trading riches, this is,
:09:50. > :09:52.again, we're about to go into the sunlit uplands of a great trade
:09:53. > :09:56.deal, or alternatively it is all going to be a disaster. What do you
:09:57. > :10:01.think of these stories? They are in every paper all the time. I think it
:10:02. > :10:05.is an interesting time, because clearly there are lots of factors
:10:06. > :10:13.which have provided momentum to the Brexit campaign recently. We had GDP
:10:14. > :10:17.figures out, stronger than expected, and we have had other reports coming
:10:18. > :10:21.out saying that the City of London, the UK is going to thrive under
:10:22. > :10:26.Brexit. And of course we had the Nissan story earlier this week,
:10:27. > :10:33.which was that Nissan had committed to build these two models in its
:10:34. > :10:37.Sunderland plant, securing 7000 jobs, so an endorsement of
:10:38. > :10:42.post-Brexit Britain, I suppose. So this, I think, is playing off that
:10:43. > :10:47.momentum and just creating a sort of prospect of what could be to come.
:10:48. > :10:52.That could be right, or it could be wrong. What basically this is is
:10:53. > :10:58.saying we need to get out of the customs union, this is a pressure
:10:59. > :11:01.group of the hardline Brexit crew, and they want to ginger the
:11:02. > :11:04.Government up to get out of the customs union. They say, if we
:11:05. > :11:09.don't, we can't make these free-trade deals with the rest of
:11:10. > :11:13.the world, like China, South America et cetera, because in the customs
:11:14. > :11:17.union you have to leave that to the EU. They have to get out to do those
:11:18. > :11:20.deals, they have to get out if they want Liam Fox, the international
:11:21. > :11:27.Trade Secretary, to have a meaningful role. This is saying,
:11:28. > :11:31.look at what we can get, but a question over whether they could do
:11:32. > :11:35.those amazing deals. I talked to Vince Cable this week, the former
:11:36. > :11:39.Business Secretary, now he said his assessment of the deal to do with
:11:40. > :11:44.Nissan, the reason they are there is that it implies we will stay within
:11:45. > :11:48.the customs union, because if no money has changed hands, what could
:11:49. > :11:58.be offered to a company like that? Yeah. We don't know, but it is clear
:11:59. > :12:01.that is the way he is thinking. The logic is impeccable, apart from the
:12:02. > :12:03.fact that he me has made it very clear that are red line is
:12:04. > :12:06.preventing free movement, and you will not get that if you leave the
:12:07. > :12:10.customs union, if you leave the single market. So I think his logic
:12:11. > :12:14.is right, but the politics may it unlikely that will happen. The
:12:15. > :12:18.question is, we have various key part of this economy we don't want
:12:19. > :12:22.to lose - car manufacturing, financial services, all things we
:12:23. > :12:26.want to boost, paving the way for trading riches, as the Telegraph
:12:27. > :12:35.puts it. But you cannot keep making deals with individual sectors of the
:12:36. > :12:37.economy, there comes a point WEC advance cannot keep doing that. And
:12:38. > :12:43.you cannot set precedents and have double standards. That is what is so
:12:44. > :12:45.interesting about the Nissan story, because other companies will want a
:12:46. > :12:52.reassurance that their future will be secured. Another interesting
:12:53. > :12:58.story in the Sunday Telegraph, prefabs to solve the housing crisis
:12:59. > :13:02.- I do not know how many post-war prefab still exist, there must be a
:13:03. > :13:07.few, but there were meant to be a temporary solution, and we are
:13:08. > :13:10.talking about building 100,000. I think this is really interesting,
:13:11. > :13:14.prefabs to solve housing crisis. The number they are talking about is
:13:15. > :13:19.100,000, and we were talking about this before we came on. Is 100,000
:13:20. > :13:23.going to solve a crisis? It might make a bit of a difference, but
:13:24. > :13:28.surely the crisis is so much more widespread and so much more bigger
:13:29. > :13:33.in magnitude. That is a very fair point, the numbers do not stand up,
:13:34. > :13:38.if you talk about solving - it might help. 100,000 over the parliament
:13:39. > :13:42.they are talking about, and we have a 100,000 shortfall every single
:13:43. > :13:46.year, supply relative to demand, so Josie is right, this is not going to
:13:47. > :13:52.solve the housing crisis. The other point is that this is an old policy,
:13:53. > :13:55.it has been announced by Vince Cable and other ministers. They talked
:13:56. > :13:59.about this elution quite a lot. It is not in the gift of the gunmen off
:14:00. > :14:04.to provide this. They are not going to them themselves. -- they talked
:14:05. > :14:10.about this solution quite a lot. It is not in the gift of the government
:14:11. > :14:15.to provide this. It is a more intensive solution to the crisis, it
:14:16. > :14:22.is about ginger ring up the industry to provide these. Of the Government
:14:23. > :14:26.can grease the wheels. As you say, it may be a drop in the bucket. At
:14:27. > :14:33.the end of the story, it says these houses are designed to last for ten
:14:34. > :14:40.years! As we well no, that is usually beyond the length of the
:14:41. > :14:47.government! The Sunday Times, this is a very interesting political Zou
:14:48. > :14:58.Shiming story, ministers row back on disabled benefits curbs. I think it
:14:59. > :15:01.is in keeping with the tenet of Theresa May's approach since she
:15:02. > :15:04.became Prime Minister, trying to take some of the hard edges of what
:15:05. > :15:09.the coalition did on welfare, working families, those were just
:15:10. > :15:15.managing, as she calls them. The reforms were introduced by Labour,
:15:16. > :15:20.hardened up by the Conservatives, getting people on employment support
:15:21. > :15:23.allowance, getting them into the workplace, and Iain Duncan Smith had
:15:24. > :15:27.a reform where he would try to beef up the incentives by getting into
:15:28. > :15:32.work, but also cutting benefits for those who were deemed able to join
:15:33. > :15:37.the workforce. And essentially what they are going to do is keep
:15:38. > :15:40.encouraging people, remove the sanction of cutting benefits, or
:15:41. > :15:43.cutting them back to jobseeker's allowance levels. So it is not
:15:44. > :15:49.completely rowing back, but it is making them less harsh. Sort of
:15:50. > :15:57.kindly, gentler initiative, I assume that is the theme. I think this is
:15:58. > :16:02.about getting rid of the pigeonholing, it was assumed, if you
:16:03. > :16:05.are not in work, you are on benefits. If you are in work, your
:16:06. > :16:09.benefits will be cut, but we all know it is not like that. Different
:16:10. > :16:15.differs abilities require different support levels, and it sounds to me
:16:16. > :16:20.like this is more about a sliding spectrum than a pigeonhole. --
:16:21. > :16:29.different disabilities. Many of the papers can be summed up by the Mail
:16:30. > :16:35.on Sunday, UK boss of Typhoo warns of the disaster of leaving,
:16:36. > :16:40.humanising what we have talked about, the opposite of the upside of
:16:41. > :16:48.Brexit, the wholesale cost of tea might go up 50%, he is worried about
:16:49. > :16:54.it. We have had Marmitegate, now it is a storm in a teacup - the
:16:55. > :16:58.economics are simple, if prices go up, the prices in the shops will go
:16:59. > :17:04.up. There will be an effect, so people who import products like tea,
:17:05. > :17:13.they do not grow it on the slopes of North Yorkshire or Wigan! But it is
:17:14. > :17:15.an interesting point, Apple have raised the prices of their
:17:16. > :17:21.computers, saying the same things, so this may be the story of the next
:17:22. > :17:25.year. Economic is indeed very simple, it was Marmite last week,
:17:26. > :17:35.tea this week, it could be chocolate, meet or god knows what
:17:36. > :17:41.next week. Tea is attacking us where it hurts! I am afraid I am a bit of
:17:42. > :17:45.an addict, I suspect much of Britain is the same thing. But the other
:17:46. > :17:48.point is that there will be other economic advantages, things will
:17:49. > :17:54.settle down, who knows what will happen to the euro? It is true, and
:17:55. > :17:57.if the pound does not keep falling forever, this will be a one-off
:17:58. > :18:01.shock, may be very big, but it will not be going on for ever. This will
:18:02. > :18:08.hurt people, and it may make people think about the economic costs and
:18:09. > :18:13.benefits of Brexit, like you say, it brings it down to a household level.
:18:14. > :18:16.Petrol is the other one that is very sensitive, obviously it is to not
:18:17. > :18:21.naked in dollars, and the oil price has gone up as well, so we may be
:18:22. > :18:32.getting sensitive about billing of the car. -- the -- denominated. I
:18:33. > :18:35.believe Opec is still really the big driver there, that will be for the
:18:36. > :18:41.longer term, that will be more relevant than FX.
:18:42. > :18:44.That's it for The Papers, thanks to Josie Cox and Ben Chu.
:18:45. > :18:59.Just a reminder we take a look at tomorrow's front pages every
:19:00. > :19:05.Good morning. Fog has been the main hazards of this morning, and it will
:19:06. > :19:06.be tomorrow morning as well, this was sent in