:00:13. > :00:15.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be
:00:16. > :00:19.With me are Oliver Wright, Policy Editor at The Times
:00:20. > :00:24.and Katie Martin from the Financial Times.
:00:25. > :00:30.One store in particular we are looking forward to getting deep
:00:31. > :00:33.into. Guess which! The front pages tomorrow starting with the Times Up
:00:34. > :00:35.The Times leads with an investigation,
:00:36. > :00:37.alleging that Google is failing to remove anti-semitic content
:00:38. > :00:46.hundreds of adverts have been pulled from their site in response.
:00:47. > :00:50.the paper reports that the company stands accused of profiting
:00:51. > :00:54.The i picks up the news that George Osborne
:00:55. > :00:56.is to become the new editor of the Evening Standard.
:00:57. > :00:58.A poll for the Daily Telegraph finds that
:00:59. > :01:00.two-thirds of respondents think withdrawing from the EU
:01:01. > :01:02.is more important than holding the UK together.
:01:03. > :01:04.The FT leads on President Trump standing firm
:01:05. > :01:06.on accusations that the British spy agency, GHCQ, tapped to his phones
:01:07. > :01:13.New research shows drinking three cups of tea a day
:01:14. > :01:16.could cut the risk of dementia by half - that's on the Daily
:01:17. > :01:24.Guess who's front page that is! That's right, the Daily Express.
:01:25. > :01:27.The Mirror says that two bullets matching a gun
:01:28. > :01:31.owned by the Moors murderer, Ian Brady, have been found.
:01:32. > :01:36.Great British Bake-off bosses, over the signing of Noel Fielding as
:01:37. > :01:48.Let's start with this wiretapping or not of Donald Trump by GCHQ. The
:01:49. > :01:54.British intelligence agency. Trump stands firm on GCHQ spying claims,
:01:55. > :01:59.allegations transatlantic ties. Read a mile from the intelligence agency
:02:00. > :02:03.itself. We don't hear from GCHQ often at all, do we, directly? They
:02:04. > :02:06.don't like sticking their neck out, they are not the government
:02:07. > :02:10.department you can call up and say, we've got a comment about this, it
:02:11. > :02:15.doesn't work like that, but they've come out swinging on this one, they
:02:16. > :02:19.said the allegations from Sean Spicer and Donald Trump were utterly
:02:20. > :02:25.ridiculous. And should be ignored. So that's a no. But the allegations
:02:26. > :02:31.weren't directly from the White House? No, Trump was doing what he
:02:32. > :02:35.does best, which is watch cable TV and regurgitate it live on prime
:02:36. > :02:41.time, or get his spokesman to do it. This particularly was Sean Spicer
:02:42. > :02:45.who brought this up. The other point about GCHQ is not only do they not
:02:46. > :02:48.speak very much, but they certainly wouldn't speak without political
:02:49. > :02:50.approval so this will have gone to Downing Street and Downing Street
:02:51. > :02:54.will have approved the statement, which is really significant. The
:02:55. > :02:57.other thing is, this story has been moving around all day, it started
:02:58. > :03:03.off this morning suggesting they were apologising many Americans,
:03:04. > :03:07.saying they never intended to it. But Mr Spicer let it be known that
:03:08. > :03:12.actually the administration wasn't apologising at all. You appear to
:03:13. > :03:15.have a split between the national security adviser, McMaster, who
:03:16. > :03:18.talked to his counterpart in the UK today, and by all accounts did
:03:19. > :03:22.apologise. Then the other half of the administration say, no, nothing
:03:23. > :03:26.wrong, we're sticking with it. Sir Malcolm Rifkind has said this is
:03:27. > :03:30.completely outrageous, you can't carry on like this, can't have a
:03:31. > :03:33.president saying this stuff and can't have a press secretary going
:03:34. > :03:39.off on one in front of the press again in this fashion. Exactly, if
:03:40. > :03:44.they'd said it just once, maybe we could have somehow sorted it out,
:03:45. > :03:49.but it's this first rule of holes, just stop digging. They are not
:03:50. > :03:55.stopping. So the latest from Trump and Spicer, Trump is saying he was
:03:56. > :04:02.just repeating reports from a "Talented legal mind". This... Who
:04:03. > :04:06.hasn't checked the facts. It isn't the basis on which you normally
:04:07. > :04:09.throw accusations like this around. Sean Spicer is saying we don't feel
:04:10. > :04:15.like we have anything to apologise for. Some of the Republicans do,
:04:16. > :04:19.though, some of the people in Congress say its time an apology was
:04:20. > :04:24.issued. This is one of the big issues behind all of this, their
:04:25. > :04:28.esteemed Trump in the White House. There is a gap between team Trump
:04:29. > :04:34.and Republicans in Congress, some of his constituents will get a very bad
:04:35. > :04:39.deal out of Trump care, the replacement of the Obamacare medical
:04:40. > :04:43.provision. So that's sort of split, as well as splits with in the White
:04:44. > :04:47.House, split between the White House and Congress, it could get
:04:48. > :04:50.interesting. The other point is, the Trump administration, those close
:04:51. > :04:53.around it, want to keep this row about the Obama phone tapping going
:04:54. > :04:57.because remember when they brought it up, it's a diversion tactic from
:04:58. > :05:00.the other allegation doing the rounds about contact between the
:05:01. > :05:05.Trump administration and the Russians prior to the election and
:05:06. > :05:10.what was going on. In a way, as many smoke signals that go off in
:05:11. > :05:14.different directions, it plays into them. Muddies the waters all over
:05:15. > :05:19.the place. They don't want things to be clean. This headline, allegations
:05:20. > :05:25.of strain, strained transatlantic ties. Commentators we spoken to
:05:26. > :05:28.suggest that actually the intelligence agencies here and in
:05:29. > :05:32.the States know what they are dealing with and will continue to
:05:33. > :05:37.cooperate. Is the strained political rather than among the intelligence?
:05:38. > :05:43.I would imagine so, yes, the spooks, if you like, work closely together,
:05:44. > :05:46.but there will come a point at which Trump is throwing around accusations
:05:47. > :05:50.effectively against the UK Government, that we're not
:05:51. > :05:55.comfortable with. I do suspect there is very much a political split.
:05:56. > :06:01.Let's look at the Times, Google lets anti-Semitic videos stay on you
:06:02. > :06:06.Tube. This is an investigation papers carried out, advertisers
:06:07. > :06:09.revolt after Web giant's failure. This in particular focus is on
:06:10. > :06:16.anti-Semitic content. There are other accusations against YouTube.
:06:17. > :06:18.This is the follow-up to our investigation yesterday talking
:06:19. > :06:22.about how Google was selling advertising off the back of some
:06:23. > :06:25.pretty nasty videos and getting money from the government, big
:06:26. > :06:28.brands, part of the story says a whole lot of people have pulled out
:06:29. > :06:36.and said they won't advertise. The other part of the story is the scale
:06:37. > :06:41.of you know, he'd videos. Particularly anti-Semitic hate
:06:42. > :06:45.videos. They found 200 videos in a quick search. -- eight videos. The
:06:46. > :06:50.interesting bit is they alerted Google to these videos, they took 12
:06:51. > :06:57.videos, reported them to Google, they should take them down in 24
:06:58. > :07:01.hours, they all stayed up. -- hate. Does Google have the technical
:07:02. > :07:05.capacity to monitor this? They would argue, not really. We've got to
:07:06. > :07:07.question that, I think they can remove stuff, it's whether there is
:07:08. > :07:12.the will, whether they want to invest the cost and the staff to do
:07:13. > :07:17.it. Is there an argument that for some people this is hate speech and
:07:18. > :07:20.four others free speech? But if you see this stuff in real life you
:07:21. > :07:29.might think that, but it's pretty poisonous. It's not just the
:07:30. > :07:32.anti-Mister Dick -- is not just the anti-Semitic stuff, there is
:07:33. > :07:35.homophobic material. The level of bile you can find on the Internet if
:07:36. > :07:39.you're looking for it is extraordinary. It's interesting
:07:40. > :07:43.we're at the point where the arbiters of what you should and
:07:44. > :07:46.shouldn't be allowed to say online art dominoes pizza, effectively,
:07:47. > :07:54.it's one of the companies whose agency is pulling support and
:07:55. > :07:58.Google, -- from YouTube and Google. They don't seem to take action
:07:59. > :08:02.without commercial impact. Quite hefty potentially, this company have
:08:03. > :08:07.asked one of the world's biggest advertising agencies, it says, it
:08:08. > :08:11.spends ?35 million each year with Google in Britain. Yeah, the
:08:12. > :08:15.question is how long they'll keep it up for, the real thing you have to
:08:16. > :08:18.look for. They always say they'll do it, but quietly a few weeks later
:08:19. > :08:23.they don't. Hopefully on this occasion they will insist Google
:08:24. > :08:28.changes what it's doing. And will bring back the advertising until
:08:29. > :08:35.they do. Shall we look at a story bound to keep you going for some
:08:36. > :08:40.time? Here it is on the i which couldn't resist it. Six jobs George,
:08:41. > :08:45.public and political world shocked after Osborne is appointed newspaper
:08:46. > :08:51.editor. We used to have two jags Prescott, now six jobs George. Were
:08:52. > :08:56.you shocked? Well, I think there's not many things that can bring the
:08:57. > :09:00.FT newsroom to a total standstill. The kick trolley on Thursday
:09:01. > :09:07.afternoon comes pretty close but this was a moment of genuine shock.
:09:08. > :09:11.Yeah, completely from left field, you know, George Osborne PCs to be
:09:12. > :09:15.Chancellor of the Exchequer. He's never been a journalist. He was
:09:16. > :09:20.turned down for a job by someone at the FT, Gideon Patmon. Times
:09:21. > :09:31.trainee, turned down by The Times. He wrote a column for the Telegraph
:09:32. > :09:35.for a while. But his credentials as editor of a regional but nonetheless
:09:36. > :09:43.major daily newspaper I think is reasonable to question. It really
:09:44. > :09:47.raises serious issues around conflict of interest and it would be
:09:48. > :09:51.one thing if a sitting MP... It would be interesting to hear what
:09:52. > :09:55.his constituents think. It interesting enough a sitting MP is
:09:56. > :10:01.in this position but as the paper points out he rakes in the 650 grand
:10:02. > :10:05.salary from Blackrock as adviser. Is it a reason other than envy to say
:10:06. > :10:11.he shouldn't do the job? Say there is a story about Theresa May making
:10:12. > :10:16.a mess of something, is he really going to have an impartial view? Say
:10:17. > :10:19.there is a story about Blackrock making a mess. Not that these
:10:20. > :10:25.companies have ever got into trouble before! Andrew Neil, who presents
:10:26. > :10:30.the Daily Politics for the BBC, we spoken to him and he says he think
:10:31. > :10:36.this is a perfect vehicle for George Osborne to take on Theresa May, from
:10:37. > :10:42.which he could at some point in the future mount a leadership bid. Is
:10:43. > :10:46.that really what he's about? I think it's pretty difficult, everything
:10:47. > :10:49.written in the standard will be scrutinised through that prism for
:10:50. > :10:54.the future. One thing that struck me is, who needs fake news when the
:10:55. > :10:59.real news is quite so bizarre? The other thing which is interesting is
:11:00. > :11:04.he's a man who made his name trying to cut the deficit but will have
:11:05. > :11:09.similar problems at the standard. From the proprietor of view it's
:11:10. > :11:14.quite a coup, isn't it, to get him? That'll be helpful to business,
:11:15. > :11:17.won't it? It is a coup to have him, a great person to reel in new
:11:18. > :11:23.advertisers and say, advertise with us. He doesn't get away from the
:11:24. > :11:27.fundamentals, that the standard relies entirely on advertising and
:11:28. > :11:32.it is falling. The Tatton seat under the reorganisation of boundaries? I
:11:33. > :11:37.can see how long-term he can stay in Parliament. There is an
:11:38. > :11:42.acknowledgement by Osborne's people they'll see how things go. Tatton is
:11:43. > :11:46.due to be abolished anyway in the boundary review, so in a few months'
:11:47. > :11:50.time... He doesn't start this job until May, at some point before then
:11:51. > :11:57.he might announce he will stand down, I think it's reasonably
:11:58. > :12:01.likely. He fielded a question today, whether being editor of the Evening
:12:02. > :12:05.Standard was compatible with being an MP. He said the Evening Standard
:12:06. > :12:09.is mostly edited in the morning and vote in parliament in the afternoon.
:12:10. > :12:15.So he can work from 5-11, send the paper to be printed, then go to the
:12:16. > :12:19.Commons? When will he have time to go to Blackrock? It's only four days
:12:20. > :12:21.per month. The other issue about the Privy Council as well, who have
:12:22. > :12:26.access to all sorts sensitive government information. Is it
:12:27. > :12:32.compatible with being a newspaper editor? No, I think it's fine for
:12:33. > :12:35.politicians to write newspaper columns, there is a long tradition
:12:36. > :12:38.of that, Boris Johnson in the Telegraph, Michael Gove in the
:12:39. > :12:44.Times. He gave that up when he became Foreign Secretary. Osborne is
:12:45. > :12:48.a backbencher to all intents and purposes. I think there was a
:12:49. > :12:52.conflict of interest between editing the paper, being the ultimate to
:12:53. > :12:57.decide what goes in, and being an MP for the governing party, whether he
:12:58. > :12:59.gets an ad Theresa May or not. John McDonough kindly treated to George
:13:00. > :13:05.Osborne offering to write a column for the standard about the latest
:13:06. > :13:13.budget U-turn. Apparently Nick Clegg is going to keep writing his column
:13:14. > :13:17.until he's told otherwise. So yes, the internal politics are going to
:13:18. > :13:20.be fascinating and if you look at the front of the i, the happy faces
:13:21. > :13:24.on the people of the Evening Standard are quite something to
:13:25. > :13:30.behold! Somebody is taking a photo of him in the distance, can't
:13:31. > :13:35.resist. Two stories in the Telegraph, Brexit bigger than the
:13:36. > :13:40.union. Another poll suggesting, this time, people think it is more
:13:41. > :13:44.important that we get out of the EU than holding the UK together. This
:13:45. > :13:48.is a really strange poll, they suggest two thirds of the people
:13:49. > :13:54.they questioned thought Britain's departure from the EU mattered more
:13:55. > :13:58.than stopping the UK break-up. If that's right it suggests a whole
:13:59. > :14:02.bunch of people who voted to remain in the referendum have completely
:14:03. > :14:06.changed their minds and for Brexiteers and want to get rid of
:14:07. > :14:13.Scotland. Don't care what happens to the union. If right, it's
:14:14. > :14:16.extraordinary. I have a few doubts. Doesn't it depend on the sample
:14:17. > :14:21.size? It's not huge number of people. I'd be fascinated to know
:14:22. > :14:27.how the question was phrased, exactly how many people they asked.
:14:28. > :14:29.It seems to be suggesting that people think losing Scotland is a
:14:30. > :14:34.price worth paying for leaving the EU, which leads me to wonder what is
:14:35. > :14:39.the controversy about the referendum in Scotland? Why block it, why be
:14:40. > :14:44.unhappy? If it's a price worth paying, we don't care either way,
:14:45. > :14:48.let them do it. It reflects a wider point regardless of whether it's
:14:49. > :14:52.right. A lot of people in England think, if you want to go, just go.
:14:53. > :14:59.There was a touch of that in the previous referendum. Numbers would
:15:00. > :15:02.suggest the SNP wouldn't necessarily win that referendum. But if you look
:15:03. > :15:06.at what the numbers were before the last referendum was called, the
:15:07. > :15:11.majority in favour of remain was far bigger. It entirely depends on what
:15:12. > :15:17.kind of deal and what the state of the relationship between the UK and
:15:18. > :15:21.EU is in 2019. If it looks like there is a prospect of a deal that
:15:22. > :15:26.would suit both sides, it's pretty implausible Scotland would vote to
:15:27. > :15:29.leave. If it looks like it'll be a hard and disorderly Brexit, the idea
:15:30. > :15:35.Scotland might not necessarily join the EU, but join something like the
:15:36. > :15:39.EA, countries like Norway, which are on the sidelines, part of the single
:15:40. > :15:45.market but they don't have to have the Euro, you can see how it became
:15:46. > :15:48.quite an attractive future. Let us look at this final story, Price
:15:49. > :15:55.curbs to give fair deal on energy. This makes the Conservative Prime
:15:56. > :16:01.Minister sound quite interventionist. Didn't Ed Miliband
:16:02. > :16:06.put this on a stone? Tell us what the story is, Katie. The story is
:16:07. > :16:09.there as a whole bunch of energy companies, the big six, in the UK
:16:10. > :16:13.over the past two or three weeks, they've all been raising energy
:16:14. > :16:17.prices for households by something like ten to 15% in some cases. The
:16:18. > :16:24.price of electricity, gas, all going up. Theresa May says she wants to do
:16:25. > :16:29.something about it, step in to control energy prices. This is
:16:30. > :16:32.pretty extraordinary when you consider this is exactly what Ed
:16:33. > :16:36.Miliband wanted to do a few years ago and was rounded on by the
:16:37. > :16:40.Tories, who said he was being needlessly interventionist in a
:16:41. > :16:44.private industry. Two things are interesting here. When Ed Miliband
:16:45. > :16:46.said that he talked to the Conservatives privately and they
:16:47. > :16:54.were worried because they felt it resonated with the public. -- didn't
:16:55. > :16:58.resonate. People around Theresa May say she's a different type of
:16:59. > :17:01.politician to David Cameron and George Osborne, she's much more
:17:02. > :17:06.interventionist, believes the state has a role to intervene in markets
:17:07. > :17:10.in a way which Osborne and Cameron were ideological utterly opposed to.
:17:11. > :17:17.They say, you're going to see a change, she has this idea of workers
:17:18. > :17:20.on board. -- on boards. In happened because people highlighted practical
:17:21. > :17:23.difficulties but her instinct is the state can intervene and I think you
:17:24. > :17:29.will see more of this, the devil will be in the detail, though. Huge
:17:30. > :17:34.practical problems, there will be a lot of anger and upset from energy
:17:35. > :17:38.companies. Some of they've done has been pretty poor but there has been
:17:39. > :17:42.so much scrutiny on them, some accusations against them are
:17:43. > :17:48.somewhat unfair. If the argument is that the market isn't working, have
:17:49. > :17:52.we just got too few companies to create the competition we need?
:17:53. > :17:55.People are quite reluctant to move around between companies even though
:17:56. > :18:01.it has been made much easier. It has been made much easier, I'm not
:18:02. > :18:04.having more would really help. It's a heavily regulated industry,
:18:05. > :18:08.expensive industry, but nonetheless they produce quite nice returns for
:18:09. > :18:12.their investors, so there is clearly something not quite right. I'm not
:18:13. > :18:15.suggesting Theresa May is heading in the wrong direction on this. This is
:18:16. > :18:19.very much in keeping with her initial speech she made in Downing
:18:20. > :18:23.Street when she took her position saying, I'm here to help people just
:18:24. > :18:29.about managing. People holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet,
:18:30. > :18:33.like George Osborne. It is very much in keeping with what she's been
:18:34. > :18:36.saying from day one, yet devil is in the detail. That's it from the
:18:37. > :18:43.papers, all of the front pages are on the BBC website.
:18:44. > :18:50.If you miss the programme any evening you can catch up later on
:18:51. > :18:53.the BBC iPlayer. Nice to see you both. Now it's time for the weather.