28/12/2016 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - Clive Myrie presents a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


With me are Oliver Wright, Policy Editor at The Times


and Katie Martin from the Financial Times.


One store in particular we are looking forward to getting deep


into. Guess which! The front pages tomorrow starting with the Times Up


The Times leads with an investigation,


alleging that Google is failing to remove anti-semitic content


hundreds of adverts have been pulled from their site in response.


the paper reports that the company stands accused of profiting


The i picks up the news that George Osborne


is to become the new editor of the Evening Standard.


A poll for the Daily Telegraph finds that


two-thirds of respondents think withdrawing from the EU


is more important than holding the UK together.


The FT leads on President Trump standing firm


on accusations that the British spy agency, GHCQ, tapped to his phones


New research shows drinking three cups of tea a day


could cut the risk of dementia by half - that's on the Daily


Guess who's front page that is! That's right, the Daily Express.


The Mirror says that two bullets matching a gun


owned by the Moors murderer, Ian Brady, have been found.


Great British Bake-off bosses, over the signing of Noel Fielding as


Let's start with this wiretapping or not of Donald Trump by GCHQ. The


British intelligence agency. Trump stands firm on GCHQ spying claims,


allegations transatlantic ties. Read a mile from the intelligence agency


itself. We don't hear from GCHQ often at all, do we, directly? They


don't like sticking their neck out, they are not the government


department you can call up and say, we've got a comment about this, it


doesn't work like that, but they've come out swinging on this one, they


said the allegations from Sean Spicer and Donald Trump were utterly


ridiculous. And should be ignored. So that's a no. But the allegations


weren't directly from the White House? No, Trump was doing what he


does best, which is watch cable TV and regurgitate it live on prime


time, or get his spokesman to do it. This particularly was Sean Spicer


who brought this up. The other point about GCHQ is not only do they not


speak very much, but they certainly wouldn't speak without political


approval so this will have gone to Downing Street and Downing Street


will have approved the statement, which is really significant. The


other thing is, this story has been moving around all day, it started


off this morning suggesting they were apologising many Americans,


saying they never intended to it. But Mr Spicer let it be known that


actually the administration wasn't apologising at all. You appear to


have a split between the national security adviser, McMaster, who


talked to his counterpart in the UK today, and by all accounts did


apologise. Then the other half of the administration say, no, nothing


wrong, we're sticking with it. Sir Malcolm Rifkind has said this is


completely outrageous, you can't carry on like this, can't have a


president saying this stuff and can't have a press secretary going


off on one in front of the press again in this fashion. Exactly, if


they'd said it just once, maybe we could have somehow sorted it out,


but it's this first rule of holes, just stop digging. They are not


stopping. So the latest from Trump and Spicer, Trump is saying he was


just repeating reports from a "Talented legal mind". This... Who


hasn't checked the facts. It isn't the basis on which you normally


throw accusations like this around. Sean Spicer is saying we don't feel


like we have anything to apologise for. Some of the Republicans do,


though, some of the people in Congress say its time an apology was


issued. This is one of the big issues behind all of this, their


esteemed Trump in the White House. There is a gap between team Trump


and Republicans in Congress, some of his constituents will get a very bad


deal out of Trump care, the replacement of the Obamacare medical


provision. So that's sort of split, as well as splits with in the White


House, split between the White House and Congress, it could get


interesting. The other point is, the Trump administration, those close


around it, want to keep this row about the Obama phone tapping going


because remember when they brought it up, it's a diversion tactic from


the other allegation doing the rounds about contact between the


Trump administration and the Russians prior to the election and


what was going on. In a way, as many smoke signals that go off in


different directions, it plays into them. Muddies the waters all over


the place. They don't want things to be clean. This headline, allegations


of strain, strained transatlantic ties. Commentators we spoken to


suggest that actually the intelligence agencies here and in


the States know what they are dealing with and will continue to


cooperate. Is the strained political rather than among the intelligence?


I would imagine so, yes, the spooks, if you like, work closely together,


but there will come a point at which Trump is throwing around accusations


effectively against the UK Government, that we're not


comfortable with. I do suspect there is very much a political split.


Let's look at the Times, Google lets anti-Semitic videos stay on you


Tube. This is an investigation papers carried out, advertisers


revolt after Web giant's failure. This in particular focus is on


anti-Semitic content. There are other accusations against YouTube.


This is the follow-up to our investigation yesterday talking


about how Google was selling advertising off the back of some


pretty nasty videos and getting money from the government, big


brands, part of the story says a whole lot of people have pulled out


and said they won't advertise. The other part of the story is the scale


of you know, he'd videos. Particularly anti-Semitic hate


videos. They found 200 videos in a quick search. -- eight videos. The


interesting bit is they alerted Google to these videos, they took 12


videos, reported them to Google, they should take them down in 24


hours, they all stayed up. -- hate. Does Google have the technical


capacity to monitor this? They would argue, not really. We've got to


question that, I think they can remove stuff, it's whether there is


the will, whether they want to invest the cost and the staff to do


it. Is there an argument that for some people this is hate speech and


four others free speech? But if you see this stuff in real life you


might think that, but it's pretty poisonous. It's not just the


anti-Mister Dick -- is not just the anti-Semitic stuff, there is


homophobic material. The level of bile you can find on the Internet if


you're looking for it is extraordinary. It's interesting


we're at the point where the arbiters of what you should and


shouldn't be allowed to say online art dominoes pizza, effectively,


it's one of the companies whose agency is pulling support and


Google, -- from YouTube and Google. They don't seem to take action


without commercial impact. Quite hefty potentially, this company have


asked one of the world's biggest advertising agencies, it says, it


spends ?35 million each year with Google in Britain. Yeah, the


question is how long they'll keep it up for, the real thing you have to


look for. They always say they'll do it, but quietly a few weeks later


they don't. Hopefully on this occasion they will insist Google


changes what it's doing. And will bring back the advertising until


they do. Shall we look at a story bound to keep you going for some


time? Here it is on the i which couldn't resist it. Six jobs George,


public and political world shocked after Osborne is appointed newspaper


editor. We used to have two jags Prescott, now six jobs George. Were


you shocked? Well, I think there's not many things that can bring the


FT newsroom to a total standstill. The kick trolley on Thursday


afternoon comes pretty close but this was a moment of genuine shock.


Yeah, completely from left field, you know, George Osborne PCs to be


Chancellor of the Exchequer. He's never been a journalist. He was


turned down for a job by someone at the FT, Gideon Patmon. Times


trainee, turned down by The Times. He wrote a column for the Telegraph


for a while. But his credentials as editor of a regional but nonetheless


major daily newspaper I think is reasonable to question. It really


raises serious issues around conflict of interest and it would be


one thing if a sitting MP... It would be interesting to hear what


his constituents think. It interesting enough a sitting MP is


in this position but as the paper points out he rakes in the 650 grand


salary from Blackrock as adviser. Is it a reason other than envy to say


he shouldn't do the job? Say there is a story about Theresa May making


a mess of something, is he really going to have an impartial view? Say


there is a story about Blackrock making a mess. Not that these


companies have ever got into trouble before! Andrew Neil, who presents


the Daily Politics for the BBC, we spoken to him and he says he think


this is a perfect vehicle for George Osborne to take on Theresa May, from


which he could at some point in the future mount a leadership bid. Is


that really what he's about? I think it's pretty difficult, everything


written in the standard will be scrutinised through that prism for


the future. One thing that struck me is, who needs fake news when the


real news is quite so bizarre? The other thing which is interesting is


he's a man who made his name trying to cut the deficit but will have


similar problems at the standard. From the proprietor of view it's


quite a coup, isn't it, to get him? That'll be helpful to business,


won't it? It is a coup to have him, a great person to reel in new


advertisers and say, advertise with us. He doesn't get away from the


fundamentals, that the standard relies entirely on advertising and


it is falling. The Tatton seat under the reorganisation of boundaries? I


can see how long-term he can stay in Parliament. There is an


acknowledgement by Osborne's people they'll see how things go. Tatton is


due to be abolished anyway in the boundary review, so in a few months'


time... He doesn't start this job until May, at some point before then


he might announce he will stand down, I think it's reasonably


likely. He fielded a question today, whether being editor of the Evening


Standard was compatible with being an MP. He said the Evening Standard


is mostly edited in the morning and vote in parliament in the afternoon.


So he can work from 5-11, send the paper to be printed, then go to the


Commons? When will he have time to go to Blackrock? It's only four days


per month. The other issue about the Privy Council as well, who have


access to all sorts sensitive government information. Is it


compatible with being a newspaper editor? No, I think it's fine for


politicians to write newspaper columns, there is a long tradition


of that, Boris Johnson in the Telegraph, Michael Gove in the


Times. He gave that up when he became Foreign Secretary. Osborne is


a backbencher to all intents and purposes. I think there was a


conflict of interest between editing the paper, being the ultimate to


decide what goes in, and being an MP for the governing party, whether he


gets an ad Theresa May or not. John McDonough kindly treated to George


Osborne offering to write a column for the standard about the latest


budget U-turn. Apparently Nick Clegg is going to keep writing his column


until he's told otherwise. So yes, the internal politics are going to


be fascinating and if you look at the front of the i, the happy faces


on the people of the Evening Standard are quite something to


behold! Somebody is taking a photo of him in the distance, can't


resist. Two stories in the Telegraph, Brexit bigger than the


union. Another poll suggesting, this time, people think it is more


important that we get out of the EU than holding the UK together. This


is a really strange poll, they suggest two thirds of the people


they questioned thought Britain's departure from the EU mattered more


than stopping the UK break-up. If that's right it suggests a whole


bunch of people who voted to remain in the referendum have completely


changed their minds and for Brexiteers and want to get rid of


Scotland. Don't care what happens to the union. If right, it's


extraordinary. I have a few doubts. Doesn't it depend on the sample


size? It's not huge number of people. I'd be fascinated to know


how the question was phrased, exactly how many people they asked.


It seems to be suggesting that people think losing Scotland is a


price worth paying for leaving the EU, which leads me to wonder what is


the controversy about the referendum in Scotland? Why block it, why be


unhappy? If it's a price worth paying, we don't care either way,


let them do it. It reflects a wider point regardless of whether it's


right. A lot of people in England think, if you want to go, just go.


There was a touch of that in the previous referendum. Numbers would


suggest the SNP wouldn't necessarily win that referendum. But if you look


at what the numbers were before the last referendum was called, the


majority in favour of remain was far bigger. It entirely depends on what


kind of deal and what the state of the relationship between the UK and


EU is in 2019. If it looks like there is a prospect of a deal that


would suit both sides, it's pretty implausible Scotland would vote to


leave. If it looks like it'll be a hard and disorderly Brexit, the idea


Scotland might not necessarily join the EU, but join something like the


EA, countries like Norway, which are on the sidelines, part of the single


market but they don't have to have the Euro, you can see how it became


quite an attractive future. Let us look at this final story, Price


curbs to give fair deal on energy. This makes the Conservative Prime


Minister sound quite interventionist. Didn't Ed Miliband


put this on a stone? Tell us what the story is, Katie. The story is


there as a whole bunch of energy companies, the big six, in the UK


over the past two or three weeks, they've all been raising energy


prices for households by something like ten to 15% in some cases. The


price of electricity, gas, all going up. Theresa May says she wants to do


something about it, step in to control energy prices. This is


pretty extraordinary when you consider this is exactly what Ed


Miliband wanted to do a few years ago and was rounded on by the


Tories, who said he was being needlessly interventionist in a


private industry. Two things are interesting here. When Ed Miliband


said that he talked to the Conservatives privately and they


were worried because they felt it resonated with the public. -- didn't


resonate. People around Theresa May say she's a different type of


politician to David Cameron and George Osborne, she's much more


interventionist, believes the state has a role to intervene in markets


in a way which Osborne and Cameron were ideological utterly opposed to.


They say, you're going to see a change, she has this idea of workers


on board. -- on boards. In happened because people highlighted practical


difficulties but her instinct is the state can intervene and I think you


will see more of this, the devil will be in the detail, though. Huge


practical problems, there will be a lot of anger and upset from energy


companies. Some of they've done has been pretty poor but there has been


so much scrutiny on them, some accusations against them are


somewhat unfair. If the argument is that the market isn't working, have


we just got too few companies to create the competition we need?


People are quite reluctant to move around between companies even though


it has been made much easier. It has been made much easier, I'm not


having more would really help. It's a heavily regulated industry,


expensive industry, but nonetheless they produce quite nice returns for


their investors, so there is clearly something not quite right. I'm not


suggesting Theresa May is heading in the wrong direction on this. This is


very much in keeping with her initial speech she made in Downing


Street when she took her position saying, I'm here to help people just


about managing. People holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet,


like George Osborne. It is very much in keeping with what she's been


saying from day one, yet devil is in the detail. That's it from the


papers, all of the front pages are on the BBC website.


If you miss the programme any evening you can catch up later on


the BBC iPlayer. Nice to see you both. Now it's time for the weather.


Download Subtitles