02/01/2017 The Papers


No need to wait until tomorrow morning to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcomes our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing us tomorrow


morning. -- welcomes our look ahead. I have the business editor of the


Independent here as well as Caroline Wheeler, political editor of the


Sunday express. We will look to the papers in a moment, but first, let's


have a look at the front pages. The Daily Telegraph reporting a warning


from Public Health England that children are eating half their


recommended daily allowance before they even leave for school. -- daily


allowance of sugar. The Istanbul terror attack is the lead on the


Independent. IS has declared war on Turkey, it says. It is the same lead


for its sister paper which carries a striking image of the funeral of one


of the victims. Meanwhile, the Times leads with the rail price hike,


saying that rail fares are six times higher than those in Europe. One


study says commuters now pay 27p for every minute they are on a train. A


similar front page for the Metro, which reports claims that thousands


of commuters will be spending 14% of their incomes on train fares. A


political lead for the Daily Mirror, it reports that an aid for Nigel


Farage could face time in jail after a plan to foil drug smugglers in the


US. Pakistanis have been queueing at cashpoints to use cars loaded with


British taxpayers money, according to the Daily Mail. The Daily Express


leads with health care, it says that staying in shape can stave off


dementia. Those are the front pages. Let's have a slightly more in-depth


look with Caroline and Ben. We will kick off with the Daily Telegraph


and a health story. A warning from Public Health England to make


households and families across the land feel incredibly bad about what


they are giving their children at breakfast. An astonishing statistic.


The average child is eating the equivalent of three cubes of sugar


every day at breakfast. Which will be a frightening prospect for a lot


of families. We are all parents, are you shocked by that figure? When you


read it on paper you think, well, obviously my children are not having


that, and obviously we are virtuous and give our children the right...


They are not average children. Obviously. But when you think about


what you do feed your children, we were trying to work out the best


breakfast for a child, and the best we could come up with his porridge.


But in porridge they want raisins, honey, treacle, whatever comes with


it. Then you have cereals, and lots of them, even the ones you think are


good, you know, not like Coco Pops, are full of sugar. But what strikes


me about this more than anything else is it is the drinks. What do


you give your child to drink at breakfast? We would quite often give


them a glass of orange juice. What they are saying here is that even


the guidelines around that have changed and that we should only be


giving our child one portion of a fruit drink per day will stop we


might give that at breakfast. -- per day. They might have one at lunch,


after-school club, etc. So you can see how easily the amount of sugar a


child intakes add up throughout the course of the day. And children are


becoming far more educated, possibly more than their parents, at school.


My daughter is coming home at the age of eight and telling me fruit


juice has too much sugar, I shouldn't be drinking fruit juice. I


tell her to drink it. But I think children are becoming aware of what


they are eating. Maybe that is a good thing. As strange as it is to


be lectured on things like that from our children, it might be a good


thing. Breakfast is a difficult time of day. You are tired, you want your


children to go, eat, set themselves up for the day. You've got to rush


to work, you have lots of pressure on you. You are probably not


thinking as much as you are necessarily at other meals and at


the weekend about what is in food. We should be focusing more on what


is in these things. Do you agree with Jamie Oliver and his sugar tax?


From an economic perspective it's a good thing. You can force the


consumer to realise the content is and the social ramifications of this


stuff by changing the price. The problem with it is it is a false


economy to a certain extent because if impact on those families that are


least able to afford it. There are issues around price. But when it


comes down to, what has been happening over the last decade, or


so, we are seeing an increase in the number of primary school children


who are classed as obese when they start. I find that alarming. At the


same time, you've got to change habits, you've got to change


behaviour. I was talking to a food nutritionist who was talking about,


well, you've got to start with the parents rather than the children,


because only when we start changing our behaviour toward our children,


not rewarding, for example, with sweets, and saying, if you are good


money will buy you chocolate. Actually saying, if you are a good


book, we will go and play football. Or another leisure activity. I am in


favour of what Jamie had to say in all of this. I'm finding it harder


and harder to differentiate between puppy fat and children that are


unnecessarily overweight. Habits have changed so much. The Times,


those rail fares, goodness, it is going to hurt, isn't it? We all


travel by train at some point in the year. You, as well? Absolutely. And


I am a Southern rail traveller. I am feeling more of the pain. It is


another bad New Year story. At the start of every year it is the time


when the new rail fares kick in and they go up by a certain level above


inflation every year. And a lot of people will be feeling the pinch


when they come to renew their season tickets in the next few days and go


back to work. The southern rail story skews our perceptions. Because


it is so bad that it is so consistently on the news. The


overall rail service is not as bad as Southern rail. It is worth


pointing that out. But the cost is high, relative to Europe. Is it


right to compare it with Europe? No. When I go and top up to go to work


tomorrow, I would like to see that that it has -- I would not like to


see that the price has gone up. Nobody will be pleased. But we are


weighing six times higher than in Europe. -- but we are paying. Yes,


they don't see the rise is as much, but their infrastructure is


nationalised and they pay much higher taxes. -- rises. It is a


payoff over whether we are paying it in terms of their price hikes, or


taxation. But we have seen a period of time where we haven't seen any


investment in our rail infrastructure. To be fair, whether


you agree with HS2 and the ramifications of Crossrail, of some


of the other big infrastructure projects this government are driving


forward, actually, in terms of the people using our rail services, you


know, the numbers are going up. It is higher than ever. It has to be a


positive thing that we are getting people onto rail and off the roads


from an environmental perspective. We will all be reading this, we will


slump into our sugary breakfast tomorrow morning in dismay,


ultimately the point is that, you know, they pay in a different way to


how we pay, but we all pay. We will stay with the times. The story at


the top, this little spat that has developed through today, a bit of


tit-for-tat. Do you agree with what men McCluskey has said? It's


interesting because he has always been the union leader who has always


stood up to Jeremy Corbyn. -- Len. A very different tone in these


comments. He is saying, if he won't be turned around by the time of the


next election, they are not egomaniacs, they will probably step


down. I'm sure Caroline will talk about this. There is a bit of union


politics going on. McCloskey is in a battle to be re-elected to Unite, a


very important union, but perhaps he is thinking more about that than


have this comes across, but this is not great headlines for Jeremy


Corbyn. It is gameplaying. Len Did Corbyn. It is gameplaying. Len Did


not have to stand down at the time that he has done. He chose to do


this for political reasons. He said it would help the union by having


simultaneous elections rather than later run. But he has now found


himself in a stand-off with his deputy, who is much more of a


moderate. So, actually, when you think about the dynamics of this,


you know, McCluskey seem to be in the pockets of Jeremy Corbyn, and


vice versa in this context, and actually he will now be challenged


by a moderate, his language around Jeremy Corbyn, it has to change a


little bit. Because ultimately, I mean, what are the unions in a


relationship with Labour if Labour isn't going to be in power again, or


certainly not for the foreseeable? When you look at the polling


recently... 24%. And that also shows that that is the lowest support for


Labour since July 1983, which was Michael foot. And that was just


months before he wrote his longest ever suicide note in history. --


Michael Foot. Everybody thought that Labour would go onto the back burner


is for a while. But after this, it says that Labour could have as few


as seat after the next election. And he has been given two years. OK,


let's turn to the FT. I was trying to get my head around this one. What


are they trying to tell us? Airbnb are bringing in a 90 day limit. You


cannot let your property for more than three months in a year. Some


number crunching has been done. They say that because of the restriction


the company will miss out on ?400 million of revenue. It is an


interesting story about his burgeoning sector of the sharing


economy, and how regulations are going to put it back in its box. You


can say it is a good or bad thing, but I think there is a strong case,


reading the detail, that it is an unfair playing field. Because they


have advantages in terms of tax that hotels do not have. If you are going


to be a hotel by any other means it does make sense to have them put on


a level playing field. Especially when it points out that such a large


number of those people offering this service, they are not just people


living next door to you, offering their spare bedroom, lots of them


are professional listings. They are hotels in any other name that are


benefiting from it. The other thing to remember about this, the reason


people go to Airbnb, it is competitively priced. We could see


indications post Brexit and the benefit the economy is seen from


that with people wanting to come into our cities. I will quite often


use Airbnb over a hotel chain because we are a family of five. And


if we go and stay at a hotel it is two rooms that we need, and it is


astronomical, and finding two connecting rooms can be difficult.


Renting out a three-bedroom property in a city is very welcome to us.


Barack pros and cons for both, the problem and the solution here. Is


this a new tax? Has it always been in place? It has always been in


place but it hasn't been enforced. Airbnb Have said they will start


enforcing that from this year. It has been mentioned in the last


financial statement. I think they are trying to get ahead of the


politicians, which is possibly a sensible move. What is your New Year


's resolution regarding your health? The Daily Express are giving you a


chance here, not only to get yourself it, but also potentially


stave off a risk of dementia, developing dementia. I think it is a


very good bit of advice. My personal resolution is not to read so many


diet plans, keep fit schemes, because they are dominating the


newspapers. I am going to have a look at breakfast cereals as soon as


I get home and think about those again. It is the Daily Express, but


would that headline make you think there is another reason for me to


get fit? Thing is, most of these things, keep fit, don't get


diabetes, don't get dementia, they are things that he would initially


think, you know, generally looking after yourself, whether it is


dementia, obesity, you know, diabetes, any of those things, is a


good thing. Most people will be thinking that. But it is the


beginning of the year. I think we have all admitted that we are


thinking, you know, thinking ourselves thin, as we reach for the


biscuit tin. The paper links obesity and type two diabetes to a greater


risk of developing dementia. I think all getting into it. Anyway,


Caroline and Ben, we will leave it there, but we will be back in just


under an hour's time. Thank you. That is it for this hour. All of the


front pages are online, on the BBC News website, where you can read a


detailed review of the Papers. It is all there for you. Each night's


edition of the Papers posted onto the page shortly after we have


finished. Thank you again to Ben and Caroline. We will be back for


another look at the papers later.


No need to wait until tomorrow morning to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Download Subtitles