26/02/2017 The Papers

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

With me are Josie Delap of The Economist and Prashant Rao,

Deputy Europe Business Editor for the International

Tomorrow's front pages starting with...

The Sunday Telegraph has an interview with

the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation who says

the threat of terror attacks is at its highest in a generation.

The Sunday Times reports on a leaked report that

Sir Mo Farah's coach, Alberto Salazar, may have broken

anti-doping rules to boost the performance of some

Both Salazar and Farah deny any wrongdoing.

The Sunday Express has more details about the man who murdered

the children's author Helen Bailey. The Mail on Sunday claims that

a critically ill little girl died hours after a GP refused

to see her because she turned up a few minutes late

And The Sunday Mirror reports that the fiancee of notorious

prisoner Charles Bronson is also working as an escort.

So, let's begin. We are starting with the Observer newspaper and a

big headline across the front. Jeremy Corbyn to take the blame, or

we face disaster. That word disaster has been thrown around a lot in the

last 24 hours. It has, and this is after Labour won one of the

by-election seat, but it lost Copeland which it has held since

1935 and it is very unusual for a government to seize a by-election

seat. We have now seen the deputy leader, Tom Watson, and Keir

Starmer, Labour's Brexit spokesman, criticising Jeremy Corbyn, who when

asked after the results who should be taking responsibility, was it

him? He said no. There is increasing pressure from other members of the

party for him to take some of the blame. And pressure for him to stay.

He has got a small piece in the Sunday Mirror where he talks about

how he takes his share of responsibility. But he makes clear

he was re-elected as the leader not too long ago. It is interesting what

is happening with the Labour Party. In the last paragraph in the

Observer it says about one third of Labour voters would be more likely

to vote for his replacement. If he is part of the problem, it is not

clear what the solution is. Do you think there is a growing group

against him? These are pretty open and against him in terms of being

critical of him either bleakly or directly. Do you get the sense

Jeremy Corbyn is better in opposition and he would be in

government if you know what I mean? Yes, he is a rebel. He was a Labour

rebel for many years. He was not part of the Tony Blair government,

not part of that leading group of Labour MPs and it was a great

surprise when he won the election. For a long time he was very

comfortable with that important position of questioning your party,

of raising descent, but that does not necessarily win elections. It

does not seem to be working for him at the moment. In the Sunday Times,

you mentioned Tom Watson talking about the possibility of a wipe-out.

Let's talk about that a bit more. For people like that to say that,

what does that say about the state of the people at the top of the

party for a start? Is Jeremy Corbyn not listening? It sets out how

worried they are and compares the fears of Labour in Scotland where it

was totally wiped out by the SNP. That is what they are fearing in the

north of England where labour is losing its long-held seeds. What

about who is coming through? Who would replace him? We had a

discussion earlier, there are interesting people who may

potentially replace Jeremy Corbyn. But last summer the list of people

who came up were wiped out. Labour's supporters support Jeremy Corbyn, or

they did last summer. The number of people who are not tainted by the

Tony Blair years or indeed Iraq war, and those who came through an

incredibly green after the last election, there is not a crossover

of people who are saved on both sides, the experience, but not being

tainted. We are hearing advance notice of what he will say this

afternoon and he will admit the loss underlined what he said the scale of

how hard the task is of persuading people of the message. This is why

we stood up to hatred and division. I cannot lie and say that the result

in Copeland was what we wanted, but now is not the time to run away or

give up. He is saying they cannot run away from their message, but the

question for many people is what is their message at the moment? It is

not clear whether they oppose or support Brexit. He is saying Labour

supports it, but there are many people who do not like Labour's

stance on Brexit. Working out what Labour stands for at the moment is

one of their major challenges. The second story from the Sunday Times,

the benefits for migrants replace the act. What is this? This is the

new revolution after the last revolution. It is the biggest change

in a generation. The immigration debate is constant. This is an

interesting change that they are proposing and it kind of makes it a

little more technocratic by removing the number of Visas from the

government's control in theory. I am curious about this committee that

will recommend these is. What if it is too low or too high? What about

if you have to bring in 100,000 engineers? Who is going to advise

them? This as immigration is a technocratic thing, but at the

moment immigration is an extraordinarily political issue in

Britain. This reaffirms the government's desire to rid reduce

immigration down to 10,000 people. It does really means stopping lots

of family reunification is happening and stopping refugees happening,

cutting international students, cutting and skilled migration and

also skilled migration. This is when Theresa May is trying to do trade

deals with people like India and America who send skilled people

here. If they start accepting people from these countries, this is not

clear. Theresa May says that all those here at the moment on the

triggering of Article 50, they will remain. This goes to the point that

immigration feeds into everything. It is in every single debate in one

way or the other. When Theresa May went to India, the Indian government

was asking about Visas. This does not stop at the water's edge. Other

countries are asking, will our students be able to go to British

universities? Will our entrepreneurs be able to setup? Let's go do

something lighter. A bit of trouble in Cambridge. This is a college

where students have been complaining about items on the menu like

Jamaican stew and Tunisian rice, arguing they are cultural

misrepresentations and they do not exist in the countries that are

being referenced. I mean it is sort of easy to laugh at these kinds of

things. It is hard to imagine that these are deliberately

disrespectful, that this is the college trying to impose some sort

of colonial idea on its culture. If the point of this is to make

students feel at home, if it is to educate other students about

different cuisines, this is a bit cack-handed. It sounds just like a

recipe to be honest. The Pembroke catering staff, stop mixing mango

and beef and calling it Jamaican stew. That came from the students.

If you are going to do it, get it right, get the name right. It sounds

foolishly inaccurate rather than deliberate. It also sounds

delicious. Have we gone politically correct mad? Where does political

correctness begin and what is too much? There are reasonable things

that are of a different era that should not be set any more that are

offensive to minorities and that are helpful. I am not sure if this

college was trying to hurt people. This was just not handled terribly

well. The editorial in the Sunday Times is not forgiving on the

students. There is danger everywhere. Think what might happen

in Pembroke College if a student from someone else is asked if they

want a bit of Bakewell tart. This is more serious, terror chief threat. A

bigger and greater terror threat that we are facing. This is the new

independent overseer of the country's terrorism, a watchdog. You

cannot question his credentials, he has been a barrister for 30 years

and has prosecuted these cases. When he says something like this, you

have to take notice. The headline is warning of the risk of attacks in

Britain is at its highest since the dark days of the IRA. It is a stark

warning. It is. What we talk about these things we talk about the level

of threat and how serious it is, but you do not get a strong sense of

exactly what that represents in terms of the kinds of attacks. You

have to assume that the threat level was very high after the 7/7

bombings. Did that mean we would see more bombings in the line of 9/11?

Now it is about lone wolf attacks and British people who have been

radicalised and have spent time fighting in Syria. It is a very

sophisticated threat level, even though it is described in broad

terms. It has changed over 30 years, we are facing different threats now.

We are dealing with it in a different way. That is right. One of

the things in the interview is Max Hill points out there has been one

fatality in Britain through terrorism. It is remarkable how

successful Britain has been at preventing or heading off these

kinds of attacks. It is easy to lose sight of that with these constant

warnings of terrorism. People in Britain have largely been able to

lead their lives in peace and security since the 7/7 attacks. You

only realise when something might have been happening is when you hear

the court case. Let's move onto another story. We

have heard from Michael Heseltine today this. The peers are uniting to

soften Brexit. This could be potentially embarrassing for Theresa

May. It is going to be embarrassing for Theresa May because the

Conservatives do not have a majority in the House of Lords, so we will

see a lot of debate amongst people who oppose Brexit and Michael

Heseltine and other Tory rebels are planning to vote against it. I do

not think in the end the House of Lords will vote it down, but they

will do their best to put some amendments onto it. It illustrates

the astonishing perplexity that Brexit brings. It is not just a

negotiation with 27 other countries, it is a negotiation with the House

of Lords, the House of Commons, there are so many different actors

which we do not appreciate. This is getting complicated really fast. The

stakes are high for her, and she was there on the first day in the House

of Lords watching and you would be if this was your first big piece of

legislation, but it shows what is at stake. Absolutely, this is the

greatest political change that Britain has had to face in many

generations. It is an extraordinarily complicated,

difficult task. And we will hear about it every day until it happens.

Let's finish off on a funny note. You cannot beat a cartoon. We are

talking about Highgate. And the pie eating goalkeeper who was spotted

eating pie on television and has since been sacked because he was

betting on it. It says a bet that Meryl Streep will eat meat pie

during the Oscars ceremony. There has been a lot of talk about meat

pies. I will not tell you what we keep under the desk. I am not sure

about this story, the original story about the goalkeeper, because it is

bittersweet. He lost his job. It is hard to see who was really badly

affected. Everyone loves a sports story of the plucky small team. It

was heart-warming. It is hard to imagine who wanted him fired. He

cried, I feel sorry for him. We have had Jamaican stew and pies and

everything else in between. Thank you very much for joining us this

week. Just a reminder we take a look

at tomorrow's front pages every The weather is going to throw

everything at us over the next couple of days. Rain, Gayle, snow,

ice, hail and blunder.