26/03/2017 The Papers

Hello, and welcome to our look ahead to what The Papers will be

With me are Ian Birrell, Assistant Editor at the Mail

on Sunday and Shyama Perera, journalist and broadcaster.

The Sunday Times claims EU migrants living in Britain will continue

to get child benefits after Britain leaves the EU.

The Observer leads with the coalition air strikes in Mosul,

which it says have killed at least 150 civilians and caused

The Sunday Express's front page features the Conservative MP

Tobias Ellwood and says he's spoken for the first time after trying

to save PC Keith Palmer in Wednesday's terror attacks.

The Mail reports that the air ambulance Prince William

co-pilots had a near miss with a drone last summer.

The Sunday Telegraph leads with Douglas Carswell's

resignation from UKIP, reporting that it's led to a civil

So, let's start where we ended, with the Sunday Telegraph. Ukip civil war

after Douglas Carswell quits the party and leaving it without an MP.

There is a certain inevitability to this because we have known for some

time that Ukip is very divided between the different factions, and

it is quite entertaining on one level to see here is Douglas

Carswell who, when he joined the party, held a by-election and said

how nice it was to have a leader with whom he agreed, but now he says

he is quitting and it is amicable from his point of view. Instantly,

people like Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall are putting the boot into

him. I quite enjoy the amicable to wear Paul Nuttall writes in the

Sunday Telegraph he managed to beat of this competition to get an

exclusive piece of him right he would have hoped for a more bone up

approach to politics. It is a sign of extremely infighting going on in

this party, which is rather pointless these days given that it

Brexit. Which was Douglas Carswell's Brexit. Which was Douglas Carswell's

reason for leaving. It is interesting that you spoke about

Ukip as an extremist party, but we know that as part of the tension

within the party. Nigel Farage says they must be radical, not

mainstream. I'm not sure I saw them as an extremist party, more a one

trick pony and the trick has been one so far. If we do leave, and we

are expecting that, I can see why Douglas Carswell is leaving, he is

the lone wolf. He has always written his own agenda, and he has been able

to do so because Ukip has no purchase within Parliament. Sir

Douglas Carswell has always been able to say I am Ukip, I am this and

I am that, and he has got away with it. I am not sure what he ever did

to help Ukip's cause, it has only ever helped Douglas Carswell's cause

because it got him on the front pages when open ever noticed him

before. But there is this tension when people like Nuttall and Nigel

Farage want to reinvent the party as a force against the Labour Party, to

make it a populist and left-wing, and suddenly they are now pushing

for the NHS is a very sacred cause. They are hoping to undermine Labour.

Douglas Carswell is more philosophical, a more liberal

approach to immigration, and there has been this tension between the

two wings which have muddled together through the referendum, and

now it is coming open. The trouble is, the two wings don't marry up,

between Douglas Carswell who is fundamentally a liberal

conservative, and people like Nuttall who are trying to remake the

party as this sort of working-class attracting rival to the Labour

Party. Fascinating. That, in a sense, is the party. If we have a

think about the man himself the Sunday Times on page three, MP

Carswell don't leave by walking out on Ukip. This is in a sense a more

personal take on what has happened. They are considering what Douglas

Carswell might do now. He says he will sit as an independent, but some

in the Conservative Party might say come back, all is forgiven. Yes,

walking back to happiness, I suspect that is what he will try to do.

Although he says not. Perhaps he will, Patsy will put on a white suit

and become a more permanent independent MP. I don't really care

what happens to Douglas Carswell, but what is interesting about Ukip,

a bit like trump it is made up of people who are not naturally

politicians, and one understands now why politics has become so

sophisticated because people turn it into a career from day one. If you

come from somewhere else, you can't manage the competitions and

different strands that have to be played simultaneously. That is what

is happening in Ukip. It is not necessarily a lack of commitment or

knowledge, it is a lack of political know-how. Also, a lot of

Conservatives really don't want Douglas Carswell to come back,

perhaps because he betrayed them. Equally for Carswell it is difficult

because he made a firm stance, he has written a book about rebellion

in politics, he is very much about direct democracy and about a new way

of doing politics, as he calls it. One of those things was to hold a

by-election when he switched parties. He has not held a

by-election becoming an independent, and it would be difficult to become

a conservative without holding a by-election. And his majority is

about 3500, considerably down from what it was before. It is

interesting because it is one of the firmest basis for Ukip in the

country, in terms of support for Brexit, so it would be an

interesting test if there were a by-election. Let's move on to the

Sunday Times's FrontPage. It is about EU migrants keeping benefits

after Brexit. This is the week in which article 50 is to be triggered,

so a lot of EU stories in the Sunday papers today. I suppose I am not

surprised, but basically it means that all the rights that had been

enjoyed by all EU citizens, not only those here, but as in other

countries, will continue for those who were here before Article 50 is

called. I don't think anybody can be surprised by it. A lot of people

will be angry yet again because this was one of the problems that was

going to be dealt with, and there is a certain oddness about somebody

working here but having benefits for families that are not declared here,

in the sense they are not visible to us. I also have a slight problem

with this, which is that I have never quite understood it. But it

seems to me in terms of parity, of course this has to continue. This

comes from a draft paper submitted to the Department for exiting the

EU, so we don't actually know this is government policy, but it is

intriguing. It shows that even as we are about to trigger Article 50,

politicians don't have a clue what is ahead of us. We are jumping off a

cliff and we have no idea of the end result. It also shows how utterly

pointless Brexit is because we will end up basically, all this talk of

taking back control, but a lot of the things which were claimed would

be achieved by taking back control and Brexit are not achievable, we

will still have to pay into the EU to get rights for things like some

of the service sector, for Finance, we're not really going to be able to

cut migration much because no one has actually answered if we get rid

of care workers, the agricultural workers, the city workers, the

entrepreneurs in the city, who are we talking about me talk about

cutting back immigration? We will be paying money, we will still

beginning benefits, we will still have high immigration, and it is

just a farce. It shows, going back to the previous story, the utter

nonsense talked about by those he Brexit campaigners. Over the next

five years, Britain will be dominated by an utterly pointless

debate while more important issues such as NHS, social care,

productivity, getting the economy right going to be ignored. You speak

strongly. There will be many viewers who disagree with you. We will leave

that that because it is a conversation we all have for the

next two years and longer. This is not meant to the front page

of The Observer. Mosul assault halted as theory grows over civilian

deaths. This is about the US coalition carrying out air strikes.

If you think these strikes are lily a week ago and they are still

pulling out survivors, this story is horrific. In the week we had a

terror attack in London, it does bring into clear relief difference

between what we are worrying about and what is happening somewhere

else, where we are getting our hands dirty, maybe for the right reasons,

but does that mean it is all right to get your hands dirty? I am not

sure. This is an interesting story to look at this week when we have

been getting so anxious over a lone wolf acting criminally. It is

interesting the impact this will have in the area because it does

appear that there is some twiddling of support for the actions being

taken by the West. Dash-macro dwindling. It undermines what

happens with Russia, they can argue they were fighting terrorism and so

were you, but actually is not quite true because Russia will not

targeting Isis, they were purely backing Assad, who has killed far

more people than Isis. But also, this does undermine support for the

Iraqi government, and for the Western approach. That is a

significant factor, and this is not the first. There have been other

incidents, not as bad as this one, but that is a problem, when people

are fleeing their homes, we have two remake this country at the end of

this process, whatever happens. It is significant politically and on a

humanitarian level as well. Absolutely.

Let's go on to the other main story on the front page of The Observer,

the story that has dominated the news this week, the Westminster

Keller acting alone in less than 1.5 minutes. Yes, 82 seconds they have

broken it down into. I am not quite sure what one takes from this. I

suppose what we can say is no wonder it took a little while for the

killer to be shot because it all happened so quickly. Even when you

are reacting instantly there will be a level of delay. If you think how

far he moved in that 82 seconds, one minute he is in a car, then he is

out of the car, then he is running to the gates of Parliament. An awful

lot happened in that 82 seconds. It is surprising and shocking, and you

suddenly clearly understand that sequence of events and why it

happened that way. But it also just reminds you that all violence is

shocking and sudden, and it is very hard to have a response ready for

it. That is the key point. It is incredible that so many lives are

transformed so quickly, in such a horrifically short period of time.

It shows how difficult it is to guard against this. Equally, it does

remind us that this man was basically a rather tragic,

inadequate loser with a criminal record, just like the man in the

East who performed a much worse atrocity in the same sort of manner.

That man also had a history of drugs and drink me he had no connection

with Islamist. We are saying the same thing here, key has grievances

against society and is using this cause in an explosion of horrific

anger. It means we do have to be wary of some of the backlash that

you get and how we approach the Muslim community, which often gets

wrongly blamed on and just accept that what we are really fighting is

a rallying call for people who are basically loses. You have worked in

Westminster for a long time, security is already pretty tight.

Clearly there are loopholes. Security is tight, but we are in a

democracy and you have to have freedom, you have to have access to

Parliament. There are people going in in huge numbers, there are

meetings taking place, you want to see their MPs, we want

schoolchildren to go in and see democracy in action. Democracy is

also under attack, not just here but in a wider sense, and it is a

symbolic value of having Westminster open to the public. You can never

have perfect security, we have to recognise that. In many ways, it is

incredible that this is the first kind of attack in a decade. That is

a credit to the security services. I grew up in the age when IRA bomb

attacks were going of the whole time, and we have seen the death of

Martin McGuinness this week, and actually Irish terrorism killed many

more people than this new form of terrorism today. The tragic reality

is that society do have people who want to explode their anger against

other people. Indeed. There was allegedly an attack in Islington

last night, where somebody drove a car onto the pavement and pulled out

nice, but because it is not terrorism, we can't have an armed

policeman on every corner, and we certainly didn't after the killing

of Jo Cox, which actually involves a firearm. We have to get everything

into perspective. We have a superb security force and the police are

doing a brilliant job. And as you say, it is what you don't see that

tells you that security is working, not seeing with people with guns on

the street, that tells you that security is not working. The front

page of the Times, Boris Johnson, disgusting Google. This is a joint

approach by Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd, both targeting social media

websites. The Times has led the way this week with some strong stories

showing how social media websites are allowing people to have all this

nonsense on it, and how advertising are inadvertently funding extremist,

and this has led to a bandwagon, leading to some companies

withdrawing from it. This is typical of politicians, jumping on it and

saying they have got to do something, and they are right, it is

important. Google and Facebook and the like do need to do their utmost

to eliminate this sort of material on there, and they do need to take

action. It is great to see this attention at this time. Don't you

feel like Boris Johnson is like King Canute, trying to hold back the sea?

We are all out there putting forward our opinions, and to be releasing

all of that simultaneously, websites, social media, it is a huge

job. Do you think it is not possible? It is not possible, if you

take down one website, another will pop up. If you are taking them down

more quickly, they would just manufacture websites that go up

every ten minutes. I just don't know, we have a president of the

United States who takes to social media to put out his bile. It is

very hard, I think, for these companies to distinguish. I do agree

they should take out websites that are explicitly espouse terrorist

activity, but I think it is very difficult to be able to do that.

Moving on finally to the Mail on Sunday, page 15, taking issue with

comic relief. Foul language, unfunny skits... Ban Comic Relief, fair

enough. There has been a general opinion this year, heard elsewhere,

that tend to macro is not funny, -- Comic Relief. I think the more

fundamental issue is why is the BBC hosting Comic Relief because it does

put out one particular viewpoint which is that aid is a good thing

and eight works, and all these heroic medians are saving Africa,

but there is a fundamental issue, why is the BBC promoting aid in this

way? I am not sure what aid us at all, really. If you are running

malaria projects, or HIV projects, all of those are fantastic because

they are about changing outcomes for generations, and they are about

changing behaviours and creating a healthy constant, but not this. OK.

There we to leave it. Thank you both very much indeed.

Many thanks to my guests and just a reminder that we will take a look at

tomorrow's front pages every evening at 10:40pm here on BBC News.

Good morning. It has been a glorious start to the day, most of us seeing

sunshine from the word go. Some fantastic sunrise pictures have been

sent