26/03/2017 The Papers


A lively, informed and in-depth conversation about the Sunday papers.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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




Download Subtitles