05/04/2017 The Papers


No need to wait 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 05/04/2017. 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 Kate McCann, senior political correspondent


at the Daily Telegraph, and Dan Bilefsky, London-based


The Telegraph leads with a warning that Donald Trump could threaten


military action on Syria following reports


The Metro features the same story, with President Trump describing


the suspected gas attack as a red line.


In the Financial Times there's claims that Theresa May might


soften her stance on free movement as part of Brexit talks.


The Express says house prices are set to rise by a quarter


The i reports that the UK is trying to improve diplomatic


The Guardian says there is mounting pressure on Jeremy Corbyn


to expel Ken Livingstone following his remarks on Hitler.


The Times reports the Government's rise on probate


And in the Mail, claims that the UK's foreign aid budget has


I am not normally hear on Wednesday, I am discombobulated. Some grim


stories tonight. We will do our best to find some light relief towards


the end but we start with the Telegraph. Donald Trump squares up


to President Assad over the gas attack but we start with this


picture story of this 29-year-old man who lost all of his family,


including twin babies, he is holding in his arms, and there is a moving


dispatch from Beirut. This is a heartbreaking story about a young


man who discovered that his twin children, babies and wife, or in the


line of fire of the attack and he ran from his shop to be with his


wife and children and took them to a safe place in the basement and he


realised they had been hit by the gas, and they died. And this


photograph shows him cradling those babies in his arms and it is


absolutely heartbreaking. Some of the pictures we have seen of


survivors and the condition they were in, medics making the point


that these attacks leave no marks. This is not the first time that


Sarin gas is suspected against civilians and this is not an


accidental attack, this is an attack on civilians, 86 people have died,


30 children. This is not the worst picture by far, there are pictures


of children piled on top of each other, stripped of their clothes


because when this gas hits, the best thing is to dust their clothes and


water. Imagine how awful that must be. Two days later, there has been


nothing done, no action, we talk about the need to consider things


like this carefully and they will come onto the comments from


President Trump but can we stand by and let this happen again? Talking


about the politics and international diplomacy around this, because


Russia maintains this was that Syrian air strike on a store of


rebel-held weapons, they hold the veto on the Security Council. There


will not even be a resolution, probably, condemning this? Russia


has consistently used its veto on the council to veto any attempt to


castigate Assad, given the fact that Moscow is his biggest patron. Until


recently, President Trump made clear his main objective in Syria was to


defeat Islamic State and he was considering cultivating Assad as an


ally and now this has happened, any attempt to cultivate Assad or


support Vladimir Putin becomes morally unconscionable for Trump and


at the same time he criticised President Obama for being weak and


he failed during the last chemical attack to abide by his promise to


take action if Assad breached the red line and he cited chemical


attacks. He also said, whatever you do, do not go into Syria? Do not


take military action? When Trump changes his mind every few days,


depending on the last person he spoke to... He recently blamed


resident Obama are not taking action after Assad breached the red line


and now you would expect him to be decisive and this is a geopolitical


powderkeg, very dangerous, given the involvement of Vladimir Putin. We do


not know what he might have in mind when he says, his ambassador said


that if the UN will not take on Syria, we will. Let us look at the


Guardian and the look at the New York Times, the same story. The


right-hand man and of Trump loses the national security role, Steve


Bannon. Many eyebrows were raised when he was given the seat at the


table and there are all sorts of sensitive information. It was quite


astonishing when he was appointed to this board, the committee on the


National Security Council, the council is the nerve centre of


American foreign policy and you have the chief advisor to the President


being appointed and everyone was worried this would politicise


American foreign policy, he is a very controversial figure, he was


the head of Breitbart, a very right-wing neo-conservative media


organ. He is depicted as the dark leader of American domestic policy.


And he is an ideologue in many ways. The front page of the New York


Times, Trump removes Steve Bannon from the National Security Council.


This is how it looks on the internet. Who was this a result for?


It is not quite clear yet who has engineered this. McMaster, who was


appointed, he seems to consolidate his power and other people say that


Jared Kushner is up and Steve Bannon is down but he still occupies a very


important part of the White House and he can continue to exert


influence on domestic policy but his wings have been kept with foreign


policy in this committee, which has been very military dominated. We can


move on to the Telegraph, a story that Kate has had some involvement


with. Trust might -- Liz Truss might lose her position. Liz Truss, ten


years ago, as Justice Secretary, you automatically became Lord Chancellor


because that was held by judges? What is happening? This is


interesting. It has been building over the past couple of months.


Cabinet Ministers have told the Telegraph that they believe these


rules need to be spit, Tony Blair brought them together in 2007, that


happened, and that means Liz Truss is not only the Justice Secretary


but the Lord Chancellor and those rules are different, they sit in the


same department and has been criticism of the fact that from very


senior judges, the most senior in the country, that this Lord


Chancellor will, Liz Truss is not doing a good enough job. She was


heavily criticised a week ago for not coming out strongly enough and


standing for the judiciary, particularly in the wake of some


attacks in the newspapers on them after the Brexit court case and


there have been other businesses are concerned about the way the


Department is running and while the present policy is managed. There


have been other incidents recently but things have not gone to plan.


These are sources talking to the Telegraph about how that role needs


to be spit and they are appealing to the Prime Minister to say we need to


look again at how this works. This is something that is likely to take


a long time because it is completely dead and something that has not been


done for a while, ten years ago these rules were put together. It is


something we need to keep an eye on but it is interesting to see people


moving against Liz Truss in that way and that position. Is she on


borrowed time? It'll be interesting to see how things proceed. The


Department admits the Lord Chancellor role is not working


properly, if you remember about three weeks ago, they had to change


the discount rate, which sounds technical but it resulted in


concerned about insurance premiums going up as a result. In the


consultation document subsequent to that, the Ministry admitted that


perhaps an independent body needs to set that in future, which I believe


is a condition they do not think that Google is working properly.


Quite a lot to keep an eye on. -- that role. The Financial Times,


Theresa May envisages free movement past 2019 as the Brexit stance


softens. It seems to be softening as he is out of the country. Hold on...


Getting rid of free movement was one of the main reasons for not wanting


to remain part of Europe? Another example of the government appearing


to backtrack on the cornerstones of the reasons for Brexit in the first


place. Britain wanted control over its borders but if you want that,


that means you lose being in the single market, which is economically


important and at the same time, Britain needs workers from the EU


for the economy to function well. It seems like she is hedging their


bets. Isn't this a transitional phase? Is not a permanent acceptance


of free movement forever? Quite. Theresa May says that after 2019,


she has admitted there was likely to be a transitional period so


everything can be sorted because two years is not very long. And this is


an admission that effectively, while you remain in the single market and


if we do in a transitional period, we would also abide by the rules.


There are many interesting points but two particularly is that this


looks like we're starting to see how Theresa May will play ball with the


EU. We had harsh words recently, all other stories about security linking


to the economic feature and people getting frustrated that perhaps the


Prime Minister might make a threat like that, even if it was thinly


veiled. And we can see Theresa May softening her position to say that


there may be some we can give and we might not be quite as hard line on


this as you thought. That is going to be interesting because it keeps


people on their toes. Is she really hard line? He/she prepared to give a


little bit of ground? Interesting quote from Steve Baker, a


Conservative MP... He was one of the leading lights behind the Brexit


movement and he has championed this for a long time. He says that I do


not want to discuss hypothetical scenarios, we cannot have MPs tying


the hands of the PM by drawing new red lines with every twist. The


question is, how long will that hold? How long will the hard-core


Brexit MPs be prepared to allow her to play her hand without rumbling


from the sidelines? That is the question going forward. Back to The


Daily Telegraph. This is a light relief we promised. A couple have


been fined 2000 euros because of their cooking! I will not spoil


this... My guests can explain. A court in Rome has come up with the


most marvellous word. Olfactory molestation! The case of a couple


who enjoyed cooking pasta and that is so smelly that the residents in a


tower block have complained about that rich pasta source and mixed


seafood, a beloved dish to Italians, but some noxious these people have


filed a legal suit that has gone all the way to one of the highest


courts. It seems to be quite a problem in many places in Italy? I


would not mind my neighbours cooking pasta! Had as a benefit to having


somebody next-door who can cook. There is a funny set of quotes in


this about how there has to be a line drawn between the people


cooking and those complaining because was another man who wants to


prosecute his neighbour because she cooked chicken soup at eight o'clock


in the morning. I have never had that for breakfast! It does sound


like this is one case and there are lots of others who will not end up


in court. Olfactory molestation! And I am thinking of moving there! That


is with this offence took place. Nice part of the world! That is


its... Fragrance free! Don't forget, you can see the front


pages of the papers online It's all there for you - seven days


a week at bb.co.uk/papers. And if you miss the programme any


evening you can watch it A fine spring day, 16.6 in Cardiff.


We have some breaks in the cloud, we could hang on to clear skies for


much of the night towards South south-west and eastern Scotland and


the north-east.


Download Subtitles