:00:00. > :00:16.That is all the sport, now on BBC news here is Maxine with The Papers.
:00:17. > :00:19.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be
:00:20. > :00:23.With me are the Home Affairs Editor for the Evening Standard Martin
:00:24. > :00:25.Bentham and the journalist and broadcaster Rachel Shabi.
:00:26. > :00:31.So let's look at the front pages this morning. We're starting with
:00:32. > :00:32.the Mail. Boris Johnson's decision
:00:33. > :00:35.to cancel his trip to Russia The Mail on Sunday
:00:36. > :00:38.reports the criticism from the Kremlin as well as Liberal
:00:39. > :00:42.Democrat MPs here. The Sunday Times says
:00:43. > :00:44.Britain and America are preparing to accuse Russia
:00:45. > :01:02.of complicity in war The Telegraph says Vladimir Putin
:01:03. > :01:06.will be told to pull troops from Syria and withdraw support for Putin
:01:07. > :01:15.in an age dish and it headed by the UK.
:01:16. > :01:18.The Observer leads with a story about Len McCluskey,
:01:19. > :01:20.the leader of the Unite union, who wants the Labour party
:01:21. > :01:25.to investigate MPs who he says are plotting against him
:01:26. > :01:30.about Eastenders actress June Brown - who plays Dot Cotton -
:01:31. > :01:32.who's had eye surgery lasting 60 seconds -
:01:33. > :01:34.that she says allows her to see again!
:01:35. > :01:40.Let's begin. Most of the papers talk about the Syria- Russia situation
:01:41. > :01:46.and what the allies will do about it. The Sunday Times splashes on a
:01:47. > :01:49.piece by Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, setting out what
:01:50. > :01:53.the forthcoming agenda will be which will be, as it says here, turning
:01:54. > :01:57.the screws on the Kremlin, holding them responsible for every death
:01:58. > :02:01.that happened last week because of this gas attack and saying that the
:02:02. > :02:05.Russians must do much more to bring Assad to heal and bring peace in
:02:06. > :02:18.Syria. That is the rhetoric that is coming out. Later this week the
:02:19. > :02:21.United Nations is set to deliver a strong message, the question is if
:02:22. > :02:25.the Russians will listen to that, it must be hoped that they do that this
:02:26. > :02:30.is going on for a long time and it is not clear this will happen.
:02:31. > :02:36.That's the thing. Now Boris Johnson says he isn't going. Boris Johnson
:02:37. > :02:40.was due to go to Moscow. He has called off that mission. The theory
:02:41. > :02:45.is, I don't know if that is true or not, but the working theory is that
:02:46. > :02:49.the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to visit Moscow
:02:50. > :02:54.this week and they have divided the workload in the sense that Boris
:02:55. > :03:01.Johnson will be going to the summit this Tuesday to try to rally Western
:03:02. > :03:07.support for this sort of US-led position on Russia while Rex
:03:08. > :03:12.Tillerson handles the Russian side, I don't know if that is true or not,
:03:13. > :03:16.some people have criticised Boris Johnson, saying he is clearly seen
:03:17. > :03:20.as a liability, the fact that he has postpunk this engagement makes him
:03:21. > :03:33.look like a poodle -- post-poll engagement. If you look at the front
:03:34. > :03:38.page of the Mail on Sunday that is the headline! They call him a
:03:39. > :03:41.poodle. It's a difficult one. The Kremlin is not easy to negotiate
:03:42. > :03:49.with and is a huge supporter of Assad. Is a quote in the Observer
:03:50. > :03:52.saying that this, the positive scenario of what happened last week
:03:53. > :03:57.because the crucial question is whether the effect of America
:03:58. > :04:01.showing military force in that area suddenly changes the dynamic and
:04:02. > :04:04.makes the Russians listen more rather than less, because previously
:04:05. > :04:07.they had just gone on supporting Assad ever since the previous
:04:08. > :04:11.failure to carry out an air strike in the wake of a chemical attack,
:04:12. > :04:16.the Russians have got ever more deeply involved, overtly supporting
:04:17. > :04:20.Assad on the ground and so on, and whether this air strike last week
:04:21. > :04:25.changes the dynamic and this Russian analyst in the Observer suggests
:04:26. > :04:29.that it might. The Russians will see America as a serious player with
:04:30. > :04:32.some weight, that's the positive part of it, the negative part is
:04:33. > :04:37.that there's the risk of confrontation things getting worse!
:04:38. > :04:42.That's what we have to see as the next week unfolds and the weeks
:04:43. > :04:45.afterwards, as to whether Putin, who clearly believes in strength himself
:04:46. > :04:52.and shows of force, response to someone doing the same. It is
:04:53. > :04:56.interesting that, is it not, Rachel, that the USA has changed its tone on
:04:57. > :05:03.Syria following this chemical attack. Speaking to Russian analysts
:05:04. > :05:07.earlier today, they were saying that having gone from "We are not
:05:08. > :05:11.interested in Assad and Syria, we are keeping everything inside the
:05:12. > :05:15.United States" they have now gone the other way. Do you think that
:05:16. > :05:26.will make any difference to Russia, the fact that the US has taken
:05:27. > :05:30.action? Well. This idea, none of this would have been possible
:05:31. > :05:34.without Russia backing President Assad along with other players in
:05:35. > :05:40.the region, that precisely has been the tragic problem with the Syria
:05:41. > :05:47.war, that it has been sustained in a deadly way by outside players on
:05:48. > :05:50.both sides, so that any escalation on one side is met with an
:05:51. > :05:56.escalation on the other side. And that has been the worry. And that is
:05:57. > :06:04.why in 2013, President Obama decided not to go ahead. And if we look at
:06:05. > :06:08.what has happened since the very limited US air strike in retaliation
:06:09. > :06:15.for that gas attack, while Russia has amassed warships in Syria since
:06:16. > :06:21.that happened, bombing has resumed in the area that was subjected to
:06:22. > :06:29.that horrendous gas attack. And that is the worry. It is not like this
:06:30. > :06:36.doesn't have consequences, and the consequences have to be calculated.
:06:37. > :06:39.There is no point, of course we want to see something as horrendous as a
:06:40. > :06:44.chemical attack like this. Of course we want to see some kind of response
:06:45. > :06:49.to that. It is a very human reaction. But it is not something
:06:50. > :06:56.that should factor into a calibration as serious and as
:06:57. > :07:04.dangerous as this. I just want to move on, it's a continuation of the
:07:05. > :07:08.same discussion with the bombers backing new strikes. It is the point
:07:09. > :07:18.Rachel made, the bombing continues. I suppose if you say that the
:07:19. > :07:20.chemical weapons are a step too far, it's an arguable position, because
:07:21. > :07:28.clearly those things kill people as these bombs have killed some people
:07:29. > :07:32.in the last day or so, every bomb is likely to kill somebody. From that
:07:33. > :07:37.point of view we can understand the argument but the world in general
:07:38. > :07:43.draws the line at chemical weapons. If you calculate too much, as Obama
:07:44. > :07:48.did, and do nothing, it doesn't help the situation necessarily. So I
:07:49. > :07:55.don't think responding to this one thing means the whole problem will
:07:56. > :08:02.be solved. If it were to happen again what would the response be? If
:08:03. > :08:05.you've done it once...? That's the worry, it's right that chemical
:08:06. > :08:09.weapons are a red line. There are lots of things that are red lines
:08:10. > :08:13.that we have not respected either in Syria or elsewhere. But let's look
:08:14. > :08:19.at what happened. In 2013 to an agreement was brokered by Russia
:08:20. > :08:25.whereby Bashir al-Assad was supposed to get rid of his stockpile and his
:08:26. > :08:31.capacity to generate more weapons. But clearly hasn't happened. And
:08:32. > :08:43.Russia has known that it wouldn't. There have been 120 red strikes,
:08:44. > :08:46.it's just as horrifying to be subjected to that so we don't have
:08:47. > :08:50.any consistency and that is the problem. If you are going to have a
:08:51. > :08:54.policy needs to be consistent and consistent throughout the Middle
:08:55. > :09:02.East. Possibly although nowhere else is using chemical weapons at the
:09:03. > :09:04.moment, is there? That would be the argument of the Trump
:09:05. > :09:09.administration, that they have set a new tone, and the previous failure
:09:10. > :09:17.of Syria to disarm is the result of the inaction before. Setting a new
:09:18. > :09:22.tone is not diplomacy. Saying Assad must go, as they now say, is not,
:09:23. > :09:27.what are you going to do them, who will replace them, how will you
:09:28. > :09:34.broker that agreement? Look at what happened when we said that in Libya
:09:35. > :09:40.and Iraq. Surely those are signs of what happens if you leave a vacuum
:09:41. > :09:47.where there once was... A brief comment because I want to move onto
:09:48. > :09:55.some other stories! The point is, by saying, do nothing, the example of
:09:56. > :10:01.Syria... Right, I'm calling a halt! Let's move on. The Syria vacuum has
:10:02. > :10:06.created a massive problem. We could discuss this for a long time, we
:10:07. > :10:12.must move on now. Dirty tricks, Labour MPs accused of dirty tricks
:10:13. > :10:20.in union vote, says Unite. Len McCluskey is up for reaction. He is
:10:21. > :10:23.arguing, he is a big Jeremy Corbyn supporter and is claiming that the
:10:24. > :10:29.right wing of the Labour Party, people like Tom Watson, the deputy
:10:30. > :10:34.leader and so on, are backing his opponent in the election because
:10:35. > :10:41.they want to oust him to get at Jeremy Corbyn, basically. He alleges
:10:42. > :10:48.dirty tricks. We don't know the rights and wrongs of it. What does
:10:49. > :10:52.that tell us about the closeness of unions and political parties? It is
:10:53. > :10:56.a weird one, this. This is quite an interesting interview with Len
:10:57. > :11:02.McCluskey in the inside pages. I think there is perhaps a more
:11:03. > :11:07.interesting points than the sort of political stuff that has made the
:11:08. > :11:12.front pages, which is how unions are going to respond and stand up for a
:11:13. > :11:21.workforce in a workplace that is increasingly zero hours, contracts,
:11:22. > :11:31.that sort of gig economy climate. It's possibly a more useful
:11:32. > :11:37.conversation to the public. That this will get the headlines! The
:11:38. > :11:43.right of the party of Labour will be saying, if you can't stand up for
:11:44. > :11:47.things, you can't achieve things if you are not in power and that is
:11:48. > :11:54.their argument, to save Len McCluskey's propping up Jeremy
:11:55. > :11:56.Corbyn, to say that is heading for electoral disasters of the party
:11:57. > :12:00.needs someone with a different approach. That will be their
:12:01. > :12:05.argument. I'm going to jump over a couple of papers and go to the
:12:06. > :12:10.Sunday express. This is interesting. Fly-tippers. They will be forced to
:12:11. > :12:16.clean up, pick up litter, if they can be found in the first place!
:12:17. > :12:23.Yes! Fly-tipping is a big issue. You can see it. Beside the road. Utterly
:12:24. > :12:27.selfish. The story is exactly that, they are trying to do something
:12:28. > :12:31.about it. The gimmick is that they say that these people will be forced
:12:32. > :12:37.to clean up, if they can be caught first! They will have to be caught
:12:38. > :12:42.first to clear up as part of community service. Unfortunately
:12:43. > :12:45.there's quite a lot of control over what you can do, community service
:12:46. > :12:51.and so on, how many of those people would actually do it is
:12:52. > :12:55.questionable. Everyone would like it stopped, the question must be
:12:56. > :12:59.educating people not to do it in the first place. Will it put people off
:13:00. > :13:05.if they think they might get caught and have to pick up litter? No. The
:13:06. > :13:10.other angle of this story apart from what you said is that the government
:13:11. > :13:15.wants to stop councils charging to take non-household rubbish to the
:13:16. > :13:22.tip. Which is the responsible thing to do when you have non-household
:13:23. > :13:26.rubbish like loads of DIY materials and that kind of stuff. So that is
:13:27. > :13:29.the argument, that if people knew that they did not have to pay for
:13:30. > :13:37.that, then they would responsibly go to the tip. One of the charging
:13:38. > :13:42.issues is to stop builders and commercial people taking stuff to
:13:43. > :13:47.the tip. You can't go with enormous skip loads of things and say it is
:13:48. > :13:56.all household waste! This is all-day YY! -- this is all DIY! On the other
:13:57. > :14:01.hand, people have bins that they can put normal litter in and a lot of
:14:02. > :14:05.people don't do that! I don't think this issue will go away because of
:14:06. > :14:13.this. The final story, did you put a bet on the Grand National yesterday?
:14:14. > :14:18.No. No, but a great story in the Sunday Telegraph of the golf widows.
:14:19. > :14:21.I think it's fantastic. They are not really widows, they golf widows
:14:22. > :14:27.because their husbands go out playing golf and they bought a horse
:14:28. > :14:32.and it won. Two aspects to this story, one, it is encouraging if you
:14:33. > :14:36.are busy and your wife or partner goes out and spends in this case
:14:37. > :14:43.?30,000 each on a horse! They picked a winner, that's great! If they
:14:44. > :14:47.spent ?30,000 because you were busy doing something else that is
:14:48. > :14:51.alarming! Imagine if they did that every time you were busy. Although
:14:52. > :14:56.it is a lovely story, very uplifting, I loved it and I loved
:14:57. > :15:02.the picture. It is a great picture of the two ladies. Anything you'd be
:15:03. > :15:08.tempted to do? By a horse with my spare 30p?
:15:09. > :15:16.LAUGHTER What did they win? They won
:15:17. > :15:21.?600,000. I might have that wrong. They did pretty well. They can
:15:22. > :15:27.probably sell the horse now for more money. They could. They have won
:15:28. > :15:31.all-round. On that note, while you are checking the numbers and
:15:32. > :15:35.thinking of buying a horse I want to say thank you very much indeed for
:15:36. > :15:58.coming to look at the papers. That's it for The Papers.
:15:59. > :16:00.Keirin hello, yesterday just about everywhere enjoyed the warmth