:00:00. > :00:00.speak to Scarlett Thomas about her switch to writing for children and
:00:00. > :00:12.the creation of a fictional world full of magic and danger.
:00:13. > :00:15.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be
:00:16. > :00:19.With me are the journalist Lucy Cavendish, and Tom Bergin,
:00:20. > :00:29.Hopefully not suffering from too much sun after a lovely day out
:00:30. > :00:31.there tonight. Tomorrow's front pages
:00:32. > :00:32.then, starting with - The Daily Telegraph leads
:00:33. > :00:34.with claims that Russia and Iran are threatening
:00:35. > :00:36.to retaliate against America, following last week's
:00:37. > :00:38.air strike on Syria. Donald Trump is accused
:00:39. > :00:40.of crossing "red lines". The Financial Times focuses
:00:41. > :00:46.on President Trump's decision to increase US naval power
:00:47. > :00:50.in Korean waters. The Independent leads
:00:51. > :00:52.with an exclusive on the rising number of domestic violence
:00:53. > :00:53.victims withdrawing charges The Daily Express claims that
:00:54. > :00:59.Theresa May is under pressure to introduce a five-year pause
:01:00. > :01:01.on unskilled migrant workers coming to the UK in order
:01:02. > :01:09.to reach immigration targets. The Metro also looks at the claims
:01:10. > :01:11.that Russia and Iran are threatening to retaliate
:01:12. > :01:14.against the United States - it also carries a picture
:01:15. > :01:16.of the funeral of PC Palmer, who was killed during
:01:17. > :01:19.the Westminster terror attack. The Guardian says that most asylum
:01:20. > :01:33.seekers are placed in the poorest PC Palmer's funeral takes place
:01:34. > :01:38.tomorrow, he is lying at rest in the Houses of Parliament tonight. Let's
:01:39. > :01:43.begin with the Telegraph, and a couple of the papers are running on
:01:44. > :01:48.the fallout following those cruise missile strikes by the United States
:01:49. > :01:52.against Syria earlier in the week. The Daily Telegraph's headline,
:01:53. > :01:55.Russia's threat to strike back at Trump, we will respond with force
:01:56. > :02:02.Moscow tells the US after attack on Syria airbase. How specific are they
:02:03. > :02:07.being? It is not specific at all. It is a pretty good one because of
:02:08. > :02:12.course you wrote expect Russia to come back with something because it
:02:13. > :02:17.does feel like an attack on Assad and they are in cahoots with a sad
:02:18. > :02:23.but I'm not sure what the force is. I don't want to make light of it but
:02:24. > :02:27.the bromance is over -- Assad. Trump has gone this way, Putin is going
:02:28. > :02:30.that way, he is standing alongside the Iranians and it feels
:02:31. > :02:34.threatening but no one has exactly said what the force is. The
:02:35. > :02:39.accusation Donald Trump has crossed red lines which is ironic since he
:02:40. > :02:44.felt red lines had been crossed some time ago, 2013, President Obama
:02:45. > :02:47.hadn't responded even though he had drawn a red line. We might need to
:02:48. > :02:53.use some different colours here, purple markers, and we have so many
:02:54. > :03:01.lines going on here. Yes, as Lucy said the bromance is over, lots of
:03:02. > :03:06.discussions about whether President Putin helps, Trump, we will find out
:03:07. > :03:11.if that was the case, any reason to hold it back might be gone. It is a
:03:12. > :03:17.confusing situation. It is not usual we see the kind of language being
:03:18. > :03:25.used here. Childlike language. Childish. The mechanism is Twitter,
:03:26. > :03:31.the messages are thinly veiled insults, the kind of comments used
:03:32. > :03:34.to describe Britain by the Russians. It is a strange situation and
:03:35. > :03:38.heightens this political unpredictability we have now. It is
:03:39. > :03:41.one of those things when looking at financial markets and other areas
:03:42. > :03:45.people citing political uncertainty in the way they have not done in the
:03:46. > :03:50.past. Even in the developed world and in the place where in the past
:03:51. > :03:53.we have certainty about policy, namely the United States, people
:03:54. > :03:57.would trail the economic policies for a long period of time. In the
:03:58. > :04:02.course of a week we have had a U-turn, turning on a dime, and we're
:04:03. > :04:08.not used to seeing these things. He is an unpredictable man. Which one?
:04:09. > :04:12.Both! I felt with Trump there were checks and balances around when he
:04:13. > :04:16.came into power and lots of people said the checks and balances and
:04:17. > :04:22.sensible people... But this seems to be spiralling into literally like
:04:23. > :04:26.two people trading insults across social media, it is extraordinary.
:04:27. > :04:32.Yes, it's not the sort of discretion we are used to in sort of diplomatic
:04:33. > :04:36.terms, is it? No. You wonder how useful it is, they look to have much
:04:37. > :04:40.more distance between the White House and the Kremlin than was
:04:41. > :04:43.suggested a few weeks ago. Absolutely, and they are talking
:04:44. > :04:47.about threats. The US has been careful not to have any Russian
:04:48. > :04:50.casualties in the action. The Russians were notified at a military
:04:51. > :04:58.level in advance of this military strike. On Twitter! It is or was
:04:59. > :05:02.possible inadvertently that could happen and that would ratchet up
:05:03. > :05:05.things, as we have seen before with Turkey and Russia with respect to
:05:06. > :05:11.the downing of the Russian fighter. These things can get out of hand and
:05:12. > :05:19.lead to escalate unintentionally. The Guardian talks about the British
:05:20. > :05:24.aspect of this. Russian fury as Johnson is snapped as Syria tensions
:05:25. > :05:31.rise, Boris Johnson's decision not to go to Moscow -- snubbed. The
:05:32. > :05:34.reaction from the Russians, particularly Sergey Lavrov, who is
:05:35. > :05:40.his Foreign Secretary counterpart. Yes. The Russians are basically
:05:41. > :05:44.saying that this shows that Britain is incapable of independent thought
:05:45. > :05:50.when it comes to foreign policy. Basically, the UK is a lapdog to the
:05:51. > :05:54.United States. As I said earlier, this is not really typically
:05:55. > :05:58.diplomatic language and they are obviously not happy about this.
:05:59. > :06:01.Interestingly we are also seen the opposition in the UK, the Liberal
:06:02. > :06:06.Democrats and Labour, criticising Boris Johnson for not going to
:06:07. > :06:10.Russia, working on the basis of Rex Tillerson, the US Foreign Secretary
:06:11. > :06:14.who is going to go, so why should Boris do not go? We have not had a
:06:15. > :06:17.really clear explanation from the Foreign Office of the thinking here
:06:18. > :06:21.and this is leading the opposition parties in the UK to say Theresa May
:06:22. > :06:26.is afraid he is going to go and they will be gaffes. Much further down in
:06:27. > :06:31.the article it says the Foreign Office says the talks were called
:06:32. > :06:40.off owing to Russia's continued defence of the Assad regime. Russia
:06:41. > :06:44.says this is not had a pleasant -- diplomacy works, you don't just not
:06:45. > :06:48.turn up if things get tricky. Have they missed a trick not being in
:06:49. > :06:51.Moscow to say those things? I think he has but Russia has always
:06:52. > :06:55.supported the Assad regime. I was always the case before he was going
:06:56. > :07:02.anyway. The interesting thing is there has been no reason given. He
:07:03. > :07:06.apparently needs to work on proposals a bit longer. The
:07:07. > :07:09.opposition parties are right, there is a big question mark over whether
:07:10. > :07:14.or not Theresa May trusts Boris Johnson. Do you really think that is
:07:15. > :07:18.what it is? At this point of time I would say it is pretty important
:07:19. > :07:21.that he does go over there, it is a visit that is planned, and to back
:07:22. > :07:29.down, again, there is a Twitter spat saying he's not on the dome at up to
:07:30. > :07:34.the job. Isn't that for our benefit? We reported all the time. If you
:07:35. > :07:37.make these statements you can box yourself into a corner and the
:07:38. > :07:40.problem is Trump has committed to so many things, from health care to
:07:41. > :07:44.foreign relations, he has made promises, his written a lot of
:07:45. > :07:48.cheques on Twitter but he can still be held accountable for those if he
:07:49. > :07:52.doesn't deliver. Donald Trump was putting America first. There was not
:07:53. > :07:57.going to be much engagement abroad, was there? That has changed because
:07:58. > :08:01.of the circumstances. Like he looked at health care and he said it is
:08:02. > :08:04.complicated. Boris Johnson isn't going to be there to sort it out and
:08:05. > :08:09.have a place at the table. Shall we stay with the Guardian? Most
:08:10. > :08:13.refugees sent to the poorest parts of the UK, calls for appalling
:08:14. > :08:20.system to change as Labour areas bear the brunt of the cost. Is this
:08:21. > :08:26.accidental or deliberate? How do people end up in the poorer parts of
:08:27. > :08:32.the country? I think it's very complicated. Another thing that is!
:08:33. > :08:36.Life is complicated. Essentially Yvette Cooper, who said this is a
:08:37. > :08:43.shambles and has been part of the whole thing highlighting the thing
:08:44. > :08:48.that has gone on. Since 2012 there was a change by the Conservative
:08:49. > :08:51.government to do with the contracts. Which the coalition put in. It says
:08:52. > :08:55.the Conservative government but you are right, it is the coalition, to
:08:56. > :08:59.do with contracting out to private companies. It is a money thing the
:09:00. > :09:02.same thing that happened with how much money you have for school
:09:03. > :09:05.dinners. How much people have in order to be able to how much people
:09:06. > :09:09.have in order to be able to house asylums. What has happened with that
:09:10. > :09:13.is the richest places have managed to ring fence things, the rich are
:09:14. > :09:18.part of the country who probably don't want asylum seekers there.
:09:19. > :09:21.They say you can't come here. It was a function of how much housing
:09:22. > :09:24.costs, rental accommodation is cheaper in certain places and that
:09:25. > :09:28.is where you put them because the money goes further. It is that
:09:29. > :09:32.simple and difficult to draw up a system in a different way. You can
:09:33. > :09:36.consciously say we want to spread the burden more broadly but implicit
:09:37. > :09:40.is that is you have to spend a lot of money. Underpinning just about
:09:41. > :09:44.half the stories in the newspaper today is the tight budgetary
:09:45. > :09:50.situation. It is clearly unfair in many ways. But on the other hand,
:09:51. > :09:54.would it be much fairer if we actually had less money to go
:09:55. > :10:00.around, which would be the impact if we decided to house people in more
:10:01. > :10:05.affluent areas? Let's look at the Telegraph again. Pay of Southern
:10:06. > :10:10.Railway boss almost doubles. This is Charles Horton's page that has gone
:10:11. > :10:16.up to almost ?500,000 for one reason or another. And, of course, we know
:10:17. > :10:20.how beset with all sorts of problems, trains not running, trains
:10:21. > :10:25.being cancelled, and then strikes on this particular railway line. We
:10:26. > :10:29.don't get a lot of detail so we do not see exactly why his pay is going
:10:30. > :10:35.up. I am sure the consultants hired by the company to help set his pay
:10:36. > :10:40.have come up with a very rational reason why even though they might be
:10:41. > :10:44.certain problems with the rail group it is totally justified. The issue
:10:45. > :10:50.is we look across the board and seek pay rocketing and performance often
:10:51. > :10:55.very mediocre. It is difficult to see, if you look at the data, the
:10:56. > :10:58.connection between executive pay and remuneration. The Chief Executive's
:10:59. > :11:03.share of company profits has gone up about three or four times over the
:11:04. > :11:06.past ten years. There is no real sense to it. It is part of the
:11:07. > :11:10.bigger thing, Parliamentary committee saying they want to end
:11:11. > :11:13.some of the bonus programmes. It is another example of outcomes we don't
:11:14. > :11:17.really understand how they are justified. It could just be that in
:11:18. > :11:21.his contract he is owed this money, maybe as simple as that and there
:11:22. > :11:25.might be a performance aspect to it. It might be as simple as that but in
:11:26. > :11:28.terms of PR it is a complete disaster. There have been bosses
:11:29. > :11:32.recently who have said I'm not going to take my pay rise because it's not
:11:33. > :11:36.the right thing to do and everyone would have felt happier, because the
:11:37. > :11:39.people who have used Southern Railway man as we have seen, it has
:11:40. > :11:43.been a disaster and it has been miserable and they will not be
:11:44. > :11:47.happy. He still has the chance to turn it down, if he wants. He does
:11:48. > :11:53.have a chance to turn it down. Back to the FT, or to the FT for the
:11:54. > :12:00.first time. Push to close gender gap starts at the top. This is how
:12:01. > :12:04.companies can address the gender pay gap. This month new legislation
:12:05. > :12:07.comes in that big companies will have to publish data that will tell
:12:08. > :12:13.us just how big the gender payback is going to be -- pay gap. There is
:12:14. > :12:19.further analysis in the newspaper but it is an interesting story.
:12:20. > :12:23.There is still obviously a gender pay gap and a friend of mine works
:12:24. > :12:28.in headhunting and working out what is going on with winning and why
:12:29. > :12:31.there aren't more women at the top of companies and why the pay gap is
:12:32. > :12:36.so big. It is partially because companies are not very good, certain
:12:37. > :12:39.of them, not all of them, adjusting their working practices so people
:12:40. > :12:43.can work effectively and maybe they are not constantly five days a week
:12:44. > :12:47.in the office. This is looking at if people at the top just what they are
:12:48. > :12:51.doing to make the company is more available for women, which is
:12:52. > :12:58.interesting, like for example having a supermarket. Because women do all
:12:59. > :13:01.of the shopping! That is exactly it. It is a fascinating point. Quite
:13:02. > :13:05.right. That's great, how wonderful to have a supermarket but what about
:13:06. > :13:09.the idea that only women go to supermarkets to do the shopping.
:13:10. > :13:13.That betrays a lot. Looking at the message from the top, if that is the
:13:14. > :13:17.message from the top, that will not encourage people. Clearly in
:13:18. > :13:21.everything the ethics of the company, coming to attitudes, and
:13:22. > :13:26.all kinds of things, the chief executive sets the tone. But this
:13:27. > :13:29.comes in the context of the UK facing a productivity crisis and we
:13:30. > :13:33.need the contribution of all kinds of people to help come up with smart
:13:34. > :13:37.ideas. Including women shopping in the supermarket! A novel idea!
:13:38. > :13:40.That's the papers for this hour. Don't forget all the front pages
:13:41. > :13:43.are online on the BBC News website where you can read
:13:44. > :13:45.a detailed review. It's all there for you -
:13:46. > :13:48.seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers -
:13:49. > :13:50.and you can see us there too - with each night's edition
:13:51. > :13:52.of The Papers being posted on the page shortly
:13:53. > :13:54.after we've finished. Lucy and Tom - we'll see
:13:55. > :13:58.you again at 11:30pm. We all know what it feels
:13:59. > :14:10.like to get lost in a book. In Scarlett Thomas's novel
:14:11. > :14:13.Dragon's Green she turns it