09/04/2017 The Papers


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



speak to Scarlett Thomas about her switch to writing for children and


the creation of a fictional world full of magic and danger.


Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be


With me are the journalist Lucy Cavendish, and Tom Bergin,


Hopefully not suffering from too much sun after a lovely day out


there tonight. Tomorrow's front pages


then, starting with - The Daily Telegraph leads


with claims that Russia and Iran are threatening


to retaliate against America, following last week's


air strike on Syria. Donald Trump is accused


of crossing "red lines". The Financial Times focuses


on President Trump's decision to increase US naval power


in Korean waters. The Independent leads


with an exclusive on the rising number of domestic violence


victims withdrawing charges The Daily Express claims that


Theresa May is under pressure to introduce a five-year pause


on unskilled migrant workers coming to the UK in order


to reach immigration targets. The Metro also looks at the claims


that Russia and Iran are threatening to retaliate


against the United States - it also carries a picture


of the funeral of PC Palmer, who was killed during


the Westminster terror attack. The Guardian says that most asylum


seekers are placed in the poorest PC Palmer's funeral takes place


tomorrow, he is lying at rest in the Houses of Parliament tonight. Let's


begin with the Telegraph, and a couple of the papers are running on


the fallout following those cruise missile strikes by the United States


against Syria earlier in the week. The Daily Telegraph's headline,


Russia's threat to strike back at Trump, we will respond with force


Moscow tells the US after attack on Syria airbase. How specific are they


being? It is not specific at all. It is a pretty good one because of


course you wrote expect Russia to come back with something because it


does feel like an attack on Assad and they are in cahoots with a sad


but I'm not sure what the force is. I don't want to make light of it but


the bromance is over -- Assad. Trump has gone this way, Putin is going


that way, he is standing alongside the Iranians and it feels


threatening but no one has exactly said what the force is. The


accusation Donald Trump has crossed red lines which is ironic since he


felt red lines had been crossed some time ago, 2013, President Obama


hadn't responded even though he had drawn a red line. We might need to


use some different colours here, purple markers, and we have so many


lines going on here. Yes, as Lucy said the bromance is over, lots of


discussions about whether President Putin helps, Trump, we will find out


if that was the case, any reason to hold it back might be gone. It is a


confusing situation. It is not usual we see the kind of language being


used here. Childlike language. Childish. The mechanism is Twitter,


the messages are thinly veiled insults, the kind of comments used


to describe Britain by the Russians. It is a strange situation and


heightens this political unpredictability we have now. It is


one of those things when looking at financial markets and other areas


people citing political uncertainty in the way they have not done in the


past. Even in the developed world and in the place where in the past


we have certainty about policy, namely the United States, people


would trail the economic policies for a long period of time. In the


course of a week we have had a U-turn, turning on a dime, and we're


not used to seeing these things. He is an unpredictable man. Which one?


Both! I felt with Trump there were checks and balances around when he


came into power and lots of people said the checks and balances and


sensible people... But this seems to be spiralling into literally like


two people trading insults across social media, it is extraordinary.


Yes, it's not the sort of discretion we are used to in sort of diplomatic


terms, is it? No. You wonder how useful it is, they look to have much


more distance between the White House and the Kremlin than was


suggested a few weeks ago. Absolutely, and they are talking


about threats. The US has been careful not to have any Russian


casualties in the action. The Russians were notified at a military


level in advance of this military strike. On Twitter! It is or was


possible inadvertently that could happen and that would ratchet up


things, as we have seen before with Turkey and Russia with respect to


the downing of the Russian fighter. These things can get out of hand and


lead to escalate unintentionally. The Guardian talks about the British


aspect of this. Russian fury as Johnson is snapped as Syria tensions


rise, Boris Johnson's decision not to go to Moscow -- snubbed. The


reaction from the Russians, particularly Sergey Lavrov, who is


his Foreign Secretary counterpart. Yes. The Russians are basically


saying that this shows that Britain is incapable of independent thought


when it comes to foreign policy. Basically, the UK is a lapdog to the


United States. As I said earlier, this is not really typically


diplomatic language and they are obviously not happy about this.


Interestingly we are also seen the opposition in the UK, the Liberal


Democrats and Labour, criticising Boris Johnson for not going to


Russia, working on the basis of Rex Tillerson, the US Foreign Secretary


who is going to go, so why should Boris do not go? We have not had a


really clear explanation from the Foreign Office of the thinking here


and this is leading the opposition parties in the UK to say Theresa May


is afraid he is going to go and they will be gaffes. Much further down in


the article it says the Foreign Office says the talks were called


off owing to Russia's continued defence of the Assad regime. Russia


says this is not had a pleasant -- diplomacy works, you don't just not


turn up if things get tricky. Have they missed a trick not being in


Moscow to say those things? I think he has but Russia has always


supported the Assad regime. I was always the case before he was going


anyway. The interesting thing is there has been no reason given. He


apparently needs to work on proposals a bit longer. The


opposition parties are right, there is a big question mark over whether


or not Theresa May trusts Boris Johnson. Do you really think that is


what it is? At this point of time I would say it is pretty important


that he does go over there, it is a visit that is planned, and to back


down, again, there is a Twitter spat saying he's not on the dome at up to


the job. Isn't that for our benefit? We reported all the time. If you


make these statements you can box yourself into a corner and the


problem is Trump has committed to so many things, from health care to


foreign relations, he has made promises, his written a lot of


cheques on Twitter but he can still be held accountable for those if he


doesn't deliver. Donald Trump was putting America first. There was not


going to be much engagement abroad, was there? That has changed because


of the circumstances. Like he looked at health care and he said it is


complicated. Boris Johnson isn't going to be there to sort it out and


have a place at the table. Shall we stay with the Guardian? Most


refugees sent to the poorest parts of the UK, calls for appalling


system to change as Labour areas bear the brunt of the cost. Is this


accidental or deliberate? How do people end up in the poorer parts of


the country? I think it's very complicated. Another thing that is!


Life is complicated. Essentially Yvette Cooper, who said this is a


shambles and has been part of the whole thing highlighting the thing


that has gone on. Since 2012 there was a change by the Conservative


government to do with the contracts. Which the coalition put in. It says


the Conservative government but you are right, it is the coalition, to


do with contracting out to private companies. It is a money thing the


same thing that happened with how much money you have for school


dinners. How much people have in order to be able to how much people


have in order to be able to house asylums. What has happened with that


is the richest places have managed to ring fence things, the rich are


part of the country who probably don't want asylum seekers there.


They say you can't come here. It was a function of how much housing


costs, rental accommodation is cheaper in certain places and that


is where you put them because the money goes further. It is that


simple and difficult to draw up a system in a different way. You can


consciously say we want to spread the burden more broadly but implicit


is that is you have to spend a lot of money. Underpinning just about


half the stories in the newspaper today is the tight budgetary


situation. It is clearly unfair in many ways. But on the other hand,


would it be much fairer if we actually had less money to go


around, which would be the impact if we decided to house people in more


affluent areas? Let's look at the Telegraph again. Pay of Southern


Railway boss almost doubles. This is Charles Horton's page that has gone


up to almost ?500,000 for one reason or another. And, of course, we know


how beset with all sorts of problems, trains not running, trains


being cancelled, and then strikes on this particular railway line. We


don't get a lot of detail so we do not see exactly why his pay is going


up. I am sure the consultants hired by the company to help set his pay


have come up with a very rational reason why even though they might be


certain problems with the rail group it is totally justified. The issue


is we look across the board and seek pay rocketing and performance often


very mediocre. It is difficult to see, if you look at the data, the


connection between executive pay and remuneration. The Chief Executive's


share of company profits has gone up about three or four times over the


past ten years. There is no real sense to it. It is part of the


bigger thing, Parliamentary committee saying they want to end


some of the bonus programmes. It is another example of outcomes we don't


really understand how they are justified. It could just be that in


his contract he is owed this money, maybe as simple as that and there


might be a performance aspect to it. It might be as simple as that but in


terms of PR it is a complete disaster. There have been bosses


recently who have said I'm not going to take my pay rise because it's not


the right thing to do and everyone would have felt happier, because the


people who have used Southern Railway man as we have seen, it has


been a disaster and it has been miserable and they will not be


happy. He still has the chance to turn it down, if he wants. He does


have a chance to turn it down. Back to the FT, or to the FT for the


first time. Push to close gender gap starts at the top. This is how


companies can address the gender pay gap. This month new legislation


comes in that big companies will have to publish data that will tell


us just how big the gender payback is going to be -- pay gap. There is


further analysis in the newspaper but it is an interesting story.


There is still obviously a gender pay gap and a friend of mine works


in headhunting and working out what is going on with winning and why


there aren't more women at the top of companies and why the pay gap is


so big. It is partially because companies are not very good, certain


of them, not all of them, adjusting their working practices so people


can work effectively and maybe they are not constantly five days a week


in the office. This is looking at if people at the top just what they are


doing to make the company is more available for women, which is


interesting, like for example having a supermarket. Because women do all


of the shopping! That is exactly it. It is a fascinating point. Quite


right. That's great, how wonderful to have a supermarket but what about


the idea that only women go to supermarkets to do the shopping.


That betrays a lot. Looking at the message from the top, if that is the


message from the top, that will not encourage people. Clearly in


everything the ethics of the company, coming to attitudes, and


all kinds of things, the chief executive sets the tone. But this


comes in the context of the UK facing a productivity crisis and we


need the contribution of all kinds of people to help come up with smart


ideas. Including women shopping in the supermarket! A novel idea!


That's the papers for this hour. Don't forget all the front pages


are online on the BBC News website where you can read


a detailed review. It's all there for you -


seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers -


and you can see us there too - with each night's edition


of The Papers being posted on the page shortly


after we've finished. Lucy and Tom - we'll see


you again at 11:30pm. We all know what it feels


like to get lost in a book. In Scarlett Thomas's novel


Dragon's Green she turns it


Download Subtitles