:00:17. > :00:19.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be
:00:20. > :00:22.With me are Ruth Lea, who's Economic Adviser
:00:23. > :00:26.to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, and the journalist and columnist,
:00:27. > :00:32.Tomorrow's Financial Times leads on what it says is the Chancellor's
:00:33. > :00:37.bid to cushion the blow of Brexit with a two-year transition deal.
:00:38. > :00:43.The Metro says the Chancellor is at loggerheads with
:00:44. > :00:45.some fellow ministers, who he accuses of trying
:00:46. > :00:47.to undermine his strategy for a soft Brexit.
:00:48. > :00:50.The Daily Telegraph also leads on the supposed rift
:00:51. > :00:51.between Philip Hammond and his Cabinet colleagues,
:00:52. > :00:55.one of whom accuses the Chancellor of trying to keep Britain in the EU.
:00:56. > :00:57.The Times says Britain is wasting billions on fighter jets
:00:58. > :01:00.that the RAF won't be able to use because of defence cuts.
:01:01. > :01:02.Call 999 - get Skype instead - that's the headline
:01:03. > :01:05.on the Daily Mail, which reports that some patients are being denied
:01:06. > :01:15.And the Sun leads on the new Doctor Who -
:01:16. > :01:20.the 13th Time Lord is the first woman to play the role.
:01:21. > :01:31.The Mirror leads the new Doctor -- greeted the new doctor with delight.
:01:32. > :01:36.We might have fun with that in a bit! Let's start with what's going
:01:37. > :01:44.on with Brexit and Philip Hammond. The Daily Telegraph says - Hammond
:01:45. > :01:47.accused of Brexit treachery. Senior Cabinet minister says Chancellor is
:01:48. > :01:51.trying to deliberately frustrate withdrawal. Not too many names
:01:52. > :01:59.mentioned in these articles about who is doing what to whom. Everyone
:02:00. > :02:06.is being treacherous. They've got a Cabinet minister who allegedly told
:02:07. > :02:09.the Daily Telegraph that Philip Hammond is working to frustrate
:02:10. > :02:15.Brexit and is treating league supporting ministers like pirates
:02:16. > :02:20.who have taken him prisoner. It is getting really quite weird, isn't
:02:21. > :02:24.it? It is indeed. There doesn't seem to be much discipline in the
:02:25. > :02:29.Cabinet, if I may say so. I think the Prime Minister should get to
:02:30. > :02:39.grips with these naughty boys, don't you? But she's only a woman! Can
:02:40. > :02:44.they run a Government? I think Mrs Thatcher did. I think this is hard
:02:45. > :02:49.on Philip Hammond. I read his Mansion house speech about two or
:02:50. > :02:54.three weeks ago and I came here that particular night to say I thought it
:02:55. > :02:59.was a very good speech. I thought he made it clear that we were leaving
:03:00. > :03:06.the customs union and single market but he was keen to have a
:03:07. > :03:13.transitional arrangement. It strikes me as eminently sensible. And you
:03:14. > :03:19.are pro-Brexit... I thought it was eminently sensible and I couldn't
:03:20. > :03:24.see anything in the speech to object to, so I don't see what is going on
:03:25. > :03:29.with these leave supporters. The whole thing seems to be getting out
:03:30. > :03:36.of control. That problem with that prominent Brexiteers is that they
:03:37. > :03:40.are constantly on edge, they don't trust anybody, not even their own
:03:41. > :03:46.colleagues, they think this thing will be snatched from them, and they
:03:47. > :03:52.have won the battle but if they don't behave themselves, they will
:03:53. > :04:00.lose the war. David Davis, who I think is doing an excellent job,
:04:01. > :04:07.came out with papers last week and again, it was quite obvious from
:04:08. > :04:16.these papers that we are leaving. He is not trying to stop Brexit? It was
:04:17. > :04:21.unequivocal - we are out. Unless Tony Blair has his own way, way
:04:22. > :04:27.leaving. It's not that straightforward, is it? -- we are
:04:28. > :04:33.leaving. Between now and then, there will be so much happening, and will
:04:34. > :04:37.have to be some tempering of the we are leaving and leading in this way,
:04:38. > :04:41.because the EU will put demands on us, and it will have to be a
:04:42. > :04:45.negotiation, and that means give and take. There are still millions of
:04:46. > :04:51.people in this country who still don't agree with it. I know, you
:04:52. > :04:56.don't need to put up your hand! Whatever you think about the EU, and
:04:57. > :05:00.a final agreement will have to be negotiated, no question, but the EU
:05:01. > :05:05.has accepted we are leaving, and we are leaving the customs union and
:05:06. > :05:09.single market. There are arguments over the European Court of Justice,
:05:10. > :05:13.but to cut a long story short, they need to settle down. We won't let
:05:14. > :05:21.them settle down now, because we are going to look at the Metro. There is
:05:22. > :05:25.supposed to be a safe space in the Cabinet where people can discuss
:05:26. > :05:29.things without it getting out. You need that candid exchange of views,
:05:30. > :05:34.and if the Chancellor is saying, I don't like people leaking... I don't
:05:35. > :05:39.think it is about Brexit any more but about a leadership bid, about
:05:40. > :05:41.trying to find out who will replace Theresa May, and that is the second
:05:42. > :05:46.problem that is now affecting the way the Brexit discussions are
:05:47. > :05:53.going. I don't have very much time for Philip Hammond, but I do think
:05:54. > :05:58.it must be awful to say things in a safe space, and the very next hour,
:05:59. > :06:03.it's out there. When he says he thinks that Brexiteers are trying to
:06:04. > :06:10.undermine him because he wants to make sure that jobs and the economy
:06:11. > :06:16.are protected... It's sensible. But how are the pro-Brexit MPs trying to
:06:17. > :06:22.undermine his efforts? I don't understand why they are doing it.
:06:23. > :06:34.But how are they doing it? I thought his Mansion house speech was fine,
:06:35. > :06:47.just that he wanted the transition 's -- transitional arrangements.
:06:48. > :06:57.The trouble is, they are positioning. It is time that somehow
:06:58. > :06:59.discipline was imposed upon the cabinet, because this looks
:07:00. > :07:03.absolutely terrible. I think that Philip Hammond is right that if he
:07:04. > :07:08.says things in Cabinet, however bizarre they might be, then they
:07:09. > :07:14.should be confidential. Is it odd that Europe has been akin to -- a
:07:15. > :07:18.bone of contention in the Tory Party for as long as I can remember, and a
:07:19. > :07:22.referendum was supposed to fix this, and yet there is all this
:07:23. > :07:26.infighting, whether it is about Brexit of leadership. It is both,
:07:27. > :07:30.and I think there is this total paranoia that somehow this thing
:07:31. > :07:35.will be taken away from them and there will be no healing in the Tory
:07:36. > :07:40.Party for the next 100 years. The general election changed it all.
:07:41. > :07:50.Shall we move the Times? There is an investigation here - Britain spends
:07:51. > :07:57.billions on flawed fighter jets. The cost is going up and up, Ruth - why?
:07:58. > :08:02.I wouldn't like to say. Unfortunate, as that is what I just asked you! I
:08:03. > :08:08.am not an expert on the defence budget. I know. This investigation
:08:09. > :08:11.suggests that the next generation of warplanes will be unable to function
:08:12. > :08:20.properly because they won't have the money to run them. That may be
:08:21. > :08:24.right, but I think that big question is, the Ministry of Defence will
:08:25. > :08:28.have to answer this, go back to the Times and all these critics and say,
:08:29. > :08:33.these new fighter jets will function properly. The burden of proof is
:08:34. > :08:37.really on the Ministry of Defence to explain themselves. I can help you
:08:38. > :08:41.with that because we have had a statement from the MoD, and it says
:08:42. > :08:46.Cole and we are committed to the capital air35 programme, which is on
:08:47. > :08:54.time, within costs, and offers the best capability for our Armed
:08:55. > :09:02.Forces. -- and it says: We are committed... If you look at the
:09:03. > :09:08.article here, some of the problems are that it will not be able to
:09:09. > :09:15.operate without revealing its position, which is not very stealth,
:09:16. > :09:20.is it? In the MoD, under successive governments, not a political point,
:09:21. > :09:28.there has been massive overspending and bad purchasing, and unexplained
:09:29. > :09:34.decisions in this department for the longest time. But also cuts. The
:09:35. > :09:40.cuts, we understand and we have been told about, but this world of
:09:41. > :09:45.profligacy, because it is defence, there is a protection around it.
:09:46. > :09:49.They had to explain themselves, that's the bottom line. The MoD is
:09:50. > :09:52.also slightly compromised in terms of who they can get to build things
:09:53. > :09:57.for us, because you can't just give it to anyone anywhere in the world.
:09:58. > :10:02.It has to be allies or preferably built here. Why aren't we building
:10:03. > :10:08.them here? Since it was British jobs for British workers, why are we not
:10:09. > :10:13.building it here? It may be more efficient to buy from the States.
:10:14. > :10:19.The key thing is, the MoD has to explain itself. It is only
:10:20. > :10:26.efficient, and I never understand this... You can't -- if you say you
:10:27. > :10:31.were building for a certain price, you can't keep increasing it, but
:10:32. > :10:36.you can if you are building it for a Government. Will will have to see
:10:37. > :10:49.what the MoD has to say. -- we will have to see.
:10:50. > :11:01.The sun Doct-her Who. Jodie is first woman doctor. She has been doing
:11:02. > :11:06.some filming already. That is the Telegraph - we want the sun. Is that
:11:07. > :11:14.possible? Shall I fill it up for you? You have it. What do we think?
:11:15. > :11:23.An excellent idea. It says here that Doctor who started 54 years ago. I
:11:24. > :11:26.remember that. Of course you do! 1963, with William Hartnell. But it
:11:27. > :11:35.is the first time we have had a woman. And such a to do about it for
:11:36. > :11:44.some people. 2017 and we are getting excited about this? I mean,
:11:45. > :11:50.goodness! It's about time too. Having had a woman Prime Minister in
:11:51. > :11:55.1979... It should have happened a long time ago. Very good that we're
:11:56. > :12:01.doing it now. She looks good. And she is a very good actress. I
:12:02. > :12:05.watched her in Broadchurch. It will be interesting to see what kind of
:12:06. > :12:12.doctor she will be and whether they will give her a male assistant,
:12:13. > :12:17.perhaps you will have a woman. One of the newspapers is suggesting that
:12:18. > :12:29.perhaps the BBC are being too to PC in doing this. Of course. Any change
:12:30. > :12:33.that comes up, this is the accusation. 50% or more of the
:12:34. > :12:38.licence payers are female. We pay for this. I can't get too excited
:12:39. > :12:42.about it. I'm very pleased that we got this female Doctor Who, but I
:12:43. > :12:46.can't say that it's going to keep me awake at night. No, we shouldn't...
:12:47. > :12:56.It is excellent, I'm really thrilled. How long have you been so
:12:57. > :13:00.powerful in the banking sector? I have not seen Doctor Who since Jon
:13:01. > :13:06.Pertwee. I think that was the last time. If the banks could let you do
:13:07. > :13:10.this, why can't a fictional television programme? It's
:13:11. > :13:15.excellent, excellent. Isn't it quite sad that we even have to comment on
:13:16. > :13:20.it? Anyway, we will see, and I hope she will win round some of those who
:13:21. > :13:27.say they will never watch it again because they have spoilt the
:13:28. > :13:31.franchise. People are saying that. Both people are stupid. I am
:13:32. > :13:35.interested in when the second woman will come on and get the same role.
:13:36. > :13:41.That will tell us a lot. Or someone who is not white will stop oh my
:13:42. > :13:46.goodness! Steady on, steady on! One thing at a time! Back to the
:13:47. > :13:54.Telegraph, if you would, please. If I may, to quote Ruth. BBC offers
:13:55. > :14:01.stars protection. This is because the high-paid so-called talent, a
:14:02. > :14:06.word I can't abide, is going to be published in a list. Those earning
:14:07. > :14:11.more than ?150,000. The BBC is worried about the safety of some
:14:12. > :14:23.people. I think the abuse levels are now so awful, but whether you are, I
:14:24. > :14:26.can understand that. There is a suggestion here that people are so
:14:27. > :14:32.worried for themselves and their families that they might need to be
:14:33. > :14:37.protected, Ruth. Indeed. I must say, in the general election, there was a
:14:38. > :14:40.lot of abuse potential MPs, which was deeply worrying. It seems to
:14:41. > :14:45.have come into our culture that if you see somebody in the public
:14:46. > :14:50.arena, you can just abuse them. I'm quite horrified by it, actually.
:14:51. > :14:54.What is the BBC meant to do? There has been pressure for the BBC to be
:14:55. > :15:00.more transparent about who gets paid what at a higher level. And I think
:15:01. > :15:05.they are right. This is a public service broadcaster, and we know,
:15:06. > :15:07.for example, how much money some vice chancellors are getting in
:15:08. > :15:11.universities, and they don't like those numbers published because it
:15:12. > :15:15.does them no good at all. It has to happen if you are in a public
:15:16. > :15:21.service. What sort of protection will the BBC offer these people? I
:15:22. > :15:27.can understand why they are doing it. It will cost more money. I am
:15:28. > :15:34.appalled by the online abuse. It will also show the range, which will
:15:35. > :15:38.be interesting. It will. That's it for the Papers for this hour, but
:15:39. > :15:47.don't forget, all the front pages are online on the BBC News website,
:15:48. > :15:52.seven days a week. Each edition is also posted on the iPlayer if you
:15:53. > :16:02.miss it, shortly after we finish. Ruth and Yasmin will be back again
:16:03. > :16:07.at 11:30pm. Next, it is Meet The Author.
:16:08. > :16:09.There isn't a single full stop in Mike McCormack's
:16:10. > :16:13.The story is a monologue that reads like a string of thoughts -
:16:14. > :16:16.sometimes poetic, sometimes rough, often disturbing.
:16:17. > :16:20.And they tell us about one man in one hour, on one day -