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.
Browse content similar to 16/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be
With me are Ruth Lea, who's Economic Adviser
to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, and the journalist and columnist,
Tomorrow's Financial Times leads on what it says is the Chancellor's
bid to cushion the blow of Brexit with a two-year transition deal.
The Metro says the Chancellor is at loggerheads with
some fellow ministers, who he accuses of trying
to undermine his strategy for a soft Brexit.
The Daily Telegraph also leads on the supposed rift
between Philip Hammond and his Cabinet colleagues,
one of whom accuses the Chancellor of trying to keep Britain in the EU.
The Times says Britain is wasting billions on fighter jets
that the RAF won't be able to use because of defence cuts.
Call 999 - get Skype instead - that's the headline
on the Daily Mail, which reports that some patients are being denied
And the Sun leads on the new Doctor Who -
the 13th Time Lord is the first woman to play the role.
The Mirror leads the new Doctor -- greeted the new doctor with delight.
We might have fun with that in a bit! Let's start with what's going
on with Brexit and Philip Hammond. The Daily Telegraph says - Hammond
accused of Brexit treachery. Senior Cabinet minister says Chancellor is
trying to deliberately frustrate withdrawal. Not too many names
mentioned in these articles about who is doing what to whom. Everyone
is being treacherous. They've got a Cabinet minister who allegedly told
the Daily Telegraph that Philip Hammond is working to frustrate
Brexit and is treating league supporting ministers like pirates
who have taken him prisoner. It is getting really quite weird, isn't
it? It is indeed. There doesn't seem to be much discipline in the
Cabinet, if I may say so. I think the Prime Minister should get to
grips with these naughty boys, don't you? But she's only a woman! Can
they run a Government? I think Mrs Thatcher did. I think this is hard
on Philip Hammond. I read his Mansion house speech about two or
three weeks ago and I came here that particular night to say I thought it
was a very good speech. I thought he made it clear that we were leaving
the customs union and single market but he was keen to have a
transitional arrangement. It strikes me as eminently sensible. And you
are pro-Brexit... I thought it was eminently sensible and I couldn't
see anything in the speech to object to, so I don't see what is going on
with these leave supporters. The whole thing seems to be getting out
of control. That problem with that prominent Brexiteers is that they
are constantly on edge, they don't trust anybody, not even their own
colleagues, they think this thing will be snatched from them, and they
have won the battle but if they don't behave themselves, they will
lose the war. David Davis, who I think is doing an excellent job,
came out with papers last week and again, it was quite obvious from
these papers that we are leaving. He is not trying to stop Brexit? It was
unequivocal - we are out. Unless Tony Blair has his own way, way
leaving. It's not that straightforward, is it? -- we are
leaving. Between now and then, there will be so much happening, and will
have to be some tempering of the we are leaving and leading in this way,
because the EU will put demands on us, and it will have to be a
negotiation, and that means give and take. There are still millions of
people in this country who still don't agree with it. I know, you
don't need to put up your hand! Whatever you think about the EU, and
a final agreement will have to be negotiated, no question, but the EU
has accepted we are leaving, and we are leaving the customs union and
single market. There are arguments over the European Court of Justice,
but to cut a long story short, they need to settle down. We won't let
them settle down now, because we are going to look at the Metro. There is
supposed to be a safe space in the Cabinet where people can discuss
things without it getting out. You need that candid exchange of views,
and if the Chancellor is saying, I don't like people leaking... I don't
think it is about Brexit any more but about a leadership bid, about
trying to find out who will replace Theresa May, and that is the second
problem that is now affecting the way the Brexit discussions are
going. I don't have very much time for Philip Hammond, but I do think
it must be awful to say things in a safe space, and the very next hour,
it's out there. When he says he thinks that Brexiteers are trying to
undermine him because he wants to make sure that jobs and the economy
are protected... It's sensible. But how are the pro-Brexit MPs trying to
undermine his efforts? I don't understand why they are doing it.
But how are they doing it? I thought his Mansion house speech was fine,
just that he wanted the transition 's -- transitional arrangements.
The trouble is, they are positioning. It is time that somehow
discipline was imposed upon the cabinet, because this looks
absolutely terrible. I think that Philip Hammond is right that if he
says things in Cabinet, however bizarre they might be, then they
should be confidential. Is it odd that Europe has been akin to -- a
bone of contention in the Tory Party for as long as I can remember, and a
referendum was supposed to fix this, and yet there is all this
infighting, whether it is about Brexit of leadership. It is both,
and I think there is this total paranoia that somehow this thing
will be taken away from them and there will be no healing in the Tory
Party for the next 100 years. The general election changed it all.
Shall we move the Times? There is an investigation here - Britain spends
billions on flawed fighter jets. The cost is going up and up, Ruth - why?
I wouldn't like to say. Unfortunate, as that is what I just asked you! I
am not an expert on the defence budget. I know. This investigation
suggests that the next generation of warplanes will be unable to function
properly because they won't have the money to run them. That may be
right, but I think that big question is, the Ministry of Defence will
have to answer this, go back to the Times and all these critics and say,
these new fighter jets will function properly. The burden of proof is
really on the Ministry of Defence to explain themselves. I can help you
with that because we have had a statement from the MoD, and it says
Cole and we are committed to the capital air35 programme, which is on
time, within costs, and offers the best capability for our Armed
Forces. -- and it says: We are committed... If you look at the
article here, some of the problems are that it will not be able to
operate without revealing its position, which is not very stealth,
is it? In the MoD, under successive governments, not a political point,
there has been massive overspending and bad purchasing, and unexplained
decisions in this department for the longest time. But also cuts. The
cuts, we understand and we have been told about, but this world of
profligacy, because it is defence, there is a protection around it.
They had to explain themselves, that's the bottom line. The MoD is
also slightly compromised in terms of who they can get to build things
for us, because you can't just give it to anyone anywhere in the world.
It has to be allies or preferably built here. Why aren't we building
them here? Since it was British jobs for British workers, why are we not
building it here? It may be more efficient to buy from the States.
The key thing is, the MoD has to explain itself. It is only
efficient, and I never understand this... You can't -- if you say you
were building for a certain price, you can't keep increasing it, but
you can if you are building it for a Government. Will will have to see
what the MoD has to say. -- we will have to see.
The sun Doct-her Who. Jodie is first woman doctor. She has been doing
some filming already. That is the Telegraph - we want the sun. Is that
possible? Shall I fill it up for you? You have it. What do we think?
An excellent idea. It says here that Doctor who started 54 years ago. I
remember that. Of course you do! 1963, with William Hartnell. But it
is the first time we have had a woman. And such a to do about it for
some people. 2017 and we are getting excited about this? I mean,
goodness! It's about time too. Having had a woman Prime Minister in
1979... It should have happened a long time ago. Very good that we're
doing it now. She looks good. And she is a very good actress. I
watched her in Broadchurch. It will be interesting to see what kind of
doctor she will be and whether they will give her a male assistant,
perhaps you will have a woman. One of the newspapers is suggesting that
perhaps the BBC are being too to PC in doing this. Of course. Any change
that comes up, this is the accusation. 50% or more of the
licence payers are female. We pay for this. I can't get too excited
about it. I'm very pleased that we got this female Doctor Who, but I
can't say that it's going to keep me awake at night. No, we shouldn't...
It is excellent, I'm really thrilled. How long have you been so
powerful in the banking sector? I have not seen Doctor Who since Jon
Pertwee. I think that was the last time. If the banks could let you do
this, why can't a fictional television programme? It's
excellent, excellent. Isn't it quite sad that we even have to comment on
it? Anyway, we will see, and I hope she will win round some of those who
say they will never watch it again because they have spoilt the
franchise. People are saying that. Both people are stupid. I am
interested in when the second woman will come on and get the same role.
That will tell us a lot. Or someone who is not white will stop oh my
goodness! Steady on, steady on! One thing at a time! Back to the
Telegraph, if you would, please. If I may, to quote Ruth. BBC offers
stars protection. This is because the high-paid so-called talent, a
word I can't abide, is going to be published in a list. Those earning
more than ?150,000. The BBC is worried about the safety of some
people. I think the abuse levels are now so awful, but whether you are, I
can understand that. There is a suggestion here that people are so
worried for themselves and their families that they might need to be
protected, Ruth. Indeed. I must say, in the general election, there was a
lot of abuse potential MPs, which was deeply worrying. It seems to
have come into our culture that if you see somebody in the public
arena, you can just abuse them. I'm quite horrified by it, actually.
What is the BBC meant to do? There has been pressure for the BBC to be
more transparent about who gets paid what at a higher level. And I think
they are right. This is a public service broadcaster, and we know,
for example, how much money some vice chancellors are getting in
universities, and they don't like those numbers published because it
does them no good at all. It has to happen if you are in a public
service. What sort of protection will the BBC offer these people? I
can understand why they are doing it. It will cost more money. I am
appalled by the online abuse. It will also show the range, which will
be interesting. It will. That's it for the Papers for this hour, but
don't forget, all the front pages are online on the BBC News website,
seven days a week. Each edition is also posted on the iPlayer if you
miss it, shortly after we finish. Ruth and Yasmin will be back again
at 11:30pm. Next, it is Meet The Author.
There isn't a single full stop in Mike McCormack's
The story is a monologue that reads like a string of thoughts -
sometimes poetic, sometimes rough, often disturbing.
And they tell us about one man in one hour, on one day -