19/07/2017 The Papers


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.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


With me are the broadcaster Lynn Faulds Wood and the deputy political


editor of the Daily Telegraph, Ben Riley-Smith.


The Metro leads with the publishing of the wages of the BBC's top


earners, with Chris Evans allegedly admitting that the disparity in pay


BBC pay also dominates the front page of the Sun, which reports


friction between colleagues following the publication


On the same story, the Express claims differences in pay along


lines of gender has caused anger among some BBC employees.


And has led to criticism from Theresa May, who has called


on the BBC to do more to ensure parity in pay between men and women,


The Telegraph claims that the Government has warned


the BBC that its highest-paid male stars must take a wage


In other news, the i leads with the unexpected decision


by ministers to increase the state pension age by a year to 68.


So, let's kick off. The Guardian - backlash as the BBC's male stars


dominate the top palest. I've got a better story than that. The BBC's


story dominates, but the pension story is important. The pension


story is important to me, because it doesn't affect me, but young Ben


here... Sorry, it's your generation that is going to lose out.


Basically, John Cridland at the Confederation of British Industry


has written a report saying that we all need to work longer, not until


60 but until 69. You will get your pension at 68 eventually. So what


will you do in all of those years way you do not have the job any


more? Where are we going to find jobs for people as they get older?


Am I going to go on the buses? And if older people stay in their jobs,


does that mean fewer jobs for young people? That's the danger. It was a


surprise announcement today. When you get to the end of the


parliament, the government tends to rush out the bad news. Was it a


deliberate bit of timing? It's true that in the final couple of days


before a holiday, you will see a slew of documents published, written


statements by ministers, and perhaps it's not accidental timing. It


affects a lot of people. If you are in your late 30s or 40s, you will


have to wait an extra year to get your state pension. There is this


debate about intergenerational fairness. Let's not go there. AgeUK


were very sympathetic to you. They said it is picking the pockets of


the under 40s, like you. It's terribly difficult. You cannot kill


people off. We have to pay for it somehow. And Germany found their


answer was to invite a lot of other people from other countries to come


over. There -- it is based on the idea of increased life expectancy.


There was a report recently saying that life expectancy had stalled, as


had investment into the NHS. There is an interesting point about


intergenerational fairness. Successive governments have done a


brilliant job of driving down poverty in older people in the last


20 or 25 years, that there is a growing problem of working people in


poverty. This is an attempt to help that a bit. If you are waiting to 68


until you get your pension and you haven't got a job, that's a lot of


money in benefits. The story on the BBC dominating pretty much every


front page, including the Metro. Chris Evans revealed to be the top


earner on ?2.2 million for his Radio 2 show. Is he worth it? I heard on


the BBC yesterday or the day before, Chris Evans saying, or something he


said a year ago, he said that he didn't care about money, he would do


it for... And he stopped himself from saying nothing. 2.2 million is


nothing. We should ring him up and asked if he will work for nothing!


The reporting of top stars' salaries, has that damage the BBC,


or is that transparency that will somehow help the BBC? The assumption


at the beginning of the day was that it would damage it. These are big


numbers. Stars at the top of television. What do you think? I


think... I will have a gin and tonic as well. I think the way the BBC has


handled it, on its shows, it is ruthlessly interviewing people at


the top of the company. There is an open market, and the BBC have said


they are pitched below the open market for some. And the apparent


gender inequalities that have been focused on for the last day or so.


The Telegraph has got a brilliant one, where they show that most of


the top paid stars are men, and here we have Dan Walker on 250,000, and


Louise mentioned, who is not listed. She must earn less than a. He comes


from sport. I think sport is still male dominated. But he makes more on


his salary because he does sport. It is not always like-for-like. For the


average person looking at all the disparities, it doesn't say exactly


what it is for next to the salary. Dan pointed out that they get paid


the same, but he does Football Focus and other programmes. The Sun have


chosen to ignore that. Let's look at the Telegraph. This hammers home the


point of the day which is the question about gender equality.


There is only one who squeaks in at the bottom of the top nine. When you


look at the whole 90 or 100 people who earn above ?100,000, there's


only a third... That is true across all the economy. I worked at the BBC


for ten years as a presenter, and I don't think I will have featured on


the list. The eight menu feature on here I think are all white,


middle-aged blokes. Yes, the lack of representation at the top is


questionable. But when you look at a lot of different industries... But


to praise Tony Hall, he's really doing something about it. He says


that he wants complete gender equality within the BBC by 2020. Is


that achievable? Of course it is, if you want to achieve something.


Ethnicity is important as well. Not just gender equality? No, gender and


ethnicity. There is a debate about whether this will drive up prices,


because people want to match other people's salaries, or it could drive


down prices, because this fundamentally is money. And how this


looks to the public. There is a debate about which way this will go.


How do you choose? Is it marketplace, or you can do audit on


them? I used to do watchdog. Do you give people who get big audiences


more money than people who don't? I don't think so. It is just the


marketplace of presenters and how good you are. But overall, this


transparency, which the BBC was forced into, has it been a good


exercise? Should other media organisations also be transparent?


But they are not paid by the public. There is some public funding on


Channel 4. The great buzzword is taxpayers' money. When you look at


all the top departments, I know political advisers who earn below


six figures and they have to publish what they get. Some of them were


saying, we have this transparency and it is the same cash. We are


moving into an era of transparency, and a big corporation opening itself


up probably does benefit. And a nice cartoon in the Telegraph. Two


newsreaders, and man and a woman, in the studio. And now my mail


colleague will read the autocue more expensively! It is a classic


cartoon. Let's move off BBC pay and onto the Sun. They have the Prime


Minister sacked threat to Cabinet. Is she threatening to sack some of


the Cabinet, all of the Cabinet? There is no such thing as an


understacker born minister. We have had days of infighting and private


conversations becoming public, things being leaked. It gives a


sense of a government in chaos. The Prime Minister has already lost her


majority in an election she called off her own accord, so she is trying


to calm the nerves a bit, and say that if these people carry on in


fighting... Whose nerves is she going to calm by saying, I could


sack the lot of you? There is no such thing as an understacker will


Prime Minister either. Somebody called Charles Walker, vice-chair of


the 1922 committee - do you know what that is? Somehow or other we


have to modernise what is happening in Parliament. Why is this a


committee with influence? It is a committee of backbenchers, set up in


1922. There is an interesting point, she doesn't have the power to sack


Cabinet ministers. Page two of the Times. Britons eat 50% more sugar


than they admit. The average man thinks he eats a lot less, but he


eats 32 spoonfuls of sugar, was it a week, a day? Huge amounts. Measured


through something called bio markers, found a big link between


high sugar diet and obesity. I think we all knew that, but we didn't know


how much sugar we eat. I would fall into that category, because of fruit


juice, fruity yoghurt 's... Fruit yoghurts is shocking. It is. You


should have read my column is about 30 years ago. Good health advice


from both of you. Thanks for being with us.


Don't forget, you can see the front pages of the papers online


It's all there for you, seven days a week, at bbc.co.uk/papers.


And if you miss the programme any evening you can watch it


Download Subtitles