27/08/2017 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 27/08/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



We'll be taking a look at tomorrow mornings papers in a moment -


The American National Weather Service has described the flooding


from Tropical Storm Harvey as being "beyond


Governor of Texas Gregg Abbott says there are more tornado


Two lorry drivers have been charged with causing death by dangerous


driving in connection with a collision on the M1


near Milton Keynes in which eight people were killed.


Labour has committed, for the first time,


to keeping the UK in the single market and customs union


during a transition period after leaving the EU.


It says it's to avoid the economy falling off a "cliff edge".


A suspected chemical leak affects at least 50 people


in the Eastbourne area - police warn residents and visitors


to avoid the beaches and stay indoors.


A minute's silence has been observed at the Notting Hill Carnival to pay


tribute to the victims of Grenfell Fire.


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


With me are the political commentator and journalist,


Daisy McAndrew and Tim Stanley, lead writer at The Daily Telegraph.


Of course some of the papers are dominated by the


The FT reports that the US state Houston has been hit


by "catastrophic" flooding as the storm caused torrential rains


The Express focuses on Labour's U-turn on the single market,


saying the party is facing a backlash from MPs after announcing


a dramatic shift in party policy to back continued membership


The Sun suggests scientists in the US have found


a breakthrough to prevent the risk of heart attack and cancer.


While the I also leads with the same story -


they say the drug has been welcomed by the British Heart Foundation.


The Guardian's headline is Backlash over Labour's


shift to soft Brexit' - they report that the move risks


alienating thousands of voters in traditional seats who support


And finally, the Daily Mail also reports on the new study


which claims thousands of lives could be saved thanks to a new heart


drug hailed as the biggest breakthrough since statins.


That's a flavour of some of those pages, some of them even in the


right order! Let's begin with The Express. Easy, take us to the


outrage as they put it over EU exit betrayal. I don't think anyone who


reads The Express regularly will be surprised that this outrage. This is


the story that the Brexit spokesman for the Labour Party has


significantly shifted their stance on Brexit. To supporting what would


basically be a soft Brexit. Which was not the position Jeremy Corbyn


had outlined. The thing that annoys me I will Brexit stories, and you


could say this on an awful lot of political stories, is that when you


see two opposing newspapers you think you were reading completely


different stories. It is frustrating when you think that the truth is in


the middle somehow. As so often is the case. Also about this Brexit


story is lot of people nowadays like to say they are so -- there is so


much buyers' regret from people who voted out, and everyone is now


convinced it's a terrible idea. It's simply not true. David Cowling who


I'm sure viewers will know, a fantastic expert on polls and


elections, very respected, did a big piece earlier this week really


analysing all the polls since the referendum. Public opinion has not


shifted one jot. It has shifted one point which is within the rounds of


complete nothing. Very interesting. I think this move was a direct


result of the appalling decision to do a general election. This has been


the inevitable consequence of that. How big shift is by Labour? The


public may not have changed its mind but it sounds like Labour have. At


the top of the party, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonald have talked on


different occasions about leaving the customs union and the single


market. Out meant out. During the election, lots of voters, Suntory


and Ukip will have on to Labour on the suction that that was the party


's position. There are of course other people in the party who favour


what you describe as a soft Brexit. It sounds like that side has won the


argument. Keir Starmer has written an article arguing that what should


happen once Britain has completed these talks has left the EU, that it


should then enter a transitional period, during which Britain will


remain within the single market. He says it could be two to four years.


Whatever happens next we shall see. What's interesting is that during


the summer, that seems to be pretty close to the position people


associated with Philip Hammond. Some said he favoured a transitional


period that perhaps need never end. But of course, about a week ago he


and Liam Fox wrote an article for my newspaper, the Daily Telegraph,


saying we have decided out means out. We will not be bowled by any


treaties. So Labour has moved into that ground, which has been vacated


by the Tories. Continue the theme with the inside of the Sun, page


two. Again, perhaps not surprisingly, critical of where Keir


Starmer is now. And not unreasonably. Reading the Observer


article, it was not the Observer was at first remark reading the article,


he is clear about this position. What he is not about is what that


means the free movement. Presumably if you are in the single market you


retain that. Which is something that will irritate a lot of voters. The


other thing is thing is he is really not clear about what the future


relationship with the EU will be. He mentions three times a future


relationship which will be progressive, not just about trade


but science and things like that, which is superb but of course the


Tories have been a bit clearer. They say it is a free trade deal. He is


not absolutely clear about what it means when it begins. Your point of


the Tories being clearer is true on one side in that they have sounded


clearer. The fundamental truth is that no politician knows really what


they are talking about, because how could they? We are in such uncharted


waters. The Labour Party is trying to put some clear blue water or some


proper choices in front of the electorate. I think in the view that


there will be an election sooner rather than later. They want to


offer that choice. Expecting anyone to have any answers about any


details is a pie in the sky. Don't forget, Michel Barnier said at one


point there will be known smooth terrain. This is not possible. Both


sides could be discussing something that is not even feasible. Lets add


to the potential confusion. This report on Page two of the sun


quoting somebody who went to the meeting at Chequers, suggesting that


Theresa May will quit in two years' time. This is not the first time


we've had this story. This has been bandied about quite a bit. Number


ten has said it's all rubbish. Silly season, August, nothing better. Not


the same as saying it's not true. This first came out with the 1922


committee, then her saying she cried election night, people putting words


in her mouth sort of, saying she has decided not to stay another two


years. I suspect this is wishful thinking on some people's behalf.


I'm sure she has no idea how long she's going to be in number ten. She


will be hoping it will be a full term. With a tiny majority quite


unlikely, I would've thought. Some say the conference will be make or


break with her big speech, will she apologise for went wrong, some


people say. I agree with Daisy. There is a sort of Damocles hanging


over her head right now and it all comes down to whether people feel


she handles things well or not. You are quite right to link the two


stories because they are most definitely linked. Her weakness and


the Labour Party movement. Let me link another one. The front of the


Financial Times... Very nicely done. Almost as if it was planned! Their


suggestion is that she is yes, under pressure, but partly because of what


Labour are announcing. Let's forget about silly season. It's all going


to start when parliament comebacks together and Brexit legislation


starts to get negotiated. The importance of the last election was


that the Tories wanted a big majority to smooth the Brexit they


wanted to the comments. The problem is, they do not have a majority,


which means on the one hand, labour take this position matters. It would


not have done before. But it matters now. Equally important is the


behaviour of Tory rebels, who now feel if Labour is taking this


position and remaining in the single market, we can ally with them and


perhaps through the comments we can affect a negotiation. And those Tory


rebels are those who are very much on the remain side. Absolutely. Just


hours after this article dropped in the Observer this morning, Matthew


Parris was not an MP any more but used to be, still an influential


columnist and writer, used to be a Tory MP. Absolutely die-hard


Remainer, saying for the first time in his life he could consider voting


Labour. That is not to be sniffed at. As a comment, lots of Brexiteers


will sneer at him and say he would say that, but actually he has never


voted anything other than conservative and buy him to be out


of the blocks so far saying I would never vote for Kolbing but I would


vote Labour, if called is not there, given this U-turn, it is


significant. There will be lots of MPs thinking similar things. -- I


would never vote for Jeremy Corbyn. They will be thinking it and


muttering it in the Commodores and suddenly be monitoring it at


parties. Even by his own it he has been conservative in vote only for a


very long time. His disagreement with the suppose right-wing drift,


ie popular drifter the party has been very well known and documented


in his column. Frankly, I'm not sure... Do tell us what you really


think. I don't want to go too far down the Matthew Parris route


because he's not here to defend himself. But we do know who these


people are who really matter. Nicky Morgan, etc. And Mrs may has a


working majority of just 13, that involves the DUP as well of course.


A further combination. A word about the Harry Kane also on the front


page of the FT. Dramatic photographs of course of two men in some sort of


treatable craft but a pretty precarious one. Extraordinary


pictures. I have read I think in the New York Times a short while ago


that they are saying five dead. I have not seen that confirmed


elsewhere, but given the build-up, the catastrophic floods, the worse


the state has seen for 20 years or so they say, if we could hope that


was the end of it, five deaths is obviously too many but it's not


quite what was predicted. Fingers crossed, but they are saying this


evening we will get to everyone, climb up to your roof and someone.


It's not terribly reassuring. It's always extraordinary miniseries


things in the States is unthinkable the nations of the world, it is


surprising they don't deal with these things better. Maybe they have


worse weather than many. Take us to the Huffington Post. This is where


Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State of course, is saying that President


Trump speaks only for himself an American values. This morning on TV,


Rex Tillerson was asked about the UN. The Ewen's claim that Donald


Trump... The UN had castigated Donald Trump for his remarks


following the Charlottesville demonstrations about race. He was


asked about this and Tillerson responded by saying American values


are unchanging and are represented by the State Department. We oppose


racism and favour the equal treatment of all peoples. He was


asked by the interviewer, what about the President's view? He replied


that the president speaks for himself. That is pretty remarkable.


The idea that Secretary of State could imply that the president only


speak for himself and not the administration of which he is head.


That is hard to remember something like that happening recently. Hard


to think of any recent Secretary of State 's prior one who I can imagine


saying that the president he or she was working alongside. I can't think


of one. No. We have never been in this situation, it's remarkable.


When you think back to Theresa May and her visit after the election, it


all seemed to go so swimmingly. They were there holding hands. The UN and


Nato were big parts of their discussions, and Trump had called


later obsolete, it had been a long-time criticism from him, saying


he would cut funding by hundreds of millions of dollars. May it was very


pleased she seemed to have made him slightly less and them, rather than


generally pro-them. But there has been no love lost there for some


time. The UN has been very critical on his stance on torture recently.


Lamb busting him for that. You can see Tillerson is in a very difficult


position with the UN on one side and Trump on the other. You would not


want that. Tillerson will be responding to diplomatic pressure


from allies, people who will have been saying to him in the last


couple of weeks, you have to make some distinction here or people will


feel they just cannot work for America if the president speaks for


America on these issues. A word about the Daily Mail front page.


This is not the only paper to cover this. Best heart drugs or


distractions. A new monthly injection could save thousands of


lives. After new look at a health story and you are sceptical that


this one does seem to have a lot of substance. A report publicised today


in Barcelona at a big health conference. Looking at what few


details I have seen, it is as you say a very big report, four years


long, 10,000 patients. Each of whom had had a heart attack. Apparently


the point is that if you have had a heart attack you are likely to have


another within the next 45 years. This drug seems to have cut the risk


or cut the number of heart attacks that patients had significantly.


There are two causes of heart attacks, and statins deals with both


of them. Inflammation and cholesterol. Cholesterol you can


treat and people know how to treat it but this was those who had some


sort of information. Certainly look significant. As you said, we are


slightly set article about the stories. Significant? Expensive too.


Whereas statins across the UK ?400 a year, this is estimated to cost a a


year. Until that price drops, probably not something ordinary


patients can access. On that note, time has beaten us. Thank you both,


that is it for the papers the south. Thank you Daisy and Tim,


you'll both be back at half 11 for another look at the stories


making the news tomorrow.


Download Subtitles