03/09/2017 The Papers


A lively, informed and in-depth conversation about the Sunday papers.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/09/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



I will be back in the next hour on BBC News.


Hello and welcome to our look at what the papers are


With me are James Millar, political commentator -


and David Wooding, Political Editor Sun on Sunday.


Good morning to those of you. The front pages are here for us. Let me


run them by you. The Observer says that the Prime


Minister Theresa May is facing a revolt from remain supporting


Conservative MP's over The same story leads


the Sunday Telegraph with Tory rebels being told to back Brexit


or get Corbyn. The Sunday Times also leads


with a Brexit story, it says Theresa May has secretly


agreed a 50 billion pound The Mail on Sunday claims that


Theresa May ignored a memo from Sir Lynton Crosby


telling her not to risk a snap And The Express front


page has the news that Moors Murderer Ian Brady,


who died in May, left presents to pen-pals


including locks of his hair. James, take us to the Telegraph


first. Tory rebels told that Brexit or get Corbyn. Parliament is back


this week. The Great Repeal Bill is in front of parliament this week, we


will get into the proper and meet and vegetables of Brexit. Tory


rebels have been told back Brexit or get Corbyn, rather suggesting that


Theresa May has not learned the lesson from the election in which


she said back me or get Corbyn. She has got a minority government, the


possibility that Corbyn... If the government falls, but the numbers


are such that it will be fun and games over the next couple of weeks.


A warning from Damian Green. David... Warnings going out today,


Damian Green saying we should bury our differences and fought for the


good of the people, the Labour former frontbencher Caroline Flint,


saying put aside any thought of sinking the government and do for


the people voted for. In the Sun on Sunday David Davies writes today,


talking about how he thinks Labour are dry to hold down the Brexit


debate in this House of Commons voting chaos which could come about


if they don't get the Great Repeal Bill through. The problem with this


is what a lot of MPs will be voting for is what breaks it was supposed


to be about, ringing back control. The Great Repeal Bill will focus on


government moves to try and sideline parliament and take as much


executive power so we don't have to put thoughts before Parliament and


the rebels, such as they are, want Parliament to have as much say as


parliament which is surely the Brexit was about. It's the laws that


were EU laws becoming UK laws but how much do you scrutinise the


transfer process? This is quite sensible. When we leave the European


Union in March 2019, we will take back control but there is all these


laws which have wheedled their way into our lives, 70-80% of laws


created by the European Union. Controversial statistic. Let's


say... Other statistics are available. The Great Repeal Bill


scraps of those as European laws and transfers them into the British


statute books or they can then be altered. The row that arises because


the Labour Party or Keir Starmer the shadow Brexit secretary says this


will lead to ministers having the power to amend and altered these


laws and things like workers' rights. He also wants crucially for


the bill to stipulate that we could have an extended membership of the


single market which means no control of free movement and also the


customs union which of course means we can't do trade deals with other


countries. Let's continue the Brexit theme. Meet secretly agrees ?50


million breaks at all. What do we make of that? I love a secret on the


front page because it's no longer a secret. Number ten denying this,


suggesting they want to keep it secret. It's an interesting way of


covering this. Some weeks ago we had the Telegraph saying 36 billion is


the figure Britain is willing to pay, that's now gone up to 50


billion, Brexit negotiations going on over, suggesting to me the EU is


saying you have to pay more, the government is going to have to pay


more. But it's being dressed up as internal Tory politics and all the


rest. What's interesting, nobody has come up with a real figure, all the


figures have been speculative, the European Union hasn't told us how


much they want and we happened made them an offer they keep saying we


need to settle a bill. The figure has been touted at 60 billion, but


never crystallised. Never official. Somebody has told the Sunday Times


that the government has drawn up a figure of ?50 billion but they are


not going to announce it until after the Conservative Party conference


because to say we will pay this much money to the European Union would


cause a massive row at party conference and could topple Theresa


May. After the conference they will announce this to sweeten the pill,


all but three years, it will be about 17 billion a year and paid off


by 2022, before the next general election. The figures and timings


make sense, Downing Street saying a load of rubbish. They are hoping


that no one will spot they are paying at over three years, still


adds up to 50 billion. If that was a stab in the dark, it's reasonable.


That Telegraph story a few weeks ago, was verified by three sources,


this has been verified by one source, everyone keen to establish


their stories are well sourced but no body is saying much else. If that


was supposed to be secret and you point out it isn't, what is the


motivation, do we think? For making it less secret. It is around


confidence. The Tory conference is coming, we will get some of these in


the next few weeks because Theresa May is week after her election


gamble failed. And there are certain people who would like to see her no


longer Prime Minister, people in her Cabinet and you will get a lot of


people breathing and counter briefing to weaken her. Talking of


her election, the front of the Mail on Sunday suggests she was warned


about holding that election and did not follow the warning. Yes, there


has been quite a bit of talk of a clash between who was to blame over


the selection shambles, whether it was Lynton Crosby, the pollster, the


big election winning Australian, known as the wizard of Oz because of


his great success and the gang known as was beaten, the formerly bearded,


Nick Timothy, one of the joint chiefs of staff. There has been a


lot of counter blaming but the leaking of this note says that


Lynton Crosby says, the research had shown there was a lot of risk in


holding an early election, voters actively seeking to avoid


uncertainty and by creating uncertainty it might run against it


and of the election was held today there is a risk it could go back to


the Parliament of 2015. What's curious, people will remember the


opinion polls when she decided to call the election and they were


resoundingly in her favour. It's interesting, the memo, as you say,


the important bit is it says voters want stability and having an


election is not stability, as the memo says. Folders show a clear


preference for Theresa May but that means they think they can vote for


whoever they want and Jeremy Corbyn will not get into number ten and the


way things played out suggest that this was bang on, people did think,


I will vote for a good local MP and Jeremy Corbyn ends up with a lot


more MPs than any of us, including himself, were expecting. The other


bit of interesting detail, when one of Theresa May's aides ran that a


brand Lynton Crosby with the date, he said apparently, I am not so sure


that is a smart idea, mate. Good idea. Let's move on. The Sunday


Telegraph, let's go back to that. This is a story towards the bottom


of the front page, stop scaring older mothers and it quotes


Professor Cathy Warwick, from the Royal College of Midwives. I was


think about three men in suits sitting around and talking about


childbirth... It is interesting. What she says, the longer you wait


to have children there are certain risk factors that go up but what


Professor Cathy Warwick suggests is that the risk goes up by a small


amount, how significant is that? Is it overplayed? She says I am not


sure why we are so worried and I am not sure we should be terrifying


woman about it. Well... I suggested something to do with the patriarch


if you want to go into that, that level of staff. Why do we constantly


terrify women by biological clocks and all that sort of thing?


Regularly. I suspect this is one of the reasons behind it. Quite a bit


in there about the overzealous promotion of so-called natural


childbirth, some others being purged to have no medical intervention


whatsoever, of course each breath is completely different and has to be


taken as such. The Sunday express, let's pick some stories from there.


Page two, exclusive, can't specialist says NHS tourists cost ?2


billion a year. It's the running controversy of health tourism --


tourism, as it is dubbed, people coming to Britain to have free


nonurgent medical care like hip replacements and cataract


operations. A consultant at the Royal Marsden Hospital, cancer


specialist, says one in 20 cases that come to the hospital are health


tourists and of course, the big problem is, we don't claim the money


back. If you come here from a foreign country to have routine


surgery of some kind your government or you yourself should pay that back


and the problem is that the NHS don't seem to chase it. He says


doctors are not equipped to look at people's passports and know whether


somebody is a foreign health tourism or not. But of course in my view,


there are flaws and -- floors and floors at health managers and


officials who could do this. But isn't that the problem? Not enough,


a lot of hospitals employ someone specifically to work out who is


entitled to what and to reclaim the money. And of course, if they do,


certain newspapers will say, look at all the managers in the NHS, why


don't they spend that on nurses? It is worth pointing out that Graham


Thomas is a controversial character, been in the papers a few times over


the years. Just one point, makes reference to what the government


hopes to recoup by introducing new -- new measures next month, some


debate as to whether that will make a difference. 500 million a year, I


think? These figures get handed about. Figures on paper, if someone


turns up, they talk about the Lagos shuttle of pregnant women who turn


up from Nigeria, someone turns up at a hospital saying I am about to have


a baby, you can say to them you don't have the right passport,


Galway, what do you do? It's all about the mix of efficiency. -- go


away. Reform and funding. You cannot just divorce one from the other. I


should say the Royal Marsden declined to comment on that piece.


Alongside it, page three, my career has gone West, he was the future


once now Cameron is booked to speak in the wilds of South Dakota to a ?5


ahead crowd. David, take us there. This was the man who was in number


ten, David, David who? He is in rapid city in the heart of the wild


West, students paying the equivalent of ?2 50 to hear him speak and those


in non-concession are paying $7 or five quid to hear the Prime


Minister. It shows you how life moves on and compared with the likes


of Tony Blair, raking in a fortune, even Gordon Brown who gives it


straight... Read further down, Mr Cameron has not done badly out of


one or two previous... And we don't know how much he is earning, it says


this actually pays the speakers but doesn't reveal how much it pays


them. Mrs Thatcher spoke, Colin Powell, Benazir Bhutto, they are not


getting paid just what they make the door, they get paid a significant


fee to turn up. I was to say... Not making so much out of that. ?100,000


publishing deal has been struck, compared with Tony Blair or Margaret


Thatcher, significantly lower. Apparently Tony Blair made for .6


million, Thatcher three and a half million. One more, let's go to the


Observer and its front page. Fixed odds betting, quite a lot of concern


about terminals, there is talk of a clamp-down. Yes, the crack cocaine


of the betting world, super puggies as they are known in Scotland. You


can lose huge amounts of money on these and the government keeps


saying it will do something about them but it slightly smacks of the


government not having a huge amount to talk about. A lot of Brexit


talking up, yesterday talking about holes in the road, they are going


fixed on betting terminals. We are expecting something in the summer,


classic government definition is now getting pushed back to October.


Whether that is something that will happen or not, it just smacks to me


of the government saying something to put in the papers. As one of


these issues are lot of people will be saying I told you so. In the


Blair years betting regulations were relaxed as were drinking


regulations, people feel maybe they went too far, the balance has been


redressed. As you say, it's quite striking. Make a stake of up to ?120


every few seconds, a player could potentially gamble away ?18,000


every hour. Not good for anybody. Good for the Treasury. Some betting


shops make after earnings from these now. Rather than the horses. That


said that the papers, -- Just a reminder we take a look


at tomorrow's front pages every evening at 10.40pm


here on BBC News. bed of a mixed day across the UK,


enjoying some bright weather but in the West some thick cloud. That


Download Subtitles