17/01/2018 The Papers

the profession than joining it.

Hello and welcome to our look ahead

to what the papers will be

bringing us tomorrow.

With me are Jessica Elgot,

Political Reporter with

the Guardian and Henry Zeffman,

Political Reporter at The Times.

The Telegraph covers an agreement

between the UK and France over

Apologies that we are so laid,

Chelsea and Norwich couldn't get

their act together in 90 minutes!

The Telegraph covers an agreement

between the UK and France over

migrants at the border in Calais,

with Theresa May expected to pay up

to £44 million to keep police checks

on the other side of the Channel.

With the same story, the Daily Mail

says its 'Le Stitch Up' and also

claims the offer to loan Britain

the Bayeux Tapestry is designed

to sweeten the Calais pay-out deal.

The Times quotes the Government's

spending watchdog saying billions

of extra pounds are being spent

on private finance initiatives, with

little benefit for the taxpayer.

The Guardian also leads

with the controversy over PFIs,

saying the projects can cost up

to 40% more than using

government cash.

The I headlines a pensions

shock for high earners,

as new rules take effect ahead

for the tax return deadline

at the end of this month.

While the Financial Times says

Goldman Sachs is being pressured

into changing its fixed-income

and commodities trading business,

after a 50% drop in revenues.

And finally The Sun claims a former

SAS soldier who helped free hostages

at the Iranian Embassy siege

in 1980, has been left homeless

after the local council

failed to house him.

It's a right old mix of front page

stories our guests will be

checking out tonight...

One story in particular features,

and most of the front pages, and

that is Calais. A look at the front

pages of the Telegraph. The big

picture is of the Duchess of

Cambridge, on a visit to Great

Ormond Street Hospital there. She is

having a high five with the little

heart patients. The top story, £45

million to keep the border at

Calais. Jessica, that is a lot of

money and people will be upset about

that?

It is, you can see that The

Daily Telegraph has that in. The

leading Brexiteers there, giving

more money to France is absurd, they

say, they suggest it will go on to

this Brexit bill. I'm not sure that

is how Google works but Theresa May,

the former Home Secretary, she knows

how important the agreement is. She

knows... She probably thinks £44

million is the price worth paying to

make this a French problem rather

than a British problem.

One suspects

that Emmanuel Macron could have come

up with any figure and they would

have had to have said yes. Have

migrants that side rather than the

side?

It was important, she was the

longest serving Home Secretary ever,

she spent a lot of time dealing with

issues like this. From her

perspective yes, it is a lot of

money but for the government, any

amount of money is the right amount

to keep that problem on the French

side of the border.

The

self-declared boys of Middle

England, the Daily Mail... Let's see

what they think of it. -- voice of

middle England. £45 million more in

block capitals to stop migrants at

Calais. We get to borrow the Bayeux

tapestry as a sweetener but only if

the local murder agrees with it. --

but only if the local mayor agrees.

But this is the prize that is to be

paid, even if people are not

impressed?

The Daily Mail,

consistently the most supportive of

Theresa May, championed her early in

the leadership campaign when Boris

Johnson was the front runner. They

are not happy. This is the kind of

thing that they have campaigned on

for a long time, it was assigned to

Theresa May that if there are more

capitulations or stitch ups, they

are willing to say that the

government has gone too far.

With

the Daily Mail have been happy if

Theresa May said no and the border

came back to Kent?

Am sure that what

is Theresa May would say...

You can

imagine the headlines, all of the

border posts had to be moved from

Calais to Dover, then you spend

millions of your own money on

setting up new systems over here.

You cannot see that the Daily Mail

would have reacted well to that

either. Theresa May may think it is

a short-term hit but beyond that...

What game is the Daily Mail plane?

What are they trying to say? That

she should have accepted a lower

figure? I don't understand.

I guess

they are saying, are we paying 45

million quid for the bare tapestry.

That is the sweetener that they have

given us. -- the Bayeux tapestry.

Maybe it is good PR play by Emmanuel

Macron. He has an eye for a stunt

like that...

He didn't have to give

it!

And it was a nice story in The

Times but the really important thing

is this border. That's what she will

want to do when she sees Emmanuel

Macron tomorrow.

Plus onto The

Times... Henry, this one is for you.

The Times newspaper, billions lost

by taxpayer on wasteful PFI

contracts, public money being used

for private initiatives, we know all

about Carillion and that, it's a

sign of the whole debate. And PFI in

the news as a result?

There are

extraordinary figures from the

National Audit Office, the

government spending watchdog. They

say that they cannot find evidence

to back up the Treasury 's gains.

With an infrastructure programme,

that they pay back of a long period.

They cannot find evidence to support

claims that it is cheaper than

borrowing itself. It is worth noting

that Theresa May may get some flak

for this but the report finds that

85% of payments made under PFI last

year were procurement decisions made

more than ten years ago. It really

is a story about a load of public

policy decisions made by Gordon

Brown, first in the Treasury and

then when you move to 10 Downing St.

Yafai is not as popular with the

government any more.

But the rent on

these buildings, the government and

what the tax payer pays, it is

comparable to the cost of the build?

The cost of publicly financing

projects can be 40% higher than

relying solely upon government

money. If that was a bank offering

you those kinds of differences, you

would always turn it down. The

figures are quite astonishing. £10.3

billion, the annual charges for

2016-17 for those deals. It is money

that is effectively going on

improving health services and

schools in those companies.

John

Major, Tony Blair, it was really

extended. You would argue that you

would not get certain structures

built if you did not have a PR five.

And in The Guardian, residents face

a huge bill to remove cladding. This

is people living near or at the

Grenfell Tower?

It is extraordinary,

these residents are living in a

building where they have the same

kind of flammable panels as the

Grenfell Tower. The property owner,

where they all own those flats, they

need to spend £2 million to replace

the cladding but he will give them

the bill of £31,000 each in order to

make the flats they own say. It is

extraordinary.

They are private

flats?

Yes, at the moment, because

the flats are unsafe, and the

flammable cladding, there are fire

wardens patrolling there. 24 hours a

day, at the cost of £4000 a week.

The government will have to do

something...

It is a flabbergasting

story. Sajid Javid, the housing

Secretary, said that the government

told the owner of the freehold five

months ago that the cladding was

unsafe. Imagine being a resident,

having seen that same cladding go up

in flames at Grenfell not so long

before. You would be petrified. For

many of them, it is more than they

earn in a year. As just said, surely

the government will have to pay

here.

It would be interesting, they

are not going to use public money to

bail out Korea, why would they do

that for this guy? Or whoever has to

service this block of flats. -- to

bail out Carillion. This is

basically the former Chancellor, Mr

Osborne, usually they get some sort

of nod, but that will not happen in

this case. They do not like one

another, do they?

Some would say

that George Osborne has a lot of

jobs and maybe he doesn't need

another one! But the two do not get

on. As evidence by George Osborne's

entry in the Evening Standard. You

only need to look at the front

pages...

He hammers Theresa May

everyday!

I don't know, something

tells me that George Osborne doesn't

necessarily consider his political

career to be over. If he was to join

the House of Lords, then maybe that

would put the brakes on him ever

returning to the House of Commons. I

don't know, whether this is

something that he once?

He certainly

wasn't expecting anything from

Theresa May, the woman who sacked

him...

In her first act as Prime

Minister comic she didn't even let

him clear out his flat! In the

story, friends of George Osborne so

that he never wanted a peerage. I

can believe that, I wonder if he

considers himself a Tory still? It's

an extraordinary thing to say about

someone who was Chancellor less than

two years ago but his politics are

so different to Theresa May. He's

made it clear so often. He

definitely does not see his career

necessarily as being over but maybe

he is looking at the French

president, looking at Theresa May --

meeting Theresa May tomorrow and

thinking, hmm, maybe I can be the

British Macron?

I don't know if the

country would agree... If he isn't a

Tory, what is he?

Well, there is

this centre ground, certainly a lot

of people in Westminster think they

fall somewhere between Jeremy Corbyn

and Theresa May. Whether the

appetite for that in the countries

is larger, I don't know. But I think

Osborne is part of the bridge in the

middle.

Very interesting! In the

Daily Mail, it is the demise of

landmines... Landmines! Land lines!

That would be a good thing! Can

nuisance callers lead to the death

of the landline? My mum used to call

the landline, but I can talk to her

on my mobile so it doesn't matter.

Is this really what will happen, do

you think?

I do, I don't have a

landline either. My mum has my

mobile number, that is fine! But

this story attributes the demise of

the landline to nuisance telephone

calls. A survey found that of $2000,

32% had missed calls from their

parents because they did not want to

answer their landline in case it was

a nuisance call.

I didn't do that!

It may be true, but the story is,

why do you need them? We have mobile

phones.

The nuisance call thing

influenced my decision.

I don't have

a landline but in the story, most

people have missed calls from their

parents but 5% of people said that

they missed calls from a long lost

love who may only have their

landline. Maybe that is an

incentive?

So long lost that they

were together before mobile phones!

OK...! Finally. The inside of The

Times newspaper, a big statue in the

middle there. That is Baroness

Thatcher. Apparently, it still does

not have a home.

Yeah...

You don't

care?

Apparently not! They say one

of the reasons it doesn't have a

home is because it hasn't been

rubber-stamped by Margaret

Thatcher's family, the objection is

that she does not have her famous

handbag.

Is that the objection?

Apparently...

Is there any reason as

to why the sculptor did not put the

handbag in?

The sculpture was a

freelance trust and raised a lot of

money soon after Lady Thatcher died

in 2013. Offering back they

commissioned the sculpture. It isn't

just the handbag but the family are

anxious about the risk of it being

vandalised. Even Winston Churchill,

perhaps a less divisive figure, his

statue in Parliament Square, where

they want to put it, has repeatedly

been vandalised. What is worth

noting is she is a divisive figure

but still, there isn't a statue of a

woman in Parliament Square but that

will be looked at in the coming

years, more female statues.

When the

application was first submitted the

Royal Parks Association, managing

Parliament Square, they objected it

on the grounds that it was not

supported by Lady Thatcher's family.

Was that on the grounds of possible

vandalism?

Yes, I think the handbag

thing is a funny story but to me it

feels like the key objection is they

are worried that if the statue goes

up in a place like Parliament

Square, the site of a lot of

demonstrations, both of us work in

Parliament, there is usually some

sort of demonstration or meeting or

gathering in that space every day.

With Margaret Thatcher, although she

was the first female Prime Minister

of this country, she is a divisive

figure and I can imagine that a

statue would be a target for vandals

and why it could be a target in a

place like that.

Thank you to both

of you. Apologies for the late start

again.

Don't forget you can see the front

pages of the papers online

on the BBC News website.

It's all there for you, seven days a

week.

And if you miss the programme any

evening you can watch it

later on BBC iPlayer...

Thank you Jessica Elgot

and Henry Zeffman.

Goodbye.