You are watching the press preview. A first look at what's on the front pages as they arrive. It's time to see what's making the headlines with the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, Jake Wallace-Symons, and the Daily Mirror economist, Susie Boniface. They'll be with us from now until just before midnight. So let's see what's on some of those front pages for you now. On the front of the Daily Express, a promise by the Prime Minister to press on with his plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The eye carries a story about the shadow health secretary's plans to allow the private sector to take a leading role in NHS reform. The guardian suggests the new Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, could cause anger amongst the conservative Party over his aim to deliver billions of dollars of overseas aid. Opec poised to prolong oil cuts, reads the FT, but it's understood a repeat of the situation in the 70s, when Arab states stopped exporting to the West is unlikely. The mirror warns energy bills over winter could stretch those already struggling with the cost of living, citing one industry leader. Tax cuts top the telegraph in what the paper calls Jeremy Hunt's clearest indication yet that he'll announce both personal and business tax cuts next week.

Toxic NHS puts people at risk, says Watchdog. That's the headline and the times. The Daily Mail's top story, the announcement of a prostate cancer screening trial, it says, could save thousands of lives. And finally, the star with the headline, The Return of the Wooly Mammoths. And a reminder that by scanning the QR code you'll see on screen during the program, you can check out the front pages of tomorrow's newspapers while you watch us. And we are joined tonight by Susie, Bonnie-Face and Jake Wallace, Simmons. Welcome to you both. Let's start with The Guardian and Lord Cameron. Only days in the job, but might be angering those on the right of the party. Why so, Susie?

Yeah, this is astonishing. So in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, back a million years ago, when we were children, David Cameron set a target for amount of our money that we made every year out of our economy, 0.7 % would go to be spent on foreign aid. And that was a United Nations target. By saying that Britain would do that, we were being part of the responsible top club, top tier of countries, if you like. And that money was going to go to help other countries that were struggling more than us. And it always depended how much we gave in foreign aid, it always depended on how big our GDP was. If we didn't have a good year, we gave less money, but we always gave 0.7 %. Now, when Rishi Sunak was Chancellor, he cut that very controversially to 0.5 %. And because our economy at the time was doing this, it got even less that we started paying out. And he also changed the rules so that most... Not most, but a lot of the foreign aid money in our budget now actually gets spent in this country on projects that Rishi Sunak as Chancellor found a way to say somehow helped foreign aid.

So, for example, the hotel bill for asylum seekers is paid for out of the foreign aid budget, even though it is British hoteliers who benefit from it. Now, what has happened here is Lord Cameron, as he's going to be, has come in as Foreign Secretary. He has accepted collective responsibility. He has decided he is going to toe the line on foreign aid. And he has just written a piece which is going to be saying, We need to spend more on foreign aid. It's a study. If he's doing this without wishy, soonx approval, then he is freelancing in the job. He is definitely-That's unlikely. -unlikely. He is very definitely trying to say, We're going to do what we did, what I did eight years ago. We're going to make that happen again. And it's going to upset the rights of the party. And at a time when this government is going to be talking about cutbacks and cutting the welfare state and cutting help for people in this country, they're talking about spending more to help elsewhere. And that's not going to play well, I thought, with a lot of people.

It's going to be a difficult one to square, isn't it, for Cameron, especially as this is the government that closed the Department for International Development? It's a completely different tone.

It's fascinating, really, and it feels like it's another chapter, yet another chapter in the Tory psychodrama between the Tory right and the Tori center or the Tori left. Don't forget that Cameron came in after Suella Brathman was defenestrated. She's a totemic figure on the Tori right. So it was out with somebody from the right, in with somebody not just from the center or center left of the party, but a ghost from Tori parties past in a big way. So it was a very big gesture by Sunag. At the same time, we've got the Rwanda crisis going on, the Rwanda issue grinding on, in which Sunak is trying to establish his right-wing credentials. And he's a Brexiteer, so he's generally more of the right than the left of the party. So it feels like he's trying to almost keep everybody happy, keep everybody in the party with something, with some stake in the game. And Cameron making these controversial statements about returning to a policy from his era, which was more to the left of the party.

I think he's going to be- But are they controversial?

Because they potentially have the backing of Mr. Sunak. I think they're controversial now in terms of the Tory right, who are already feeling irritated that.

Sunnack's been defiant very truly. And it's the reason why Sunak would back it because this is going against what has been Sunak's policy himself in recent years, both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister. And therefore, you've got to suggest if he's trying to get Cameron, is approving Cameron to start talking about this, it is a bit like appointing Cameron in the first place. It draws all the attention away from Braverman and the wingnuts on one side of the party because they have to start directing their fire at Cameron. What's he doing? And attacking him again because they can't fight all these different fronts at once. So maybe there's.

Some politics. -they're interesting to see how Sunec responds. If he slaps down Cameron, that would be red meat to the toy right. If he doesn't, they'll be even more wound up.

The intrigue continues staying with politics, and it's the autumn statement. Next week, there have been leaks about tax cuts. Initially, the chance was saying that it's very unlikely there would be any. Now, there could possibly be business tax cuts and also personal tax cuts, and possibly inheritance tax might be done away with.

Yeah, well, there's been lots of talk about inheritance tax, and there's been lots of balloons being floated to see what goes well and what doesn't. I'm afraid I've written a rude word on the telegraph here about their headline because he doesn't say anywhere that the time has come for tax cuts. He absolutely does not say that in the copy anywhere whatsoever. What he is talking about is that he's uncomfortable. He admits he says he's uncomfortable with a high tax burden that we've got and that there are difficulties and we need to be a lower tax economy. It doesn't say those words at all. And what he does say is that we need to bring taxes too high because we need to look at the more dynamic, energetic, thriving economies such as North America and Asia, which have lower tax burdens, will use to be more like that. Of course, those countries don't have an NHS. They don't have a welfare state that do the things we expect our welfare state to do. So of course, they don't have the same tax burden. And if you look at countries that do have the welfare state we like, which is this Scandinavian model in a way, they pay higher taxes than we do.

So he's talking about that. And then we'll go on to other papers, but he's very much trying to have mood music about tax cuts without actually saying anything. And it's quite interesting to see across the papers, he doesn't seem to have actually given an interview to any of the paper's actual political teams. There seems to have been a pooled interview of some sort, or they're all in the room at the same time or something. He doesn't seem to have had quite the same questions he might have had if he was sat down and there was a camera in his face.

Jake, do you think he's testing the water at this late stage? Is that.

What he's doing? Well, I mean, obviously first and foremost in everybody's mind on both sides of the House is the next election, which is coming up quite soon now, next year. And this is an attempt to orient the party in a way that's going to mitigate the disaster, at the very least, going into that election. And tax cuts is really what everyone's talking about in the toury party, again, more loudly on the right than in the center on the left, but it's something of concern to the Tory party and to toury voters at the moment. And there's been a big clamor for the tax burden to come down. It's nearing a 70-year high, which is a pretty high level considering it's a toury government in charge of being in charge for such a long time. So there's a clamor for tax cuts, but now it looks like the government might be able to do it because inflation has actually halved to 4.6%, leaving the government quite a lot more money to play with. The headroom was 6.5 billion at the spring budget, and now it's more than £20 billion. So there is the room to do it.

The question is, how is it going to be done? Is it going to be business tax or tax tax cuts or inheritance tax cuts or personal tax cuts or whatever? The Express things is going to be business tax cuts. We don't know yet.

We'll have to wait and see, as always, the autumn statement next week. Let's take a look at the Express and going inside, looking particularly at the business tax and how likely that might be and perhaps is a priority.

Susie. Yeah, they're talking about that obviously corporation tax has gone up recently and they want to give more help to small firms and so on. And when we had talked about this before previous budgets and autumn statements, the help they have given smaller businesses has been, for example, to be able to put some of your company expenses, set them against tax, a bit more to have investment in your firm and set that against tax. And if you're a big firm employing lots of people, then that's probably worth doing. If you are a smaller business, if you're a plumber, if you're a builder and you need to buy a new cement mixer or a new computer or something, it doesn't really work out for you in quite the same way. So it's not going to perhaps mean an awful lot to the most possible people. And what they're talking about here in terms of repeatedly talking about inheritance tax cuts, they're saying that would cost about £7 billion. Now, that would be a lot cheaper than, say, a 2P cut in income tax, which would be about double that. But a 1P cut in income tax would be about the same as a cut in inheritance tax.

And a cut in inheritance tax helps almost nobody because almost nobody pays it apart from the super rich people who donate to and are in the conservative cabinet. Everybody else in the country who does pay inheritance tax would benefit hugely if they cut that by a penny. It would cost the same as the inheritance tax cut they're talking about. But of course, it's the inheritance tax cut.

We're more likely to get. But the things of inheritance tax is cutting inheritance tax is a vote winner. I mean, that's what.

People would go on about it. It is. It's a bizarre and stupid vote winner.

Because no one pays it. Because it feels so unfair that you're taxed once and taxed again after you die, and it just goes against people's sense of fairness. You want to pass stuff onto your kids. You don't want the taxpayer, the government to talk about it twice. Yes, but we do.

Most of the people watching this do.

You've got to be a-And so as I said, this is an election budget, really, that's coming up, and cutting the harassment tax is a proven vote winner, also the speculation.

Yes. I think people object to the principle of it and say that the sense of even if.

They're not going to be effective. But it's the principle of very rich people paying tax on the huge piles of money they've got, which actually, I mean, Robin hood would be all four. What's wrong with it?

Let's move to the mirror. Centricle Boss warns of a rough winter ahead. A household has already stretched financially, could struggle to pay energy bills this winter. This is the boss of British Gas's parent firm.

Yeah, this is Chris O'Sier, the Chief Executive of Centricle, who was criticized in March for taking 1.4 million bonus package when everybody was struggling a lot. He's now erasing the warning that winter is coming and it may be a winter of some discontent with rising fuel usage, obviously rising prices. He doesn't mention this here on the front page, but we do need to bear in mind as well, the unrest in the Middle East and the effects that that might have on oil production and the price of oil and the price of energy as well. On the front of the FT, there's a story that the Saudis are preparing to prolong their oil production cuts into next year amid the slumping prices and rising anger over the Israel-Gaza war. So that's going on. So whether or not it will affect us to the same extent that the Ukraine war did, I don't know, and nobody knows yet, but it's definitely part of the concern, I think.

Yes. Susie, the mirror in the... Oh, it's rather large on the screen, isn't it? Winter warning. Slightly worrying front page.

For Khrushchev, isn't it? Yeah, magnificent. The star-shown Chris O'Shay there. It's got to be said. Obviously, he's got 1.4 million he can afford to have the cream to put on the end. But we've just been talking about stories about inheritance tax for the wealthiest people in this country and not cutting the income taxes that would help most people in this country. And here we have a warning from a man who earned 1.4 million last year who's got an astonishing mustache. That was his bonus? Yeah, and that was his bonus, don't want anything else, who runs a business which is going to benefit presumably from what Jamie Hunt is talking about to get the economy growing, help businesses, Centrica doesn't need any help, for goodness' sake. And even he is saying people are going to suffer. People. He's not saying our business is going to suffer. He's saying people matter. And that's what should be on all the papers, really, because they've all got people that are reading them, and they're the ones who are.

Going to suffer them. Yeah, quite telling that he's saying people are going to suffer, not the business. Welcome back. You are watching the press previews. Still with me, Jake Wallace, Simmons, and Susie, Boniface. Let's take a look at the front page of The Times and this story, Toxic NHS puts people at risk, says watchdog. And this is Rob Berens, who is investigating complaints about the NHS in England. And he's warning of a hierarchical and high-handed attitude of clinicians, which is undermining the quality of care. So the ratitude, basically, is wrong.

It's really scary unless you actually get to the bottom of the story. And you realize that he said this to the Times Health Commission, a year-long inquiry that the newspapers set up to look and to make recommendations for reform. And then if you stop and think about the fact that this guy is the ombudsman, so he only ever gets complaints. No one ever goes to the ombudsman and says, I had a great time at hospital last week, let me tell you all about it. He only ever hears the complaints. So it is going to be quite subjective. It is asking the man who deals with complaints, How do we need to fix all the many problems that you see on a daily basis? We were talking about before we came on, we've all got stories of where something hasn't gone right in the NHS, but also where things have been amazing. And that's the stuff you don't necessarily see at the Ombudsman's office. So he's talking about the historical attitude that's been within the medical profession of doctors and consultants at the top, nurses lowered down everyone else, pond life, and very much there's a godlike ordering of people around, which I think most people would know that's exactly how it was many years ago.

But I think the Lucy Letby criminal inquiry really showed that that has changed a lot because consultants were trying to raise the alarm about her and weren't being listened to by nursing staff, for example. Exactly. I think the complaints are probably very much that someone has acted in the godlike manner, but that does not mean that it is necessarily. And the real toxic problem with the NHS is people trying to constantly throw their own thing onto it and make it do what they want it to and treating it with ideology and not.

Treating it as the machine. I mean, the other thing about this story is that Rob Berens, as Ombudman, it was put to him, is one of the problems the consultant is king attitude, and he said there was an element of that. So there's an element of that, and there are other problems as well, including a balkanisation of health professionals with rivalries between doctors and nurses and midwives and obstetricians harming patient care. So it just sounds like there's a lot of clashing characters and egos and departments in the NHS. Who to thunk it? But what the times that I've chosen to focus on is the toxic behavior of consultants. So it does seem to be.

Slightly simplified. And you think it's unnecessarily alarmist. I mean, one of the quotes, too often organizational reputation has been put above patient safety.

Well, that's entirely true. You've definitely seen in Lucy Letby, but that is institutionalism. It's been seen in Fleet Street. It's been seen at the BBC. It's been seen at any big institution that is criticizing and seems to have done something wrong when there's a scandal. So the fact that happens in the NHS matters because there's people's lives at stake, but it's not unusual when you have a larger organization. For when there is a whistleblower for that organization to close ranks, that can be a different change.

Of the law. Jake, just time for you to tell us what is going to happen in 2028, according to the Daily Star.

According to the Daily Star, the return of the wooly mammoth is scheduled for 2028 via some DNA found presumably in ice somewhere. I think there are pros and cons. The cons are that you're playing God and manipulating DNA. And as you said earlier, you could release some ancient virus into the world. The pro is that it's pretty cool. And for me, that counts for quite a lot.

-to run into a wooly moat. -to have some mammoth. I don't.

Think that would.

Be cool. -that's a lot of cool. -at all. That's a lot of cool. Jake and Susie, for the moment, thank you very much. We'll see you soon.