hello. this is bbc news. we'll be taking a look at tomorrow morning's papers in a moment — first the headlines. the president of zimbabwe, robert mugabe clings on to power after failing to announce his resignation ina failing to announce his resignation in a televised address to the nation. flanked by military chiefs, he said he intended to chair the c0 ng ress he said he intended to chair the congress of the ruling zanu—pf party next month. in doing so he defied an ultimatum by his party to resign by tomorrow. the leaders of zam boob‘s war vetera ns tomorrow. the leaders of zam boob‘s war vete ra ns say tomorrow. the leaders of zam boob‘s war veterans say plans to impeach the 93—year—old will go ahead with demonstrations the examined on the streets of the capital, harare on wednesday. in other news, police say a postmortem carried out on the body of gaia pope hasn't revealed any injuries that suggested another person was involved in her death. i'm talking to chris bodington, the

mountaineer who has reached the world's highest places his memoir is called, of course — ascent. hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are henry zeffman, political reporter at the times and public affairs consultant, jacqui francis. welcome to the both. tomorrow's front pages, starting with the financial times, which reports that ministers are expected to give theresa may the go ahead to increase the government's brexit financial settlement offer to move on eu negotiations. the taily telegraph one of a number of papers moving on robert mugabe's defiance of the country's generals by remaining in power this evening. the metro also leads on zimbabwe,

describing mugabe as "clinging on". and the i also focuses mugabe's defiance of the zanu—pf party's decision to remove him as leader. the daily express reports research that the royal family has contributed £1.8 billion to the uk economy this year, as the queen and prince philip celebrate their 70th wedding anniversary. the daily mirror saying former tory defence chiefs have accused the government of damaging the armed forces by cutting funding no. picture on this at the moment. but it gives you a little flavour. let's kick off. this evening, jacqui, one big story in town making it through to the front pages, robert mugabe and this surprise turn and big announcement that wasn't a big announcement that wasn't a big announcement absolutely. it i is as here he shocked the world. i imagine there are more people in harare, in zimbabwe that are shocked than the lest of the world. it must have been

patently obvious to him he was going, and the fact he was doing a televisedes announcement, everybody is waiting to hear, to find out that he thinks that mistakes have been made and that he can come back. that's what i understand he seems to be saying, he is not going anywhere. i'm not sure whether or not they gave him the right speech or he read t something has gone horribly gave him the right speech or he read t something has gone horribly wrong. there are suggestions going around maybe a couple of pages he turned over deliberately on purpose but it was a turn up for the books. well it was almost chaotic, there we re well it was almost chaotic, there were bits during the 30—hour ramble. more of a ramble than a speech where he seemed to lose his place and one of the generals near him had to point out what page he was on and when the cameras were rolling at the end he said "i'm sorry can we correct bits" perhaps not realising it was live. so it was a peculiar what we thought was going to be the

end of his 37 years in power but it wasn't, that and obviously quite chaotic in harare tonight. what do you make of what might happen next? one of the interesting things in the past week has been t started as a military coup, as it were, with mugabe's sacked deputy looking line he was going to take over but then the people took to the streets. one of the interesting dynamics will be whether it is a transition to democracy that the zimbabwean people wa nt democracy that the zimbabwean people want or whether it is a change for one part of the ruling elite to another part of the ruling elite. what happened today suggests something a bit more like the loot at the jacqui, it was interest, within his speech, robert mugabe talked about conflicts potentially within the party, intergenerational conflict. talking about the need it perhaps bring on new blood but keep the old established players as well. it goes to show there is a lot going on in zanu—pf. it goes to show there is a lot going on in zanu-pf. there is indeed and

as you said henry there might be backtracking, i don't know whether they fought people were too ingrained inthe military didn't have the decisive hand in terms of getting rid of people. because, you know you are getting rid of one set of people for another who are equally, in some case, people would say corrupt and it is about power and who has the power. maybe the idea of saying — go now, it was actually, do you know how much you would have to get rid of in order to put your own people in place and the fa ct put your own people in place and the fact that his wife — i still quite get that bit. because, you know, he has obviously been planning this for a long time and all of a sudden people realise she really does want to become the next leader so we should do something about it. i have this horrible suspicion about when a woman decides to do something — wou, it is terrible, horrible, but if it had been a man who was plotted the same thing, would there have been the same response? all the way through the generals were saying it isn't a kou. we don't want to take

mugabe out of office, we want to change parts of the corrupt zanu—pf elite. people thought it was cover and they were trying to remove him and they were trying to remove him and place him with their deputy. but tonight suggests maybe they were at their word and maybe they wanted to get rid of grace mugabe and who weren't war vetted rans, the younger generation, and it wasn't about taking robert mugabe out. and the daily telegraph — mugabe defies the generals and clings on. we were well aware, we were speaking to the zanu-pf aware, we were speaking to the zanu—pf representative in the uk tonight. we arewell aware his own party says he is no longer the leader yet he said in his speech tonight — i will be overseeing the meeting in december of zanu—pf‘s congress and so on. somehow some communication has gone badly wrong.

. something is going on in the background, whether or not he is negotiating, dotting the is or crossing the t‘s to his exit or conspiracy theory, are people in other countries saying — we are not sure what the deal is going to be with the new leader, maybe we will back him because he has had strong backing from china all along and as far as backing from china all along and as faras i'm backing from china all along and as far as i'm concerned if they say zsh we are not sure all of a sudden it pauses until they are reasthurd this transition is going to be the transition is going to be the transition they need in order to continue to build the infrastructure and make as much money as they can. it is certainly true that some other countries in africa, which have similar ruling elites in place for some time, will be looking at zimbabwe and hoping what is happening there doesn't catch on. they won't want the african equivalent of the arab spring, which some of the scenes in zimbabwe over

the last few days have reminded me off but it comes back to the scenes off but it comes back to the scenes of the people exercising the coup, doing what is going on at the top in the presidential palace but the clips are seen of people in the streets whop want investment in the country, who want a stronger economy and a more modernised infrastructure. those are two different things. we mustn't forget the background to all of this is a country in economic meltdown and the problems zimbabwe have faced, the people there are des straight to see change. they are. i suppose it is not very popular to remind people, that yes, he has been there for what, nearly a0 years? but this wasn't a problem and this wasn't something that started with him. we are talking about, it used to be called rhodesia, ian smith. let's not forget this is down to him at the moment but it has been a long time coming and isn't something that happened overnight. as you have said, yes, the people on the ground wa nt said, yes, the people on the ground wantjobs said, yes, the people on the ground want jobs and stability.

said, yes, the people on the ground wantjobs and stability. if you start hollowing out the whole country and taking the money out, where elsewhere you going to get the very much, except for other countries that have decided — yes, we wa nt countries that have decided — yes, we want to put more money back into this place. henry we mustn't forget that these pape letters come out tomorrow morning and in those terms it isa tomorrow morning and in those terms it is a crucial day in zimbabwe. —— papers will come out. because zanu-pf said if papers will come out. because zanu—pf said if he didn't step down by noon tomorrow they'll start impeachment and that will be the crucial decision for them to be mulling over tonight whether they'll hold him to that. rab salutely. one of the strangest parts of mugabe's speech is having been sacked by his party, earlier that day, speech is having been sacked by his party, earlierthat day, he speech is having been sacked by his party, earlier that day, he talked about how he was going to preside over zanu—pf's scheduled congress next month and establish a sort of plan for getting out of this situation. it's not at all clear how thatis situation. it's not at all clear how that is compatible with the fact he doesn't run zanu—pf any more. so, the people that you have been interviewed today have made quite clear, members of zanu—pf that they

are going to lanch impeachment proceedings. i suppose the question to which extent the rules which have been established to work for mugabe, work for the people trying to i can at that down mugabe. typically in dictatorships they don't. plenty more to talk about on this tomorrow, a big story. let's move to one side jacqui. staying with the daily telegraph, the story on the right—hand side, a brexit story about the money. yes, we had the conversation before about how much money we were going to pay and it was almost like — well we want to negotiate first, then we will decide how much money. and i was saying to henry, last i heard somebody was talking about, it is a bit like them wanting to pay for a meal and we haven't finished it but if you go out for a meal you have an idea it is going to cost because you can see the prices on the menu. here it seems to me that the prime minister's arm has been twisted by philip hammond, who is saying — we wa nt to philip hammond, who is saying — we want to know what we are getting first before we increase the amount

of money we are talking about. we are talking about £20 billion, possibly but, you know we are back to this — show us, you know there is no show us the money first, there is show us what the deal is, fist, then we'll show us what the deal is, fist, then we' ll start show us what the deal is, fist, then we'll start on the money. everybody is getting fed up. henry, remind us of some of the figures we are seeing in some stories. what might change, how much might this offer go up by? at the moment, britain sorted of publicly accepted they are offering around £20 #3wi8 yob. there are suggestions it'll double, an extra pods 20 billion to persuade the eu to declare in their own terms something called sufficient progress in mid—decemberto something called sufficient progress in mid—december to move talks on to trade and transition next year. theresa may had meetings in sweden at the end of last week with donald tusk, emmanuel macron and the irish prime minister who insisted we are far off. that's the context of the

discussion over money. clearly the government is going to offer some more money but although, philip hammond, you know sort of leading pro—eu, although he is not particularly pro eu but in relative terms in the cabinet, pushing more money to move to on but we are talking about the brexit subcommittee, boris johnson in alliance with michael gove, who ruined his 0 leadership intentions la year, saying they have to move on. people say is it really about the money or is it political. is moving it that much a big dealfor our economy? because we started with the stance — we are only going to give you a certain amount and nothing else. we have found it difficult to be more conciliatory, when actually it is about the detail now. there are people in this country worried about whether or not they can style. there are businesses making decision abouts whether or not they are going to stain if this

isa not they are going to stain if this is a stumbling block, we are going to keep going around and around and not actually starting to discuss the substance which is what everybody outside of westminster wants people to do, discuss the substance. the ft. to do, discuss the substance. the ft, henry of course has this story — may set to secure cabinet support for higher brexit divorce bill offer. that really highlighting what you were starting to allude to. which is, whether she has the combination of people in the cabinet to back here. it does expose again, tensions in who wants to play it which way? it is kind of a reminder of why may called a general election, now seven months on or whatever it looks disaster, the worst mistake a prime minister has made in peace tyne so on but she wanted to have the authority from the public to be able to say to her cabinet — i don't care what you think or what you said what side you are on in the referendum. i'm the prime minister the people have given mea prime minister the people have given me a mandate to negotiate a deal and this is the amount i'm going to offer. now she is and the ft sets it out well —— she is at the mercy of a finely— balanced cabinet. lots

out well —— she is at the mercy of a finely—balanced cabinet. lots of people now to want to take herjob in due course as well who all have their own view on how they can negotiate it bert. i also think it is worth remembering, it is notjust money which is the stumbling block, a striking thing last week, both the irish prime minister and eu officials were insisting, if you don't have an answer to the irish border question before december, whether or not you offer us the money, we are not moving the talks on. it is very striking the absence of anything in the papers tomorrow about how the british government is going to solve that aspect of it as well. plenty of head scratching. while we are talking about money, ta ke while we are talking about money, take us on to the daily express, this is the royal family in this instance, a picture of the queen and prince phillip celebrating 70 years of marriage but the story is based ona of marriage but the story is based on a research that has been done about whether the monarchy gives us good value for money, really? well according to this they do indeed. they contributed £i.8 billion and they cost us £292 million, which is they cost us £292 million, which is the equivalent of £a.50 per person

or £ipa the equivalent of £a.50 per person or £ip a day, which, you know what can you buy for ip. or £ip a day, which, you know what can you buy for 1p. £4.50 or £ip a day, which, you know what can you buy for1p. £4.50 per or £ip a day, which, you know what can you buy for 1p. £4.50 per person per year. yes, i think they are trying to tell us they are good value for money. who is the definition of monarchy? who is included? because there are a number of people that you and i probably think — actually do i want it pay for those individuals? are they included in the £2. 9 —— £292 million. what do you make of this? well not enough to pay