hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are the broadcaster and psychotherapist lucy beresford and the sun's chief sports reporter martin lipton. many of tomorrow's front pages are already in. the observer goes with a warning from sir keir starmer, who is running to lead labour, calling for the party to unite or face its longest period out of power since the second world war. the daily telegraph says the prime minister wants to replace a series of senior civil servants over claims that they are at odds with tory ministers and advisers. the daily mail raises questions about prince andrew's alibi for the night he is alleged to have had sex with virginia roberts, claims the prince

has strongly denied. and the express goes with a downing street warning ahead of trade talks with the european union. number ten says that the eu appears distracted, divided, and not focussed on trade issues. the sunday mirror says police investigating the disappearance of madeleine mccann have quizzed a british barmaid about her german ex—boyfriend. and the sunday times says house of lords spending is out of control, reporting that peers paid themselves almost one third more last year, and the house of lords set to swell to its largest in two decades. well, let's get straight into those stories with lucy and martin. let's start with the sunday telegraph, which has the headline top civil serva nts which has the headline top civil servants on tories‘ hit list. i suppose the clue in the job titles is that these are meant to be permanent secretaries at the top of each department. yes, that's true,

and we tend to think of the civil service has providing this amazing continuity, irrespective of what stripe your government might be. but they spoke about it during the election and they have talked about it subsequently. boris and his team are very keen to remove a whole swathe of top civil servants, and they did talk about the blob, they talked about this sort of aim office group of people that they wanted to feel it. and they have identified people, they have got a hit list, and you could argue that the civil service actually needs to modernise a little bit. my worry is that quite a little bit. my worry is that quite a lot of ministers move around so often that the average stay for a minister is now something like less than two years. you would know that about football managers, some of them stay longer than ministers. so you look to the civil service to provide not just you look to the civil service to provide notjust continuity, but the sort of insights that come from having been in a job for a long time, and yet this list is saying this particular group have got to

go. i suppose the danger, martin, is on one hand you lose expertise and a swell of knowledge built up over a long period, in some cases decades. on the other hand, if you have permanent secretaries who number ten are feeling are stymieing or obstructing what the government wa nts to obstructing what the government wants to do, you feel you are co nsta ntly wants to do, you feel you are constantly doing battle. the old skip was the civil servants around the country and the ministers were just passing through. but there is this view that there shouldn't be a politicisation of the civil service, that they are there to serve whoever happens to be the elected ministers. this is where there is an issue here. what happens if there is a change in government, as you mentioned earlier? in the us, when a new president comes in, the entire apparatus of american government changes. we don't do that here. we have this seamless transition, but that's why they have three months

between the election and the new administration coming in, because of that turnover. where as here, we change governments overnight, literally overnight, if there is an election, because we have a degree of safety net by the civil service. if you have a politicised civil service, that can't last, it simply can't. and while i understand there might be frustrations and reluctance to deal with certain people, we have seen this week the issue between priti patel and her permanent secretary at the home office, nevertheless there is a reason that things evolve as they have, because they tend to work, and they outlast short—term views any particular prime minister, government, secretary of state, or whomever. the old interview with day, when he said why should i take the view of a here today, gone together minister. that was the view that many people had for many years. let's stay with the

political theme, and the sunday times front page. rather... i suppose it might draw some people m, suppose it might draw some people in, the headline, the pm's vanishing briefs, referring to the memos that borisjohnson briefs, referring to the memos that boris johnson receives. briefs, referring to the memos that boris johnson receives. you are giving it away there. do you think there might be a play on words there, just a little one? but they have been told, give him shorter memos or he is not going to read them. that says a lot, really. if you have a prime minister with a short attention span, doesn't this remind you, i am sorry, of another rather large, over—the—top... remind you, i am sorry, of another rather large, over-the-top... but isn't that why they are doing it? how many of us have read memos from bosses or other colleagues, they love the sound of their own voice. this is the prime minister. but he has to be across so many things. but we have accused the americans of dumbing down by having chump do that. having it all on one side of a4. i don't anyone would accuse borisjohnson of a4. i don't anyone would accuse boris johnson of not

a4. i don't anyone would accuse borisjohnson of not being intelligent, ijust borisjohnson of not being intelligent, i just don't think borisjohnson of not being intelligent, ijust don't think he has the time. nowadays to be prime minister you have to be across so much, it probably is about saying to the people who provide the memos, be more succinct, get to the more quickly, don't waffle. more succinct, get to the more quickly, don't wafflelj more succinct, get to the more quickly, don't waffle. ithink more succinct, get to the more quickly, don't waffle. i think you should have an expectation that the first lord of the treasury is willing to read lengthy, detailed memo. i don't think that is asking too much. i don't think it is. he has to be across everything, but you don't need him to necessarily run it. the people who run the treasury run the treasury. i know he is first lord of the treasury, but bullet points never did anybody else any harm. to give it some context, what they are saying is preferably a maximum of four pages of a4, two pages... maximum of four pages of a4, two pages. . . are maximum of four pages of a4, two pages... are they doublespaced? well, i am only getting into the detail of it here. it reminds me of that scene, i don't know if you have seen that scene, i don't know if you have

seen the crown, where king george says to then princess elizabeth, the best thing you do with the boxes is you turn it upside down, and they put the stuff you don't want to read at the bottom. meanwhile, the sunday times has this investigation into expenses within the house of lords rising by one third in one year. here we go again. this is the most extraordinary story, not least because of the sheer sums involved. a couple of peers have actually been claiming expenses that are worth more than the salary of an mp. the average tax—free payment, £30,000, is higher than the median salary of auk is higher than the median salary of a uk worker. the one they point to the most isjack cunningham, had a numberof the most isjack cunningham, had a number of significant roles in cabinet over that period, who cost apparently £79,437, which is an awful lot. they gave themselves a

pay rise of about 29%, and there are 110 pay rise of about 29%, and there are iio peers who are known as silent peers, because they haven't actually said anything and yet they are still taking this money. but also there are more coming in, we have the new enablement taking the number to 834, the highest since tony blair acts to the highest since tony blair acts to the majority of the hereditary peers. it is interesting that the sunday times note that in 2015, borisjohnson when sunday times note that in 2015, boris johnson when he was mayor of london called for members who are not really interested in the job being given an offer they can't refuse to step down. yet he is expected to swell their ranks in a couple of weeks. it has the echoes of the big parliamentary expenses. u nfortu nately a of the big parliamentary expenses. unfortunately a couple of these people have already been done for expenses, one of those is a

multimillionaire. so there must be something wrong with the whole expenses system, where you can arbitrarily just give them expenses system, where you can arbitrarilyjust give them to everybody. i wonder if this is the start of a series of these kinds of investigations, and we will hear more. let's have a look at the observer, and the labour leadership race making the papers there. a warning from keir starmer, and that phrase is used a lot, risking a generation out of power. are they overusing it, or is it fair? labour's history suggest there is a lwa ys labour's history suggest there is always a generation out of power. 18 yea rs always a generation out of power. 18 years and they were out of office, and ten years now since there was the last labour prime minister. it only needs one more election and you will be getting up to the 18 years between 79 and 97. i think keir starmer is right to make that warning. labour at the moment is in danger of disappearing in a black hole. looking at the local election results since the general election, andi results since the general election,

and i know it is this sort of fallow period, but labour's vote is crumbling across the country, and the party is, i think, facing an existential crisis. its very existence is in doubt unless there isa existence is in doubt unless there is a change. now, keir starmer believes he can be that change. he may be a more credible leader, he can't be a less credible leader, then he's about to be predecessor. the trouble is, it is a sound bite, really, to say we must unite. that is kind of self—evident, but how you are going to do that is one thing, and also are you going to do that to the exclusion of really working out what went wrong in the first place? that's what went wrong in the first place? that‘s easy— what went wrong in the first place? that's easy— everything. everyone is trying to find out why they lost the last election, as if that is a bad thing. and he is criticising the candidates for standing for their apparent navelgazing. but even in my world of psychotherapy, you have to work out how somebody has got to be where they are before you can try to turn that around, change the

limiting beliefs. this is what they are trying to do in the labour party. those who ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. it has been said many times and it is still the case. keir starmer has to win, that is his first thing. he believes he has to show up his support base and try to extend it into what might not be natural territory for him. but the bizarre thing is, of course, realistically, as soon a c does win, if he wins, he will have to burn some of those people he has on board, because he has to move to try to take the centre ground. surprise, surprise, you win from the centre, you don't win from the margins stop let's turn our attention to the royals, and the mail on sunday has this exclusive and an unnamed officer raising doubts about prince andrew's claim that he was in woking on the night he was alleged to have had sex with virginia roberts. this is extremely problematic if true. i

am sure this is a good—faith reporting of the claims by one of the security guards who says that he thinks it is possible, he doesn't say definitely the case, he thinks it is possible that when prince andrew said he was at home all evening the night in question, the now infamous pizza express dinner in woking, that in fact he wasn't, that he was at buckingham palace, a mile or so away he was at buckingham palace, a mile or so away from this venue of the assignation of the picture we have all seen of virginia roberts and prince andrew, with his arm around herwaist, or is prince andrew, with his arm around her waist, or is it his arm, we were asked, a few weeks ago. strangely, that wasn't the question for ten years, now it becomes one, but that is not issue. and of course, the lawyer for virginia roberts has alighted on this and is talking about for him to talk openly and

candidly with the fbi. i think the image of prince andrew was significantly bruised by that emily maitlis interview from a few months ago. that will go down in history in the years to come is one of the biggest mistakes a public figure has made ina biggest mistakes a public figure has made in a very long time, in agreeing to that, and the issues are not going to go away. there is going to have to be proved here, and obviously we know that prince andrew has emphatically and vehemently denied any impropriety at any point during this. but, if this is correct, it is going to be even more ofan correct, it is going to be even more of an issue and going to raise even more serious questions about whether or not he is actually telling the truth. i just or not he is actually telling the truth. ijust want or not he is actually telling the truth. i just want to go or not he is actually telling the truth. ijust want to go back or not he is actually telling the truth. i just want to go back to the sunday telegraph, back to that front page, and it has another story there about the troubles that veterans are facing, and the so—called witch—hunts against them, and a call to end this. what are they talking about here? well, they are talking

about here? well, they are talking about the fact that there are five or six veterans who are being investigated for things that they carried out during the troubles, and this would be back in the 1970s. it is felt, not least by a parliamentary group called the vetera ns parliamentary group called the veterans support group that this has gone on too long, and if members of the ira were given a sort of amnesty, then why can't it be the same for people who kind of fought the ira. and you have the iain duncan smith, who has gone out to bat for this group, but very sadly, one of the veterans who was under investigation has actually taken his own life, and now we are talking about it being regarded as a witch—hunt stop and i think people are very worried that the government have said that they are going to investigate this and try to make sure that those veterans don't have to be prosecuted, but there is some fear that the legislation could be

watered down, perhaps as a sop to sinn fein, who have obviously done much better than expected in the recent ireland election. thank you both very much for going through the papers with me. those are some of the front pages for the sunday papers. 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 at bbc.co.uk/papers, and if you miss the programme any evening you can watch it later on bbc iplayer. thank you to lucy beresford and martin lipton. and thank you to you for watching. we will see you soon. goodbye.