first the headlines. £1,000 fines for anyone in england, who tests positive for covid—19, but fails to self—isolate, as the government considers broader national coronavirus restrictions, to stem rising infections. latest figures show a further 4,422 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the uk, the highest daily rate since may. in the united states, supreme courtjudge ruth bader ginsburg dies, triggering a battle over whether she can be replaced before the presidential election. seven years after he left north london for madrid, gareth bale is back at tottenham on a season—long loan.

hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are iain anderson, executive chairman of the independent lobbying consultants, cicero, and the broadcaster, penny smith. great to see you both with us. so, let's just raise through the front pages and give you a good flavour of what you will find there. the mail on sunday which leads on the prime minister's plan to unveil bigger fines for those in england who break self—isolation rules. the mail describes the plans as "draconian". that story, also the lead for the mirror, which focuses on the part of the prime minister's plan which calls for people on low—paid incomes to receive a £500 lump sum if they have to self—isolate. the sunday telegraph carries the same story, and suggests boris johnson could announce tighter nationwide lockdown restrictions as early as tuesday — in an attempt to combat a second wave. the times points out that fines for not self—isolating will start at £1000,

but could increase to £10,000 for repeat offenders — the paper also carries a picture of revellers in newcastle enjoying a night out before the introduction of local lockdown restrictions. in addition to the introduction of fines forfailing to self—isolate, the observer carries a picture of supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg who's died at the age of 87 — the paper describes her as a feminist lodestar. so let's begin... it is cold and pretty much all the way, so that is where we will start. —— covid. macro i will come to first, i feel they are shouting at me here about this 10,000 find that is heading my way if i don't self—isolate with covid. —— iain. yeah, it seems to be a lot of shtick and not a lot of substance, rachel, i think, and not a lot of substance, rachel, ithink, in and not a lot of substance, rachel, i think, in terms of this whole new approach. look, i mean, this is on

virtually every single front page. it's been running as the news line all evening, and there is going to be some big press conference on monday. these rules set to come in to shape a week on monday from the 28th of september. what it appears to be is thisjust 28th of september. what it appears to be is this just massive attempt to be is this just massive attempt to shake the public in order to obey the rules that are in place. now, we are not going to be able to understand all the rules in place that's a different question. but the government is going to try and, in a way, use this before having to resort to even more draconian measures, but i think there are —— they are going to be up for a political fight on this. penny come i was reading that apparently we are one of the worst, welcome to the least compliant nations in europe as

comes to adhering to lockdown regulations and the self isolating and so on. so do you think this could work? well, i think the main problem here is that we are all a bit confused. i mean there has been that famous comments, so if you've got seven children feeding the ducks, that isn't allowed, but you can go have 30 people going and shooting the ducks, this man says he's refusing to wear his mask on a train, and he was told he had to wear it unless he was eating, he said oh, right, 0k, wear it unless he was eating, he said oh, right, ok, so the virus will attack me but not if i'm eating, i'm perfectly 0k. will attack me but not if i'm eating, i'm perfectly ok. i will attack me but not if i'm eating, i'm perfectly 0k. ithink people have genuinely got awfully confused about what's on earth they are supposed to be doing. if you remember, even right at the beginning when we were totally locked down, we were told quite categorically that we could only go out to get your essentials and to go for a out to get your essentials and to go fora run orto out to get your essentials and to go for a run or to go and do some

exercise, and now i think a vast majority of people are going, do you know what's come i don't really know what i'm allowed to do. i wonder what i'm allowed to do. i wonder what this lockdown for my meantime it's all very well and good in a small village, somebody in the village will probably know that you should be self isolating, therefore, if they see village shop buying a croissant and a copy of the sun, you are really probably not supposed to be out, but in a city, what are we going to do? have police officers in a great big conglomeration of flats going, sorry sir, or madame, can i just check your credentials, are you supposed to be self isolating? that's all well and good same ten grand if you keep on serially offending or agree just offences, outstanding bad, but cimino, you've got to have somebody there than to say, you need to stop. i'm going to find new. so the practicalities you are both saying could be an issue. iain, the sunday times has the same

headline, but there is a lot more in there on theirfront headline, but there is a lot more in there on their front page about other things that the government is considering because, clearly, this spectre of a second wave is rapidly coming upon us, and they are having to get their heads together with the scientists. the prime minister said it himself on friday evening, the second wave is coming in in a more obvious and clear than the british people than that. there is clearly a second wave starting to appear for those of us who have looked at the history of the spanish flu, unfortunately, the second wave was even more cataclysmic second wave was even more cataclysmic than the first, no, it's not just cataclysmic than the first, no, it's notjust going to be these £10,000 fines which are kind of modelled on what they put in place for people who were not obeying the self isolation rules flying back in from the countries where we had ceased to have an air bridge, but there are

going to be £500 grants to workers who can't they will have to go to a place of work, sadiq khan, the london mayor already pushing for more active measures to kind of suppress the virus in london. at the most interesting thing i think in the sunday times story, which co m pa res to the sunday times story, which compares to quite a lot of the coverage, suggesting that that boris johnson is actively looking at the idea of this kind of break a 2—3 week break on the virus. the sunday times suggesting that he should —— rejected that idea put forward by the scientists and that they are going to try and carry on as we are.

now, if he has rejected the scientist's view, that's going to be an interesting moment between him and the scientific advice. penny, we have interviewed a couple of scientists this evening who have been very definite that there needs to be action steps ste ps ta ke n steps taken and fast, and yet we see in this article, of course, the prime minister also having his ear bent by the chancellor and other members of the cabinet to our very conscious of the pressures coming from businesses and talk of economy suffering. well, the talk of the economy suffering, why don't —— when we talk about the economy, we just talk about this kind of economy, but what the economy is is its vast, when you have 100 million people at risk of becoming jobless if you shut down pubs and restaurants again, 1 millionjobs at risk. they down pubs and restaurants again, 1 million jobs at risk. they are seeing some pubs and restaurants facing wipe—out, smaller venues already wiped out. the furlough scheme runs out at the end of october. they are saying that beer

duty needs to be slashed, 54p a pint needs to go. they have done curfews before, for example, and they have worked out, but it's a 50% reduction in trade, business rates, all of these things that are all coming to an end. i think rishi sunak at hopefully has got something in the bag that he's going to say, "let's extend all of us." because that's the other problem, because if you have these massive fines for people and you've got the problem that some people are on lower incomes who feel that they can't afford to go and self—isolate, but you have also got people who are desperate for their own businesses to survive and they are looking at something that they have spent years, decades perhaps building up and looking at them and saying, "this could go if we are locked down again." and we always knew this was going to happen, as soon as we knew this was going to happen, as soon as we have the schools going back to him as soon as we started going back to work, and then again, yet again, we have a government saying, "right, let's get back to

work, but hold on a second, you can go back to work because of all these other sort of things." what else are we supposed to do? iain, onto the sunday people, save us from another ca re sunday people, save us from another care home catastrophe. 0f sunday people, save us from another care home catastrophe. of course, set against all of this talk of economy and measures to try to get people to comply is the very real fear of the threat to the elderly community. it certainly is. i'm talking to you tonight in aberdeenshire. i've come up tonight in aberdeenshire. i've come up to see my elderly parents for the first time in almost eight months. i'm delighted to see them. i'm frankly even more delighted that they are able to still have independent living and have not been ina care independent living and have not been in a care home. i mean, the figures from care homes arejust in a care home. i mean, the figures from care homes are just terrifying in the first wave. 15,000 out of the 40,000 people who passed away in the

earlier part of the year where in ca re earlier part of the year where in care homes. and the bosses of care homes are basically saying that the government needs to get on with what it promised that it was going to do, which is to round up weekly testing. now, the whole saga of being able to get a test, whether or not you are ina get a test, whether or not you are in a care home, i actually took a test, it was negative earlier in the month, but it took me eight days from ordering the test to getting the test, and of course, some other people have been waiting for much, much longer. they care homes and those that are running care homes and people who are desperately worried about their families who are in care homes want to know that testing is going to be ramped up. absolutely. penny, before we leave the whole issue of coalbed, in the sunday telegraph, the political angle on all of us, of course, as the government considers new powers

—— coalbed and new laws, is that among its backbenchers, there may be some disquiet about these emergency covid—19 powers. —— covid—19. they are essentially same we need to go back to parliament, they sorted it out, they are saying they looked, they saw that the nhs coped in the first place when it was all hands to the pump, and now that we are approaching this possible second wave, and i still caught a possible second wave, because who knows, something may happen, we never know. but the thing is they are saying we now need to actually debate this because this could affect our constituency. this affects our people in our constituencies, we need to have a debate about it rather than people just announcing things and us being constantly on the hoof. thank you for that's, penny. let's just come the hoof. thank you for that's, penny. let'sjust come back the hoof. thank you for that's, penny. let's just come back and closed with the observer. a magical picture here and that intense piercing stare of ruth bader ginsburg who has sadly died at the

age of 87, but the headline, ian, of course, telling us that the death of this revered judge has prompted us turmoil, explain for people who don't follow the intricacies of us politics. well, it is of course the president, whoever the president may be that has the sole ability to nominate the supreme courtjustices. it's the senate and only the senate, not the other house, not the house of representatives that by a simple majority and only a simple majority can choose the next supreme court justice. nine supreme courtjustices until our bg as she was lovingly known, iconic lee known, passed away. there were five right of centre justices on issues from a more left of centre perspective.

this is really, really important to commit pushes this whole debate right into the centre of the us election. absolutely fascinating though how donald trump did go for the usual bombast. you know, watching his reaction to the passing ofjohn lewes, the democratic congressman who you can almost —— who he almost dismissed, very very careful language that trump is using. isee, literally, careful language that trump is using. i see, literally, just in the last half hour, that trump is indicating that he is going to promote a nominee next week, the republicans want to get this done before the presidential election and it looks like he's going to promote a woman, but interestingly, one of the republican senators, susan collins, looks like she's going to vote against the idea of the supreme court justice being vote against the idea of the supreme courtjustice being chosen before the election. this could be very tight. it's going to be one to watch

come up penny come as we say, the power —— the politics of it. we mustn't forget the women was such a feisty, sparkly character. she certainly was, five foot, but a lifelong advocate of gender equality. while she was pregnant, she got demoted in herjob at social scaredy office because of discrimination against pregnant women was actually legal in the 505. she finished up upper—cla55, one of nine women out of her class of 500 at harvard law school, didn't get a get a single job offer. she said i 5truck get a single job offer. she said i struck out on three ground5 come i wa5jewi5h, a struck out on three ground5 come i wa5 jewi5h, a woman struck out on three ground5 come i wa5jewi5h, a woman and a mother. she didn'tju5t wa5jewi5h, a woman and a mother. she didn't just help wa5jewi5h, a woman and a mother. she didn'tju5t help women, because although she is renowned, you know, 5he although she is renowned, you know, she was a lifelong advocate, a5 although she is renowned, you know, she was a lifelong advocate, as we 5ay, she was a lifelong advocate, as we say, for gender equality, 5he she was a lifelong advocate, as we say, for gender equality, she also helped men, because she helped the young widower who is denied benefits after his wife died in childbirth and she said, gender—based discrimination hurt5 everyone. can i finallyju5t discrimination hurt5 everyone. can i finally just say about

discrimination hurt5 everyone. can i finallyju5t say about so many quote5 finallyju5t say about so many quotes that have