into a crowd at a christmas parade, killing five people and injuring 48 others, will be charged with intentional homicide. he's been named as 39—year—old darrell brooks. austrians are once again living under full national lockdown restrictions. it's the first european union country to reimpose such a measure this autumn, reflecting surging covid infections as winter looms. it will run for between 10—20 days. the leaders of belgium and the netherlands have criticised violence seen in their countries over the weekend, linked to protests against coronavirus restrictions. the women's tennis association says it still has concerns about the well—being of the chinese tennis star peng shuai, despite the international olympic committee having a video call with the player. in a moment, we'll be taking a look

at tomorrow's front pages in the papers, but first, some breaking news coming to us in the past few minutes. mps have backed government plans to reform social care in england. the ayes to the right, 272. the noes to the left, 246. mps approved the plans by 272 to 246, which will see the basic plan for someone�*s personal care caped at £86,000 over a person's lifetime. the late changes to the reform drew uproar from the opposition and upset some conservative mps. what does all this mean? let's get more on this from our

political correspondent, helen catt. hi, helen. iwonder hi, helen. i wonder if you could lay out for us what actually took place in the comments tonight and what it means going forward. this in the comments tonight and what it means going forward.— in the comments tonight and what it means going forward. this was a vote on a specific — means going forward. this was a vote on a specific new— means going forward. this was a vote on a specific new clause _ means going forward. this was a vote on a specific new clause that - means going forward. this was a vote on a specific new clause that the - on a specific new clause that the government had inserted into this bill, and it was to do with this lifetime cap on care costs. it says nobody will pay more than £86,000 towards the cost of their personal care, and that's things like washing and dressing. it does not include things like the cost of food. but it would at £86,000. the clause of the government had introduced, which is the thing that all the controversy was about, what happened to people who have assets of less than £100,000? if you have that, you can qualify for government support to help you with the costs of care, but the government's call said whatever the government's call said whatever the state pays to help you would not count towards the £86,000, so you

would still eventually over time potentially have to pay £86,000, and what mps have been saying is that means someone with lower at that's over all wood and up losing a bigger proportion —— with lower assets would end up. the example was perhaps a house in northern england, you're going to lose more than in the southeast. some conservative mps were quite unhappy about this too, saying in the commons that they felt they have it been produced. they were voting without knowing what the impact was. it was introduced at quite a late stage and they didn't feel they have proper time to discuss it. that is reflected in the vote, as you read out. 272 to 246. only by 26 votes. it's got a

majority of 80, implying that quite a number of conservative mps either voted against the government or not at all. we want to know for sure until we get the breakdown, but that's what those numbers suggest. as far as boris johnson that's what those numbers suggest. as far as borisjohnson goes, what does this mean. what the government saysis does this mean. what the government says is this plan means that nobody will be worse off than they are now and many will be a lot better off, at the moment you would put a up to the value ofjust £23,000, so they've been arguing for this in the lan will they've been arguing for this in the plan will now _ they've been arguing for this in the plan will now go — they've been arguing for this in the plan will now go to _ they've been arguing for this in the plan will now go to the _ they've been arguing for this in the plan will now go to the house - they've been arguing for this in the plan will now go to the house of i plan will now go to the house of lords to look at this as well. but it does come... it's another example of mps not feeling that they need to toe the line on this one when it comes to voting, and we seen this quite a few times. and there is unhappiness with in the conservative party. by the leadership in recent

weeks. i think this will feed into that as well.— weeks. i think this will feed into that as well. just very quickly, do ou have that as well. just very quickly, do you have any _ that as well. just very quickly, do you have any sense _ that as well. just very quickly, do you have any sense as _ that as well. just very quickly, do you have any sense as to - that as well. just very quickly, do you have any sense as to why - that as well. just very quickly, do | you have any sense as to why this was so last—minute? a lot of mps have been saying they don't have the detail. why the rush? why wasn't it part of the white paper expected at the end of the year?— the end of the year? those are the auestions the end of the year? those are the questions that _ the end of the year? those are the questions that mps _ the end of the year? those are the questions that mps have _ the end of the year? those are the questions that mps have been - the end of the year? those are the i questions that mps have been asking because this bill has been quite a number of stages. the question is why has the government chose to add this. matt hancock was suggesting it was just a clarification, this. matt hancock was suggesting it wasjust a clarification, and it was always implied that the limit would be on how much an individual contributed. a lot of his colleagues on the back benches did not agree that was the impression, but that is what's being asked. at this late stage in the bill.— stage in the bill. we'll leave it there for now. _

hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are author and journalist rachel shabi and the chief political correspondent for the daily mail, harriet line. hello to both of you. we're going to take a look through some of those front pages. the metro says the prime minister is accused of losing the plot in a rambling speech to the cbi. the i's lead story is scientists urging people to take a covid test before shopping for christmas and other high—risk settings. the telegraph has a warning by lord frost, who says britain cannot carry on as it did before brexit and must cut taxes and reduce regulation.

the ft saysjoe biden is choosing continuity in picking jay powell to chair the federal reserve. that was a flavour of some of the front pages. let's start off with what we have. thank you very much forjoining us. rachel, if you could start us off at the front page of the metro. what do you make of that headline? it’s you make of that headline? it's re you make of that headline? it�*s pretty reflective of the sort of... he really did make a pig's year of this speech. incoherent, rambling, the reference to peppa pig. i don't even know what that was about. the thing is though that borisjohnson has been rambling and incompetent for quite some time. it's just that he was given a pass for a very long time, and it seems that now, that is no longer the case. perhaps it's gone on too long and people's

patient has one thing, but it is reflective of the sort of headlines and responses we're getting to his speech today. and responses we're getting to his speech today-— and responses we're getting to his speech today. harriet, what did you make of it? — speech today. harriet, what did you make of it? i _ speech today. harriet, what did you make of it? i thought _ speech today. harriet, what did you make of it? i thought quite - speech today. harriet, what did you make of it? i thought quite a - speech today. harriet, what did you | make of it? i thought quite a number of speeches — make of it? i thought quite a number of speeches ? _ make of it? i thought quite a number of speeches ? mac _ make of it? i thought quite a number of speeches ? mac watched, - make of it? i thought quite a number of speeches ? mac watched, and it i of speeches ? mac watched, and it was definitely the most entertaining. —— wash. comparing himself_ entertaining. —— wash. comparing himself to— entertaining. —— wash. comparing himself to moses, speaking about peppa _ himself to moses, speaking about peppa pig and painfully losing his place _ peppa pig and painfully losing his place about three seconds. that's not necessarily the easiest audience either— not necessarily the easiest audience either for— not necessarily the easiest audience either for the prime minister, business _ either for the prime minister, business leaders. he's made some not very positive _ business leaders. he's made some not very positive comments about business _ very positive comments about business before. but it's really interesting how this has gone down interesting how this has gone down in a reaction we had to it. there's been _ in a reaction we had to it. there's been criticism over downing street's operation, _ been criticism over downing street's operation, as well as directed from inside _ operation, as well as directed from inside downing street at the prime

minister_ inside downing street at the prime minister and whether he needs to change _ minister and whether he needs to change his stance a little bit to -et change his stance a little bit to get a _ change his stance a little bit to get a grip— change his stance a little bit to get a grip or whether he needs to take a _ get a grip or whether he needs to take a look— get a grip or whether he needs to take a look at those advising him and telling him how to operate. just before we and telling him how to operate. jut before we move on, do you think that this first stage of the vote this evening — all remind you of the numbers. 272, 26 votes. do you think this will... ., ~ ., �* , numbers. 272, 26 votes. do you think this will... ., ~ ., �*, ., this will... no, i think that's a really bad _ this will... no, i think that's a really bad result. _ this will... no, i think that's a really bad result. obviously, i this will... no, i think that's a i really bad result. obviously, the bill skirted through, but look at that loss. from an 80 majority down to 26. that's going to be incredibly worrying, and it should be. he's lost confidence of a lot of his mps, notjust lost confidence of a lot of his mps, not just over this social lost confidence of a lot of his mps, notjust over this social care bill which angered a lot of mps, but also

other things in the last few weeks. the fiasco over hs2 and many other instances. his reaction to the tory corruption scandal. he is losing the confidence of his own mps. and i repeat, none of this is new. we all knew that this was what boris johnson was like. we knew it in 2019, we know it now. now it's a few years later, and the cost of his incompetence is in deaths and hardship and misery across the country. but it was all known, it was just that people wanted to take that gamble on him because it advance their interests and careers, and now it's starting not to and they're worried. i'm going to put the same question to harriet, because it has yet to go through the lords. two characters have indicated, saying it's likely

to be thrown back to the commons. i wonder if you could answer that. we will turn to the guardian. that ties in nitely to what you said. if you could just pick up. j in nitely to what you said. if you could just pick up.— could just pick up. i mean, the guardian has _ could just pick up. i mean, the guardian has some _ could just pick up. i mean, the guardian has some pretty - guardian has some pretty extraordinary quotes. a former cabinet — extraordinary quotes. a former cabinet minister says there is an accumulation of things building up. as accumulation of things building up. as rachel_ accumulation of things building up. as rachel was saying, things like hsz have — as rachel was saying, things like hsz have angered a lot of northern tory mps _ hsz have angered a lot of northern tory mps as well as the sleaze headlines. very unhelpful for the prime _ headlines. very unhelpful for the prime minister, and taxes is a big problem — prime minister, and taxes is a big problem. highertax burden prime minister, and taxes is a big problem. higher tax burden is not great _ problem. higher tax burden is not great for— problem. higher tax burden is not great for a — problem. higher tax burden is not great for a party that has prided great fora party that has prided itself_ great for a party that has prided itself on — great for a party that has prided itself on being a party of very low taxation — itself on being a party of very low taxation. it's been a very tricky for weeks. _ taxation. it's been a very tricky forweeks, perhaps taxation. it's been a very tricky for weeks, perhaps longer for that.

the guardian says he is losing confidence of the tory party, and that vote — confidence of the tory party, and that vote tonight is reflective that even if _ that vote tonight is reflective that even if this isjust on one issue, there's— even if this isjust on one issue, there's a — even if this isjust on one issue, there's a problem here with whipping. that is a sizeable rebellion. we don't know how many have yet _ rebellion. we don't know how many have yet. but that is a big dent to the prime — have yet. but that is a big dent to the prime minister, and i think if you needed something to give him a waka-up— you needed something to give him a wake—up call, something needs to change. _ wake—up call, something needs to change, that will be it. wake-up call, something needs to change, that will be it.— wake-up call, something needs to change, that will be it. we're going to stay with — change, that will be it. we're going to stay with the _ change, that will be it. we're going to stay with the guardian _ change, that will be it. we're going to stay with the guardian and - to stay with the guardian and uncharted waters, it was one of the big ones at one of the bigger energy is now over 20 —— and now over 20 companies have gone bust. jt’s is now over 20 -- and now over 20 companies have gone bust.- companies have gone bust. it's a hue companies have gone bust. it's a huge problem. — companies have gone bust. it's a huge problem, and _ companies have gone bust. it's a huge problem, and not - companies have gone bust. it's a huge problem, and notjust- companies have gone bust. jt�*s a. huge problem, and notjust for the workers, but for the customers that they serve. this is going to put tremendous pressure on households

who are already worrying about spiralling costs of living, but it's just indicative to me of the catastrophic decision to put energy companies in private owner shot in the first place. it shows you that vital services absolutely should not be in private hands. the market does not know best. it has shown that it can't to the right thing in this case. and it's a real shame that they would ever privatise this. harriet, it's been put into something called special administration, which is a new classification basically meaning it's too big to fail. it is concerning because you do start to think, who's going to pay the bills? customers are struggling anyway. exactly, and it's probably going to be a taxpayer and we all face higher

energy— be a taxpayer and we all face higher energy bills next year. the government have stepped in on this. those _ government have stepped in on this. those customers should be protected under— those customers should be protected under this— those customers should be protected under this special administration scheme — under this special administration scheme because in particular, for this company, it is the seventh largest— this company, it is the seventh largest and deemed almost too big. but the _ largest and deemed almost too big. but the government have to sefton —— step in _ but the government have to sefton —— step in this— but the government have to sefton —— step in this is— but the government have to sefton —— step in. this is the 23rd company to collapse _ step in. this is the 23rd company to collapse since august. that's a really — collapse since august. that's a really worrying sign and we're only 'ust really worrying sign and we're only just beginning to feel the cold temperatures. where will we be by christmas? it's definitely a very frightening time for low income households. let's turn to the telegraph, and our first story on this paper, you mentioned earlier — cut taxes or rectus will fail, says crossed —— brexit will fail. rectus will fail, says crossed -- brexit will fail.— brexit will fail. it's quite revealing _ brexit will fail. it's quite revealing of _ brexit will fail. it's quite revealing of what - brexit will fail. it's quite

revealing of what brexit| brexit will fail. it's quite - revealing of what brexit was all about. david crossed concluded it was the uk to turn into the slow tax haven. deregulated singapore in the uk. the idea that we should get rid of regulations that protect workers and the environment, you would really have to question that and where it is coming from. but more to the point, it's interesting when you look at taxes, the tax burden that the conservatives have arranged for the conservatives have arranged for the nation is very much falling on the nation is very much falling on the shoulders of the people least able to avoid it. i'm certainly all for increased taxation on the highest earners or perhaps a millionaire tax or perhaps a

windfall tax on some of the companies that make huge