13/07/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Details emerge of

the Parliamentary Commission into Banking Standards this morning, and

one member of the Treasury Select Committee has already branded it a

"whitewash". We'll have the latest from Westminster.

Almost a year on from the riots - the government announce plans to

speed up the courts process. We'll ask the criminal justice minister

how it will work and whether it will serve or rush justice.

And we'll ask the question that really matters to voters - will the

gloomy economic weather ever improve?

And it's 50 years since this kindly looking gentleman did in seven of

his cabinet colleagues. We'll remember Harold Macmillan and the

All that in the next hour. And senses it is the final programme

from the poor September -- until September, we have spared no

expense. We have paid for Allister Heath, and Jackie Ashley. You don't

get that on Newsnight! Let's start with that Parliamentary Commission

on Banking Standards formed amid some controversy in the wake of the

LIBOR scandal. We have some detail of what it will look at and who

will do the looking. Let's go over to Carole Walker for the latest.

Understand there is already a row about the composition of this

investigation. It hasn't had the easiest of launchers. We heard this

morning that the five MPs are going to be from the Treasury Select

Committee, as we expected, chaired by Andrew Tyrie. He is going to be

joined by Mark Garnier, a Conservative MP, for Labour there

is going to be Andy Love and Pat McFadden, and John Thurso will be

there for the Lib Dems. But there are no places for people like John

Mann, the rather outspoken Labour member of the committee, others who

had talked frankly about the committee failing to pin down Bob

Diamond. People like David Ruffley, who is known as a pugnacious

questioner, or Jesse Norman who clashed with the Prime Minister

over Lords reform recently. John Mann has already said that he

thinks the whole thing is a total joke and a whitewash, he is

threatening to set up his own alternative inquiry. Given that

Labour wanted a different inquiry from the start, they wanted an

independent commission led by a judge, it certainly has not been

the easiest of launches for this effort to try and get to the bottom

of what has gone wrong with our banks. Thanks to that. An excellent

summary of what the situation is. Allister Heath, John Mann can be a

bit of a grandstand up. I understand that. But you do want

some trouble makers, and they have kept off all the troublemakers on

the right and the left. There are could be members of the House of

Lords, we don't know who debt are. I bet you they are not

troublemakers! But at least they have got a barrister. I would like

to see some answers. I am sick of the political showcasing and

grandstanding, bullying in front of cameras, what we really need are

answers, and we have had too few answers. But I agree it is a bad

start. On the other hand, Andrew Tyrie is someone who will want to

build a name for himself, so I don't think it is a whitewash.

John Mann was the people's voice, Jackie Ashley, they are not on it?

At the is odd, the people who have been left off. I think John Mann

does a lot of the insults, he isn't really getting into the forensic

evidence. He is the Tom Watson of the select committee! People are

saying that maybe Nigel Lawson might come on in the Lords, that

could be interesting. But where are the women? We have got John Thurso,

Andy Love... I am so glad you're noticing this! I have been noticing

these things for years. He appointed the first female editor

of the Scotsman? Don't start me! Pat McFadden is a man for those who

don't know. We will wait to see. The point I'm making is, it doesn't

seem the most high-powered committee, into a world which can

cover you in cotton wool. In many ways, that is the problem with MPs.

Not many are knowledgeable about the intricacies of high-level

banking and so on. So maybe they will appoint other experts later.

I think we have to hope for the Lords. They understand the banking

industry, not many people do. talking about criminals now.

Criminals could go through the justice system in a matter of hours

under new plans drawn up by the government. Ministers say they were

impressed by how quickly the courts dealt with the riots last year, and

they're keen to use this experience to speed up the system in general.

This morning the Ministry of Justice published a white paper

with the title "Swift and Sure Justice", which details a number of

proposals to get things moving quicker. Court hours will be more

flexible, with magistrates sitting at weekends and bank holidays, and

there will be more use of technology with police, defendants

and witnesses being able to give evidence by video link. Magistrates

could sit outside courts in places like community centres for low-

level uncontested cases, and neighbourhood justice panels will

be brought in to deal with anti- social behaviour and other minor

offences. What's more, there will be a new "Justice Test" to help

police officers on the beat make decisions on how to deal with

offenders and magistrates will be able to scrutinise police use of

cautions and penalty notices. Ministers hope shoplifting cases

that currently take five weeks will be dealt with in 13 days or fewer

in future, and some uncontested cases could take just a matter of

hours. Joining me now is the Police and Criminal Justice Minister Nick

Herbert who launched the white paper this morning. Is this about

speeding up justice or saving money? No, it is about speeding up

justice. We were impressed by the speed that justice was delivered

after the riots, and the significance of that was it didn't

require any legal changes, didn't compromise the rights of defendants.

There was an in-built culture of delay that was applying in normal

operation of criminal justice, and victims reedy lost out. It sent a

clear message to offenders if these issues are brought to justice as

soon as possible. We know that in many cases, because the majority of

cases are uncontested, simple, don't involve going to trial, that

can happen within hours and days, particularly through the use of new

technology. But some of the rulings, some of the justice after the riots,

it may have been something to do with the speed, they were out of

kilter with the sentences normally handed out for that kind of

behaviour. They were much longer. They were exemplary sentences,

handed down by eight judges he thought it was necessary to send

out a signal. That wasn't a speedy issue. It did clear and very clear

message to the offenders, and they were upheld by the Court of Appeal,

significantly. I think the public broadly judged that was right. When

we were studying why cases are taking so long, and from the

commission of an offence to it been sentenced in a magistrate's course,

-- Court, it takes five months on average two. In the 16 weeks of

time in court, there were six hours of actual work involved, the rest

of the time was just delayed. So there was a cultural problem. So we

can bring these cases board much more quickly, which I think is what

the public wants. You are more likely to get things wrong, we all

do, the more we tried to read things quickly, the more prone we

are to mistakes. That must be a danger to the court system as well.

Things go wrong at the moment. day will go more wrong? But can you

imagine if you run an airline or any other organisation... Not in

the normal course of things, you don't. There may be some

cancellations, but not half of the and. There are problems at the

moment, it is about making sure resources are allocated sensibly,

and the judiciary are going to bring forward more straightforward

cases and guilty pleas sooner, that is in the interests of justice.

you have the court on your side on this? They are famous for going

slowly, they run for the benefit of those to work in the courts rather

than the public, do you have their agreement? Are they going to say

you can do this if you give them more dosh? We are giving a stronger

role for the magistracy, Victim Support welcomes this proposal. I

don't think it is surprising, because I think victims of the big

losers. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Magna Carter said just

as it should not be delayed, and it is unnecessarily delayed in this

country. I think he could be something more about the hours that

the court said, because from what I understand, they sit for about in

the morning and a couple of hours in the afternoon. Surely that is an

easy way of getting more courses -- case it into court, rather than

having this rather bizarre idea of community sentences. That is what

we are putting, more flexible hours. That fits in with today's work

patterns, and also fits in with where crime may be committed. We

are piloting later openings in the evenings and opening on Sunday,

which could eat a lot of the demand that sometimes comes in over the

weekend. So it is about smarter working, modern employment

practices, and the rights to show that if you have a concentration of

cases, it is so important that offenders understand that sure

justice will be applied. They will be dealt with immediately. It is

not just about to Verity, it is about certainty that the system is

going to deal with you properly. think it is good to speed the

springs up, but I'm sure -- concerned about costs, and having

looked at how other countries do it? Have they managed to

successfully accelerate the process? But did you think there

are going to be issues with the cost? It I think you're right there

is a danger with cost, that is why we are putting these schemes, but

the criminal justice system costs �20 billion a year, it is what the

most expensive in the world. Generally, our systems that are

inefficient are ones that are spending money wisely. Other

systems have realised that they have to change working patterns in

order to adapt. Have any other countries managed to speed up

justice to the degree that you of trying to do can have you gone

abroad? There is a limit to the amount we should do that, because

of what we dog would do is undermine our principles of justice,

that it is always fair, the people could have their day in court.

We're not going to get rid of a jury trial, we have other ways we

think we can deter cases answers are already coming to court without

undermining that fundamental right. So it is about real issues of

efficiency that we can look at. It is not just a question of saying

that we are going to have caught open during the week and opening

longer, criminals don't observe these hours. Some do, there are

quite lazy criminals! The big question is this, when these

magistrates going to the community to dish out justice, can you give

us a guarantee the security will not be provided by brute force?

Just to say that up and down the country, there are private sector

organisations delivering criminal- justice services at this moment for

police forces and prisons and courts transport, initiated by the

last government. I just came in behind a plan that would have been

transporting this -- prisoners to jail, police forces use the private

sector to run their cells, this all happened very successfully, it

reduces cost and provides a better service for the public. So is that

a yes or a note? A I wasn't answering your question, of course!

A I knew that! I am trying to make a wider point, I do think there is

a difference between the Olympics, a huge one soft -- one-off event.

This may work, but I find it hard to believe that if it does, people

are going to have to work longer hours, you will need more people to

speed things up, but in the end it will cost more money. Other expect

-- I don't accept for dealing with inefficiency costs money. We have

got to make sure of this. The justice system must be run in the

interests of victims and the public. It is not run for the convenience

of the professionals, that is a Do not go away. You don't need to

understand quantitative easing, bond markets, futures trading or

interest rates to know we have been in tricky economic times recently

and most of us just want to know one thing... When might it get

better? Some say growth and confidence will return late next

year, others that we'll feel gloomy for much longer. Giles has been

testing the economic weather and tried a bit of forecasting. NPower

lots of us, asking the question, when will it all end, is a bit like

the question we have all been asking about the weather? For some

of us, it seems as if the prospects are really very gloomy indeed.

signs are not good. It looks like we may still be in recession at the

moment. Even if we do struck growing again, there is no signs it

will be at previous levels. -- start growing. When Mervyn King

says we're halfway through a ten- year period, that makes me very

worried. When you trawl back through history and look at cans of

recession stories, those continue a long time after the recession has

actually ended. -- counts. problem here is not everyone's

forecast is the same. Some would say things are a lot brighter and

sunnier than you might expect economically. Some have a vested

interest in saying that. Others point to significant independent

figures suggesting things could get a lot better than we might think.

am very optimistic. We have a good base to build on. Where the second

largest exporter of services. We have a great base to build on. --

we are the second. The Government recognises some of the challenges

we are facing. One way it will feel better is the squeeze on household

incomes we have had in recent years will go away. We think there will

be some growth in real earnings over the next couple of years. Over

the last four years, he had seen a decline of 7% in household income.

-- we have seen. The real problem comes the sunshine and showers.

Could it be that politicians will not tell us when the financial

crisis may come to an end because the honest truth is they have no

idea? I think every forecast it ever looked at, nine times out of

10, it was incorrect. It is very difficult to try to predict what

would happen. That is right. It is hard to make predictions about

where the economy will be next week. They predict both good and bad

anyway. Why might they want to float a more gloomy outlook past us

poor punters? It is better to set people's expectations low and be

positively surprised on the upside. Possibly you can take some credit

for that surprise. And Nick Herbert is still with us. Why has our

recovery been the more lacklustre of the G8 economies? All sorts of

factors, including performance of the eurozone. That makes recovery

slower than Germany and France. had a huge allowance of -- on

financial services. It is the principal export market of Germany

as well. It is not all gloom. That was drawn attention to buy some who

were interviewed. If you look the Shia at the performance of our car

industry, new investment and new jobs. -- this year. There was an

improvement and narrowing of the trade deficit. That export was to

none eurozone countries, like China. In the last two years we have

created 800 Paras and private sector jobs. A lot of them part-

time! -- 800,000. These are not people who wanted part-time jobs.

They want full-time jobs. There have been successes. Though should

be talked about as well. We have a situation where we have got on top

of the deficit. That has been reduced by a quarter. The action we

have taken has enabled historically low interest rates, which is

incredibly important. Can I just remind you in this picture of the

booming economy you are painting - overall the big picture is what

matters? Living standards have been squeezed for longer and more deeply

than any time since the 1920s. Unemployment is 2.5 million. There

has been a growth in this economy since she came to power. There

prospect of it in the foreseeable future. No one is in any doubt it

was a damaging recession. We were particularly exposed to it because

of our reliance on financial- services. We were ill prepared for

it because we had a budget deficit. That was one problem the last

government bequeathed asked. We had a massive spending problem. The

bigger argument is about how to deal with these problems and the

fact we have got on top of the deficit and built a strong

foundations. We have produced it by a quarter. What will the deficit ft

by 2015? I cannot tell you. -- deficit be. It will be higher than

France and Italy and Germany today. Let me finish the point. It will

still be the highest deficit of any G eight country by 2015. You know

that we have a plan to eliminate the bulk of the deficit by the end

of this Parliament. That is an incredibly challenging thing to do

- requiring reductions in public spending. They have been opposed

that at every turn by the Labour Party. When you came to power, you

said you have sorted the deficit fell by 2015. In the pre-Budget

report, you told us I need another two years - I need to have 2017.

The Cabinet Secretary and the Governor of the Bank of England say

it will wait till 2020. He did not say that about the deficit. I am

reminded me of that the significant progress we have already made.

is the economy not growing battle? There have been a combination of

things, haven't they? -- at all. The problem in the eurozone is

really serious and the collapse of demand. Very high commodity prices

and this general issue of confidence. We have to be careful

about talking down the things that are done. The situation is

depressing. The economy is shrinking. Who knows what will

happen in the third quarter? It might shrink. The Olympics will

make it shrink. They're having a lot of negative effect. The

Government has not done enough to boost the competitiveness of the

economy. There has been too much of the old policies when it comes to

many things, including monetary policy. Inflation has been too high.

Inflation has started to fall a bit. Too much of the policy is about

monetary policy and the idea we need to boost credit by bank

lending and so on were not doing enough when it comes to the tax

system and regulation. -- while not doing. The airport business is a

big blunder. Planning has been made easier. I cannot see that. It is

the same as before. The national debt is going up. I cannot see how

we can have a proper recovery. I can't see how the forecasts of

George Osborne will materialise. you sum up what is being said, you

could hit the 2015 election with no growth in this economy, correct?

will challenge some of those things. There have been important changes.

We eliminated the jobs touch and reduced national insurance.

still went up. -- jobs tax. We have reduced the amount of corporation

tax. There have been apprenticeships. Changes to the way

in which we employ people. It is incredibly important for

competitiveness. It is wrong to suggest nothing has been done in

these areas. You have put up capital gains tax and VAT. There is

a massive budget deficit that has to be dealt with. We have secured a

reduction in that by reducing public spending. Excuse me,

minister! The figures up on your own government red boat. Most of

the production in the deficit has been done by raising taxes. -- Red

Book. Far too many people are out of the job -- a job as a result of

spending cuts. The programme to reduce spending actually is

something that has been opposed at every turn by the left and by the

Labour Party. And yet it is the thing that has enabled us to build

a foundation of market confidence. I think it has been perfectly clear

over the last couple of years that austerity measures happened too far

and too fast. There is no growth. There is no sign of anything yet,

is there? I gave a list of things where there were signs. What we

should do now is to increase public spending and have more borrowing

with all the consequences that will have in terms of market confidence.

As a consequence of that a rise in interest rates will be the worst

thing we can do. What a bad if unemployment keeps going up? --

what about. I talked about the creation of private sector jobs. We

heard a big structural problem of youth unemployment, even in the

good years. -- had. There are fundamental problems we need to

address. That is linked to welfare reforms. All of these measures are

incredibly important. We have brought forward the structure.

You're in an interesting position. One person wants a lot more supply-

side reform. Someone else who wants a more traditional Keynesian

stimulus. You do not satisfy either of these. What they're doing is not

working. There is a different stimulus. There are considerable

military activities going on to release credit into the economy. --

monetary. The pundits warned they said that would have inflationary

consequences. It is coming down. We have an National Loans guarantee

scheme. There is a new lending scheme in order to try to get

lending to business. Lending is still not coming through. There has

been a huge problem with that. We have announced a new scheme with

that. This 325 billion and another 50 that has gone into the economy,

where is that money? There is a problem that banks have not been

lending to small businesses. We have set up the loan guarantee

scheme in order to incentivised that. -- incentivised. Where is the

325 billion? Where has it gone? is in the economy. Somewhere but no

one can find it. It is not in the pay-off of Bob Diamond, is it? You

have been a good sport. They are very hostile. I apologise. He is a

feminist. We are off now! Thanks for coming in. If I do not see you

again, have a good summer. Government plans to clean up

lobbying have been thrown into doubt today. A scathing report from

the Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee says the

Government's plans will only scratch the surface and do little

to improve transparency. The Government is planning to introduce

a statutory register of all those who lobby on behalf of third

parties. But the committee says this plan should be scrapped and,

instead, regulations should be introduced to cover all those who

lobby professionally. Not just businesses but charities, trade

unions and so on. You may remember that, before he became Prime

Minister, David Cameron identified lobbying as a major problem and

pledged to sort it out. Let's look at what he said: It is the next big

scandal waiting to happen. It is an issue which crosses party lines and

has tainted politics for too long. It exposes the far too cosy

relationship between politics, government, business and money. I

am talking about lobbying. We know how it works - the lunches, the

hospitality - advisers for hire. Helping big business to get its way.

In this party we believe in competition and not cronyism. We

believe in market economics and not crony capitalism. We must sort this

Joining me now from Cardiff is the Labour MP Paul Flynn who sits on

the Committee, and here. Let me come to you first. But the

committee doesn't like would be government plans because you don't

think it goes far enough. expression we news is that it only

scratches the surface. 95% of lobbyists will be left off the hook.

We heard the words of David Cameron, he was a lobbyist in his previous

incarnation, had he says it means money buying power and PoW fishing

for money. What has he done in a government? Absolutely nothing to

reform it. The great crusade against lobbying has sunk his snout

so deeply into the trough that or you can see are the sort of his

Gucci shoes. We have seen scandal after scandal, at the worst was

decried as a scandal, when it included buying a place to sit at

David Cameron's table, �250,000 was the charge made it you wanted to

dine with the Prime Minister. We have seen the scandals over Liam

Fox, what was going on with a lobbyist influencing... I didn't

want you to get everything knock on won't answer! For me the biggest

revelation was that you pick the Prime Minister wears Gucci shoes!

He is up to his... Jane Wilson, using to be happy -- you seemed to

be happy that they go to drop his plan to register them. We were in

the unusual position when we gave evidence one said this proposal

didn't go far enough, but it did scratch the surface. The committee

came back as they have and we think if a register has to be universal,

everyone who lobbies professionally. What would be wrong with that?

agree with that very much, this is support from all parties, and

virtually all witnesses. The Tory majority on the committee agree

that the government proposal doesn't go far enough, and the

lobbyists who gave evidence also do same thing. That we must have root-

and-branch reform of lobbying, or we will continue to have a

government that is up for sale to stop there is a claim that �92

million was spent by the financial industry last year it in order to

subvert government policy. What we see his policies are been corrupted

by the influence of lobbyists, the government are leaning over and

taking the money from the lobbyists and altering their policies

accordingly. There is a very good system for non for profit pensions,

and that was watered down because of the cash spent by the financial

industry to subvert government. me bringing Jane Wilson here. Do

you want a register of lobbyists? Or we think the government is

intent on registering lobbyists. What is your policy? We think a

register could improve transparency, it could be a good thing, and did

the problem is transparency, this could go some way to preventing it.

Do you think everybody should be on this register, she did include a --

charities, who are huge lobbyists in their own right? We used to it

frees are no good cause exemptions. We think the financial burden

should be looked at, but charitable organisations, with the Charities

Act been overturned, they have them as campaigners. The I think they

should all be registered, wheelie bin transparent times, and I think

it is time we should have everybody registered. I did something

ridiculous is happening, which is that all the pressure from

businesses is happening privately, it should have been publicly. They

should be an open debate about political stop I'm a business

journalist, they never talk on the record but they spend money on

lobbyists. What do you think will happen next? There will be an

announcement next week and I think the Government will stick to an

inadequate policy. But I believe that all parties, all of the

witnesses who came before our committees said the same thing. We

need a reform similar to what they have had in the US and Canada,

otherwise they might well be a collapse of trust in the political

system. We shall see what happens. Both of you, thank you very much.

It was a political whodunnit that wasn't hard to sort of. Because it

was the Prime Minister in Number 10, the night of a very long knife.

It's 50 years ago today - Friday 13th - since mild-mannered Harold

Macmillan carried out the most brutal reshuffle in British

political history. We'll discuss that - and whether David Cameron

might have a reshuffle up his sleeve - in a moment, but first

here's a familiar face who had a ringside seat on the Night of the

50 years ago the Prime Minister Harold Bellman and carried out one

of the most dramatic and bloody reshuffles in political history, he

sacked seven of his Cabinet. The most prominent was the Chancellor

of the Exchequer. I was working as a young intern for Selwyn Lloyd, so

The day started with me bringing in the newspapers to Selwyn Lloyd in

his flat, about 745 at him, and suddenly our eyes: the headline in

the Daily Mail. It it's at least said, the Chancellor is going to be

sacked. He said this was just a journalist pasha. Then there was a

big surprise mid-morning. Suddenly there appeared in the Chancellor's

office the private sector -- secretary of the Prime Minister. He

astonished us by saying, I'm afraid my master has some bad news for

your master. De Prime Minister has decided to after be charged led to

resign. I wonder if you wouldn't mind breaking this bad news 2

Selwyn Lloyd? I said, bloody well tell him yourself! He didn't want

to pass this on pre- 19-year-old student. Macmillan himself called

Selwyn Lloyd the most loyal colleague he had ever had, they

have been close colleagues for a long time. I spent the evening with

a man who was shattered, several whiskies were poured out, suddenly

the door bell rang, and the person at the door was the Post Office

engineer he said, I have come to remove the high-security scrambler

telephone. I remember thinking, how quickly power fades. It was botched

because it was done not in a carefully planned operation,

scheduled in Manila in's mind, it had to be brought forward in a

great panic because of the leak. Harold Goodman ended badly and

whose belief. -- Harold Macmillan. The first lesson is, don't rush

into it. It is not a bad idea to rejuvenate a government. But if

you're going to do it, do it more skilfully and thoughtfully and

strategically than the Night of the I'm joined now by Jonathan Aitken

and by Peter Riddell from the Institute for Government. Let's

just remember what the context was. The Tories had been in power for 11

years by then. The government seemed to be belonging to a

different Britain, the government wasn't that popular, there were

problems with inflation and strikes. Harold Macmillan seemed to belong

to the Edwardian age to stop this was a dramatic attempt at to

Cardiff could the government into the 1960s? It was, but no one

needed dragging more than Harold Macmillan himself, who was the

personification of it, and in that interview I tried to reconstruct

between self and -- Selvan Lloyd and him, Selwyn Lloyd said to him,

of course of my job is disposable, but by air for a great worry that I

will turn out to be Strafford to your King Charles at first. That is

what turned out to happen. But in the end, in a centre it almost

worked. Because the Tories did change things, picking someone with

an even bigger grasp for image. They brought in Douglas-Home. Be

brought in to be younger names. By 1964, after 13 years of Tory rule,

in a vastly changing Britain, Harold Wilson managed to win by

Annie four seats. You have given an interesting point, everyone looks

at the drama, the mistakes made, but the key to reshuffles is, do

they result in a change of policy? Objection to Selwyn Lloyd was the

sense that he was too much a cautious Chancellor. What happened

was that led to an expansionary policy, that is really what

produced such a close result, because there was an enormous boom.

The Hanover last of for the rest of the Sixties. Most people don't care

who moved, but if it results in a change of policy, that is where the

evidence shows. This was a reshuffle that did have that impact.

Would any Prime Minister attempt to do this sort of thing to date?

Margaret Thatcher, when she moved Geoffrey Howe out of the foreign

office, that was a botched job for all kinds of reasons, there was a

row about who was going to live in which house, but seven other

cabinet ministers changed jobs, it camouflaged the fact that she was

really getting rid of one. I have seen reshuffles go wrong again.

many lessons, I would suggest for David Cameron. Do you see any

reshuffle? I think even this morning, people are saying, is it

coming this side of the recess? think he will. The problem for

David Cameron is he would love to reshuffle some of the Lib Dems! But

of course he can't. So he was stuck with those elements. Should he

change his Chancellor? I think there is a growing case, I think by

September or October he's going to have to think about that carefully.

I'm not advocating what we saw in those days, but I don't think

they'd Cameron says it is sticking to along to the same people to stop

even though the policies are not working. I think the fault in the

years between Blair and Gordon Brown was the constant her labour.

-- turnover. You have got to balance out not only the people but

also the jobs. If you make the business secretary a Tory, when are

you going to get an Lib-Dem? That is why many conditions have very

few reshuffles. The Germans didn't know what the reshuffle meant, they

thought it was some weird British thing. In the Scottish coalition,

they hardly had any. The headline, Night of the Long Knives, that was

in the Express at the time? I think it was. That is the days it was the

most influential paper in the country. I think it brought back

memories of Nazi Germany, as well? I think that is where the original

phrase came from, it was at an episode of German history when all

sorts of people were butchered. But he made a brilliant comeback, a

great lesson for how to behave after you are sacked. Most people

get bitter and angry, but Selwyn Lloyd was impeccable. People kept

saying, he is behaving so well. He has been badly done by the stock

must be a way of bringing him back. That is exactly what happened.

Although this was an attempt to modernise the Macmillan

Conservatives at the time, when it came to the succession to Macmillan

himself, Iain Macleod was still able to write that this was

entirely a magic circle of old Etonians that had taken the

decision to bring in Alec Douglas- Home. But another thing was Butler,

who was the source of the Daily Mail story. Do we know that for

sure? Absolutely. He was a Labour supporter? By a clutch of course

wanted to do everything -- but of course wanted to do everything he

could. Macmillan wanted to exclude Do not go away. We are sticking

with a theme. It is Friday the 13th. Today can be a man lacking day. --

an unlucky day. What better than a Daily Politics celebration of the

There are plenty of elections around the world where candidates

are cheated of victory by cheating. But when you are standing for the

most important office in the world, you don't expect to lose the race

on a technical glitch - foiled by hanging cads - despite getting more

votes than the other guy! -- chads. You're the front runner. The MPs

have voted for you, the party members have voted for you. And

then on the final transfer of votes you get beaten by your kid brother.

Never more have the words you are so getting Bob quashed after this

being carefully whispered. The career of Michael Portillo was

interrupted by the voters of Enfield. By the time he finally did

get to run for the leadership, he missed the train and came in third.

Speaking of which, meet William Huskisson, Liverpool MP and former

President of the Board of Trade, who went to Manchester to open the

world's first passenger railway and while doing so got run over by one

becoming the world's first railway casualty, the first person to be

taken to hospital on a train and the first railway fatality!

Portillo should make a programme about him. And, finally, why keep

all the bad luck to yourself, when you can redistribute it? Mate Lib

Dem Lem bit opaque. He backed Charles Kennedy. He lost his own

seat despite a large swing to the Lib Dems nationally. -- at Lembit

Jonathan Aitken and Peter Red Rock are still with us. Napoleon said he

needed lucky generals and not just military experts. Politicians need

to be lucky as well, don't they? Timing is key. You want to go into

Parliament on the upswing for your party. We have had two long periods

of one-party rule. A lot of Labour politicians never made it to the

Cabinet. They did not have ministerial careers at all. 18

years later, they were in that early Forties. They were touching

60 and did not have Koreas. Exactly 60 and did not have Koreas. Exactly

. Margaret Thatcher had Arthur Scargill running the coal miners'

union. She was lucky in enemies. She had a counter of bailing

tendency which was incredible tenacity. Another politician on the

other side of the Atlantic, Richard Nixon, was very unhappy at one

stage. He won the election in 1960. That was very bad luck. He fought

back against continuous faults. In the end he got elected. Then he had

some rotten luck over Watergate. Where you are unlucky or lucky as a

politician? I made my own luck. Sometimes events for the away.

Sometimes you can help events to for your way. Sometimes you can be

caught but something that - as a good buy something that really is

bad luck. Two-year member Neil Kinnock on the beach? -- caught by

something that really is bad luck. Little things like that, it is

really bad luck. They took you for years to come these images. Tony

Blair was quite lucky as a politician to begin with. He says

he had the bad luck of some vehicle Gordon Brown next door. He also

chose his luck. I still think it is about management ability and

choices. In recent times, who has been a lucky politician? I agree,

Tony Blair. He got out at the right time. There was an element of

Margaret Thatcher. Tony Blair had more perfect timing. I nominate

John Major. He was fairly obscure as a Cabinet minister. Raptures at

the top and he shot up. All things to all men! -- ructions. Then of

course he had something wrong with him when he had to step up.

wisdom teeth! That was lucky. Great fun to go with these things. Back

to modern times. It has been another seven days in coalition

land. Here it is ever fresher of the be combined in 60 seconds. --

the week gone by. The Buckley's rate fixing scandal rumbled on.

George Osborne tried to pin it on to the last Labour government. Was

it the Chancellor's finest hour? No answer. Tory MPs are revolting. Ask

David Cameron. 91 of his troops rebelled over reform. The PM was

ready to point the finger at the ringleader. It turned at G4S had

provided the few and not the many in terms of security staff for the

Olympic site. He called in the Army. PMQs is normally pretty rowdy but

the volume turned up to 11 this week. Did not quite catch that!

High time for a bit of recess banter. Watch out for the arm!

Where does the coalition go from here? There used to be talk of a

so-called coalition 2.0. On that front, things have gone curiously

quiet. Is it possible the idea has been quietly dropped? We are joined

by Linda Jack, who may be able to shed some light. As far as I

understand it, there will be a mid- term review. It will look at how

the coalition has come along in terms of the objectives. Whether

they have been met or not. It is about embedding those objectives.

The whole idea of actually having a follow-up coalition 2.0 has been

dropped. That is a bit sad really. Isn't the reason they are doing

this because they cannot agree on anything to go forward? The one

thing they have stuck to together has been deficit reduction. Despite

people like me trying committee cannot get a cigarette paper

between the two party leaders and their spokesmen on that. They have

discovered that is about the only thing they agree on. There is

probably an element of truth in that. I was not in favour of the

coalition agreement. You wanted another agreement on Mark 2? If we

were going to be stuck there, we ought to have a Mark 2. It is

important for us. When we were discussing it, the feeling was it

would give us more leverage if there was an agreement. We a seeing

people like Michael Gove coming out with another announcement. They

will get their policies in through the back door. Who pulled the plug

on there? I have no idea. I do! You do! I presume the quartet. Which

one Aberu Kebede in the quartet? A tall, angular chap. -- which one in

the quartet? It was Danny Alexander who told us that the plug had been

pulled. The problem, at the moment, they have either implemented bits

of the original agreement or they are unable to do House of Lords

reform. It is kind of done. They have still have another three years

to go before the next election. Without a programme they are more

of a Mikey just to fight all the time. What will make do for the

next few years? -- more likely just to fight. The idea it is just going

to the House of Lords for the next three years has gone out of the

window. The Conservatives are still insisting that the Lib Dems have

done brilliantly out of this. They have all their demands and the

Tories have nothing. The dilemma we have at the moment is I think we

are continually being caught on the back foot. Another idea comes out

and we just have to make a public denouncement of it all just go

along with it. At least the coalition agreement has some

framework around it. You could say it was not in the coalition

agreement. The Lib Dems are not coming up with their own ideas.

is frustrating for those of us who work on the committee. A lot of

work went into the mid-term review. Some of them you will see at

conference. Was it the idea Beth they should go forward to make up a

new coalition agreement? -- that. The committee and the conference

could vote on it - whether they liked it or not. You would not be

able to determine what was inept. will come to you in a second. -- in

it. Denny think it's more likely that some time in 2014, you will

both go your separate ways? Not that that will provoke an election.

The Conservatives will continue as a minority government. You will

both go your separate ways and you will both want to say you can re-

establish its own individual identities. That is quite important.

I would like it done tomorrow. it will happen in 2014, why not

2013? When you start to talk about it all the time you have a big

issue. The first ticking time bomb is the economy. Budget deficit may

be increasing again and the economy shrinking. The second thing is

Europe. What will happen with that and any new constitutional treaty?

What will the UK do about it. is it for today. Thank you to all