07/09/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. The news from

across the Channel and sur le continent is the bazooka has

finally been found. Maybe not a big bazooka, but a bazooka nevertheless.

The European Central Bank has now fleshed out what it means by doing

"whatever it takes" to save the euro. But has it really got the

firepower to consign the eurocrisis to history? We'll hear from Our

Woman in the City. Barack Obama has made his pitch for

four more years in the White House. We'll be live at the Democratic

Convention in North Carolina with reaction to the President's speech.

As the dust settles, the wine bottles are binned and the tears

dry after this week's reshuffle, we'll look at the departments and

ministers to watch in the new Cabinet.

And after scenes like this, you'd be forgiven for thinking that

satire's dead. Not a bit of it. We're joined by one of the stars of

the Thick Of It as the expletive- not-deleted political comedy turns

its fire on the coalition All that in the next hour. With me

for the duration, Gaby Hinsliff - once upon a time, she worked for

the Observer but she's been given a new job over the summer holidays as

political editor of one of my favourite magazines for

intellectual insight, Grazia. So, congratulations, Gaby. I know you

are a keen reader. I publish it in Dubai. And also with me Danny

Finkelstein, he's a columnist for Times newspaper when he's not on

manoeuvres for George Osborne. I'm not sure what he's doing here today

and did which capacity, we will find out.

Let's start with something that hasn't changed over the summer and

will soon be longer running than The Mousetrap - the eurocrisis.

Before Europe's leaders headed for the Med in late July, the boss of

the ECB, Mario Draghi, vowed to do whatever it takes to save the euro.

That kept the markets purring through August. Yesterday, with the

pols back from their hols, the ECB said it would buy, in unlimited

amounts, the government debt of troubled countries like Spain and

Italy, as long as they ask for a bail-out and accepted the IMF-

monitored conditions that came with it. So, a game-changer or just

another can being kicked down the road? Earlier George Osborne, the

Chancellor, very popular at the Olympics, gave the news a thumbs-up

and even said it would help of folks here in Britain. It is a very

welcome announcement from the European Central Bank and what we

have been saying for two a year since we really want the

institutions of the euro to get behind their currency -- two years.

It is of huge interest to the people of Europe and the people of

the United Kingdom because one of the things that has hit the British

economy is the weakness of the euro. Now to find out how the financial

markets have responded to this latest rescue attempt, we're joined

by Louise Cooper of BGC Partners in Canary Wharf. Lilies, great to see

you again. Indeed it is. What a surprise, we are going to talk

about the euro. Am I right in thinking that in 2010-2011, the ECB

already amassed over 200 billion euros in sovereign bonds from

various troubled countries. That didn't seem to make any difference,

why will this? It has got a different name. That was called the

SNP and this is the o n t, so it must be a different beast. No, I

have been sarcastic! Just to get it clear, my understanding is that

even though the markets see it as a get out of jail card for a while,

this does not include any help for Greece, Portugal or Ireland,

because they themselves cannot access the bond markets. OK, what

this does, the financial markets have loved it since he said the

"Whatever it takes" speech, the bond markets and equity markets

have flurried, admittedly on low volume, but it has gone down well

and short-term borrowing costs for Spain and Italy, one, too, three-

year borrowing costs, have halved, they have fallen dramatically. It

sounds like Mario Draghi has come up with at least a step. However,

if you look at long-term borrowing tests -- borrowing costs for Spain

and Italy, they are at a high level. It helps in the near term but there

is still an awful lot that needs to be done. My understanding is that

Greece, Portugal and Ireland are excluded and even Spain and Italy

can only expect the ECB to come in and buy their bombs, it will be on

the secondary market, not directly -- bombs. It is only if they

formally ask for a bail-out and accept conditions that it will be

monitored by the IMF. Mario Draghi and the ECB learned their lesson

from Italy a year ago, when the ECB came in and bought Italian bonds on

the promise from Silvio Berlusconi that he would sort out Italy's

budget deficit. Well, he didn't, he got kicked out of office by Angela

Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and the ECB has learned its lesson. It will

only come into ridges country's -- a country's borrowing costs by

buying the short amount of their debt if those countries accept

essentially direction, fiscal direction and fiscal control, from

outside. The conditionality, as he calls it, is an absolute heart

limit for the ECB now. They have stated they have learned their

lesson. If you want the help of the ECB, you have to give up your

sovereignty of controlling your own finances, and that is very much on

the cards, and unfortunately, Spanish Prime Minister is not keen

on that, because it tends to be political suicide if you call in

the bail-out fund and say you cannot control your finances.

head of the Bundesbank who sits on the ECB council seems to be in a

minority of one but he says it looks too much like state financing

via the money presses. Yes, the Bundesbank is not happy about this.

The hard currency Germans are very unhappy, they don't see it as the

ECB sees it, as helping Baba pot they call it Monetary Policy

Commission, so if the ECB sets low interest rates then interest rates

should be low. The Bundesbank doesn't see it like that, they see

it as minor ties in government debt. We have already seen two Bundesbank

head to leave the ECB, it could well be we get a third. What is

interesting is that the ECB, under Mario Draghi, is almost sticking

two fingers up at the Bundesbank saying we have pandered to you,

done everything, but now we are in fundamental disagreement. The

European Central Bank is not going to be modelled on the Bundesbank of

old. We think the ECB should be modelled more like the Federal

Reserve in the States, that has indulged in massive amounts of

money printing and done all kind of things to backstop America's

banking industry. So this is a significant change, this is the

move from a band has backed European Central Bank to a Federal

Reserve European Central Bank. -- A Bundesbank. This is a significant

move that this is not the ECB of the past based on Germany. Stick

with us, I will bring their guests in. E7, why do I feel this is not

the end of the story -- Danny? Because they have borrowed too much

and this is an attempt to escape the consequences of it. It can't be

a long-term solution. If one country is going to stand for

another country's borrowing, that country will demand political

control of the first country. That political control will not be

seeded until they see the problem of the euro that they created is

that it required a political union that they don't want to rush into

being, they cannot solve the problem. Until individual countries

accept they have to get their borrowing down, they cannot solve

the problem. The financial markets are happy, we are right to be

pleased because it beats we don't have the immediate crisis in Europe

that has been holding us back to some extent, but it is not a long-

term solution. Gaby, from what lilies was saying, if -- lilies was

saying, the smaller countries are excluded because they cannot go to

the bond market, the once this is gear for his Spain and Italy, but

for Madrid and Rome, they will have to ask for a bail-out, that is huge.

It is a huge loss of face and in political terms, what is the point

of being a politician if you are giving away your day-to-day control

for someone else but this is not a new problem. IMF bail-outs carried

the exact same combination of carrot and stick and it is

unreasonable to expect Germany to stand behind the rest of Europe

without any control over what records countries might do. Just to

finish up, I think most people can see this is not a game the Changer,

it is maybe just kicking the can down the road -- a game changed.

While the markets have liked it so far, when they have seen the small

print and realise the hurdles that Rome and Madrid, the political

hurdles to trigger this bond bind, will the markets correct

themselves? It is all dependent on what the Spanish Prime Minister

does. If he continues to ignore the problem in Spain and does not ask

for help early, then things could get a beer. If he asks for help

early, which is politically very difficult -- things could get ugly,

if he does as they help early, which is politically difficult, the

contagion may not spread. We need to see Spain sorted out so we don't

worry about Italy. I fear because of the political situation at home,

the Spanish Prime Minister is going to wait until he is forced to ask

for help and ask for a bail-out, and that is when it gets horrid.

Thank you for that, don't go far away, because we will be back at

some stage in the weeks ahead. It has been eventful week in

Westminster, I have been told, with David Cameron's first and may be

only major Cabinet reshuffle, but what do the changes in personnel

mean for the direction of the Government and the development of

the policy in the months ahead? The Health and international

development bar -- department is now in the hands of Jeremy Hunt and

Justine Greening respectively and both of them have ring-fenced

budget. In fact the international budget is rising. But with

borrowing so high, could these budgets start to St -- shrink with

new Ministers in place? The Times has questioned whether the new

International Development Secretary wanted the job in the first place

and then questioned why the budget was so big and why it was rising.

She did that on the day of the reshuffle. Cutting aid would

certainly make her popular with Tory backbenchers. Other changes at

the Ministry of Justice, now being run by Chris Grayling, who performs

Ken Clarke and is likely to take a tougher line in many areas

including human rights and baby injecting new life into plans for a

UK Bill of Rights. The Lib Dems will have something to say about

that. Many Tories want a Bill of Rights, a British one, to replace

the Labour's Human Rights Act. They may also be interesting times at

the education department, with David Laws their operating as Nick

Clegg's eyes and ears in that department. It could be an

uncomfortable prospect for the Education Secretary Michael Gove.

Indeed, we are told he wasn't happy about it. Danny, give us your

overview. Everybody always tries to look at reshuffles as a move to the

left or right, but... We didn't mention that. I did notice that,

but Choi analysis was correct, you have to look at it department by

department to see what the impact will be. I think the most

significant, one publicly mentioned and less so, the move to the

Justice Department. The Prime Minister has been able to make a

speech on justice -- has not been able to make a speech on crime and

justice for two-and-a-half years, and he had to make a change there,

and the other one is in the week's office, he has a clear problem

managing the Conservative Party and moving Andrew Mitchell from

international development, where he was doing what the Prime Minister

wanted but in a less important strategic area, to the whips office,

might give him a better chance of managing the party if Andrew

Mitchell get that right. When I looked at this, Gaby, it wasn't a

government reshuffle, it was a Tory reshuffle. Not the Government. And

it seemed to me that in a number of areas, in the environment and

perhaps even in international aid, Heathrow, this was Mr Cameron now

getting rid of all of the baggage with which she came to power.

the baggage that he himself put their in many ways. We are told it

is a reshuffle for delivery, putting people in charge who can

push things through and there are two problems with that. They have

been some great new junior Ministers but in but in some

departments, health, there has been quite a change and massive teams

that will take speed to get up -- time to get up to speed. And you

have to watch the Out Door as well as the indoor. The appointments

have been well managed, the exit have been messy to say the least.

We have heard too much of people arguing with the Prime Minister for

comfort and also some people I suspect will not go quietly. It has

been quite remarkable and it may speak volumes for Mr Cameron's

stature amongst Tory backbenchers. We are told Caroline Spelman argued

with him when she was going to be fired, the brothers to as having a

glass of wine to calm his nerves. Baroness Warsi goes up in a huff to

Yorkshire and speaks to there, others were supposed to be in tears,

although that has been denied, and a number of people when he said he

wanted them to move, argued with him and Iain Duncan Smith said he

was not moving and others said they did not want to move. Could you

imagine that happening under It happens a lot when you move

people and you sack them, people get very upset. I don't know

whether this is par for the course. Tony Blair had several problems

with his cabinet reshuffles. People refusing to move. I don't remember

crying. It's not his fault, though. Don't you think it's strange?

not terribly authorityive. The weird thing is people half hanging

on, sort of attending cabinet and not really. The table looks like a

family Christmas lunch with all the spare chairs from the loft and

random people are hanging around. Far too many people for the food.

The Conservatives and even the liberals are meant to believe in

limited Government and that smaller Government is better Government,

that's their general approach. Why have we 32 people around the

cabinet table? I think actually the size of the cabinet and cabinet

meetings isn't tremendously important because that's cabinet -

it operates as a load of committees. The meeting of the cabinet was 25

and I attended several meetings of 25 people around the table.

symbolism isn't great. I am not sure that's quite the same point.

There may be other questions about whether the Government is limited.

I do happen to think it probably would have made sense to decide

some people were just out. But we have also just discussed the fact

you create political problems for yourself. Other people may be, and

I understand the symbolism, I am not overworried about large cabinet

meetings. I don't think it impedes Government very much. After his

stellar handling of BSkyB Mr Hunt goes to health. Will he be rumbled

at health. It's a good indication that at the end the Prime Minister

didn't think that was as politically damaging as he thought

it was at the time. In other words, that he realised that there was a

lot of media interest in this but less public interest. So he felt he

could keep Jeremy Hunt and even promote him. I think Jeremy Hunt is

a subtle and capable person and I think he will - I think he is one

of their better Ministers and I think the reason he's moved him to

health is because he thinks he would be good with professional

groups and that's where Andrew Lansley didn't work because

ultimately he produced reforms but couldn't take professional groups

with. Jeremy Hunt might be able to achieve success there. That's the

reason why he's moved him. Naturally speaking, people will

take a different view about BSkyB than me. That's why they'll take a

different view of him. Now that we have judges calling burglars

courageous, the Tory grass roots and back benches are going to be

expecting Mr Grayling to do something about things like that,

aren't they? I think he will get a very different tone from Chris

Grayling. You will get more tough talk. You will get more combative

approach to Europe particularly over human rights issue. People who

expect him to be a hang them and flog them Justice Secretary aren't

possibly going to be disappointed. He is against ID cards, database.

He is not easily caricatured. Completely right, because the right

of the Conservative Party moved a lot on civil liberties issues,

partly under David Davis influence over a long period and that means

they're not this traditional right- wing. Where he will move the party

in terms of preparing to do something on a Bill of Rights and

the European convention which is necessary. There's nothing he can

do about this, this side of the election. It's a manifesto issue.

You can't have a situation in which the Prime Minister can't speak on

the issue because his Justice Secretary is out of sync with his

Home Secretary. It's fascinating what's happened in stage two of the

coalition. You have a Mr Hancock and Mr Fallon put in as minders to

Vince Cable, and Mr Laws kind of put in as a minder to Mr Gove in

education for the Lib Dems. There's a certain degree of what used to be

called creative tension there, it has to be said. Whether that's

going to make those departments hard tore move because people will

be suspicious, clearly the feeling with Laws it's less a feeling that

Michael Gove is being watched, more a feeling he has someone who was in

cabinet as a Junior Minister and he is not going to be easily rolled

over David laws, in a way Sarah Teather perhaps was. He is now

apparently texting mate of Ed Miliband. What do we make of that.

The Liberal Democrats are going to leave their options open to have a

relationship with Labour after the next election. The Conservative

Party has to understand that. It has to understand what that means

in political terms, that it has to produce a stronger relationship

with the Liberal Democrats and it has to broaden itself otherwise

that's what will happen to it. It's got a warning there. Vince Cable is

within his rights to do that. Because of course the Liberal

Democrats and the the Conservatives don't agree with each other,

they're two vastly different parties. It's remarkable it's

happened so well. It's odd moving David Laws there. Michael Gove is

one of the most pro-coalition, oddly enough, of all the Members of

Parliament and I have seen him and David laws together and they have a

good relationship. I think it's a bit of a waste of David Laws really

putting him there. I am surprised... He is actually probably in favour

of free schools, as well. I am surprised they didn't put him in

justice. OK, that was our reshuffle. Let's move to the other side of the

Atlantic. It was the speech that wowed Democrats at their Convention

in North Carolina and made the most powerful case yet for the

President's re-election. But enough of Bill Clinton's barn-storming

oration on Wednesday, last night the current President accepted his

party's nomination with a speech that didn't scale the heights of

2008, but offered a more sober message to voters. Let's listen to

what he had to say. When you pick up that ballot to vote, you will

face the clearest choice of any time in a generation. Over the next

few years big decisions will be made in Washington on jobs, the

economy, taxes and deficits, energy, education, war and peace. Decisions

that will have a huge impact on our lives and on our children's lives

for decades to come. I never said this journey would be easy and I

won't promise that now. Yes, our path is harder, but at t leads to a

better place. Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together.

We don't turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up, we

draw strength from our victories and we learn from our mistakes. But

we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon, knowing the

providedance is with us and that we are surely blessed to be citizens

of the greatest nation on earth. Thank you. God bless you, and God

bless these United States. President Obama being crowned as

his party's natural nominee for the presidential election on November

6th. He is clearly one of the world's great orators. You saw some

of that magic there. But it doesn't quite get the heart

strings going, the way it did four years ago. Four years in power

changes your view. You are relying on hope all the time when you are

Obama. Look, the people have said the speech was a bit flat. I just

wish I could make speeches as flat as that. You know, if - I have

worked a lot on speeches and people can't do - the end of speeches very

well, he really nailed that. It was amazing. Let's first of all, a lot

of this is in our perceptions. Obama is still an amazing performer.

He has to cope with the reality of a very difficult situation. He is

in the same situation the Government is in here, he doesn't

have any money to play with. He has an extremely difficult message to

convey. America's also a long-term problem, can it maintain its place

in the world? It's not surprising people find there is a gap between

what they had hoped for and what America is able to deliver and he

suffered -- he suffers from that. I still think he is in a commanding

position. Favourite to win? remember in the last general

election the Conservatives were saying to me if we - to get a

majority everything has to go right. We have to win in all the different

battle ground ground constituencies. The same is now true of Mitt Romney.

Yes, he could win, but if you look at how he might go over the margin

in an electoral college system which is based on winning each

state, he has to win a marginal states to get past and to win them

all in order to win. I think that's unlikely to happen T might, he is

definitely in a position to win but I think he is very much the

underdog, Mitt Romney. Always when American elections come around in

the primary season and election in the the States, we are looking for

lessons in Britain, what things we would take and wouldn't take. I am

beginning to wonder if American politics are not so different now.

We have always overemphasised it. We are different electorates and

tend to assume there must be lessons for the Democrats for

Labour. The lesson is from combatant to incumbent. There is a

message for Cameron, if you hit 2015, not having achieved what you

said you were going to, you haven't dealt with the deficit, you are not

back to recovery you need a better message than bear with me. If there

is a lesson here for Labour, it would be that was a speech very

rich on values but you can't eat a value. It's possible that if

Americans what are really looking for is a President that creates

jobs, there was little in that speech about how it would happen

and more in the Mitt Romney speech about how that would happen.

Today's Republican party is different from today's British

Conservative Party that I suspect a lot of of Conservatives aren't too

bothered whether it's a Democrat in the White House or a Republican now,

is that true? I think it is true. Some people are. It would cause

quite a lot of trouble for the Conservative Party if Mitt Romney

were to win, because it - having a Republican foreign policy and

Republican economic policy would really destablise the coalition. I

suspect it's a headache they could do without. I don't think this

Government is going to get itself involved but in previous years

Conservative administrations have wanted the Republican candidate to

win, thought it would be easier to forge a relationship, I bet it

isn't true now. Interesting. They won't be going across to campaign?

You know, apart from anything else, President Obama is as Bill Clinton

was, nuralic about a British British contribution. Continuity.

You got that in 2008. There was more enthusiasm for Obama then.

shall see, we have to November 6th to find out. The campaign is

getting under way across the Atlantic. I am going across today

to see how it's going. We will report back. Now, these are

exciting times for the Greens. Not only did they elect their new

leader earlier this week but they also start their party conference

today with speeches from Natalie Bennett - she's the new leader in

question - and her predecessor Caroline Lucas. It's two leaders

for the price of one! As you can imagine, the excitement is at fever

pitch down in Bristol and our political correspondent Chris Mason

joins us from there now. Over to you, Chris.

Yes, hello, Andrew, from a sun- drenched Bristol. It's a different

feel a Green Party conference, this is the Green Party of England and

Wales meeting here for the next couple of days. There aren't the

big security men wearing that trademark severe expression. There

isn't the airport-style security. Instead, activists going around

with posters and bits of blue tack and shoving them up on the wall and

welcoming you in. I was even sitting in a room earlier trying to

get a signal on my computer right next to the Green Party leader, the

new leader, putting finishing touches to her speech. I don't

think we will get that access in a couple of weeks when the

Conservatives and Labour and Liberal Democrats get together.

Let's have a chat with Darren Johnson, veteran Green I think we

can call him. Thank you for your time, Darren. What's the big pitch

here? I get the sense we have seen the Tkpwroepb posters -- Green

posters and reference to the party but the tone seems to be about more

than just Green things? It is absolutely more than just the

environmental agenda and we really are on the up as a party,

particularly since Caroline Lucas made her massive breakthrough

parliament and and in the London elections we came in third, ahead

of the Liberal Democrats. We really are making that move now into the

mainstream. It is obviously more about the environment. We have

clear policies on creating a fairer Britain, we are looking at motions

this weekend on tackling long hours culture that we have in the

workplace, those things. A real concentration on a fairer, as well

as Greener Britain. You say you are progress but still the UK

Independence Party have Minister MEPs and around Europe your sister

parties, not just in Europe but broadly around the world, do better.

Where are you getting it wrong? found is when elections are held

under proportion al representation we are getting the same sort of

results as they do get in European parties. It has been more difficult

under first-past-the-post but we have made that breakthrough now.

Caroline Lucas getting elected to parliament was a massive

achievement and we do obviously want to see more Green MPs joining

her but we are also seeing more Green counsellors getting elected

in chambers, making a difference in their local communities. A quick

thought about the leadership. Your party for years and years had

principle speakers, no single solo leader, lots of speakers. You

stkeufped -- ditched that model because you felt you had to have a

figurehead and now you have your most prominent Green in Westminster

and a separate leader, is that a I think it is a good idea to spread

the word -- workload out. Caroline has issued responsibility as the

Green voice in Parliament and as a constituency MP in Brighton, so it

was right to bring new faces in and I think it is fantastic we will

have not only Caroline but Natalie as party leader, here I am sure

will be putting a very strong message across about a greener and

fairer future. Darren Johnson, a member of the London assembly for

the Green Party. We will get, as you say, two leader speeches for

the price of one. Caroline Lucas first and then Natalie Bennett a

little after that. Live coverage on the BBC News Channel. As with any

party conference, a diverse array of fringe events. We have spotted

something tomorrow night, Dragon sexing for beginners, 8pm in Room

15 if you are free. I am free, but you be careful, the

sun is shining and it will go to your head.

So, the Greens have got the conference season going and the TUC

are next up with their get-together over the weekend. One of the items

up for discussion will be the time trade union reps spend on union

business while working in the public sector. Today sees the close

of the Cabinet Office's consultation on the practice. This

is what's at stake. Union representatives in the civil

service are currently allowed paid time off work, known as facility

time, to conduct union business. The Government announced a

consultation into the practice last November, as the Cabinet office

claim it currently costs the taxpayer around �36 million a year.

Their figures show there are almost 7,000 trade union representatives

working across the Civil Service taking paid time off to work on

union activities. And they say approximately 250 of them spend

100% of their working week on union business. When he launched the

consultation, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude,

But the TUC disagree and say no consideration is being taken into

what benefits might be gained by the taxpayer and wider public from

supporting the work of trade union representatives. Well, we're joined

now by Paul Novak, head of operations and services at the TUC,

and by Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the Taxpayers'

Alliance, who have been campaigning on this issue.

Campaigning to get rid of these full-time representatives. Paul, in

these tough times, can we really afford to have 6,800 trade union

representatives at a cost of 30 odd million pounds.? I would argue that

in these tough times, we can't afford to be without it., in the

Civil Service and across the public sector. It is important to note

that this facility time timings are not exclusive. Bizarre arrangements

that benefit staff, they benefit employers, -- these are. They help

work places run more smoothly and help improve productivity and

reduce absenteeism. How many trade union representatives get

substantial facility time in the private sector? It really depends

on the private sector employer. you go into a larger automotive

plant, a large distribution centre or a large unionised call centre,

you will often find full-time trade union representatives, there will

be thousands across the country is. And whether they are working full-

time or as part of their normal duties, it is a valuable service to

support those they work alongside and it is all done by voluntary

agreements between Pires, public or private sector, and unions and the

people they represent -- between employers. So it is part of the

modern relations than the private sector? Not really. Facility time

is massively concentrated in the public sector and there is a legal

right to some facility time, reasonable paid time for very

specific duties, and unpaid time for a wider range of activities,

but when you have staff working full-time, there is no judgment

being made over the extent to which the tasks they are doing of

reasonable, or to fit within the kind of duties where they should be

taking paid time, and that is particularly the case when, as many

public sector employers have told us in response to how much time

they are allocating, they do not even know how much time has been

given. It is public sector employers increasingly who do not

pick up the Bill, it is the taxpayer, and they are giving away

time to trade unions so that they have a massive activist based paid

for by the taxpayer, who has to pick up the Bill if the activist

base succeed. That is not the case, around a quarter of our

representatives in the public sector gets no time off paid at all

and carry out duties inerrant time. The TaxPayers' Alliance only ever

focuses on the cost of facility time, they never talk about the

benefits. We estimate for every �1 per taxpayer spends on facility

time, it generates a. -- positive return of between �3.90 pounds.

is saying we are quids in. Look at the private sector, far more

facility time, there are more strikes, better pay and better

pensions and the public sector, yet those workers are striking as much

as nine times as much per worker, so how are they building better

working... If more union staff were the answer to the public sector are

being a glorious Wonderland, but This is a politically driven

analysis. If it is the reality. is not rooted in the reality of

what happens in public and private sector workplaces. Three years ago,

the CBI have represented large employers up and down the country

and signed a joint statement with the TUC and the then Business

Secretary extolling the positive role that union representatives

made to work places up and down the country. If the TaxPayers' Alliance

spent some time in work players -- workplace is talking to employers

and people who make decisions about facility time, we have would have a

different answer. This is partly why the Tax Payers Alliance

campaign... Why do you want to happen? We think the unions should

pay for their own access. Time off when they needed but when they are

working for the union, they'd be paid by the union but we think at

least the existing rules should be properly enforced so a union has to

request time off and if it is for the right kind of duty, they get

the time off they should get, as opposed to this cosy Willis injured

when employers give us for -- give them full time or don't even

monitor it at all. That will be more burdensome and bureaucratic

and time-consuming for public sector employers and employees

alike. At the end of the day, I stress these are voluntary

agreements that benefits not just union members. I can understand

that when the private sector doesn't agree, it must clearly

think it's too its advantage, but there will be a suspicion that in

the public sector, those on the employees' side have no great

incentive but to say yes, if you want time off a... A lot of people

think it is a way of subsidising the unions. You have claimed on BT

use it -- or the TUC has claimed that the economy gets back between

�3.90 pounds that every �1 is spent -- �3 and �9. This was based on a

study by the Department of Business for five years ago. Another big

differences the reduced rate of employment tribunals. Unionised

workplaces have half of the applications to imply that

tribunals and -- employment tribunals, which are costly and

time-consuming and if the employee has a good relationship with the

employer, there is less likelihood that will happen and real savings

to be had. It is important to listen to employers rather than

people driven by politics. It is slightly different when the

employer is the Government or the Civil Service. Where are you on

this? It cannot be right with those statistics, otherwise everyone

would go into it and make a fortune. If all 6 million workers were on

full-time duties, you would have an argument, but it is they have

relatively small amount of people and the cost of facility time works

out as 25p per public sector worker per week. There was a moment when

people are -- advocated closed shops and sounded as lucid as Judea

and said it was a great benefit and now we all look back and think, did

we really agree on that? This is the same issue, just to find the

facts that Unison gives money to the Labour Party while taxpayers

are paying for the Unison representative in the workplace is

just ridiculous, and you will not win that argument. This is not

about money, �36 million is peanuts A do you think that unions perform

a useful function when they are not just a form in the employer of the

-- in the side of the employer? Which side of the debate you come

down on explains which side of this you stand on. The it is pretty

clear which side the TaxPayers' Alliance are run. Let me ask you

this. Do you think the Government is set to get you. You don't like

this government, you have been going on strike against this

government, and the unions have bankrolled the Labour Party, so is

this a form of coalition or Conservative government revenge?

There is a real danger that the consultation you refer to an ear

was strained red meat to Tory backbenchers and is not rooted in

reality -- throwing red meat. Of all of the economic problems this

country faces and public finances, trade union facilities are not...

If you have got ideology and the problem is... That people work for

a fair deal. I don't want to pay for them, even if it is a small

amount of money. I'd you expect in the Government, now it has this

report, because you have been instrumental in putting this on the

agenda, are you going to do something about this? They will do

something, the question is whether they will do enough. That is always

the question for. Who has been the biggest winner

this Olympic summer? Usain? Mo? Jess? Well, what about Boris? The

Mayor of London's profile has scaled new heights - literally -

while we've been away and he's making the most of it, clashing

with David Cameron on all sorts of things, from school playing fields

to the third runway at Heathrow. But do voters see him as Prime

Ministerial material? Adam has been to find out with the Daily Politics

mood box. Can people see this guy ever

becoming Prime Minister? We have brought the mood box and the balls

to north London, where Boris Johnson lives, to find out. First

of all, here is a reminder of what the Mayor of London has been up to

this summer. In the uncertainty, rule out the

third runway. We want to politicians Olympics.

Released the wings. Into position. -- release the rings. I think he's

a friendly man and a good I can't, so will I put that into yes? That

will be a yes. And he has fallen over. He has got that sort of

persona of a comedian rather than somebody to be taken seriously.

would remind me too much of the George W Bush days, really, of a

puppet been in charge. He has the brains, he is wildly popular, but

that sort of popularity can very easily go like that. He it is like

a young Boris Johnson and the current Boris Johnson.

He is a toff. A we have got a top as a Prime Minister. A but he is

more of a toff. Boris floods cycling, let's ask some cyclists?

Boris Johnson for Prime Minister? think the bikes is excellent and

wanting to encourage young people to get out and about, do more

sports, encourage schools not to sell off their land. I saw him

jogging along the canal. What sort of sign is that? He is not built

for jogging, is he? A I think he would be a wicket Prime Minister. -

- wicked Prime Minister. Boris, your neighbours in north London has

spoken and it is pretty close, but a small majority cannot see you

going into Number Ten Downing Street as Prime Minister. That is

the verdict of the mood box, are as we like to call it the arca

cintentia. Actually, Adam's Latin teacher has

been on the phone to say he got that wrong. In Ancient Rome people

used an "urna" to vote, not an "arca". So he should have said

"urna voci populi". He will now write that out of 100 times. Glad

to have got that cleared up. Boris is clearly a life-force in British

politics, a unique life-force, but is he too much of a buffoon to be

Prime Minister? I am sure the metaphor has occurred before but

that was literally a load of balls, and people don't know whether they

want Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister and it is impossible to

imagine what he would be like in that position, because that is so

different from what he is doing at the moment. I think he is a very

capable, intelligent person and I think he is also, ironically enough,

on the Tory Left, and... He is positioning himself on the right.

Not always, is that his position on the runways or school playing

fields? On taxes are education? think he also said to me was when

he was in Parliament and that is why he supported David Cameron in

the first place, for party leader, and Ken Clarke before him, because

that is where he comes from, so I think he is a politically very

interesting figure and I am very probe him, but I also personally

wonder whether been Prime Minister is something he would want all be

Are you in any doubt he wants it? am. To start off with I wonder

whether he can afford it. He would have to take a massive pay cut

which even as mayor not wishing to do in the past. If you were

ambitious, you would cut off your left arm to be Prime Minister.

suppose the cynic in me says when moment comes to it, all this will

go and he will probably seize on the chance, I guess, because people

do. I think there is a degree of uncertainty in him, I think it's

not just financial, I think I don't know how much he wants to do that

24-7 intense scrutiny thing and also I don't know how much he he

wants to be hated and that's what comes with being Prime Minister. At

the moment everybody loves Boris, who wouldn't want to be the heir

apparent forever? Everyone loves him and he is popular with everyone

else, all that drains once you are in Number 10. Look at what happens

to Nick Clegg to Clegg-mania and five minutes later you are one of

them and your popularity drains away. Boris likes to be liked.

watched them at the Olympics, one being cheered and one being booed.

The difference is one is doing something fantastically pop already

and one fantastically difficult. I agree with you, I think Boris would

find that rather difficult. He does find saying no to things quite

difficult. It's hard not to interpret a number of positions

he's taken as positioning himself to make a run at Downing Street?

He's certainly leaving the door open, shall we say. The meddling in

the reshuffle was amazing, that's the moment of a Prime Minister's

maximum authority, where you move your people, to have Boris Johnson

popping up... The Olympics have put lead in his pencil. He also says

what he thinks, which is part of his appeal actually. You think he

blurts these things out off the top of his head, you you don't think

it's calculated. How well do you know him. I have known him a long

time. Nobody gets to know him that well, actually. That's a good point.

But I think clearly he is an ambitious person and I am sure

there is an element of calculation but probably that's behind the

whole stance which is I am my own independent person, I am not going

to accept anything and there's also slightly more than competitive

relationship which goes back a long time with David. To that Slough

comprehensive they both went to. Exactly. We will leave that there.

Now, a programme focusing on the policy disasters, communication

cock-ups and ministerial mishaps of coalition Government returns to our

screens this week. No, I'm not talking about the Daily Politics

but the new series of political satire The Thick Of It. In a moment

we'll talk to one of the stars of the show, but first let's have a

look at him in action. Human snowman is coming in now.

Stewart! Great. If it isn't Raffles, the gentleman MP. Why are you two

coming in together. We were married in Vegas, didn't you know, we are

really happy. Meeting room now. Could you get someone to bring me

some chai. Today's headline in font 72, Emma and I broke the fast this

AM with the PM. It's a massive yes. Our playground initiative is going

to be the standard-bearer for the network nation. It's a double,

double win. Double win for both babies of the coalition. Terrific.

Shall we do a Mexican wave around the table?

And with us now is Vincent Franklin who plays PR guru Stewart Pearson

in the show. Now, you are Steve Hilton? Lots of people have

suggested I am Steve Hilton but I think I have spoken to enough

lawyers to know that I am a little bit - he wears a cross between a

short and trouser and we were filming outside Downing Street for

this series and it's fairly scary how many men are wearing those

ridiculous trousers and carrying a fold-up bicycle and go through

those gates. It should be banned. It should certainly be discouraged,

I am playing a character sort of like Steve, he is a contrast to

Malcolm Tucker, the sweary face of enforcement and I am the new face,

let's all imagine a better narrative but equally annoying, I

am afraid. I would wonder with this coalition, there's so much material,

where do you start? It's difficult, because you find you are trying to

produce satire and realise they're writing their own much better than

tkoubg it and to begin with it was tricky because the first year

everyone seemed happy. We had a few insiders who told us what was going

on and they were going it's a big love-in at the moment and luckily

after - it started to go wrong and we could write it. What's really

important is that it's not what we are doing is satire, but not sort

of topical comedy so we are not reliant on tying into specific

things happening in Government. It's much more about the stkaoeut

the stkaoeut gist. That's why we don't get relegated to Dave if you

were the news quiz programmes, jokes now on Dave are ten years out

of date we are not interested in. This I hope in 20 years time people

will go that's what it was like in the Earl lie years of the 21st

century. Meryl Streep went to watch Prime Ministers questions as part

of her preparation to play Margaret Thatcher. What did you do to

prepare? We had fantastic writers to begin with so we have a lot of

material. We have advisers to talk to us but always just about what we

are doing wrong. Usually saying there is not enough spwaering --

swearing, you need to swear more. I am doing a play at the moment in

The National, set in the Callaghan period, for that we have been

around the building and it's not the most helpful thing, it's

helpful to watch a couple of people drinking more than they should and

chatting and going they're actually human beings and the great thing

about The Thick of It you see a lot of flawed human beings trying to do

the right thing but usually in the wrong way. You are doing this play,

which is set in 74 onwards when there was no Government really in

charge and you are doing now The Thick of It and you are going to

become a world expert on coalition governments. I think I am a kind of

kiss of death, if I am in you know there's going to be a coalition. In

the 70s, not a coalition, a kind of pact. There was a pact. But not a

coalition. So there were no Liberals thankfully actually in a

Ministerial post so we don't have the problems that poor old Minister

in The Thick of It has of dealing with a Junior Minister from another

party. You use words which we as journalists then take on and put

into the political lexicon. Omni- shambles. You gave us that word,

there was another word we can't really use, beginning with cluster.

We are quietly disappointed with that really. Our idea is that The

Thick of It is supposed to be satire, not an instruction manual.

You are supposed to watch and go that's not the way to behave. We

are increasingly - two are to three days after we shoot something we

realise something more crazy has happened or something more

ridiculous has been said. One episode and on Twitter there were

serious commentators talking about it. It doesn't really mean anything.

You throw the bait in and people take it. Mrs Thatcher once said to

me that yes, Minister wasn't comedy, it was documentary. It was a really

insight into how British Government works. Can you say that of The

Thick of It? I worked... You have been on the inside. There's a lot.

I talked to him before they did the first one and when we had meetings

there was always someone hoovering, so you would have to do the

hoovering during the day, that was there in one of the early episodes.

During the 1997 general election we ended up with John Major's

Government being opposed bay man in a white suit, you can't make these

things up. Somehow they managed to do it. Often it's painfully close,

particularly when people are trying to come up with new ideas. Anybody

who's worked on a speech - my favourite was a policy on plastic

bags. That pleased the Daily Mail. People really do come up with

things like that. When you have no money to spend you have to find

ways - you shuffle your cabinet, which is a great word to be using

because it means something else in the outside world, I don't want to

worry you, but having a shuffle can mean something different or perhaps

similar. But then you get a situation where somebody who was

the Culture Secretary, who criticised - wanted the NHS section

removed from his opening ceremony, the ceremony happens, the Games are

a success, he is promoted to be Health Secretary in charge of all

those nurses and you go brilliant, there is an episode of The Thick of

It all just done, prime viced. Scripted for you already. I have to

say I am looking forward to the new series, I want to see how you

tackle the coalition. It's a coalition that's funny, it's -

there's that idea the comedy is always in the gaps. The difference

between what the thick of it does brilliantly, is those small

humiliations, those tiny aspects of protocol where you are kind of just

remorselessly left in this position of haouplg indignity which is what

coalition is all about. The Tory Minister is wonderful. You can just

see. Half a dozen real Ministers could fit the bill. People go is it

Ken Clarke. He suspect any one of those, but he is that. You are on

BBC2. We are indeed. On Saturday night after the Proms, I think.

Indeed. I know that because I have already set my recorder. 9 9.4 5.

Seven parts in this series. After that's that's finished you still

have time to go to The National and see This House. Running to December.

I will wave to from you the gallery, the cheap seats. Time for our

roundup of the last seven days of politics.

Here's Susana Mendonsa with the week in 60 seconds. Who is out and

who is still in. What job have you got? The faces and the speedy

departures told the story, we hear some of the losers even shed tears.

Have you got the Health Secretary job? Someone was happy. It's the

biggest privilege of my life. I am incredibly honoured. But the

musical chairs around this cabinet table sparked yet another row about

Heathrow. Elsewhere, the Chancellor took up the role of Paralympic

panto villain, booed at the Olympic Stadium, still smiling, George? You

got to be so macho if you are the Labour leader, or not. Apparently

he still has to bring in the coffee every morning. That's just how

assertive and Butch the leader of the opposition really is. Mine is

milk and three sugars, Ed. Axed Ministers are lining up for honours,

even ousted Lib Dems are getting knighthoods. Yes, Sir isn't a bad

consolation prize. Does nothing change in this

country? You hand out knighthoods to Ministers that you want rid of.

Nothing changes in reshuffles, you are always trying to find something.

It was probably not a good idea to have a separate honours list just

for sacked Ministers, it was bound to cause cause trouble. It's not

the biggest issue in the world but it's still probably not a good idea.

Didn't leave a good taste in the mouth. Not consistence with a

Government saying you shouldn't reward failure. And we are all in

this together. When is your knighthood coming? You think that's

a reward for failure as well? It's nice being a guest on this

programme! You may say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Immediately prompted, that thought. We are going to save up nigh

knighthood, you can get them in the shops these days. We thank all our