:00:27. > :00:31.Hello, welcome to the Daily Politics on Friday. Ed Miliband
:00:31. > :00:35.wants to ditch elections to the Shadow Cabinet. A rejection of
:00:35. > :00:40.internal party democracy or a strong leader exerting authority?
:00:40. > :00:46.A test for all the parties in the by-election next week, we have been
:00:46. > :00:47.too Inverclyde to find out if Labour can hold off the SNP.
:00:47. > :00:57.And chaos in Greece, some say the single currency itself is under
:00:57. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:02.threat, but Tony Blair tells us he And joining me throughout the
:01:02. > :01:07.programme, the Guardian's Zoe Williams and the Telegraph's Peter
:01:07. > :01:13.Oborne. To discuss Ed Miliband's desire to the Shadow Cabinet, Jan
:01:13. > :01:17.Royall and Jeremy Corbyn, welcome. Peter 01, is indeed doing the right
:01:17. > :01:21.thing? It is an outdated way of electing people. He should just
:01:21. > :01:25.choose his own team. It is against the constitution of the Labour
:01:25. > :01:29.Party, and I think it is a disappointing affront to democracy,
:01:29. > :01:35.in a funny way. It shows Ed Miliband is adopting the Brownite
:01:35. > :01:41.methodology... Blair did not do it. He has gone further than black,
:01:41. > :01:46.amazingly enough. Centralisation, hostile to democracy, controlling
:01:46. > :01:51.power for the leadership. It is a really retrograde move. It is
:01:51. > :01:57.presented by modernisers, but it is really old fashioned, it is the old
:01:57. > :02:01.politics. The new politics is democracy, having to market took --
:02:01. > :02:05.having democratic elections to the Shadow Cabinet. Fairly passionate,
:02:05. > :02:10.rather surprising. I'm surprised you are so passion about it, I must
:02:10. > :02:13.say. I would think that the impulse would be, because nobody pays that
:02:13. > :02:17.much attention to the Shadow Cabinet elections unless there is a
:02:17. > :02:22.huge amount of conflict, and then everything is mired in who hates
:02:22. > :02:27.whom and blah blah blah. It really withdraws from the message. I think
:02:27. > :02:32.that is probably what Ed Miliband is thinking. All the talk of
:02:32. > :02:35.backbiting and who Ed Balls hates next... Isn't that the point?
:02:35. > :02:38.Members of the Shadow Cabinet, or people would like to be members,
:02:38. > :02:43.should not be spending their time trying to get support from fellow
:02:43. > :02:50.MPs. They should be trying to push forward won a message from the
:02:50. > :02:54.Labour Party. All of that would go if they start having elections.
:02:54. > :02:57.have not noticed one person showing any interest. It is a non-issue.
:02:57. > :03:02.What it is his contrary to the whole direction of travel in
:03:02. > :03:07.Parliament. After the reforms of last year, parliament reduced
:03:07. > :03:12.patronage, increased elections, increased accountability, backbench
:03:12. > :03:17.committees, election of the Shadow Cabinet, and then Ed chooses who
:03:17. > :03:21.will fill each portfolio. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with
:03:21. > :03:24.that degree of accountability? will not argue that he should be
:03:24. > :03:27.able to choose the team he wants, he should be able to choose the
:03:27. > :03:31.people that will best put forward the message and with whom he gets
:03:31. > :03:37.on. The bid devilment of the British parliamentary system is
:03:37. > :03:41.patronage. The package in -- the patronage of party leaders and the
:03:41. > :03:44.establishment as a whole. We are playing straight into that whole
:03:44. > :03:50.agenda by ending elections for the PLP and saying the leader will
:03:50. > :03:54.choose. That means any new MP, the first thing, be nice to the leader,
:03:54. > :03:59.agree with the leader, support the leader, put your brain on hold.
:03:59. > :04:01.Jeremy says that there is nobody politicking to get into the Shadow
:04:01. > :04:09.Cabinet, because that is because there is no election this year.
:04:09. > :04:13.Well, quite. La steer it dominated the PLP for months. -- last year.
:04:13. > :04:19.Everyone was inward-looking, to see what they should be doing. What
:04:19. > :04:23.about the point that it is anti- democratic? This is to do with
:04:23. > :04:27.internal party organisation. It is not anti-democratic. I was there in
:04:27. > :04:31.the 1980s, and I know the frustrations of a leader who cannot
:04:31. > :04:35.have the people he needs in the shadow cabinet. When Tony Blair got
:04:35. > :04:39.to Downing Street, there were many disappointed people because they
:04:39. > :04:43.had been in the Shadow Cabinet but when not in the Cabinet. This is an
:04:43. > :04:48.internal party organisational issue. Isn't it just moving with the
:04:48. > :04:53.times? This is about party politics. The times are going in exactly the
:04:53. > :04:56.other direction. In Parliament, not necessarily with the party. I am
:04:56. > :05:01.not sure about that. The whole debate about resounding Labour is
:05:01. > :05:07.about empowering conference and constituency parties. 60,000 people
:05:07. > :05:14.joined Labour for a cause, not to be actors on a stage. Peter. It is
:05:14. > :05:17.unfair to be personal, but Baroness Royall started life as a Labour
:05:18. > :05:22.Party press person, an apparatchik. Never elected to anything in your
:05:22. > :05:28.life. You are the political class in action, which is out to
:05:28. > :05:33.disenfranchise. Let Baroness Royall answer that! I am here because I
:05:33. > :05:37.think it is a jolly good... No-one has selected due to be here. I put
:05:37. > :05:43.my hands up, I have stood for election, no one has elected me. I
:05:43. > :05:48.am also seeking election to the House of Lords. Double standards.
:05:48. > :05:51.Absolutely not, we are talking about an internal party structure,
:05:51. > :05:54.not democracy for the wider public. You're not saying that you should
:05:54. > :06:00.have been elected by the rest of the party, she should have been
:06:00. > :06:04.elected by the public. I was elected by my peers, I should say.
:06:04. > :06:10.Can I just asked Jan Royall a question? Do you agree with Harriet
:06:10. > :06:13.Harman that one of the top job should be occupied by a woman?
:06:13. > :06:16.Why is Harriet Harman agreeing to getting rid of an scrapping the
:06:16. > :06:20.quota of women in the Shadow Cabinet? I do not know what
:06:20. > :06:25.discussions have gone on between add and Harriet Harman. I have to
:06:25. > :06:29.say, I have not discussed this with Ed, but it is right and proper that
:06:29. > :06:32.he should have, in his shadow cabinet, whomsoever he wants to
:06:32. > :06:38.have, but it is important that at the top you have a man and a woman.
:06:38. > :06:42.Jeremy? I agree with a quota for places for women, I agree with
:06:42. > :06:46.elections to the Shadow Cabinet, and I think that the patronage of
:06:46. > :06:51.the leader undermines the PLP and democracy. We are all elected as
:06:51. > :06:54.Labour MPs. You think it is strange that Harriet Harman, who has been
:06:54. > :06:58.such a proponent of women's rights and representation, has not
:06:58. > :07:03.subjected to get here are getting rid of the quota? If she might have
:07:03. > :07:06.done, but she might have been overruled. I hope she objected,
:07:06. > :07:11.because when there was a consultation that went around
:07:11. > :07:15.saying, what did you think about the quota for women? I replied that
:07:15. > :07:19.I supported it, as I suspect a lot of other MPs did. There are no
:07:20. > :07:23.elections to the Shadow Cabinet this year, and I think Ed has
:07:23. > :07:28.panicked and thought, I have to get his pass the conference now. Labour
:07:28. > :07:32.MPs heard about this last night, and there will be a vote on Monday
:07:32. > :07:35.night. I think it is really important. This is a good time to
:07:35. > :07:39.do it. We are talking about resounding Labour, there is a
:07:39. > :07:45.national policy forum on Saturday, then it would go to the NEC asked
:07:45. > :07:49.to conference. How many party members have asked for an end to
:07:49. > :07:52.elections to the Shadow Cabinet? I suspect very few. Everyone is
:07:52. > :07:57.saying that Ed Miliband should show more leadership, but he cannot if
:07:57. > :08:04.he is taken up with battles within Cabinet. Is he? You lead by taking
:08:04. > :08:10.a party with you, you lead from the front and on policy. But the party
:08:10. > :08:17.is so rebellious, I do not see all these MPs thinking for themselves.
:08:17. > :08:22.I beg your pardon! There is no need to be personal! It does not make
:08:22. > :08:28.that much difference. You did not see the shadow cabinet diverting
:08:28. > :08:32.from the party line under Tony Blair. The former MP for Cannock
:08:32. > :08:36.produced reforms in parliament which are very good. They have made
:08:36. > :08:40.MPs much more involved, there is more accountability, the election
:08:40. > :08:45.of the Speaker, very good, and we support that, we applauded, it is
:08:45. > :08:49.democratising Parliament. What are we doing with the PLP? It is not
:08:49. > :08:52.very sensible at all. We are talking about Ed Miliband having a
:08:52. > :08:57.Shadow Cabinet that he wants, so that they can take forward...
:08:57. > :09:01.would get that anyway. He needs to take forward the policies that he
:09:01. > :09:06.once so that we can win elections. He would get the Shadow Cabinet he
:09:06. > :09:10.wants anyway, because the word goes around that the leader wants who he
:09:10. > :09:16.wants. Is that do you voted for, Jeremy? It wasn't, and it never
:09:16. > :09:19.will be. I have been in the PR before long time, and I have seen
:09:19. > :09:23.the way that leaders and opposition have managed to get the Shadow
:09:23. > :09:28.Cabinet they want. So what is the problem? If they are going to
:09:28. > :09:32.dictate who they want... It is the safety bath of democracy. Thank you
:09:32. > :09:35.very much. Labour's problems are not just
:09:35. > :09:38.confined to who is in the Shadow Cabinet and how they get there. The
:09:38. > :09:42.party's traditional base, the working class, is shrinking.
:09:42. > :09:45.Deborah Mattinson, who did a lot of bowling for Gordon Brown, has been
:09:45. > :09:49.looking at how this affects politics and political strategy. I
:09:49. > :09:53.will be talking to her in a moment, but first what has the research
:09:53. > :09:58.found out? The vast majority, nearly three-quarters, say they are
:09:58. > :10:01.middle-class. Less than one and four claim to be working class.
:10:01. > :10:04.Absolutely no one said that they were upper-class. While the
:10:05. > :10:07.majority of the working class were still vote Labour, most of them
:10:07. > :10:13.feel all politicians do not understand them and they are far
:10:13. > :10:16.less likely to vote than the middle classes. The work will classes --
:10:17. > :10:20.the working classes see Tony Blair as having moved the Labour Party
:10:20. > :10:23.away from the working class, while Margaret Thatcher is seen as a hero
:10:23. > :10:27.for selling them their hat council houses but a villain for closing
:10:27. > :10:31.down traditional industries. The working class are also desperate to
:10:31. > :10:33.be distinguished from the lower class, the spongers and antisocial
:10:33. > :10:38.yobs who politicians regularly referred to when talking about
:10:38. > :10:42.responsibility. Deborah Mattinson is here now. From Manchester, we
:10:42. > :10:46.are joined by conservative MP Graham Evans, who was proud of his
:10:46. > :10:53.working-class roots. Deborah Mattinson, how important his class
:10:53. > :10:56.in politics today? I think it still matters a lot. What we are finding,
:10:56. > :11:00.particularly with the working-class self- identifiers in our sample,
:11:00. > :11:03.was that they feel stuck. They feel that they cannot go anywhere, that
:11:03. > :11:09.they are getting a very rough deal. They cannot go anywhere
:11:09. > :11:12.politically? There is no social mobility. They feel they cannot go
:11:12. > :11:15.anywhere, and they feel that they are clinging on to what they have
:11:15. > :11:18.with their fingernails, and they are desperately trying to stop
:11:18. > :11:24.themselves from dropping down into this 4th class that they identify,
:11:24. > :11:27.the lower class, the underclass, the chap class. They feel that
:11:27. > :11:32.there is a real risk that they could topple over the edge at any
:11:32. > :11:37.point. How does that affect them politically? How do they vote?
:11:37. > :11:42.are more likely to say they vote Labour, but the truth is that a lot
:11:42. > :11:46.of them will not vote at all. Half of the worst of of the working
:11:46. > :11:50.class simply will not vote. It is something we have seen in turnouts
:11:50. > :11:53.in safe Labour seats, turnout slipping away. They feel that all
:11:53. > :11:58.politicians are all the same, that they are all looking after their
:11:58. > :12:06.own careers, nobody understands people like them. But crucially,
:12:06. > :12:10.Carlos do not vote atoll. Graham Evans, as far as you are concerned,
:12:10. > :12:14.you feel there is an assumption from voters that Labour is the
:12:14. > :12:19.party of the working class? Yes, to a certain extent. When I was
:12:19. > :12:22.campaigning in a working-class area in general elections, I was
:12:22. > :12:26.surprised that most people had not actually met a politician on their
:12:26. > :12:29.doorstep. They were really quite surprised not just to see a
:12:29. > :12:33.politician on their doorstep but a Conservative politician. What did
:12:33. > :12:37.that mean? Does it mean they would ever be likely to vote
:12:37. > :12:41.Conservative? As the only Conservative on the Mersey estuary,
:12:41. > :12:45.I think there may be something in that. I believe that a lot of
:12:45. > :12:49.people who did not ordinarily vote Conservative or did not vote
:12:49. > :12:52.Conservative at all, they met me on the doorstep, they gave me the
:12:52. > :12:56.benefit of the doubt and gave me a chance in Parliament. All parties
:12:56. > :13:01.are guilty of not going out onto the streets and on to the doorstep
:13:01. > :13:05.and campaigning at that level. of the problems, though, for Labour
:13:05. > :13:07.in particular, from the research that Deborah Mattinson has got, is
:13:08. > :13:12.this dramatic reversal of the middle-class support for Labour
:13:12. > :13:17.going to the Conservatives. Sure, and I think there is a problem with
:13:17. > :13:20.the Labour Party's support in particular, in which, with Tony
:13:20. > :13:24.Blair's thing of everybody being middle class, they managed to
:13:24. > :13:29.criminalise poverty, because the only people who were not what the
:13:29. > :13:32.ASBO classes. I think a lot of people kind of sort New Labour as
:13:32. > :13:36.having such a strong identification with the middle classes that they
:13:36. > :13:40.had no real time for anything. Their only policies were designed
:13:40. > :13:44.to draw people into the middle class, rather than make things
:13:44. > :13:48.better for people in the working class. I do not think that is quite
:13:48. > :13:51.true. In a way, that is a distinction that working-class
:13:51. > :13:57.identifiers are very keen to make themselves. Working class is about
:13:57. > :14:00.work. Asked people and focus groups to bring in a symbol of their class,
:14:00. > :14:05.and middle-class people brought along lifestyle things. Working-
:14:05. > :14:09.class people bought the tools of their trade, work boots, gloves.
:14:09. > :14:13.There is a real class that feels neglected. I certainly do not think
:14:13. > :14:17.that the country things like that, but that is an new line
:14:17. > :14:20.representative for a long time. Listening to your report about the
:14:21. > :14:25.end of social mobility and people stuck in effectively a ghetto, this
:14:25. > :14:29.was after 10 years of the Labour government. It is so shaming, what
:14:29. > :14:34.Blair was like, that he turned his back quite deliberately or naked
:14:34. > :14:38.electrical reasons on the working class. Isn't that what you have to
:14:38. > :14:42.do politically? Appeal to the biggest class? He won three
:14:42. > :14:46.elections. It was a decision made by a Labour Prime Minister to turn
:14:46. > :14:49.his back on the working class. As a result, you are seeing this
:14:49. > :14:53.fascinating thing is that they will not vote. The danger is they will
:14:53. > :14:58.turn away from conventional politics and go to the BNP. I did
:14:58. > :15:03.ask about that, and there's not much evidence of it. I had a lot of
:15:03. > :15:09.photographs of politicians to show them, and I gave up. They barely
:15:09. > :15:12.recognise David Cameron, let alone anyone else, and I'm not joking.
:15:12. > :15:16.The point that Graham Evans made was that they had not seen a
:15:16. > :15:20.politician at all. Worryingly for the Conservatives, it is a lack of
:15:20. > :15:25.presence electorally in a lot of the northern towns and cities. Can
:15:26. > :15:29.that be dealt with? You mentioned Manchester and Liverpool, but we
:15:29. > :15:35.have Trafford council, which is an outstanding Conservative council,
:15:35. > :15:38.but Labour have an irrelevance across the country. There won no
:15:38. > :15:43.councillors in the south-east, the south-west and East Anglia. We
:15:43. > :15:52.always talk about the city centres, but Labour have an irrelevance in
:15:52. > :15:59.Do you think the Conservatives, is it worth them bothering trying to
:15:59. > :16:03.make deep inroads into the other towns and cities in the North? Yes.
:16:03. > :16:08.I'm living proof that if Conservatives campaign in the
:16:08. > :16:12.cities, and traditional working class areas, he will elect a
:16:12. > :16:17.Conservative MP. When ip was growing up on a council estate, the
:16:17. > :16:21.clue is in the name - working class. We all worked. I don't remember any
:16:21. > :16:26.families out of work. I don't remember any benefits. What we have
:16:26. > :16:32.now with the working classs is they live next door to people on
:16:32. > :16:37.benefits. When people get up, goo the right things, alarm clock
:16:37. > :16:42.Britain, they will find when they are off to work they will see the
:16:42. > :16:49.curtains drawn of their next door neighbours. That wasn't around when
:16:49. > :16:53.I was growing up in the 1970s. terms of welfare reforms, is it
:16:54. > :16:58.wrong to lump the working class together, whereas this is a
:16:58. > :17:02.distinction between people who work and people they see as benefits
:17:02. > :17:07.cheats and scroungers? There are, a lot of people in our sample were
:17:07. > :17:13.not working themselves. We had young, teenage mums in our sample,
:17:13. > :17:16.people who were on sick leave, and so on. I asked them what was the
:17:16. > :17:20.difference between you and scroungers and they said it was
:17:20. > :17:26.because they wanted to work. It is about reaching out to people who
:17:26. > :17:33.feel they want to work but aren't getting a leg up. Deborah Mattinson
:17:33. > :17:38.and Graham Evans, thank you. Ed Miliband is facing his MPs next
:17:38. > :17:44.week about ditching the shadow cabinet elections. Labour in a
:17:44. > :17:49.majority of 14,000 in Inverclyde but in the Scottish elections last
:17:49. > :17:53.month the SNP slashed that back to 5 00 votes in the nearest
:17:53. > :17:58.constituency. Now there is an election following the death of the
:17:58. > :18:03.MP, David Cairns. The history of this seat is dominated by
:18:03. > :18:07.shipbuilding, and voting for Labour. Labour held on to this constituency
:18:07. > :18:11.at last year's general election, winning 56 % of the vote, giving
:18:11. > :18:15.them a majority of more than 14,000. But since then, Scottish politics
:18:15. > :18:24.has changed considerably, with the SNP winning a historic majority at
:18:24. > :18:25.the Scottish Parliament a couple of months ago. This campaign is being
:18:25. > :18:29.scrutinised for whether the SNP can build on their recent bounce,
:18:29. > :18:32.whether Labour can still hit the sweet spot in its heard land, and
:18:32. > :18:39.whether the coalition parties aft Westminster can stay relevant north
:18:39. > :18:44.of the border, and, trivia fans, it is the birthplace of James Watt,
:18:44. > :18:51.father of the Industrial Revolution, and soon to be the face on the new
:18:51. > :18:57.�50. Do you know who is on the back of it? It looks like James Watt.
:18:57. > :19:03.Congratulations, a local boy done good. It is my grand-dad?. Looks
:19:03. > :19:13.like him. Famous local resident from the past. Steam enjoin gins?
:19:13. > :19:14.
:19:14. > :19:19.Oh, jaims -- James Watt. Steam engine? Damn it! I knew I should
:19:19. > :19:26.have paid attention in science lessons. Do you recognise that
:19:26. > :19:30.person? It is Adam Smith. Or is it James Watt. If you had �50 to spend
:19:30. > :19:33.on each constituent what would you spend it on? Getting jobs. They are
:19:34. > :19:37.telling me it is jobs and employment they are looking for.
:19:37. > :19:44.think the most important thing for people round here is the issue of
:19:44. > :19:48.jobs. I would spend it on collectively on regeneration rating
:19:48. > :19:51.and reindustrialising Inverclyde. Probably give them a discount on
:19:51. > :19:57.the council tax, particularly for pensioners, that's something that's
:19:57. > :20:02.hitting them quite hard. The �50 I would spnd on trying to create jobs.
:20:02. > :20:06.And I would encourage small and medium-sized enterprises. So, with
:20:06. > :20:12.little to divide the candidates on the issues, who is the smart, fake
:20:12. > :20:18.money on? Labour. Did you reckon? Yes. It probably will be Labour but
:20:18. > :20:23.I would like to see the SNP getting in We are due a wee change. I don't
:20:23. > :20:29.think Labour has done much. The Tories have not done much, so why
:20:29. > :20:33.not give the SNP a chance. Would bet �50 on them winning? If you
:20:33. > :20:38.gave us 50 quid! The Scottish nationalists do have support here.
:20:38. > :20:48.If they can turn this from a safe Labour seat to a marginal, or win
:20:48. > :20:51.
:20:51. > :20:55.it, the landscape of Scottish Perhaps the most important issue of
:20:55. > :20:58.the day, even the year, is whether the economic crisis in Greece could
:20:58. > :21:03.pull down the European economy and even endanger the euro itself.
:21:04. > :21:07.David Cameron is in Brussels today meeting the Greek Prime Minister.
:21:07. > :21:12.Many Euro-sceptics who were always opposed to the single currency are
:21:12. > :21:15.saying, "I told you so." But former Prime Minister Tony Blair still
:21:15. > :21:18.thinks Britain should join in future when the economic conditions
:21:18. > :21:21.are right. This is him talking to Jon Sopel in an interview tobacco
:21:21. > :21:25.broadcast in full on Sunday's Politics Show. I was always
:21:25. > :21:28.absolutely in favour of doing it politically and still am, by the
:21:28. > :21:32.way. I've always said since it is an economic union the economics
:21:32. > :21:36.have got to be right. Now, I don't actually take the view that some
:21:36. > :21:40.take that Britain joining if euro in the past or now would be a
:21:40. > :21:49.disaster. However, I always said, unless you can make a compelling
:21:49. > :21:50.case for it economically you'll never win a referendum on it. And
:21:50. > :21:54.the case for Britain joining isn't compelling. It may become that at a
:21:54. > :22:01.certain point. You can see the full interview with Tony Blair on Sunday
:22:01. > :22:09.at 11 o'clock. Peter Oborne, Tony Blair is still sticking to his guns
:22:09. > :22:12.on the euro. A few weeks back, that reminds me of the man a few weeks
:22:12. > :22:18.ago who predict the end of the world. And that is Tony Blair. He
:22:18. > :22:23.still won't learn. It is impossible to pin down, these pro-euros.
:22:24. > :22:27.as you might. Hasn't he got Gordon Brown to thank for that? He kept
:22:27. > :22:32.them out of the euro. I know this is the fashionable thing to say,
:22:32. > :22:36.but if you can present me from a quote from Mr Brown to say the euro
:22:36. > :22:42.is other than a good thing, I would be interested to see it. There is
:22:42. > :22:45.nothing on the record from Mr Brown saying the euro would be... He kept
:22:45. > :22:51.himself off the record during that entire period. You may be better
:22:51. > :22:56.informed what goes on behind the scenes, but I have this view...
:22:56. > :23:00.think he is being sarcastic. Do you find it surprising that Tony Blair
:23:01. > :23:06.is still saying that if the economic conditions were right we
:23:06. > :23:11.should join the euro? For the economic conditions to be right the
:23:11. > :23:16.eurozone would have to restabilise, and we would need to know there
:23:16. > :23:19.would never be a bust again. This is pie in the sky stuff. He can say
:23:19. > :23:23.what he likes and he knows the economic conditions would not be
:23:23. > :23:28.right. You said recently you feel David Cameron is the most pro-
:23:29. > :23:33.European Tory leader since Ted Heath? Yes. Where is your evidence
:23:33. > :23:40.for that If you can provide me with any evidence that as Prime Minister
:23:40. > :23:46.he's done a single think that could be construed azure o sceptic...
:23:46. > :23:52.Back in the French Foreign Minister to go to the IMF and turn, where
:23:52. > :23:59.she will allow the IMF to be the vehicle for the eurozone countries.
:23:59. > :24:04.He kept us out of the Greek bail- out. There'll be support for that
:24:04. > :24:09.Backing a French leader of the IMF is not pro-euro. It is not wanting
:24:09. > :24:12.somebody from a developing European nation not to do something sudden
:24:12. > :24:17.than you weren't expecting. There is a debate between the old
:24:17. > :24:21.countries - Europe - and India, China, Brazil, South Africa,
:24:21. > :24:24.Nigeria. It is fascinating that Britain has backed France, who've
:24:24. > :24:32.traditionally owned that job. What's your other evidence?
:24:32. > :24:38.first thing he did in office when he signed us up to Alistair
:24:38. > :24:43.Darling's final act, to squander �12 billion of taxpayers money in
:24:43. > :24:50.sending good money after bad. that Ireland? No, the stability
:24:50. > :24:55.fund in May last year. There's a whole load of other examples. The
:24:55. > :24:59.failure of the European arrest warrant. He has turned into a
:24:59. > :25:04.classic Prime Minister in office. Do you think so? No, this is
:25:04. > :25:08.ridiculous. He couldn't have come in and immediately vetoed the
:25:08. > :25:13.stabilisation fund. He could have done. It is British involvement in
:25:13. > :25:17.it. If something had gone wrong Europe would have rightly turned
:25:17. > :25:21.round and said, you've got obligations here. You can't just
:25:21. > :25:26.wave your new theories around in the middle of a financial crisis.
:25:26. > :25:36.Time for a look back at some of the stories that have caught our eyes
:25:36. > :25:36.
:25:36. > :25:42.over the last few days. U-turn? What U-turn? Justice
:25:42. > :25:50.Secretary Ken Clarke denied he backed down despite dropping plans
:25:50. > :25:55.forerly ier sentences for guilty pleas. The military warned that
:25:55. > :25:59.action in Libya was putting the armed services under pressure.
:25:59. > :26:03.One massive U-turn the Government did admit, if only for ten minutes,
:26:03. > :26:08.was William Hague's decision to water down cuts to the World
:26:08. > :26:13.Service. Victory for backbenchers as Mark
:26:14. > :26:18.Pritchard won the day to ban wild circus animals. I'm not going to be
:26:18. > :26:22.kowtowed by the whips or the Prime Minister of my country. But there
:26:22. > :26:26.was no reprieve for the wild animals of Number Ten. David
:26:26. > :26:32.Cameron has confirmed that Larry the Downing Street cat has made his
:26:32. > :26:36.first kill. He's a good mouser. He's caught three mice, verifiable.
:26:37. > :26:42.Careerly, the Larry is not for turning.
:26:42. > :26:47.Larry doing the job he was employed to do. Mark Pritchard made a
:26:47. > :26:51.passionate plea in the House of Commons. He wasn't going to be
:26:51. > :26:56.pressurised or kowtowed. Downing Street doesn't recognise their
:26:56. > :27:01.description of their conversation. He said Downing Street always talks
:27:02. > :27:08.to MPs, which is good to know! They are always putting pressure on MPs
:27:09. > :27:13.to do what they want? It does. The Pritchard thing is emblematic of
:27:13. > :27:20.what happens now. There is an insurgent parliamentary party.
:27:20. > :27:26.There are mutterings about the whips' office and the chief whip in
:27:26. > :27:29.particular. There's a storm brewing and Pritchard is a manifestation of
:27:29. > :27:34.that. But the storm brewing is coming from a very different
:27:34. > :27:38.quarter on very different issues. It is interesting that it came out.
:27:38. > :27:45.I think there is some curious game going on here which we won't see
:27:45. > :27:51.for ages, where he's been sent out as a stunt really, a gegsary stunt,
:27:51. > :28:01.so the true rebellion -- a diversionary stunt, so the true
:28:01. > :28:05.rebel yont isn't seen. -- rebellion. They are trying to present a
:28:05. > :28:11.narrative of what the relationship is between Cameron and his MPs, and
:28:11. > :28:16.the backbenchers and how he reads them the riot Act but they stick
:28:16. > :28:24.with their consciences. It is a beautiful Jilly Cooper mar tiv.
:28:24. > :28:28.This is a conspiracy -- narrative. This is a conspiracy from the
:28:28. > :28:32.Guardian. Is this a habit, the U- turn. In their hurry to get as much
:28:33. > :28:38.policy done as possible, is the coalition Government sigh it is
:28:38. > :28:45.wise, considered Government and Ministers that make decisions and
:28:45. > :28:49.they can backtrack on them? defence of listening, if he didn't
:28:49. > :28:53.he would be accused of being dogmatic. I don't see this yet as
:28:53. > :28:56.being a huge political problem, although I do think there are real
:28:56. > :29:01.arguments inside Downing Street about the pace of public service
:29:01. > :29:06.reform. Nobody from Downing Street needs to prove that they can U-turn.
:29:06. > :29:11.They U-turn like dancing bears! If I can stick with the circus analogy.
:29:11. > :29:20.In their defence, not on anything really important. On the economy,
:29:20. > :29:24.on cuts, on welfare reform, and on education. These are the three big
:29:24. > :29:30.narrative stories. That's all for this week. It was a great debate in
:29:30. > :29:33.the chamber yesterday about banning wild animals in circuss. We'll be