13/07/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/07/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles