:00:10. > :00:13.they are used, in effect, we would Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Is
:00:13. > :00:16.this really the end of machine politics?
:00:16. > :00:19.Ed Miliband vows to reform the relationship between Labour and the
:00:19. > :00:22.unions. But will it make a difference?
:00:22. > :00:26.And cameras in the court room - this evening a documentary following the
:00:26. > :00:33.Nat Fraser case was shown on Channel four. Should more court cases be
:00:33. > :00:36.televised? Good evening. Falkirk was the muse
:00:36. > :00:39.for Ed Miliband's speech, the crisis that forced him to propose changes
:00:39. > :00:42.to the relationship between the Labour and the unions. Union members
:00:42. > :00:46.will have to opt in to Labour Party affiliation, rather than make the
:00:46. > :00:48.effort to opt out as at present. And the idea of primaries to avoid
:00:49. > :00:51.Falkirk-style selection battles was also floated. For a speech that was
:00:51. > :00:54.supposedly about weakening the union ties, it was remarkably well
:00:54. > :00:57.received by the unions. The Unite boss Len McClusky even called it
:00:57. > :01:07.visionary. So, how radical are the changes proposed? Andrew Black
:01:07. > :01:09.
:01:09. > :01:14.reports. Falkirk, the small town in Scotland
:01:14. > :01:18.at the centre of a big controversy. It began with Labour's takeover of
:01:18. > :01:24.the selection process for the Westminster seat of Falkirk after
:01:24. > :01:29.allegations the Unite union, one of the party's biggest donors, was
:01:29. > :01:32.influencing the decision. Today after several weeks of attacks by
:01:32. > :01:39.his political opponents, Labour leader Ed Miliband ledge to reform
:01:39. > :01:45.his party's relationship with the unions. -- pledged to reform.
:01:45. > :01:50.we saw in Falkirk was part of the death throes of the old pop the
:01:50. > :01:53.Turks -- old politics. It feeds the mistrust people have in politics.
:01:53. > :01:58.People think politicians are just in it for themselves, not to be
:01:58. > :02:04.trusted, not to be believed. Every time something like Falkirk happens,
:02:04. > :02:09.it confirms people's worst suspicions. What did Ed Miliband
:02:09. > :02:13.announced today? First, he wants an end to automatic affiliation for
:02:13. > :02:20.union members to the Labour Party. Union members would also have to opt
:02:20. > :02:25.in to pay subscriptions to Labour. And he wants a US style open primary
:02:25. > :02:35.full selection of Labour candidates in the 2016 London mayor elections.
:02:35. > :02:35.
:02:35. > :02:39.And in other contexts but which ones? -- contests. When the dust
:02:39. > :02:49.settles, nothing could be more symbolic of the new politics than an
:02:49. > :02:51.
:02:51. > :02:54.open primary in Falkirk. Why don't you hold one? We will look at it. I
:02:54. > :03:00.have said that we will look at seeds where there are difficulties and we
:03:00. > :03:05.will take action -- at seats. The Falkirk situation is troubled
:03:05. > :03:10.enough. We have to proceed cautiously. What effect might this
:03:10. > :03:19.have on Labour in Scotland? Like Ed Miliband, this woman was elected
:03:19. > :03:24.Scottish Lady Lever -- Scottish Labour leader. She was outpolled in
:03:24. > :03:29.the election. At the time, she spoke out about opening up the party.
:03:29. > :03:34.While I am leader, nothing will be off-limits. There will not be one
:03:34. > :03:38.policy, one way of working which cannot be changed. The one test will
:03:38. > :03:46.be that what is in the interests of people of Scotland, not in the
:03:46. > :03:50.interests of ourselves. Today Johann Lamont who is in charge of the whole
:03:50. > :03:56.party in Scotland said she would reflect on Ed Miliband's repose
:03:56. > :04:01.while stressing Labour's links to the trade union movement had been a
:04:01. > :04:04.force for good. But will be unions accept the reforms? The boss of the
:04:04. > :04:10.Unite union which previously threatened to sue the Labour Party
:04:10. > :04:14.over the Falkirk allegations seemed positive. The vision he has set
:04:14. > :04:21.forward, that this would attract tens of thousands of trade unionists
:04:21. > :04:25.into active participation in the Labour Party is something I would
:04:25. > :04:29.100% support. Let us see the details. Ed Miliband has sought to
:04:29. > :04:34.draw a line under the events of Falkirk. His political opponents
:04:34. > :04:38.have continued to suggest that what went on here was just the tip of the
:04:38. > :04:44.iceberg. That has been excessively delight by the Labour leadership --
:04:44. > :04:50.explicitly denied. But it is the kind of validation they can well do
:04:50. > :04:54.without. With that in mind, Ed Miliband is determined to see the
:04:54. > :05:04.reforms through. That is not likely to immediately shift the focus from
:05:04. > :05:05.
:05:05. > :05:09.what his opponents have dubbed the Falkirk crisis.
:05:09. > :05:12.We did ask to speak to the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Johann
:05:12. > :05:14.Lamont, but she is unavailable. So, I'm joined by a panel of
:05:14. > :05:16.Labour-watchers. In Edinburgh, former Labour adviser Simon Pia and
:05:16. > :05:19.Gregor Gall who is professor of industrial relations at Bradford
:05:19. > :05:22.University. Here in the studio is Dennis Cananvan who had his own
:05:22. > :05:29.issues with the Labour selection process in Falkirk and now chairs
:05:29. > :05:35.the yes campaign. Simon Pia, you were waxing lyrical a week ago about
:05:35. > :05:42.primary is. Presumably, you like this idea? Very kind of you to
:05:42. > :05:49.describe it as lyricism. 2008, when I was working for Wendy Alexander,
:05:49. > :05:54.she called for primaries and reform of the party in her speech in 2008.
:05:54. > :05:58.As long ago as 20 years ago, I was saying to people in the Labour Party
:05:58. > :06:03.that I felt the relationship with the unions had to change to reflect
:06:03. > :06:08.the changes in society. I welcome what Ed Miliband has done today. It
:06:08. > :06:15.is not before time. You have got Dennis Cananvan, a well-respected
:06:15. > :06:18.man sitting beside you, he may well have been in the Labour Party today
:06:18. > :06:23.if we have had a primary in Falkirk in 1999. The obvious argument
:06:23. > :06:28.against it is that if you can register an interest in labour, it
:06:28. > :06:33.does not give anyone very much incentive to be a party member. That
:06:33. > :06:37.would apply to the other parties as well. I went to the AGM a year ago
:06:37. > :06:41.and at the beginning of the meeting I was the youngest person in the
:06:41. > :06:46.room. That shows you that these party meetings are out of touch. A
:06:46. > :06:52.couple of people turned up late, younger people, better things to do.
:06:52. > :06:56.But I think it is just something that is brought up to distract from
:06:56. > :07:00.the idea that party politics has to open up and reconnect with people.
:07:00. > :07:04.The Labour Party in particular has a problem with this. I think it has
:07:04. > :07:08.got a problem with the referendum and not just the general election
:07:08. > :07:14.but the Scottish elections after that are reconnecting, getting in
:07:14. > :07:23.touch with people again. The relationship with the unions is seen
:07:23. > :07:27.as very incestuous, inward looking politics. We have to change it.
:07:27. > :07:31.People... Selections are rigged. It happens in all parties. Labour has
:07:31. > :07:34.to deal with the issue with the unions and I think it will be good
:07:34. > :07:43.with the unions as well and that is why Len McCluskey is recognising
:07:43. > :07:48.this. Dennis Cananvan, it looks like you could be the prospective Labour
:07:48. > :07:53.candidate for Falkirk again! I am not so sure I agree with primary is
:07:53. > :07:58.because I would say, why should someone who is not a member of a
:07:58. > :08:04.political party have a vote in who the candidate for that political
:08:04. > :08:08.party should be? I am all in favour of widening the franchise but I
:08:08. > :08:14.think the best way to widen the franchise is to bring more members
:08:14. > :08:19.in. And to make what was once the people's party truly representative
:08:19. > :08:24.of the people, making it a party of mass membership. Tony Blair when he
:08:25. > :08:29.first became leader, he had a target of over a million members. That
:08:29. > :08:35.never materialised. Now if you look at the membership of the Labour
:08:35. > :08:39.Party in many areas, what does it consist of? If you take a array --
:08:39. > :08:44.take away the councillors, the researchers, the paid officials, the
:08:44. > :08:47.relatives, the friends there is hardly anybody left. The argument
:08:48. > :08:53.would be that the world has changed since the days when you had big
:08:53. > :08:59.Labour Party or indeed any other party branches in constituencies and
:08:59. > :09:03.having primary is would be a way of addressing the questions MPs spend
:09:04. > :09:08.much of their time scratching their heads about. The fact they are
:09:08. > :09:14.completely disengaged from the electorate. That is part of the
:09:14. > :09:18.problem. The political classes disengaged from the people. Would
:09:18. > :09:24.this not bring people back in? must recruit more people, not just
:09:24. > :09:32.the wannabe MPs, but the people who really want a say in the policies of
:09:32. > :09:37.a party which has drifted away from them and let them down. What do you
:09:37. > :09:42.make of this idea, Gregor Gall? issue is not a one-off structure, it
:09:42. > :09:46.is one of politics. Until the Labour Party returns to its social
:09:47. > :09:52.democratic roots and has policies that protect people from the ravages
:09:52. > :09:55.of the markets, no matter how you cut the cards in how you like people
:09:56. > :10:03.to participate, whether it is primaries, it will not crack the
:10:03. > :10:07.nut. You are with Dennis Cananvan on this one? It does allow people who
:10:07. > :10:10.are antipathetic to Labour to influence Labour candidates. That
:10:10. > :10:14.would be a retrograde step. I think there are other ways and better ways
:10:14. > :10:20.to get more people involved in the Labour Party is used to be the case
:10:20. > :10:25.30, 40 years ago. As I am stressing, the key in my mind is not the nature
:10:25. > :10:29.of branch meetings, not the nature of conference, per se, it is the
:10:29. > :10:33.politics. Until Labour has politics different to the other main parties,
:10:33. > :10:40.it will not provide the stimulus for people to get involved. I want to
:10:40. > :10:46.move on. A brief reply to those two Rotherham withering demolitions of
:10:46. > :10:56.your position, Simon Pia. They are very old-fashioned and conservative.
:10:56. > :10:58.
:10:58. > :11:01.It has worked in France and Italy. A guy in France, they won against the
:11:02. > :11:07.party machine and they can bring in politics that people feel connected
:11:07. > :11:10.to. Dennis Cananvan, UART dreaming if you think you are going to
:11:11. > :11:16.recruit members to come along to meetings on a Thursday night at a
:11:16. > :11:24.pub in Falkirk. In primaries, you sign up to the valleys. In France
:11:24. > :11:30.and Italy, you pay a euro to vote and you sign up to the values .
:11:30. > :11:35.People are not going to be full-time activists like in the past. I asked
:11:35. > :11:41.you to be brief! What about the idea of opting in rather than opting out
:11:41. > :11:45.of the Labour Party? Strangely enough, I agree with Ed Miliband on
:11:45. > :11:51.this for a different reason. I do not see what you put should be
:11:51. > :11:58.coerced into becoming members of the Labour Party -- I do not see why
:11:58. > :12:01.people should be. If you do not opt out, you are an affiliated member of
:12:01. > :12:08.the Labour Party. That's looks like construction rather than voluntarily
:12:08. > :12:12.joining. -- looks like conscription. I have reached the same conclusion
:12:12. > :12:17.as Ed Miliband for different reasons. There are millions of trade
:12:17. > :12:23.unionists who are disillusioned with the way the Labour Party is going.
:12:23. > :12:28.And why should it not be made easier for them to tell the Labour Party, I
:12:28. > :12:35.don't like your policies, therefore, I am going to take my subscription
:12:35. > :12:39.and put it elsewhere? Either to a candidate of another party or a
:12:39. > :12:45.particular political cause. It could be trade unions for independence,
:12:45. > :12:48.for example. I know many trade unionists... I do not like the way
:12:48. > :12:53.they are being demonised by certain people in the Labour Party and
:12:54. > :12:59.certain sections of the media. Most people I know are good hard working
:12:59. > :13:06.people and they should not be having their money conscripted into one
:13:06. > :13:15.political party without being given the opportunity to say otherwise.
:13:15. > :13:19.Gregor Gall, you views on this. is a historical situation dating
:13:19. > :13:23.back to the Second World War. It does need to be reformed because it
:13:24. > :13:26.is true on the Labour Party side and the union affiliates side that there
:13:26. > :13:30.is an inadequate level of participation from members of
:13:30. > :13:34.different that within the Labour Party. I am not so convinced that
:13:34. > :13:37.the measures Ed Miliband has talked about today and those that might
:13:37. > :13:41.emerge from the initiative will solve this problem. I do not want to
:13:41. > :13:46.go back to the point I made previously about the content of the
:13:46. > :13:54.politics don't do that. Let me ask you something else. If you do have
:13:54. > :13:59.an opt out or and opting, it is going to undermine, some people are
:13:59. > :14:05.saying, it leaves more money for the unions to use to influence Labour.
:14:05. > :14:09.They will have bigger political funds. The whole idea of one third,
:14:09. > :14:19.one third, one third College to elect the leader would become pretty
:14:19. > :14:19.
:14:19. > :14:23.unsustainable, wouldn't it? Absolutely, and that's why these
:14:23. > :14:26.changes have such ramifications. To basically reject the level of
:14:26. > :14:30.funding that is needed for Labour to fight the forthcoming general
:14:31. > :14:35.election. There are huge implications. Whether unions can so
:14:35. > :14:41.make large donations to Labour but not through the political levy to
:14:41. > :14:47.the individual members remains to be seen. Simon Pia, what do you make of
:14:47. > :14:53.that? It is as if Ed Miliband is reforming some stuff to get rid of
:14:53. > :14:57.an image of the Labour Party. If people think that the unions get a
:14:57. > :15:02.one third say in electing the next leader of the Labour Party, I don't
:15:02. > :15:08.know how much party confidence matters any more, but they get 50%
:15:08. > :15:12.there. Electoral college has to go, it should be one member, one vote.
:15:13. > :15:16.It is ridiculous that to opt in, you've got to have that in this day
:15:16. > :15:22.and age. It's how you get people involved in politics. He is opening
:15:22. > :15:25.the party up. The structures, the social media, the whole array of
:15:25. > :15:33.ways you can operate in politics nowadays. We've got to look for
:15:33. > :15:37.that. You are speaking about new policies for the party. This is, I
:15:37. > :15:41.think, ground-breaking stuff. You let people have more of a say and
:15:41. > :15:45.more of an input in what sort of politics they like and the
:15:45. > :15:50.candidates who will be selected, rather than having the party
:15:50. > :16:00.hierarchy parachuting in new Labour, metropolitan yuppies all
:16:00. > :16:02.
:16:02. > :16:06.pseudo- working-class heroes from the union movement. We will have to
:16:06. > :16:11.bring this to an end fairly soon. I'm curious as to what your feelings
:16:11. > :16:17.are about the Labour Party. If it all changes and all the problems
:16:17. > :16:21.went, would you like to be back in the Labour Party? Know. I feel very
:16:21. > :16:28.sorry about the way the Labour Party is going. The Labour Party has lost
:16:28. > :16:34.its soul. It has lost its moral compass. I see no signs of it
:16:34. > :16:39.recovering. They've got a situation now where by Miliband isn't even
:16:39. > :16:43.making any commitment to reverse the cuts being made by the Tory
:16:43. > :16:48.government. He won't even give a commitment to repeal the bedroom
:16:48. > :16:53.tax. What kind of an alternative is that? That is what Labour did in
:16:53. > :16:59.1997. They said they would stick to put Tory spending plans for three
:16:59. > :17:03.years. It was a silly thing to say. People, especially poor people, are
:17:03. > :17:07.looking for an alternative. I don't see it as a sign of defeatism.
:17:07. > :17:10.Everything of the Labour Party or any Democratic party, they have to
:17:10. > :17:14.reconnect with people and have a massive recruitment drive in
:17:14. > :17:20.politics, democracy would be healthier. Can you see a good
:17:20. > :17:25.outcome for Labour from this? the short-term. I think there will
:17:25. > :17:29.be a significant amount of damage done within the Labour Party. It is
:17:29. > :17:33.not clear that Miliband will win the day, particularly given that he
:17:33. > :17:37.needs union support to get these proposals through the party. I think
:17:37. > :17:42.it is in that respect ironic that Unite have been the most supportive
:17:42. > :17:46.of that. Where's the GMB union has threatened to cut funding because of
:17:46. > :17:51.this. No, I don't think that will be the case, that much positive will
:17:51. > :17:54.come out of that. But the ultimate clincher will be what happens in the
:17:54. > :17:58.2015 general election. We shall have to leave it there. A documentary
:17:58. > :18:01.showing the trial of Nat Fraser, who was convicted of killing his wife
:18:01. > :18:04.Arlene, was shown earlier this evening on Channel 4. It's the first
:18:04. > :18:08.time that cameras have been allowed to film an entire trial in any
:18:08. > :18:17.British court. Should more trials be televised? We'll discuss that in a
:18:17. > :18:22.moment, but first here's a flavour of the documentary.
:18:22. > :18:32.Can you think back with me over the past 14 years? Are you able to tell
:18:32. > :18:32.
:18:32. > :18:36.us today how many times you have lied about your involvement in the
:18:36. > :18:43.disappearance of Arlene Fraser? I can't put a figure on it. It's too
:18:43. > :18:51.many times to put a figure on, isn't it? I don't know.You don't know,
:18:51. > :19:01.it's more than ten? I would say yes. It's more than 20? I don't know.
:19:01. > :19:02.
:19:02. > :19:07.It's more than 100? I doubt it. Nat Fraser did not kill Arlene Fraser,
:19:07. > :19:17.did he tell you that? Your persistent lies. You killed Arlene
:19:17. > :19:17.
:19:17. > :19:25.Fraser. Not correct. I'm joined now by Brian McConnachie QC, who is
:19:25. > :19:30.chairman of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association. Did you
:19:30. > :19:36.see it tonight? About half of it. What did you make of it when you saw
:19:36. > :19:39.it on television? I think it was very well done. I think it must have
:19:40. > :19:44.improved the level of knowledge of people who watched it. And I
:19:44. > :19:49.suspect, as macabre as it sounds, people were possibly fascinated and
:19:49. > :19:52.even enjoyed it. The problem is, from a televisual point of view, is
:19:52. > :19:57.that people would choose in to watch this because it was the first time
:19:57. > :20:04.it happened. Who knows, they might watch another one, but after that it
:20:04. > :20:09.will wear off. This would only become gripping on a long-term basis
:20:09. > :20:14.if it were trials as they happen. I'm not sure that's right. I think
:20:14. > :20:23.there are people who go to court day in day out to watch trials. You see
:20:23. > :20:27.them regularly. Let me assure you, they are not a television audience.
:20:27. > :20:32.Channel 4 after millions of people. I'm sure they are. I suspect you
:20:32. > :20:36.might be able to get it, in the manner in which the programme was
:20:36. > :20:42.filmed, I think people would be interested. Is there an argument
:20:42. > :20:45.against having live coverage? difficulty is social media, and
:20:45. > :20:49.people who would no doubt be tweeting along to what they were
:20:49. > :20:58.watching. The potential danger perhaps of Jura is being in some way
:20:58. > :21:02.influenced by that. That happens these days anyway, doesn't it?
:21:02. > :21:06.quite to the same extent. I take your points, but in highly
:21:06. > :21:11.publicised trials, where it's all over the newspapers every day, there
:21:11. > :21:15.must be people tweeting about these things. I suspect there are.
:21:15. > :21:19.Nowadays, the jury are told that they are to stay away from the
:21:19. > :21:23.internet and social media for that very reason, that they could
:21:23. > :21:30.potentially be influenced. My own view is that it would be a positive
:21:31. > :21:35.thing for trials to be filmed on a fairly regular basis. But not live?
:21:35. > :21:40.It wouldn't particularly bother me. But the difficulty would then be,
:21:40. > :21:46.where do you get your audience from who are going to watch what, in
:21:46. > :21:52.essence, is in fact at times, I have to confess, pretty boring? Channel 4
:21:52. > :21:58.managed to make a very interesting two our programme. You could have
:21:58. > :22:03.edited highlights in the evening each day. Yes, I think that would be
:22:03. > :22:07.a way forward. The obvious problem here... Apparently with this
:22:07. > :22:12.documentary, all the key witnesses gave permission in advance. That
:22:13. > :22:16.couldn't be sustained if you were going to do it on a regular basis.
:22:17. > :22:22.That's right. My understanding is that Channel 4 were allowed to film
:22:22. > :22:26.the entire trial and get the permissions after. They managed to
:22:26. > :22:29.persuade the court that was a way forward, having been thwarted
:22:29. > :22:33.previously by someone with drawing content at last minute. If it was to
:22:33. > :22:38.be done on a regular basis, and if it was to be live streaming, then it
:22:38. > :22:43.would have to be done without consent. But, again, I don't see a
:22:43. > :22:47.particular problem with that. other obvious objection would be
:22:47. > :22:54.that witnesses might not be so prepared to come... You can imagine
:22:54. > :22:57.a lot of trials where some of the witnesses are, to put it in a way,
:22:57. > :23:01.dodgy geezers, and they don't particularly like the idea of having
:23:02. > :23:05.their faces plastered all over the television. They can have their
:23:05. > :23:08.faces plastered all over as they are coming in and out of court. People
:23:08. > :23:12.can come in and watch the trials anyway. The fact it may well be seen
:23:12. > :23:17.by more people is hardly a reason... What is the good side of
:23:17. > :23:22.this? Do you just want people to understand how the law works?
:23:22. > :23:25.part of it. At the moment, people 's understanding of the law comes from
:23:25. > :23:29.Coronation Street or EastEnders, whether it's English law badly
:23:29. > :23:33.done, or in America. It will give them an insight into it and how
:23:33. > :23:40.difficult it is for the people who prepare these cases. Tomorrow's
:23:40. > :23:47.front pages. It's summer, hot weather. The Guardian, G4S faces
:23:47. > :23:57.damages claim of killing a deportee. The Daily Telegraph, anger as Europe
:23:57. > :23:58.