09/07/2013 Newsnight Scotland

they are used, in effect, we would Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Is

this really the end of machine politics?

Ed Miliband vows to reform the relationship between Labour and the

unions. But will it make a difference?

And cameras in the court room - this evening a documentary following the

Nat Fraser case was shown on Channel four. Should more court cases be

televised? Good evening. Falkirk was the muse

for Ed Miliband's speech, the crisis that forced him to propose changes

to the relationship between the Labour and the unions. Union members

will have to opt in to Labour Party affiliation, rather than make the

effort to opt out as at present. And the idea of primaries to avoid

Falkirk-style selection battles was also floated. For a speech that was

supposedly about weakening the union ties, it was remarkably well

received by the unions. The Unite boss Len McClusky even called it

visionary. So, how radical are the changes proposed? Andrew Black

reports. Falkirk, the small town in Scotland

at the centre of a big controversy. It began with Labour's takeover of

the selection process for the Westminster seat of Falkirk after

allegations the Unite union, one of the party's biggest donors, was

influencing the decision. Today after several weeks of attacks by

his political opponents, Labour leader Ed Miliband ledge to reform

his party's relationship with the unions. -- pledged to reform.

we saw in Falkirk was part of the death throes of the old pop the

Turks -- old politics. It feeds the mistrust people have in politics.

People think politicians are just in it for themselves, not to be

trusted, not to be believed. Every time something like Falkirk happens,

it confirms people's worst suspicions. What did Ed Miliband

announced today? First, he wants an end to automatic affiliation for

union members to the Labour Party. Union members would also have to opt

in to pay subscriptions to Labour. And he wants a US style open primary

full selection of Labour candidates in the 2016 London mayor elections.

And in other contexts but which ones? -- contests. When the dust

settles, nothing could be more symbolic of the new politics than an

open primary in Falkirk. Why don't you hold one? We will look at it. I

have said that we will look at seeds where there are difficulties and we

will take action -- at seats. The Falkirk situation is troubled

enough. We have to proceed cautiously. What effect might this

have on Labour in Scotland? Like Ed Miliband, this woman was elected

Scottish Lady Lever -- Scottish Labour leader. She was outpolled in

the election. At the time, she spoke out about opening up the party.

While I am leader, nothing will be off-limits. There will not be one

policy, one way of working which cannot be changed. The one test will

be that what is in the interests of people of Scotland, not in the

interests of ourselves. Today Johann Lamont who is in charge of the whole

party in Scotland said she would reflect on Ed Miliband's repose

while stressing Labour's links to the trade union movement had been a

force for good. But will be unions accept the reforms? The boss of the

Unite union which previously threatened to sue the Labour Party

over the Falkirk allegations seemed positive. The vision he has set

forward, that this would attract tens of thousands of trade unionists

into active participation in the Labour Party is something I would

100% support. Let us see the details. Ed Miliband has sought to

draw a line under the events of Falkirk. His political opponents

have continued to suggest that what went on here was just the tip of the

iceberg. That has been excessively delight by the Labour leadership --

explicitly denied. But it is the kind of validation they can well do

without. With that in mind, Ed Miliband is determined to see the

reforms through. That is not likely to immediately shift the focus from

what his opponents have dubbed the Falkirk crisis.

We did ask to speak to the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Johann

Lamont, but she is unavailable. So, I'm joined by a panel of

Labour-watchers. In Edinburgh, former Labour adviser Simon Pia and

Gregor Gall who is professor of industrial relations at Bradford

University. Here in the studio is Dennis Cananvan who had his own

issues with the Labour selection process in Falkirk and now chairs

the yes campaign. Simon Pia, you were waxing lyrical a week ago about

primary is. Presumably, you like this idea? Very kind of you to

describe it as lyricism. 2008, when I was working for Wendy Alexander,

she called for primaries and reform of the party in her speech in 2008.

As long ago as 20 years ago, I was saying to people in the Labour Party

that I felt the relationship with the unions had to change to reflect

the changes in society. I welcome what Ed Miliband has done today. It

is not before time. You have got Dennis Cananvan, a well-respected

man sitting beside you, he may well have been in the Labour Party today

if we have had a primary in Falkirk in 1999. The obvious argument

against it is that if you can register an interest in labour, it

does not give anyone very much incentive to be a party member. That

would apply to the other parties as well. I went to the AGM a year ago

and at the beginning of the meeting I was the youngest person in the

room. That shows you that these party meetings are out of touch. A

couple of people turned up late, younger people, better things to do.

But I think it is just something that is brought up to distract from

the idea that party politics has to open up and reconnect with people.

The Labour Party in particular has a problem with this. I think it has

got a problem with the referendum and not just the general election

but the Scottish elections after that are reconnecting, getting in

touch with people again. The relationship with the unions is seen

as very incestuous, inward looking politics. We have to change it.

People... Selections are rigged. It happens in all parties. Labour has

to deal with the issue with the unions and I think it will be good

with the unions as well and that is why Len McCluskey is recognising

this. Dennis Cananvan, it looks like you could be the prospective Labour

candidate for Falkirk again! I am not so sure I agree with primary is

because I would say, why should someone who is not a member of a

political party have a vote in who the candidate for that political

party should be? I am all in favour of widening the franchise but I

think the best way to widen the franchise is to bring more members

in. And to make what was once the people's party truly representative

of the people, making it a party of mass membership. Tony Blair when he

first became leader, he had a target of over a million members. That

never materialised. Now if you look at the membership of the Labour

Party in many areas, what does it consist of? If you take a array --

take away the councillors, the researchers, the paid officials, the

relatives, the friends there is hardly anybody left. The argument

would be that the world has changed since the days when you had big

Labour Party or indeed any other party branches in constituencies and

having primary is would be a way of addressing the questions MPs spend

much of their time scratching their heads about. The fact they are

completely disengaged from the electorate. That is part of the

problem. The political classes disengaged from the people. Would

this not bring people back in? must recruit more people, not just

the wannabe MPs, but the people who really want a say in the policies of

a party which has drifted away from them and let them down. What do you

make of this idea, Gregor Gall? issue is not a one-off structure, it

is one of politics. Until the Labour Party returns to its social

democratic roots and has policies that protect people from the ravages

of the markets, no matter how you cut the cards in how you like people

to participate, whether it is primaries, it will not crack the

nut. You are with Dennis Cananvan on this one? It does allow people who

are antipathetic to Labour to influence Labour candidates. That

would be a retrograde step. I think there are other ways and better ways

to get more people involved in the Labour Party is used to be the case

30, 40 years ago. As I am stressing, the key in my mind is not the nature

of branch meetings, not the nature of conference, per se, it is the

politics. Until Labour has politics different to the other main parties,

it will not provide the stimulus for people to get involved. I want to

move on. A brief reply to those two Rotherham withering demolitions of

your position, Simon Pia. They are very old-fashioned and conservative.

It has worked in France and Italy. A guy in France, they won against the

party machine and they can bring in politics that people feel connected

to. Dennis Cananvan, UART dreaming if you think you are going to

recruit members to come along to meetings on a Thursday night at a

pub in Falkirk. In primaries, you sign up to the valleys. In France

and Italy, you pay a euro to vote and you sign up to the values .

People are not going to be full-time activists like in the past. I asked

you to be brief! What about the idea of opting in rather than opting out

of the Labour Party? Strangely enough, I agree with Ed Miliband on

this for a different reason. I do not see what you put should be

coerced into becoming members of the Labour Party -- I do not see why

people should be. If you do not opt out, you are an affiliated member of

the Labour Party. That's looks like construction rather than voluntarily

joining. -- looks like conscription. I have reached the same conclusion

as Ed Miliband for different reasons. There are millions of trade

unionists who are disillusioned with the way the Labour Party is going.

And why should it not be made easier for them to tell the Labour Party, I

don't like your policies, therefore, I am going to take my subscription

and put it elsewhere? Either to a candidate of another party or a

particular political cause. It could be trade unions for independence,

for example. I know many trade unionists... I do not like the way

they are being demonised by certain people in the Labour Party and

certain sections of the media. Most people I know are good hard working

people and they should not be having their money conscripted into one

political party without being given the opportunity to say otherwise.

Gregor Gall, you views on this. is a historical situation dating

back to the Second World War. It does need to be reformed because it

is true on the Labour Party side and the union affiliates side that there

is an inadequate level of participation from members of

different that within the Labour Party. I am not so convinced that

the measures Ed Miliband has talked about today and those that might

emerge from the initiative will solve this problem. I do not want to

go back to the point I made previously about the content of the

politics don't do that. Let me ask you something else. If you do have

an opt out or and opting, it is going to undermine, some people are

saying, it leaves more money for the unions to use to influence Labour.

They will have bigger political funds. The whole idea of one third,

one third, one third College to elect the leader would become pretty

unsustainable, wouldn't it? Absolutely, and that's why these

changes have such ramifications. To basically reject the level of

funding that is needed for Labour to fight the forthcoming general

election. There are huge implications. Whether unions can so

make large donations to Labour but not through the political levy to

the individual members remains to be seen. Simon Pia, what do you make of

that? It is as if Ed Miliband is reforming some stuff to get rid of

an image of the Labour Party. If people think that the unions get a

one third say in electing the next leader of the Labour Party, I don't

know how much party confidence matters any more, but they get 50%

there. Electoral college has to go, it should be one member, one vote.

It is ridiculous that to opt in, you've got to have that in this day

and age. It's how you get people involved in politics. He is opening

the party up. The structures, the social media, the whole array of

ways you can operate in politics nowadays. We've got to look for

that. You are speaking about new policies for the party. This is, I

think, ground-breaking stuff. You let people have more of a say and

more of an input in what sort of politics they like and the

candidates who will be selected, rather than having the party

hierarchy parachuting in new Labour, metropolitan yuppies all

pseudo- working-class heroes from the union movement. We will have to

bring this to an end fairly soon. I'm curious as to what your feelings

are about the Labour Party. If it all changes and all the problems

went, would you like to be back in the Labour Party? Know. I feel very

sorry about the way the Labour Party is going. The Labour Party has lost

its soul. It has lost its moral compass. I see no signs of it

recovering. They've got a situation now where by Miliband isn't even

making any commitment to reverse the cuts being made by the Tory

government. He won't even give a commitment to repeal the bedroom

tax. What kind of an alternative is that? That is what Labour did in

1997. They said they would stick to put Tory spending plans for three

years. It was a silly thing to say. People, especially poor people, are

looking for an alternative. I don't see it as a sign of defeatism.

Everything of the Labour Party or any Democratic party, they have to

reconnect with people and have a massive recruitment drive in

politics, democracy would be healthier. Can you see a good

outcome for Labour from this? the short-term. I think there will

be a significant amount of damage done within the Labour Party. It is

not clear that Miliband will win the day, particularly given that he

needs union support to get these proposals through the party. I think

it is in that respect ironic that Unite have been the most supportive

of that. Where's the GMB union has threatened to cut funding because of

this. No, I don't think that will be the case, that much positive will

come out of that. But the ultimate clincher will be what happens in the

2015 general election. We shall have to leave it there. A documentary

showing the trial of Nat Fraser, who was convicted of killing his wife

Arlene, was shown earlier this evening on Channel 4. It's the first

time that cameras have been allowed to film an entire trial in any

British court. Should more trials be televised? We'll discuss that in a

moment, but first here's a flavour of the documentary.

Can you think back with me over the past 14 years? Are you able to tell

us today how many times you have lied about your involvement in the

disappearance of Arlene Fraser? I can't put a figure on it. It's too

many times to put a figure on, isn't it? I don't know.You don't know,

it's more than ten? I would say yes. It's more than 20? I don't know.

It's more than 100? I doubt it. Nat Fraser did not kill Arlene Fraser,

did he tell you that? Your persistent lies. You killed Arlene

Fraser. Not correct. I'm joined now by Brian McConnachie QC, who is

chairman of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association. Did you

see it tonight? About half of it. What did you make of it when you saw

it on television? I think it was very well done. I think it must have

improved the level of knowledge of people who watched it. And I

suspect, as macabre as it sounds, people were possibly fascinated and

even enjoyed it. The problem is, from a televisual point of view, is

that people would choose in to watch this because it was the first time

it happened. Who knows, they might watch another one, but after that it

will wear off. This would only become gripping on a long-term basis

if it were trials as they happen. I'm not sure that's right. I think

there are people who go to court day in day out to watch trials. You see

them regularly. Let me assure you, they are not a television audience.

Channel 4 after millions of people. I'm sure they are. I suspect you

might be able to get it, in the manner in which the programme was

filmed, I think people would be interested. Is there an argument

against having live coverage? difficulty is social media, and

people who would no doubt be tweeting along to what they were

watching. The potential danger perhaps of Jura is being in some way

influenced by that. That happens these days anyway, doesn't it?

quite to the same extent. I take your points, but in highly

publicised trials, where it's all over the newspapers every day, there

must be people tweeting about these things. I suspect there are.

Nowadays, the jury are told that they are to stay away from the

internet and social media for that very reason, that they could

potentially be influenced. My own view is that it would be a positive

thing for trials to be filmed on a fairly regular basis. But not live?

It wouldn't particularly bother me. But the difficulty would then be,

where do you get your audience from who are going to watch what, in

essence, is in fact at times, I have to confess, pretty boring? Channel 4

managed to make a very interesting two our programme. You could have

edited highlights in the evening each day. Yes, I think that would be

a way forward. The obvious problem here... Apparently with this

documentary, all the key witnesses gave permission in advance. That

couldn't be sustained if you were going to do it on a regular basis.

That's right. My understanding is that Channel 4 were allowed to film

the entire trial and get the permissions after. They managed to

persuade the court that was a way forward, having been thwarted

previously by someone with drawing content at last minute. If it was to

be done on a regular basis, and if it was to be live streaming, then it

would have to be done without consent. But, again, I don't see a

particular problem with that. other obvious objection would be

that witnesses might not be so prepared to come... You can imagine

a lot of trials where some of the witnesses are, to put it in a way,

dodgy geezers, and they don't particularly like the idea of having

their faces plastered all over the television. They can have their

faces plastered all over as they are coming in and out of court. People

can come in and watch the trials anyway. The fact it may well be seen

by more people is hardly a reason... What is the good side of

this? Do you just want people to understand how the law works?

part of it. At the moment, people 's understanding of the law comes from

Coronation Street or EastEnders, whether it's English law badly

done, or in America. It will give them an insight into it and how

difficult it is for the people who prepare these cases. Tomorrow's

front pages. It's summer, hot weather. The Guardian, G4S faces

damages claim of killing a deportee. The Daily Telegraph, anger as Europe