10/07/2012 Newsnight

This programme contains flash photo-y.

Tonight a major retreat instead of a massive defeat. The Government

climbs down on Lords reform, but suffers a large Conservative

rebellion any way. Raising new questions about the coalition

Government. Two years on, is it beginning to look and sound like a

bad marriage. These were the scenes in the

Commons just now, as the Government watched the largest Tory rebellion

since the election. The noes to the left, 124, so the ayes have it, the

ayes have it, unlock. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, will

explain what is coming next. And speaking of a bumpy relationship,

David Cameron and the he did not want to win the French presidential

election, get together to discuss the future of Europe.

Today was about being nice. But on many of the key European issues,

the formula is still "agree to differ". And the Olympic protest

that electrified the world, the Black Power salute from 1968, ahead

of our own games, we hear from the man on the podium making a profound

political point, Tommie Smith. Good evening, the Duke of Wellington

once said that the real test of a great general was to know when to

retreat and to dare to do it. By that test, the general ship of

David Cameron and the coalition is truly great. For some reason that

is not how everybody in parliament sees it tonight. The big Government

retreat on the process of Lords reform, kicking it into the autumn,

raises questions about David Cameron's leadership and authority,

and he experienced what look like the biggest rebellion of his

leadership, on the substance of the policy tonight. Questions we will

be putting to the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, in a

moment. First, our political editor,

Allegra Stratton, on what many see at Westminster as a massive

Government climb-down. This evening he has had a big

defeat, of it not as big as the defeat he would have experienced if

they had gone ahead with the technical-sounding motion programme.

This is crisis delayed not completely averted. There will be

these problems in September and the autumn, as we are getting

progressively close to the period when any way we have a general

election, it is two-and-a-half years away, but this is the happy

spot in the coalition. It gets more difficult from here on in. So it

becomes more difficult for them to do difficult pieces of reform.

Neither side I have spoken to can see how you achieve the consensus

they are talking about. So comfortably this evening. So what

we have is kicking the can down theed road, favourite old friend,

and lots of Liberal Democrats feeling really, we will not now

support the review, we are hear later from people, but we are not

sure to what extent they will be expressive about it. The moment

they don't go for the review, the Tories will say the one

constitutional thing we wanted from this coalition, we will not now get.

So it is truck lens, truck lens rules OK. House of Lords reform is

parliament's never-ending story. A quick canter from a Georgian speech

to last year's Queen's Speech illustrates slow progress. Promised

by a Prime Minister in 1968, and then this coalition's commitment.

Today the agreement sealed in the rose garden look set to suffer its

first dent, a massive Tory uprising against Lords reform. But Lords

reform lives, just, so the coalition does too. It has had a

lot of time, today it got more. Speaker, we have listened carefully

to the debate, so far. Is more prevarication in a wiark of the

British establishment, with the sometimes checkered history. They

have been trying to reform the House of Lords since peerages were

on sale in this office a century ago. Today is another page in a

long book. Today the Government faced with being trounced by the

own MPs, so face with that they withdrew the motion. I wonder if

you have heard of the reports on the 4.00 news, that the programme

motion will not be moved this evening, and whether we are

expecting a statement? I haven't heard the report, I ofn't

listening to the news. That programme motion was a Government

attempt to limit time debating Lords reform to ten days, far too

little time for many. It recruited what would become the biggest

Government defeat yet. Rumours swell at teatime it was being

binned. For Lords reform to progress, it needs those that

support reform to vote for reform, and to vote for that reform to make

progress through this House. It is clear that opposition are not

prepared to do that. So we will not... (shouting) Mr Speaker, it is

clear, it is clear that the opposition are not prepared to do

that, so we will not move the programme motion tonight.

Without a programme motion, the historical parallel of clear. This

attempt at Lords reform could suffer the same fate as Harold

Wilson's. Once you lose control of the timetable, you can't be sure

how long the bill will take, and it enables MPs from either side to

fillly Buster the bill. Look at what happened to the Wilson

Government when they attempted House of Lords reform, they won the

second reading vote easily, but didn't control the timetable. The

bill went into months of committee. All-night sit after all-night

sitting, with the Government trying to use closure of votes, night

after night, to get the business through, in the end the Government

just gave up. Moments after the Government as

announcement, senior Lib Dems were clearly not very happy. There is no

guarantee that Labour will change its attitude, ostrich-like attitude.

They have sought to make out of this as much damage and difficulty

as they possibly can for the coalition. We want sufficient

debate, but we actually want to know there is an end to the process.

Without a programme motion you can't be sure of that. By contrast,

one Tory MP, who led the opposition, was quite happy. I'm pleaseded they

have moved away from an almost certain defeat on the programme

motion. What I hope they do, this is my message to them, is reflect,

and we can get on with reform, right now, without having to have

election. If they are persistent in is their view that we must elect a

second chamber, we must threaten the legitimacy s or primacy of the

Commons, then let's put it to a referendum for the country.

Prime Minister is thought to have told Nick Clegg that he needed time

to pick off Tory rebels, that is what he has got tonight. For the

Tory rebels it is not clear that time will help. They won't sanction

any reform to the House of Lords, the Lib Dems think this is their

prize. Some would call it a deep freeze, others would say it is an

Ice Age burial. To get to the end you want, we end up with 20, 30, 40

days about debate about the Lords, when you are talking about economic

issues being more important? As I said, the Government needs to

reflect. If they want to you avoid a long, drawn-out, painful process,

through both houses, it still has to go to the Lords, and it could be

there for a year. All the other Government programmes will be

delayed. If they want to avoid that they ought to work towards

consensus. The toe get that consensus, something has to change

-- to get that consensus, is something has to change, the rigid

position will have to shift considerably over the summer. What

a summer it will be. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, joins me

now from Westminster. This is obviously a big blow to David

Cameron's own authority, isn't it, when he's unable to leads scores of

Conservatives, to support a policy s which was in the Tory manifesto,

in which he himself has promoted. No. It makes no difference to his

authority that a third of the parliamentary party are unhappy

with this? We have known there is a significant number of people that

have principle objections on House of Lords reform, and the Liberal

Democrats and to a far greater extent the Labour Party are split

on this as well. The reason why we couldn't have a programme motion

this evening, which would have allowed a timely and orderly chance

to look at the bill, is because the Labour Party said they were in the

end supporting the reform, but not the means. So David Cameron can't

convince Tory MPs, that's a bizarre argument? You heard earlier, from

Liberal Democrats that see it as no part of their job to take David's

side in every argument, it was Labour's obstructiveness, what was

described as the ostrich-like attitude, which has meant we can't

proceed with this. It is not Labour's fault that the

Conservative leader cannot persuade his own party, or a significant

amount of MPs on this issue, is it? We had an overwhelming majority for

House of Lords reform this evening. And we a majority of people in all

three parties voting for it. That is in alignment with the clearly

expressed will of the British people. The majority of them would

like a majority elected chamber. is aed good night for you? It is a

good night -- It is aed good night for you? It is a good night for

those of us who believe in House of Lords reform, it is the biggest

vote on that ever. It is a matter ofed sadness to me, whenever I see

Conservative colleagues and friends in a different voting lobby for he

moo. There is a task for me and others, who believe in reform to

persuade colleagues. I listened carefully to arguments put forward

by opponents of reform, many friends of mine, of whom I agree on

99% of issues. You make concessions to these people, will you? A

referendum, or more time, which the Labour Party wants in this debate,

will you have to make concessions? I want to build consensus, and make

sure we have as much support as posb. There has to beed goodwill on

-- possible. There has to be goodwill on all sides. And on David

Cameron's part. He was elected on a manifesto, as we all were, which

sought to reform the House of Lords and introduce an elected element.

That is what the majority of MPs voted for in the last parliament,

and that is the basis he's trying to go forward. There are a number

of colleagues who have a number of objections and have questions, I

want to answer those questions and objections, I spent part of the

weekend talking to a number of colleagues talking about skeplt

sceptical issues to do with House of Lords reform. Some of those

changed their minds and became convinced this was a measure that

needed to be passed. In time we can convince more people. It needs to

be a civilised dialogue. The earlier questions about it being a

blow to David Cameron, if I may say so, part of the problem with the

aprop inherent in -- approach inherent in that question, is it,

let me finish, you have had plenty of opportunity to interrupt so far.

I think that what we have seen tonight, is an attempt by those of

us who believe in reerm to, to try to build that con-- reform, to try

to build that consensus. I won't personalise any aspect of this

debate. If I could possibly get into the Monday logue here? Nick

Clegg -- monolog here? Nick Clegg has shown political courage in

making some people in their party to hold their nose to vote in

favour of tuition fees and NHS and welfare reform, to keep this

coalition going. David Cameron has not been able to do that. That is

not true, not many Tories don't -- we voted for a change for a

referendum for that system. Conservative colleagues haven't

been enthusiastic about certain Lib Dem issues but have supported them.

Nick Clegg has shown political courage and David Cameron. Both of

them, by forming the coalition and ensuring we have put forward

welfare reform, education reform and economic reform, have governed

in the national interest. One of the things with the coalition is it

is a different type of politics, which recognises that you can't

always get your own way. I believe that a more mature approach to

politics, both in the Commons, and certainly, as we discuss the House

of Lords, is the way forward. We need to move away from the approach

that you are taking, which is essentially to try to turn the

clock back, and to turn the House of Commons and votes in the House

of Commons to exercises in testosterone, rather than exercises

in reason. When David Laws, a leading Lib Dem, talks about the

possibility for chain reaction, when we had Jeremy Brown, a

minister in your Government, that on matters such as boundary changes,

the Liberal Democrats might not be so enthusiastic in supporting the

Tories, is that hot air and arm wrestling? I don't think it is hot

air strikes it is a natural expression of disappointment on

their part, and for whom reform of the House of Lords is an important

thing. I believe reform of the House of Lords is right, and they

are being honest. I think that because we have entered an age of

coalition politics, when you have two different parties and two

different traditions that are prepared to work together, from

time to time people in both parties will express their occasional

exasperation of the constraints of coalition. That is only natural,

and the mature response on our side, in the Conservative Party, should

be to understand that. We need to appreciate that Liberal Democrats

have made sacrifices in order to make the coalition work. The

Conservatives have also made sacrifices. These are sacrifices in

the national interest. But it is still the case that there are

people who view Westminster and the decisions taken there, through the

prism of who is up or who is down, and whether it is a win for the

blue or the yellow. If we always look at our politics in that way,

we will never ensure reform in the House of Lords. We have waited 100

years to reform it. It was a Conservative politician who put

forward the proposition way back in 1910 or 11, that we should have

elections on a regional basis, to a reformed second chamber. Other

countries succeed in having their executive drawn from the lower

chamber, and a second or Upper Chamber, which is majority or fully

elect, which has a deliberative role. It is important we move there,

but I'm prepared to listen to the legitimate concerns of others, who

want us to move with care and caution to the right solution, I

believe. Here in the studio, the Shadow

Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan. It's all your fault, apparently,

you have wrecked this, and also you are playing cynical politic. You

want, apparently, Lords reerm to, but you don't want this process --

reform, but you don't want this process? If we wanted today create

mischief and be cynical, we would have joined the 85 or 90

Conservative rebels and voted down this bill, and not giving it a

second reading. If the pundit are right, this bill, failing tonight,

would have caused the coalition Government to collapse. And it

would have meant a snap general election. Nobody says that?

reality is this, because we believe in House of Lords reform. We have

helped deliver the biggest vote for a second read in the House of Lords,

462. We want to work with the Government. Michael referred to

goodwill, one of the things we have been saying to Nick Clegg, and the

Government, is, on the issue of substance, we have serious concerns,

please talk to us and work with us. On the issue of process we have

serious concerns, please work with us and talk to us. They failed to

do either. What do you mean by being with them on process, how

many days debate do you want? It may cause people's eyes to glaze

over all over the country, how many days of debate do you think is

necessary for this? As big a fan I am of Newsnight, negotiating with

Nick Clegg and David Cameron via Newsnight is not the best way to do

so. But maybe you do know and you are not saying? I have said on the

floor of the House and in a letter to Nick Clegg, we are happy to talk

to you, work with us to get the House of Lords reformed. This bill

is not fin beished by any stretch of the imagine -- finished by any

stretch of the imagination. Work with us to ensure the bill ised

good. And work with all sides of the chamber, genuine and sincere to

have their view air. We can't have those who want it, filly Buster it

through these stages, and those of us who want it changed don't get a

chance to debate the substance of it. This the most important change

to the British constitution since 1832, many ordinary voters would

quite like to have a say as to how this is going to go? Manifestos are

important things to Labour politician, our manifesto was quite

clear, we believe in House of Lords reform, we want it to be 100%

elected, we believe it should be put to people in a referendum. Less

than eight week ago the people of Wakefield, Birmingham, Manchester

and around the country, had a vote on whether they should have a mayor

for their city and town. There was a referendum last year, I lost it.

A lot of people zrpbt turn up on the referendum for having a mayor?

On the AV campaign for David Cameron we lost, that we put it to

the north-east of London for regional Government, it was lost, I

wanted yes, you have to trust the people. You can't have a political

class imposing on the public the most major change since 18312.

There has to be an amendments or you don't support it? We are grown

ups, we believe in constitutionlal change as we talked about House of

Lords reform. We could have wrecked the bill tonight, and had the

humiliation of Cameron and Nick Clegg losing the vote tonight. We

didn't, we support them, we didn't go in with the 85 or 90 MPs and

gave them second reading. His's pause now, let's talk to us and do

a dial and get this thing through, so MPs -- do a deal and get this

thing through. You heard Michael Gove saying he is personally

prepared to be reasonable. Do you think this bill will continue. In

other words, when people have a chance to reconsider it over the

next couple of months into the autumn, do you think there is a

chance this bill will go ahead? we were in Government, this would

be our Queen's Speech and it wouldn't be our priority. But we

want reform. This is vehicle to get it. We will work with them to try

to get the bill through the Commons and through the Lords. We are

sincere when we say we don't want the bill stuck in the Commons, we

want reform for the House of Lords, it is unfinished business for the

Labour Party. Angie Bray is with you, who has just been sacked as a

ministerial aide for rebelling, and the cabinet minister, David Laws.

Do you regret losing your job? I do, the work in the Cabinet

Office is interesting and important. I have really enjoyed my time

working as the PPS to Francis Maude. So I do regret it to that extent,

of course. Do you think this bill is dead? I have a feeling this bill

as it is, is a bit dead, actually. I don't feel there is a real

appetite for this particular bill. Which not to say, there isn't an

appetite for reform. But we can do better than this bill. Michael Gove,

I don't know if you heard him as you were coming in, he said he was

bullish, he said he's prepared to talk to you, and colleagues, and he

respects your views and perhaps you can work together and he can

persuade you? It is a important, a little more consultation with

colleagues about the direction we want to go would be helpful. Let's

be clear, none of us really felt this bill of really worth it T it

just did seem to be a mess. -- it just did seem to be a mess. I don't

think there was an in the department. Is there something as

Sadiq Khan was talking about a referendum to ask the British

people, would that help? referendum would help, I think

perhaps our coalition partner missed an opportunity right at the

start of this process, in absolutely dicking their heels in

and refusing to have a referendum. At that might have -- digging their

heels in and refusing to have a referendum. At that might have

changed things with a referendum in the first place. We need a

referendum? We don't need a referendum, this was in the

manifesto of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. We put

that before the country at the last general election. So having,

spending �100 million on a referendumth dumb on this would be

NUT. They could -- referendum on this would be nuts.

The Labour Party and Tory rebels could force it to a referendum?

we know in the case of the Labour Party what they are doing here is

playing politic. They are saying they are in favour of reform of the

Lords. And nobody else is playing politics? They are willing the end

not the means. The Conservative Party, I respect the fact,

genuinely, that there are people like Angie, who are good colleagues,

who don't believe in an elected House of Lords. But what I would

gently say to them, is not only of that their manifesto commitment. In

a coalition, both parties have to signp up to a common programme, and

make compromise, and we now, together, need to deliver on that

programme. I think it is very important that lay this to rest,

our Conservative manifesto did not promise House of Lords reform. It

said clearly we would work towards building a consensus for it. Quite

clearly that work has barely started. Are you in favour yourself

of an elected Lords? I am happy to look at the proposal. I would need

to be convinced, that an elected House of Lords, let me finish.

Conservative manifesto is very clear on this. Mark Harper, who

leads on the bill, said very clearly the other day, the

intention both of the Conservative plan fest toe and coalition of not

simply -- manifesto, of not just to bring forward a bill but to act on

it. Angie Bray, one of your Lib Dem -- another colleague said last

night that boundary changes would not find favour? We are not making

threats, because we presume the Prime Minister and the Conservative

Party will he reflect over the summer and deliver another decision.

The point about chain reactions is an important one, when you are in a

coalition, and both parties sign up to make compromises. If either of

the parties back off those compromise, that they have agreed

to. There is a real problem. Because, frankly, if Nick Clegg

goes to his colleagues in the Lib Dem parliamentary party, and saying

I expect you to vote for all these things I know you didn't like, that

we agreed in the coalition agreement. And then my colleagues

see the Conservative Party not backing the things we agreed, it is

dangerous. I'm a great supporter of the coalition and the agreement,

the coalition agreement theself talks about draft proposelia not

legislating. Mark -- Proposals. Not legislating. Mark Harper dealt with

that. The coalition agreement didn't envision that, nor does it

link the House of Lords to the boundary commission. I was in the

negotiation, I can he willle it you there was no doubt whatsoever in

the negotiations, that what we were itcoming ourselves to was not

drafting a bill that we were -- committing ourselves of not

drafting a bill. Do you worry that Nick Clegg's legacy as a leadership,

historically bringing you into power in 80 years, is to set back

constitutional and voting reform for a generation. We have had the

second reading of a voten't to. That was success tonight?

pleased we won it 460-124. Now we have the opportunity over the

summer, the Prime Minister wants opportunities to talk to colleagues

and persuade them, I'm delighted to hear on the programme that Sadiq

Khan Mr The Labour Party, has said he might -- from the Labour Party,

has said he might do what he said he wouldn't do. When he goifs us an

indication of what he will -- gives you an indication of what he will

compromise on we will be delighted. In November 2010, right, after only

four months of discussion, Nick Clegg walked away from the joint

working group, and the consensus, not just between you two, it must

be between all the parties in the House of Commons. We gave you our

vote, we voted for second reading. Everybody in the House knows what

you are up to? Which is? Trying, simply, to use this as way of

undermining the coalition. I understand it, that is what

coalition parties do. Don't judge me and my party by your standards.

Don't judge us by your standards, we believe in Lords reform. Prove

it to us. We removed 90% of them from the chamber, you abstained.

When we got rid of the judges in 1995, you abstained. Revoted for

reform tonight. If you would stop being patronising and work with us,

talk to us, without the finger pointing. One had modest little

question, so far you have said you want more time, a longer programme

motion, give me some idea tonight, on it programme, how many days you

want. I will, when you negotiated with those guys over five days, how

many cameras were present, it was an adult conversation around the

table, treat us like adult? We have been asking for thated adult

question for a week and no answer. I think we have to start again,

this bill is basically dead. There is no desire for it, it is quite

right we need to look at what we have to do. It is a massive

majority. The message has gone out and clear, the fact that the

Government to back off from the programme motion, tells me, they

took the temperature in the debate last night, and decided they to

move on, and let's park it, we have got the summer recess to consider

how we can't to move forward. have 460 MPs voting for it. We have

to make sure we start doing what our Conservative manifesto talks

about, which was starting to build a consensus. The best thing is to

move forward by consensus. final word is this, I understand

where the Labour Party are coming from, on this, they are going to be

difficult, it is disappointing. However, we are not in coalition

with the Labour Party, coalition with the Conservative Party. My

colleagues have signed up to a lot of things they don't like doing

them, we and Nick Clegg tell them, we negotiated this in the coalition

agreement, it is part of being coalition. We have to work with

coalition partner to make sure we deliver it common pledge, to get on

to all of the other comiings things we have committeded to.

David Cameron made no secret that he would rather see President

Sarkozy re-elected in France earlier this year, but today as he

greeted his successor, Francois Hollande, both men made much of

their common ground. Part of that may be that Germany has to do even

more to back the euro, which slid to a two-year low today.

We have been assessing the apparently "cordial" relationship

between the UK and France. It has not got off to aed good

start this relationship. Rolling out -- to a good start in this

relationship. Rolling out the red carpet seemed a way to plaik amend.

There was a meeting with the Queen -- make amend. There was a meeting

in Downing Street, and when reminded as his refusal to see

Francois Hollande as a candidate, Mr Cameron seemed suitably abashed.

TRANSLATION: Well, if I was supposed to have second thoughts in

relation to all the people who saw me during the campaign, I would be

against the whole world. There was signs of new politicle kal language

too?? -- political language too? TRANSLATION: Great Britain has no

intent of joining the euro zone, France would like integration and

solidarity within the eurozone, at the same time, we fully understand

each other's positions. Britain does not wish to slow down or

prevent the eurozone countries from acting, and France, within the

eurozone, does not want to oblige anyone to join. So, we should see

Europe as having different speeds. Each can act at its own speed.

While respecting the other countries.

This is the way to build a relationship of trust. And from Mr

Cameron, a growing assertiveness about renegotiation, and a UK

referendum. I don't think Britain is happy with

the current relationship with the European Union, I do think we need

to make changes. I'm committed over time to making those changes. I

said before putting them to the people, to get their full-hearted

consent. For month, talk of a two- speed or multi-speed Europe, has

been frowned upon in European circle. Even the UK has emphasised

strongly the commission commitment to the funking of the EU as a

single market or economic space. Now that the differences between

the main EU countries, about the way ahead, are so profound and

obvious, a different political language is being adopt. One in

which the idea of a multi-speed Europe, actually being sold as a

political positive, in which everyone can be happy.

And while the French leader sped off for that private audience with

the Queen, Tory euro-sceptics were launching their plan for the

repatriation of a long list of powers from the EU. Given today's

language from the two leaders, the backbenchers feel the argument is

going in their direction. I think there is a definite move in

countries like Germany and France, who recognise that Britain does now

want a different relationship with the European Union, and things will

have to change, and they will have to find way of accommodating that.

I don't personally like the term "two-speed" or "multi-speed", the

truth we are no longer going in the same direction, and Britain wants

to roll back powers from the EU. We are in a new reality, a multi-teir

Europe, and different countries operate anything different areas,

it is good for Britain and Europe. On his pre-election visit, MrLed

Hollande tried to reassure the City about his plans -- Mr Hollande

tried to reassure the City about his plans for interle national

transaction. For European leaders, adopting an increasingly a la carte

approach, can the European Union remain a single market. It is

decribing the reality of the market today, take Schengen, take the

eurozone. Since the creation, Europe has been the multi-shaped

area, and it seems to me, that Mr Cameron does agree that the

eurozone area needs a stronger integration. Which would end up in

a multi-speed Europe. But this is probably something that is in the

best interests of all the European countries, not only the eurozone

countries. The two leaders couldn't help a little gentle sparring over

which country offered its citizens lower tax rate. But, with the red

carpet rolled up, even today's diplomatic niceties can be put away

too. The debate continues here about just how loosely Britain can

define the relationship with the EU, while remaining an effective member.

This phrase "multi-speed" Europe, that kept uming up in various ways

throughout that -- coming up in various ways throughout that. What

does it mean in relation to Great Britain and the rest of Europe?

UK position is a known quantity. Euro-scepticism is a well

established fact in British politics. The UK bilateral

relationship with the France, it is not easy, there are nationalist

tension, if you like, there are strong common interests in defence,

the energy sector, this huge bilateral trade, mutual investment

and all that kind of thing, it can be managed. The extraordinary thing

going on at the moment, is the complication of the picture in so

many different directions and actuaries of power. You have pain,

today, -- axies of power. You have Spain today saying it needs help

and Italy saying it needs help too. They have been told they can relax

certain parts of their austerity plan. Also in the eurozone you have

Finland and the Netherlands, saying, no, you can't relax the austerity

plan. Deep tensions within the euro, and difference about this financial

transfer tax, which France has spoken about. Then you have the

outsider, like the UK, it suggests an organisation in which the

membership pulling in many different directions sim stainously.

The difficulty of achieve -- simultaneously. The difficulty of

achieving that is not just Britain winning against the 26 any more, it

is a much more complicateded picture. A at a time when the

financial markets and -- complicated picture. At the time

when the financial markets and other things are complicate. London

is just a few weeks away from being the biggest centre of news in the

world. The Olympics has not only just been a sporting event, but as

Hitler recognised in 1926, a political event. From Palestinian

gunmen in Munich, to an anti- abortion protestor in Atlanta. Some

have used the Olympics to make a strong political statement through

violence. That is why there will be rockets on buildings in East London.

Our guest tonight made a peaceful protest which captured the world

attention in Mexico. And turned him into a hate figure for people. The

Afghan American athlete, Tommie Smith and John Carlos came 1st and

3rd in the 200ms in Mexico City. As they stood on the podium to accept

the medals, they offered the world the Black Power salute.

Smith had knocked two tenths of a second off the previous world

record, but two of the finest athletes of their begin raiing,

they grew up in a country, where, as John Carlos put it, the United

States is not like you think it is for blacks and other people of

colour. But taking a stand on the Olympic stand cost them dearly.

Boos from the crowd were followed by outrage from the athletics

establishment. The International Olympic Committee forced their

expulsion from the US Olympic team, and banned them from future

competition. Both men received death threats. The third man on the

podium, a white Australian, called Peter Norman, showed his support by

wearing a human rights badge, and bowing his head in solidarity

during The National Anthem. He too became a pariah, and of snubbed by

the Australian national team, when the Olympic came to Sydney in 2000.

But now the salute, the subject of a new documentary, entitled,

fittingly enough, Salute, is recognised by most people as a

peaceful act of bravery and defiance, that served as an

inspiration for those struggling to secure civil rights for all

Americans. It is one of the defining image of an era of protest.

The man on the top of that podium, Tommie Smith, is here tonight. Why

did you decide that you to do that? Well, at that particular time, it

was something that had to be done. I was an individual on a world

platform to make this a truthful reality. It was a reality that no-

one would deal with, because no-one had had the platform I had to do

what was necessary. It took a very, very devastating step towards being

vilified because of what had to be done. Did I want to do it? No. But

I to do it. There are many cases where people might ask, did you --

but I had to do it. People might think there is regrets, the only

regret is it had to be done. must have known people would hate

you for it? I knew it wasn't an in vogue thing to do, to be on the

world stage, implementing a need for human actions, among people

that didn't realise the need for love, only for hate. Only to be

ruling as an elitist, because they what others didn't have and sharing

that profit. It was for a selfless purpose. Did you think of the

argument, sport and politics, they don't mix. You are there, people

watched you because you are an amazing run, they didn't want to

hear your politics, they don't care about that, that is an argument?

You can run but you can't hide. There were facts that were real to

me. And I was blessed to use my talent to help those who did not

have a platform, to voice an opinion. This opinion was a

unilateral opinion dealing with human rights. It only opened the

minds up of those who were sedintary in their lives, and not

Israeling the need for a coalition of understanding. It was very

simple. Can you see that right now, there are problems in Syria,

Kashmir, in the Palestinians, all kind of people could protest. Some

people, of course, have protested violently, and caused real trouble,

which, obviously, you didn't do. Where do you draw the line. If

everybody protested it would be a mess? The line of drawn for me.

Simply because I did not go there to make a literal mess of a

situation that was already messy. I went to highlight a need to

straighten out messes that a lot of people thought of OK, because they

were either above it, or so far below it, they didn't make a

difference any way. I was in the mid-. You have life and death. I

was living in that space -- middle. You have life and death and I was

living in that space, although my life had been threatened on many

occasion. I to live in the position of being Tommie Smith, to help

those who couldn't help themself. It was a case of me using a

platform, which a lot of people who couldn't use it for that purpose.

Where is your glove? I don't know. It ofn't done for me to make a

profit -- it wasn't done for me to make a profit of later stages.

could have sold it for thousands? You can tell where my mind was

about the human nature not the financial nature. I could have sold

my car, dog, shoe, cat. Of it hard times for you? Very hard times. But

my upbringing, I thought, was hard also. My father always told me, we

go to work when we can see how to do it. The though thought of seeing

how to do it of open for everybody. Those who keep closed eyes in an

open situation, where they should be open. You reap what you sow, and

what I did in Mexico City, I know that, I believe that I was going to

rope a benefit, and I did reap a benefit, the benefit of life and

honesty. I'm trying to think of this 20-something athlete, you, in

1968, doing that, giving that salute. And 40 years later the

first African-American President in your country elected. You could

never believe that could happen? couldn't believe of that happening.

Only through the issue space of life, that were grant to me. I did

what I could to promote a pro- active American situation, like --

pro-active American situation that is happening now. Even him being

what he is, I think he's one of the best President, he happens to be

black. There are those on his side, no matter what he does, it is not

good enough. They would shoot themselves to make him look bad.

anyone knows where the glove is now? I will split the cost. If they

hant hand it in, we will make sure you get -- if they hand it in we

will make sure you get it! Let's take a look at what is in

store for Newsnight's own coverage of the games by the man in the

dodgey tracksuit, Stephen Smith! For coverage as clear as a Seb Coe

urine sample, it is Team Newsnight! We have invested millions in sports

technologies to deliver gold for Team GB at the Olympic.

So is all the money and of for the of value only to our elite athlete,

or is it something the rest of us could benefit from too.

We get the inside dope of how drugs cheats use the latest science to

beat the system, to the frustration of tester and athletes. People who

choose to dope are a little bit ahead of the testers, it is always

a chasing game. Hi kids, enough of the science

already, I will be looking at the cultural aspect of the Olympics.

Well-well-welcome to London. last time they came to London, they

were known as the "Austerity Games". Talking of austerity, check out

these any of they Newsnight tracksuit. I think this was Jimmy

Saville's old one. We will also have expert analysis from British

olympian past and present. Our coverage is nailed on for gold,

that's Newsnight meddling in the Olympic. So basically it's all good.

Our political editor, Allegra Stratton, is here, for a final word

about the vote on Lords reform. Do you think voters care very much

about it? Some newspapers don't have it on the front at all. The

story they do have on front is a piece of Government business that,

I think, will illustrate the ram kaiing of today's vote. Social care

-- recommend ramification of today's vote. Social care will be

kicked until the year after, the review. If there is acrimonious

days like today, will be very difficult to agree on �3 billion to

pay for all our care whener elderly. It is beige moment for the

coalition -- When we are elderly. It is a big moment for the

coalition. It will become more of a big moment for the coalition. And

people, as they pop in to look at what is going on in parliament,

will wonder how it is relevant to the economy and the things pressing

on their mind. 91 days? It is big, without dropping the timetable

motion. This is a fluid and political story. A quick look at

the front page. The FT calls for outsiders to take the helm at

That's all from nice night tonight, in the middle of the wettest summer

weather most of us can remember. We wanted to cheer things up with a

new art exhibition from Singapore Airport, called Kinetic Rain,

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 43 seconds

suggesting the drip around us might Heavy showers affect part of the UK

overnight, it is heavy rain over eastern Scotland, lasting through

much of the day on Wednesday. Elsewhere you may see sunshine for

hef and thundery downpowers getting going. North West England you could

avoid most of those and stay dry. Across the north-east of England

you have rain and showers. The south-east showers heavy and

thundery into the afternoon. With some sunshine inbetween. Those in

south-west England, its not a constant washout, you will see

glimpses of sunshine inbetween the scattered, hit and miss showers. Ip

between the showers in Northern Ireland, again, sunny spells. The

sun hard to find in Scotland. A grey, gloomy day, showers to the

north, a cool feel to the weather, especially in the east. By the time

we are settling down, the Lothians could see 30mms. A Met Office amber

warning in place, bringing possible disruption. The rain continuing in

Edinburgh, on Thursday much of the north of the UK has a dryer and

brighter day. In contrast, for England and Wales, we see coming up

from southest with, another wet weather system, and some of this