17/07/2013 Newsnight

Tonight is the most ambitious transport plan for decades to build

a high speed rail link from London to the north of England running out

of steam. HS2 will redraw the economy of a nation, according to

the Department of Transport. Where are political and business figures

and a former Rail Minister going cold on the idea. It is going to be

with us for a very long time, do we really want to tell constituents

and tax-payers that we are spending �50 billion of their money on a

train line that really doesn't need to be built? His successor is here

to tell us why it is worth �43 billion of your money. Also tonight,

the promises we have made to an ageing society for mentions and

healthcare, could propel us into a future of chronic economic problems.

We will debate a gloomy forecast from the Office for Budget

Responsibility. As the politicians pack their suntan cream and head

for their no doubt well deserved holidays, Newsnight's political

panel are here to give an end of term report.

Summer in the city, Nile Rodgers on how to stay cool of five decades of

getting dirty and down there. cheerful tunes were about the

future we thought we would see, future we envisioned has never

happened. Plans for one of the biggest leaps forward in British

transport history is in trouble today. Today the Government

launched its second consultation into the posts of high-speed 2. The

costs have risen to a whopping �43 billion. The likes of Alitair

Darling and Nigel Lawson, former Chancellors, are oply opposed. The

new consultation wants to know about what the CBI, enthusiastic

about the project, and Tom Harris think. But we have a report on the

growing chorus of people with business, transport expierence who

want the Government to think bin on HS2. There is one thing that is

already high-speed about HS2, that is the speed the Government is

pressing ahead with the plans, despite warnings to slow down. Lord

Mandelson, a one-time supporter now says it could prove an expensive

mistake. Former Labour Chancellor and Transport Secretary, Alitair

Darling, says it will suck money out of the budget that would be

better spent on other projects. Moon while Conservative former

Chancellor, Lord Lawson calls it "madness", Boris Johnson says the

cost will spiral to over �70 billion. Newsnight can reveal now

that the latest Doubting Thomas is called Tom, Tom Harris, Rail

Minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. My own party is

strongly in favour of it, I was until relatively recently. More and

more are listening to those who say it might not be have a great idea.

Austerity will be with us for a very long time, do we really want

to tell constituents and tax-payers that we are spending �50 billion of

their money on a train line that really doesn't need to be built and

that money could be spent in any number of areas far more

effectively? Some politicians have started reassessing their support

for HS2 since the Government announced it was increasing the

budget. The Transport Secretary says the bill is rising from �33

billion to over �42 billion. Sow how did the senior civil servant

here at the Department for Transport explain these higher

costs? Well he said what we should remember is that the original

estimate wasn't really so much an estimate it was more a...what was

the phrase he used?:...a High level desk-based exercise. Yes, a high-

level desk-based exercise. Which means what, perhaps Tom Harris

could finish in? The plans for HS2 have been written on the back of a

fag packet. The increase in costs, it came on top of a high-level

desk-based mauling of the HS2 business plan by the National Audit

Office. We will build a new network. The Government has been working on

a new version of the business plan, incorporating some of the changes

the National Audit Office wants to see. This won't be ready until the

autumn, we will just have to wait. It is just I'm not very good at

waiting, why can't we have a go, how hard can it be to update the

benefit cost ratio for a �40 billion infrastructure project.

We have commissioned a high-level pack particular table-based

exercise from two transport economists, David Parish and Chris

Castles, together they wrote a peer-reviewed study of the HS2

business case back in 2011. So we will leave Chris and David updating

their numbers. But first I think we should look at the changes that the

National Audit Office has asked the Government to make to see what sort

of thing they are going to be doing here. They are looking at the first

phase of the project and at three specific areas, updating the

forecast for how many people are likely to use HS2, the business

case at the moment uses an out of date higher demand forecast.

Updating the value of shorter journey times, at the moment the

business case assumes that no-one works on a train and any time saved

is used for productive work. And thirdly, including the recent

budget increase. OK, so you have had time to put in those changes,

what impact do you think the new numbers will make to the Government

as business case? What will it do to the benefit cost ratio? If you

take the reduced demand and the change of value of business time

and the higher costs the impact is devastating. The benefit cost ratio

comes down from 1.4 in the latest published Government report, in the

range to 0.5-0.6. So for every pound we spend we get 60p of

benefits back. Does it make it a good-value project? There are many

projects that offer ratios of four or five, including alternatives to

the HS2 that are proposed by the local authorities and also by the

Government's own consultants. that would suggest that HS2 isn't

value for money at all then? Not at all. You might think it is absurd

to downgrade the business case for HS2 by that much, but, there is

academic evidence to suggest this would only be par for the course. I

have come here to the Siad Business Scohool in Oxford to meet one

academic who has studied over 100 years of big infrastructure data.

This professor says on average big infrastructure projects cost 50%

more than planned and deliver half the cost benefits. The bad projects

are much worse than that. The Channel Tunnel was 80% over on

construction cost and 120% over on financing cost. They only made 20%

of the passengers that they forecast in the first year, so much

worse. Why is that, why do we get that double whammy of lower returns

and higher costs? This is something we have studied in detail here at

Oxford, we find two root causes. One is optimisim, people are

generally optimistic, and that includes planners, the other is

something we call strategic misrepresentation. We find actually

in some instances decision-makers, politicians, policy makers, will

deliberately underestimate the cost and overstatement the benefits and

revenues in order to get their projects started. If a project

looks good on paper it is easier to get approval for the project in

parliament or whoever is aproving the project. And you know the old

saying that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission. That

seems to be sometimes the approach used in getting projects started.

The final stop on the journey is to take some of the concerns to the

people who are supposedly going to be building High-speed 2, that is

HS2 Ltd, it sounds like a private sector company, there is a clue to

who owns it in the building they are situated in. It is a Government

office, and HS2Ltd is a subsidey of a Government. I don't think you

should necessarily assume that the business case, the quantified

benefit cost ratio will go down. Beyond that, of course, it is not

just about the benefit cost ratio. First and foremost high-speed 2 is

about providing additional capacity. The existing railway is

increasingly full, Network Rail forecasts by 2020 the eastern

Network Rail will be full. There is an overriding argument for

providing capacity. Any competitive economy needs strong infrastructure.

Today we have one of the busiest networks in Europe.

This point is made in the HS2 promotional video, but the ANO says

the Government needs to do more work in explaining why HS2 is the

best solution. Are there other cheaper projects that might deliver

as much or more capacity. For those politicians and business leaders

who say we should pause and reconsider? There is an imperative

to keep driving this forward. I think the other thing I would say

about people who say we should pause, even the people who oppose

this route, it is much better we get on and do it. They don't want

continuing uncertainty. So there is a strong case. Can they get it

right rather than go on and do it? We have got it right. Plenty of

people don't think you have got it right? We haven't yet put out all

the further work, we will in the autumn. That will show it will

update the cost benefit ratio and present the wider case, which as

represented work over the past year or so, which will look at both the

capacity arguments and also the wider benefits and how HS2 can

support both the national economy and also importantly how it will

support the cities we connect. the political signals changing for

HS2, some don't believe that three- party consensus in favour of the

project will last much longer. There is something of of the grand

project about this, aing willcy for politicians. Politicians love a

legacy, we love building huge capital structures, that is not

good enough. There has to be a business case, it has to be worth

it. The Government began its consultation on the second phase of

HS2 today. The Transport Secretary was in Manchester making the case

in terms of jobs and apprenticeships. It is clear there

are still plenty of people he has yet to convince. The Rail Minister,

Simon Burns, came into the studio a little earlier. Why it that so many

people with transport or business or Government experience are now

running away from the HS2 project? I don't think that a lot of people

are. There is considerable support, particularly if you look in the

Midland, north of England amongst local authority leader, business

groups, including the local CBIs and chambers of commerce.

mentioned the CBI, the Director General of the CBI is one of them.

He says questions need answering, �43 billion could be put to better

use, and politicians have been dazzled by promises of speed. He

makes it sound like another Concorde. He did qualify the

comments and he said he was still enthusiastic about the project but

he wanted to ensure the costs of building the railway did not run

out of control. I have considerable sympathy and agreement with him on

that. When you have lot Lord Mandelson, Tom Harris and Boris

Johnson all agreeing that something is up here, Lord Lawson is another

one, maybe, maybe they are right? don't think they are, for a reason,

the critical thing is on the conventional railways we are

running out of capacity. Between 2020 and 2024 on the West Coast

Main Line, the major spine up the country towards Scotland we are

expecting the capacity to become full. We have got to provide extra

capacity. There could be cheaper ways of doing it? We have looked at

it and some people have said, thinking it was a cheaper way, that

we should just build another conventional line. The costs are

slightly less, but not that less, you lose all the benefits that

high-speed rail brings to this country. It is a project can he

can't afford not to do. Our major competitors are all engaging in

building or have high-speed railways. In that case does it not

matter about the cost, it is so important we have to do it any way?

I think it is important. But it has to be done within cost disciplines,

and that is why we have been so determined with robust governance,

robust economic plans to ensure that we keep to a very controlled

budget. You say that, but how much is too much, the budget has just

gone up another �8 billion to �43 billion, Boris Johnson saying it

could cost �70 billion. The people on your own side say it could be

�100 billion. Boris is Boris, you would expect people who are opposed

to the project to exaggerate the costs because they are making a

case and they are entitled to. much is too much? The fact is it is

what we are going to spend which is to quote the figure you quote,

�42.6 billion. Of that �14.4 billion is contingency, we are

aiming to stick to those rigid budgets. You know the history of

capital projects in this country has been exactly the opposite, that

Governments of all stripes have said we will stick to it and it

goes up and up and up? If you have discipline and you vigorously check

on the effectiveness and the efficiencies of the building

process you can cheap within budget and I will give you an example.

billion, that too much? I will give you the example, the Olympics,

everybody said that couldn't be built within the budget. They were

because there was rigorous discipline to ensure the cost

didn't go spiralling out of control. It did go up from the original

budget. Let as move on to part of the business case, this is also

questioned, the benefit cost ratio. We were told to put it in simple

terms that we get �2.60 back for every �1 we put into it. Now it is

revised down to �1.40, and it may be lower than that. We have people

saying 0.5, in other words we would lose half the money we put in. The

business case is very shaky? business case is now outdated

because of the time it was done. At that point if you take the whole

route, both phases, the BCR was between 1.4 and 2.5. This is the

benefit cost ratio, the amount of money we would expect to get back?

We are preparing at the moment an updated business case, available

later in the year. Philip Hammond said if the BCR went less than 1.5

he would put it under close scrutiny. Some people say it is

certain to go less than 1.5. Where would you draw the line. Where

would you say we have to have more benefits otherwise we are not going

to proceed? What I would say is that with the extension of the

Jubilee Line, which everyone recognises has been a tremendous

benefit to travel in London. That BCR, I think, from memory was about

0.4%. To use that parallel of the Jubilee Line, would you be content

if the benefit cost ratio was 0.4 as it was with the Jubilee Line. In

other words we got 40p back for every pound we put in. Although

people would not be content, including Philip Hammond? I don't

accept that is what the BCR will be, it is certainly not at the moment

with HS2. We will wait until the publication of the next business

impact studio later this year. I don't accept it will be 0.4%.

there any figure on this that would make you give up this project?

is the overriding importance, as I said before, it is capacity,

helping solve the capacity problems on the conventional railway. The

job creation and the regeneration that will flow from it,

particularly in Birmingham and the Great Northern cities. Minister,

thank you very much. In a moment. Hey, I'm Nile Rodgers and you are

watching Newsnight, your late night funk jam! We talk to the man behind

Chic. Now in ancient Greece poor old Sisyphus was punished by the

gods, condemned to roll a massive rock to the top of the hill only to

watch it roll down again, to repeat that for all of history. The Office

of Budget Responsibility can't compete with the Gods, but if they

are right about the unsustainable public finances we are all

condemned like Sisyphus. In our case it could be years of austerity,

because of the ageing population and strained healthcare system will

still leave a massive hole in our finances, and more austerity to

come as we try once more to roll the rock to the top of the mountain.

Or is there a better way? Our political editor, Allegra Stratton

has spent the day with the bar charts.

We already know this clock of public debt races faster than some

would like, we have been old it add naus yum. This Government's pitch

is they are the ones trying to stop this clock, trying. In the next

five years the aim is to reduce Britain's debt. What about the

long-term? From an array of scary graphs, this is today's key one

from the Government's Office for Budget Responsibility. Towed is

their annual attempt at physical futurology. The recent debate has

been about these bars, the Government has successfully, you

can see, brought down the debt and the deficit, but after about 2020

and that low point there things start to climb, that is because of

two new pressures. Firstly the traditional sources of revenue

begin to dry up, things like duties from tobacco and fuel. Also North

Sea oil is going down. But then there are fresh demands of the

state. We will be having more demands of the NHS, social care and

pensions. That is why that line climbs rather alarmingly. As soon

as we hit the 2020s we hit the cost of an ageing society, more money

needs to be found for the NHS, social care and pensions. What we

need to do then is have a big debate as a country about how we

pay for that. You can either do it by cutting services, charging

people for the services they use, or by putting up taxes. I actually

think that the fairest way of doing it is to raise taxes. But of course

we see from the political debate we are having about the NHS at the

moment it is very difficult to have a grown-up sensible conversation

about how we pay for these things. These two bars show how old our

society is right now. And then it is broken down by age in 2062. In

the future there are fewer people aged between 16-54, the big purple

band. But there are many more 65- year-olds, and even more aged over

85. Just with fewer working age people to support them. A toddler

uses a lot of healthcare, a lot of education, but clearly pays in

barely no income tax. When they graduate to working age of course

the amount of income tax they pay in will go up massively, but they

will actually be using relatively few public services in that time.

Then when they retire they will be using the NHS, social care and an

awful lot. But again it will be paying in not very much income tax.

The OBR is saying that an older population will be a financially

poorer one. And, decisions taken by this Government may have made it

even more so. The called pension triple look means pensions will go

up in line with the highest of inflation or earnings. That's more

expensive. The OBR also suggests trouble ahead if the Government is

successful in bringing down immigration. The yellow bar shows

if it does bring it down to almost nothing, the working age population

is much lower. The red bar shows with high immigration you end up

with a greater working population to support the elderly. The Office

for Budget Responsibility gives today's politicians a stark choice,

they either have to cut an extra �19 billion from public services on

top of everything we have already heard that will be cut, or they do

it more slowly and over many more decades, but they do have to make

that choice. The OBR says unless they do everything we have been

through in this decade from 2010- 2020 will have been for nothing.

The lesson is that George Osborne has got a long-term challenge. He

stands for higher pensions spending, protection for health spending, now

we hear no tax rises. The OBR tell us today that pensions, health are

going to drive the public finances and make them unsustainable for

decades to come and taxes will have to go up to record levels. He

commissioned this report but the report is a big challenge to him.

big challenge to the Chancellor but also to his successor, unless one

of them gets lucky in a piece of megatechnology invented on their

watch, bringing in fresh revenue for Britain. 50 years a very long

time in politics, even longer if you don't like bar charts.

We have an economic correspondent and Ann Pettifor. Long range

economic forecast is like long range weather forecast, do you

broadly accept the OBR is right on this? The man who runs the OBR is

an honourable and brilliant man, when you are making forecasts for

50 years the slight tiller assumption has massive effects. I

would like the OBR to focus on what is happening in the last five years

and what will happen in the next five years. Back in 2008 this

country's national debt was about �580 billion, we are now above a

trillion pound, by 2015 we are going to be at �1.6 trillion in our

national debt. So, yes there are parts of the public sector that are

suffering, nobody is denying that, but the macro picture is not one of

austerity. The macro picture is a situation where over five years our

national debt almost triples. This is the reality of the situation we

face. With what does that mean for interest rates? What does that mean

for tagsyaix going forward? There is not enough -- taxation going

forward? There is not enough discussion among the political

classes about the debt we are accumulating and have to service

day in day out. The core of the argument appears to be ageing

population with health problems we are all going to face in the future

and the pension rises that it is unsustainable because we are not

creating wealth fast enough to pay for it? This report is more about

policies that are operating now, mainly austerity. Than it is about

the future. It is using assumption based on austerity policies to talk

about the future. And one of your contributors said the choices are

to increase taxes or cut spending. There is a third choice, which is

to increase income. This report doesn't really deal with that. The

only way to increase income is to increase employment. The report

doesn't include in assumptions what will happen to employment over this

period. The fact is population will go up and baby-boomers like us will

rot and die and then the next generation will come up. This is

life. I don't know about the rotting and dying. Jo Hammer House

of Horror. One of the interesting things about this report is the

reflection on immigration. It says immigrants will make a more

positive contribution to the UK public finances than natives, and I

wonder if this raises the whole question of whether we should

change our immigration policy, because it would be of economic

benefit, which appears to be part of this report? Sure, I think the

OBR would have been braver than it has been, had it focused more on

the fiscal trajectory over the next three-to-four years. It has been

brave in grasping the nettle of immigration. I personally think and

the weight of economic evidence is behind me, that if you have more

immigration you bring in immigrants from the shadow world of the

untaxed economy, you bring them on to the books. If you celebrate

economic migrants rather than ostracising economic migrants, that

will do a lot to help this country grow its way out of the massive

fiscal hole that it is in. Of course that means you need better

infrastructure, it also means that politicians have to explain this to

the body of voters. None of that will happen if we persevere in the

current policies basically. Do you accept the point that immigrants,

in the words of the report, would be "good for the long-term economic

health of the country", because people coming in paying taxes

wooing dob the services other people won't do? We are very lucky,

in Italy the population is falling, here it is rising, we have a

population rising which will be able to work and create income to

finance the pensions of the future. Let's not beat about the bush here.

This is about laying the ground for cutting universal provision and in

particular attacking pension Do you think that is politically possible?

Of course I think what, creating jobs and generating income to pay

for pensions? It is entirely possible. It would make it immense

low important. Cutting pensions?I don't think it is politically

popular, but the logic of austerity is that you should go that way.

of the things that this does is talk about some of the things we

don't talk about in public debate, cutting pensions is one of them?

Ann is right, of course, the population is growing, it will need

to grow a lot faster if we are going to even hope to tackle our

fiscal problems. But of course while the population is rising, the

dependency ratio is really changing in a crushing way. At the moment

about four people are in work for every pensioner, by 2030, 2030, not

very long, it will be only two people in work for each pensioner.

Right now we have 2.5 million people unemployed, we have 1.5

million people who have been unemployed for a short time, young,

educated, skilled who are hungry to work and we have policies which are

denying them work which would generate income tax revenues to pay

for these things. Not just now but into the future. The bank of

international settlements the Central Bankers' think-tank if you

like. Extremely robust organisation, they say by 2030 the UK's national

debt on current projections. And on current policy. Maybe you can let

me talk, you didn't let me last time I was on the show. Go on.The

bank of international assessment says by 2030, a short long-term

forecast will be our national debt will be about 300% of GDP, that's a

massive number unless we take drastic action. We have now got a

situation where politicians are just beginning to nibble at the

edges of pension reforms. But their pension reforms are saving by

nudging up the retirement age. These are scare stories. Hundreds

of millions over 30 years. When the problem is one of hundreds of

billions. They are economic scare stories in order to attack pensions

and in order to attack a whole generation that have paid for their

pensions. And in order to deprive an upcoming generation of work.

will have to leave it there. Thank you both very much. Now what to put

on cigarette packets? How much to charge for a can of beer, who is

responsible for shocking failures in the health service and the role

of lobyists and trade unions -- lobbyists and trade unions in

politics. Particularly Lynton Crosby, the's adviser. This is only

Wednesday. The politicians are off on hole day, although today's Prime

Minister's Questions suggests the mood is not exactly mellow.

reality that he cannot admit is against the advice of every major

public health organisation he has caved in to big tobacco, that is

the reality about this Prime Minister. And he knows it, it is

Andy Coulson all over again. He's a Prime Minister that doesn't think

the rules apply to him, dinners for donor, Andy Coulson and now big

tobacco in Downing Street, he always stands up for the wrong

people. The reason his leadership is in crisis is he can't talk about

the big issues. We are getting to the end of a political session,

when the deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is

down, welfare is capped, Abu Qatada is back in Jordan, every day this

country is getting stronger and every day he's getting weaker.

now all this comes in a week in which one poll suggested that the

Conservatives are now neck and neck with Labour, thanks to a

significant drop in supporting UKIP. Here to talk about the flavour of

politics to come is Newsnight's panel. Danny Finkelstein former

Conservative adviser and columnist. Sally Morgan who worked for Tony

Blair, and the Lib Dem peer, Lord Razzall was the past chair of the

party campaigns and communication committee. First of all on the NHS,

did anybody win that row? I think that when the salience of the NHS

rises the Conservative Party loses out until it changes the long-term

terms of trade on the NHS and it is a long way away from doing that.

You can't avoid talking about the NHS, but this kind of row in the

House of Commons will it change people's view of the Conservative

Party in the NHS? No. It is a bit like Ed Miliband raises the unions,

you raise the salience of something you lose. I'm not sure tactically

it is good, but strategically in the long run you have to try to win

the argument. The Conservatives are at least equal with Labour on the

NHS. Where do you stand on this, the Prime Minister had a bit of

wind in his sales he didn't have three months ago? People out there

will hate it. It will just sound like people playing politics and

scoring points around the NHS. I think it is really simple for

politicians, they have got to remember that ultimately they have

to deliver for patient and they have to keep completely focused on

quality. They have to be completely focused on greater transparency,

that allows patients to have power within the health service. And as

soon as they seem like they are moving away from that focus and

just getting into yaboo politics it is a failure. I think that the

Tories have put it on the agenda and behaving like that is a real

mistake. I thought the Prime Minister handled Staffs really well,

it is such a dramatic shift from that approach. I think it is a

little unsafe for them. Yaboo politics? The three of us are in

danger of agreeing on this. I'm very much reminded of political

history, go back to 1992, the war of Jennifer's ear, Labour tried to

race that and it didn't resonate. Even Duncan Smith trying to talk

about Rose Addis lying on a hospital bed. When politicians try

to score points off the NHS they lose. Let's move to lobbying,

Lynton Crosby and Unite. Did anyone make anything of that, or does it

raise suspicions in voters' minds, politics is for other people, they

are insiders? There has been a major player in the last few weeks

and that is Ed Miliband's move on the unions. It creates a strategic

opportunity for him and massive danger. The strategic opportunity

is obvious you can show as a strong leader and distance Labour from

unpopular vested interests. The danger is he gets half way into it

and can't finish the job. Then he gets tangled up in something that

he doesn't think is a U-turn but people watching think is a U-turn

and then he looks weak. It is a strategic opening for him but also

a big risk. I think that was a much bigger play than other issues about

lobbying. Len McCluskey saying in tomorrow's Guardian this is a

gamble that could bankrupt the party. That is what's at stake?

Bizarrely I think the money is less of an issue than in the end whether

or not Ed see it is through and wins. I'm afraid I agree with Danny.

It must be the warm weather? think the position is this is

potential lot biggest breakthrough for Ed, if he gets it right and

sees it through. If he doesn't it will be a really significant thing

for him. He might think he's seeing it through. Dam on grammar schools

got into a row, and then about technical differences about

Dominique Grieve was having grammar schools in Kent, and then there was

the U-turn and it collapsed. Ed Miliband has to be careful

technically or he will look like he U-turned. The Lynton Crosby thing,

does it raise the question that Liberal Democrats have been banging

on about years, public funding? This must get back on the agenda

the issue of how political parties are funded. I mean we have banged

on for ages and you might well say we would, wouldn't we, as a party.

But how Labour is in the pocket of the trade unions because they are

the paymasters, Tories are in the pockets of originally big business,

now the City. The issue now is, is it really now the opportunity to

reactivate the proposals for proper finance. It was the Tories who

pulled out, everybody thinks it was Labour that pulled out, it was the

Tories. These proposals are fine but they will bankrupt political

parties. If they have a �5,000 or �10,000 limit on donation, everyone

says we will have small donation, we all know really it is all about

bankrupting, the Liberal Democrats are bankrupt already, they are

perfectly happy with that. understand we are doing rather well,

I'm no longer treasurer, but we are doing well. Lynton Crosby, was it

unwise for him not to be forced to devest from business links. He

shook the party up? You couldn't have Lynton Crosby and have him do

that, he wouldn't do it on the terms. You had to choose to have

Lynton Crosby and background noise or no Lynton Crosby. They have

experienced Lynton Crosby before and they think he has integrity and

he certainly has ability. They have decided to take the risk. He will

get himself tangled up in stuff but it is below the radar. I don't

agree with that, I think the problem with Lynton Crosby and the

way it is positioned at the moment, it has a smell about it. That is

not to say he has been in lobbying David Cameron, but if you take a

position where we know Lynton Crosby says let's wipe away sue

perv Louis issues, and one of those being public health, -- superfluous,

and one being public health, I think that is somewhere the

Conservatives don't need to be. is a cut-through issue, I would

take a lot of persuading that people knew Lynton Crosby really

was very widely or they were paying a lot of attention to these

parliamentary debates. You are netting this off against the impact

that he can make for you. You couldn't get him any other way.

don't think Lynton Crosby will have significantly influenced the

decision that was taken, and there is far too many people involved in

it. What worries me about this is it brings the whole political

process into disrepute, it is just yet another peg to people adding to

all the other pegs that people have, that politics is corrupt, and

politics isn't corrupt in this country but people are beginning to

think they are. It is another thing. I don't think it will damage the

Tory Party, it will damage all of us. It creates a smell. Just in the

couple of minutes we have left, it is lovely weather, a great sporting

summer are people going in a cheery mood or is it the next two years

will be this, austerity election, the battlelines are obvious and

pretty miserable? I think it will be a very tough political period. I

think it is clear that the Conservatives are in a better

position than they were a month ago. It would be foolish not to accept

that. I think we are in a position where the general election is wide

open. I think you could end up with either major party having a

majority or hung parliament. Nobody could call that at the moment. I

think we are going to have a lot of hand-to-hand combat. The real issue

is whether the economy is showing green shoots and beginning to

recover. If it is both of the coalition parties will start to

improve their position in the opinion polls. If they are not we

have a problem. And the other very big issue is whether Ed Miliband

sees through the strategic opening he has made for himself or it

become as big trap for him. Not just in terms of bankrupting the

Labour Party, that is secondary, it is much more about weakness and

strength for his leadership. It is perfect Barbie weather, but

what is on the Newsnight summer playlist, drifting from our iPod

dock, one artist has been on heavy rotation for decades, five of them,

Nile Rodgers, hit maker to the stars, Bowie, Madonna and Daft Punk.

Nile Rodgers has let his music do his talking but in a by star store

in London he gave us tips on how to make hit records. He even had a go

at the notoriously tricky Newsnight song book. In a guitar store down

Tin Pan Alley in London's West End we are hanging with Nile Rodgers

and bringing our own joint toe the jam. (Newsnight theme tune played)

Hello, the Queen has entered the building! That is actually our

theme music, it sound regular gall. What happens when a world famous

hero meets the theme tune of an acclaimed late night...well show,

basically. Let's go with that. The horn is it. It has been the summer

of bling. Liberace is big at the box-office again. It was a shiny

gold pot for Andy Murray, and at the festivals a storming turn by

Chic and Nile Rodgers. # We're lost in music

# Caught in a trap His career was born under a

glitterball. # We're lost in music

How does he come up with those tight, funky groofs, how tight are

they? They are tighter than Mickey Rourke's forehead. The process of

writing a song and a groove and hook is so much trial and error.

All of the composers I know and respect we never get it right the

first time around, it is only after you rewrite it and rewrite it and

then there is that moment usually that a-ha moment when you go, I got

# Let's dance # Put on your red shoes

# And dance the blues Not bad, but how is Nile Rodgers's

audition going for the Newsnight house band. (Newsnight theme plays

) Is it in six-eight?It is mainly a piece for banjo! Anybody in the

store know what this tune is. his long career Nile Rodgers has

collaborateed with all sorts. Including the droids of Daft Punk

on this year's monster hit. But how are people getting along in America

today. In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Trevyon Martin, a

black youngster in Florida, are things better or others than when

Rodgers was starting out? I think things are worse, I tell you why,

because gone is the sense of optimisim. A Trevyon Martin type of

case could have happened when I was a kid and the outcome would have

been the same. The difference is when I was younger we believed that

in 2013 things would be different. We were loaded with this optimisim

which is what fuelled, that was the turbo charger in our music, that is

what made us write these optimistic songs, we were writing about a

future that we thought we would see. In fact, the future that we

envisioned has never happened. It is pretty much the same. Despite a

black man in the White House? That is something you might not have

anticipated or maybe you did? certainly never anticipated that in

a million years. I think that is probably worse, in a strange way,

because of someone like that. Because I have never seen any

President as disrespected as I see President Obama being disrespected.

# I'm coming up # I want the world to know fl # Got

to let it show When Nile Rodgers wrote this song

for Diana Ross he was smuggling a gay anthem into the charts, a

harder thing to do 30 years ago than today perhaps. What's his view

of the gay marriage debate? almost don't understand how a

person could be against gay marriage. Why would what someone

else does bother you? You wouldn't even know. America is quite divided

because things that don't really affect their lives they believe has

some sort of moral effect or some sort of residual effect when it

doesn't really. 1-2ahhh

# Freak out # Le freak

Much admired by rappers and artists, he has been sampled more than John

Lewis curtains, he has come to terms with it, especially now they

are paying him. That is just a big part of the music business. I will

go work with producers and I will sit down with them and they will

play tonnes of my samples right there in front of me. They don't

think about it. I can't tell you. There is no self-respecting DJ that

doesn't have the beginning of Le Freak as part of their samples

library, every as an "ahhh". Newsnight theme) big finish? I'm in

the ball park but not there. If you had this cold in Hyde part, you

would have blown them away. You got to be kidding me. (plays the

Newsnight theme) that can't be it. You got it. Wonderful Nile Rodgers,

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 60 seconds

let's have a look at tomorrow That's it for tonight, we are back

Today more sunshine for Scotland and Northern Ireland and more heat.

Further south perhaps our hot spots just a bit further west. For

Northern Ireland some decent sunny spells, temperatures up into the

mid-20s, similar figures are forecast across southern and

eastern Scotland. Persistent low cloud and muark further north, the

isolated chance of a shower through eastern Scotland through the

afternoon into the evening. Sunny spells for northern England,

sunshine across the Midlands into East Anglia and the south-east of

England. Some of the temperatures, a couple of degrees down on the

last few days, an Eastleigh breeze, we can see the highs more intense

further west. A hotter day for Devon and Cornwall in South Wales,