The next stop on my tour of marginal constituencies taking the pulse of the electorate is Pendle, a seat that the Tories have not won for 23 years.

Yesterday, in Cardiff, I asked voters whether they wanted five more years of Labour. The answer was expressed with quite a lot of anger.

Today's question for the voters is: Do Conservatives understand people like you? The emotion this time was uncertainty.

Some electors here in the North insist that the Conservatives have never understood what they call "working people". Others can't forgive what they think Margaret Thatcher did to the North. Still others liked their fellow Northerner William Hague, and would vote for him if he were leader, but don't warm to David Cameron.

We've also been speaking to voters who do think the Tories are changing - and beginning, in fact, to understand the working class.

One theme came up with women we spoke to, including, tellingly, a single mother. They liked what Mr Cameron has had to say about the family. The same goes for some of those among the nearly one-in-seven voters in this constituency who are Asians and mainly Muslims. Equally tellingly, though, many say it is all they really know about what the Tories stand for.

As in Cardiff, electoral statistics tell a story of Labour decline and of Tory failure to take advantage. Between 1997 and 2005, Labour's vote-share here fell from 53% to 30%. However, the Conservatives lost votes: 165 of them in those eight years - though, thanks to a low turnout, their vote-share did creep up.

What gives Tories hope here is that they gained control of Lancashire County Council for the first time in almost three decades.

The message I detect on this part of my tour is that it is simply not enough for voters not to want five more years of Labour; the Tories have to do a great deal more to convince voters that they stand for something better instead.

Our next stop is Dudley, and the question: Do you favour spending cuts, and do you favour them now?

You can also see my film from Pendle on tonight's Six and Ten O'Clock News and we will add the video to this post.

PS. Thanks to those who pointed out that my figures for city councillors in the Cardiff North constituency were out of date. The current figure is 13 Conservatives, five Lib Dems and three Independents. And sorry for the error on the Pendle dates - now corrected.

First stop: Cardiff, home of one of five Welsh constituencies [see note below] which the Tories need to win from Labour to have a chance of forming a workable majority in the House of Commons.

Since New Labour came to power, the electorate of Cardiff North - the residential and in places leafy parts of the Welsh capital - have mirrored the behaviour of the country as a whole.

Labour's support here slumped from over 50% of the vote in 1997 to 39% at the last election when, it's worth remembering, Labour won a third term with the lowest-ever vote share obtained by a governing party.

However, the Tories failed to gain from this decline, picking up just 227 votes in those eight years. Thanks to a lower turnout, their vote share crept up from 33.7% to 36.5%.

The reason? Voters who deserted Labour switched, in the main, to the Lib Dems - even though they are outsiders in this seat with just under 19% of the vote.

The Tories are hopeful of winning the seat, having topped the Euro poll not just here but in Wales as a whole. They have 12 councillors in this constituency as against Labour's three and the Lib Dems' six - even though in Cardiff as a whole, the Lib Dems control the city council.

Labour hopes depend on stressing the independence and hard work of the local MP - Julie (wife of Rhodri) Morgan - and persuading those Lib Dems not to switch to the Tories.

On each of my stops on this entirely unscientific test of public opinion, I'm posing a different question to get voters talking. Today it's the one Gordon Brown knows is the hardest his party faces after 13 years in power: "Do you want five more years of Labour?"

It's clear how much trouble Labour will be in if that is what the election is seen to be about. While we were filming in a Cardiff gym, young, old and very sweaty circuit trainers lined up to answer in the negative and to express their anger about expenses, the economy, Afghanistan and/or immigration - which came up again and again, despite being barely mentioned in Westminster.

However, as the prime minister always points out, elections are choices and not referenda. One or two dared to say "yes", expressing their fears about what the Tories might do to public services.

With Bosch having announced the loss of 900 jobs here and Cardiff council a further 300, minds are still on the recession. Gordon Brown would be cheered by the voices of young workers I heard in a growing Cardiff business, UPL. They expressed their fears about making a change when economic recovery was so uncertain, particularly as they had little idea what the Conservatives actually stood for - another theme that keeps recurring on this trip.

Tomorrow, it's the Tories' turn to face a tough question in another marginal they need to win: Pendle in Lancashire. You can also see my film from Cardiff on tonight's Six and Ten O'Clock News and we will add the video to this post.

Update 9 Feb: Here's the Cardiff package.

Note: The Conservatives currently have three Welsh seats: Monmouth, Preseli Pembrokeshire and Clwyd West. Election experts calculate they need five more to gain a majority: Cardiff North, Vale of Glamorgan, Aberconwy, Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South, Brecon and Radnorshire. They also have hopes of gaining Bridgend and Delyn and Montgomery - if a political asteroid hits the Lib Dem Lembit Opik. [Return to post]

You needn't be. It's all really very simple.

Sir Thomas has asked around half of MPs to give money back - because, even if they followed the rules, the rules were wrong.

But Sir Paul says that Sir Thomas is being too harsh and that the rules were the rules.

Neither Sir Thomas nor Sir Paul writes the rules for MPs; that's the job of Sir Christopher - except, actually, Sir Ian is the man who really writes them.

Now Sir Ian is consulting on new rules that are different from the new rules which Sir Christopher wrote.

Sir Christopher has written to Sir Ian to say that he doesn't agree with the rules, but has no complaint about the way Sir Ian has done his job.

Meanwhile, Sir Stuart hints that Sir Ian and Sir Paul are right and that Sir Thomas and Sir Christopher are wrong.

Anyway, all you need to know - according to Sir Stuart - is that the Commons is putting its house in order.

I hope that's now clear. And it might be funny if it were not so serious. The expenses scandal has undermined the standing of Parliament, it has devastated the reputations of many individual politicians, and it has led to the largest number of retirements from the Commons since World War II - and still counting.

Today should have been a day when people could say "at least they are sorting out the mess". I fear that, as on so many other similar days, that is not how it will feel.

That is the question the Tories are setting out to answer today when George Osborne proclaims what he will call "a new economic model for Britain". Business investment and savings must, he says, replace debt as the foundation for prosperity.

Osborne will set out eight benchmarks which, he claims, will allow people to assess Tory progress in government towards this goal. He will pledge to:

• Create a more balanced economy - ensuring higher exports, business investment and saving as a share of GDP

• Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity - by raising the private sector's share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East.

The other six - for which I don't yet have more detail - are:

• Get Britain working

• Ensure macro-economic stability

• Make Britain open for business

• Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money

• Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy

• Build a greener economy

The event - planned some time ago and before the latest GDP figures - was meant to highlight that there is much more to Tory economic policy than cutting public spending and the deficit. It will, however, provide a platform for journalists about the uncertain noises coming from Tory high command on the scale of planned cuts which I first highlighted last week.

By seeking to reassure the public that there will not be "swingeing cuts", David Cameron has acknowledged Labour's arguments that the wrong approach to public spending could pull the rug from under the recovery. He has ensured that the political argument is not simply about whether to cut and how, but also the effect on growth.

He and George Osborne are finding it harder to convince the public that there is a risk in "doing nothing" about the deficit. Expect them to start pointing not just to the Greek crisis, but also to countries like Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania, which are embarking on deficit-reduction programmes.

He may be tempted to quote President Obama, who said the other day :

"It is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we've been accumulating for far too long - deficits that won't just burden our children and grandchildren but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates and jeopardise our recovery right now."

However, only yesterday the White House declared that "getting our economy moving again" was a higher priority than cutting the deficit - so maybe not.

The move could mean that in future general elections - though not in this year's - voters would be asked to rank candidates by preference instead of putting a cross next to one name as now.

Senior ministers agreed today to propose an amendment to the Constitutional Renewal Bill to offer voters a referendum by the autumn of 2011 on scrapping Britain's "first past the post" system and replacing it with the "alternative vote" (AV) system. The cabinet is to be asked to approve the plan tomorrow, allowing Gordon Brown to unveil the idea in a speech he is delivering on political reform at lunchtime.

Under AV - the voting system used in Australia - every candidate is ranked on the ballot paper. If no candidate wins at least half of the votes, the votes of losing candidates are redistributed until a winner emerges with an overall majority.

The system is not a form of proportional representation. Indeed, in the event of a big electoral swing, it can exaggerate the majority that a winning party gets.

Gordon Brown backed AV at Prime Minister's Questions recently, claiming that "[g]iven the issues that have arisen about trust in politics, there is a case for every member of this House coming here with the support of more than 50% of the electors," but has met opposition from a sizeable group of Labour MPs who fear that the move could be a thin end of a wedge leading to full PR - which could undermine Labour in its traditional heartlands.

However, a growing number of ministers have argued that a vote on a referendum will expose the Conservative Party as opposed to political reform and will woo Liberal Democrat voters and Lib Dem MPs whose votes might be needed in the event of a hung Parliament.

Even if the Commons votes for a referendum on AV next week, the measure is very unlikely to become law as there is not sufficient time between now and the general election for it to pass through all its Parliamentary stages.

"Come on: a regret, man!" shouted James Shadri, who has been living in Syria for the last two years and working with Iraqi refugees.

Sir John Chilcott gave Tony Blair another chance to express his regrets. He declined it.

Leaving his seat minutes later, he was greeted by boos and a shout of "You are a liar." And another shout: "...and a murderer." As I left the room, one woman was in tears.

Not content with answering questions today, Tony Blair decided to ask them, in particular what he called "the 2010 question".

What would have happened, he asked, if Britain and America had lost their nerve and Saddam had survived with the know-how and intent to build weapons of mass destruction?

Not content with defending one war, the former prime minister went on to hint that another might be necessary. I take a tough, hard line with Iran, he said.

Those hoping that today's proceedings would heal divisions or would ensure that Tony Blair was brought to account will not just be disappointed; they will, I suspect, be furious.

Far from apologising, Mr Blair is telling the country that he was right, that he is still right and that they cannot ignore his warnings about dangerous regimes which wish to arm themselves with WMDs.

Tony Blair clasped both hands together in front of him to steady himself as Sir John expressed the hope that the inquiry could go about its business in an orderly way without disruption. A burly security guard sat in the room just in case. The former prime minister stared straight ahead, barely blinking. I have not seen him so frightened since the evening I welcomed him backstage to take part in a live televised debate between the contenders for the Labour leadership 16 years ago.

As on that night, though, the nerves didn't last long.

The man who for so long relied on his capacity to charm and to persuade had, it seemed, decided that he must not be seen to do that. Thus, there was no opening statement or preamble of remorse for those who died in Iraq; nor were there thanks for the opportunity to give evidence.

Instead, he and Sir Roderick Lyne, the best inquisitor on the team, sized each other up. Blair repeatedly put on then took off his glasses as he reached out for the speeches stored in front of him in a lever-arch file, unsure whether to read them out. "We'll come to that," said Sir Roderick, to demonstrate who was in charge.

Soon, though, the witness was at ease, his face relaxed, his eyes more lively. As he warmed to his own tune, his hands began to move expansively - as though he were a conductor who had at last found the beat and was beginning to enjoy it.

Before Mr Blair had entered, the audience - in part invited relatives of soldiers who had died; in part members of the public who won their places in a ballot - had sat in quiet contemplation. Many had arms folded, looking as tense as the man about to appear before them. Only once did those of us in the room hear a reaction not audible to those watching on TV.

It came when Mr Blair was asked about the interview with Fern Britton, in which he appeared to say that if he had known before the war that Saddam had not possessed weapons of mass destruction, different arguments would have had to have been used to justify removing him. The Blair of old grinned, and then joked that, even with all his experience of doing interviews, he still had things to learn.

There were sharp intakes of breath, there were audible tut-tuts and there was shaking of heads - a low-key but collective expression of resistance by an audience who appeared to say: "don't think you can get away with that one."

It was on that issue - regime change - that we learned the most this morning.

Up until today, witnesses from Tony Blair's government have insisted that the Americans' stated objective of regime change was illegitimate and illegal. The British government's policy of disarmament was distinct, they insisted. However, Tony Blair said this morning that there was no "binary" choice between them and that they were, indeed, different ways of expressing the same proposition.

One particular phrase sticks in my mind. Even before the attacks on New York, he told the inquiry, "force was always an option... if necessary, we were going to remove him."

Remove him. Regime change. It had always been in his mind. Long before that meeting at George Bush's Crawford ranch where some allege he made a promise "signed in blood" to go to war.

PS: I will be back inside the inquiry room for the last session of evidence this afternoon. My colleague Laura Kuenssberg is micro-blogging; you can find her at @BBCLauraK, and you can get all the BBC's coverage at our live event page.

So say the members of the Iraq Inquiry.

That is not how it will feel to Tony Blair, who was smuggled into the QEII Conference Centre by the Metropolitan Police early this morning.

The inquiry to date has heard from his former officials and ministerial colleagues who have painted a picture that this was his war and his alone. He will want to remind people that the government, the opposition and, yes, public opinion backed him.

He will acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned, but defend the judgement he took and stands by still - that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world who had to be disarmed, if necessary by force.

On regime change, he is likely to argue that there was a moral case to remove Saddam, but that his government's policy was disarmament.

On those missing weapons of mass destruction, he may point to the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, which said that Saddam had the capacity and the intent to build WMD if not the weapons themselves.

On the terrible loss of life, his friends point out that there are those who are alive now thanks to the war - because, they claim, infant mortality rates have improved since Saddam was toppled.

None of this will convince opponents of the war. It is unlikely to sway those who once backed it and now regret it.

Tony Blair's aim is likely to be rather different. He will want people to disbelieve the conspiracy theories about secret promises to George Bush "signed in blood", and the claims that he lied about intelligence. He wants the British public to accept that he took a political judgement which they might disagree with but which was just that: a judgement he discussed and debated openly, based on what he knew and feared at the time. Even that will be a mightily difficult task.

Update 0927: Tony Blar will not be making an opening statement to the inquiry this morning.

I will not be blogging live during his evidence, since I have the privilege of being in the Inquiry Room, where no electronic equipment is permitted. There is a different quality about sharing a room with the witness and the inquisitors which I do not wish to miss. As I've mentioned before, my colleague Laura Kuenssberg is micro-blogging; you can find her at @BBCLauraK, and you can get all the BBC's coverage at our live event page.

The reason, say campaigners, is that it's so cheap. You can buy two litres of cider, equivalent to a bottle of wine, for little more than a pound.

The answer, they say, is to force shops to charge a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish government has tried and, so far, failed to promote the idea. Labour are examining it. The Tories have argued for minimum pricing for a limited range of super strength drinks.

The problem with the idea, some argue, is that it would punish the moderate majority for the sins of the few and, worse, might not really deal with the problem.

Tonight on Radio 4's Decision Time you can hear something rather extraordinary - Frank Dobson and John Redwood talking as if they were members of the same government about how this idea might or might not make its way through the corridors of power in Whitehall and Westminster

The former health secretary and the former head of the No 10 policy unit discuss, with the businessman who until last year was the head of the government's Better Regulation Executive, the potential obstacles and how to overcome them.

Along with a lobbyist and a fellow political hack we examine the lessons of Holyrood's failure to legislate for minimum pricing.

Decision Time is on Radio 4 at 2000 GMT tonight - 27 January 2010.

PS You will also hear Frank Dobson recall the memorable moment when Tony Blair's chief of staff rang to tell him that Bernie Ecclestone had given Labour £1m at the very time Formula One was to be exempted from the government's ban on tobacco sponsorship.

Too right it does say Labour insisting that it would "pull the rug" from the economy and remove vital support from families and businesses.

Absolutely not reply the Tories. It is vital to restore confidence in the British economy which, in turn, will keep interest rates lower for longer whereas "doing nothing" about the deficit will force them up.

Yesterday I suggested that the Tories were softening their rhetoric on the deficit by talking of "making a start" to reducing it.

Team Osborne reject this insisting that they've always said that they would cut back spending this year whilst acknowledging that there are real practical limits to what can be cut quickly.

My sense was though, and still is, that they are nervous of Labour's repeated claims that they would cut "deeper and faster" - words that the Tories have not, as far as I can discover, used themselves.

Hold on, you may say, didn't David Cameron say as much to Andy Marr in his New Year's interview? This is what he actually said:

Andrew Marr: What I'm not clear about is whether you want to go further; whether you want the actual amount of money taken out of government budgets to be more than the 57/58 billion pounds the government are talking about, or whether you simply want to start the process earlier?

David Cameron: Well it's both and one leads to the other.

The Tory argument is that by starting cutting earlier - this year not next - they would progress further and faster than Labour.

So, why do they resist the description "deeper and faster" - other than for the obvious political reason that it scares some voters rigid?

They argue that the deficit is not like a hole in the road - of fixed size. The argument, therefore, is not simply about when you start filling it or how much you fill or at what speed. It is, also, about how you stop the hole growing.

They argue that starting cutting the deficit earlier would restore confidence so the economy would grow quicker. Therefore, there would potentially be less - not more - cutting to do. Growth would do more of the job.

Labour, of course, argues that government spending promotes growth and therefore reduces the public spending cuts needed in the future.

Simple really.

(My colleague Stephanie Flanders has written more about this here.)

The government has chosen a grim-faced chancellor to front the news rather than a triumphant prime minster.

It's not just that growth is a meagre 0.1% and it's not just that growth could come to a halt and reverse by the time the next figures are published, inconveniently for the government on the eve of a May election. They may go backwards thanks to the effect of the rise in VAT, a snowy start to the year and post-Christmas belt-tightening.

It is also that Labour's political strategy now is to emphasise the fragility of recovery in order to warn of the dangers of cutting spending too far and too soon.

It's interesting to note therefore that the Tories are softening their rhetoric, talking of making a start to cutting this year. Perhaps they've been listening to the former Chancellor Ken Clarke who told the Sunday Times this weekend "it's no good trying to win brownie points by offering great cuts that are going to have calamitous consequences."

These are words that Labour is sure to be replaying again and again.

But of course the danger of emphasising the fragility of the recovery is that some voters may note that we are still not securely out of the longest and deepest recession since the war and may conclude that the current custodians of the economy can no longer be trusted to finish the job.

The Tories hosted a secret meeting bringing together Ulster Unionists - who are now formally in alliance with the Tories - and their bitter rivals the Democratic Unionists at an English country house.

The venue was Hatfield House, home of Lord Cranborne, the former Tory MP and peer who opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and has long been regarded as a "friend of unionism".

The talks were - according to the Conservatives - to resolve differences over the issue of how to resolve the breakdown of trust at the top of the Northern Irish Executive which threatens to force new assembly elections. They came at a time when the DUP was weakened by the Mrs Robinson scandal. If new elections were held, Sinn Fein could emerge as the biggest party in Northern Ireland - which would make Martin McGuinness first minister.

Some who attended the talks insist that they also focused on the dream of "unionist unity" - co-operation or, perhaps in the long term, merger, between the UUP and DUP - which could prevent Sinn Fein's electoral triumph and, in Westminster elections, deliver a dozen unionist MPs who might be expected to support the Conservatives. Very helpful indeed if David Cameron faces a hung Parliament after the next election.

This has produced bitter condemnation from the nationalist SDLP, whose Deputy Leader Dr Alasdair McDonnell said:

"No-one is buying the Tory line that this secret, all-unionist meeting was an attempt to overcome political instabilities.
 
"If this was the genuine motivation, then why haven't the Tories met with the nationalist parties which represent half of the population living here?"

It should be noted that Dr McDonnell might lose his seat if the Unionists did get their act together.

It's produced criticism from the Alliance Party who claim that it undermines David Cameron's capacity to act in future as an honest broker between parties - as Gordon Brown is now doing.

David Cameron talked of creating a new "non-sectarian" force in Northern Ireland with his alliance with the UUP. Apparently the talks at Hatfield House have already triggered resignations from two Catholics who were attracted by the idea.

All this at a time when dissident violence is growing and could increase if the political process is seen to fail.

The Tory leader insisted that the Conservatives would fight all seats in Northern Ireland - so, by implication, not make way for the DUP. He backed his Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Patterson who, friends say, was just trying to help ensure that devolution stayed on track.

Within months, he may have responsibility for hosting all-party talks in Downing Street or in Northern Ireland. The secret talks at Hatfield House may have made that task a whole lot harder and, incidentally, made the prospect of a dozen Unionist MPs backing him much less likely.

A Conservative spokesman has said:

"The meeting was a genuine and sensible attempt to help the peace process stay on track.
 
"We have consistently supported the government on Northern Ireland. Like the prime minister, we want nothing more than to see policing and justice powers devolved to Northern Ireland and the situation there stabilised."

That is a question that is causing tremors in Belfast at the moment; it also has consequences for the UK as a whole. When asked about it this morning, David Cameron did not deny that the issue of what unionists might do in a hung Parliament could have been discussed.

Instead, he said that his focus was on ensuring that devolution to Stormont continued successfully and on resolving differences between the two unionist parties.

Some have suspected that the Tories, who have gone into alliance with the Ulster Unionists for the forthcoming general election, were eyeing a deal whereby different unionist parties would stand down for each other in different Northern Irish constituencies.

The Tories deny this, insisting that if the Conservative name is used, they will fight every seat in Northern Ireland. Watch this space. This matters, even if you don't live in Northern Ireland.

What we know is that:

• Sir John Chilcot will confirm that he has written to the prime minister saying that the inquiry would like to interview him and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for International Development

• This letter is a response to that sent by Gordon Brown - which he revealed in the Commons on Wednesday in response to a question from the SNP's Angus Robertson

• That followed questioning a week earlier by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg at PMQs when Brown made clear that it was up to the inquiry when he was interviewed, but did not say that he hoped they would interview him pre-election

• At the outset of the inquiry, Sir John made clear that he'd only call ministers who no longer had any relevant responsibility - for example, Jack Straw - and would wait to call others until after the election

My guess is that Brown realised that today's appearance of Jack Straw at the Iraq Inquiry and next week's by Tony Blair would lead to persistent demands for him to face questioning too. He would risk looking evasive if he simply replied that it was nothing to do with him when he was interviewed and would face accusations of a behind-the-scenes stitch-up.

If I'm right, he decided that the obvious downsides of facing questioning about Iraq in the run-up to an election would be outweighed by the downsides of being seen to run scared from them.

It might also allow him to try to make a distinction between those who took the decision to invade Iraq - Blair and Straw - and those, like him, who supported them and wrote the cheques but were not involved in decisions around intelligence and diplomacy.

There was, I am told, no private understanding or arrangement between the PM and Sir John in recent days. Indeed, the inquiry team was surprised to receive Gordon Brown's letter, was puzzled by what it really meant and its members are now livid that news of their invitation to the PM to appear before the election has leaked out before they could announce it themselves.

Update 08:25, 22 January 2010: The origin of this confusion was Sir John Chilcot's statement on 17 December that the committee is "determined to remain firmly outside party politics" and that "the inquiry should not be used as a political platform for political advantage." For this reason, the committee decided to wait until after the election to hear from those ministers who are currently serving in the roles about which the committee wished to question them.

I'm now told that Gordon Brown wrote to Chilcot to make publicly very clear that politics was not the reason for the timing of his appearance - which the inquiry had scheduled for after the election. Perhaps he recalled that once before he had been accused of playing politics with the Iraq inquiry by proposing that evidence be taken in private.

Should the TV licence fee be scrapped? Twenty or so years ago Margaret Thatcher's answer was yes but she didn't get the idea through Whitehall.

Understanding why tells you a great deal about the obstacles any future prime minister who favours the idea might face.

On tonight's Decision Time on Radio 4 we examine the arguments, pinpoint the opponents and look at the hurdles on an ideas path down the corridors of Whitehall and Westminster.

In tonight's programme a former broadcasting minister - David Mellor - confesses to plotting with a former BBC director general - John Birt - in a smart Westminster restaurant. He is chastised by his former Whitehall boss - ex-permanent secretary of the Culture Department, Sue Street. In the process they reveal a great deal about how policy is made in SW1.

Mellor tells the tale of how he took Birt to Green's restaurant and told him:

"[T]hey're saying you should throw away Radio 1 and Radio 2. Do not do that. The person in the Gateshead council house has got to have a reason to pay the licence fee. If it appears to be a subsidy from the Gateshead council house to the bloke in Hampstead Garden Suburb plugged into Radio 3, it isn't going to work."

Birt, who recoils at the suggestion he was "plotting" recalls:

"He gave me a very full and candid account of what was going on in government and I gave him an extremely honest and candid account of what I thought the real problems were at the BBC, and we had, in a sense, a negotiation, and we were able to forge a sense of common purpose."

Sue Street advised her former ministerial boss:

"[D]on't appear, either in fact or in perception, to cosy up to the BBC, because there are other big beasts out there - the chancellor, the Business Department, the Cabinet Office - who will see the faults in that view"

Decision Time is on BBC Radio 4 at 2000 GMT tonight - 20 January 2010.