I'm deeply uncomfortable by Labour's actions. They should be wary of plans backfiring - Nigel Nelson

Not only would we need another 15 No10s to house them all, but PMQs would have to be every day for three weeks with one sitting Saturday so everyone got a turn.

As none of that is likely, Your Party’s antics in Liverpool served only as an amusing diversion from Rachel Reeves being beaten up in TV studios.

It’s not a great look for a post-Budget Chancellor to be asked in every interview if she is a liar.

She’s not. But transparency was clearly lacking when she held that extraordinary press conference on November 4 to prepare the nation for income tax rises before deciding they were unnecessary.

Had she made the argument then that she is now she might have got away with it - that the Office of Budget Responsibility had indeed found a surplus of £4.2billion.

But £20billion plus was needed for headroom to be on the safe side. And even that’s not much in a GDP of £2,880billion.

Think of your own home. If you put £240 a month aside for household bills, an extra £4.20 in the piggy bank is not much of a buffer to deal with an unexpected expense and even £20 is a bit tight.

No Budget lead-up must ever happen like this again. The Chancellor must either say everything beforehand and put it out to consultation, or say nothing. Which is how Chancellors dealt with Budgets in the past - with their traps firmly shut.

To get better at the business of governing ministers must ensure they know, as best they can, the unintended consequences of their Plan for Change - because change has a nasty habit of delivering the unexpected.

Lopping £5billion off disability benefits dressed up as welfare reform didn’t cut it with backbench Labour MPs and rightly so. Now Sir Stephen Timms is conducting a proper review which is the way this should have been done in the first place.

And former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is looking at the million young people not in work, education or training. Between them, the pair might find Ms Reeves a few savings along the way.

Justice Secretary David Lammy does not seem to have picked up on this with his plan to scrap jury trials for offences carrying sentences of fewer than three years.

At least that’s in line with former judge Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, and better than the five years the Deputy PM originally intended.

But there is still something deeply uncomfortable about this. Yes, the backlog of 78,000 cases has to be cut, but abandoning the 810 year old right to be tried by our peers is a worrying way to do it.

If you want to make such a massive constitutional change by reforming the justice system, it needs more thought to weigh up the pros and cons. Look at other judicial systems, for example, to see if there are any lessons to be found there.

Our barristers go hammer and tongs at each other to convince juries to convict - or acquit - their clients. Adversarial court combat suits jury trial, but is it best for justice?

Mr Lammy could have looked at the inquisitorial system used by French courts in which juries only come into play when the defendant faces more than 15 years in prison.

French judges don’t just sit up on high, but get down and dirty gathering evidence themselves both for and against the accused, and question defendants and witnesses in court.

I’m not saying that’s better than the way we do things. As far as I’m concerned things are fine the way they are. But the Justice Secretary might at least have taken a look at it.

I’ve no problem with a Labour government which wants to devote its work to change. As long as it takes care to ensure the change will work.