26/02/2017 Sunday Politics

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May still has plenty on her plate,

not least a battle over Brexit in the Lords.

But after Thursday's by-election win in Copeland,

the Prime Minister looks stronger than ever.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour saw off Ukip in this week's other by-election,

but losing to the Tories in a heartland seat leaves the party

The leader of Scottish Labour joins me live.

You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden!

And Donald Trump may have been mocked for talking about the impact

of migration on Sweden, but after riots in Stockholm this

week, did the US president have the last laugh?

In London, will the rise in council tax in all but four local

authorities be enough to alleviate the crisis in social care?

And joining me for all of that, three journalists who I'm pleased

to say have so far not been banned from the White House.

I've tried banning them from this show repeatedly,

but somehow they just keep getting past BBC security - it's Sam Coates,

We have had two crucial by-elections, the results last

Thursday night. It's now Sunday morning, where do they believe

British politics? I think it leaves British politics looking as if it

may go ahead without Ukip is a strong and robust force. It is

difficult to see from where we are now how Ukip rebuilds into a

credible vote winning operation. I think it looks unprofessional, the

campaign they fought in Stoke was clearly winnable because the margin

with which Labour held onto that seat was not an impressive one but

they put forward arguably the wrong candidate, it was messy and it's

hard to see where they go from here, particularly with the money problems

they have and even Nigel Farage saying he's fed up of the party. If

Isabel is right, if Ukip is no longer a major factor, you look at

the state of Labour and the Lib Dems coming from a long way behind

despite their local government by-election successes, Tories never

more dominant. I think Theresa May is in a fascinating situation. She's

the most powerful Prime Minister of modern times for now because she

faces no confident, formidable opposition. Unlike Margaret Thatcher

who in the 1980s, although she won landslides in the end, often looked

like she was in trouble. She was inferred quite often in the build-up

to the election. David Owen, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams. And quite

often she was worried. At the moment Theresa May faces no formidable UK

opposition. However, she is both strong and fragile because her

agenda is Brexit, which I still think many have not got to grips

with in terms of how complex and training and difficult it will be

for her. Thatcher faced no equivalent to Brexit so she is both

strong, formidably strong because of the wider UK political context, and

very fragile. It is just when you think you have never been more

dominant you are actually at the most dangerous, what can possibly go

wrong? I think that the money of her MPs they haven't begun to think

through the practicalities of Brexit and she does have a working majority

of about 17 in the House of Commons so at any point she could be put

under pressure from really opposition these days is done by the

two wins inside the Conservative Party, either the 15 Europhiles or

the bigger group of about 60 Brexiteers who have continued to

operate as a united and disciplined force within the Conservative Party

to get their agenda on the table. Either of those wings could be

disappointed at any point in the next three and a half years and that

would put her under pressure. I wouldn't completely rule out Ukip

coming back. The reason Ukip lost in Stoke I think it's because at the

moment Theresa May is delivering pretty much everything Ukip figures

might want to see. We might find the phrase Brexit means Brexit quite

anodyne but I think she is convincing people she will press

ahead with their agenda and deliver the leave vote that people buy a

slim majority voted for. Should that change, should there be talk of

transition periods, shut the migration settlement not make people

happy, then I think Ukip risks charging back up the centre ground

and causing more problems in future. That could be a two year gap in

which Ukip would have to survive. As I said, Ukip is on our agenda for

today. Thursday was a big night

for political obsessives like us, with not one but two

significant by-elections, Ellie braved the wind and rain

to bring you this report. The clouds had gathered,

the winds blew at gale force. Was a change in the air, or just

a weather system called Doris? Voters in Stoke-on-Trent

were about to find out. It's here, a sports hall

on a Thursday night that the country's media reckon

is the true eye of the storm. Would Labour suffer a lightning

strike to its very heart, or would the Ukip threat proved

to be a damp squib? Everybody seems to think the result

in Stoke-on-Trent would be close, just as they did 150-odd miles away

in Copeland, where the Tories are counting on stealing another

Labour heartland seat. Areas of high pressure in both

places, and some strange sights. We knew this wasn't a normal

by-election, and to prove it there is the rapper,

Professor Green. Chart-toppers aside,

winner of Stoke-on-Trent hit parade was announced first,

where everyone was so excited the candidates didn't even make it

onto the stage for the result. And I do hereby declare

that the said Gareth Snell Nigel Farage has said that victory

here in Stoke-on-Trent But Ukip's newish leader

played down the defeat, insisting his party's

time would come. Are you going to stand again

as an MP or has this No doubt I will stand again,

don't worry about that. The politics of hope beat

the politics of fear. I think Ukip are the ones this

weekend who have got But a few minutes later,

it turned out Labour had Harrison, Trudy Lynn,

the Conservative Party That was more than 2,000

votes ahead of Labour. What has happened here tonight

is a truly historic event. Labour were disappointed,

but determined to be optimistic At a point when we're 15 to 18

points behind in the polls... The Conservatives within 2000 votes

I think is an incredible The morning after the night

before, the losing parties were licking their wounds

and their lips over breakfast. For years and years,

Ukip was Nigel Farage, That has now changed,

that era has gone. It's a new era, it is

a second age for us. So that needs to be

more fully embedded, it needs to be more defined,

you know, and that will We have to continue to improve

in seats where we have stood. As we have done here,

we've improved on our 2015 result, that's what important,

is that we are taking steps Can I be the first to come

here today to congratulate you on being elected the new MP

for Stoke on Trent Central. Jeremy Corbyn has just arrived

in Stoke to welcome his newest MP. Not sure he's going to

Copeland later though. Earlier in the day, the Labour

leader had made clear he'd considered and discounted some

theories about the party's Since you found out that you'd lost

a seat to a governing party for the first time

since the Falklands War, have you at any point this morning

looked in the mirror and asked yourself this question -

could the problem actually be me? In the end it was the Conservatives

who came out on top. No governing party has made

a gain at a by-election With the self-styled people's army

of Ukip halted in Stoke, and Labour's wash-out

here in Copeland... There's little chance of rain

on Theresa May's parade. In the wake of that loss in

Copeland, the Scottish Labour Party has been meeting for its spring

conference in the Yesterday, deputy leader Tom Watson

warned delegates that unless Labour took the by-election defeat

seriously, the party's devastation in Scotland could be repeated

south of the border. Well, I'm joined now

by the leader of Scottish Labour, Even after your party had lost

Copeland to the Tories and with Labour now trailing 16 points in the

UK polls, you claim to have every faith that Jeremy Corbyn would

absolutely win the general election. What evidence can you bring to

support that? There is no doubt the result in Copeland was disappointing

for the Labour Party and I think it's a collective feeling for

everyone within the Labour Party and I want to do what I can to turn

around the fortunes of our party. That's what I've committed to do

while I have been the Scottish Labour leader. This two years ago we

were down the mines so to speak in terms of losing the faith of working

class communities across the country, but we listened very hard

to the message voters are sending and responded to it. That's what I'm

committed to doing in Scotland and that's what Jeremy Corbyn is

committed to doing UK wide. The latest polls put Labour at 14% in

Scotland, the Tories at ten points ahead of you in Scotland, even

Theresa May is more popular than Jeremy Corbyn in Scotland. So I will

try again - why are you so sure Jeremy Corbyn could win a general

election? What I said when you are talking about Scotland is that I'm

the leader of the Scottish Labour Party and I take responsibility for

our policies here. Voters said very clearly after the Scottish

Parliament election that they didn't have a clear enough sense of what we

stood for so I have been advocating a very strong anti-austerity

platform, coming up with ideas of how we can oppose the cuts and

invest in our future. That is something Jeremy Corbyn also

supports but I've also made it clear this weekend that we are opposed to

a second independence referendum. I want to bring Scotland back together

by focusing on the future and that's why I have been speaking about the

federal solution for the UK. I know that Jeremy Corbyn shares that

ambition because he is backing the plans for a people's Constitutional

Convention. Yes, these are difficult times for the Scottish Labour Party

and UK family, but I have a plan in place to turn things around. It will

take time though. I'm still not sure why you are so sure the Labour party

can win but let me come onto your plan. You want a UK wide

Constitutional Convention and that lead to a new Federalist settlement.

Is it the policy of the Labour Shadow Cabinet in Westminster to

carve England into federal regions? What we support at a UK wide level

is the people's constitutional convention. I have been careful to

prescribe what I think is in the best interests of Scotland but not

to dictate to other parts of the UK what is good for them, that's the

point of the people's constitutional convention. You heard Tom Watson say

there has to be a UK wide conversation about power, who has it

and how it is exercised across England. England hasn't been part of

this devolution story over the last 20 years, it is something that

happened between Scotland and London or Wales and London. No wonder

people in England feel disenfranchised from that. What

evidence can you bring to show there is any appetite in England for an

English federal solution to England, to carve England into federal

regions? Have you spoken to John Prescott about this? He might tell

you some of the difficulties. There's not even a debate about that

here, Kezia Dugdale, it is fantasy. I speak to John Prescott regularly.

What there is a debate about is the idea the world is changing so fast

that globalisation is taking jobs away from communities in the

north-east, that many working class communities feel left behind, that

Westminster feels very far away and the politicians within it feel

remote in part of the establishment. People are fed up with power being

exercised somewhere else, that's where I think federalism comes in

because it's about bringing power closer to people and in many ways

it's forced on us because of Brexit. We know the United Kingdom is

leaving the European Union so we have to talk about the repatriation

of those powers from Brussels to Britain. I want many of those powers

to go to the Scottish parliament but where should they go in the English

context? It is not as things currently stand the policy of the

English Labour Party to carve England into federal regions,

correct? It is absolutely the policy of the

UK Labour Party to support the people's Constitutional convention

to examining these questions. I think it is really important. You're

promising the Scottish people a federal solution, and you have not

even squared your own party for a federal solution in England. That is

not true. The UK Labour Party is united on this. I am going to

Cardiff next month to meet with Carwyn Jones and various leaders.

United on a federal solution? You know as well as I know it is not

united on a federal solution. We will have a conversation about power

in this country. It is not united on that

issue? This is the direction of travel. It is what you heard

yesterday from Sadiq Khan, from Tom Watson, when you hear from people

like Nick Forbes who lead Newcastle City Council and Labour's Local

Government Association. There is an appetite for talking about power.

Talking is one thing. We need to have this conversation across the

whole of the United Kingdom, to have a reformed United Kingdom. It is a

conversation you're offering Scotland, not the policy. Let's come

onto the labour made of London. He was in power for your conference. He

wrote in the record yesterday, there is no difference between Scottish

nationalism and racism. Would you like this opportunity to distance

yourself from that absurd claim? I think that Sadiq Khan was very clear

yesterday that he was not accusing the SNP of racism. What he was

saying clearly is that nationalism by its very nature divides people

and communities. That is what I said in my speech yesterday. I am fed up

living in a divided and fractured country and society. Our politics is

forcing is constantly to pick sides, whether you're a no, leave a remain,

it brings out the worst in our politicians and politics. All the

consensus we find in the grey areas is lost. That is why am standing

under a banner that together we are stronger. We have to come up with

ideas and focus on the future. That is why I agree with Sadiq Khan. He

said quite clearly in the Daily Record yesterday, and that the last

minute he adapted his speech to your conference yesterday, to try and

reduce the impact, that there was no difference between Scottish

nationalism and racism. Your colleague, and Sarwar, said that

even after he had tried to introduce the caveats, all forms of

nationalism rely on creating eyes and them. Let's call it for what it

is. So you are implying that the Scottish Nationalists are racist.

Would you care to distance yourself from that absurd claim? I utterly

refute that that is what Sadiq Khan said. I would never suggest that the

SNP are an inherently racist party. That does is a disservice. He did

not see it. What he did say, however, is that nationalism is

divisive. You know that better than anyone. I see your Twitter account.

Regularly your attack for the job you do as a journalist. Politics in

Scotland is divided on. I do not want to revisit that independence

question again for that reason. As leader of the Labour Party, I want

to bring our country back together, appeal to people who voted yes and

no. That banner, together we are stronger, that is where the answers

lie in defaulters can be found. If in response to the Mayor of London,

your colleague says, let's call it out for what it is, what is he

referring to if he is not implying that national symbol is racist? --

and that nationalism is racist? He is saying that it leads to divisive

politics. The Labour Party has always advocated that together we

are stronger. Saying something is divisive is very different from

saying something is racist. That is what the Mayor of London said. That

is what your colleague was referring to. He did not. You would really

struggle to quote that from the Mayor of London. He talked about

being divided by race. What does that mean? I think he was very clear

that he was talking about divided politics. There is an appetite the

length and breadth of the country to end that divisive politics. That is

what I stand for, focusing on the future, bringing people back

together, concentrating on what the economy might look like in 20 years'

time in coming up with ideas to tackle it today. Thank you for

joining us. Thursday's win for Labour

in Stoke-on-Trent Central gave some relief to Jeremy Corbyn,

but for Ukip leader and defeated Stoke candidate Paul Nuttall

there were no consolation prizes. I'm joined now by Mr Nuttall's

principal political Welcome to the programme. Good

morning. How long will Paul Nuttall survivors Ukip leader, days, weeks,

months? You are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. Ukip

was formed in 1993 with the express purpose, much mocked, of getting

Britain out of the European Union. Under the brilliant leadership of

Nigel Farage, we were crucial in forcing a vacuous Prime Minister to

make a referendum promise he did not want to give. With our friends in

Fort leave and other organisations. Mac we know that. Get to the answer.

We helped to win that referendum. The iteration of Ukip at the moment

that we're in, the primary purpose, we are the guard dog of Brexit.

Viewed through that prism, the Stoke by-election was a brilliant success.

A brilliant success? We had the Tory candidate that had pumped out

publicity for Remain, for Cameron Bradley, preaching the gospel of

Brexit. We had a Labour candidate and we know what he really felt

about Brexit, preaching the Gospel according to Brexit. You lost. Well

the by-election was going on, we had the Labour Party in the House of

Commons pass the idea of trickling Article 50 by a landslide. Are

passionate thing, the thing that 35,000 Ukip members care about the

most, it is an extraordinary achievement. I am very proud. What

would you have described as victory as? If we could have got Paul

Nuttall into the House of Commons, that would have been a fantastic

cherry on the top. Losing was an extraordinary achievement? Many Ukip

supporters the Stoke was winnable, but Paul Nuttall's campaign was

marred by controversy, Tory voters refuse to vote tactically for Ukip

to beat Labour, his campaign, Mr Nuttall is to blame for not winning

what was a winnable seat? I do not see that at all. This is

counterintuitive, but Jeremy Corbyn did do one thing that made it more

difficult for us to win. Fantasy. That was to take Labour into a

Brexit position formerly. Just over 50 Labour MPs had voted against

triggering Article 50. In political terms, we have intimidated the

Labour Party into backing Brexit. How much good is it doing you? It

comes to the heart of the problem your party faces.

You're struggling to win Tory Eurosceptic voters. For the moment,

they seem happy with Theresa May. Stoke shows you're not winning

Labour Brexit voters either. If you cannot get the solution Tolisso

labour, where does your Broad come from? In terms of the by-election,

it came very early for Paul. I'm talking about the future. We have a

future agenda, and ideological argument with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

Party, which is wedded to the notion of global citizenship and does not

recognise the nation state. We know he spent Christmas sitting around

campfires with Mexican Marxist dreaming of global government. We

believe in the nation state. We believe that the patriotic working

class vote will be receptive to that. Your Broad went down by 9% in

Cortland. In Copeland we were squeezed. In Stoke, we were unable

to squeeze the Tories, who are on a high. Our agenda is that social

solidarity is important but we arrange it in this country by nation

and community. We want an immigration system that is not only

reducing... We know what you want. I do not think people do. You had a

whole by-election to tell people and they did not vote for you and. When

Nigel Farage said it was fundamental that you were winner in Stoke, he

was wrong? Nigel chooses his own words. I would not rewrite them. It

would be a massive advantage to Ukip to have a leader in the House of

Commons in time to reply to the budget, Prime Minister's questions

and all of that. But we have taken the strategic view that we will

fight the Labour Party for the working class vote. It is also true

that the Conservatives will make a pitch for the working class vote

might as well. All three parties have certain advantages and

disadvantages. As part of that page, Nigel Farage said that your leader,

Paul Nuttall, should have taken a clear, by which I assume he meant

tough, line on immigration. Do you agree? He took a tough line on

immigration. He developed that idea at our party conference in the

spring. Nigel Farage did not think so? Nigel Farage made his speech

before Paul Nuttall made his speech. He said this in the aftermath of the

result. Once we have freedom to control and Borders, Paul wants to

set up an immigration system that includes an aptitude test, do you

have skills that the British economy needs, but also, and attitudes test,

do you subscribe to core British values such as gender equality and

freedom of expression? We will be making these arguments. It is

certainly true that Paul's campaign was thrown off course by,

particularly something that we knew the Labour Party had been preparing

to run, the smear on the untruths, the implications about Hillsborough.

If you knew you should have anticipated it. Alan Banks, he helps

to bankroll your party, he said that Mr Nuttall needs to toss out the

Tory cabal in Europe, by which he means Douglas Carswell, Neil

Hamilton. Should they be stripped of their membership? Of course not. As

far as I knew, Alan Banks was a member of the Conservative Party

formally. I do not know who this Tory cabal is supposed to be. He

says that your party is more like a jumble sale than a political party.

He says that the party should make him chairman or they will work. What

do you see to that? He has made that statement several times over many

months, including if you do not throw out your only MP. Douglas

Carswell has managed to win twice under Ukip colours. Should Tibi

chairman? I think we have an excellent young chairman at the

moment. He is doing a good job. The idea that Leave.EU was as smooth

running brilliant machine, that does not sit with the facts as I

understand them. Suzanne Evans says it would be no great loss for Ukip

if Mr Banks walked out, severed his ties and took his money elsewhere.

Is she right. I am always happy people who want to give money and

support your party want to stay in the party. The best donors donate

and do not seek to dictate. If they are experts in certain fields,

people should listen to their views but to have a daughter telling the

party leader who should be party chairman, that is a nonstarter. You

have described your existing party chairman is excellent. He said it

could be 20 years before Ukip wins by-election. Is he being too

optimistic? There is a general election coming up in the years'

time. We will be aiming to win seats in that. Before that, we will be the

guard dog for Brexit, to make sure this extraordinary achievement of a

little party... You are guard dog without a kennel, you cannot get

seat? We're keeping the big establishment parties to do the will

of the people. If we achieve nothing else at all, that will be a

magnificent achievement. Thank you very much.

Sweden isn't somewhere we talk about often

should because this week it was pulled into

the global spotlight, thanks

Last weekend, Mr Trump was mocked for referring to an incident that

had occurred last night in Sweden as a result of the country's open

Critics were quick to point out that no such incident had occurred

and Mr Trump later clarified on Twitter and he was talking

about a report he had watched on Fox News.

But as if to prove he was onto something,

next day a riot broke out in a Stockholm suburb

with a large migrant population, following unrest in such areas

So what has been Sweden's experience of migration?

In 2015, a record 162,000 people claimed asylum there, the second

That number dropped to 29,000 in 2016 after the country introduced

border restrictions and stopped offering permanent

Tensions have risen, along with claims of links to crime,

although official statistics do not provide evidence of a refugee driven

Nigel Farage defended Mr Trump, claiming this week that migrants

have led to a dramatic rise in sexual offences.

Although the country does have the highest reported

rate of rape in Europe, Swedish authorities say recent rises

were due to changes to how rape and sex crimes are recorded.

Aside from the issue of crime, Sweden has struggled

Levels of inequality between natives and migrants when it comes

Unemployment rates are three times higher for foreign-born workers

We're joined now by Laila Naraghi, she's a Swedish MP from the

governing Social Democratic Party, and by the author and

The Swedish political establishment was outraged by Mr Trump's remarks,

pointing to a riot that hadn't taken place, then a few nights later

serious riots did break out in a largely migrant suburb of Stockholm

so he wasn't far out, was he? I think he was far out because he is

misleading the public with how he uses these statistics. I think it is

important to remember that the violence has decreased in Sweden for

the past 20 years and research shows there is no evidence that indicate

that immigration leads to crime and so I think it is far out. The social

unrest in these different areas is not because of their ethical

backgrounds of these people living there but more about social economic

reasons. OK, no evidence migrants are responsible for any kind of

crime? This story reminds me after what happened to the Charlie Hebdo

attacks in Paris when also a Fox News commentator said something that

was outlandish about Paris and the Mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox

News, saying you are making our city look bad. It's a bit like that

because the truth on this lies between Donald Trump on the Swedish

authorities on this. Sweden and Swedish government is very reluctant

to admit any downsides of its own migration policy and particularly

the migration it hard in 2015 but there are very obvious downsides

because Sweden is not a country that needs a non-skilled labour force

which doesn't speak Swedish. What was raised as the matter of

evidence, what is the evidence? First of all if I can say so the

rape statistics in Sweden that have been cited are familiar with the

rape statistics across other countries that have seen similar

forms of migration. Danish authorities and the Norwegian

authorities have recorded a similar thing. It is not done by ethnicity

so we don't know. And this is part of the problem. It is again a lot of

lies and rumours going about. When it is about for example rape, it is

difficult to compare the statistics because in Sweden for example many

crimes that in other countries are labelled as bodily harm or assault

are in Sweden labelled as rape. Also how it is counted because if a woman

goes to the police and reports that her husband or boyfriend has raped

her, and done it every night for one year, in Sweden that is counted as

365 offences. Something is going wrong, I look at the recent news

from Sweden. Six Afghan child refugees committed suicide in the

last six months, unemployment among recent migrants now five times

higher than among non-migrants. We have seen gang violence in Malmo

where a British child was killed by a grenade, rioting in Stockholm.

Police in Sweden say there are 53 areas of the country where it is now

dangerous to patrol. Something has gone wrong. Let me get back to what

I think is the core of this debate if I may and that is the right for

people fleeing war and political persecution to seek asylum, that is

a human right. In Sweden we don't think we can do everything, but we

want to live up to our obligation, every country has an obligation to

receive asylum seekers. But you have changed your policy on that because

having taken 163,001 year alone, you have then closed your borders, I

think very wisely, closed the border which means 10,000 people per day at

one point were walking from Denmark in to Malmo, you rightly changed

that so he realised whatever ones aspirations in terms of asylum, it

sometimes meets reality and Sweden is meeting the reality of this.

Let's respond to that. We are not naive, we know we cannot do

everything but we want to try to do our share as we think other

countries also need to do their share. But let me say that, if you

look at what the World Economic Forum is saying about our country

they show we are in the top of many rankings, the best country to live

in, to age in, to have children in, to start into -- to start

enterprise. Why have you not been so good at integrating migrants? The

unemployment rate is five times higher among migrants than

non-migrants and that's the highest ratio of any country in the EU and

the OECD, why have you not been able to integrate the people you have

brought in for humanitarian reasons? I'm sure there are things we can do

much better of course but if you look for example at the immigration

that came in the 90s from the Balkans, they are well integrated

and contributing to our society. They are starting enterprises and

working in different fields of society, and they help our country.

Why have they not got jobs, the migrants that have come in? It takes

time. In the 90s we managed it and I'm sure we can do it again. Can I

put this into some context, it is clear Sweden has got problems as a

result of the number of migrants that come in, whether it is as bad

as Mr Trump and others make out is another matter, but perhaps I can

put it into context. Malmo, which has been at the centre of many of

these migrant problems, its homicide rate is three per hundred thousand.

Chicago, 28 per 100,000. It may have problems but they are not huge. No,

they are pretty huge and I think they will grow. The Balkan refugees

into Sweden in the 90s did bring a lot of problems and Sweden did for

the first time see serious ethnic gang rivalries. There was an upsurge

in gang-related violence that has gone on since. The situation in

Malmo in particular is exaggerated by some people, there's no doubt

about that, I have been there many times and it is undoubtedly

exaggerated by some, it is also vastly unpersuaded by the Swedish

authorities. -- understated. In 2010, one in ten Jews in Malmo

registered some form of attack on them. It got so bad that in 2010

people offered to escort Jews... You have had a good say and I have got

to be fair here, what do you say to that, Laila Naraghi? There are

people trying to frame our country in a certain way to push their own

agenda. I regret that President Trump is trying to slander our

country. But what about the specific point on Malmo? If you speak to

people in Malmo and also to different congregations, they say

they are working together with the authorities to improve this. I say

again, there are a lot of people trying to spread rumours and lies.

Your situation is very like the situation we had in Britain when we

have these situations in Rotherham and elsewhere. 1400 girls were raped

in Rotherham before police even admitted it was going on. That

happened in Britain in the last decade, a similar phenomenon. An

upsurge in particularly sexual and other forms of violence and then

total denial by an entire political class is now something that is

happening in Sweden. I see it in Swedish authorities and the denial

that comes up and the desire to laugh and dismiss Trump but he's not

answer nothing and that's a painful thing for any society to want to

admit to. There are number of Swedes who think the establishment is

covering up the true statistics, that you don't break crime down by

ethnic crimes, people are suspicious of the centre-left and centre-right

parties now in Sweden. There is no denial and no cover-up. This is what

I'm speaking about when I say people are trying to frame it in a certain

way. The social unrest is not because of the ethnical background

of the people living there but rather because of different

socioeconomics conditions. There is no research that shows

immigration... But you don't do the research into it. Swedish

authorities deliberately ensure you cannot carry out such research and

after the attacks in Cologne in 2015 it was the first time then that the

Swedish authorities and press admitted that similar sexual

molestation have been going on for years in Sweden. Is it right to

think, given the problem is maybe not as bad as many people make out

but clearly problems, given these problems, is the age of mass asylum

seeking for Sweden over? You have cut the numbers by 80% coming in

last year compared with 2015, is it over while you concentrate on

getting right the people that you have there already? We want to do

our share, we have done a lot and now we are concentrating of course

on integration and making sure people get a job, and also

on big welfare investments because it's important to remember that for

eight years Sweden were governed by a government that prioritised big

tax cuts instead of investment in welfare. It may just not work. I am

grateful to you both, we have to leave it there.

It's coming up to 11:40am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

the Week Ahead, when we'll be asking if the Government is facing defeat

Welcome back. Article 50, which triggers the beginning of Britain

leaving the European Union and start negotiations, is winding its way

through the Lords in this coming week. Tarzan has made an

intervention, let's just see the headline from the Mail on Sunday.

Lord Heseltine, Michael Heseltine, my fightback starts here, he is

going to defy Theresa May. I divide one Prime Minister over the poll

tax, I'm ready to defy this one in the Lords over Brexit. There we go,

that's going to happen this week. We will see how far he gets. I don't

think he will get very far, I don't think Loyalist Tory MPs and

Brexiteers are quaking in their boots at the prospect of a rebellion

led by Michael Heseltine. I sense that many Tory MPs are already

moving on to the next question about Brexit, and the discussion over how

much it will cost us to come out. The fact they are already debating

that suggests to me they feel things will go fairly smoothly in terms of

the legislation. When I spoke to the Labour leader in the Lords last week

on the daily politics, she said she was going to push hard for the kind

of amendments Lord has all-time is talking about and they would bring

that back to the Commons. But if the Commons pinged it back to the Lords

with the amendments taken out, she made it clear that was the end of

it. Is that right? That's about right. This is probably really a

large destruction. There will be to micro issues that come up in the

Lords, one is on the future of EU nationals, that could be voted on as

soon as this Wednesday, and then the main vote in the Lords on a week on

Tuesday, when there is this question of what sort of vote will MPs and

peers get at the end of the Brexit process and that is what has

all-time is talking about. He wants to make sure there are guarantees in

place. The kind of things peers are looking for are pretty moderate and

the Government have hinted they could deliver on both of them

already. But they are still not prepared... Amber Rudd said they

were not prepared... They may say yes we are going to do that but they

won't allow whatever that is to be enshrined in the legislation. The

question is whether we think this is dancing on the head of a pin. The

Government have already promised something in the House of Commons,

but will they write it down, I don't think that's the biggest problem in

the world. In a sense this is a great magicians trick by Theresa May

because it is not the most important thing. The most important thing in

Brexit is going on in those committees behind closed doors when

they are trying to work out what the next migration system is for Britain

and there are some interesting, indeed toxic proposals, but at the

moment Downing Street are happy to let us talk about the constitutional

propriety of what MPs are doing over the next eight days. It seems to me

the irony is that if we had a second chamber that can claim some kind of

democratic legitimacy, which the one we have cannot, it would be able to

cause the Government more trouble on this, it would be more robust.

Absolutely. I saw the interview we did with the Labour Leader of the

Lords, they are very conscious, of the fact they are not elected and

have limited powers. She was clear to you they would not impede the

timetable for triggering Article 50 so we might get a bit of theatre,

Michael Heseltine might deliver a brilliant speech. It is interesting

that Euroscepticism gun under Margaret Thatcher in the Tory party

but two offer senior ministers Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine are the

most prominent opponents now but they will change nothing at this

point. She will have the space to trigger Article 50 within her

timetable. Let's move on. Let me show you a picture tweeted by Nigel

Farage. That is Nigel Farage and a small

group of people having dinner, and within that small group of people is

the president of the United States, and it was taken in the last couple

of days. This would suggest that if he can command that amount of the

President's time in a small group of people, then he's actually rather

close to the president. Make no mistake about it, Nigel Farage is

now to and fro Washington more regularly than perhaps he is here.

Hopefully that LBC programme is recorded over in the state. He's not

only close to the president but to a series of people within the

administration. That relationship there is a remarkable one and one to

keep an eye on. Will the main government be tempted to tap into

that relationship at any time or is it just seething with anger? You can

feel a ripple of discontentment over this. We are in the middle of

negotiating the state visit and the sort of pomp and circumstance and

what kind of greeting Britain should give Donald Trump when he comes over

later in the year. There is a great deal of neurotic thought going into

what that should look like, but one of the most interesting things about

our relationship with Donald Trump is that there is a nervousness among

some Cabinet ministers that we are being seen to go too far, too fast

with the prospect of a trade deal. Even amongst some Brexiteer cabinet

ministers, they worry we won't get a very good trade deal with the US and

we are tolerably placing a lot of stalled by it. When we see the kind

of deal they want to pitch with us there might be some pulling back and

that could be an awkward moment in terms of our relationship, and no

doubt Nigel at that term -- at that point will accuse the UK of doing

the dirty on Donald Trump. If there was a deal, would they get it

through the House of Commons? Nigel Farage is having dinner with the

president, not bad as a kind of lifestyle but he's politically

rootless, he won't be an MEP much longer so if you look at where is

his political base to build on this great time he's having, there is

one. Given that there is one I think he's just having a great time and it

isn't much more significant than that. No? There's a lot to be said

for having a great time. You are having a great time. Let's just

look, because of the dominance of the Government we kind of it nor

there are problems piling up, only what, ten days with the Budget to

go, piling up for Mrs May and her government. The business rates which

has alarmed a lot of Tories, this disability cuts which are really a

serious problem for the Government, and the desperate need for more

money for social care. There are other issues, there are problems

there and they involve spending money. Absolutely and some people

argue Theresa May has only one Monday and that is to deliver Brexit

but it is impossible as a Prime Minister to ignore everything else.

And she doesn't want to either. The bubbling issue of social care and

the NHS is the biggest single problem for her in the weeks and

months ahead, she has got to come up with something. And Mr Hammond will

have to loosen his belt a little bit. I think he will in relation to

the NHS, he didn't mention it in the Autumn Statement, which was

remarkable, and he cannot get away with not mentioning it this time. If

he mentions it, it has to be in a positive context in some way or

another and it is one example of many. She is both strong because she

is so far ahead in the opinion polls, but this in tray is one of

the most daunting a Prime Minister has faced in recent times I think.

Here is what will happen on Budget day, money will be more money,

magically found down the back of the Treasury sofa. The projections are

that he has wiggle room of about 12 billion. But look at the bills,

rebels involved in business rates suggest the Chancellor will have to

throw up ?2 billion at that problem. 3.7 billion is the potential cost of

this judgment about disability benefits. The Government will try to

find different ways of satisfying it but who knows. It will not popular.

I'm not sure they will throw money at the NHS, they want an interim

settlement on social care which will alleviate pressure on the NHS but

they feel... That's another couple of billion by the way. They feel in

the Treasury that the NHS has not delivered on what Simon Stevens

promised them. But here is the bigger problem for Philip Hammond,

he has two This year and he thinks the second one in the autumn is more

important because that is when people will feel the cost living

squeeze. The Daily Politics is back at noon

on BBC Two tomorrow. We'll be back here at

the same time next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.