26/02/2017 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


here in the east, the colour of but after riots in Stockholm this


here in the east, the colour of money. Businesses helped by funding


from the EU. 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 to Sunday Politics East.


Later in the programme, business rate rises, a threat to our High


Street or a storm in a teacup? The government may be claiming that


business rates are going down, but certainly, that isn't our


experience. With us today, Bernard Jenkin, the


Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, and Alex Maier, who


replaced Richard Howitt as the Labour member of the European


We are starting with funding from We are starting with funding from


the EU. Of course, when we leave the EU, we won't be getting any more of


its regional grants and investment, and this week, we have some idea


what that might mean. According to a report for one of our business


organisations, more than ?4 billion in grants has come to this region


over the last ten years. That does not include CAP payments to farmers.


The report warns in the short term, at least, we are unlikely to see


similar levels of funding for business, infrastructure and social


development once we have left the. Here is Andrew Sinclair.


If you want an idea of the difference that EU funding has made,


take a look at this printing firm in Ipswich. It makes colour sampling


cards for paint companies and was struggling to expand, but a ?67,000


grant from the Growing Business Fund meant that last year, it could move


to new premises and take on extra staff.


It was very important, because it enabled us to fit out to a much


higher standard than we would have done and enabled us to move two


units into one at an earlier stage than we would have done.


If you haven't been able to get this grand? We would probably still be


working out of two unit! Across the eastern region, large


towns, rural communities, high-tech research parks, along with roads and


other transport projects have benefited from EU funding. But what


will happen when we leave? This report, commissioned by the New


Anglia Lep, and written by the East of England Brussels office, makes


sobering reading. It finds that in the last decade, just two of our


counties, Norfolk and Suffolk, have received ?1.9 billion of EU


investment, which together with other grants, brought in a total of


?7.3 billion. And figures for other parts of the region are even higher.


And the report warns that it cannot see how a lot of this funding will


be replaced. investment bank, it may be possible


we will continue to be able to borrow from the investment bank. As


for the range of other programmes, University funding, agricultural


funding, local growth funding, how that is to be decided is essentially


a domestic issue, and something we don't know yet.


During the referendum, the Leave campaign argued that because we send


there would be enough money to, yes, there would be enough money to, yes,


help the NHS, but also to help the little people these projects going


after Brexit. But could some of them get the chop? The report says that


it could depend on the whims of future government.


At the moment, funding runs over seven years, which could run over


two parliamentary terms in the UK and European parliaments, so you can


remove some of the politics of agricultural and research funding,


of growth funding. That will become a politicised issue now, I think, in


future UK elections. This is not finished, but it is


nearly there. Here is another beneficiary of EU


funding. On the Norfolk- Suffolk funding. On the Norfolk- Suffolk


border, Hannah has opened a winery. They have planted vineyard. The


fund allowed her and her husband to fund allowed her and her husband to


invest in processing equipment and they will surely' to Mac is centre.


Banks would not fund us because we are a new business. We fit the bill


because we are going to be boosting because we are going to be boosting


tourism in the area, and employing local people here and having a local


supply chain. As long as we are in the EU, we are entitled to apply for


funds for projects like this. But there is another problem. The


current EU funding period ends in early 2021. That is nearly two years


after we have left EU, and so that means that not all the money that


has currently been promised to the east will be given to us. The


Chancellor has agreed to fund all EU projects to the end of very great


term, but after that, he has been noncommittal, and with the head of


the European Commission warning this week that we will pay a heavy price


for leaving the EU, the region's business community is concerned.


We want to work with government and other colleagues to ensure money is


still available to support economic growth in our counties.


You can't be sure that it will be. We can't be sure that it will be,


but it is certainly, we believe, a priority to protect funding in


science and innovation, to protect science and innovation, to protect


funding for farming communities. And also to protect funding.


More than 1000 projects have benefited from EU support in this


region. The business community would like to know what happens next.


Bernard Jenkin, what does happen next?


Well, Lott needs to happen next, and it is a report where two things need


to be borne in mind. Globally, the UK gets twice as much money to the


European Union than what we get back, and once we have left the


European Union, we're not going to be short of money. We have more


money available, and people like me why do we want our fair share for


our region. And the second point is that this money will be under our


control. It will be cheaper to administer because we won't go


through the bureaucracy, and for example, agriculture is exactly the


same. We will need to create, probably, and agriculture bill to


create a UK agricultural policy through which the government will


provide support for agriculture, but these things have not been done and


I can quite understand people are feeling a bit uncertain about it.


And it is the uncertainty, isn't it? Don't we have to put our cards on


the table and say yes, you will get this money?


Yes, I think we do, but regional and structural funds, which is what the


programme is about, these are for the whole nation, and we will need


to agree a framework not just for England but with the Scottish and


Northern Ireland government and with the Welsh government, and I hope it


is going to be a joint cooperative framework. So I think there is an


opportunity to make sure it is anchored in a longer-term


perspective than just one general election to the next Westminster,


that it will have more permanence to it.


Now you are at the EU Parliament, does this get talked about?


Absolutely, and it is talked about right across our region. I am really


concerned about this European funding disappearing.


When you talk to people, what do When you talk to people, what do


they say about this? They recognise the benefits that


European funding brings two regions, and specifically two regions. The


Suffolk, Devonshire Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Devonshire Cambridgeshire,


and that is one of the big concerns people have got, is that yes, there


will be different money available, but will be invested in our region?


And what will happen to the collaborative work that goes on the


moment. I was in Great Yarmouth yesterday, talking to a local arts


company, and one of the things that they really benefit from is not just


the money was also the fact that they can work with other European


partners and share practice. People who collaborate with European


countries are still going to do that, aren't they?


I think you were more difficult, because funding programmes at the


moment really encourage that, and it will be tougher post-Brexit. -- I


think it will be more difficult. I don't quite understand the point


you are making. The fact is that this money, twice as much money,


will now be under our control after we have left, and it is about


collaboration with our European partners, though and will be less


easy for companies here to collaborate two no, it will be just


the same. We collaborate globally across the


world with companies and universities and science, and all


these things are global things. The idea that the only way you can


cooperate in Europe is through the EU, I mean, it is going to change,


it is going to be different, and that is what I think people find, if


they are people who are used to what they have got, it will change, but


there's no reason why there should be just as much collaboration across


frontiers in the European Union. -- in Europe.


And the political perspective on this, what are you hearing from your


perspectives on the European Parliament? -- your colleagues?


They are worried about the European project as a whole, I would say.


Brexit is not what is on everyone's... . If you are German,


you will by German elections, if you are French, about Marine Le Pen. I


don't think Brexit is a top pirated for the politicians in Europe. --


top priority. That will make a really difficult for Britain to get


a good deal, and I see no reason we will get a better deal outside of


Europe than we did when we were in it.


Unless, of course, all those other countries do what we have done?


And leave. Yes. You are absolutely right. I think


the way that Europe has, the way the EU is becoming preoccupied with the


very intractable problems in the Eurozone is very difficult. You


might finish up without any deal at all, and I think we have to be


prepared for that. I agree. Let's move on. MPs from


across the region have been campaigning for the government to


give more help to companies here that are facing a big increase in


their business rates. There are sharp increases in some


places, but that is not the case everywhere.


Across the region, the only places facing an overall increase in North


Norfolk, the Cambridge area, and Forest Heath. In each case, the rise


will be 2%. Everywhere else, there will be at the crease. Up to 12% in


Stevenage and 13% in Bedford. But even in areas where on average,


rates will fall, some businesses will be facing an increase, and some


of those will be big. We were anticipating that they would


approximately double, but in fact, they have gone up by more than three


times. The government may claim that business rates are going down, but


certainly, that isn't our experience, and I very much doubt


that it is the experience of many small businesses.


Others believe they can cope with the changes.


We are currently paying about 2870 in our business rates, and based on


what I have seen on valuation, I think it will go up modestly to


We are quite lucky here is a company We are quite lucky here is a company


that it hasn't been extraordinary. We look at other people, and they


are jumping up and down a bit at this moment.


And there are some hotspots like Southwold in Suffolk, where the


rates and the shop will go up from ?2000 a year to nearly 12,000.


At the moment, I pay myself only the minimum wage. I pay myself ?10,000 a


year. Everything I make goes back into the business, so we are looking


at potentially decisions about people that I employ, decisions


about where money is invested in the business.


Suffolk Coastal, which includes Suffolk Coastal, which includes


Southwold. She was one of the few MPs who went to see the Chancellor


of the Exchequer Philip Hammond this week.


We address the particular issues We address the particular issues


involving towns, and small High Street, which have seen a reduction


in popularity. It is fair to say, I think, the Chancellor recognises


some of the challenges, but also, we exchanged thoughts on what could be


done to try and tackle this particular situation that we are


experiencing in places like Southwold and Aldborough. While I


recognise that councils have the opportunity to offer discounts, I


also understand they -- their resources are somewhat constrained.


Think it is there to say the Chancellor was obviously in


listening mode and I know you took away the figures, and certainly,


when I saw him the following day, he said he was using them in the


Treasury to look at further analysis on this particular issue.


What would you like him to do? I don't want to pre-empt the budget.


I would like him to really consider the role of the mixed High Street. A


lot of these traders have done what we asked for and improved and


enhance the High Street, but I put across very strongly the points that


traders have made to me directly, that this is not just about the


summertime, when these places are bustling and booming, but also, they


may provide a service year-round to residents, and I thing that really


needs reinforcing, which I was happy to do on their behalf.


In your constituency, quite a few places will see a rise, but across


the East, a a lot of businesses will see a reduction in their business


rate. That's right, nationally, three


quarters of businesses will see either a forlorn no change, and I am


really pleased that a lot of businesses will benefit. However,


there are some extremes at one end, and Southwold in particular, where


the average increase on the High Street were rateable values is 177%,


those independent small traders that those independent small traders that


I wanted to really go and make the I wanted to really go and make the


case of the Chancellor to see if there is any way he can provide them


with some help in the forthcoming changes.


Is there a temptation that hard up councils will actually be finding


ways to put up business rates more than they should?


I don't think it is in councils' interest to try and price are


businesses from their area. Far from the case, it is in their interest to


bring in new businesses into the area, and I'm glad that is what has


happened in East Suffolk, where we are seeing new businesses continuing


to be established. How easy do you think it is to do it


with online businesses? Well, I think this is one issue that


retailers are raising regularly. We already have a situation where


online businesses will be taxed on online businesses will be taxed on


corporation tax, and they would argue that they are not, how can I


elements to bring people to their elements to bring people to their


particular business. People access particular business. People access


that through the internet. I don't pretend I have the answers on a


brand-new way to generate the revenue that business rates does


today, but I think the Chancellor is open to ideas on that.


I was speaking to a small independent businessmen today whose


rent has gone up from antiquity and his business rates are going up, and


he is just closing the door. That is going to happen, isn't it, in some


places? -- his rent has gone up exponentially.


That is sad to hear, and some of the work I have been doing with their


MPs to raise the issue with the Chancellor, as well as meeting


previous finance ministers, named due to meet Sergei Javad again next


week, is to raise the potential consequences of this. That said, we


need to make sure that we want to encourage landlords to be


responsible and the rent increases responsible and the rent increases


they put on people, recognising that, as I say, other costs will


follow from that, and we don't want to see empty high streets.


Thank you very much. Bernard Jenkin, don't we have to


find another way of doing this? Well, I wrote a pamphlet is 20 years


ago, when John Major was Prime Minister, and we had a rating


revaluation, and there was a huge row, and the government went into


retreat and fought all over again. Here we are 20 years later going


through exactly the same thing, and it is an outdated tax, one that was


invented before the internet, before cars were invented, before... I


think trains may have been around. But it is such a different world we


live in now, I'm not sure it is a really good basis. Obviously, we


must have some property taxes, or a property tax of some kind, but this


seems to be very perverse, particularly because businesses that


make his excess of their businesses and therefore put up the value of


their premises, they are the ones you get punished.


The online business thing is a difficult area as well, isn't it?


Yes, it is difficult to find a way of taxing those kind of online


companies, but what I think we have seen at the moment is, we have got


winners and losers here, and the issuers, the people who are losing


out at the moment, it is just happening too quickly.


We need some certainty, because businesses can't be expected to just


overnight. They need time to plan overnight. They need time to plan


that, and we need some certainty from the government about what they


plan to do during a transition. And there is a danger that we will


drive out of our high streets and drive out of our high streets and


shops that make them and Justin, the smallest shops?


Yes, and they are the ones that people really like in their High


Street, the different shops, the ones that are different and special,


particularly as our coastal towns, as you showed in your film.


We need a period of transition. There is already one announced, ?3.6


billion committed to the transitional programme, so that some


of the people who are getting rateable values through that have


gone very substantially, they will never, ever get to the point where


they pay that rateable value, because the transition go to slowly.


But what the Prime Minister said the Chancellor has already indicated,


there will be budget announcements there will be budget announcements


which we are not allowed to talk about... Obviously, they are going


to look at the transitional programme, and they are right, we


need to smooth the pain. But the fundamental problem is, we're


talking the High Street. That has been going on for years, and this


accelerates the process. If you put a rateable values, because the chain


is coming, the coffee shops, the restaurant and pub chains, who are


very good at generating much higher turnover, but at the rent and


values, and then the little bakery, your little book shop, your tool


store, these people will get squeezed out. I don't know what the


answer is, but we need to have a new think about this rather than wait


another 20 years and have another row about business rate in 20 years'


time after we have lost a lot more shops.


Let's move on. Time now for our round-up of the political weakens it


to second. -- political week in 60 seconds.


Norfolk became one of the last of our county councils to agree its


budget for the new financial year, and it has gone for the biggest


increase ever, 4.8%. For an average home, that means an extra ?57 a


year. We have been subsidising the


district councils. What we are saying is, hang on, we can no longer


do this for you. The region's farmers say they could


struggle to produce enough food of Brexit leads to a shortage of


migrant workers. They told MPs this week that they need a guarantee that


workers they need will be allowed to come here.


We cannot find enough local labour in order to sustain the business and


continue picking the crop I have got the ground. It sounds sensational,


To raise Acas a steely eye over To raise Acas a steely eye over


proceedings in the House of Lords, as Essex's baronet and Jill Smith


kicked off the debate on leaving the EU. ! Theresa May.


Back in the Commons, Speaker burqa slapped down Southend MP James


Diedrich, whose motion expressing no confidence in him only attracted a


handful of MPs. -- speaker Bercow. As the government


backed banister -- -- as the government minister contacted you?


The answer is no, and is no reason why they should have done.


The low paid workers being is a big thing, isn't it? Yes, it is, and


there are companies, farm workers across our region who are really


concerned that post Brexit, they are not going to be able to get the


workers here in our fields. That will make sure we have food on our


tables. But there was a vote, referendum,


people voted to come out of the EU, and one of the big things was


actually cheap migrant labour coming into this country. That was one of


the things that decided people. What you say to those people?


What I say is that when you go to a supermarket, you're going to want


there to be food there, and we need to make sure there are enough people


available here in the country to make sure that the work is carried


out on British farms, and it is not just about local aid cash --


low-paid migrant micro-working our fields. It is about industries and


East of England, to make sure Britain continues to be seen as an


open and welcoming place where people want to come because it is


important for our economy. David Davis seemed to say this week


that actually, we would be getting migrant workers here still.


Yes, I agree with every word, and I think David Davis probably would as


well. Many of us fought on the Leave side using immigration as an example


of something that we have lost control of, but that doesn't


necessarily mean we think immigration is a bad thing for this


country, and the right kind of immigration is good for this


country. I have got horticultural country. I have got horticultural


farms, fruit farms in my constituency facing this very


problem. I have already had meetings with agriculture ministers and Home


Office ministers. We used to have a scheme called B Seasonal


Agricultural Workers' Scheme, and which should have that back. They


should be trialling it this season should be trialling it this season


in order to encourage people to come and deal with our labour shortages.


Thank you both for being with us. That is all for now. You can keep in


touch on our website. Back to Andrew in the studio.


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.


Download Subtitles