12/02/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Commons Speaker John Bercow is accused of compromising his

impartiality by revealing he voted Remain in last year's EU referendum.

The EU Withdrawal Bill clears its first Parliamentary hurdle.

But will the House of Lords be quite so accommodating?

Labour's Leader in the Lords joins us live.

And we report from Stoke-on-Trent ahead of a crucial by-election

later this month, where Ukip is looking to give

And coming up here: They formed an opposition in Stormont.

Now I'll be asking Mike Nesbitt and Colum Eastwood to set

out their own visions for moving into the Executive Office.

And with me a political panel who frequently like to compromise

Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Janan Ganesh.

I'll be trying to keep them in order during the course of the programme.

So, Commons Speaker John Bercow has insisted his ability

to act impartially is not damaged by reports that he voted to Remain

The Sunday Telegraph reveals that Speaker Bercow revealed his views

in front of an audience of students at Reading University

This may not be popular with some people in this audience -

I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not,

partly for economic reason, being part of a big trade bloc,

and partly because I think we're in a world of power blocs,

and I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies

of the European Union, it is better to be part of that big

Speaker Bercow speaking at Reading University earlier this month. Does

he not care is this I get that impression, he knows perfectly well,

it states he has to be particularly -- Parliamentary neural. Whether

there are going to be enough votes to force him out, the question, the

last speaker wept out with the 20 vote against him. You yes to have

the command of the support across the House. There is a Deputy

Speaker, waiting, who would be superb. I think even the people who

pretend to support Macis have had enough -- Speaker Bercow have had

enough of his ways. The reason I ask whether he care, he didn't just tell

the students that he voted to Remain, he then gave them a running

commentary on all the issues that will be part of the Brexit

negotiations, workers' rights, immigration, trade policy, everyone

maternity leave got a hat tip from him. He would be a very well

prepared Brexit minister if attendance needs a colleague --

David Davis needs a colleague. I don't think this story makes his

position untenable, what does is the wired pattern of behaviour of

excessive candour on his political views, going back years, this is a

guy who when the Queen visited Parliament described her as theical

lied scope Queen. He had a running argument with David Cameron. We know

his views on Brexit, we know his views on Donald Trump. . He has

given interviews, none of the views are illegitimate but the candour

which they are expressed with is scrupulous. Given Lyndsay Hoyle is a

class accuse. He is the Deputy Speaker. And a fairly ready

replacement, whether there is more of a movement to say, maybe not

force Bercow out but acknowledge he has had a few years in the job and

the question of successor ship comes into play. Has he concluded he is

untouchable? What I can definitely say, is that he is determined to

fight this one out, and not go of his own volition, so if he goes he

will have to be forced out. He wants to stay. Which will be tough. It

will be tough. Likely as things stand. I would say this, I speak to

someone who likes the way he has brought the House of Commons to

life, held ministers to account, forced them into explain thing,

whenever there is a topical issue you know it will be in the House of

Commons. He has changed that. He has. Time has been courageous, Ied a

mire the way he has been a speaker. I would say this, during the

referendum campaign, he asked me Nick Clegg, and Peter Hitchens to

debate Brexit if his constituency. It was a packed out meeting. He

chaired it. I said don't you want to join in? He didn't. He showed no

desire to join in, he was impartial. He goes out to universities and kind

of demyth GCSEs Parliament by speaking to them in a way, he

doesn't gets credit for it and stays on after and drinks with them.

Sometimes he, you know, it is clearly a mistake to have gone into

his views retrospectively on that referendum campaign, I don't think

that, did he try and stop Article 50 from being triggered in the House of

Commons? That would be a scandal. Even that would be beyond him.

Briefly, yes or no, could you imagine Betty Boothroyd behaving

like that? Not at all. None of the recent speakers I could imagine

doing that. It is good he is different.

The bill that will allow the government to trigger Article 50

and begin Brexit negotiations was voted through

Many MPs were in a difficult position - unsure whether to vote

with their conscience, their constituency,

Europe, once such a divisive issue for the Conservatives,

is now causing major divisions inside the Labour Party.

So, let's have a look what happened in a bit more detail:

Thanks to academic research carried out since the referendum,

we now have estimates of how each individual constituency voted.

It's thought that 410 constituencies voted Leave.

On Wednesday night, the EU Notification of Withdrawal Bill

was voted through by the House of Commons.

The bill left the Labour Party divided.

Jeremy Corbyn told his MPs to respect the result

of the referendum and vote for the government's bill -

But 52 Labour MPs defied Mr Corbyn's thee-line whip

That's about a fifth of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Of those 52 Labour MPs who voted against the bill,

the majority, 45 of them, represent seats that voted Remain.

However, seven Labour MPs voted against the Article 50 Bill,

even though their constituents voted Leave in the referendum.

The Conservative Party were much more united.

The vast majority of Tory MPs, 320 of them, voted for the bill.

Just one Conservative MP, Ken Clarke, voted against it.

His constituency, Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, voted Remain.

The bill will now go to the House of Lords -

peers will start debating it on Monday the 20th of February.

Joining me now is Matthew Goodwin, politics professor at

He's got a book out next month called

Brexit: Why Britain Voted To Leave The European Union.

Welcome to the programme. Has Brexit, how you voted in the

referendum and your continuing attitudes toward it, is that now

becoming the new dividing line in British politics? I think it

certainly is contributing to a new dividing line, in western politics

more generally, we know over the last ten years, that the old left

and right division has been making way for a new division, between

essentially social liberals and Conservative, and Brexit was a, an

incident a moment that really reflected that new dividing line, so

it wasn't just the case that Brexit has cut across Labour's base, it is

that dividing line, that deeper division is cutting across social

democracies more generally. Is there a possibility, no higher than that,

that it will reShane our party politics? I think it is too early to

know whether this is a fundamental long-term realignment. If we look at

what is happening in local by-election, what is happening at

by-elections, pictures a bit mixed but if you look at how some of the

Labour vote is responding, I think that potentially reflects the

possibility of a terminal decline for the Labour Party, it is going to

be incredibly difficult for Labour to win these voters back, these are

traditional working class, socially Conservative voters who are leaving

the party, don't forget, since the 1997 general election. It is not

just because of the referendum. If that was the case, Labour would

become more a party of the Metropolitan areas, and less of a

party outside of these area, is that what you are saying? What we are S

seeing across the west can social democracy that retrenchment into the

cosmopolitan, Metropolitan city area, university towns, you can

seeing in many European states populist right parties filling the

traditional socialist area, why are they doing that? Because they are

offering two message, economic and cultural protectionism. Social

Democrats are clinging to that economic protectionism but not

saying much about migration and multiculturalism and that sort of

stuff. Are there deeper forces at work than Jeremy Corbyn? He often

gets the blame for what is happening to the Labour Party now, but if you

look the way the Greek socialist party has been wiped out. The German

Social Democrats are in trouble. The Italian socialist party has lost a

referendum. The French socialist are coming close to being wiped out on

April 23rd, Labour's problems, are part of a much wider problem of

social democracy S Jeremy Corbyn is a surface problem, what I mean by

that is you could replace him tosh with another leader, they would

still have this fundamental tension within the electorate. They are

trying to appeal to two differenter reconcilable groups of voters who

think differently about the key issues of the day. It is very

difficult for any centre left party now to assemble the kinds of

coalitionses we saw in the '90s with Clinton and Blair and Schroeder.

Those days are gone. Does that explain why it is now Labour, rather

than the Conservatives, historically the party divided over the European

Union, does all of that help to explain why its Labour that now

seems, disunited over the EU? I think so, I think also that the

issue of Brexit, and the EU, is so immatly wrapped up with that issue

of immigration, if you look at who has been abandoned Labour since 2015

or the late 90s, the one thing those voters share is a rejection of the

so-called liberal consensus on EU membership and mass immigration. It

is difficult for any Labour lead eer co-bin or Clive Lewis on Dan Jarvis,

to bring those voters back unless they are going to move on that

cultural terrain. If they are not, they may not go to Ukip, they might

go to somewhere more difficult for Labour which is political apathy.

Thank you for that. Attention now shifts to the House

of Lords where peers will begin scrutinising the EU Withdrawal Bill

in just over a week. Brexit Secretary David Davis urged

the Lords "to do its patriotic duty" and resist the urge to tinker

with the legislation. Former minister Oliver Letwin

went one further - mooting the possibility

of the abolition of the Lords if it sought to frustrate

the bill in any way. Here he is posing the question

in the Commons on Thursday. Would he find time, in government

time for a debate, should the other place seek to delay beyond the end

of March the passage of our accession to Article 50, for this

House to discuss the possibility of either the abolition or full-scale

reform of the other place? And Oliver Letwin joins

me now from Dorset. Welcome back to the programme Mr Let

win. Before we come on to the Lord's, can I get your thoughts on a

matter that has been making the news this morning and John Bercow's

remarks about being a remain voter an giving something of a running

commentary on various Brexit issues, has he sqloefr stepped the mark as

speaker? -- overstepped the mark. I think this is slightly a fuss about

nothing. Every person who thinks about politics will have had some

opinion about great matters like Brexit, and I really don't see any

particular reason why his opinion shouldn't be known after the fact.

I, I was there throughout the five days of the Brexit debate, and I

have to say, I thought he was pretty scrupulously fair in the way he

handled the House, so, I, I don't really share the view that there is

some terrible thing that has been revealed this weekend. Let me come

on to what we are here to talk about, which is the Lords. Why have

you raised the threat of the abolition of the Lord for doing its

job of scrutinising what is coming out the Commons? Well, you know,

Andrew, this question of the job of the House of Lords and scrutiny, has

to be looked at carefully. There are all sorts of bills that come out the

House of Commons which are detailed things that relate to, finance, and

expenditure, and the criminal law, and all that sort of thing, and all

of that, I admire the work that the House of Lords does, as you say

scrutinising and we shouldn't use that word loosely, it means looking

carefully at the detail, line by line of complicated legislation,

hundreds of Paps in some cases, and spotting, using the considerable

expertise many, not all be many of the peers have, in any given field,

to identify things where the Commons has got it wrong in the sense that

the legislation wouldn't achieve what the Government of the day is

seeking to make it achieve. That is a serious proper role for an Upper

House and the House of Lords performs it pretty

Now this is a very different case. This is a two clause bill. The first

clause which is the operative clause says the Prime Minister should go

ahead and sign... I understand all that. We haven't got that much time,

this is becoming a monologue. There is nothing to scrutinise, Andrew.

There were plenty of amendments put before the Commons, none of them got

through, it is true. There are eight Labour amendments in the Lords, are

you resigned to this bill coming back to the Commons with amendments?

No, it should not come back with amendments. There were hundreds of

amendments literally put down in the House of Commons, they were all

drunk. They were all trying one way or another to derail the process.

This is a binary issue, should Theresa May sign the withdrawal or

not? What should the Commons do? The Commons has now voted in favour of

it. Node do should tolerate and unelected chamber forcing the

British people... The people voted in a referendum and the Commons

voted. The matter is now signed and sealed and should not be derailed by

the House of Lords. On Labour amendment wants confirmation that

when it is done, the potential Brexit agreement will be put before

parliament before any vote in the European Parliament, that has been

an agreed principle, what is wrong with that amendments? The government

has already agreed there will be a vote, but actually, what the

amendments were seeking was to give the Commons a further vote on

whether we actually leave or not. That is already decided. Neither the

House of Lords nor anybody else has a right in my view, despite the fact

I was a remain, to what the will of the British people. Nobody should

think an unelected chamber should now try to change the course of

British history by asserting amendments in a very effective on

clause bill which says go ahead and trigger Article 50. Are you

concerned that amendments by the Lords which would then have to go

back to the Commons for consideration, are you concerned

that could derail or delay the Prime Minister's timetable for Article 50?

Yes, exactly. That would be the result of a prolonged bout of

ping-pong between the two houses, or much worse, if the House of Lords

failed to give way and the Parliament act had to be used. It

would really be intolerable. It is not good for our country. Those of

us who voted remain would prefer for that not to happen. The whole

country -- it is important for the whole country that this happens in a

rapid way and allowing the government free rein to negotiate,

that is surely in all our advantages? Deed think any efforts

to abolish the House of Lords, an issue you have raised, does that

make it easier because your friend David Cameron stuffed the upper

chamber with donors, lapdogs and lingerie designers? I was among

those who advocated for many years wholesale reform of the House of

Lords, to turn it into a serious elected second chamber. I think we

should have an upper house which commands legitimacy. This is a

second issue. Here we have not got such a House and it seems to be very

clear that it should not seek to derail on delay the action which has

been mandated by the referendum, agreed by the House of Commons, and

what we want to see now is a smooth orderly effect for this bill, so it

becomes law and Theresa May can go ahead and negotiate on our behalf.

One more question on the process, if the Lords to amend the bill and it

goes back to the Commons and the Commons sends these amendments back

again, take them out, how long could this ping-pong between the two

chambers go on in your experience? It is a very, very interesting and

complicated question with the clerks of the two ends of the Palace of

Westminster not always agreeing about this. But through certain

machinations of slightly changing amendments as they go, in my

experience this could carry on for an awful long time if clever people,

and there are plenty of clever people in the House of Lords, want

to do that and that is precisely why I think we should not tolerate it.

Oliver Letwin, thank you for joining us from Dorset.

Joining me now is Labour's Leader in the House of Lords, Angela Smith.

The Commons passed this bill without any amendments... There were

changes, the government did concede a couple of points. But the

amendments did not go through. Does that put pressure on the Lords to do

the same? I think the Lords always feels under pressure to do the right

thing. When I heard Oliver Letwin, I did not know whether to laugh or

cry. We will not frustrate, we will not wreck, we will not sabotage. We

will do what David Davis said was our patriotic duty. We will

scrutinise the bill. We have at amendments from the Labour Party. We

will look at those. It depends on the government response if we vote

on those. There could be amendments asking the Commons to look again.

That is normally what we do. It is not the wrong thing to do. But if

you do this and make amendments, it then goes back to the Commons. If

the Commons rejects the Lords' amendments, what do you think will

happen? I do not see any extended ping-pong at all. It is perfectly

legitimate. We are not talking about the outcome of negotiations, we are

talking about the process. The process of engaging with Parliament

and reporting to Parliament. It would be totally responsible for

Parliament to say, off you go, Theresa May, have two years of

negotiation and come back and talk to us at the end. The has to be a

process where the government can use the expertise of parliament to get

this right. But if you do put in some amendments, it has to go back

to the Commons, they may well say they don't want those amendments and

it may go back to the Lords, could that at the very least delay the

Prime Minister's Brexit timetable? I don't think so. She said the end of

March. Time has been built in for all the normal processes. I think

Oliver Letwin and others are getting a bit overexcited. This is the

normal process. Unless the government get things right the

first time every time, the has to be this kind of process. These are

reasonable amendments. This is a Labour amendment we are talking

about here, you want a vote in the UK Parliament before any

vote in the European Parliament if and when the Brexit deal is done,

the Commons and the Lords get to vote on it first. But the government

I think have already agreed to that so what is the point? It needs to be

on the face of the bill. It is over well if the government have agreed

it. Lord dubs had an agreement about child and look what happened to

that. Does not sound as if you would go to the wire on that? It is

important it is not just about the vote at the end, you have the

ongoing engagement. If it is going to be a bad deal, we need to know

long before we get to that stage? Is it something you would hold out for?

I don't know yet. It is about how the House of Lords votes, Labour do

not have a majority, we never had a majority in the House of Lords when

we were in government. It is wrong to suggest that we cannot debate

these issues... I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They are. It is

not unfair to ask the government to ask the House of Commons to look

again to look at those issues if that is what the House of Lords

decides. Bit of the House of Commons says we looked, we are sticking with

what we voted for, we rejected every amendment by at least 30 votes on

all occasions, the Lords then have to buckle, is that what you are

saying? Some point I think it is clear the House of Commons have to

have its say. I think it is inconceivable that having had a

referendum, which was not overwhelming, but it was a clear

result, the House of Lords has no intention of sabotaging that but

there are things which are not good about the process that we think

could be improved. We have not just have the result of the referendum

which voted to leave, but we have had the will of the Commons that

passed this legislation by a majority of 372. And I am not

contesting that for a second! Could you cite a precedent for the upper

house amending a bill which passed by 372 votes in the Commons? Quite

other things will come to the House of Lords with big majorities from

the Commons and quite often the amendments we get, with that then

forward and the government sees it could do better. Though not

necessarily saying the government has got things wrong, but they could

do things better. That happens time and time again and it is not

unusual. If you were seen to thwart the referendum result and the vote

in the Commons, the elected chamber of parliament, is the threat of

abolition hanging over you? I think that is really ridiculous and

absolute nonsense. We are not tying to what the decision of the House of

Commons, we are trying to do better. It is a bit rich of the government

and Oliver Letwin to complain about getting things through in time when

the House of Commons spent -- the government spent three months trying

to debate this issue. There have been some strong questions put to

the government from the House of Lords on all sides. I don't know if

the amendments have been passed or not. I think we have a good case for

the government to get debate the point. If a traditional MP like

Oliver Letwin is calling for the abolition of the hereditary and

appointed chamber, and the Labour person like yourself was trying to

defend that, that would not be a sustainable position, I would

suggest! We saw this with the Strathclyde report as well, this is

a government like no other. It is the first Conservative government in

history not to have an automatic majority. They do not like challenge

or scrutiny. But you get my point, Labour cannot go to the wire in

defending and an elected second chamber, can it? Actually, Labour

can go to the wire in saying the government does not get it right

every time. House of Lords is going to normal processes and people like

Oliver Letwin are really getting a little bit over excited, and people

who have been anonymously briefing. Who has been anonymously briefing? I

don't know, they are anonymous! I understand people want to make

amendments, that is the role of the House of Lords, but can I just for

the avoidance of doubt, is it still your case that whatever amendments

to make, whatever may go back and forward, it is not your intention to

stop Article 50 being triggered by the end of March? I have been saying

that, exactly that for months and months and months. It is

inconceivable that an unelected House will thwart the will of the

House of Commons and a referendum on this issue. But that does not mean

we will be bullied by Oliver Letwin and others. But the triggering will

happen by the end of March? I very much suspect so unless Theresa May

has second thoughts, I suspect that will happen. Thank you.

Now, just because it's parliamentary recess next week

There are two by-elections round the corner -

one in Copeland, and another in Stoke-on-Trent Central

where the former Shadow Education Secretary,

Tristram Hunt, vacated his seat to take up a role

as Director of the Victoria Albert Museum in London.

But Labour are facing a fight to hold onto the constituency

Seconds away, Ukip's new leader has stepped into the ring

as their candidate in a by-election bout to see

At the last election Ukip came second to Labour here

But now they are confident they can land a knockout blow,

because this place is packed with people that voted to leave the EU.

70% of people voted to leave the European Union.

I'm the only candidate standing in this election

who is a true Brexiteer, who has always campaigned to leave

the EU and therefore I believe I would be the best person

But he has had to fight off allegations

he wasn't living in the constituency when he entered the contest.

Explain to me what is going on with this issue about your house?

Well, we took up the lease the day before nominations.

Everything we've done is perfectly legal and within the law.

The Labour Party are trying to get off the real issues in this election

and focus on something which is banal nonsense.

And there's been trouble as well for the Labour contender.

He's been labelled a Remoaner after he sent a series

of anti-Brexit tweets, filled with words

I can't believe I'm about to ask this question in a nursery

on a Sunday morning TV programme, but did you really tweet that

I tweeted many things about Brexit, that's tweet is out there.

It was done quite after the referendum result and it

was my way of showing my frustration at the fact that months

after the result we hadn't had anything from the government.

Theresa May had failed to produce any plan,

she had failed to give any meaningful statement

about what Brexit meant other than bland statements

about Brexit is Brexit, and it's a hard Brexit, or a soft Brexit.

The context of it was it was out of frustration.

So you didn't mean to insult the 70% of the people who live here

I never mean to insult anybody and you know,

I've made it quite clear, if I'm elected as the member

of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central, I will absolutely respect

the wishes of the people of Stoke Central.

I will make sure my vote in parliament is to trigger Article 50.

While the Tories' man has done little bit of rebranding too.

I voted Remain and I've been open about that, but my top priority

is about the economy and to ensure we still have an

Theresa May has set out clear proposal to ensure we develop

a trade relationship with Europe and make that a success.

It means the Lib Dems and the Greens are the ones battling Brexit.

Well, when the Lib Dem candidate is actually here.

The candidate is a consultant cardiologist.

He is actually at work today doing very important heart surgery.

He will be back tomorrow, back on the campaign trail working hard.

30% of people voted to Remain and nobody else

is representing them, so, you know, it is still a live issue.

It is still something people care about.

We are only at the start of the Article 50 process

We are very a clear that we are standing up for those

who want to remain in the single market, who want to protect jobs

Labour have taken people for granted in this area for a great many years.

Ukip, I'm afraid, all Ukip can offer to politics is division.

I've covered a lot of by-elections where Ukip have come second.

We'll find out if they really got Labour on the ropes this

And here is a full list of all the candidates standing

in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election.

They do atract lots of candidates. You can get that on the BBC website

as well. I was trying to think back, here we have the main opposition

party defending two seats in by-elections in the midterm of a

government. All the speculation is where the

opposition party can hold on, that is unprecedented. I can't give of an

equivalent. You wouldn't just expect them to win seats they have held

traditionally, you would expect hem to make inroads into seats held by

the other party, I wonder if they fail to hold on to just one of

these, whether it accelerates the momentum and criticism of the

leadership of the moment. I think they are interesting constituencies.

Matthew good win was talking about the left win coalition over the

years, almost being too broad for its own good, including places like

Primrose Hill and Hackney. Big university towns in Manchester,

Bristol. Diverse ethnically and included places like Stoke which are

more Conservative. With a small c. Less economically well-off, more

diverse, can the left hang on to both bits of country. Recent

evidence suggests it cannot and the opportunity for Ukip is to pick up

the second of those two types of community, the Stokes and the cope

lands. That what makes the by-elections interest I would

suggest. It is not just about Mr Corbyn's future about which we hear

too much, it is about this traditional Labour coalition, can it

still survive, particularly in places like Stoke? Europe clearly is

a test. I think it's a myth by the way that Labour are only split now,

over Europe and it has always been a Tory problem, last time I was on I

mentioned it. That is why we had a referendum in 75. That is why they

had a round then. But they were in chaos behind the scenes over what

they thought about the euro, skillful leadership can paper over

the cracks, and to address the wider issue of whether we are now in an

era where left right issues have disappeared, and there is more of a

regional divide, if you take Europe out of the equation which you can't,

but if you were able to, issues about health, transport housing do

split more left-right than a regional divide, so I think there is

still fundamental left-right issues, but Europe isn't one of them and

Europe has to be managed by a Labour leader skill fully and evidently

that hasn't happened now. How would you see the by-elections in the

current political context? Labour should be walking them, it should be

a sign of the March of the Labour Party taking on the current

Conservative Government. I don't think they raise any questions about

Corbyn's leadership because the people who put him in don't think

that winning elections matter, you have to remember this will be the

mainstream media, it will be our fault why any of those Labour

candidates don't win, the thing that is interesting is whether there is

is a role for Ukip. The argument after the referendum was Ukip has

done its job, it got the referendum, nothing to see here, I remember

speaking to put a Nuttall before he was

speaking to put a Nuttall before he speaking to put a Nuttall before he

was Ukip leader, on the day after the battle and he said this is Year

Zero, where Ukip starts now, and this, and this is the interesting

thing, does, do we see this one particular party having a role in

the future? And I think it is all to play for, they could not not have

stood in this seat. They have to win it to be an electoral force. The

Labour candidate in Copeland has made the NHS the issue for her in

this, that goes into the left-right, are we spending enough, are we not?

That will be a test of what you were saying to see if traditional

left-right issue, which at the moment would play Labour's way I

would suggest, are big enough to overcome all the things you have

been talking about and Matthew has been talking about. Maybe at this

particular junction they are not, but I don't think any of those

issues will go away, and that is why I question whether we are see the

end of a historic left-right divide. At the moment with Europe so

prominent, clearly these by-elections are unusual. And they

will be a test of leadership for Theresa May in the coming months if

not at the moment, as they have been in a way that he hasn't risen to,

for the Labour leader. We will be leave on BBC One on the

night, February 23rd off back of this week, we will bring you the

result of both these crucial by-elections.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

The campaigns have been launched and the gloves are off.

In this extended programme, we'll hear from the

Ulster Unionist leader, Mike Nesbitt, and SDLP

Has social media made the candidate mug shot on a lamp post redundant?

People know anyway without the posters. They don't need the

pollsters. They have been doing this for years since I was a girl, it

must have some effect on people. And with their thoughts

on all of the above and much more, my guests of the day are columist

Fionnuala O Connor and the political editor

of the News Letter Sam McBride. They've formed an opposition

together, spoken of their great working relationship and now

want to convince the electorate that they can do a better job

in Government than the DUP and But both the leader of the UUP

and the SDLP need to boost their election fortunes

on March 2nd. In a moment, I'll be asking

Colum Eastwood how all his talk of co-operation and compromise

with the Ulster Unionists is going But first, I'm joined

by Mike Nesbitt. Welcome to the programme. You are

running 24 candidates, you have said you are confident and can come out

as the lead Unionist party. How many of those 24 seat candy when? Nearly

all of them. We look carefully at last May and realise we need some

tactical errors and running too many candidates and probably knocked

ourselves out in a couple of constituencies. We have done the

strategy and thought very hard about it and we have just enough to get

there this time. When you see nearly all of them, what does that mean? We

have a strategy and was too weak till the election and you wouldn't

expect me to put the strategy out on the table. We have thought about

this very hard and we are confident if people react in the way we expect

them to react, we will do well. When I say react in the way we expect

them to react, this will be a test of how mature a democracy we are. In

what I would call in normal democracy, people would go to the

polls and Xavier going to reward the Government because I like what they

have done or I am going to punish them and give the opposition a

chance. This is the first time since 98 they have that opportunity to

give the opposition a deterrent. You say he would when nearly all of

them, although you did put number on the last time. Are you going to do

the envelope check? I have an envelope here. I am happy to give it

to you. You don't want to do that again. You got your fingers badly

burned last time. You said you would when 8919 and ended up with 16 which

is what you had the time before. You ran 33 candidates and 116 seats,

less than 50% strike rate. Seriously, you expect this time to

run 24 and when all of them are? The environment is different. People are

angry. They understand the RHI anyway they didn't understand react

to red sky or any of the previous scandals. This is ?85,000 today it

needlessly going up in smoke as it did yesterday and will do tomorrow

and tomorrow and tomorrow. On the doorsteps, I was expecting apathy

and I'm not getting very much. I am getting more anger than I had sense

I would get. Let's remember what I did EU PCN? Vote for us so you get

them in the First Minister's office. Those who could have voted last time

did not vote and we can assume they do not care who was the First

Minister but they do care about 85 grand a day up in smoke. The care

about money for education, the social investment fund. The DUP and

Sinn Fein said the plan to spend 80 million tackling poverty over a

three-year period and they spent less than five. What extra support

is going to come from the people who didn't vote last time rather than

from do you people chose? Last May, your party secured 87,001st

preference votes, 12.6% but the DUP 200 and 2000. That is almost 150%

more than you. I am not saying it's only coming from the 45% who didn't

vote last time but it is clear is significant number of those people

are angry enough to have registered or sent to media going to vote.

There are people who weren't registered you are registering. It

is like a confessional on the doorstep. You knock the door,

somebody goes, yet, I have been voting DUP. Are they going to switch

to the Ulster Unionist Party huge numbers? That's what I'm being told

on their own doorsteps. You think that will hold and on March two,

more people are going to vote and also people who voted DUP will

switch allegiance to the Ulster Unionist Party? With two and a half

weeks to go, it is positive for the UUP and that the SDLP. But there are

two and a half weeks to go. You are running 24 candidates, the DUP

running need to win every seat and the DUP me to have a meltdown for

you to overtake that party and become the pre-eminent party of

unionism. You accept is a huge mountain to climb. It would be

unprecedented in Northern Ireland. Every action and the anger to the

RHI is unprecedented. Since the last election, we have had Brexit and we

have had Donald Trump. Unusual things and unexpected things are

happening in the polling booth. You sit at your party conference last

summer, vote might you get Colum, but Colum and you get Mike. How hard

are you selling that on the doorsteps? I don't have to sell it

because people get it and wanted. We have had 19 years of dysfunctional

relationships in Stormont Castle. The DUP Sinn Fein have been there

for ten years. Let me go back further and acknowledge back in 98,

the relationship was not as good as it might have been. The recent

relationships between Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness, Peter

Robinson and Martin McGuinness were not fantastic. I think people are

noticing there are quite nostalgic about the relationship between Ian

Paisley and Martin McGuinness, the chuckle Brothers. If you asked what

they achieved in terms of job creation or shortening waiting lists

in the NHS, I don't think anybody could tell you that the achieved

anything but what they did was they showed a willingness to work

together and people like that. They want it again and they would get it

from me and Colum. We will be willing partners and we will not

share the space of the Stormont Castle simply because the law says

we have too. We will do it because we want to share space and with it

the power and responsibility that goes with showing that space. You

have got to sell that relationship on the doorstep of its going to

work. You said previously in October if the opposition is going to offer

an add-on to to the current DUP Sinn Fein Government. The DUP your

opponents, the Sinn Fein are your opponents, you have got to sing that

from the rooftops. You have got to say vote UUP first and then

transferred to the SDLP. Are you saying that? If you don't vote

darling, you get Martin McGuinness. -- Arlene Foster. I haven't heard

you say vote for the Ulster Unionist Party and then give you a second

reference as SDLP. I am seeing vote for UUP and then vote for any

candidate you trust will deliver for your community and for this country.

Not specifically the SDLP? Your Mac not specifically. Is that not a

mistake? How can you sit there and see this but you are not prepared to

clarify that the voters and say vote with the UUP and then vote for SDLP?

No one party has a monopoly of all the best candidates. Colum Eastwood

doesn't have a monopoly on good candidates? There is no logic to

what you are suggesting. What I am saying is people are going into a PR

election, they are going to cast their vote, one to seven and that

will go beyond the UUP and the SDLP and I am saying you should vote for

any candidate you trust will do the right thing for your community and

constituency and for Northern Ireland. They hired a preference the

more power the transfer has. If you want to get as many Ulster Unionist

Party is returned and Colum Eastwood to get as many SDLP candidates

returned as possible so you can be serious chance of moving into

Stormont Castle, you need to be encouraging UUP voters to vote for

the SDLP, not leaving it open ended otherwise it looks like a bogus

offering. It looks like you don't have the courage of your own

convictions really stand square behind the notion of an alternative

Government. I will be standing square behind that notion and

transferring from my UUP votes to the SDLP. You personally well? Hill

I don't think we should be talking about constituencies. In your

constituency you will vote UUP and then SDLP? Yes. But you will go as

far to see other Ulster Unionist Party should do the same thing? Your

premise for being in a Government actually is shot in the fruit. It is

not shot in a fit. I understand UUP voters you don't like being told

what to do or like vote management where it is situation where we want

you to vote for this UUP first and the other UUP second because we've

got a vote management plan in operation. You don't think that's

confusing? I am very happy. It's not that you want DUP transfers and

certain constituencies. Your Mac one of the last transfers was a man who

stood up and made it clear it would be very difficult for them over the

last ten years because they didn't even want to share power with Sinn

Fein. I am saying and offering something different willingly going

into partnership with the party of National is because it's the right

thing to do and it is the only way to make Northern Ireland work and

you will hear Colum Eastwood saying he wants to make Northern Ireland

work and we measured in the same way and if you want one word to sum it

up at his prosperity, economic prosperity and mental health and

well-being. That is what you talked about a lot and you have during the

campaign. There are differences between you and the SDLP on Brexit,

on the Irish language, on legacy. Last week you indicated you think

James Brokenshire is the man to chair talks but Colum Eastwood has

made it clear he is not an honest broker. Yaha everyone has made it

clear after the election will have to be a negotiation, talking about a

very long and detailed settlement. What this is about in my mind is our

away a proper democracy and if we are people who go to vote on the 2nd

of March will treat it as a referendum and how the two parties

at Stormont Castle have handled the RHI Tobacco more generally ten years

of Government is either led by the DUP Sinn Fein and existing

exclusively of those two parties. What about the Irish Language Act?

There is a clear gap between Europe future of an Irish Language Act

specifically and Colum's. He thinks there needs to be comic you are not

so convinced. You making difficult for him when he is trying to

persuade Nationalist voters to back his candidates and not Sinn Fein.

Clear gaps in the challenge. That is the challenge of a devolved

Government. Managing clear gaps. The way to begin is look for areas where

you agree and we and we agree we need to make Northern Ireland work.

The Irish language, I have no difficulty with people who want to

speak it, learn it, promote it, cherish it, it is part of culture

and I consider myself to be Irish as well as British. Nobody has told me

why we need an Irish Language Act. In those days when you were cooling

your heels during the talks at Stormont Castle, I asked Sinn Fein

particularly on occasions come and tell me why you want an Irish

Language Act and they never did which makes me quite suspicious. I

have been to the Irish language school, met Irish language groups so

I am building understanding of what they want and what they want

primarily is respect but nobody has persuaded me that it needs to be an

act to advance what they want to advance. There is a legal challenge

at the moment on his strategy and there is a legal obligation to bring

forward a strategy, if we are in power we will meet our obligations.

Do you want to see the ATT return to complete its job? You didn't think

it was given an opportunity to finish what it started? Your Mac I

can't do this. Dealing with the past can't be done that way. If you

did... If it wasn't finished by now, it would be close to it rather than

as set in your potentially looking for a new set of processes which,

when the begin, will take another ten years. My children could be

grandparents before this is all finished. Even though they were a

major criticisms of the H E T? Yaha which is why said it needed to be

reformed. Thank you for joining us. Let's hear what my guests

of the day, Fionnuala O Connor What what do you make of the

partnership approach on paper at least, between the Ulster Unionist

Party and the SDLP? It is a lovely idea and ideally it will work,

whether it will work for either of them in the selection is... The

circumstances are always wishful thinking and that is what it is.

There is the basic dichotomy of Colum and Mike Nesbitt wanting in

the end something which is a different end for politics in

Northern Ireland. They are taking the soft gentle approach of, let's

work together and let's not talk about the differences or as Mike

puts it, the gaps, clear gaps, those are the challenge. The Irish

language that you honed in on at the end is the main one. Mike Nesbitt

says I have every respect for people who speak it, it is part of me as

well, but you can't have what you say you want for it. He says Sinn

Fein couldn't explain to them why they needed an Irish Language Act. I

doubt anybody in the enterprise as he talked to didn't say they wanted

an Irish Language Act because they do because they cannot trust the DUP

Government to give the Irish language respect. That is the basic

reason. Let's talk about the electrical -- electoral challenge

Mike Nesbitt has here turnaround from the disappointment he had last

May. He says he is hoping to win 24 comment nearly all of the 24 seats.

If he does that goes from 16 to 24. A 50% increase, a huge ask. Last

time he was predicting a 20% uplift and got nothing. If it happens it is

the story of the election and it is pretty unlikely. We are in a pretty

unusual situations in terms of the level of anger about the RHI

situation. This election is an opportunity and risk for Mike

Nesbitt. He has been leader for long enough now where he has created the

party and his image are in opposition with the SDLP. He has a

clear vision he has articulated of actually putting number two for the

SDLP after UUP candidates. That is a very significant thing for a

Unionist leader to see possibly without President in history of

Northern Ireland. He has said he will do that in his constituency.

But he has not specifically told Ulster Unionist Party that it's --

voters they should follow his example? There is a mixed message.

The more significant thing is as a Unionist leader is not saying

transfer to other. I think if that works, he will take the credit for

it, if it doesn't as happened last time the Ulster Unionist Party 's

level of opportunity in 2010 after the Robinson scandal, after that

election where they were expected to make big breakthroughs, the didn't

and the leader paid the price. Now, elections usually mean

lamp-posts plastered with the beaming faces of those

on the hunt for your vote. But in Lagan Valley, the candidates

have agreed not to put up We visited the constituency,

and one alongside it, to see if the voters feel

it makes a difference. I think the posters need to go up to

get it into people's mind to who they are voting for. Lagan Valley I

take no notice, I have no interest, it is a waste of time. We have been

doing this for years, even since I was little. I think a lot of social

media and people's opinions formed elsewhere and is quite nice to have

a social area that hasn't got bombarded messages about political

agendas. Lagan Valley if you want to go, you need posters up so people

know you are running. Most of the people in this area are very

politically aware and would know who most of the candidates are. We are

not stupid by any means and we are quite sure they have enough leaflets

coming in the door. People want to get in, they will ignore it. If

people do their thing on social media, they will be more attracted

to it on a look into it more. I don't use Facebook or Twitter. You

need to posters up. People should know anyway without the posters.

They don't need them. It is a waste of money.

Back to the main business of the day, and the SDLP has shared

power with the Ulster Unionists at Stormont before,

and now Colum Eastwood wants the electorate to give his party

and the UUP another chance. Colum Eastwood joins me now.

We have just heard from Mike Nesbitt who says he will transfer after his

own candidates to the SDLP but he will not tell UUP voters to follow

his lead. Is that he disappointment? We are campaigning to get number one

son number two is in constituencies and fighting very hard to gain

seats. Our job is to get people to vote for us, it is the same for

Mike. After that we are asking people to vote for change and it is

up to others and individuals to decide how they vote. We are not

going to convince people to vote... We also think it's important the

electorate comes out and vote this time. I understand why people have

been so fed up and frustrated and now so angry at our politics and why

they haven't voted in a long time. I talked to a man last night who

hasn't voted in 16 years and he was taking a registration form for the

two major he can vote this time because people aren't just fed up,

the other furious. I think if people want to see that happening and

continue to happen, they should vote for the Government parties but they

want to see something different, vote for something different. Mike

Nesbitt was clear about he wanted to do it. Let's see if you will be as

clear. In your constituency where you are voting, would you vote for

SDLP candidate and then give you a second preference to UUP? I will

vote for myself one, and then... You haven't decided? Yellow mac you are

puzzling yourself as an alternative Government and you cannot looked me

straight in the IMC will support a UUP candidate next? What it is it

about? Because it has a higher value. We are running to Ulster

Unionist Party that it is enough oil. You are putting yourself for a

writ as an alternative Government. If we are to take seriously the idea

that the UUP could replace Sinn Fein and the DUP the message you need to

send to people is vote for the SDLP and then vote for Everett would-be

coalition partner the UUP? You want to work out how people want to vote

and transfer. I want to test the plausibility of your offering as an

alternative Government. We are two parties that to work together and

you have worked together in opposition. We are not forced to

work together. There is not one opposition around the world who

actually work together and the joint motions down, very similar policies

on many issues, we did that because we thought it was important to show

an alternative. We will work with any party that wants to see changed.

In order to format Government, we need other people involved as well.

People have a choice. Vote for the same old and you get the same old

are you vote for something new and something different and I am asking

people to for change which will make a big difference. We need a

different type of Government about partnership and cooperation. We

struggled hard to get this type of arrangement. We have nationalists

and unionists in Government. Of course we are all different and have

different perspectives and ideas. I want to see a united Ireland and

Mike Nesbitt doesn't. That doesn't support is -- stop working together.

Vote for something people that can work together or vote for people who

have proven time and time again that they can't and even when they do

they don't deliver. Even before we get to a situation of having an

alternative Government or next Government in place after the

election on March two, there will be some period of negotiations and Mike

Nesbitt has made it clear he thinks James Brokenshire ire is the man to

cherish such discussions. You have made obviously disagree and you

think James Brokenshire I is not an honest arbiter, I think is the

phrase you used. Here are two political parties with different

policies, different manifestos, different backgrounds and visions of

the future. They have a disagreement on a particular issue. We know that

but you are also trying to tell people you can be trusted to work

together. You are doing my job for me. It would be ridiculous to

pretend we are the same party. We are not. What we are seeing is

despite the differences we can work together because we want to. We have

these systems are called power-sharing. We do what any other

coalition Government has to do, get together respectfully and honestly,

solve the problems. You can't agree on who should share the talks. Bell

is that the biggest issue? I don't think the British Government should

be sharing talks when they have acted as an activist in the last

number of weeks and months rent legacy. The biggest problem we face

right now is we either vote for parties who want to have a

Government or parties who are very clear that the heading towards

disaster. If you vote for Arlene Foster and Michelle, you're going to

get Theresa May. Vote for something different and people who want to

form a Government and get over their differences. Vote Colum, get Mike,

get -- vote Mike and get Colum. That seems like a joke now. You need to

do a lot better than you did last May. Let's talk about Mike Nesbitt

conceded the amount for the Ulster Unionist party to climate, it is an

even bigger amount for your party. The election last year was bad for

the SDLP, the worst result ever in terms of Assembly representation.

What chance is there if you're resting that slide in the selection?

I think there is a good chance. Back it up with evidence. The evidence

will be on March the 2nd and third and fourth. I can only tell you what

I am hearing. People are fed up with politics and thinking there is an

opportunity to do something different. We have a strong

offering, a fantastic team who have proven themselves. You don't have a

new team. You have had to go back to people who have retired and bring

them to stand yet again. I don't want to be a jest, but Dolores Kelly

standing at 57, John Dallat at 69. The hardly represent fresh blood.

You have got a row in East Londonderry about your outgoing MLA

and a previously outgoing MLA who wants to come back again. It is

hardly perfect preparation to do well at the polls? Yaha can you

imagine, a political party has a selection route. Sinn Fein have

people running against them in North Antrim, West Tyrone, right across.

Those things aren't talked about. We have competition, that is neither

the SDLP. There are new people right across the north who have been

standing up for the public and standing against the ravages against

the public purse in the last number of months. People are so fed up and

angry at what's going on. How many seats are you going to win? I have

made predictions before and they don't do that any more. I think we

are working very hard to retain and gain seats in a reduced Assembly we

can do very well. You have got it all order to come anywhere near Sinn

Fein. Last May, Sinn Fein 167,000 votes, 24%, 28 seats. Look at the

SDLP, half the number of first preferences, have the percentage

points, 12 seats, fewer than half the seats. You won't come anywhere

near close. Lets see how we do. People are very angry at the DUP

Sinn Fein not delivering. Sinn Fein are outputting posters about the

anchor -- Irish Language Act. They have the opportunity last May to

create a programme for Government that would help those things. We are

bringing through the Assembly before it collapsed. Arlene Foster says

there will never be an Irish Language Act. That is why you should

never vote for Arlene Foster and why we need a different type of

politics. We can argue with her about the merits of an Irish

Language Act but it is not acceptable for hire or anybody else

to talk about the Irish language and culture in the way that she has. If

we can inject stability into the conversation we can get over these

hurdles. The problem isn't that we disagree about a particular policy,

the problem is that she treats people who care about the Irish

language like the second class citizens and that is not in any way

to do Government. If people want that again they should vote for

that. What is your position on Arlene Foster's potential role in

terms of Government? Michelle O'Neill was on the view on Thursday

night, she said her party will not support Arlene Foster having a road

and the Executive Office unless or until the RHI enquiry is reported

and cleared her name. Yellow like I said a few weeks ago Arlene Foster

should not be the First Minister. That looks to the DUP trying to have

an influence over who lead their party. I would take part in a

Government were Arlene Foster refuses to step aside until the end

of the public enquiry. She has done nothing wrong, she says. Let's see

what happened to step aside until the end of the public enquiry. She

has done nothing wrong, she says. Let's see what happens in. This

public enquiry is something we called for along with other parties

which Sinn Fein refused to call Fat Andy ended up into such a difficult

position it had to call for it and now we have... -- refuse to call for

it. People are fed up of that. Do you believe in your heart of hearts

we are more than likely looking at an extended period of direct rule

after the selection? If people vote with the DUP and Sinn Fein in the

same numbers as last time, of course that's where we're heading. It seems

to meet Sinn Fein now strategically wants to have the Tories running

Northern Ireland. I want a Government to get things done here

and all the challenges we have, Brexit, let's get down to dealing

with them because that's what people care about. The word about the

waiting lists on the NHS, access to the GP, their children having to

leave Northern Ireland to find a university place our work. Those are

things we need to deal with. If we form a Government we can deal with

them but if we don't, if we go back into an argument with the DUP Sinn

Fein, and inevitably direct rule, doesn't anybody want that. What is

somebody gives first preference to the SDLP voting for in the

selection? Some issues there is not a blade of grass between yourselves

and Sinn Fein, on other issues there are big differences. The voting for

the SDLP policies. What makes the SDLP unique? We are a party that

wants to work with unionism. Sinn Fein has just been working with

unionism in the Executive Office. I am getting trolled on Twitter by

Sinn Fein supporters saying it's ridiculous I am even considering

working with the Unionists. We have all signed up to this process which

means that Catholics and Protestants, Unionists have to work

together to solve our problems in our common interests. No matter how

difficult it is, no matter how new differences we have, we have to work

together. That is the only tell of future I believe in, the only take

the future the public believe in and it gets is over that hurdle and

begins to deal with some of the problems.

Let's hear what my guests of the day make of that, Sam and Fionnuala.

What do you make of May Eastwood's take on the relationship between the

Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP? It would be lovely if it worked. But

like Mike Nesbitt's pitch, Mike Nesbitt's pitch depends on how DUP

do is break this time and Colum's pitch depends on how Sinn Fein

voters vote. They both say if people want to change the to vote for us

but people say they are angry and then they look again at the

respective strengths of the parties. How Mike Nesbitt's pitch with May

Eastwood affects voters is hard to say and is the reason why he won't

call for transfers publicly because he knows Mike Nesbitt might dammit.

Colum is careful on that. When you pushed him on Colin for transfers,

he made a good case about who he is going to transfer to, but when it

comes down to the differences and similarities, I see the big

difference between the STL P and the UUP in that the Ulster Unionist

Party are meant to be and are a Conservative Party and the SDLP have

always said the social Democratic and more to the left. I can see big

difficulties there for them in working anything together on the

Irish language and mutual respect. What about the issue of both Mike

Nesbitt and May touched on it, the 45% of people who historically have

not voted? They are critical. One of the frustrations I have is a

political journalist is when you hear people saying they are all the

same, there is no choice. We have an array of choice in Northern Ireland,

hard-line socialists to Jim Allister to everything in between. There is

more choice than there has ever been in the selection as you are voting

for a Government, opposition, a whole array of opposition parties.

It is very interesting that Mike Nesbitt and May Eastwood or openly

presenting this is not a joint ticket. If people want that and the

vote that that is significant but I don't think people will be able to

do after the selection turn round and say the politicians drive us

into a certain position. People have a choice and history shows us the

likely to go what they've gone for before. It will be interesting

between now and voting day. That's it from Sunday

Politics for this week. I'll be back on Thursday night

with The View at 10.40pm on BBC1 when I'll be talking to the DUP

leader, Arlene Foster.