17/04/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

David Cameron thinks we'll be stronger, safer

Leave campaigners say the real risk would be a vote to remain.

So what are the dangers if we decide to stay?

On his final presidential visit to the UK, Barack Obama

will back the idea of Britain remaining in the EU.

But is the leader of the free world right to wade into our debate?

And before the referendum, there's the small matter

of national and local elections right across the UK.

And on Sunday Politics here, the SDLP's Dolores Kelly

tells us why her party deserves your support in May.

Plus, they've been called the unofficial opposition -

we hear from the three smaller Assembly parties.

In London, with less than three weeks to go to polling day,

we hear from mayoral hopefuls Sian Berry of the Greens

And with me, as always, our panel of the best and brightest

political brains in the business, Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott

Now, the referendum isn't the only vote looming on the horizon.

Before the EU vote on June 23rd, voters across the UK will get

a chance to cast their ballot in a range of elections

There are seven sets of elections happening in May,

all of which will take place on the same day,

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will hold national elections.

There are 60 seats up for grabs in the Welsh Assembly.

The Scottish Parliament, in which the SNP has held

a majority since 2011, will elect 129 members,

and in Northern Ireland, there are 108 seats that will be

decided for representatives to the assembly at Stormont.

Across England there are local government elections.

124 councils have seats up for election.

35 metropolitan councils, 19 unitary authorities

and 70 district councils, and four cities in England

will elect mayors, London, Bristol, Liverpool and Salford.

Londoners will also elect members to the London Assembly

Finally, voters in 41 police force areas in England and Wales

will elect a Police And Crime Commissioner.

Joining me now from Glasgow is our election guru,

Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Let's start with the local elections in England. How should we judge the

performance of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party in these elections? We

have to appreciate that the seats up for grabs on me the these elections

were for the most part fought for three year is ago. We are looking at

the time of George Osborne's so-called a shambles budget when

support for the Conservatives fell away. These were the only set of

elections during the last parliament where the Labour Party began to put

in a performance where you might have thought they would have been

capable of winning the next election. Jeremy Corbyn's

misfortune, he is defending not a brilliant baseline, but a relatively

good one. Labour six or seven points ahead, as judged by their share of

the vote. The truth is that Jeremy Corbyn is not 67 points ahead. In

contrast to what we might have expected a few weeks ago, he is no

longer 67 points behind. Labour and the Conservatives seem to be quite

close to each other. That means that in practice Mr Corbyn may well be

facing losses. The figure of 150 has been bandied around. Will that be

good? Better than it might have been a few weeks ago. Is it the sort of

performance to persuade you that the Labour Party is on course to win the

general election? Certainly not. Is the biggest threat that they would

lose London, and would that be unlikely? I agree it would be

unlikely. If they were to fail to win the London mayoral election,

that would be a serious reverse for Labour. Back in 2012, although Boris

Johnson on the London mayoral election, Labour was clearly ahead

in the parallel election. Neither Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate,

Northside Goldsmith, the concerted of the -- the Conservative

candidate, has the same kind of attractiveness to the public. Labour

did relatively well in London 12 months ago. If David Cameron were

not to win that election, Labour would have questions to ask itself.

Could Labour even come third behind the Scottish Tories? The answer is

that they could. There is another opinion poll lead this morning that

put Labour on the Conservatives neck and neck with each other. Some

opinion polls put Labour and the Conservatives together, but not by

much. Labour neglect the heading for a very bad performance. It would be

the worst result in any election since 1918. I do not think it will

tell you much about Jeremy Corbyn and his popularity. We have to

remember that what happens in Scotland is very distinct and

separate from what happens in the rest of the UK. The election in

Scotland is going to be, primarily, framed by people's views about

independence. The truth is the overall majority of people that

voted for independence are still determined to vote for the SNP. So

long as that remains the case, Labour will struggle another the

border. It has to do with Scottish politics and little to do with what

is happening in the rest of the UK. Is there really a Ukip surge in

Wales? The opinion polls suggest that Ukip are doing well in Wales.

But that is roughly where the opinion polls are putting Ukip

across the UK as a whole. In Wales, as in Scotland, and the London

assembly elections, the elections are being held by proportional

representation, not first past the post, so if Ukip can get the 15%

that the opinion polls suggest that the might get, they will get

significant representation in the Welsh assembly. Getting Ukip grade

is one of the things in which the opinion polls tend to disagree with

each other. Ukip will perhaps not do as well as that, they will get some

seats, but perhaps not as well as the parties hoping. Northern

Ireland, and the executive almost collapsed there last year. Will the

turmoil at Stormont, is it likely expected to change people's voting

patterns this time? We not expecting a vast in Northern Ireland. Not only

is the assembly elected proportionally, but so is the

elected -- the executive. The larger of the two Unionist parties and the

Nationalist parties might not be quite as strong as last time. No one

is expecting very much in way of a major change. Thank you for joining

us. Nick Watt, let me come to you. These elections are widely being

seen as Mr Corbyn's first serious test. What a Labour's real

expectations? The expectation is there going to do badly in Scotland.

That is in. They will do badly in Wales but the expecting that. They

will not admit that they could do very badly in the English local

elections, and that they could lose seats. If the Labour Party lost

seats in the local elections, it would be the first time since 1985

that an opposition party had suffered losses in local elections

in a non-general election year. It would be woolly bad. What did is

down two at the end of the day, I know we should not wish think about

London, a great picture of Glasgow behind John Curtice, but it is down

to London. Jeremy Corbyn needs one victory and he looks like he will

get one, Sadiq Khan in London. That will probably enough. He can do

badly everywhere else but as long as he holds onto London years save? I

think because the others are just priced in. If he can be seen to

notch up one victory, it is a bit like the old and Royston by-election

at the end of last year. Everyone assumes that they will do badly.

They did well, it stabilises the leadership. He would probably be

safe even if you lost London? I think he would be. Those who would

like to see the back of have the difficulty that essentially his

supporters control the party membership. It is an interesting

question, how this is going to be judged. I spoke to one of Jeremy

Corbyn's critics within the parliamentary party this morning and

was surprised how upbeat he sounded. He said, I think we might put on a

couple of hundred seats. This is a terrible time for the Tory

leadership. I came off the phone and thought, this is about expectation

management. This is the critics of Jeremy Corbyn saying that we should

put on a few hundred seats. When they do not, they will see it as a

disaster. The setting him up to fail. The Tories are expected to do

quite well in these elections, even in Wales. We have had the budget,

the Panama Papers, the steel crisis, the split over the referendum. It

has got to take its toll on the Tories? It has in the opinion polls,

which are Sean at the minimum of the Tory lead, narrowing, and in some

cases Labour pulling ahead. I suspect some Tories would not mind

doing badly in the local elections in England if it relieves the

pressure on Jeremy Corbyn, who they want in place over the next four

years and contesting the 2020 general election. Even if Labour do

badly in Scotland, Jeremy Corbyn owes a debt to Sadiq Khan, because

his likely but not certain victory in London, judging by the opinion

polls, will attract more attention than elections everywhere, not

before it deserves -- not because it deserves to, but because the media

has a slight skew towards London. It is a slightly sexier office. It will

drown out any underperformance that Labour have in the rest of the

country. Is it too cynical to say that some Tories will not be too

upset if they do not win London because Mr Corbyn will then be

secure? I do not think that is cynical. That is absolutely the

case. Janan is right. There will be lots of post-analysis about how the

billionaire's son, Zac Goldsmith, lost the election. It is interesting

that the people who want to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour

Party, the window they are talking about is not after the local

elections, but after the referendum at the end of June. We might be

focused on the Conservatives by then. I think the troubles of the

Tory party will take the focus then. So the referendum

campaign has begun. The official campaign groups have

been designated and the arguments The Prime Minister says we'll be

stronger, safer, and better off in. And a vote to leave,

says to Mr Cameron, But it won't have escaped your

attention that the EU is also facing challenges,

a migration crisis, economic So, if we do decide to remain,

what are the risks ahead of us? For some, the consequences of this

EU referendum are crystal clear. For the rest of us,

it is difficult to see the future after June the 23rd,

hard to predict. Of course, the politicians claim

to know our fortunes. This cannot be described as anything

other than risk, uncertainty, We have clearly elevated Brexit

as one of the serious downside risks I firmly believe that leaving the EU

would leave our country less secure. This lot, Vote Leave,

call it Project Fear. They say the other side is trying

to scare people into thinking that Instead they say that

the uncertainty is staying in. What will the EU look like in five,

ten, 15 years? For me, it would be an outdated

bloc, something that was created in the last century,

something that can neither control It has been foretold that migration

will be one of the dominant David Cameron insists his negotiated

emergency brake on migrants' in work benefits as well as changes to child

benefits will discourage EU migration, but some experts say it

will have little impact. Figures from the Migration

Observatory this week suggest that continuing economic instability

in the Eurozone is encouraging an increasing number of southern

European migrants to head to the UK Looking forward, it is very

difficult to know It is possible that if the gap

in economic performance between the UK and other

countries, for example, Italy, Portugal and Spain,

remains significant, there could be quite a pull factor

for some time. It is also possible if there is more

economic convergence that we could see the numbers

start to fall. Much has also been made this week

about the risk to both the British and the global economy if Britain

voted to leave the EU, In the single market we trade freely

right across Europe and we have a say in making

the rules across the Continent. If we leave, we give

all of that up with no idea The real economic risks are for

staying in the European Union. We might find ourselves on the hook

for bailouts for countries that are having difficulty staying

in the euro in the future. We might find that our rebate comes

under assault in the future, we might find that the amount

of money overall that we have to give the European Union

goes up and up and up. A few weeks ago, the Governor

of the Bank of England said that leaving the EU was the biggest

domestic risk to Membership of the European Union

brings risks as well, and the principal risk,

risks I should say, because there are more than one,

are associated with the unfinished On the issue of whether our laws

are made in Westminster or Brussels, for those wanting to leave the EU,

a vote to remain would mean handing Fewer and fewer things over

which we have the authority Fewer and fewer of our decisions can

be upheld in British courts And I also know that fewer and fewer

decisions will be made on European Union level

which will be in British interests. And yet one former minister told me

that pooling some decision-making The truth is that if you enter

into any international agreement, then you may agree that those

decisions should be Our Nato membership involves exactly

the same kind of arrangement. We allow Nato to take a decision

for our collective strength. Both sides seemed to agree a vote

to remain is not a vote Those who want to stay

in are confident, at least publicly, that the renegotiation will change

for the better our relationship Those who want out say that

relationship will only get worse. Quite how persuasive

those two visions are, I predict we will find out

on June the 24th. Joining me now is Labour MP

Tristram Hunt, he was a member of the Shadow Cabinet

under Ed Miliband. He is now campaigning for Britain

to remain in the EU. Do you accept, let's look at some of

the risks that could be associated with remaining, start with

immigration. Do you accept that as long as we remain in the EU we have

no real control of the numbers coming to our country? The European

Union is not perfect and it is quite right to have this debate about how

we reform Europe in the future. When it comes to our borders, we check

who comes in. There will remain passport controls but we have to

make sure that we explain to people that if we left Europe but still

wanted to trade with the single market, we would also have to have

the free movement of people just as Norway and Switzerland does. But in

the long run I think there is an interesting question about the

degree of free movement of people across the European Union. My point

is that Britain should be a part of that conversation. We should be

involved in that reform and change and if we are not at the table than

our voice won't be heard. The numbers would seem to be beyond our

control because that's the price of membership. Over the past five years

the number of EU nationals living in the UK has risen by 700,000, it is

now 3.3 million, it has doubled in ten years. As long as we remain in

the EU it is surely a risk that at least another 700,000 could come in

the next five years, it could be even more. Or it could be markedly

less. If we go back to a time when the British economy was worse in the

1980s, we saw large numbers of people going abroad to work in the

European Union. We are taking a snapshot at the moment and the point

about pooling risk across the single market is that when your economy is

in difficulty you can take opportunities in other parts of the

country. In the UK we should be supporting reforms to make sure

there are not benefit attractions to coming to the UK so I think the

Prime Minister's point about having to pay in before you take out, the

point about fairness is really important and I think people in

Britain think that if people are coming here to work, to pay their

taxes and contribute to society, that is fine. You say it's a

snapshot but let's look at this chart. Over the last five years, as

you can see from that, from about 2012, under five years in fact,

these are the absolute number, immigration from the EU has risen

dramatically. My point is it is not a snapshot, it is a clear trend. The

part of immigration over which we have no control is rising the

fastest, isn't that a risk? But we go back to 1975 so historically this

is a snapshot, and overtime this well change. We cannot have a system

whereby you turn up in the UK and claim benefits from day one. You

have to have a contributory principle. Also, those parts of the

country, Boston in Lincolnshire, parts that have experienced high

levels of immigration and we should be open and honest about this that

we have seen statistics show big changes and may have impacted

communities in big ways sometimes, they need the extra resource for

schools and hospitals that this brings in. The case I'm putting to

you this morning is that that is not necessarily a snapshot or that it

will necessarily change. Let's look at the risks we would face in the

years to come. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, decided that last

year over a million Syrian immigrants could go to Germany.

Eventually they could come here if they wish. Why should we be at the

risk of unilateral decisions taken by a foreign leader? Obviously there

are issues about residency rights in Germany or Italy before anyone could

come to the UK. We retain border controls. If they become German

citizens they will be allowed to come here. This is a balance of

risks, on June the 23rd of voters have to weigh up these may bes. What

we have heard clearly from the governor of the Bank of England, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, the head of the IMF, that there will be

a seismic economic shock to the British economy. I understand that

and there has been plenty of coverage of the risks of coming out,

but I'm looking at the risks of staying in. Let me give you another

one, I've given you the Angela Merkel example. Albania, Turkey and

others all want to join the EU. More people that could have a right to

come and live and work in the UK. That is a risk. We are already

seeing the risk of Brexit. The pound is falling in value, economic

decisions are not being taken at the moment. I'm not arguing that there

are risks to coming out, I perfectly understand that. I'm looking at the

risks if we stay in. Address this issue that the risk is of another 87

more people with the right to come to Britain. My point is the risks

are happening now,... What is your answer to the 87 million? The

extension of Europe has to be managed carefully. The broader

conversation about the total free movement of people across the

European Union is something that needs to be addressed but firstly we

won't have any say over that if we have left the European Union.

Secondly, those countries which trade with Europe like Norway and

Switzerland also have to accept the free movement of people. There's no

free ticket on this. What I want is a strong Great Britain at the

negotiating table making the case for our borders and security. When

it comes to the free movement of people you raised the issue of

Syrian refugees and concerns about security in the aftermath of

Brussels and Paris, being part of Europe and having security

connections with Europe makes us stronger. There's talk of another

Greek financial bailout, fears of an Italian banking crisis looming this

summer. If the eurozone plunges into another recession, the numbers

coming here could easily hit new record highs. We have also seen we

are not part of the Europe... They will come here looking for jobs. We

are not on the hook for the Greek bailout. We were with the last one.

Not to the same degree as other European members. We negotiated a

strong exemption from that. This is about Britain having a strong voice

at the negotiating table and you are offering up your own Project Fear. I

am taking a methodical look at the risks. The eurozone is stagnating at

the moment, that's why Spaniards, Italian and Portuguese are pouring

into this country in huge numbers. If the eurozone was to tilt into

another recession, that risks a lot more. It is a risk, and the British

answer to that should be to deepen the single market, to make it more

effective, to have growth across Europe. You do, if you have a strong

British voice arguing for growth across Europe. You're talking about

these potential threats in the future, we have a threat now.

Businesses in my constituency, Stoke-on-Trent, are not making

investment decisions. Indecision, two years of negotiation if we

leave. Hold on... Two years of indecision if we vote to leave. Why

are they eyeing the British stock exchange if there is indecision?

There will always be levels of flow and investment but what we are

seeing is fear and concern about the future. I think of workers in

Staffordshire who go to work at the Toyota plant in Derby, they have

jobs because of being part of the single market. I'm talking about the

risks if we remain. Do you deny that if we stay in we face further

integration? We have had a clear commitment from the Prime Minister

that we won't be involved in ever closer union and that is a big

philosophical moment, that Britain has a distinct and different stance

to the rest of the European Union. I think people will benefit from the

best of both worlds. If that is the case, you will be familiar with D5

president report, the official road map for greater integration into the

European Union. It calls for financial, fiscal and political

union by 2025. That could affect us. We have a clear commitment we will

not be involved in ever closer union. Have you read this report?

Not all of it. It is not a long report. It says much of what I have

just named, not all, but much of that could be achieved already

through a deepening of the single market, which is important for all

28 EU members, so we would not necessarily be excluded. I am in

favour of a deep into single market so that those 200,000 businesses in

the UK, exporting to Europe, have greater growth and opportunities.

People become richer. So there could be deeper integration. I would like

to see the digital and service economy grated more, we want more

jobs and growth across Europe that Britain will benefit from. Why would

we, when we face a global fear about downturn, decide to cut ourselves

off from the richest market in the world. You say it is the richest, it

is also stagnating. Because we cannot do our own trade deals with

the part of the world that is growing, our trade is therefore

hindered. It has taken seven years to reach a deal with Canada, it is

not complete, the free trade deal with Australia has been blocked by

Italy. These are all growth markets, unlike Europe, and we are unable to

do free trade deals with them. That is a risk. Do you honestly think

that if we left Europe and there were negotiations with India about a

free trade deal, the UK, 60 million people, would be ahead of the queue

of the European Union... Nothing is happening with India for nine years.

We had historic links with India. What about Australia and Canada? We

are not owed a living in the world. We have to make our businesses grow

on their own terms and you do that by being part of the European Union.

You have a much greater weight around the world by being part of

this. My point is that we have the best of both worlds. We have the

historic connections with the Commonwealth, with America. But why

does the American trade representative say to us you would

be crazy to leave Europe. Why do our allies around the world say you

should be part of Europe? You say we won't be part of any further

political integration, you say we won't join the euro, we won't be

part of Schengen, and yet it is clear Europe will become at least

within the eurozone more and more integrated. We will have less

influence on that, we will essentially become a semi detached

country club. What is the point? The point is a growing market for

British businesses of 500 million people, and yes, this is the point

about the best of both worlds, we don't want ever closer political

union. We want access to the single market. The best of both worlds,

safer, stronger and better off in Europe.

Now, this week President Obama will make his valedictory

He'll even have lunch with the Queen to celebrate her ninetieth birthday,

presumably after she's watched the Daily Politics.

But it's another aspect of Mr Obama's visit

While he's here, the leader of the free world is expected

to endorse the idea of the UK remaining in the

Those campaigning to leave the EU are,

surprise, surprise, a

Here's what Boris Johnson had to say yesterday.

I just find it absolutely bizarre that we are being lectured

by the Americans about giving up our sovereignty,

The United States, for their own reasons, their own history,

traditions, based on the ideas of no taxation without representation,

a fervent belief in the inviolability of American democracy,

they would not dream of sharing sovereignty.

Is he in danger of making America look like a hypocrite?

Not in danger of it, I am afraid there is an intrinsic hypocrisy.

I do not know what he's going to say, but if that is

the American argument, of course it is nakedly hypocritical.

To discuss this I'm joined by James Rubin.

He was a spokesman in the US State Department during Bill

And Liam Fox, former Defence Secretary, and a leading

light in the campaign to leave the EU.

Why should the leader of her closest allies, with whom we have a special

relationship, on your regard as crucial to this country, not say

what he thinks is in our national interest? He is entitled to say what

he thinks is an America's national interest, but whether it is in the

interests of Britain is a different question. Of course the president is

entitled to say what he thinks, but we have to add a couple of caveats.

That is his view. There are other views in America, Senator Rubio for

example expressing a different view, he has expressed what he thinks

about the special relationship if Britain were to leave the European

Union. Tell me one previous American administration, Democratic or

Republican, that thought we should not be in the EU, or did not care if

we left? It is not a question of what the express, it is that they

should respect what Britain does. They all want us to stay? There were

strong elements of the last Republican administration, strong

Republican leaders at present, who do not think... I do not remember

the second President Bush saying that Britain should leave the EU.

The debate is now, about our future, our relationship with the rest of

the world. It is fair to say, though I might not use the same

terminology, it is unthinkable that the United States would allow a

court to overrule the Supreme Court or someone else to determine their

external borders, in a way that the European Union does for the United

Kingdom. Boris Johnson has made that point. President Obama, supporting

things for Britain, things that no European -- that no American

president would contemplate. Maybe we would be more inclined to listen

to the president if he favoured an open border with Mexico, and if

Congress was no longer the ultimate decider of federal law? Let me see a

couple of things. I am glad that my colleague agrees that the president

is attacked -- entitled to express his view of what is in the

President's interest. -- America's interest. America and the EU

together, they are the most powerful force for free markets and democracy

around the world. If Britain leads the European Union, we will be

weaker. We will might be able to pursue the great values that our

countries have pushed around the world. Written working with the

United States and the EU is able to do that. We have a joke in America,

but it is a serious matter. Friends do not let friends drive drunk. This

is not in our interest, or the interests of the world. What about

our interest? You will make that judgment. Is the president simply

going to say it is in the interests of America? I think he will avoid

telling Britain what is in Britain's interest. About the point on

hypocrisy, I know Boris Johnson likes to read biographies of the

past. Maybe he is living in the past when he thinks that America is a

very large country, a superpower, it has the world's largest military. It

does not have to do only what you choose is compared to the British.

Britain is a different country, not the superpower any more. Just

because we will not do something does not mean that the British

ignored. If the US president was coming here to support Leave, you

would be shouting it from the rooftops? I do not think we will

find out if that is true or not. There is an element of hypocrisy. We

need to get the balance. We need to stick to the issues. We recognise

the president is alleged to have his view, but it is not the only

American view of what is in America's interests. We have to

recognise it is a British debate ultimately. We will make our

decision. As to this point about pushing our values, Britain had the

same values before we joined the European Union in 1973. The fact we

will be changing our philosophical approach because we are part of the

group in union is not true. I mean that the EU is a very powerful

instrument in our world. The United States has great military power, but

there are other powers we need to achieve order and stability, and

promote free markets. We need the ability to promote sanctions and

provide aid. We need the ability to promote democracy. The EU is good at

that working with the United States. We are better able to do that when

our closest ally is within the EU. Let him come back on that. We think

that the European Union is failing and that the structural failures of

the European Union are not good for the West. We are seeing the

re-emergence of nationalist tensions across Europe. We are seeing fence

building. That is not the fault of the EU. It is a failure of the EU.

We are seeing a whole generation of young Europeans unemployed as a

result of the single currency. It is creating tensions. You did not have

a problem with foreigners weighing in during the Scottish referendum.

You told the Scandinavian countries, if your analysis is that Scottish

independence is a threat to your security, why are you not standing

up and saying it? President Obama probably thinks it is a threat to

allow security, so why should they not see that? I thought it was a

risk to the security of Britain in the Scottish referendum if we left

Natal. If Britain pulls out of the EU, the Scottish will pull out of

Britain and there will be a hold-mac in Natal. I do not believe that to

be true. When were you last in Scotland? I was recently there and I

sat with the Scottish party leader. They have been clear that if the EU

does not include Britain, the Scottish want to lead. Interest is

one thing, having an opinion about what the SNP will do is different.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE What about Senator Cruise, he is

fighting for the Republican nomination with Donald Trump. He

said that Mr Obama's comments will make it more likely that England, he

means Britain, that England will pull out of the EU? I do not think

it will have a massive impact either way in terms of the British result.

I think it is important for us to recognise that this is a decision

for the United Kingdom. I do not agree with this assessment that the

European Union in its current model is good for the United States. It is

unstable. Now you're giving an opinion for us. You just asked me

not to do that. The United States and Britain working together have

made the world a better place for democracy, for a free market. We are

only able to do that successfully when our closest ally is part of the

EU. American foreign policy will be weaker, Western foreign policy will

be weaker if the British leave the EU. We look forward to the

President's visit, whatever he has to say. Thank you.

It's just gone 11:35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

It's been a dramatic year for the SDLP with a leader toppled

and the young pretender taking the prize.

But can Colum Eastwood really turn the party's fortunes around?

I'll be asking his colleague Dolores Kelly to set out the party's

Plus, representatives of the Assembly's smaller parties -

the TUV, Greens and UKIP - will be making the case

And with me throughout with their thoughts,

The party goes into this election with a new,

young leader after Colum Eastwood successfully challenged

But the world of politics can be harsh and leaders

So can the party reverse its recent declining vote?

We invited Colum Eastwood on to today's programme

but we were told he was unavailable, so with me instead is the party's

A vote for the SDLP on May 5th is a vote for what, precisely?

I think our party leader set it out clearly, it is a vote for fairness,

a vote to make Northern Ireland work, a vote to support families and

children, to attempt to deal with the scourge of poverty that is so

prevalent in our society, to better protect our older people and send a

strong message to those who attacked them in their own homes that they

could face custodial sentences. You've decided that,

even though there is now a place called opposition,

that's not where you want to be - even though you were pretty keen

on the idea yourself in the past. I think all politicians fight

elections to win. We don't fight to go to into opposition. I think in

try to move Northern Ireland forward and try to make it work, I

recognised in my -- and the party recognises that opposition can be a

good thing when ever parties aren't delivering, clearly, we have seen

over the last nine years, the two main parties haven't delivered for

the people of Northern Ireland. It is not your intention to go into

opposition? I think Colum Eastwood set it out clearly, first and

foremost, we are fighting to win. We will work with other parties in

looking to have our priorities set within the programme for government.

We will judge the outcome of that in terms of the programme for

government, and we are committed to true partnership rather than the

division of spoils that we've seen with the two big parties over the

last years. What does fighting to win mean, precisely? Because you are

only running 24 candidates? We're giving choice, we are setting out

our manifesto, knocking on doors, taking part in debates and fighting

to win is actually about try to get a strong mandate, to try and get all

of those candidates elected. It doesn't look like a party on the

march to a bigger presence in government. It looks like you are on

the retreat. I don't set that. -- accept that. I think what we are

looking to do is to win and do better in terms of the outcome for

the election. I recognise and the party recognises over the last few

years, it hasn't been good for the SDLP. It hasn't been good for middle

ground. More and more people have decided to stay at home, it isn't

something that has only been affliction on the SDLP, all parties

have found more people are staying at home and apathy is one of the

greatest risks to all of our campaigns. Sinn Fein's vote has gone

up dramatically since Iraq. -- has gone up dramatically in the last few

years. It has gone up by 35 thousand. Their vote has plateaued

over the last few years. I think they have lost votes in some areas

and didn't do as well in southern elections as they thought they

would. They also didn't win the presidential campaign in the South

so Sinn Fein has plateaued. I don't think it is just about the nub of

candidates you run, I think it is also about having a strong team at

the Executive. How many seats is the SDLP looking for? You have 14 at the

moment, what is your targets? I would fall into the trap of

predicting outcomes and numbers. We have a strong message, we are asking

people to come out in supporters again, stop lending their vote...

Fewer than 14, that wouldn't be success. We are putting a strong

team forward. If you go back with fewer than 14, that would not be

regarded a success, could it? I do not believe we will have any sense

of failure. It is my sense that the doors that people want the SDLP to

have success. I have every confidence in Colum

Eastwood. He has a strong performer, both in media, here's a sharp

political thinker and I think there is a lot of ambition. People are

recognising that. I think the party will get a bounce because of that.

You are investing a lot in him as the bright young thing he will move

the party forward and attract a whole new raft of voters. This is

meant to be a leaders debate, a leader interview and Colum Eastwood

is not available nor is his new deputy leader. It is lovely to have

you here but you are the former deputy. What is going on? It is

something I have been asked to do and I stepped up to do this. There

will be other opportunities. Obviously he has spent a lot of time

in constituencies. He needs to look over his own backyard. Is that part

of the story? Is he worried about Sinn Fein? Absolutely not, he has

been a several constituencies, working very hard, and if anyone

looks at how he performed against his main rivals, they looked old and

tired. At least we have a manifesto to discuss today, unlike some other

parties. West Tyrone is a bit of a problem for you, three defections

from the party, two of them standing against you in May the fair. Seven

party officers also left. Is that a bit of a disaster? It is

regrettable, but I am convinced we have a very strong and able

candidate in Daniel McCrossan. It is regrettable that some people who

chose not to put themselves forward for selection have now taken this

view and many of them, I believe, are good people, but that is what

happens in political parties around selection times. What is the party's

edition on criminalising a woman who has taken pills to induce an

abortion? It is clear there are two tests in terms of public

prosecution, one is whether or not a crime was committed, and that was

the case. Whether it was in public interest to prosecute. I do not

believe that it up in the case. You do not think the women in the case

in the headlines recently should have been prosecuted? That would be

a case of the judiciary. You are pro-life and your party is pro-life,

but it you uncomfortable at the fact that now a young woman received a

suspended sentence still has a criminal record. That mixing

uncomfortable? I am clearly pro-life. There is a sensitive

conversation to be had about all the risks and concerns that people have

and I think that is something that I would want the working group to the

looking at in around pregnancies. Might some people who are pro-life

you would want to support the SDLP be concerned about what you have

just said because they may think if you say you are uncomfortable at

someone being criminalised in the circumstances, it could potentially

open the floodgates to this happening again and again in

Northern Ireland? That is a risk, and there are individual

circumstances and that is something the public prosecution services has

to make a judgment around. Promoting the integrated education of Catholic

and Protestant children, does that mean you're prepared to take typical

decisions that may affect the Catholic maintained sector?

Education is something we are finding, people are talking to us

about on the doors. They haven't been happy about performance over

the last nine years over education. I hold faith based education very

dear. We all recognise if we are to build a shed and reconciled future,

and if we are able to afford an excellent education service for all

our children, we need to start looking at better integration of our

young people and children in our schools and that is something the

Catholic bishops and other church leaders recently met and discussed.

If they are not satisfied with the current structure and model, that is

something I think we should all start to put our heads together and

come up with one. If the bishops weren't happy with the policy line

you are pursuing, woody stand up to them? I think what we would do is

put the children first and not vested interests. We would look at

the best educational outcomes for all our children and young people

and not the vested interests. Interesting to hear your thoughts

today. Thank you. Let's find out what my guests make

of what we just heard. What do you make of the SDLP's

ambition and its new leader? Think the first thing is this is a leaders

debate and Colin is not here and that raises certain questions. --

Colum Eastwood. He is the leader of the party across northern Ireland

and I think you should be here. People need to hear him, seeing what

he has to say, he has made it in his shadow, what he wants, so I think it

is important that he is able to stand and articulate what the new

party looks like. For him, I think demonstrating that he can lead a

revival is important. I don't think it will be the catastrophe that

people had suggested he would lose a number of feet, I don't think that

will happen but I think he has to be able to show that he has a vision

for the party. Do you think the target is likely to be holding those

14 seats, as Deirdre suggested? Absolutely. That should be fairly

comfortable for him. It has been noticeable that in some of the few

clashes of the campaign, that it has been column Easter Road and Martin

McGuinness going personally after each other. -- Colum Eastwood. What

about the debate about governmental opposition? Colum Eastwood so there

is no place called, he now has conceded there is. I think it is

difficult to go out and asked people for their vote saying you're going

into opposition but I think they have to leap that option open. They

have to say if we are not satisfied with proposed programme for

government, we will go into opposition. It is a slightly more

difficult one. I think it is the lack of delivery, and they should

focus on it. The problem is we not clear where they sit on the

political arena, and a leftist, Central, affiliated with the British

Labour Party, Irish Labour Party? I think that messaging is still not

quite clear and we're not sure what differentiates them from Sinn Fein,

what will they deliver that other people cannot? I was struck by what

Dolores said about the question of opposition. After the televised

debate on Wednesday night, I got the sense from Colum Eastwood that he

was lining up to go into opposition. After the debate on Thursday night I

got the opposite sense and Dolores, who has been consistent and

articulate, there was no hint that all in anything she said that the

party is likely to take that option. What we are likely to see is no

opposition. Interesting discussion and thoughts on the position of the

SDLP and what Dolores had to say. We will talk to you later in the

programme. Thank you for now. With the campaign now in full

flight, The View brought senior figures from the five main parties

together on Thursday night. The venue was Moyola Precision

Engineering in Castledawson. We want to see unrestrained ambition

for jobs here and actually getting the place working. We want to see

joined up government, ... We're going in to seek votes. I knew going

into government or not? We want to go into government, of course. So

you will understand that the public are slightly sceptical when in the

run-up to an election your party says you are going to be transparent

and then after that nothing happens. You had two years. As you know the

decision doesn't rest with the Executive. It does, because we

voluntarily published hours. -- we published our. You know very well it

is a matter for the government in London. There are difficult

decisions as far as health is concerned. By the Ulster Unionists

up for that? I think the record of Sinn Fein being in charge of

education over the years has been nothing short of a disaster and it

has been ideological driven, primarily on the issue of selection,

and I don't think... I didn't interrupt you, Michelle. Do you

agree? There are issues. Let a month, we need to move on. -- let

him answer. We had two major television

debates this week. Are the parties getting

their message out? The EU referendum issue over the

last couple of months, then the centenary of the Easter rising, said

it was only last week we saw the debate begin. I think people are

wary about these things so it is not a bad thing. I thought the DUP and

Sinn Fein were coming across more as governing partners. Not so much

acrimony as there had been in past years. What is also fascinating is

that several people have mentioned to me that we are now at least so

far in this campaign discussing different issues from the issues we

have discussed in previous campaigns. We're not talking about

welfare reform, flags parades, we're talking about education and jobs and

abortion. The landscape for discussion seems to have altered a

bit. And I think most people have welcomed the fact we have moved to

the so-called bread-and-butter facts. I noted a poll yesterday said

education is now the one issue on the doorsteps. People want to know

what the education system is going to look like, they want to know how

we are going to grow our economy and they are concerned we seem to be

cutting back on education, reducing skills base and at the same time

saying we're going to the economy with a reduced rate of corporation

tax. Well, we saw the five main parties

in action on Thursday night's With me in the studio

are Jim Allister of the TUV, Steven Agnew of the Greens

and Noel Jordan of UKIP. You've been quoted this week

as saying that your ambition is to secure the election of several

MLAs and winning no seats would be failure written

in capital letters. Success, you said, has

to be more than one MLA. How likely are you to get that

success realistically? That is entirely up to the people. If the

people of Northern Ireland are perfectly happy with the perpetual

failure with the abysmal squander of Stormont, then they will vote for

the same parties again who have brought them that. And they will not

be disappointed. But if they want change that they will notice, then

they will vote for the authentic effective voice of opposition in

Stormont which is the TUV which has shone the light into the dark

corners of Stormont, exposed the squander, in a constant thorn in the

flesh of miserable failing this government to which we have been

subjected. Is entirely a matter for the people. They had been provided

with the opportunity, but if they are happy with squander and failure

and more deadlock and five years of crisis, then they will not make any

change. They will vote for parties that give them that, if they want

change, they will vote TUV. Use see things differently. -- you

see things differently. You do not think Stormont is a busted flush at

this stage. I think people are rightly frustrated by the failure

and wasted opportunities by the five executive parties. The Green party

's tackling to pledge -- pledging to tackle that. If we look at my own

track record in the Assembly, despite being the only MLA, I could

produce a piece of legislation around child services. That is what

we were able to do, with one MLA, we are now giving people to elect --

giving people the choice to elect 18th MLAs. We have a third in

membership, we are confident. Haass a surge.

I'll not be happy with just one seat. It is no secret that our

strength lies in certain areas that I would be disappointed if we had

any less than three, but I believe we can achieve even more than that.

If you have fewer than three seat, you will admit that his failure? I

will be disappointed, more MLAs will be success, any less than three will

be disappointing. A change -- I change legislation in the last

Assembly. We expose the Executive on a number of environmental protection

issues. That is what I measure success on. That is what we did with

one, we could do so much more with more MLAs.

With DUP and TUV both eurosceptic partes, is UKIP looking for votes

You have always be Eurosceptic. I understand where Jimmy is coming

from. We have stood solo. We believe we have stood on our own, we have

taken criticism from all directions and we have stood for -- firm in our

position. We believe we can do far better. On some other issues, on a

whole raft of other issues, your policies are not genetically

different from those of the DUP in some aspects, the TUV, and some

aspects also be Ulster Unionist party. It will be difficult for you

to persuade voters that you should get a higher preference than some of

the other long-standing parties. That is quite a hill to climb. It

is. At the end of the day, the other parties have had their chance, they

have made promises and they haven't delivered. We listen to what the

people have to say and I think that is where we have the advantage

because people are showing an interest in politics now, people who

would normally not vote are telling us on the doorsteps that they are

looking for an alternative and we believe that we are that

alternative. I want to talk about some policy issues. You will want to

create jobs, improve the health service and invest in education. How

are you going to achieve that within the current financial constraints

that Northern Ireland operates? The creation of jobs? Yes, that all

requires money. Where will it come from? You start by cutting out the

squander. We squandered 130 million on pretty useless North-South

bodies, 5 million a year on spin doctors to tell us that DUP, Sinn

Fein misgovernment is good for us, we squandered 15 million on wining

and dining so there is lots of squander to be cut out of the

system. Then a proper approach to the expenditure of that money. Take

the single issue, biggest issue, of the economy. This executive has only

one thought and idea about fixing the economy and it is one which is

fast becoming irrelevant. It is reducing corporation tax, which

itself requires a massive reduction in the grant for health, education

and other things. With UK level of operation tax reducing to 70%, it is

fast diminishing. We had a demonstration in my constituency of

its ineffectiveness. About the time corporation tax will be reduced, to

large companies will depart our shores. It wasn't enough to leave

your them to stay so I very much questioned the wisdom of reducing

our block grant by ?300 million or whatever the precise figure is in

order to afford taxation to large corporations. Cut in corporation tax

is actually a huge stake. We have heard the complaints about the cuts,

we can't do this because of the cuts. The five executive parties are

voluntarily asking for more cuts, we can't afford it. The state of our

health service, my own grandparents had been in and out of hospital,

unfortunately, my grandfather died. I've seen them getting discharged

early before they were better, I seen the problems in our health

service and there is five parties who have a cosy consensus that we

should take 300 million now out of our system. Is there ever a good

time? What's happening in the states, perhaps it isn't such a good

idea at the moment. These parties are proposing 2018, I oppose that.

What we have heard continually from these parties is 100% cut budgets.

They have not proposed any revenue. You would be all for raising

revenue. I would be in favour of those who can afford to pay more,

paying more. I speak to people and they say they are willing to

contribute to the health service. For example, in my children's Bill,

one of the issues was problems around special education 's needs.

Schools don't have the resources to provide for special education needs.

My party would address that. We are already taking 500 million out of

the block grant to cushion welfare reform and the Greens wanted even

more, the huge amount of money which would drain and haemorrhage the

money out of education. I want to be in -- bring Noel Jordan in. You have

lots of claims in your manifesto, how will you pay for all those

reforms without a serious programme of revenue raising, of which there

is very little detail. We will be holding the Executive to account, we

will be looking to an executive to find this money from whatever means

they can through Treasury. You make the claims, the extravagant claims

about what you will do and what needs to be done and then you say it

is up to that locked to actually do it. The Executive, we need to sit

with like-minded people to budget and prioritise the needs of the

people. The people are not worried where the money comes from as long

as it delivers for them. How would you tackle hospital waiting lists?

The DUP health minister said he is putting an extra ?1 billion then,

that is in the manifesto. Do you agree that is a good idea and where

would you find the money for that? The money has to be prioritised. I

keep going back to this. There is only a certain amount of money and

people are real. The people are real. They need dealt with. I know

that, but I'm asking how you will deal with them. We will go into

Stormont and try and hold the Executive accountable to find money

within the budgets to deal with these issues, deal with waiting

list, with the vulnerable, with the elderly. The problem we have is we

had Arlene Foster saying she was proud her party was a low text

party, that means it's also a low spend party. -- low tax party. That

is ultimately what their problem is. If they are proud of that policy,

they should be proud of waiting lists, proud of the reduction in

quality of care people are seeing. How enthusiastic it you about

revenue raising? One of the things that has accentuated the problem in

waiting lists is the fact this executive has reduced the number of

beds in hospitals by 10%. You cannot reduce the number of beds and then

be surprised that there is a logjam in A and elsewhere when you need

to transfer patients. It is about putting the money out of the

bureaucracy and the tears of deputy directors of this that and the

other, and putting it into the front line, doctors and nurses and beds

which deliver the job. How keen argue on voters and maybe faith

putting their hands in their pockets to pay for the kind of investment

that you say is necessary. Our front would you be about revenue needing

to be raised? Just as corporation tax, I wouldn't let this miserable

failing executive put its hand in anyone's pocket. I would not give

the Executive any fiscal raising powers. They have demonstrated their

inability to deal with the powers they have.

Let's have a quick look back at the political week in sixty

In the week when the EU referendum campaign began, the board of invest

Northern Ireland decided against taking a position on whether the UK

should leave or remain. There was unwelcome news for the pro Brexit

lobby with bomb by DA's decision to back the campaign to stay in. After

controversy over the Prime Minister's finances, politicians

here publish their tax details but did the public appreciate the move?

We want to know who we are voting for and what they are up to. Think

my wife doesn't even seem IP 60! In Dublin, the courtship of

independence continued in a bid to form a government. We are getting

very used to being love bombed by both sides. The problem here is that

he won't love on each other! -- you won't love bomb each other.

Gareth Gordon there - and we've just time for a final word

We've seen the rise of the smaller parties in the Republic,

will the naughty corner at Stormont be getting a few additions, Sam?

I think the naughty corner has performed an invaluable public

service. If it was left to the Executive parties, the Assembly

would just be a rubber-stamping body and what little public interest

there is in it from ourselves as the media, from Enders of the public,

would not even be there. Very often they have asked the difficult

questions on issues where there is this widespread consensus such as

corporation tax. Very often it has been the Greens, TUC, asking these.

If you can't do that within an Assembly, there is very little point

in having an Assembly. Do you think those independent voices are

valuable and potentially on the March? I think in many ways the

outcome is predictable and that is why many people have turned off. It

is the smaller parties and independents that people will be

looking to. They have performed an invaluable role where we don't have

an opposition, and there is a view out there and opinion polls are

telling us, there is a view there isn't enough scrutiny,

accountability and the system of scrutiny that currently exists

doesn't work, so I can say they will be an increase in vote and certainly

because of the EU referendum coming quickly after the election, I think

that will provide a bounce for some of the smaller parties. Which should

make the point, I was talking about some parties fishing in the same

point, given the electoral system we have, that's not the Sara Lee always

a catastrophe. It isn't, and particularly when you try to attract

transfers for those parties. -- it's not particularly always a

catastrophe. That is what makes it so fascinating. Thank you very much.

That's it from Sunday Politics for this week.

I'll be back on Thursday as usual with The View.

But for now, from everyone on the team, bye-bye.