26/02/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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

Theresa May still has plenty on her plate,

not least a battle over Brexit in the Lords.

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

the Prime Minister looks stronger than ever.

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

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

The leader of Scottish Labour joins me live.

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

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

Four days to go until the election

and the smaller parties say this is their big chance.

In London, will the rise in council in the studio in half an hour.

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

authorities be enough to alleviate the crisis in social care?

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

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

I've tried banning them from this show repeatedly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

campaign they fought in Stoke was clearly winnable because the margin

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

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

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

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

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

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

despite their local government by-election successes, Tories never

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

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

faces no confident, formidable opposition. Unlike Margaret Thatcher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

under pressure from really opposition these days is done by the

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

the bigger group of about 60 Brexiteers who have continued to

operate as a united and disciplined force within the Conservative Party

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

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

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

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

moment Theresa May is delivering pretty much everything Ukip figures

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

anodyne but I think she is convincing people she will press

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

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

transition periods, shut the migration settlement not make people

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

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

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

today. Thursday was a big night

for political obsessives like us, with not one but two

significant by-elections, Ellie braved the wind and rain

to bring you this report. The clouds had gathered,

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

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

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

on a Thursday night that the country's media reckon

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

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

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

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

in Copeland, where the Tories are counting on stealing another

Labour heartland seat. Areas of high pressure in both

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

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

Professor Green. Chart-toppers aside,

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

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

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

that the said Gareth Snell Nigel Farage has said that victory

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

played down the defeat, insisting his party's

time would come. Are you going to stand again

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

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

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

weekend who have got But a few minutes later,

it turned out Labour had Harrison, Trudy Lynn,

the Conservative Party That was more than 2,000

votes ahead of Labour. What has happened here tonight

is a truly historic event. Labour were disappointed,

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

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

I think is an incredible The morning after the night

before, the losing parties were licking their wounds

and their lips over breakfast. For years and years,

Ukip was Nigel Farage, That has now changed,

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

a second age for us. So that needs to be

more fully embedded, it needs to be more defined,

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

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

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

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

here today to congratulate you on being elected the new MP

for Stoke on Trent Central. Jeremy Corbyn has just arrived

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

Copeland later though. Earlier in the day, the Labour

leader had made clear he'd considered and discounted some

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

a seat to a governing party for the first time

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

looked in the mirror and asked yourself this question -

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

who came out on top. No governing party has made

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

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

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

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

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

conference in the Yesterday, deputy leader Tom Watson

warned delegates that unless Labour took the by-election defeat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

class communities across the country, but we listened very hard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

our policies here. Voters said very clearly after the Scottish

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

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

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

invest in our future. That is something Jeremy Corbyn also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitutional Convention and that lead to a new Federalist settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

people in England feel disenfranchised from that. What

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

English federal solution to England, to carve England into federal

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

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

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

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

that globalisation is taking jobs away from communities in the

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

Westminster feels very far away and the politicians within it feel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Labour Party to carve England into federal regions,

correct? It is absolutely the policy of the

UK Labour Party to support the people's Constitutional convention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in this country. It is not united on that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nationalism and racism. Would you like this opportunity to distance

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

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

saying clearly is that nationalism by its very nature divides people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reduce the impact, that there was no difference between Scottish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

politics. The Labour Party has always advocated that together we

are stronger. Saying something is divisive is very different from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joining us. Thursday's win for Labour

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

but for Ukip leader and defeated Stoke candidate Paul Nuttall

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

principal political Welcome to the programme. Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comes to the heart of the problem your party faces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

campfires with Mexican Marxist dreaming of global government. We

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

might as well. All three parties have certain advantages and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

particularly something that we knew the Labour Party had been preparing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

magnificent achievement. Thank you very much.

Sweden isn't somewhere we talk about often

should because this week it was pulled into

the global spotlight, thanks

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

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

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

and Mr Trump later clarified on Twitter and he was talking

about a report he had watched on Fox News.

But as if to prove he was onto something,

next day a riot broke out in a Stockholm suburb

with a large migrant population, following unrest in such areas

So what has been Sweden's experience of migration?

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

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

border restrictions and stopped offering permanent

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

although official statistics do not provide evidence of a refugee driven

Nigel Farage defended Mr Trump, claiming this week that migrants

have led to a dramatic rise in sexual offences.

Although the country does have the highest reported

rate of rape in Europe, Swedish authorities say recent rises

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

Aside from the issue of crime, Sweden has struggled

Levels of inequality between natives and migrants when it comes

Unemployment rates are three times higher for foreign-born workers

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

governing Social Democratic Party, and by the author and

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

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

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

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

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

important to remember that the violence has decreased in Sweden for

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

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

unrest in these different areas is not because of their ethical

backgrounds of these people living there but more about social economic

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

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

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

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

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

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

authorities on this. Sweden and Swedish government is very reluctant

to admit any downsides of its own migration policy and particularly

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

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

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

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

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

rape statistics across other countries that have seen similar

forms of migration. Danish authorities and the Norwegian

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

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

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

difficult to compare the statistics because in Sweden for example many

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

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

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

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

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

from Sweden. Six Afghan child refugees committed suicide in the

last six months, unemployment among recent migrants now five times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that so he realised whatever ones aspirations in

And there we leave our colleagues in London -

welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

In five days' time counting will be under way to decide

who makes it to Stormont - and how big a voice

The reason the election's happening, and the issues on which people

will vote, vary depending on who you talk to.

For some it's all about the RHI controversy, the equality agenda

and mutual respect - for others it's about shoring up

the Stormont project and securing Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

from the Green Party, People Before Profit,

the TUV and the Independent candidate, Claire Sugden,

who's still serving as the Justice Minister, of course.

So just a few days of campaigning left and for the smaller parties,

an opportunity like no other, so we're told, to make gains.

There's been a noticeable rise in people engaging

with the debate so far, but will that translate

With me today are Steven Agnew, the leader of the Green Party,

Fiona Ferguson who's a candidate for People Before Profit,

and Jim Allister, the leader of the TUV,

Thanks to you all - and now for a look back at the week

Steven Agnew, what have people wanted to talk about? People have

wanted to talk about RHI. As the only party that provided any

solutions, while others were saying something must be done, the Green

Party proposed what we believe could be fair, legal, unlike the proposal

which is likely to be proven to be illegal and a publicity stunt. You

see giving your number one to a Green Party candidate is not wasted,

it will be transferred to who you put second. One of the stories as

transfers and what people do with second preferences. Who should

people put second in The View of the Green Party? "He Is campaigning for

people to put as number one. After that it is constituency by

constituency. I am not going to back another party. But other party best

represents Green Party values? Before I got involved in the Green

Party I did not think politics reflectiveness of the only party

that reflects my values as the Green Party, but people will make that

judgment constituency by constituency, my constituency has a

very strong Independent candidate. Jim Allister, from TUV, how do you

persuade voters this is an election where it is worth casting a vote? I

remind them of the mess that Stormont as Ben and if they do the

same again by voting for the big parties they will get more of the

season. I ask, is that working? You do get what you vote for. If people

are happy they need to show it. There is no better way of showing

Disney and discontent than by voting TUV, because TUV has been that thorn

in the side but Stormont, and that is a message that resonates, there

is realisation that we cannot go on from crisis to crisis. There is a

reason why the system is not working. Sinn Fein has never been in

Government in order to make Northern Ireland work and any system that has

them as part of Government will not work. If we cannot fix that we

cannot fix Stormont if we cannot fix Stormont to be a better off without

it. The difficulty for TUV is that you have made that case at previous

elections and you have never had the breakthrough that you have been

looking for. You continue to be, or you were, the only member for your

party in the past. While you have support across the country it is

spread thinly. In the European elections 75,000 people voted for

TUV. If you want to be hard and make a difference make sure you vote TUV

number one. He got 75,000 at European elections but 24,000 in

2016. People have seen what one determined voice can do at Stormont,

and how much more we could do. But the pattern at Stormont as perpetual

failure, one crisis after another. You have the squander, the shambles,

and of people like that they should not fought TUV, they should vote for

the party they have voted for in the past and it will not be disappointed

that they will get more of the scene. If you are fed up with that,

bought for TUV. Fiona Ferguson from People Before Profit, what are

people telling you that they are concerned about. It changes from

area to area, but he is that come up daily that have not been addressed,

health care, housing, disability rights, that are not being dealt

with. Not RHI? RHI comes up but for working-class areas the issues of

the day are issues that have been systematically failed, that history

people have been failed for the last ten years and they want to know what

someone is going to do to change that. Do you accept that the

challenge for your party is to go back with the two seeds you got last

time? Arguably this election has come too soon. In a shrunken

Assembly you would do well to keep to MLAs. This... The establishment

parties are terrified of the impact that the public can have in this

election, and you can see that in the campaigns that have been run

against People Before Profit, leaflets being delivered on Mars

across the north, against people before profit. We think we can make

gains. People want to see change. Claire Sugden, your decision to

accept the position of justice minister was because you told us you

were convinced the DUP and Sinn Fein were serious about working in

partnership to make Stormont work, ten months later do you feel let

down? I feel entirely flicked down. I did ask Martin McGuinness and

Arlene Foster to let me do my job and by bringing down the Assembly I

have not been able to do that. Uses to meet famously that day, you had

no wish list, you made an error. You should have had a wish list, do you

accept that? I do not accept that. I was not in any position nor was any

other party to have a wish list. The Alliance Party had a wish list. The

other two parties would not agree to it, so they are not in the pickle

that you are in. I am not in a pickle The. Ten months I have been

justice minister, I have been trying to change things but we do in the

executive. Granted it has collapsed. That is something I am not happy

with. If you find yourself re-elected and in the same position,

you originally called them the jokers, ID the jokers again? I did

not do a U-turn. I was offered an opportunity to be justice minister.

When you stand as a Independent candidate you do not aspire to be a

minister, only the justice minister is possible, I took the decision to

get a seat at the executive table for my constituency. You told us

that the system was no fixed. You said that fair start would work. But

you have confidence in the DUP and Sinn Fein. Your own testimony today

is how wrong you were and how incapable of working the system is.

You tried it. It failed. You cannot go on simply trying to put sticking

plaster over a system that will never feel. The reason it is feeling

is at the heart of that Government is a party determined that Northern

Ireland will not succeed. Do you accept that, clear Sugden, that you

are partly responsible for shoring up a system that was never going to

work? Are they not accepted the justice ministry last year we would

have found ourselves in another election. The people of Northern

Ireland want us to do our job, get on governing. I have heard people

talking about this election being a referendum for RHI. That is

irresponsible. When those responsible and RHI are held to

account we still need hospitals, schools, we are responsible for

running this country, no really need X-Pac, we are telling people to vote

because one party is better than the other. One country -- one party

cannot do a better job than another in terms of running the country. If

you find yourself in the same position again, offered the justice

ministry as an independent MLA would you take it? I want to finish the

job I started. To change the lives of the people of this country. I

would not turn down an opportunity of my constituency of East London

Delhi to have a seat at the executive table. You would prop up

the jokers again. Let us move back to Steven Agnew. I want to talk

about Brexit. The Green Party said they would protect Northern Ireland

from Brexit. What does this mean? It needs to be protected from the

consequences of Brexit, which means Northern Ireland is being put at

significant disadvantage. Particular circumstances where we have the

border with another EU country. But we do accept that is happening. Why

I am taking the Dublin case, which will establish whether or not

Article 50 is reversible, I believe in arguing that it is, is that we

can have a meaningful referendum on the Brexit deal. At the minute we

have done is agreed to sell the House, we have not agreed the place.

We have seen the ludicrous situation, if somebody said we are

offering you ?50 and you see me agreed to sell it because we had to

sell, that is the position we are in. If we like the deal we meet, if

we do not like the deal we still leave. We have to establish that we

have the right to remain and if we do that then we can have a

meaningful referendum on the deal. But Northern Ireland for the two

main as a member of a European wide party, I have spoken with our MVPs,

they knew about issues related to Scotland because their First

Minister had raised them publicly, they did not know about the specific

issues of Northern Ireland, because our First Minister and Deputy First

Minister did not quickly and did not fight our corner, which is why I

have taken the Dublin case. You have taken the Dublin case because you

like other remainders do not accept the verdict of the people. This is

typical of the usual fanatics. Every time they get an answer in any

referendum across Europe they want to rerun the referendum until they

get the answer they want. The United Kingdom has spoken and emphatically

decided, quite wisely, they are leaving the EU, and you would be

better serving the interests of your constituents if you joined anything

that a success, instead of trying to undermine it. We have agreed in

principle to me. We have not agreed the deal. When we see the deal, to

give people the choice again. What have you got to fear from that

decision. People Before Profit act Brexit. We take our cue from James

Connolly. You both at the same position on Brexit, has People

Before Profit no being exposed on this issue in the wake of the votes

to leave last June, because there are difficulties that people are

talking about, there is a discomfort in large part of the community that

you would want to be getting votes from on March the 2nd? I do not

think there has been an exposure of People Before Profit. People were

surprised by the position we took, if so, that is because they had not

looked at what we were saying about Europe for years, but fundamentally

what needs to happen now, whether people voted remain orderly they

need to have a sheep -- didn't have a say in how we shape this Brexit

deal. We need to have what Jeremy Corbyn is calling for no in the wake

of the result, a people's Brexit. We need to have our demands firmly

held. Do you agree with Jim Allister and Steven Agnew, it is being

undemocratic and tried to be late history, do you share Jim Allister's

confidence that Brexit does not give huge challenges to people in

Northern Ireland. This good shape the future of the north and that is

why we need to have their views taken. Whether we stay in or out,

and we are all quite clear on what is good to happen in the future,

there are lies that are still being adults, just like the scaremongering

in the run-up to the fort, such as this myth that he could have any

sort of hard order, when the EU last Friday said they did not want a hard

border. The UK Government does not want a hard border. The Irish

Government does not want a hard order. Nor do the bigger parties

want to see a hard border. People that keep peddling this mess, who is

going to build the hard border? How a soft border could work in the

context of the UK. We need to listen to people but what we saw a couple

of days ago... We need a solution. Scaremongering. One of the biggest

parties, Sinn Fein, hosting a dresser exercise in West Belfast

where they have police officers of old with British accents cajoling

people across a fake border. Just to be clear you continue to believe

that Brexit is good, yes or no? We think the European Union is the

right thing to do. You still believe that. Clear sudden, do you see merit

in what is happening as regards leaving the EU. No, I was a remain

voter, that said, it was a UK referendum and the UK voted to come

out of the EU. I except that is going to happen. No really to put

out best foot forward. I have been disappointed with the BV have

conducted Brexit around the big issues that we will base and the

challenges in the border and to do with immigration. We need to ensure

that we get this in place because it is coming down the line. It is going

to cause significant problems for a whole host of people. Jim Allister,

I want to ask you about what you think happens after March the 2nd.

If we find ourselves back under direct rule the Assembly should come

back and should be used as some sort of consultative checks and balances

chamber, how would that work? How credible an idea is that? I'd then

what other politicians to tell me if there is minute in your idea.

Starbucks does not work, if we cannot fix it we need something

else. -- Stormont does not work. My suggestion is that since it is the

executive that has failed we will replace the executive with British

ministers but we will keep the Assembly to cause them to put their

laws through the Assembly so that local politicians have influence and

control over the laws of the land. A bit like the Assembly in 1982? That

was only consultative, there was no putting of the laws in 1982. British

minister in charge of the executive but any laws he wants to make for

Northern Ireland needs to go through the Assembly, and the scrutiny

applies. In that way we get Government. We have to have

Government. We cannot go on as we are with this constant failure. That

is your idea. Claire Sugden, you are shaking your head. It is a nonsense.

As Jim Allister advocating ministers that know nothing about the people

of Northern Ireland, what is right for us? We know what people need and

want the Northern Ireland. To advocate for ministers... The

executive has collapsed. It feels because of the inability of the two

main parties to work together. It may be exactly like that on March

the 3rd, after a process of weeks or months, we cannot get an Assembly

and an executive backed up and running here under the system that

we sought before the selection, so Jim Allister's is positing another

idea. It is not an idea that will work. What would you do? The

problems is because we have had direct rule for so long and

decisions were made on behalf of people who did not know. We have to

remember, the United Kingdom is a devolved nation. Scotland and Wales

is devolved. The UK Government does not want Northern Ireland to go back

under direct rule, it is probably the last thing on their agenda. I do

not think they want it, but it may be nothing to do with them. It is

either Stormont rule through the field executive auditors direct

rule. I am suggesting a modified form of direct rule to give control

and scrutiny, to keep it in check, until that is enough agility to form

a voluntary Coalition. Could you give that qualified support in the

short term? I would never give more power to a Tory Government in any

circumstances. We need more power for the people of Northern Ireland,

not less. We do not seem to be able to exercise that power, that is the

point, we have run into the sand. I agree with the principles of the

Good Friday Agreement but 20 years on we need to review it and reform

and revitalised. We now need to give power back to the people. Since the

Good Friday Agreement politicians have taken power and guarded

jealously. We have had Stormont House, St Andrews, Hillsborough,

fresh start, all dodgy deals behind closed doors, we now need a

constitutional convention where we all review, and get behind what is

sustainable. Give me a timescale. If we look at the Republic of Ireland,

they had over the course of one year constitutional convention. What do

they have in the meantime - direct rule. The party elected as the

largest party should get Stormont back up and running in the meantime.

But if they do not? They have a responsibility to do so. We need to

produce a budget otherwise people will be out of jobs. The onus will

be on those parties. People collect the Green Party the first thing

we'll be getting a budget. Fiona Ferguson, could you live with the

suggestion that Jim Allister is making that we come up some kind of

bespoke way to get through in the short term? The majority of people

do not want to see and we need to take cues from the majority of

people going forward but after the election while I believe that the

bigger parties will take a hit in the selection, even if Sinn Fein and

DUP sweep through as the bigger parties, with a smaller mandate,

Sinn Fein has refused to productive any red light issue and the DUP have

welcomed a return to the status quo. We know what lies ahead of if they

are returned as the biggest parties. What we need to see is more open

democratic system that we have had sticking plaster after sticking

plaster. The Stormont House Agreement, to Stormont House

Agreement take two. We need to see wholesale change of society rather

than sticking plasters over Stormont. That is why we need to

bring citizens back into the decision-making that affects their

lives. The very thing that has fields.

Thanks to you all - and now for a look back at the week

I resent the idea that one life is worth more than another. We must

ensure that there is fairness and balance in all of this. The Lords

discuss the Brexit Bill. If roads are closed vets will attract direct

action and that will lead to violence. DUP confirmed it had

received ?400,000 from a group of pro-union businesspeople led by a

Conservative member. The alliance leader stood by criticism of two of

the former councillors. People will be surprised that all I said was

believed. Now, while the smaller parties have

had their say this morning, the bigger ones had their turn

on Thursday night's edition of The View from Ulster University's

new Belfast campus. This election was not necessary.

Sinn Fein news that they use the RHI issue as an excuse. It was not the

reason because ultimately they are more interested in that narrow

Republican agenda and they see that this is an opportunity to weaken and

people recognise that and the verdict will be cast next week.

Hopefully it will be somewhere with good governance that spends our

finite resources a lot better than the two large parties have done.

Somewhere where policy moves on. Everything from the economy, to

legacy issues, we do not just park them in disagreement, we try to move

them through and change things. A lot of people choose to go away

because they have had enough of that kind of control and they want to be

able to make their own decisions, to have a liberal and tolerant

democracy, and other people will want to come here, and that it's so

rebuild the economy and create good prospects and good of life. It is

not only about the mandate, it is about those young people getting

involved in the parties that are sitting around this table, and the

other parties, to make sure that as a progression and policy. It is

about the engagement of the young people here with political parties

and the process that starts that change. The decision to take us out

of the EU against the wishes of the people of the north is damaging, not

just economic way, socially, and politically, it is also damaging the

basis of the Good Friday Agreement, upon which our system works. It was

surprising that people voted against protecting the Good Friday

arrangement in any Article 50 negotiation.

Just a snapshot of the debate on Thursday night -

and my guests to chew over all that are Alan Meban and Allison Morris.

How big an opportunity to the smaller parties have in an Assembly

that is shrinking from 108 members, down to 19 members. There will be

heavy reliance on transfers for the fifth seat. That will cause extreme

difficulty. It is interesting that the main topic of debate, that leads

to most tension, as Brexit, and not the issues that led to this election

in the first place such as RHI and the sort of things. Jim Allister is

probably in his element because this is a very anti-group-mac led

election, it came about because of RHI, I do not see how making many

games. People suffer from the anti-Brexit stance despite the fact

that the candidate that it which is why it is a good idea, they will

take a hit on the doors. Is the challenge to hold firm, to

consolidate, not a time for growth? It is not a typo growth but there

was ever a conference of circumstances that make the people

likely to give more support, higher preference to smaller parties,

particularly well established candidates, outgoing MLAs, I think

most of them will return, even though we are going to five seats,

it will be the larger parties that will suffer. You are seeing the way

for people to register their dislike some of the bigger parties is to

take a punt on some novels smaller parties or Independents? That is a

possibility and we had a reasonably article conversation today of those

representing those parties. People will take a punt on them. This is

the time. Who else do they have for a protest vote? An extra 20,000

people on the electoral register, those are people who have registered

in the last month or so, they are likely to vote, are they going to

vote for traditional parties or try to make some kind of the difference?

I think that difference will be for the two main opposition parties, if

there will be a bounce it will go to the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists.

With all elections, the big party machine, established candidates who

are already elected, some of the opposition candidates people like.

Some have raised the profile in the last seven months since being in

opposition. Those sort of people will benefit from the bounce, not so

sure that the Green Party or people from those very small parties will

benefit from the antiestablishment vote. There has been focused on

three women in particular in this election. Arlene Foster, Michelle

O'Neill, Naomi Long, there is a lot at stake. Arlene Foster needs a good

result, not to go below that magic 30 number, otherwise the knives are

out, it be a swift exit for as leader stop Michelle O'Neill does

not have as much to lose. The Commission has happened. She is

leader. Naomi Long and they are likely to hold their own. They could

accept a small set of losses, but if anybody has not been knocking on as

many doors as they should have, that would be Alliance would suffer from

that stock I would like to think those female leaders would mean

there is a difference in the votes and policies that would help women

and reproductive rights. Unfortunately I do not think they

are. Arlene Foster is in a position where it is difficult to be...

Constant mentions of the IRA wing of Sinn Fein. Arlene Foster is finding

it difficult to go against Michelle O'Neill. Another thing that will be

fascinating to see the judgment of the electorate is Mike Nesbitt,

Colum Eastwood, their respective parties, not necessarily the same

thing. This is too soon for the opposition to have done anything in

order to get extra votes. We will see some element of whether or not

they grow a little bit or whether they grow a lot. It would take a big

change in turn out to change the proportions to match. But if people

on the doors. We laugh at the fact that politicians may be economic

with the truth, voters on the doors are even more economical, we are not

hearing from politicians what people forget. Brexit and Trump showed us

that we should not listen to opinion polls ahead of any election. It'll

come down to what happens on the day. Fascinating few days ahead of

Andrew, back to you. us. Thank you both very much indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Government have hinted they could deliver on both of them

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

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

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

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

Government have already promised something in the House of Commons,

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

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

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

Brexit is going on in those committees behind closed doors when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Heseltine might deliver a brilliant speech. It is interesting

that Euroscepticism gun under Margaret Thatcher in the Tory party

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

most prominent opponents now but they will change nothing at this

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

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

Farage. That is Nigel Farage and a small

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

there and they involve spending money. Absolutely and some people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rebels involved in business rates suggest the Chancellor will have to

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

this judgment about disability benefits. The Government will try to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

important because that is when people will feel the cost living

squeeze. The Daily Politics is back at noon

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

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

it's the Sunday Politics.