26/02/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

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



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


Theresa May still has plenty on her plate,


not least a battle over Brexit in the Lords.


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


the Prime Minister looks stronger than ever.


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


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


The leader of Scottish Labour joins me live.


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


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


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.


Download Subtitles