26/02/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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

Later on the Sunday Politics, but after riots in Stockholm this

is it time for some radical treatment for the NHS?

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire's hospitals pay millions

for temporary staff despite a Government spending cap.

tax in all but four local authorities be enough to alleviate

the crisis in social care? And joining me for all of that,

three journalists who I'm pleased to say have so far not been banned

from the White House. I've tried banning them

from this show repeatedly, but somehow they just keep getting

past BBC security - it's Sam Coates, We have had two crucial

by-elections, the results last Thursday night. It's now Sunday

morning, where do they believe British politics? I think it leaves

British politics looking as if it may go ahead without Ukip is a

strong and robust force. It is difficult to see from where we are

now how Ukip rebuilds into a credible vote winning operation. I

think it looks unprofessional, the campaign they fought in Stoke was

clearly winnable because the margin with which Labour held onto that

seat was not an impressive one but they put forward arguably the wrong

candidate, it was messy and it's hard to see where they go from here,

particularly with the money problems they have and even Nigel Farage

saying he's fed up of the party. If Isabel is right, if Ukip is no

longer a major factor, you look at the state of Labour and the Lib Dems

coming from a long way behind despite their local government

by-election successes, Tories never more dominant. I think Theresa May

is in a fascinating situation. She's the most powerful Prime Minister of

modern times for now because she faces no confident, formidable

opposition. Unlike Margaret Thatcher who in the 1980s, although she won

landslides in the end, often looked like she was in trouble. She was

inferred quite often in the build-up to the election. David Owen, Roy

Jenkins, Shirley Williams. And quite often she was worried. At the moment

Theresa May faces no formidable UK opposition. However, she is both

strong and fragile because her agenda is Brexit, which I still

think many have not got to grips with in terms of how complex and

training and difficult it will be for her. Thatcher faced no

equivalent to Brexit so she is both strong, formidably strong because of

the wider UK political context, and very fragile. It is just when you

think you have never been more dominant you are actually at the

most dangerous, what can possibly go wrong? I think that the money of her

MPs they haven't begun to think through the practicalities of Brexit

and she does have a working majority of about 17 in the House of Commons

so at any point she could be put under pressure from really

opposition these days is done by the two wins inside the Conservative

Party, either the 15 Europhiles or the bigger group of about 60

Brexiteers who have continued to operate as a united and disciplined

force within the Conservative Party to get their agenda on the table.

Either of those wings could be disappointed at any point in the

next three and a half years and that would put her under pressure. I

wouldn't completely rule out Ukip coming back. The reason Ukip lost in

Stoke I think it's because at the moment Theresa May is delivering

pretty much everything Ukip figures might want to see. We might find the

phrase Brexit means Brexit quite anodyne but I think she is

convincing people she will press ahead with their agenda and deliver

the leave vote that people buy a slim majority voted for. Should that

change, should there be talk of transition periods, shut the

migration settlement not make people happy, then I think Ukip risks

charging back up the centre ground and causing more problems in future.

That could be a two year gap in which Ukip would have to survive. As

I said, Ukip is on our agenda for today.

Thursday was a big night for political obsessives

like us, with not one but two significant by-elections,

Ellie braved the wind and rain to bring you this report.

The clouds had gathered, the winds blew at gale force.

Was a change in the air, or just a weather system called Doris?

Voters in Stoke-on-Trent were about to find out.

It's here, a sports hall on a Thursday night

that the country's media reckon is the true eye of the storm.

Would Labour suffer a lightning strike to its very heart,

or would the Ukip threat proved to be a damp squib?

Everybody seems to think the result in Stoke-on-Trent would be close,

just as they did 150-odd miles away in Copeland, where the Tories

are counting on stealing another Labour heartland seat.

Areas of high pressure in both places, and some strange sights.

We knew this wasn't a normal by-election, and to prove it

there is the rapper, Professor Green.

Chart-toppers aside, winner of Stoke-on-Trent hit parade

was announced first, where everyone was so excited

the candidates didn't even make it onto the stage for the result.

And I do hereby declare that the said Gareth Snell

Nigel Farage has said that victory here in Stoke-on-Trent

But Ukip's newish leader played down the defeat,

insisting his party's time would come.

Are you going to stand again as an MP or has this

No doubt I will stand again, don't worry about that.

The politics of hope beat the politics of fear.

I think Ukip are the ones this weekend who have got

But a few minutes later, it turned out Labour had

Harrison, Trudy Lynn, the Conservative Party

That was more than 2,000 votes ahead of Labour.

What has happened here tonight is a truly historic event.

Labour were disappointed, but determined to be optimistic

At a point when we're 15 to 18 points behind in the polls...

The Conservatives within 2000 votes I think is an incredible

The morning after the night before, the losing parties

were licking their wounds and their lips over breakfast.

For years and years, Ukip was Nigel Farage,

That has now changed, that era has gone.

It's a new era, it is a second age for us.

So that needs to be more fully embedded,

it needs to be more defined, you know, and that will

We have to continue to improve in seats where we have stood.

As we have done here, we've improved on our 2015 result,

that's what important, is that we are taking steps

Can I be the first to come here today to congratulate

you on being elected the new MP for Stoke on Trent Central.

Jeremy Corbyn has just arrived in Stoke to welcome his newest MP.

Not sure he's going to Copeland later though.

Earlier in the day, the Labour leader had made clear he'd

considered and discounted some theories about the party's

Since you found out that you'd lost a seat to a governing

party for the first time since the Falklands War,

have you at any point this morning looked in the mirror and asked

yourself this question - could the problem actually be me?

In the end it was the Conservatives who came out on top.

No governing party has made a gain at a by-election

With the self-styled people's army of Ukip halted in Stoke,

and Labour's wash-out here in Copeland...

There's little chance of rain on Theresa May's parade.

In the wake of that loss in Copeland, the Scottish Labour Party

has been meeting for its spring conference in the

Yesterday, deputy leader Tom Watson warned delegates that unless Labour

took the by-election defeat seriously, the party's devastation

in Scotland could be repeated south of the border.

Well, I'm joined now by the leader of Scottish Labour,

Even after your party had lost Copeland to the Tories and with

Labour now trailing 16 points in the UK polls, you claim to have every

faith that Jeremy Corbyn would absolutely win the general election.

What evidence can you bring to support that? There is no doubt the

result in Copeland was disappointing for the Labour Party and I think

it's a collective feeling for everyone within the Labour Party and

I want to do what I can to turn around the fortunes of our party.

That's what I've committed to do while I have been the Scottish

Labour leader. This two years ago we were down the mines so to speak in

terms of losing the faith of working class communities across the

country, but we listened very hard to the message voters are sending

and responded to it. That's what I'm committed to doing in Scotland and

that's what Jeremy Corbyn is committed to doing UK wide. The

latest polls put Labour at 14% in Scotland, the Tories at ten points

ahead of you in Scotland, even Theresa May is more popular than

Jeremy Corbyn in Scotland. So I will try again - why are you so sure

Jeremy Corbyn could win a general election? What I said when you are

talking about Scotland is that I'm the leader of the Scottish Labour

Party and I take responsibility for our policies here. Voters said very

clearly after the Scottish Parliament election that they didn't

have a clear enough sense of what we stood for so I have been advocating

a very strong anti-austerity platform, coming up with ideas of

how we can oppose the cuts and invest in our future. That is

something Jeremy Corbyn also supports but I've also made it clear

this weekend that we are opposed to a second independence referendum. I

want to bring Scotland back together by focusing on the future and that's

why I have been speaking about the federal solution for the UK. I know

that Jeremy Corbyn shares that ambition because he is backing the

plans for a people's Constitutional Convention. Yes, these are difficult

times for the Scottish Labour Party and UK family, but I have a plan in

place to turn things around. It will take time though. I'm still not sure

why you are so sure the Labour party can win but let me come onto your

plan. You want a UK wide Constitutional Convention and that

lead to a new Federalist settlement. Is it the policy of the Labour

Shadow Cabinet in Westminster to carve England into federal regions?

What we support at a UK wide level is the people's constitutional

convention. I have been careful to prescribe what I think is in the

best interests of Scotland but not to dictate to other parts of the UK

what is good for them, that's the point of the people's constitutional

convention. You heard Tom Watson say there has to be a UK wide

conversation about power, who has it and how it is exercised across

England. England hasn't been part of this devolution story over the last

20 years, it is something that happened between Scotland and London

or Wales and London. No wonder people in England feel

disenfranchised from that. What evidence can you bring to show there

is any appetite in England for an English federal solution to England,

to carve England into federal regions? Have you spoken to John

Prescott about this? He might tell you some of the difficulties.

There's not even a debate about that here, Kezia Dugdale, it is fantasy.

I speak to John Prescott regularly. What there is a debate about is the

idea the world is changing so fast that globalisation is taking jobs

away from communities in the north-east, that many working class

communities feel left behind, that Westminster feels very far away and

the politicians within it feel remote in part of the establishment.

People are fed up with power being exercised somewhere else, that's

where I think federalism comes in because it's about bringing power

closer to people and in many ways it's forced on us because of Brexit.

We know the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union so we

have to talk about the repatriation of those powers from Brussels to

Britain. I want many of those powers to go to the Scottish parliament but

where should they go in the English context? It is not as things

currently stand the policy of the English Labour Party to carve

England into federal regions, correct?

It is absolutely the policy of the UK Labour Party to support the

people's Constitutional convention to examining these questions. I

think it is really important. You're promising the Scottish people a

federal solution, and you have not even squared your own party for a

federal solution in England. That is not true. The UK Labour Party is

united on this. I am going to Cardiff next month to meet with

Carwyn Jones and various leaders. United on a federal solution? You

know as well as I know it is not united on a federal solution. We

will have a conversation about power in this country. It is not united on

that issue? This is the direction of

travel. It is what you heard yesterday from Sadiq Khan, from Tom

Watson, when you hear from people like Nick Forbes who lead Newcastle

City Council and Labour's Local Government Association. There is an

appetite for talking about power. Talking is one thing. We need to

have this conversation across the whole of the United Kingdom, to have

a reformed United Kingdom. It is a conversation you're offering

Scotland, not the policy. Let's come onto the labour made of London. He

was in power for your conference. He wrote in the record yesterday, there

is no difference between Scottish nationalism and racism. Would you

like this opportunity to distance yourself from that absurd claim? I

think that Sadiq Khan was very clear yesterday that he was not accusing

the SNP of racism. What he was saying clearly is that nationalism

by its very nature divides people and communities. That is what I said

in my speech yesterday. I am fed up living in a divided and fractured

country and society. Our politics is forcing is constantly to pick sides,

whether you're a no, leave a remain, it brings out the worst in our

politicians and politics. All the consensus we find in the grey areas

is lost. That is why am standing under a banner that together we are

stronger. We have to come up with ideas and focus on the future. That

is why I agree with Sadiq Khan. He said quite clearly in the Daily

Record yesterday, and that the last minute he adapted his speech to your

conference yesterday, to try and reduce the impact, that there was no

difference between Scottish nationalism and racism. Your

colleague, and Sarwar, said that even after he had tried to introduce

the caveats, all forms of nationalism rely on creating eyes

and them. Let's call it for what it is. So you are implying that the

Scottish Nationalists are racist. Would you care to distance yourself

from that absurd claim? I utterly refute that that is what Sadiq Khan

said. I would never suggest that the SNP are an inherently racist party.

That does is a disservice. He did not see it. What he did say,

however, is that nationalism is divisive. You know that better than

anyone. I see your Twitter account. Regularly your attack for the job

you do as a journalist. Politics in Scotland is divided on. I do not

want to revisit that independence question again for that reason. As

leader of the Labour Party, I want to bring our country back together,

appeal to people who voted yes and no. That banner, together we are

stronger, that is where the answers lie in defaulters can be found. If

in response to the Mayor of London, your colleague says, let's call it

out for what it is, what is he referring to if he is not implying

that national symbol is racist? -- and that nationalism is racist? He

is saying that it leads to divisive politics. The Labour Party has

always advocated that together we are stronger. Saying something is

divisive is very different from saying something is racist. That is

what the Mayor of London said. That is what your colleague was referring

to. He did not. You would really struggle to quote that from the

Mayor of London. He talked about being divided by race. What does

that mean? I think he was very clear that he was talking about divided

politics. There is an appetite the length and breadth of the country to

end that divisive politics. That is what I stand for, focusing on the

future, bringing people back together, concentrating on what the

economy might look like in 20 years' time in coming up with ideas to

tackle it today. Thank you for joining us.

Thursday's win for Labour in Stoke-on-Trent Central

gave some relief to Jeremy Corbyn, but for Ukip leader and defeated

Stoke candidate Paul Nuttall there were no consolation prizes.

I'm joined now by Mr Nuttall's principal political

Welcome to the programme. Good morning. How long will Paul Nuttall

survivors Ukip leader, days, weeks, months? You are in danger of not

seeing the wood for the trees. Ukip was formed in 1993 with the express

purpose, much mocked, of getting Britain out of the European Union.

Under the brilliant leadership of Nigel Farage, we were crucial in

forcing a vacuous Prime Minister to make a referendum promise he did not

want to give. With our friends in Fort leave and other organisations.

Mac we know that. Get to the answer. We helped to win that referendum.

The iteration of Ukip at the moment that we're in, the primary purpose,

we are the guard dog of Brexit. Viewed through that prism, the Stoke

by-election was a brilliant success. A brilliant success? We had the Tory

candidate that had pumped out publicity for Remain, for Cameron

Bradley, preaching the gospel of Brexit. We had a Labour candidate

and we know what he really felt about Brexit, preaching the Gospel

according to Brexit. You lost. Well the by-election was going on, we had

the Labour Party in the House of Commons pass the idea of trickling

Article 50 by a landslide. Are passionate thing, the thing that

35,000 Ukip members care about the most, it is an extraordinary

achievement. I am very proud. What would you have described as victory

as? If we could have got Paul Nuttall into the House of Commons,

that would have been a fantastic cherry on the top. Losing was an

extraordinary achievement? Many Ukip supporters the Stoke was winnable,

but Paul Nuttall's campaign was marred by controversy, Tory voters

refuse to vote tactically for Ukip to beat Labour, his campaign, Mr

Nuttall is to blame for not winning what was a winnable seat? I do not

see that at all. This is counterintuitive, but Jeremy Corbyn

did do one thing that made it more difficult for us to win. Fantasy.

That was to take Labour into a Brexit position formerly. Just over

50 Labour MPs had voted against triggering Article 50. In political

terms, we have intimidated the Labour Party into backing Brexit.

How much good is it doing you? It comes to the heart

of the problem your party faces. You're struggling to win Tory

Eurosceptic voters. For the moment, they seem happy with Theresa May.

Stoke shows you're not winning Labour Brexit voters either. If you

cannot get the solution Tolisso labour, where does your Broad come

from? In terms of the by-election, it came very early for Paul. I'm

talking about the future. We have a future agenda, and ideological

argument with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, which is wedded to the notion

of global citizenship and does not recognise the nation state. We know

he spent Christmas sitting around campfires with Mexican Marxist

dreaming of global government. We believe in the nation state. We

believe that the patriotic working class vote will be receptive to

that. Your Broad went down by 9% in Cortland. In Copeland we were

squeezed. In Stoke, we were unable to squeeze the Tories, who are on a

high. Our agenda is that social solidarity is important but we

arrange it in this country by nation and community. We want an

immigration system that is not only reducing... We know what you want. I

do not think people do. You had a whole by-election to tell people and

they did not vote for you and. When Nigel Farage said it was fundamental

that you were winner in Stoke, he was wrong? Nigel chooses his own

words. I would not rewrite them. It would be a massive advantage to Ukip

to have a leader in the House of Commons in time to reply to the

budget, Prime Minister's questions and all of that. But we have taken

the strategic view that we will fight the Labour Party for the

working class vote. It is also true that the Conservatives will make a

pitch for the working class vote might as well. All three parties

have certain advantages and disadvantages. As part of that page,

Nigel Farage said that your leader, Paul Nuttall, should have taken a

clear, by which I assume he meant tough, line on immigration. Do you

agree? He took a tough line on immigration. He developed that idea

at our party conference in the spring. Nigel Farage did not think

so? Nigel Farage made his speech before Paul Nuttall made his speech.

He said this in the aftermath of the result. Once we have freedom to

control and Borders, Paul wants to set up an immigration system that

includes an aptitude test, do you have skills that the British economy

needs, but also, and attitudes test, do you subscribe to core British

values such as gender equality and freedom of expression? We will be

making these arguments. It is certainly true that Paul's campaign

was thrown off course by, particularly something that we knew

the Labour Party had been preparing to run, the smear on the untruths,

the implications about Hillsborough. If you knew you should have

anticipated it. Alan Banks, he helps to bankroll your party, he said that

Mr Nuttall needs to toss out the Tory cabal in Europe, by which he

means Douglas Carswell, Neil Hamilton. Should they be stripped of

their membership? Of course not. As far as I knew, Alan Banks was a

member of the Conservative Party formally. I do not know who this

Tory cabal is supposed to be. He says that your party is more like a

jumble sale than a political party. He says that the party should make

him chairman or they will work. What do you see to that? He has made that

statement several times over many months, including if you do not

throw out your only MP. Douglas Carswell has managed to win twice

under Ukip colours. Should Tibi chairman? I think we have an

excellent young chairman at the moment. He is doing a good job. The

idea that Leave.EU was as smooth running brilliant machine, that does

not sit with the facts as I understand them. Suzanne Evans says

it would be no great loss for Ukip if Mr Banks walked out, severed his

ties and took his money elsewhere. Is she right. I am always happy

people who want to give money and support your party want to stay in

the party. The best donors donate and do not seek to dictate. If they

are experts in certain fields, people should listen to their views

but to have a daughter telling the party leader who should be party

chairman, that is a nonstarter. You have described your existing party

chairman is excellent. He said it could be 20 years before Ukip wins

by-election. Is he being too optimistic? There is a general

election coming up in the years' time. We will be aiming to win seats

in that. Before that, we will be the guard dog for Brexit, to make sure

this extraordinary achievement of a little party... You are guard dog

without a kennel, you cannot get seat? We're keeping the big

establishment parties to do the will of the people. If we achieve nothing

else at all, that will be a magnificent achievement. Thank you

very much. Sweden isn't somewhere

we talk about often should because this

week it was pulled into the global spotlight,

thanks Last weekend, Mr Trump was mocked

for referring to an incident that had occurred last night in Sweden

as a result of the country's open Critics were quick to point out that

no such incident had occurred and Mr Trump later clarified

on Twitter and he was talking about a report he had

watched on Fox News. But as if to prove

he was onto something, next day a riot broke out

in a Stockholm suburb with a large migrant population,

following unrest in such areas So what has been Sweden's

experience of migration? In 2015, a record 162,000 people

claimed asylum there, the second That number dropped to 29,000

in 2016 after the country introduced border restrictions and stopped

offering permanent Tensions have risen,

along with claims of links to crime, although official statistics do not

provide evidence of a refugee driven Nigel Farage defended Mr Trump,

claiming this week that migrants have led to a dramatic rise

in sexual offences. Although the country does

have the highest reported rate of rape in Europe,

Swedish authorities say recent rises were due to changes to how rape

and sex crimes are recorded. Aside from the issue of crime,

Sweden has struggled Levels of inequality between natives

and migrants when it comes Unemployment rates are three times

higher for foreign-born workers We're joined now by Laila Naraghi,

she's a Swedish MP from the governing Social Democratic Party,

and by the author and The Swedish political establishment

was outraged by Mr Trump's remarks, pointing to a riot that hadn't taken

place, then a few nights later serious riots did break out in a

largely migrant suburb of Stockholm so he wasn't far out, was he? I

think he was far out because he is misleading the public with how he

uses these statistics. I think it is important to remember that the

violence has decreased in Sweden for the past 20 years and research shows

there is no evidence that indicate that immigration leads to crime and

so I think it is far out. The social unrest in these different areas is

not because of their ethical backgrounds of these people living

there but more about social economic reasons. OK, no evidence migrants

are responsible for any kind of crime? This story reminds me after

what happened to the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris when also a Fox

News commentator said something that was outlandish about Paris and the

Mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox News, saying you are making our city

look bad. It's a bit like that because the truth on this lies

between Donald Trump on the Swedish authorities on this. Sweden and

Swedish government is very reluctant to admit any downsides of its own

migration policy and particularly the migration it hard in 2015 but

there are very obvious downsides because Sweden is not a country that

needs a non-skilled labour force which doesn't speak Swedish. What

was raised as the matter of evidence, what is the evidence?

First of all if I can say so the rape statistics in Sweden that have

been cited are familiar with the rape statistics across other

countries that have seen similar forms of migration. Danish

authorities and the Norwegian authorities have recorded a similar

thing. It is not done by ethnicity so we don't know. And this is part

of the problem. It is again a lot of lies and rumours going about. When

it is about for example rape, it is difficult to compare the statistics

because in Sweden for example many crimes that in other countries are

labelled as bodily harm or assault are in Sweden labelled as rape. Also

how it is counted because if a woman goes to the police and reports that

her husband or boyfriend has raped her, and done it every night for one

year, in Sweden that is counted as 365 offences. Something is going

wrong, I look at the recent news from Sweden. Six Afghan child

refugees committed suicide in the last six months, unemployment among

recent migrants now five times higher than among non-migrants. We

have seen gang violence in Malmo where a British child was killed by

a grenade, rioting in Stockholm. Police in Sweden say there are 53

areas of the country where it is now dangerous to patrol. Something has

gone wrong. Let me get back to what I think is the core of this debate

if I may and that is the right for people fleeing war and political

persecution to seek asylum, that is a human right. In Sweden we don't

think we can do everything, but we want to live up to our obligation,

every country has an obligation to receive asylum seekers. But you have

changed your policy on that because having taken 163,001 year alone, you

have then closed your borders, I think very wisely, closed the border

which means 10,000 people per day at one point were walking from Denmark

in to Malmo, you rightly changed that so he realised whatever ones

aspirations in terms of asylum, it sometimes meets reality and Sweden

is meeting the reality of this. Let's respond to that. We are not

naive, we know we cannot do everything but we want to try to do

our share as we think other countries also need to do their

share. But let me say that, if you look at what the World Economic

Forum is saying about our country they show we are in the top of many

rankings, the best country to live in, to age in, to have children in,

to start into -- to start enterprise. Why have you not been so

good at integrating migrants? The unemployment rate is five times

higher among migrants than non-migrants and that's the highest

ratio of any country in the EU and the OECD, why have you not been able

to integrate the people you have brought in for humanitarian reasons?

I'm sure there are things we can do much better of course but if you

look for example at the immigration that came in the 90s from the

Balkans, they are well integrated and contributing to our society.

They are starting enterprises and working in different fields of

society, and they help our country. Why have they not got jobs, the

migrants that have come in? It takes time. In the 90s we managed it and

I'm sure we can do it again. Can I put this into some context, it is

clear Sweden has got problems as a result of the number of migrants

that come in, whether it is as bad as Mr Trump and others make out is

another matter, but perhaps I can put it into context. Malmo, which

has been at the centre of many of these migrant problems, its homicide

rate is three per hundred thousand. Chicago, 28 per 100,000. It may have

problems but they are not huge. No, they are pretty huge and I think

they will grow. The Balkan refugees into Sweden in the 90s did bring a

lot of problems and Sweden did for the first time see serious ethnic

gang rivalries. There was an upsurge in gang-related violence that has

gone on since. The situation in Malmo in particular is exaggerated

by some people, there's no doubt about that, I have been there many

times and it is undoubtedly exaggerated by some, it is also

vastly unpersuaded by the Swedish authorities. -- understated. In

2010, one in ten Jews in Malmo registered some form of attack on

them. It got so bad that in 2010 people offered to escort Jews... You

have had a good say and I have got to be fair here, what do you say to

that, Laila Naraghi? There are people trying to frame our country

in a certain way to push their own agenda. I regret that President

Trump is trying to slander our country. But what about the specific

point on Malmo? If you speak to people in Malmo and also to

different congregations, they say they are working together with the

authorities to improve this. I say again, there are a lot of people

trying to spread rumours and lies. Your situation is very like the

situation we had in Britain when we have these situations in Rotherham

and elsewhere. 1400 girls were raped in Rotherham before police even

admitted it was going on. That happened in Britain in the last

decade, a similar phenomenon. An upsurge in particularly sexual and

other forms of violence and then total denial by an entire political

class is now something that is happening in Sweden. I see it in

Swedish authorities and the denial that comes up and the desire to

laugh and dismiss Trump but he's not answer nothing and that's a painful

thing for any society to want to admit to. There are number of Swedes

who think the establishment is covering up the true statistics,

that you don't break crime down by ethnic crimes, people are suspicious

of the centre-left and centre-right parties now in Sweden. There is no

denial and no cover-up. This is what I'm speaking about when I say people

are trying to frame it in a certain way. The social unrest is not

because of the ethnical background of the people living there but

rather because of different socioeconomics conditions. There is

no research that shows immigration... But you don't do the

research into it. Swedish authorities deliberately ensure you

cannot carry out such research and after the attacks in Cologne in 2015

it was the first time then that the Swedish authorities and press

admitted that similar sexual molestation have been going on for

years in Sweden. Is it right to think, given the problem is maybe

not as bad as many people make out but clearly problems, given these

problems, is the age of mass asylum seeking for Sweden over? You have

cut the numbers by 80% coming in last year compared with 2015, is it

over while you concentrate on getting right the people that you

have there already? We want to do our share, we have done a lot and

now we are concentrating of course on integration and making sure

people get a job, and also on big welfare investments because

it's important to remember that for eight years Sweden were governed by

a government that prioritised big tax cuts instead of investment in

welfare. It may just not work. I am grateful to you both, we have to

leave it there. It's coming up to 11:40am,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now the Week Ahead, when we'll be asking

if the Government is facing defeat Yes, hello, you're watching

the Sunday Politics Coming up today: They failed

in Stoke, but are Ukip's electoral sights still

set on Labour's northern heartlands? Could it be time

for a change of plan? And time for some

radical treatment for the NHS after a Sunday Politics

investigation shows Yorkshire and Lincolnshire's hospitals

are spending more money Patient safety is everything

to us and that trumps any financial consideration, but, again,

we've got good systems of control for agreeing exactly how much

we will pay agency staff. Well, Ukip has never made

any secret of the fact that Labour's northern

strongholds are part of their target strategy

in the hunt for those elusive

parliamentary seats, but after failing to win the Stoke

by-election, is Ukip really a force to be reckoned with in our

industrial heartlands? As for Labour, that

defeat in Copeland has prompted one polling organisation

to suggest the party is facing a growing disconnect

with its traditional working-class supporters

in the north. If I was Labour strategist,

I would be worried not just about the fact that it appears

they weren't making any ground, but it appeared also

that they were losing ground in particular areas

such as the north-east and the north-west, these former

industrial heartlands. And if they are going to win

a general election, or if those MPs are even going to hold

onto their seat, then it is certainly looking

at the moment like the party Now, of course, a lot

can change between now and the general election, not least

all the negotiations about Brexit, but certainly, this is not

a position that you would want to be in if you were a

Labour MP in the north. How Jeremy Corbyn balances

the priorities of, if you like, the North London, Islington liberals

and the working-class areas of the North is a very difficult

balancing act for him to make. Well, we're joined today

by Richard Burgon, Labour Shadow Justice Secretary

and MP for Leeds East. Also by John Proctor,

Conservative MEP for Yorkshire and Humber and in Hull for us today

is Mike Hookum, Ukip MEP for Yorkshire and

North Lincolnshire. Richard Burgon, do the events

of the past few days suggest that Labour is in real danger now

of losing its natural position as the dominant political

party of the North? Well, first of all, I was pleased

that Labour won in Stoke despite Ukip's new leader Paul

Nuttal thinking it was the I think his campaign

showed that when it comes to campaigning ability,

and when it comes to electoral appeal, Ukip have taken a step down

since Nigel Farage, but as for Copeland,

I was obviously very disappointed that we didn't win in Copeland,

but it's not and has not been Obviously, we need to win that back,

but the newspapers quite correctly Yes, we've had all the spin about

Copeland over the past few days. The fact is the Labour vote

is going into freefall. Do you admit there's

a crisis in your party? Well, Labour won by 2000

votes in the general election and we lost by about 2000

votes in the election Labour won in Stoke,

we've got Ukip on the retreat. That was their top person

standing there and I think people in our region

are angry at what the Government has done to our NHS, angry

at what the Government has done Well, they are angry

enough to vote Labour. They did so in Stoke

and I think they will do so in seats that at are

more representative And one more thing I

would say is there are commentators in London who maybe

have never been to the North Copeland is very different

from Leeds, which is different from Barnsley and Sheffield,

so I think people from the outside have got to understand,

Copeland doesn't represent All right, Mike Hookum,

Stoke was a massive failure You're never going to win

Labour seats in the North. You know, I don't think that night

last night was very good When you look at it,

you have now a Member of Parliament that is going

into Westminster on 7000 votes. Out of a possible 62,000

votes, he is going I think it was a poor

night for politics, never mind just Ukip,

Labour and the Conservatives. But what it shows, Mike Hookum,

is areas that voted Brexit don't necessarily

want a Ukip MP, do they? We will be having a day break

to see where we went wrong, But what we had again

have to say is the Labour candidate, I have to say, is one

of the worst candidates This is a guy who said his

girlfriend is half Muslim. Is it the top half, right

half, what half is it? This guy, you know, he's now

in there with 7000 votes. We'll bring Richard Burgon back

on that in a moment, but let me just talk

to John Proctor. I mean, some in the Tory party said

this was a dream scenario for you. You gave Labour a bloody nose

in Copeland but not a killer blow in order to get rid of

Jeremy Corbyn. I don't know that we

wanted to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, to be

quite frank about it. I'm very, very pleased

at the result in Copeland. We had a fantastic

candidate in there. I spent the whole of

the election day in Copeland. The reception on the doorstep

was fantastic for us, so clearly, There's a lot of work to do

and Trudy Harrison will I'm sure she'll hold it come

the general election. When you come to look

at Stoke, again, I think we did a reasonable job

there but to a degree I would go with Mike

on that, actually. It is pretty poor,

the turnout that we saw in Stoke across the board and I think

all political parties... Well, political parties always use

turnout as an excuse, I know. Richard Burgon, fighting talk

there from Mike Hookum. He still thinks Ukip can win

Labour seats in the North. Well, Mike says that

Labour had the worst candidate But if he's the worst candidate

he's ever seen, When it was Ukip's top

person standing in a seat that voted to leave

the European Union, and despite Ukip's falsehoods

that Labour is trying to block the outcome of the EU

referendum, what this showed is that people weren't taken

in, so they didn't believe Paul Nuttal

on his claims about his own past or present

and they didn't believe Ukip's falsehood that Labour

is trying to somehow subvert the will of

the British people. Where does this leave

Paul Nuttal, your leader, I mean, his credibility has been

shot to pieces during this And, you know, I have to say,

again, it was a poor show Paul came under ten days of

increased, incredible pressure from the Guardian and other left-wing

papers, coming out But it was his own people who put

the falsehoods on his website. One press officer who

has now stepped down. But this guy, he shouldn't

be in Westminster. He's a terrible, terrible, you know,

candidate for Westminster. Let's leave the discussion

about Stoke. Jeremy Corbyn, how much longer can

those on the left of the Labour Party tolerate Jeremy Corbyn

when he is clearly a toxic force I don't think he's a toxic

force to the electorate. We've got to see how

Labour develops in I believe Labour will

improve in the polls. Well, Labour was one point ahead

of the Conservatives before the attempted removal of Jeremy

Corbyn which was defeated and then, of course, Theresa May, an unelected

Prime Minister, became Prime Minister and there is

and has been a honeymoon period. I think when Labour

is speaking to the bread-and-butter concerns of people

on education, on jobs, on living conditions, on housing, I believe

Labour will improve in the polls and we will see that

in the months to come. Do you believe that

I mean, for Labour, Labour may improve in the polls,

but I think you'll find there's going to be

a long time for that improvement to come

to fruition. I think we are going to be

talking years and years. In the early 2000,

we had our troubles as a party. I think Labour are in

exactly the same place. It took us years and years

to recover and I think it will Just very briefly,

Mike Hookum, I mean, what does Ukip need to do now to win

another seat in parliament? You seem to have failed

spectacularly in most areas. Well, this Stoke seat was 72

on our list of seats to take. We will look at what

we've done, maybe things that we can improve on,

and we will come back fighting. We'll keep on fighting,

because we know we're right. And I send out a personal plea

to every Labour Party member, please, please, please,

keep Jeremy Corbyn because every time he opens his mouth,

he puts a smile on my face. Now, hospitals across

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire are paying out more than ever

on temporary health care staff despite the introduction

of a Government cap Research by the BBC

has shown that one hospital is spending more than three

times than it was five years ago. Mealtime at Harrogate District

Hospital, but is this kind of familiarity becoming

a thing of the past? The trust which runs the hospital

is one of many in the region to see an increase

in spending on temporary Harrogate and district NHS Trust saw

an increase in spending on agency staff of around

42% over five years. But even that was one

of the smaller increases. Freedom of information

requests submitted by the Sunday Politics show some trusts

seeing huge rises in temporary staff Calderdale and Huddersfield

NHS Trust has seen its spend on agency medical staff rise

by 212% to more than ?19 million. The mid Yorkshire trust,

one of the region's biggest, has seen the total rise

235% to ?29 million. But it's in Hull in

East Yorkshire where we find the biggest

increase - 247%. Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

Trust insist the amount it spends on agency health care staff makes up

just 2.6% of its annual budget and that its figures last year

of ?8.3 million actually compare Some in the industry think that

maybe of the agencies themselves By and large, over the last few

years, it's skyrocketed because nobody has been watching how

much the agencies are charging, shall we say, and there were some

that were going in charging phenomenal amounts because they know

that there is such a demand But if you're just looking

at the cost, it could be increased demand or it

could be that people are charging more for

the temporary staff. The NHS introduced caps in late

2015 not only the amount hospitals could spend on agency

health care staff but also on the amount agencies were allowed to

charge the NHS for A move that was welcomed by both

Janet's agency It brings a level playing field

and common rates of pay We have a cap ceiling

of ?6.3 million and we hope by the end of this financial year,

we'll be a million short of that spend on that cap,

which is a good thing. But again, we've got a real focus

on recruitment of staff to make sure we're filling up our

establishment and also we have a less reliance on temporary

and agency staff. But some think the cap is nothing

more than a sticking plaster that doesn't address deeper

problems within NHS staffing. They don't deal with the underlying

issue, which is around the retention The only reason we have

agency staff in the first place is because we don't have

enough permanent staff. The NHS says agency spending

has fallen in three quarters of hospital trusts and that that

saved ?600 million, but as our research has shown, in Yorkshire

and Lincolnshire at least, Richard Burgon, some eye

watering sums there. Do hospitals really

have any choice but to hire agency doctors and nurses

if they're going to meet demand? Well, first of all,

I would say with a heavy heart I believe Theresa May

is in denial about that. But in relation to this

particular story about agency staff, obviously,

agency staff can cost more and we've got to look at the facts that we're

not training enough nurses. The Government has

recently announced it's scrapping bursaries for nurses

and that has led to less people applying to train to be nurses

and Labour has called on the Government to reverse that

plan because we are going to have to rely more and more

upon agency staff if we are not training up nurses and if we're not

planning our NHS in the proper way. John Proctor, the Government has

introduced supposedly this cap on agency staffing, but it's not

working in many areas, is it? The fact is that we

have a fluctuating demand within the NHS

and other recent years, we have seen the peak time,

which is the winter of course, we have seen that peak occur

and the agency staff are required Look, I think what we

need is a sensible, mature debate about the whole

of the NHS and its funding. It's been recently suggested

a Royal Commission... Richard Burgon, says

the NHS is in crisis. But it's recently been floated that

a Royal Commission There needs to be some sort

of political consensus, in my view, on the way

forward for the NHS. We can't keep lurching around

between political parties in terms of who is doing it right,

doing is doing is wrong. We'll spend more money

than you'll spend and our way The fact is that

Labour chose to fight the Copeland by-election

on the NHS and they lost. Do you accept we're ever

going to have a political Well, we'll have a political

consensus on the NHS when we have a Government that

will agree to properly fund the NHS, but I do believe

the NHS is in crisis. They say a picture

tells a thousand words. People have seen the pictures

of elderly patients waiting on trolleys in the corridor, people

have seen the pictures of the baby waiting on to plastic chairs

rather than in a bed. One of my own constituents,

Lynne Dexter, in Seacroft, was asked in a hospital

in Leeds to sleep in the shower room that had recently been used

because there weren't enough beds. The NHS is in crisis

and something needs Well, we do keep hearing stories

like those all the time. We had patients

treated in exactly the same way when Labour

were in Government as well. The fact of the matter

is that people are living longer in this country and right

across the world as well. The NHS was set up

in the first place believing and thinking that actually

the demands on its resources would go down because people would be

healthier and so there The reverse clearly has happened

over all these years and that's great news that

people are living longer. That said, we need to deal

with the issues that are at hand. Where will all this extra money come

from that Labour is pledging Well, they say that

socialism is the language of priorities and the priority has to

be, amongst other things, our NHS. And we need to clamp down on tax

avoidance, tax evasion, we would reverse some of the tax

cuts for the very richest to impact, tax cuts

that have benefited the super-rich

at a time of crisis. But just to go back to something

John said, it's not the case that the NHS was in that

situation when Labour was in office. In 2010 when Labour left Government,

satisfaction levels with the NHS This Government have been

in power for seven years I will let you very briefly

respond to that, John. The fact is that the Conservatives

have spent more money on the NHS time and time again,

more than Labour have ever done. Now, it's been a week

of budget announcements from local authorities across

Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. We have 16 councils and the message

appears to be the same. Tax bills will rise but services

will still be cut as there are millions of pounds

that need to be saved. 11 of our authorities are increasing

bills by just under 5%. That means that if you live

in a band D council tax property, a typical family home, you can expect

to see your bill go up Residents in York will face

the smallest rise of 3.7%. The increases also include money

for adult social care, varying between two and 3%

of the total increase. But as the Hull West and Hessle MP

Alan Johnson pointed out this week at Westminster, the amount local

authorities can raise for social The amount raised doesn't begin

to match the scale of the problem. The precept in 2016-17 raised

?382 million which is less than 3% of council spending

on adult social care, but it would have been a very

welcome 3% increase were it not for the fact that implementation

of the national living wage cost those same councils

an estimated ?612 million. Wiping out the additional

money and leaving councils with a deficit on this issue

alone of ?220 million. That was former Health

Secretary Alan Johnson there. John Proctor, do you accept

that this extra 3%, many areas are charging on the council

tax bill, is nowhere As I said a few moments

ago, people are living longer. People are living

in their own homes. It is not a toxic mix, it's

the reality of We have been in a financial

crisis in this country, thanks to the previous

Labour Government, and the Conservative Party have been

doing their very best the last seven years to rectify

that and get us out of this The health sector, the social care

sector, will always need more money. Are we really saying

that a blank cheque? Clearly, we are not and we can't say

that as a nation, can we? What we've got to do

is make sure that we've got a strong economy

and that the economy can then find the other services that people

require and need All right, so we can't

fund better social care Well, we need a strong

economy but we also need a Government committed

to these important services. It is a fact that the

Conservative Government has decided to cut funding to local

councils by around 50%. Leeds council has had

its budget cut by 50% The Conservatives try to blame

the local councils but that is then The Conservatives did

try to do a sweetheart deal with the council

in Surrey to let them off

the hook when it came to this the other week,

so if it is good enough for Surrey, it

should be good enough for Leeds City Council and councils

in our region two. And this appears to be

the main problem here, John Proctor, is that leafy,

wealthier southern councils can raise far more money

through their council tax than the northern councils

and we are the poor relation. They can't raise more

money in terms of the quantum of money

that they are raising. Again, the Surrey example is frankly

neither here nor there. that Leeds gets compared with Surrey

isn't really the issue. What the issue really

is is the support that people... So you don't think there

was a backroom deal done there because the Chancellor,

the Health Secretary With the greatest respect,

sorry just isn't where Where we should be saying is, well,

actually, why do people in Manchester per person,

why does Manchester get more than those

in Leeds? And I and other colleagues in

Yorkshire have been saying that We need to make better

representation and point to that. All we say in terms of sorry,

that isn't really We're just going to have to accept,

Richard Burgon, we're all Whether its council tax

or central taxation, to pay for the growing

adult social care bill. Well, we need to get

the economy really We need to clamp down on tax

avoidance and tax evasion by the I don't see why the Government

has given tax cuts to multimillionaires while at the same

time making these cuts which are affecting people, some of the most

vulnerable people in our region. Will he do what Richard Burgon

is suggesting, perhaps look at tax loopholes in the budget in order

to pay for social care? The Government has

consistently looked at all tax loopholes and has clamped down

consistently right across the piece The notion that you can somehow tax

the super-rich and they're going to pay for everything,

it is rightly ridiculous. There isn't that sum of money to do

that and we're talking vast sums of money

here that are required. If you would believe

everything that Richard says. As I've said already,

what we need to look at, I think, is a royal

commission to seriously debate and seriously look across

the piece at adult social care and the NHS

in the round. But isn't this going back to

the Labour politics of envy is back Your predecessors

were taxing the rich Labour socialism was rejected

when Margaret Thatcher came along. What I'm talking

about is an offensive, morally offensive situation, where

you have certain multimillionaires paying less tax than the cleaners

who clean their offices. But it is not the case that tax

justice in and of itself will provide sufficient money

for everything we need It's also the case that we need

to get our economy moving with investment for long-term

growth and infrastructure Well, we will look ahead

to the budget next week because the big day is coming,

but thank you both for your thoughts today,

Richard Burgon and John Proctor. And, as always, we'll hand you back

now to Andrew Neil in London. 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.