rain from the north southwards. the rain easing off this afternoon. still some damp weather along western coast and hills. it would be murky over the tops of the hills. miles from most later. temperatures pushing into double figures. still chilly across east anglia. overnight stays cloudy. there will be another pulse of rain developing across scotla nd pulse of rain developing across scotland before heading south across england and wales on the same frontal zone. it would be stuck gci’oss frontal zone. it would be stuck across the uk for a few days. a mild night for most. it will turn misty over the tops of the hills. for monday, a similar story. the rain tending to ease off from the north. a lot of cloud through the day. the mildest weather across the west, with temperatures in double figures. but still cool in east anglia and south—east england. hello, this is bbc news, i'm gavin esler. in a moment, dateline london, but first the headlines at 11:30. theresa may is expected to reveal the most detailed insight yet

into her approach to brexit negotiations in a speech on tuesday. the northern ireland secretary says it's likely that new elections will be held for the stormont assembly, after the resignation of northern ireland's deputy first minister, martin mcguinness. my concern is that an election campaign will be divisive and will lead to greater distance between the parties at the end of that. there's a warning that queues of people arriving at uk airports will lengthen significantly if immigration and customs checks become more stringent after brexit — unless more border staff are hired. hello, and welcome to dateline london.

does the trump presidency promise a new golden age for the united states? us troops head to poland. and britain's prime minister promises to work for a "shared society", while the red cross says there's a humanitarian crisis in the british health service. separating the facts from the fake news today, my guests are michael goldfarb of politico, nesrine malik, who is a sudanesejournalist, stefanie bolzen of die welt, and iain martin, formerly editor of the scotsman, now editor of reaction. very good to see you. it's all a conspiracy against donald trump by us intelligence and the media, or it's a conspiracy by donald trump's supporters — and perhaps russian intelligence — to help trump become president and embarrass the media with fake news. either way, how far can mr trump's team of talented family members, billionaires, ex—generals and others heal america's obvious divisions? this is the week when he will become president of the united states. he talks about bringing the country together. people want that. will it happen?

no, it will not happen. the country is divided. it's not a new thing. it is not something that has happened in the last year and a half since donald trump declared he would run for president and he has become a divisive figure. the country has been building to this since you were a correspondent in washington, gavin. you wrote a book about how angry americans were. sometimes, when the economy is bad, that sense of being at a distance from your fellow citizens gets pushed to the side when the economy is ok. the economy hasn't been ok since the crash in 2008 for many, many. even if he was a more emollient and traditional politician, i don't see that he could bring the country together. barack obama is exactly that. he was never able to bridge the divide. the other part of your question, about who do you trust? he's extraordinarily good at exploiting that question. "who do you trust?"

after decades and decades in which the traditional news media, and i include the bbc and the new york times, have had their reputations comprehensively trashed. part of the division is that 36 million people every day get their news from sources that are decidedly nontraditional. who's exploiting whom ? the traditional way of finding it would be to dig and dig and figure it out. there is no time in the modern news cycle. it is an extraordinary change of historical circumstance. the other part of this, and so many things have gone on in the last week, but to have the man who will become president of the united states in a fight with us intelligence services and suggesting there could be warmer relations with russia. that, in any time in the last 50 years, would seem like that sentence got mixed up. many things sound like they could never have happened before. that's the answer to your question.

donald trump and his coterie not only cannot heal divides, they don't want to heal divides. they understand that his power and the way he got to where he is today is by exploiting divides. in his last press conference, that he gave when he was in a fight with cnn and buzzfeed. when things get calm, donald trump gets nervous and has to perform on content and substance. so he tries to pick fights all the time. because then the polarisation is reinstated. he is going to govern from the fringes. he's going to govern people on his side and alienate everyone else. whether that includes the cia, the republican party, whoever it is, he knows that all he needs is the support of those people who voted for him. they got him to where he is, and they'll keep him there. until, for example, if we're going to put a tax on mexico

to pay for the wall — no, that's congress that does that. republicans in congress have to somehow work with him otherwise any of his domestic programmes will not happen. that's true, but we have to remember that even though some republicans made very wise, lofty pronouncements on trump and how they are not happy he is here and they tried so hard to make sure that there was a decent candidate, but he brought them back from the brink. he brought them back from death. they were in the hinterland. people thought they were out, and they are now back in the driving seat. they need to work with him to ensure that they have a future in government. there's all kinds of parts of this for germany as well. we will get to the nato bit ina minute. i was thinking, the german elections are coming up. germany is clearly quite alarmed that the kind of intervention which now most people, except wilder conspiracy theorists, believe russia did at least play an interventionist role in the us. if it can happen there, it can happen in germany, presumably. there is a lot of nervousness ahead of the elections there in september. already there have

been cyber attacks, for example on the bundestag, the german parliament. and everyone is expecting more russian intervention in domestic german politics. for example, there was a big story when the refugee crisis started in 2015, a fake story about a russian girl being raped by refugees. that came out and was a manipulated story. what we see now in the us is happening in europe as well. we will all have to deal with this? yes, and it is a big challenge. it is an extraordinary week, and we will get on to theresa may's fight with the doctors in britain, which is politically very brave. we also have, which is politically quite brave for an american president to say, he thinks there might be something a bit wrong within american intelligence. that is quite brave. it is very brave when you consider what's happened to some of the previous presidents who've

got into a row with the cia. jfk springs to mind, and so does richard nixon. what on earth ever happened to him? he is playing a dangerous but quite clever game. he understands media and how to disrupt media and blow apart all of the traditional structures in a way that gives him clout. ultimately, the problem for him is the promises he makes essentially defy economic logic. he talks about increasing entitlements, lowering taxes, protectionism, but then also making life better for american workers. well, prices will go up if america goes protectionist. so it's very difficult to see how he can, between now and the midterms — which is the beauty of the american system, he has two years — if in those two years it does not go economically quite as he has

promised, people in michigan and those sorts of states that voted for him, then he has a problem. of course, his response then will be to blame congress. he will be the man who says, "i tried to do all this stuff and it is just because these two parties are completely useless." this is the swamp that we have to drain. he won so narrowly and on such a quirk of the electoral system, he starts with hillary having had almost 3 million more votes in the electoral college. his approval ratings, as they would probably have been for hillary, are the worst of any president going into office. one quick economics thought. dick darman, reagan's budget director, said, "we break it now, we fix it later." in other words, spend money and worry about the debt later. that is presumably what he will try to do. i don't think his mind goes as far back as dick darman and reagan. or even as far forward as the midterms! ijust don't think that's how it works.

the interesting thing to watch, aside from his twitter feed, and i do wish they would stop — this is where he plays the american mainstream media like a fiddle. who cares what he tweets any more? we're not supposed to normalise donald trump. but this is his normal behaviour, at 3am he says something crazy. the real action is now focused on congress. it's completely in the hands of the republicans. they are a deeply ideological party. so we should be looking at what they do more than what he does. and knowing that, we have to look at which republicans will stand up to him. in the senate, guys likejohn mccain, who has just been re—elected, he will be 80 shortly, he has six free years, one and a half trump terms, and given the state of the democrats, it's entirely possible he could run again and get two terms. he has one and a half terms to face up to a guy likejohn mccain. in the senate, there's possibilities

of standing and pushing back against a new administration that's very short on common political sense. but the problem the rest of us have is that a president, as you know, has the most power in terms of executive order in an emergency. and that is why people are worried. people are quite scared going into friday, that in the event of a terror attack, or some unforeseen foreign event, the imperial presidency, as it has grown in the last 40, 50 years, has huge power. he has freedom notjust to tweet but to act on those tweets and to take action... and he has support. the point you made earlier about him defying logic by trying to propose economic measures that are not doable, we sat here for months before the election saying, "trump cannot win because it defies logic." he won because he defied logic. his supporters do not care.

people who support him blindly do not care about what he promises on the economy. there is no benchmark. he can blame everything on his opponents — like with brexit, if it goes wrong, it is the fault of the remainers. once the formula is set, there's very little he can do that people can benchmark and erode his support. let's move on. russians — and friends of the kremlin — hate to be reminded that the soviet union was on the nazi side when world war ii started. stalin and hitler carved up poland between them, and then, when stalinjoined the winning side, his comradely forces occupied poland and imposed communist governments. now poland is being reinforced by us troops and other nato forces, his comradely forces occupied poland and imposed communist governance. now poland is being reinforced by us troops and other nato forces, so how serious is the prospect of a new conflict in europe in the 21st century? this is something germans and people in scandinavia in particular are very sensitive about for obvious reasons. and it's not only about poland,

it's also about the reassurance measures that have started in poland, bulgaria and romania. i was in lithuania to watch the final exercise of nato troops in december before they start deploying. the us is going into poland and the british will go to estonia, i think. there is around 5,000 troops going to be in this region, reassuring measures. if you go to lithuania, they have a long, tragic story of occupation by the germans, and then of course by russia. and there is a tangible fear, people are really scared there. if you look at the numbers, 5,000 nato troops, but if you look a couple of miles over the border, 100,000 russian troops on the western border of russia, and you have missiles in kaliningrad that can be equipped with nuclear weapons. so if you talk to people in nato, the question is, will we really see a state—on—state war? is this really possible? and you must say, well, we had

georgia, we had ukraine. on the other hand, you have hybrid warfare, which is constantly going on. we just talked about trump and manipulation of the german election. in the balkans, there are constantly things you can observe going on with strange ngos, manipulation, energy, power and so on and so forth. so there is a lot of destabilisation going on. how do you see this? the way you characterise this, we've put in a trip wire, it is a deterrent, it's not to fight a war but to say that we're interested, nato is interested. which underlines... look, it's 100 years this year since the russian revolution. i think we need to start thinking about russia again seriously, try to understand russian psychology. history gives us some quite basic lessons. don't invade russia. don't try and provoke russia. russia is so vast that armies can be swallowed up in it. essentially, the thing to do

is to try and contain russia. suggest to russia that we are serious about western defence, and we need to start thinking again... put brexit to one side. the much bigger european question is the integrity of the west and western security. and we have got out of the habit of having to think about this in the last 25 years or so, and it is now back front and centre. part of that is that at the end of the cold war, to put it in simple terms, the west won the cold war. nato won the cold war, and there was no big conference or congress of vienna, there was no versailles treaty. the russians have reasons to believe they were discounted because they were weak. that was perhaps, looking at it, a long—term mistake. it was, and one that people have not learned from in the past. i know that it is tedious when people hark back to nazi germany, but it is the same mistake people made with germany in world war i. a sense that it was the end

of history, that the victors had dominated, and there was no sort of tapering down plan. one of the main lessons that staggeringly people have not learned, to see how brexit has played out and the trump election has played out, and i think if you are an immigrant, these things are clear in your head. but that nato and the european union and all these things happened because there was a fear that there could be a big rupturing incident. world war ii, people think it won't happen again, but these things have receded from the public consciousness in a way that i find really strange. and in a way that i think people of the south have not forgotten. and they do feel that these threats are realand imminent. in answer to the question you made the first place, how dangerous and how feasible is it, how realistic is it that we could descend into a conflict, i think it is entirely feasible. blunder into it. blunder into it with a series

of unfortunate events. this is where the world war i analogy really comes in. the steps that led to the conflict beginning were a series of blunders. the incorrect diplomatic assumptions about how far governments will go. i would be careful about the congress of vienna. poland was partitioned at the congress of vienna, and the poles still remember that. but to bring it back to donald trump, i mean, it is something that we still can't know. it has been reported today, actually, that in late december, barack obama put new sanctions on russia because of the allegations of hacking into the dnc and trying to interfere with the american election. on the very day that he did that, the incoming head of the national security agency, retired general mike flynn, was on the phone to the russian embassy. in fact, apparently, throughout this transition period, he is in regular contact with the russian embassy

and has been a regular guest on russia today. you begin to wonderjust what kind of deals are being made. the devil's advocate position is, donald trump is right about this. we need a better relationship with russia. maybe he can do it. maybe having someone from exxon, used to dealing with russia, is a good thing. it could be good, but what does that mean in terms of your european partners since 1945? rex tillerson, who is secretary of state designate, said, how would you have dealt with the invasion of ukraine? and he said... but there's a reason why they say that vladimir putin has a lot of respect for angela merkel, because she has been very firm on the sanctions. she has not botched it. she has stuck to the sanctions, which have harmed, by the way, german industry a lot. but she sees the broader picture, and this is what she sees through. i agree with you, you need to find a new language with russia.

all the confrontation and polemic doesn't take us anywhere. but the big question at the end of the day is how do you read putin? they say that he is like a dancer with a woman. when you step back, he will come forward. so this balance, to keep that balance right... he is classically russian. he is a prerevolutionary figure, in a sense. although he uses the techniques of the kgb and fsb — you never really leave the kgb — the way that he thinks about russia is he wants to restore a concept of respect for russia and russia being a great power. and only once, other than possibly during the revolution and the end of the first world war, has russia been properly fully defeated. that was from ‘89 until 2000. and the response, the swing back was the choice of someone like putin to restore an idea of russian pride. and that is what he is about.

people have cottoned onto that a while ago, but the response to putin has been to laugh at him, which was what was going on four or five years ago, and recently to basically disintegrate in the face of this resolve from russia. it was interesting that in the headlines it said, the operation of nato troops around poland was called atlantic resolve. at the same time that europe is falling apart and america's detaching itself from europe and potentially from nato. so don't laugh at him but also do not disintegrate in the face of the russian determination. let's move on. in britain, we have had prime ministers talk of the big society and the shared society, of those left behind, hardworking people, the squeezed middle and jams — those just about managing. this week, we also heard the national health service faces a "humanitarian crisis".

instead of debating acronyms and slogans, how serious are the social problems facing britain, in particular those associated with the ever—spiralling cost of health care? whatever you think of it, it's quite brave for downing street to say that family doctors, the most respected profession in britain pretty much, need to work longer, and if they don't, they are going to be clubbed. opinion polls suggest there is voter resentment about the deal done a few years ago which gave gps shorter hours. even so, i think you're right. in the middle of this crisis, it is a bold, brave, somewhat reckless strategy. there is also a degree of... there is something seriously wrong here, and it's a problem not so much strictly with the nhs. it is a problem with social care, a problem that western countries have. britain's population above the age of 85 will double in the next ten years. and britain has not had a proper grown—up conversation about how that should be dealt with and paid for. what's happening is

that that pressure is then loaded onto the nhs in accident and emergency. look at the headlines from 20 years ago, from 30 years ago. the nhs is always in crisis. especially in january. and it's not aleppo, it's not mosul. i think it's an exaggeration. does germany do things better? your health service in general costs more in terms of share of gdp. it does cost more. i find it fascinating that almost every day here, you have a headline about the nhs. in germany, if there's a headline about the health service, it's probably if they pay for a massage or acupuncture treatment. we should be so lucky! here, it's about life and death. it is people in miserable conditions in a&e. you think, i do not want to get ill. they have brilliant doctors, but the capacity is completely... it is money, isn't it? yes.

in germany, you pay around 16% of your salary into a contribution insurance system. it's not tax paid like in the uk. but ijust looked at the numbers. in germany, per capita, you have eight hospital beds per capita. in the uk, it's 2.9 beds per capita. and gdp is around 11 or 12% in germany. in the uk, 8%. the simple thing is you have to pay more money to solve the problems. and you have a lot of people in the uk, and you haven't built up, on the contrary, there'sjust been savings and savings on public services while more people come into the country. and then you have the demographic problem when people get older. but of course, who wants to raise taxes? you need more money but two things as well. one is not to be partisan when dealing with it, on the part of the labour party and conservative party. whenever you see a debate about the nhs, it's always posturing. it is never people trying

to find a common ground. the posturing and partisanship harms it. it's a real political hot potato, which is why there are all these headlines. if you observe it over the last 20 years, no—one in government will say, "this is something that predates us and will probably happen after we leave. " maybe everyone should calm down. everyone is trying to prove that, a, there is no issue, which is what theresa may was trying to do by deflecting it onto gps, saying the nhs is fine, but it's the gps not pulling their weight. or if there is an issue, it is one precipitated by legacy. that it's something we picked up from the government before. there is a lot of dishonesty, political fear and partisanship. and politicalfear, we know that one person who went in to see tony blair to be promoted was just terribly worried he would get health. to get the health minstry is a bit of a difficultjob. maybe that is why they have not replaced jeremy hunt after all these years.

no—one else raised his hand in cabinet and said, "i'll take it." jeremy's doing such a bad job, someone has to fix it. it is a very difficultjob. a very difficultjob. the nhs, after the monarchy, the thing that defines being a modern briton, the sense of pride in the nhs... it was in the opening ceremony of the olympics games. and it is a big deal. i come from america and when asked if i would ever move back, i think, how much money, even with some form of obamacare, which won't be around in a month, but the amount of money i have to earn before i pay tax just to insure my family... whereas here, that whole thing has been lifted from my shoulders. there is a cultural fixation on it. i think there is a cultural fixation on the nhs in this country and people think that there was this... there was an interview with immigrants to see how well they've integrated in the uk. when asked what the nhs stands for, one said, "national health service", and then someone said, "no, it stand

for 'the envy of the world'." which is why no country on earth has copied the model. this is the curious thing about the british. i accept that there needs to be more money, particularly on social care. but almost alone in europe or in the world is this concept of a massive national service, run effectively from a desk in whitehall, with a staff of more than1 million people, highly centralised, and whenever there is a problem in a part of the system, it becomes a massive national scandal. this is not the way the french or the germans or the italians do it. but the health service has evolved to this point and changes began going back to the 1980s, when there is an idea of starving the beast coming from conservatism. and people would get fed up with social provision and might want to go private. and spending increased through

the ‘80s, rocketed in the ‘90s. and look, the other thing, and this might come out wrong, but because the population of this country shot up after 2004, this put a tremendous stress that has not been budgeted for or accurately assessed by all the consultants who are meant to figure out that. that is certainly true, but as well as more money, the opposite is the case. we need a more partisan discussion because we need to break the consensus and there has to be room for new ideas, like what germany, france and italy are doing. let's move on. that's it for dateline london for this week. you can comment on the programme on twitter and engage with our guests @gavinesler. we're back next week at the same time — make a date with dateline london. goodbye. good morning. the transition to

milder weather is well under way across milder weather is well under way a cross m ost milder weather is well under way across most parts of the country, along with that thawing of snow on the hills and melting snow, replacing it with grey skies. that is the way the weather is going to look for the next few days, wet weather, are intending to ease for some of us later this afternoon as the worst condition spread southwards. chilly across east anglia, but for most of us temperatures rising through the day, 10 degrees in the west later on. overnight tonight, another pulse of rain setting in first across scotla nd rain setting in first across scotland before diving southwards across england and wales. a murky night with fog badges on the hills, mild and frost free for most, chilly across east anglia and south—east england. for monday, we do it all again, the same weather front, polls of rain easing from the north, lots

of rain easing from the north, lots of cloud, still bits pieces of light rain and drizzle, still some fog patches, but mild, up to 10 degrees. still be chilly air is not far away, east anglia and south—east, four degrees in norwich, six in the london area. that is your weather. this is bbc news. the headlines: the prime minister prepares to outline her aims in brexit negotiations. labour leaderjeremy corbyn says the economy could suffer. she appears to be heading us in the direction of a bargain basement economy on the shores of europe, where we have low levels of corporate taxation, we will lose access to half of our export markets. it seems an extremely risky strategy. warnings of longer queues at passport control after brexit, unless there's an increase in border force staff. a growing number of democrats are planning not to attend donald trump's inauguration, following his comments about a veteran civil rights campaigner. also in the next hour, the planned billion pound restoration of the palace of

westminster. mps launch an inquiry into concerns it may be costing too much. and in half an hour, mice, madness and mario — all the latest goings on in the tech world in click.