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. 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 very 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 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 0k 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 ture, 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 in a 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. well, 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. and 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. that's 1.5 trump terms. and, given the state of the democrats, it's entirely possible he could run again and get two terms. he has 1.5 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 that he has, and 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. and people are quite scared going into friday, is 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 in 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, 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 is 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. 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 than 1 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 19805, 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. hello there, good morning. we are turning things milder from the west overnight tonight and into tomorrow. the temporary and nine most will go back to rain. as we head towards dawn there will be some weather towards yorkshire. that eight or nine degrees in places but quite cold further east. wintry weather pushing through in lincolnshire and east anglia. icy patches on the road through the morning. that whether fizzles out through the morning and in the afternoon there is a lot of cloud and some rain. a drab afternoon for many. quite mild out west. chilly for eastern areas such as norwich. it will stay chilly in the south—east. into the early and middle parts of the coming week. further north and west a bit more cloud and rain and a half definitely a little bit milder. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is ben bland. our top stories: donald trump hits back at a prominent civil rights politician who refuses to recognise the result of the presidential election. struggling through freezing temperatures: aid agencies say thousands of migrants in europe need more help. success for spacex, as it launches its first rocket since an explosion in september. hello. donald trump has prompted the outrage of politicians and entertainers after criticising john lewis, a well—respected civil