Burnham's bloodbath of the Starmerites | The News Agents

The bloodbath of the Starmarites.

We have a new cabinet for Andy Byrne and what does it tell us about where he's going?If you were disloyal to the Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister Keir Starmer, you are going to be rewarded.John Healey, congratulations, you're Chancellor of the Exchequer.Wes Streeting, you're now the Defence Secretary.Ed Miliband, well done, you're now the Foreign Secretary.If you think your political career is over, then what do you do?

The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity.

This is a global production.

Life's hard out there, isn't it, at the moment?You've heard me talk about the doorstep in Makerfield.We need to, every day, think, well, what can we do just to take that little bit of pressure off people's shoulders, just to give them that little extra sense that help is coming?We need to be a cost of living.government and getting that cost of living down and looking at all possible ways of doing that.

Andy Burnham was chosen by the Labour Party to communicate what Labour was about.In his first 24 hours, he has been clear.This is a government with the cost of living and dealing with the cost of living at its core.He has a new cabinet made in his own image, but the cost of that has been that nearly every ally of Keir Starmer's has been shown the door.

And after that purge, life seems hard out there.those ex -cabinet ministers and they're making themselves heard.Are they about to become a thorn in Andy Burnham's side?Welcome to the News Agents.

The News Agents.

It's Jon.It's Lewis.And we now have a new cabinet, as we were saying there, a cabinet which in so many ways, both ideologicallyregionally, is clearly, as I said, made in the image of Andy Burnham, as we might expect.There was a lot of talk about the end of tribalism and factionalism from Andy Burnham.I think there are a lot of people who have been dispatched from the cabinet, as we might discuss, who might feel that the opening salvos of Burnham's government have not necessarily shown that sort of come -by -our kind of approach that he said he would have.

But anyway, the big headlines are John Healey, rather unexpectedly for most people, actually ends up being Chancellor.It was neither Ed Miliband nor Shabana Mahmood.Ed Miliband becomes the Foreign Secretary.Shabana Mahmood stays as the Home Secretary.Wes Streeting, again, perhaps a bit unexpected, had been briefed at the weekend.But I think when he sat in the chair you were sitting in now, John, when he was in here in his brief period of rest, his little couple of weeks off between government jobs, I doubt if I'd said to him there, do you expect to become Defence Secretary?

I'm not necessarily sure he thought that would be the top of the list.nonetheless there he is.Yvette Cooper moves from being the Foreign Secretary to the Health Secretary and there are other appointments as well but broadly speaking what we can say is that this is a cabinet which has moved in a leftward direction towards the so -called soft left of the Labour Party.Most of, not all, but most of Keir Starmer's closest allies have been dispatched, removed from the cabinet.And it is a cabinet which, again, regionally as well, very much a cabinet of the north of England, only two MPs from London, which when you consider that Labour have about 50 MPs in the capital, quite remarkable.from the Northwest, from Yorkshire, in every sense we can say that Andy Burnham has remade this government and he has done so firmly despite all of that talk of, as I say, a more pluralist approach, he has done so in a manner which he thinks reflects him.

And Lewis, you make the vital point that the people that were closest to Keir Starmer have goneAnd what that has done is create turbulence and waves with those supporters of Starmer saying, so what's happened is that if you were disloyal to the Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister Keir Starmer, you are going to be rewarded.You know, John Healey, you delivered the coup de grace.that brought down Keir Starmer.Congratulations, you're Chancellor of the Exchequer.Wes Streeting, you walked out of the Cabinet too and said that Keir Starmer had to have a leadership contest.

Congratulations, you're now the Defence Secretary.Ed Miliband, you said it was unsustainable for Keir Starmer to carry on.Well done, you're now the Foreign Secretary.And so there is a feeling that within the government that if you have been disloyal, You get a promotion and if you are loyal to the serving Prime Minister, you're out on your ear.And I thought it was really telling this tweet that came this morning from Darren Jones, who was you know, the kind of Prime Minister's first secretary, the sort of, you know, number two almost to the Prime Minister, it felt like, in the job that he had to be the voice of the Prime Minister, putting out about the cut to VAT on domestic electricity bills, saying, good news that VAT will be cut on electricity bills.It's a simple way for families to save a few quid and to mechanically help to keep inflation that little bit lower.

So far, so supportive.But the digital ID program was was unfunded.The government will have to set out how it will pay for its new policies at the budget.Wow.They didn't wait long before he kind of slipped a knife in to what Andy Burnham was doing as Prime Minister.

No, and the irony is that Darren Jones, when he was sacked yesterday, the last tweet he had said that, you know, goodbye, see you in September.He didn't even last 24 hours before getting sufficiently irritated by something too serious.John, stick the knife in on his successes in government.I mean, just on that, I mean, I do think it doesn't strike me necessarily as quite the flex that Darren Jones might think it is to basically say, hey, look, we came up with this thing.We had no idea we were going to pay for it.So good luck.

I mean, that in itself is not necessarily a complete model of good governance, right, which happened under the Starmer administration and under him.Nonetheless, you know, let's just take it on its own terms before we get into the factualism.I think what was very interesting about what we heard from Andy Burdum, you know, that address at his first cabinet, it is very clear and it has been very clear from his first words outside number 10 and in that cabinet meeting that he wants the message to have a sort of clarion call quality to it, to be crystal clear that this is a government which is focused mercilessly on cost of living.Now one of the problems with the Starmer government and I think one of his diagnoses about the problems with the Starmer government is that it seemed it never had any particular clarity on what it was focused on.Sometimes it was growth, sometimes it was cost of living, sometimes it was standards, you know, foreign policy.And of course, all these things are interconnected.

But, you know, they had five missions, they had, you know, milestones, all of those different things that kind of came and went.I think Burnham has concluded that the public who have caused the bandwidth for their attention is highly limited.He just wants to hammer that message again and again.This is a government which is focused on what you're concerned about, what I heard about in Makefield, which is cost of living.Hence, his first act is to reduce VAT or to eliminate VAT on energy bills, £45 saving for the average household.Now, you know, there are people who will say, and there's some validity to this, I think, that anchoring your politics around cost of living can be tricky and could backfire because obviously there is so much about cost of living that the government

control.We've seen that with the state of Hormuz, international energy prices, food inflation, Ukraine.This happens again and again.Shocks, economic shocks, which repeatedly and consistently affect prices, affect wages, interest rates and so on, all of which the government doesn't have that many levers to address.I think the counterpoint to that is that Burnham's probably right, which is he knows this is what people care about.He's heard about that in Makefield.

Everyone around the cabinet table knows that's what people care about.So the alternative is to sort of ignore it or to not talk about it, in which case people think you are oblivious to it and are out of touch.So I think an interesting first move for a government which I think is going to be pretty laser focused on these domestic bread and butter issues.

I think overwhelmingly it's been an incredibly sure -footed start from Burnham.You know, look, he's come in there.It took a long time to shape.cabinet, but cabinet reshuffles always take a long time.I'm sure a lot of people didn't get quite what they wanted and there's some disappointment in this.You know, all of that, I think that it's been sure -footed, clear -sighted.

There is a plan.I think the focus on cost of living is probably absolutely right.I mean, you know, think back to Trump's election affordability and the cost of living and the economy.These are the things that people are are concerned about.The worst thing you can do as a politician is what actually Trump is doing now is to pretend there is no cost of living issue and there is no affordability crisis in America.And I think he just seems completely out of touch with the real lives of ordinary Americans.

And I think that Andy Burnham reminding the cabinet around the table this morning about what they heard on the doorsteps in Makefield and how a few quid can help, I think is a really important thing.So I think from all of that, it's very, very sure -footed.But Labour hasn't got a great history of killing off its leaders and the Tory party can tell you that when you kill off...leader, there will be a bunch of people left behind who were loyal to that leader who are going to cause trouble.It's happened, you know, it happened when John Major replaced Thatcher.It's happened again and again and again.

And, you know, sure enough, you've got a whole bunch of people now, not a majority, but there are some on the Labour backbenches now who have had held high office, who feel disaffected, who feel pissed off, who don't know why they're getting up in the morning because they haven't got teams of civil servants there waiting for their every command, thinking, God, well, maybe I'll cause a bit of trouble.

Yeah, I said, as I said on the show yesterday, I think that we were talking about, I think that it's a sort of tale of, you know, It's a tale of two groups within the Parliamentary Labour Party, how it will be over the next few months and beyond, which is, as you were saying yesterday, John, I think your median Labour MP on the backbenches of the Parliamentary Labour Party they're desperate for the government to succeed, particularly for the 2024 intake.Slender majorities in every direction.They know this is the last row of the dice.It's got to work.So there will be extra authority for Burnham.I'm sure we'll see that, not least because Stalmer had squandered so much of his.

But on the other hand, there is a group, a not insignificant group, of about 50 or 60, maybe a little bit more, of a Starmer faction.Starmer never had much of a faction.The irony is, is that the way that Burnham has perhaps treated some of these people may have helped gel them into a bit of a faction.Who, as you say, John, I mean, they have got, they've woken up this morning.They were all in a pub last night, courtesy of the sun.We saw that, Keir Starmer having a few, you know, I think fair play to him.

Yeah, absolutely.You know, absolutely.A few, few pints down the pub, Rachel Reeves there looking like the weight of the world has been lifted off her shoulders.And that's all nice for an afternoon, but then you wake up the next day and you think to yourself, okay, what now?What now?The red boxes have gone, the ministerial car has gone, all that activity.

all that work, the 18 hour days, all of those decisions, nothing.You're still an MP of course, but in terms of actual executive power, gone.And that's difficult.That's really hard to deal with.And so if you think your political career is over, then what do you do?You have very little incentive not to when people like you and I call or invite them on a show like this you think yeah maybe I will go and maybe I will say what I think and for Darren Jones at least it took all of about 12 hours for him to succumb to that temptation.

What was so interesting is that I always thought that Darren Jones was the sort of the calm grown up, measured, he never sounded like his voice ever rose, he never sounded like his heartbeat was beating that bit faster, he was just always Mr. Cool and Mr. Measured and Mr. kind of, you know, he was the perfect foil for Keir Starmer in that communication.And as you say, he's clearly seething, and that is what came out in that tweet that he put out.I think it's obviously very early days yet to talk about the operation.But I do think that it's been pretty bloody slick the way that no one was talking about John Healey becoming the Chancellor of the Exchequer.Nothing leaked at all in the days and weeks.And I think that this is sort of something that is very different from what we've seen where we were getting endless briefing from number 10.

a lot of it kind of very unhelpful, you know, the war between Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting and whether Wes Streeting needed to be put in his box or whether Wes Streeting was on manoeuvres against, you know, Keir Starmer, all that sort of stuff.I mean, very early days.But so far, I've got to say that it looks like these are people, there are grown -ups in charge who know what they are doing, who are working with Andy Burnham.So it looks likeit is one team taking decisions.

And that is a change.It is a change.And look, I mean, I was speaking to a few people last night who, you know, connected to the sort of Starmer faction, if we put it that way, who said, you know, I mean, it's absolutely true.Some of the reporting which has come out about this, you know, they are really, really pissed off because they feel that this was more bloody than it needed to be.Quite a few of them expected to go.And that's perfectly reasonable.

You'll get a new prime minister and they're going to bring in their own people.They're going to bring people who help them get them there from their own faction in the Labour Party.But they say, look, this is all, from their point of view, they say, this is all Andy's mates.These are all people Andy knows.That's why it's so weighty.I think there are five Greater Manchester MPs in the cabinet alone.

It's all people he knows.He's brought on some people from the younger reaches of the parliamentary Labour Party, but not not that many.It's a reshuffling of the pack.There were some they feel that didn't need to go, who had done great jobs, and they feel it was spiteful and petty.And they feel as well that, I mean, I'm told that Keir Starmer, personally, is really irritated by it.He feels, again, some of his closest allies have been unnecessarily sort of punished.

And he feels exactly to the point that you were talking about, John, he feels and a lot of these people feel that the message that has gone out is that basically the bigger, someone put it to me, the bigger bastard you are, the more senior you become in this government.Now, I can understand why they feel that way.I think the other way of looking at it is that, you know, ultimately, as I say, Burnham has become prime minister and how people have helped him get get there, and some of the people who he has sacked did not want him to be there, and he doesn't feel he can trust them.So this is always a balancing act, and I think it's going to be a balancing act as well, because if these people, the disaffected and the dispossessed now, the 60 or so out there, I don't think they'll get much quarter from the rest of the parliamentary Labour Party if they all start doing what Jones did so quickly, which is to startsticking that knife in so quickly for precisely the reason which I said before which is that for your average Labour MP, this is the hope.This is the last chance.

You're in the boat and you don't want to see some of the people in the boat rocking it and deciding to put a few holes in the hull.So I think if these people are...I can totally understand why they're pissed off, but at the same time, you've got to play a slightly longer game if you're serious about reasserting some influence within the government overall.

The other person that I'm fascinated by, which is Ed Miliband getting foreign secretary, and there's a story this morning suggesting that at the White House they're deeply unhappy and tried to block this as an appointment.And I spoke to someone this morning, you know, US diplomat, who didn't really give that impression at all.But I do think it's fascinating that Ed is the one, of course, who, you know, Donald Trump hated his policies on net zero and, you know, not drilling for oil.And you could imagine that Ed Miliband knows his own mind, because it does look like what we're going to have now is a prime minister very different from Kirstahmer, who is very focused on domestic policies.I mean, of course, he's going to have to travel, but he wants the focus to be on the cost of living in this country and what he can do to alleviate some of those pressures.Therefore, you're going to have a very powerful foreign secretary who is able to do foreign policy without that much intervention from number 10 Downing Street.

And so Ed Miliband has got a track record as far as the United States of America is concerned from when he was leader of the Labour Party and opposed the bombing of Syria after they'd crossed the red line and that led to Obama, of course, having to back down because he said, you know, I'd have to get Congress.

Well, maybe this is a way to get Trump on side, as Burnham just points out.You know, you know, you know, you know, really hates him.Yeah.it's Obama.Oh, really?Really?

I like the guy.I like the colour of his jib.Just tell him that Obama hates him and Trump will warm to him instantly.And I think it is worth saying that, you know, for all of the predictions, again, that we saw, the Telegraph, I think, are probably, you know, trying to fly a bit of a kite with this stuff.But, you know, for all the predictions of perhaps complete foie d 'oeuvre instantly between Trump and Burnham, I mean, Trump put out, I mean, they spoke yesterday and Trump put out a pretty obliging post on Truth Social about Burnham saying that he had a great conversation with the new Prime Minister of the UK, Andy Burnham.We discussed many subjects, including the outstanding relationship we have with the UK.

We'll be meeting in the not -too -distant future for topics of mutual interest in Manchester, of course.He's been invited.Where else?But to some town, the Prime Minister's got a big job ahead.We discussed North Sea oil, trade, the military alliance, the the damning of the Hormuz Strait.I wish Prime Minister Burnham good luck and Godspeed.

So, you know, I mean, for all of the predictions, you know, Trump initially said he wasn't that interested in speaking to him or meeting him.I mean, normal diplomatic relations seem reasonably cordial so far.

Yeah.The other thing that I think it's going to be fascinating to watch is, you know, John Healey resigned from the government over the failure to fund properly what he thought should be in the defence investment plan, where he's now Chancellor of the Exchequer.Is he going to find the billions that he wanted when he was Defence Secretary to meet that?And I think that there are kind of, it's not just that question as well, but there are all sorts of other questions about spending, of what is going to happen now and how much of this can be done without an autumn budget or a very substantial autumn budget when it arrives?

Well, we should talk a little bit more about John Healey because many people may not be familiar with him and he was absolutely a surprise pick as Chancellor.He was, as John was saying, the Defence Secretary in the Starmer government.He'd also been Shadow Defence Secretary for a long time.He resigned in a spectacular fashion, pretty much the kind of final nail in the coffin.for Starmer a few weeks before he resigned, accusing the Prime Minister, basically then Prime Minister, of not doing enough to protect the country and for not spending enough on defence.This has proven to be, I think, one of the most effective political resignations that we've ever seen from any government.

Because what has Healey managed to do?He has basically, well, he saw off the Prime Minister or helped see off the Prime Minister, whether he intended to do that or not, who knows, but that was the effect.And the net result has been that he has ascended to the second most important job in government and will now, presumably, as you say, John, be in a position to affect precisely what he always wanted, which was an increase in defence spending to 3 % rather than 2 .7 % of GDP by the end of the Parliament.Now, that has some serious fiscal implications, not least because Burnham is talking about a lot of potential new spending priorities and it will be for Healy to try and make those sums add up.So he's a bit of a sort of poacher turned gamekeeper in a sense with all of this.But I find it hard to believe, and he did a clip last night where he went as far as I think he could have done, I think, to affirm this.

I find it hard to believe that he would have accepted that job unless he had some assurance from Burnham that he would be allowed to do that.Because how could he possibly resign on a matter of political principle in that way to such fanfare and to such devastating political impact?And then as soon as he becomes a Chancellor, they go, oh, actually, maybe we don't need that money on defence after all.You know, his credibility would be shot to bits.So I think that's definitely going to happen.But as you say, as a result, this government's going to have to find some serious money to actually finance what Healey wants.

Fun fact, isn't it, that who was the last Labour Defence Secretary who became Chancellor of the Exchequer?

It was, wasn't it Dennis Healey?Yeah.with the name Healey, just keeps on reappearing.It's very important that we always have a Healey as Defence Secretary and then Chancellor under a Labour government.Much like as we say, you know, we only win World Cups under Labour governments, we only get Healey's who have been Defence Secretary and then Chancellor under Labour governments.It's very important.

So, yeah, look, you know, if they are going to meet this you know, the defence investment plan and to get to 3 % of GDP.As you say, there are big fiscal implications.That's a lot of money.That's a lot of billions of pounds that will need to be found for that.We've already got the kind of money that needs to be found for this cut in electricity prices and whether that is going to continue for the lifetime of this Parliament or whether this is just a one -off event.So there will money, money will have to be found for that.

If Andy Burnham is looking for other ways to ease the pressure of the cost of living, then money will have to be found.for that.And so you are now talking about a significant fiscal event.

Well, I was just about to say, in the last 24 hours, you know, and slightly before that as well, you know, he's talked about relief for business and business rates and business taxation.He's talked about the importance of raising the limit on the personal tax threshold or income tax allowance that is currently frozen, about £12 ,500 has been frozen for some time.He's talked about more support for high streets.He's talked about more support on every kind of element I can think of in terms of, you know, spending and potential tax cuts.So, you know, if he's serious about this stuff, we're talking about a bill that could easily run into the tens of billions of pounds.

So that comes back to what I was going to make as a central point, which is, if you are doing that, I mean, unless you are going to slash departmental budgets and say, right, the welfare budget is going to be cut by, you know, 10 billion pounds and you've just got to find out, you've got to find a way of doing that, Pat McFadden.You are then in a position where you're going to have to be coming up against your manifesto commitments of not raising, you know,income tax or not raising VAT to fund all of that or you're going to have to increase borrowing which will send the markets spiraling and so you do wonder I mean this is a question we raised yesterday of how you can do this without a fresh mandate of whether you know if you are really going to do all these things can you do them all without going to the British people and saying right this is our plan, this is our 10 -year plan, this is how we're going to alleviate the cost of living for the people that are most hard -pressed, this is our offering to you the British people.But to do it without that I think becomes really problematic.

I think it is very difficult and it's something I think that if he is, as we were saying yesterday, if he is serious about offering profound political and economic transformation, he will find increasingly that he chafes on the leash of the 2024 manifesto, because it was a manifesto that was deliberately modest.It talked a big game in terms of wanting to offer profound change, but in terms of the prescription, as we've talked about many times before, in many ways it was modest.Now I think Burnham thinks he can kind of get away on that because he can sort of point to particular passages which talk about, you know, the transference of sort of wealth and power to ordinary people and ordinary communities, but all Labour manifestos talk in those kind of, or many of them anyway, in those sorts of generalities.And so I think he will find it a more acute problem if he's serious.And this is, as we were saying yesterday, the kind of the tension, the conundrum at the heart of this government.If he's serious about that change, it's going to be more difficult as time goes on.

And I think it's worth sort of saying, not least when, I mean, you talk about the fiscal implications, you know, Rachel Reeves has already penciled in for the back end of this parliament, quite substantial, just to get the sums, the Starmer sums to add up, she's already penciled in quite substantial departmental cuts, real terms cuts, for quite a few departments in the back end of this parliament in the next couple of years.Now I think most people, most economists would have said that that'salways going to be quite unrealistic as you get towards a general election.It seems quite unlikely that any government, particularly a Labour government, would want to be doing that.But, you know, the fiscal situation is pretty fragile.And so you add on to all of these extra spending commitments and so on without some pretty, some innovation, let's put it that way, some changing of the fundamentals.

It's hard to see how it happens.But I think it's, it's, you know, It's worth thinking about why he chose Healy in the end, right?Which is because everybody was talking about if he wants a more political chancellor, he'll go for Ed Miliband because of all of his experience and the fact he's just far more political.If you want someone a bit more apolitical or someone who is perhaps less of a risk, particularly with the markets, than you go for Shabana Mahmood.And yet he's gone for John Healey.And the way someone put it to me is that it's a bit like basically, you know, he's not going to irritate anybody in particular.

You know, it's a classic kind of a bit of a Labour Party fudge.If you'd gone for Shabana, the soft left of the party would have been really pissed off.If you'd gone for Ed, the right would have been pissed off.The city might have been pissed off.It may have had some impact in the markets.Who knows?

So you've gone for the guy who you know, is sending a signal, if nothing else.I think the advantages they saw, it doesn't piss off people internally in the party.It sends a signal, particularly to Trump, but also to NATO allies and so on, that we're serious about defence because you wouldn't have appointed the guy otherwise.And also they say that he is quite simpatico with Burnham on the devolution agenda, the fiscal devolution agenda.because, and this is something maybe we all missed a little bit, you know, Healey did work for the Treasury or in the Treasury under Gordon Brown.He was a junior minister then, he was close to Brown, Burnham knew him then, and Burnham feels he's quite aligned on all that stuff.

And I think they were worried that with someone like Ed or Shabana, that you might end up appointing someone who maybe goes in their own direction.And we've had plenty of experience of that.That said, there's also a long history of prime ministers appointing chancellors who they think are going to be their people.And it turns out,that actually they're not necessarily their people.Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, good example of that.

Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, a good example of that.Sometimes, you know, it's quite hard in our system to have a weak chancellor because the Treasury is so powerful.

Yes, I think what's interesting as well is the fact that John Healey has got very developed views on what the Treasury does and how it works.And, you know, and he's been quite critical of it institutionally.And I think there are also going to be relations about, you know, between Treasury and and the Bank of England about whether you're going to reorder priorities for the Bank of England in the way that they are doing things at the moment as well, which could have quite profound economic consequences.So I don't think that, you know, I think that the most powerful argument I heard against Ed Miliband being Chancellor of the Exchequer was that you will recreate the situation that you had when Tony Blair was Prime Minister and Gordon Brown was the Chancellor and they were at loggerheads and you know, Gordon Brown absolutely determined to go his own way on the economy and infuriating number 10 every single turn.And I think you would have had sort of an imperial chancellor again if Ed Miliband had been made chancellor.He's a very effective political operator.

He's very skillful in the way that he manages Whitehall departments.And he would have made sure his ran through the treasury building.I think that John Healey is no fool though either.I think, I mean, you know, maybe more fool us for not having considered John Healey as a possibility, but it did seem the most unlikely thing possible.And when we heard that he was the first person going to be walking down Downing Street, you thought, what?Really?

Yeah, some people were saying, oh, he must be Chief Whip, because, you know, then he'd be sitting in on all the appointments and so on.But no, he was Chancellor.And apparently he did want it and had been advocating for it.So it was a sort of smooth operation all around.I mean, the other appointment, or one of the other appointments that surprised was West Street's unit defence.That had been trailed a bit more.

Andwas some suggestion that Rachel Reeves had been offered defence, although this is now disputed.I mean, I think if that's true, I can understand why Reeves would have turned it down, because it almost feels like an offer that was designed to be declined, because how could she possibly...Let me make you a kind offer that you couldn't possibly accept.Yeah, how could you possibly have, you know, having basically become sort of public enemy number one, as far as the Ministry of Defence were concerned over the past few months, you know, refusing request after request for more money, suddenly go into the You can imagine a lot of ruddy -faced generals with, you know, so you must be joking.I think so.

And it would have just been impossible, I think, for her to have the authority to do that, if indeed it was offered, which some people are saying, around her, are saying that's not true.But anyway, West reading in the defence, again, raised eyebrows because, you know, I think it's fair to say, not something about which he's talked about a great deal.not something about which he's expressed much interest.He certainly doesn't have any military history.I think there has been talk about him going to the Falkland Islands once, so that's something.Sure, that'll keep the Argeys at bay.

But anyway, I mean, you know, nonetheless, and some people have described this, including some ex -military people, as an insult because at a time of kind of international instability, having someone who is a complete ingenue and needs to kind of come in and learn the ropes, they think is a problem.I mean, I think there's just two counterpoints to that.One, you know what, generals, colonels, whatever, get back in your box, admirals, rear admirals, get back in your box a bit.We have a civilian -led government and we don't always have to have an ex -soldier as a defence secretary.You know, we have a civilian -led military, rightly so, and some of our greatest defence secretaries have had no direct military experience themselves.The other thing as well is that, you know, some people, I think, in the MOD, seeing Larissa Brown at The Times, who's very well connected about all of this, their defence editors are saying, some of them are actually quietly happy because they see streeting as a very effective kind of Whitehall

and political operator and someone who can really fight the M .O .D.'s corner within the kind of, you know, internecine bloody battles of Whitehall.That's the thing, ultimately, like no one's asking the guy to go and fight a war himself.Like, I think if Wes is going to be called up, much like ourselves, we've all got big problems if we're all heading to the Eastern Front, right?But in terms of the kind of, like, Whitehall political battles, alright, Captain Mannering, yeah, if you say so.

But, you know, in terms of doing what he needs to do, which is fight the political battles, could be quite effective.

Look at what he's done at the Department of Health.One, he was very articulate and a very persuasive, you know, spokesperson for what the government was doing at that particular time, the ambition and what it was seeking to achieve.Two, he did manage to get waiting lists down and to do stuff very effectively.So I think that there's nothing that prevents West Street from becoming highly effective.You know, if you looked at who were the stars of the Starmer government.There weren't that many.

It's a bit of a dark sky.Yeah, it was a, you know, it was a kind of...Wes Streeting was one of them.Wes Streeting was one of those people who was a good performer, who fought his corner, who managed the department, who, you know, so I think that Whitehall won't, I mean, I think that the defence chiefs would be wise to think, right, how can we get the most out of Wes Streeting as our defence secretary?And it's not like you're sending in some old duffer.

No, indeed.And I think, look, we're going to be There's lots of...This is obviously still the warm afterglow of everything, and there are so many difficult decisions to come.It's quite possible that Vernon's political capital starts to evaporate quite quickly.But something I think everyone will be looking at in terms of an indication of how much of a change there might be, again from the manifesto, but also from the kind of Starmer government more broadly, is this question that Trump raises on North Sea oil exploration.And on one level, this would be

the perfect time to do it, and it would carry a lot of favor with the White House, a bit with the right -wing press as well.But Meafs Fambula, who is the new Energy Secretary, very close disciple, I think it's fair to say, of Ed Miliband, you know, someone who'd worked in the Energy Department before, very, very close to him.And it feels unlikely, therefore.I mean, maybe they will, but I mean, it will be something that we watch closely, one of her earliest decisions and Number 10's earliest decisions about whether they reverse course on new oil and gas exploration.

Do you reckon, Andy?I mean, look, it's not unusual for a Prime Minister to, you know, when the reshuffle is taking place, to sit down with the person you're appointing as Energy Secretary, whatever it happens to be, and say to them, right, this is what I want you to deliver.I wonder whether Andy Burnham, because Andy Burnham has spoken a bit more kind of, you know, positively about these things.

Yes.

I just wonder whether he's, you know, Meata, congratulations, I want you to be the Energy Secretary and this is what I want you to deliver.

Well, as he said himself, He likes debate, but the overall political direction of the government is not up for discussion, which I think is an interesting kind of formulation.I mean, the other thing to sort of consider as well is, look, there are big dangers with changing leader and changing prime minister for an incumbent government, and it can spiral very quickly.We've talked about the bad blood which can be created.It's just worth saying in these first 24 hours, I mean, it should be this way, but, you know, Labour is dominating.the kind of news machine, it's very clear messages going out, it's squeezing out rivals at a time, you know, with parliamentary recess that you might initially expect them to be making hay.I know in particular the extent to which Nigel Farage yesterday in Reform, you know, were almost nowhere to be heard or seen.

There wasn't a very effective critique that they can yet posit.This is what Nigel Farage, I think he was speaking in Norfolk, at least on the East Coast, I suppose.Well, not Clacton, but on the East Coast, this is what he had to say.

You cannot make the biggest change in Britain.politics in 40 years without a mandate from the British people and it will be only decent, right and proper to call a general election on that issue and to do it now.

I think we talked a lot about the collective by -election gambit, which I think we all agreed was peculiar and exotic and probably counterproductive.I think we are seeing right now one of the reasons why it's deeply counterproductive, which is that one of the reasons that actually it's quite hard, we can do it, but for traditional broadcasters to actually even broadcast Farage at the moment is very difficult.because he is a candidate in a by -election and Ofcom rules require that basically, if you were going to interview one guy, then you kind of really have to interview the others.I've been faced and the other 26 kind of, you know, ne 'er do wells and goodness knows what, no offence, been faced.But, you know, like you've got to kind of like this is a this is a strategic problem for them right now, which is difficult just at the moment that they appear to be on the slide.And there was a poll out just today, I think it was a YouGov poll, which showed for the first time in ages that Labour and Tory were within the margin of error of the Reform lead, which is now almost next to nothing in a lot of polls, one or two points.

Just at the moment that you need to be, you know, in the arena and being combative, it's basically almost impossible to put them on telly.Another great move, lads.

What I find unbelievable about that is, surely Reform know that?Then why put Nigel Farage up to be the voice of the opposition to Annie Burnham?You've got other people.And I think that just underscores the extent to which it is reform is Nigel Farage and you know they should have thought about this they should have thought this through no one carried Nigel Farage live making this announcement because of the problems exactly as you said he is a parliamentary candidate in a forthcoming by -election you'd have to give it to everybody else if if you're going to do that and so they're putting Nigel Farage up andnot surprisingly, his voice is disappearing into the ether.But I think that polling stuff where for the past year, reform have been above 30 percent, consistently above 30 percent.

And now there is a considerable drop in their support.And the pressure is growing on them.And I kind of noted when Nigel Farage was making those remarks, he also kind of had a pop at Angela Rayner about houses and property taxes and all the rest of it.We should also say his return to government as the housing secretary in our old job.Yes.I mean, I'm surprised that Nigel Farage would want to draw attention to the purchase of houses and the like, given the questions that still remain over the five million quid that he got and what that money was used for.

Before we go, I don't know how much attention you've been paying to Argentinian newspaper coverage of late.I read all the Argentinian papers every morning.So after the World Cup final, the newspaper Clarín had a leader, a column saying, as never before, the Argentine team displayed both on and off the field a range of values that are rare these days.From the pitch and beyond, they gave several lessons and showed the face of a country that we would like to see away from the football pitch.A team that was polite and respectful, despite a few unfortunate accidents.isolated incidents in the last match.

A few unfortunate isolated incidents.Apart from a few unfortunate isolated incidents, Pearl Harbor was a tremendous success for the American Navy.

I mean, if you can't grab an opponent player by the throat and then throw them to the ground, what can you do?I mean, it's gone all namby -pamby football, hasn't it?

Yeah.I mean, honestly, I mean, like, you know, just asking you about reading the Argentinian papers, Emily probably does.If she was sat here, she probably read it.She reads all the Latin American papers every day.She would have said, I've got a full o 'clock this morning.

I love El Sol.I love it.Exactly.So anyway, well, well done that Argentine newspaper.singled out the Argentinian team for the way they behaved so beautifully in that World Cup final.

They were lovely.They were very kind.

Cuddly.Model lads.Cuddly.

We'll see you tomorrow.Show us how it's done.

Adios.The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity.

This has been a global production.