Can Andy Burnham's revolution fix Britain? | The News Agents

When you're just talking about Manchester, when you're talking about one place, your enemy, as it were, is everywhere else in the country.

You know, if you're listening wherever in the UK and you're worried about your mortgage or your kids' education, are they thinking the problem is government and the way we are organised?

I think there is a really big question that lies at the heart of what he's saying, which is whether devolution helps or hinders.

We certainly want solutions, but we have less and less faith in Westminster being able to deliver that.Ronald Reagan said there's no more dread sentence in the English language than I am from the government and I'm here to help.

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

This is a global production.I am going to do things differently.I am going to break with the more of the same approach that has got us here.I am going to give Britain the circuit breaker it needs by building a more collaborative politics in Westminster, by taking power out of the centre and putting it in the hands of the people and places who can use it best.And in so doing, creating a new sense of agency, possibility and hope flowing around the country.We will make politics work for you and the place where you live.

I know it can be done because we have done it here.

This was Andy Burnham's first speech of his premiership, even though he's not even prime minister yet.Setting out a radical break with everythingthat has gone before, even within his own party and his own party's manifesto.

It was optimistic.It was conversational.It was folksy.But it was also promising a revolution in the way that we are governed.If Bernoumism means anything, it means radical change is coming.Welcome to the News Agents.

The News Agents.

It's Jon.It's Meelis.And there was an energy to Andy Burnham this morning which captivated the room.And I say that as somebody who is very aware of the herd -like manner in which journalists and quite often commentators work, which is we all get behind the brand new thing because we want to hear what the brand new thing is and we want to be sort of optimistic about the brand new thing that is coming at us.But I still think even beside that, there was a way that he spoke that got to the nub of what a lot of people in this country would agree with, which is that the country has had a terrible decade.It has been broken since Brexit, and in his words, broken since the financial crash.

That is 20 years on a plate, he said, in which it hasn't really worked.And at that point, he pivoted and said, the reason why Manchester has worked, the reason why my policies, this place has worked, is because we've made everyone face the same way.That was his line.Everyone makes face the same way and move forward in the same direction.And he set up this idea of Westminster and Whitehall being constantly in conflict as opposed to collaborating to get things done.And we often talk about that, you know, the very shape of the House of Commons set up in an adversarial manner.

set up to have the sword's length between your opponent.So you are literally fighting those on the opposite side of the bench.And I guess this is where it becomes a really interesting question for whatever Burnham envisages happens next, because When you're just talking about Manchester, when you're talking about one place, your enemy, as it were, is everywhere else in the country.Your enemy is, can we succeed without being bossed around by Westminster or the centre of power or Downing Street, whatever it is.When you are that centre of power, does it work to start sharing things out and expect every single region to be able to do that to the same extent?

Look, we've got to look at the significance of this.Andy Burnham knows he is going to be the next prime minister.That is absolutely as certain as anything is certain, that night follows night.day and so for him to be making a first speech about the rewiring of government is a really important moment because actually That sort of speech, for those who go to Labour party conferences or Liberal Democrat party conferences or even Conservative party conferences, that's the speech you hear on the fringe.It's not a central kind of main platform address.It's about people who are interested in government and the electoral system and the way councils should interact with the centre and all that sort of stuff.

And yet Andy Burnham has put that at the absolute epicentre of of his offering.And the epicenter of his offering is that there should be no epicenter.That Westminster itself should start handing out power, should start devolving power to the regions, that there should be a number 10 of the North.And we heard him saying that that will be the kind of thing that inspires Britain to start delivering in a way thathasn't for people before.And I suppose what is the political gamble in this is that, you know, if you're listening wherever in the UK and you're worried about your mortgage or your kid's education or whatever it happens to be, the bread and butter concerns of people, are they thinking the problem is government and the way we are organised.

And that's why I think it's really interesting to say, no, no, this is so fundamental.This will change people's lives.And it's an argument he's having.And then you've got a bigger question, which I think we should address is, does the evolution work?

Let's just listen to Andy Burnham setting up how he wants to take that centralised power away from Westminster with a very catchy alternative.

Change will be driven through the Prime Minister's office.in an extended operation based here in Manchester.But here's the important thing.It will only be based here.The job of Number 10 North will be to make power flow into the Midlands, into the South West.into the east of England, and yes, into London as I said before, as much as into the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, and here in the North West.

It will be about offering new opportunities to extend devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by taking power deeper down.The people of Dundee and Bangor feel just as distant from Holyrood and the Senedd as they do from Westminster.

Look, that went down very well in the hall.You're talking to Manchester, you're talking to bank unions.And of course, they're going to welcome a number 10 of the north in Manchester.I think if you were listening to that in Plymouth or in Cornwall, and you were thinking, well, it's hard enough to get to London from here, God knows how much more difficult, you know, it's five and a half hours instead of three hours to get to Manchester to feel that we're at the centre of power, then that is not going to go down quite as well, which is why his line was so important afterwards.You know, this is not just about the north and south, this is about the south west, the east, Scotland and Wales.I think there is something really important about localism.

To your question of whether people feel that the way they govern is important, I think the same applies to government as applies to local journalism actually, which is that people have more trust.when they can see it with their own eyes on their doorstep.You can see if things are working.You can see if your council's working.You can see if things are improving in your neighbourhood in the same way that if you have local reporters, you start to trust the news more because you actually relate to the stuff that they're telling you because you can connect it to your own lives.So I think that that is not a stupid place to start rewiring the state, i .

e.this whole idea of localism is what actually brings people's trust back to government.I think where it gets complicated is when you say, well, the wider picture of devolution so far in the UK has not always been a great one, right?If you look at the health outcomes in Wales, which was devolved, they're terrible.Same in Scotland.They have been bad.

They have been behind Westminster.They've been behind the rest of England, where health is much more centralised.And you have not had a positive outcomefrom devolution.And I suppose that is also what you're opening up.You're opening up the fact that you give people more power and some people will use it brilliantly and some people will use it terribly, right?

You know, it's interesting because in America, of course, you have very much devolved power, but America geographically, of course, is way, way bigger than the United Kingdom with, you know, five, six times the population.But, you know, as they're during Covid, And what happened during COVID was that all the individual states were competing against each other to get hold of PPE equipment.There was no one centrally saying, right, this is what we need to do so that we've got everything everywhere.You had individual states trying to cut their own deals with suppliers of PPE.It just happened that the governor of Maryland, I think it's a guy called Larry Hogan, who was married to a Korean, She had good contacts in Korea and suddenly this Korean airplane is landing at Baltimore airport chock -a -block full of PPE that no other state could get their hands on.And you had this auction taking place where individual states were driving up the price of PPE because they were bidding against each other to get their hands on it.

Now that is the weakness of different regions, different areas with their own elected mayors competing against each other.In Britain, we've always tended to have a very different attitude towards government than America.I think it was Ronald Reagan who said, there's no more dread sentence in the English language than, I am from the government and I'm here to help.And of course, in Britain, we say, what's the government going to do about this?And in America, they say, this has nothing to do with the government.I think we have become Our view has changed.

We certainly want solutions, but we have less and less faith in Westminster being able to deliver that.And therefore, as you say, place becomes important.Where you live, your community and how it's represented.And I think that is what Andy Burnham is tapping into.I think that the ambition is massively admirable.I think the reality of, you know, how you deliver this when you've got decades and decades of kind of, you know, institutional centralisation, turning that around, is going to be bloody difficult.

And does he want his time in government as prime minister swallowed up with turf fights over who's going where, which jobs are being redeployed, which bits of the civil service are going to be going to somewhere else?All of that.That is very exhausting work.

You talk about America.It's probably just worth playing you over the weekend.Mayor Mamdani of New York was actually speaking about the World Cup and the Knicks I think he was appearing on.

Again about the Knicks!

Already!He was definitely talking about the World Cup.He's talking about football I think and obviously he's going to be hosting the final there towards the end of July.But he was asked about Andy Burnham and and it's interesting that he does this kind of mayor to mayor thing.Just have a listen.

When you won the mayor here, the mayor of Greater Manchester congratulated you in a tweet.He now could become the next prime minister of the UK.I'm interested, as a mayor of a city, and I know you can't be president as long as the rule says they are here, but what I'm interested in is do you think the skills required to be a city mayor can easily be transferred nationally?

I don't think anything comes with ease at at that kind of a level.I do think they're very important skills because many people have lost faith in government.The place that they earn that faith back or they decide to trust again is at the most local level.That's where they see what it can look like to have a government that delivers for them.And if you're able to respond to people, whether it's in Greater Manchester or New York City, it is at the heart of what people are looking for for any kind of politics.So I wish him well.

I don't think he's an Arsenal supporter, though.No, he's in Everton.He's in Everton.I mean, at least you can respect that someone has suffered.

Yeah, and interestingly, Andy Burnham retweeted that exact exchange saying suffering doesn't, you know, begin to cover it.If you recognise the voice, that was the sports agents, Mark Chapman, doing an interview there for the BBC for their World Cup coverage.What he's saying there is about the importance of localism.And you talk about the the sort of US being very state centered.I mean, Canada actually is one of the most, probably the most devolved country on earth.They have different drinking ages there.

So depending on which state you're in, you know, different drinking ages, taxes, minimum wage, health care systems, even languages, you know, you go into certain provinces and clearly it's French rather than English.The Swedes do their NHS entirely devolved.So there is no federal health care at all, right?You can get different health care and different health care outcomes, because it's all managed by regions.So I guess the thing is, we're saying is, yes, it sounds really energising.It sounds really exciting.

And, and, and in a way, I'm sort of full of admiration, we've been saying for a long time, on this show, we kind of just want at this point, somebody to do something with a big idea, and sort of heft behind it.So I'm sort of full of admiration for a big idea.But I guess, We do have to accept then that while some things will improve, other things will get worse, right?Because that is what happens when you devolve power.You don't have the same standard everywhere else.

I think there were a number of other interesting bits about it, which was, you know, I'm all for decentralising.I'm all for collaboration.And I think the collaboration piece is fascinating.What does that mean in Westminster terms, where you have got an adversarial political system, you have got His Majesty's opposition, and you have the government?How much more closely Is he going to seek to work with Kemi Badenoch, for example?Is he going to work with her over social care proposals, which is something that he tried to do when he was last a cabinet minister and, you know, thought he had the backing of Gordon Brown?

it didn't happen.Does he return to that?Does he return to welfare reform where Kemi Badenoch offered to work with Keir Starmer and Keir Starmer rejected it?Does he call Kemi Badenoch's bluff and says, yeah, come on, let's sit around a table and deal with the problems that have been plaguing British society for decades and we have failed to grapple with?And I think that that would be a really interesting area.to see what Burnham does.

And I thought there was something else that he did that was interesting.And maybe this is niche, and maybe this is just us as journalists.He didn't take any journalist questions.He wanted this speech to be about what he wanted to talk about.He didn't want to be distracted by one of us standing up and saying, who's going to be your chancellor?Do you think Donald Trump's a wanker?

Or whatever it was, he wanted to stick to his topics.And he said, no, not going to take any journalist questions today.Now, you can't do that forever.But I think that there was a seriousness of purpose and a sense of self -confidence that I can do things the way I want to do them, which I don't think Keir Starmer ever displayed that much.

There is a strange thing going on, isn't there, that we do have a prime minister.You know, we do still have somebody in the job who'sis sort of fading by the minute, but who won't be disappearing from that role for another three weeks, who's made clear he still wants to get his defence spending signed off, who's made clear he still wants to be the representative at the NATO summit in Istanbul in July.And then you have this completely parallel sort of power base of the incoming.I mean, it's so strange.You have to kind of stop for a minute and say, when he stands there in Manchester welcoming all the MPs, he said, were in the audience, they have now sort of had to do what?

Leave their jobs or leave whatever they were doing in Westminster and sort of become part of the audience for Burnham because they need to be seen now.They need to be part of the new shape of this government.I mean, it's bewildering both how kind of smoothly this is all happening and in a funny way, how slowly it's happening.And I think, frankly, it suits both of them that it has been sort of measured out like this, because I think Starman probably still wants, you know, to finish his work.And I think Burnham is not quite ready to be inside number 10.I mean, there is a lot of stuff that still needs to be done, but we are still in this sort of interregnum, which feels just slightly bizarre.

Well, it's very un -British.It's what happens in America.You have the election on the fourth of the first Tuesday in November and the president gets elected and doesn't take up power until, you know, January the 20th.And we call it the lame duck period.And we call it the lame duck period.Keir Starmer must be hating being in a lame duck period but at least he's still in number 10 and he still thinks he's got things that he's going to do.

Meantime Andy Burnham has a bit of breathing space to try and work out some of the things that will happen.And he's, you know, frustratingly for us, he's not announcing who his chancellor will be or who the defence secretary will be or whether he's bringing back David Miliband as well.Probably he will.You know, all these things he's not going to answer just yet.He's got a time to think, but it is an extraordinary period.So we talked on the news agents last week about maybe this is all happening for Andy Burnham.

at a really lucky moment.One other thing about all of this in a wider political context is it also seems to be at a time when reform is having all sorts of problems and Nigel Farage did that round of interviews which were a disaster trying to explain away his five million quid bung and you just wonder, and I heard it over the weekend from various Labour people, well maybe a general election is not waiting until 2029 maybe it could come even sooner with a big burn and bounce particularly given the agenda that he is sort of sketched out today.

You can hear the sighs, can't you, from our listeners who are sort of going, oh my God, you guys are getting ahead of your skis.It's not enough for you to see one prime minister off in one week and start welcoming in another prime minister before he's even become prime minister.You're now trying to rush us all into a general election.Here's why I don't think that is that fanciful.Two things that are important to bear in mind, and this is going back to polling, some of which is pretty old, right?But we have seen transitional prime ministerships before.

One was Theresa May'sBoris Johnson.One was Gordon Brown's from Tony Blair.And there is a big question when this happens as to the timing of a general election in terms of solidifying your own mandate to the country.Now, if Andy Burnham had come in and said, I'm going to do exactly what Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves did, but hopefully I'm going to do it a bit faster.I think that that question goes away a bit.

It's further down the road.If Andy Burnham comes in and says, The whole thing hasn't worked for 10 years.The whole thing hasn't worked for 20 years.The whole thing hasn't worked because it's been Westminster focused rather than Manchester focused and I know what works because I've done it in Manchester and I'm going to literally devolve power to every corner of the UK.It is a radical enough suggestion and bear in mind he said he sees it as a 10 -year project, it's a radical enough suggestion for him probably to have to think he does need to get this signed off by the country.So then the question is, do you wait or do you go early?

Prime Ministers tend to be, transitional Prime Ministers tend to be at the height of their power in polls, in the polling terms, within three months of taking office.Now that is scarily short.If he comes into power at the end of July, we are talking about the height of his power being probably what?October.We're all on sun loungers.

Right, exactly.

So if it's within three months, I think that's pretty unlikely.I don't think anyone can contemplate an election genuinely in October.That sounds crazy.But actually, If the polls respond in the way that historically we have seen, which is that you lose more power the longer you stay in in that first year, then probably he is thinking about something fairly different.to next spring right?

Well you used two examples which I you know have you know Gordon Brown taking over from Blair, Theresa May taking over from Cameron.I mean, those are examples where you go for an election and things don't work out that well.

Well, no, sorry, I should have explained.Theresa May went to the polls too early.She didn't need to and she failed.Gordon Brown didn't go to the polls and he should have done.And he then failed when it got to 2010.

So let's look at the one which actually worked brilliantly, which was when they got rid of Thatcher.You know, Neil Kinnock was way ahead in the polls.as the Labour leader.When Thatcher was Prime Minister, the poll tax was at its height, there were the splits in the Cabinet over Europe, and everyone wanted to see the back of Margaret Thatcher.And it all looked certain for Neil Kinnock to become the next Prime Minister at the next general election.And suddenly the Tories get rid of Thatcher, John Major becomes the Prime Minister, he gets rid of the poll tax, and people think, and for a moment the arguments over Europe subside, and people think, well, we've got what we wanted now.

And so John Manchin goes to the 92 election and against all the odds pulls off a victory clear conservative majority.Now obviously it all started to fall apart after that but that was a moment where you change the leader and you change the dynamic and suddenly John Major is riding much higher in the polls, general election and wins it.And I'm sure that there will be people around Annie Burnham who if it you know if there is this bounce and of course our politics is very different today than it was in 92 or 2010 when we've got, you know, when we've got the Greens now, we've got reform now, we've got restore now, you know, we've got all these parties that are now kind of vying for power.It is perfectly possible that something comes along and that Andy Burnham thinks there is an opportunity.

Yeah, I mean, it's very funny actually.I was with George Osborne on Thursday night and he said, well, if Andy Burnham's brave enough, he'll just go for this in three months time.Because, you know, that would be the kind of the strong thing to do.And I said, really?Like, would you?Would you do that?

And he went, no, no, I'd probably chicken out.And so I think there was a sort of moment of honesty where you kind of go, it's very easy to tell everyone else what looks sort of obvious from the sidelines.I mean, Boris Johnson, you know, famously got his snap election and a big majority.Yes, he was up against Corbyn.I'm sure that played a big part in the sort of choices that people were making at the time.But he secured that with a very quick election.

He took over in July.And we went to the polls on the I think it was the 13th of December 2019.Right.So we within, what's that, four months, five months, I mean, with a very short lead time into that election, which sort of, you know, scared the bejesus out of all of us, right, in the depths of winter, still managed to do it.I mean, I guess the question is, you're trying to work out why you are asking people to go to the polls.It's all very well us sitting here sort of politically going, oh, well, it would shore him up, you know, make him stronger.

But you have to have a reason to go to the polls.You have to have a question for the electorate.Boris Johnson had a very simple, taught question, which is, do you want to get Brexit done?And frankly, the phrasing of that was, well, we want to get Brexit behind us, whether that's done or just out of the news or just never talked about again.It worked as a slogan because it was the thing that people wanted to see done.What is the question that Andy Burnham takes to the country, which is not just, could you make me feel good about my own position?

Because that's not enough of a question to ask the electorate, right?

The unique thing about AndyBurnham, and you can't stress it enough, is that he did not stand on the 2024 Labour manifesto.He was not a candidate in the 2024 election.And if he wants to feel that he is liberated from the commitments that Keir Starmer made, then maybe he does think I need to get my own mandate because I don't want to be the person who's accused of ripping up Labour's election promises.But I never said I promised them.And that is, you know, Boris Johnson was an MP.

You know, all the other people we've talked about, Theresa May, you know, John Major, they were all MPs at the time.

Yeah, but it comes back to the same question that I'm asking, which is Andy Burnham can't go to the country and say, oh, can you give me a mandate?You have to go to the country and say, this is what I want to do.Say, do you agree?Will you vote for me if I offer X?Yeah.And that's the point.

What is that X then?I mean, is the X, is devolution enough?Has it got to be a firmer offering than that?Because he's not really saying, as Keir Starmer could do, I'm going to get rid of 14 years of Tory pain, right?He's not going to say I'm going to get rid of the last two years of Labour indecision.That's not quite enough of an offering because he's already there.

So the question is, what does he take to the voters that makes them feel like yes to Labour, yes to Burnham?

Well, we didn't get anything.I mean, look, that speech was a really interesting in terms of him setting out a framework of how he thinks Britain should be governed.But the questions about you know, child benefit, the triple lock, you know, he's not addressing that now.If you're going to an election manifesto, people are going to say, how is this going to affect my, you know, bank balance?How is this going to affect my kids' education and their prospects?And that's where they will want specifics.

And I just don't think that Andy Burnham is at that stage yet.Or if, you know, maybe there is a blueprint, maybe there are ideas that have been sketched out.But I think that, you know, this has all happened unbelievably fast.I mean, really unbelievably fast that he is now the next Prime Minister.

Very fast and also very slow, because we were talking about this happening.nearly a year ago, in September, when we imagined that that would be the the putch, right?We talked about it coming at the Labour Party conference.

And then we all laughed at Andy Burnham when he skulked off back to Manchester, having been sent away with a flea in his ear.

Well, I mean, it came because he'd clearly set the hares running at that point.He did that big interview with Tom McTague in the New Statesman.He arguably slightly tarnished his copy book over comments about the bond market.And he was sort of scared back into the shadows.But I think, in a way, it hasn't been quick.It has been a year in the coming.

As I said, you know, last week, there has been an inexorability to this.It just feels, what's that lovely phrase, slowly and then all at once.And now we're at the all at once.To go back to your point, which was about sort of consensual politics, I do think there's something really interesting.a foot here as well, which is that Kemi Badenoch offered Keir Starmer her support with welfare reform.I mean, famously, the welfare reform that never happened, arguably, the welfare reforms that sunk Keir Starmer because they didn't take off.

I wonder whether she would be as forthcoming with a Burnham premiership.And I say that because there was this kind of unspoken secret, I think, between the two main parties when reform seemed to be suchthreat to both of them, that the Tories and Labour could do better by working together to prove to the electorate that the old parties could still get things done, that they could still be effective, that they shouldn't let reform and farage in the door.I now think that it's a very different landscape and people have predicted the death of Farage and his parties many, many times.So I'm not going to sort of go down that level.But I do genuinely think to your point about the interviews last week, he was spooked by that.

He is still waiting to find out from the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner whether he has to forgo a period as MP.And if if it comes back against him, if it finds against him that he shouldn't have received this five million pound donation without declaring it, then it is possible even that he could face a recall in his own constituency in Clacton.Does that mean you and me can go back to Clacton?We can get the fish and chips again.Scampi and chips.We can go and sit on the beach in Clacton.

I mean we don't know how much time Farage has genuinely spent in Clacton.We don't know how wedded he is to staying as the MP for Clacton.But we might see within the next few days, this all come to another pretty speedy head, right?If 10 % of the electorate of Clacton decide that they want to have a recall, then he has to fight that by -election all over again.

I think it's absolutely fascinating.I think that, you know, people have always said that...I mean, look, we've seen it with Farage, where he has, in the past, suddenly said, right, I'm leaving the stage so does a Ben Stokes midway through a cricket session announces he's retiring his captaincy I think it's perfectly possible that if Farage is found against by this inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissionthat Farage say right, I'm not fighting it, I'm off.And so that changes, I think, again.Yeah, when we were saying a few months ago, and reform was riding high in the polls, it's a long way to a general election.

And I think that, you know, this is a marathon for Nigel Farage, not a sprint.It was really interesting that David Bull, who was the chairman of reform until relatively recently, had these words of advice for Mr Farage?

He's not claimed any expenses.He's had over £100 ,000.

David, what do you think of this idea that when you look into a reform party meeting it's like the bar room in The Empire Strikes Back?What does that mean?Well, it's a bunch of sort of...Oh, I see.Misfits.Misfits.

Yeah, that's Martin's point.

I don't think so.I've been there since the beginning with Richard Tice, for example, and I'm very proud of what we've done.And what we're now doing is professionalising the party.The party is bigger than Nigel.The party is way bigger than Nigel.

What does that mean then?Does it mean that they are preparing for the worst?Preparing for him to take himself off and say, to your point, the Stokes moment, you know, I'm done with this, I don't need this anymore.And I guess have to say we can still shore up the vote, we can still shore up the party without him at the helm.But it would be a very a very different prospect, I think.I mean, Rupert Lowe, for one, would be delighted to see Nigel Farage go from that.

I mean, we are probably getting way ahead of ourselves.But the reason that we're raising this is just that Daniel Greenberg, the Parliamentary Commissioner, is going to come back within the next few days.And so this could become quite a live issue over the weeks ahead.And I think all this will play into the bigger picture of What do the Tories think about an early election?Kemi Bade -Knapp was very cautious not to call for one because she's doing pretty well.you know she is seeing her fortunes if not her party's fortunes change she is starting to really make headway but she doesn't want to go too early you know she'd much prefer to wait for the burn and bounce to be over presumably and on the way down and then go right I'm here I'll pick up the pieces exactly I think that's so true also just going back to what David Bull said that the party is bigger than Nigel Farage You don't think it is.

Yeah.Well, you know, it's like when Republicans in the state say the Republican Party is bigger than Donald Trump.Well, not right now.It isn't.And, you know, when Donald Trump isn't there and he's opposing, it's a real problem.And if Nigel Farage, you know, just think of the way the twenty twenty four election was transformed in that moment when Nigel Farage announced that he was going to stand.

And I bet you that contributed towards probably six or seven points, forget Clacton, but around the country with people thinking, I'm going to revoke reform now because Farage is back in the race.He commands an enormous amount of public support.I think that the Reform Party, if it is Richard Tice, does not look anything like as big without him.

Britain is heading for a summer of chaos.We have a caretaker prime minister.barely in office, definitely not in power, all major policy and spending decisions have been put on hold.The last defence secretary resigned because the money needed to keep Britain safe has not been found.Ministers of the Home Office are fighting each other.In fact, the immigration minister has been banned from seeing government documents.

That is not hyperbole from Kemi Badenoch.There is the most extraordinary kind of unfolding.It's like the glue that has bound a government together.suddenly dissolved and everyone's going their own way and thinking, I can do whatever I like.It's like the teacher has left the classroom and all the pupils are thinking, whoopee dee, I can do what I like.And so we had this extraordinary scene last week where the immigration minister, Mike Tapp, unveils his thoughts on what should happen about indefinite leave to remain in this country.

And it was not Home Office policy.So Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, says, he's got to be sacked.You can't do things like that.And Keir Starmer says, I'm not going to sack him.And you're just thinking, what is going on in the government right now?

Yeah, I think it does play into the point that we were making earlier, which is these are not normal times.So you can't pretend, really, that everything can go on as usual.I mean, in a way, it's weirder to have the wheels of government turning as if nothing had changed, you know, as if a policy was coming in, as if a sort of a spending announcement was coming in, because we know if you talk to anyone in or around Whitehall or Number 10, they'll say, that this is a paralysis, right?You can't have a spending commitment, you can't have a policy, you can't really have an announcement, because it could all be undone within two weeks.So what are they actually doing?And I guess the answer is, well, arguing with each other.

I mean, you know, is Mike Tapp right to say he wants to change to Shabana's immigration policy?Well, Maybe he's thinking that she won't be his boss for long because she's going to move somewhere else.And maybe he's thinking, well, I might come in and get that job.So I want to lay out my claims to what it should look like early.He writes for the Times.She doesn't sign it off.

And you've got this sort of almighty row.But in essence, this is just, I think, the mechanics of what is going on anyway in the ether, which is, sorry, who's in charge and what is going to happen?

But it is not a way to, I mean, the country is in charge.being run by Keir Starmer.Allegedly, he is still the prime minister.There is still collective cabinet responsibility until there is a change of government.And the idea that a minister will just kind of completely go off on one.And, you know, it's an intellectually interesting idea that he's talking about.

And it's in clear opposition to what Shabana Mahmood wants.

But you can't have.

that as the kind of way to operate right now.And then to say, Shabana Mahmood says, right, he's got to be fired.And then the Prime Minister says, no, it's fine.And what you've got is people just laying out their own stall.They're just thinking not about the collective of the government.They're thinking about what's my next job going to be?

I could get a promotion here.I think Andy Burnham might like this.So why don't I lay out my, you know, my frilly, underwear and see if Andy Burnham's attracted to it.

Look, literally at the moment you've got a whole cabinet who doesn't know what their next job will be or even if they will have a next job in this government.A week ago, this time last week, actually it was the Tuesday of last week, I was told that David Miliband was very much in the running for Foreign Secretary and I I kind of like, we sort of chatted over together.We were like, that doesn't sound right.And how could he come back in?And would he really be the right one for the job?And actually, over the last sort of three days or so, that has started to sort of take shape.

It feels a bit stronger.I mean, there is there is still a chance that it that he could come back in the cabinet, maybe not as foreign secretary, maybe as a Europe minister, sort of a reinvigorated Europe minister trying to help Burnham sort of shape a sort of post Brexit or a sort of EU role for relations with Europe.I've also, and I should say this, this comes with a big caveat because Andy Burnham very sensibly didn't takeany questions at the end as you pointed out because he didn't want to be asked who his Chancellor was but inevitably those conversations are still going on and so everything that we're saying at the moment comes with huge caveats which is that he is probably still making up his mind and maybe the people that are the runners and riders have not actually signed up to anything yet because they're still going to hear from him but from somebody who is right at the center of things.I've heard a few interesting rumblings, which I'll run through and you can sort of treat them as you choose.Lucy Powell could be going to education.

Louise Haig, very likely to be chief secretary to Andy Burnham.And that Rachel Reeves has kind of accepted that she won't be in the chancellor job anymore, you know, finally, and is now lobbying to go to trade.The big question of the chancellor still the most central one, still up in the air, but could actually be looking more like Ed Miliband.I think they've been right through the houses.We've been through the kind of Shabana Mahmood, we've been through the Pat McFadden, we've been through the John Healey, but actually there is an argument which says if Andy Burnham works closest with Ed Miliband and he is at the centre of his policy thinking, then you just go fuck it, let's get on with it.

I bet some of you are thinking you're talking bollocks, Andy Burnham has made clear that he's not going to do any announcements and that will come at a much later stage and everyone's just speculating wildly and doesn't know what they're talking about, which is a perfectly reasonable view to take of what Emily's just said.On the other hand, I've spoken to cabinet ministers who have had conversations with Andy Burnham, who have been given some reassurance about their role in the next government.So we may not have firmly tied downwho's getting what jobs, but clearly Andy Burnham is preparing.The question of the chancellorship, I think, is fascinating because I'm speaking to people who are mounting a rearguard action that says if Britain's greatest problem is its borrowing costs, then the best thing you could do is to keep Rachel Reeves in place as chancellor.

Shall we shake on that one?

No, no, but I'm also hearing that, you know, because there was the backlash from some public sector unions about Ed Miliband becoming the next chancellor because of his stance on net zero on oil and gas.There is now also a lot of people talking up Ed Miliband.And as for David Miliband, and of course, it would be, you know, God, will the psychodrama come back?The Miliband brothers, could they work together?I think distinctly, yes.And I'm, you know, Previously, David Miliband has said, oh no, I'm in New York, this is my future, I'm staying in New York.

He's had to maintain that for about 15 years, right?

that's no longer the case.

Yeah I mean he was asked about it here when he was in London last week and he just said that's for Andy Burnham.Now if anything sounded like you know an open goal it's that's for Andy Burnham.I mean I guess the big question is how does a man who said I want to rip up the last 40 years they haven't done any good then recreate the sort of cabinet of insiders which is you know, the band back together, whether it's James Pinnell, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, you know, Alan Milburn, who you sort of tipped again in his speech today, who did all the work on Neats.Are you actually recreating something that feels like the sort of the Brown cabinet without Brown?

The Brown Blair cabinet.Look, the thing about it is that I thought there was something else that happened in that speech today.Maybe, you know, reading too much into it, but he wasn't talking about 40 years of failure in the speech today, he was talking about 18 years of failure.failure.He was talking about the moment from the financial crash, and he talked about Brexit.Those were the moments when Britain stopped working for the British people.

So it's like he'd refined, he thought, oh Christ, that 40 years, that covers the period when I was in.I'll drop that bit, because that says that the period from 1997 to 2010, when there were three successive Labour governments, was a total failure.I better wipe that one from the memory books.It's only 18 years of failure that we're dealing with.

Yeah.So forgive us if we are just quietly voicing some of our bets here.We will know more in the weeks to come.

Yeah.So stay with us over the next few weeks.After that, you can dump us.Yes.Bye.

Bye for now.

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

This has been a global production.