Devolving Power to Mayors and Future Governance

How does a banana trigger a CIA backed coup Do AirPods herald the arrival of a new global order What do LED lights say about the future of humanity I'mt Conway, and in each episode of my new podcast, Stuff Matters, I take an object, crack it open, and reveal the world shaping forces hidden inside. This is economics told through the things we think we understand. Search Stuff Matters on your podcast app to listen and follow Sky News, The full story first. Do all of this or what? or what are you going to do to Andy Bernam? Make us fifty percent of the government or what Wen's PLP will not just be quietly disgruntled, they will cut up rough He's also reopening pretty deep scars for the women who served in cabinet in that period and feel they were not respected in that environment Hello and welcome to electoral Dysfunction. with me, Ruth Davidson Me, Harriet Harman And me Beth from Skyports, Beth Rugby. Sky sports. I wish I was. I wish you was Thank you. Sky News, not Sky sports. But I'm sure you could do that as well. Maybe one day. So I can't believe that the Prime Minister at his Defence Investment Plan press conference broke the transfer news that I it's skky News and going to skky sports. I don't know how he found out. he's like a sleh that man. No, not really I'm not really going. I think he's got people to find out for him. I have to say like I don't know about you, Beth, but Sneaky, a secret part of me would absolutely love to have traded news for sports when I was working as a journalist. Don't you think? It'd be great fun being a sports presenter. I openly lobby disuise sports every time I see him. I'm like, why shouldn't I interview footballers in the tunnel? Do you not think I'd do a good job? And now when he sees me at parties He runs the other way. Honestly, Beth, I think you would brutalize footballers. I don't think they would know what was like what was coming because you know how usually there's like a set piece to these interviews where they get to come out with all the kind of tropes. It's like, so how do you think the match wet? And they're like, o yes. so you know, men against boys really came into her own in the second half, subs made the difference, all of that You'd be like, but did they though? didid the subs make a difference? What do you think happened about down that left hand side? Do you really think that you know the flat backack forward was the right way to start the match instead of the continental sweper system? What about having a double pivot? Like I can just see you just like they would be like pinned to the wall like this. And then they'd be like, we're not doing an interview with that woman again. But it was what was funny about this? Well, number one This does amuse me. so all my extensive political analysis in various content that is shipped around Sky News platforms and to social media and into the internet Nothing has been watched or consumed as much as the Prime Minister saying Beth Rgby skkyports and everyone laughing, which amused me. but also what amused me more was that he just had a laugh about it. And what was actually quite nice about it was in the comments underneath these clips, people were saying It's actually really nice to see him a bit more relaxed because it was funny. I guess as well because like England were playing that night and there was lots of like and fro in the comments at Prime Minister's questions and stuff about the England match and stuff. You can kind of see how it happens. but I genuinely, one of my great, great joys and I don't know if the sky gods can make this happen. When the England team return on the plane, I really, really want you to be standing at the little cordon at Heathrow going, gonna resign Mr. Tule, you could have resigned. But anyway. Actually, he was very it was very decent of the prime Minister because afterwards he said to me, no discourtteesy intended about calling you Beth from Sky Sports. and he was maybe worried that I would have been offended that he said I was from Skyports. But I thought that what it was that when he looks at me, what he sees is Bakayo Saka, like a star striker or something because you know, from Arsenal. So I didn't mind at all. It was fun, it was fun. and I just think his starma this week's been a bit. haveave you noticed this, Harriet? He's a bit uncut, isn't he? He's unleashed I think a lot of people have commented me to me very favorably on his little speech that he made outside Downing Street and saying they suddenly warmed to him when he was making a speech about when he was going. It must be a very turbulent period for him. I'm hoping he's D more happy. and the most important thing is that he needs to not feel fuming with resentment, which he might justifiably feel, but he's got to really will the Andy Burnham regime to be a success There is a lot going on and it might be the summer season, but things are not slowing down because we've got Andy Burnham about to become the Prime Minister in less than three weeks time and he has got ever growing in tray, and we're going to talk about that in tray today because Starmer in announcing his investment plan this week has given his successor a little bit of a headache. in what people are calling the fast black hole of budget which will come in The autumn. So all of this is to do with and please, dear listener, do not switch off from this super sexy name. Like we're not like the Americans who like calling things like the no child lefte behind act or the like everybody gets to have free ball and beer at. No no no, we've called it the Defence Inestment planlan or DIip. And every time I see dip Britain, I kind of think of sort of one of the Sherbert dip I thought of sharebit because we call a sh I house rather than a share but d we had a shherb a fountain and a shherbot dip. It's so exotic up in. Yeahah. I mean, when it comes to stuff that's so sweet and sugar refined that it will rot your teeth, there is no nation on earth that knows more than us. So anyway, back to how we keep the country safe because this is actually quite serious. What we've seen this week is that about a third of the funding for the dip has been deferred to the next budget P simply Y Starmer stood up, made a massive announcement, kick the can down the road told everyone it was Andy Burnham's problem, who has to find about four point seven per billion pounds, you know, in October and ono sexy names because I think we should you know, drill down on this because we want to, you know, acronym you all to death. The Defence invvestment plan or Dip is the product outcome of the strategic Defense review. and that was a review that assessed the threats to the UK. There were sixty three recommendations in the strrategic defense review, which the government accepted all of. And then defense chiefs said, well, that's going to cost twenty eight billion pounds in this Parliament And essentially what the Prime Minister did this week was he said, I found fifteen billion do in additional funding for defense. Now, it was already controversial because Defense chiefs were saying that they needed twenty eight billion. So there's a massive gap there. And then it was even more controversial because four point seven billion do of it, as Ruth was just saying now needs to be found in the November budget. Now we've got a great explainer here from Sky's Data and economics editor and host of the excellent and it really is excellent Stuff Matters podcast, Ed Conway. Hi guys, Ed here, big fan. I've been kind of listening to you. I've been trying to work out Burnham campaign are going to think when they come in and finally look at the numbers. And I think I think what we got from the Defense investment planl just you know a few days ago I think it's a big deal because just break down the numbers, it's fifteen billion pounds, but only ten and a billion of it is actually costed. The rest literally the rest of that, so getting on for five billion pounds. that has to be found somewhere. and for me, the kind of The slightly unnerving thing is Actually, if you look at the years in which that black hole, I mean, it's as one of those word terms, but it is kind of a black hole to be honest with you. If you look at the years where that black hole has to be found Most of it falls in the first year. And when I say the first year, it's this year. So this fiscal year, there's one point eight billion pounds that they need to find from somewhere To me, that's kind of a big deal. And if you think about Rachel Rves coming in and bemoaning this inheritance that she was given from the Tory government previously. and you know there was a chunky black hole there Well this time around, maybe it's not quite as big, but it's still they are coming into office and having to fill up this whole and that is a tough job to do. and it's doubly tough when you think OkayK, there's the black hole we know about. But there's this other black hole which is even bigger, which is basically if you're going to get defense spending up from two point seven percent of GDP, which is kind of where it is after this big plan to three point five percent of GDP, which is that's the target that everyone is aiming for U you're talking about I worked it out just now. you're talking about three and a half p. basic rate of income tax. just if you wanted to do it through tax rises You know, that's there's like crazy amounts of money. And so for me, the big black hole actually is kind of not the one that we're talking about right now, it's actually the one that they're facing in the future. when you know how on earth are we going to actually get to that big target? I hope I made it a bit clearer. Thank you, Ed. If you want to hear more from Ed, and he is very, very good. His Stuff Matters podcast is brilliant. You get to get it all early and bonus content too if you're one of our Sky News insiders So if you sign up to that, you don't just get extra ods, youll also get extra as well What was interesting though, I think, about what Star has said in the House of Commons yesterday, Bear with us, Ke like hanging there, was that the government has that fiscal headroom. Do you remember we've talked about this, the buffer that the Chancellor has between what she's spending? and her tax take in order to have a bit of a cushion. If anything goes wrong, It's like I always think of it a bit fiscal headroom slash emergency fund Anyway, she's got about twenty two billion in fiscal headroom. And what the Prime Minister was saying in the Cons yesterday was, I don't know why everyone's going on about this shortfall. You can find it in the November budget by using some of the fiscal headroom and that is what the fiscal headroom is for actually I don't know if I've just drunk the cool aake because he said I was Beth from Skyports. so suddenly I'm very inclined to be favorable about all things Kistama does But it didn't seem unreasonable to me actually. I mean, if he and Rachel Reeves had remained inosted, I imagine that they would have used some of the headroom in the November budget to fund the defense plan because they're putting additional funding in outside the normal times that governments decide what the tax and spend is going to be They will have to find it from somewhere. They can do it from the fiscal headroom, they can do it from raising taxes, they can do it from cutting spending. So it seems to me that they had a plan to do it and they've just passed that plan to Burn them. Am I being a bit too benign there, Harriet? What do you think I think that the problem for Andy Burnham is not caused by Kir Stahmer, it's caused by withdrawing funds from NATO and Putin being an ever growing threat. So I think that there's broad agreement, which I'm sure includes Andy Burnham, that there needed to be this investment in defence and there's going to need to be a great deal more And so I think that whatever, whoever was going to be the prime Minister, this was going to be the challenge. And I think the timing imperative was not so much Kir Stammer leaving, but NATO and the need for the UK to go to the NATO meeting with a reassuring nailed down commitment of increased spending and also the necessity to reassure America at this point. So I think that irrespective of who was the Pime Mister, there are going to be tough choices to be made on this about how to find the funds. I mean, Ruth, there was I checked it out with the Burnham camp, and it is true that when they discussed the defense investment plan with the Prime Minister ahead of its publication No one mentioned that there was a matter of five billion to be found in the November budget. There have been reports that they were furious. I haven't had the vibe of fury. but what do you think? Do you think it is Kir Stama kind of leaving him a kipper under the the door mat or something, you know, when he walks in. I don't think that this was like when the Clinton administration left the White House and took all the W keys out of the keyboard just to annoy the George W. Bush incoming presidency. So I don't think it's Kir Starmer handing a shit sangwuage to Andy Burnham to be mean and as a kick on the way out the door, I think it's just the reality of what's on the ground. The deffense chiefs still say they don't have enough and they don't have enough by multiple multiple billions. The treasury still says it doesn't have enough money to fund it by multiple multiple billions. So the kind of quandary, the horns of the dilemma that the next prime mininister has is the same as this prime mininister There isn't enough money The defence is creaking and it needs an upgrade. I think it's just the situation the country is in. And I think that the Prime Minister is desperate to do bit of legacy shopping in his final few weeks and get something in place. You know, he needed to put something in place that would get us to the three percent This doesn't, this really doesn't But it's something he's put on the books rather than leaving with it hanging over him. But It's all subject to change. If you're not the Prime Minister, you don't get to ram it through I just wanted to say that if there is any temptation in Andy Berham or any of those around him to feel disgruntled about the situation of what he did or didn't know about the financing of the strategic defense review, this defense investment plan, I think they should resist that temptation because you could argue it either way T start, Kiz Stammer is absolutely right to have got the defense investment plan out before NATO. That is an external event. That's nothing to do with who our prrime Mister is here. That is NATO and the necessity for the UK to bring forward our spending plan. And then the normal course of events is you do the finances in the autumn It could equally be argued that it was right for Kir Stahmer not to tie Andy Burnerham's hands about where that money was going to be found from, let the new prime Mister make those important decisions. But it's only going to be the first step because Andy Burnham will not just have to finance this amount of spending, but he's going to have to find even more. So I think that it's really important for Andy Berham and his team to focus the task is in hand and not say, but actually it would have been better if we would have known. whether they did know or they didn't know, it wouldn't have made any difference because the facts remain exactly the same. So that is a fact which remains which he needs to respond to. Harriet, I mean, the headiness of labour MPs with the hope of an Andy Burnham administration and an Andy Burnham being this new fresh labor prime minister. I mean, kind of the hopes come crashing down to earth when you think about some of the dilemmas he is going to face when he comes in office because he's going to have all the same problems is stAR isney when it comes to tax spend, everyone wanting more government funding and it just not being there and then having to take difficult decisions about funding, for example, more defence and maybe cutting welfare and trying to get that through the labour bench is, good luck with that Well, I think this is what's been the situation of the mood in the PLP. Absolute despair in the tanking opinion polls and the terrible council and Scottish and Welsh elections, despair. real optimism and hope and relief at the Makerfield by election, which was won so brilliantly by Andy Burnham But now that's been replaced by a determination This has got to be made to work that it's difficult, but actually Everybody's got to pull together and whatever the difficult circumstances make it work this time I think Kemy Bayoock is doing some quite clever framing here actually because she's getting in very, very early and is trying to make this. two choice solution where she's saying and she's laying the groundworks, say, look, We've got to pay for this. It needs to happen has to happen, you're acknowledging it needs to happen. so you can either Raise taxes or cut welfare. That's your options. And she's hammering that and And you'll see a lot of that, I think over the next few weeks and months. And obviously, the consonservatives will say welfare needs cut because they know that welfare is a bit of a bruise for labor after the kind of rebellion that was on it early on in this parliament. It's a trap that's being laid because either raising taxes or not cutting welfare. it's all about same old labor. they refuse to do, they refuse to do, they refuse to do it also because of the things like pensions coming into that, The welfare budget is probably not going to be cut. It will grow. It may grow slower than it has previously been growing. But if you look at the kind of dynamics and the demographics of the country, it is very unlikely that you'll see welfare actually cut in this country, even if individual programs have less money put into them or the amount that individual people get is less, just because of the way the population is aging and things are happening. It was exactly what I was thinking yesterday when I was watching Prime Minister's Quions Kemy Baadenot was being critical about defence funding and then it was immediately on to welfare cuts. And it really is this area wherey labour in a difficult position because there was the massive welfare rebellion. And really that was the beginning of the end for Starmer when the benches realized that they could bounce him despite having a massive majority into U turns on such big decisions. You have a country that wants the welfare bill to be cut a country, I think running out of patience with people of a working age being out of work and claiming benefits and young people not having jobs being in educational training. I think Andy Burnham can see very clearly that to win back the Labor Heartlands, which is where he is kind of coming from down to Westminster, that he needs to sort out and he needs to begin to cut the welfare bill The question is and this is the big unknown, is can he get it past the benches in the Labour Party? And I think it's going to be a fascinating thing to see. C Andy Burnham actually get P to accept welfare cuts that the country probably will be supportive of, but labour MPs will not be comfortable with. And Harriet, I guess that's my question to you because you will be, I'm sure involved in conversations or listening to conversations that I imagine MPs are having about this at the moment Labour MPs want to see is the welfare bill falling because people, particularly young people are getting into work. and I think that's what it's going to have to be based on. A real push on training and apprenticeships all around the country. I don't think there's any mood in the country, let alone in the Parliamentary Labour Party to just make people who are unable to work worse off and push them into poverty. But there is a real sense that we can't go on just accepting a situation that whole swathes of people of working age, including very many young people are just somehow written off. So it's got to be based on principles, but it's definitely going to have to be turbochged through. But having talked about the kind of real consensus within the Parliamentary Labour Party that this has got to be made to work There's one area where actually there's a separate distinct determination. and that's in the women's Parliamentary Labour Party. I mean, women are nearly half the Parliamentary Labour Party, which is a massive breakthrough in women's representation since the last general election. And I think they arrive many of them having had stellar careers and made an amazing difference in their local areas outside of Parliament. they then come into Parliament full of hope and optimism of the role that they would play and just feeling whatever the truth of it, but the perception being that actually Kir Stahmerers's number ten, and his government was a boys' club from which they were excluded And I think the sense is now that although Andy Burnham has said he's very committed to equality for women in politics, and he's got a strong team of women around him, and he's got a good record in Manchester of always including women and not having a boys' club. Notwithstanding that, I think the women's PLP are not prepared to take it on trust anymore. They're going to want to see change so that women are not just in every room when decisions are made, but influential to make sure that the policy mistakes and the people mistakes that were made before, like the appointment of Peter Mandelson, are not made again. So I think that there's a new mood. It's no more playing nice By the women in the Parliamentary Labor Party, they really want to see their place on equal terms now. But is it a real threat though? because there was a piece that Kenny Baynock wrote in the timees saying that if the women's caucus of the PLP were really serious, they would have put somebody up to run against Andy Burnham in a leadership contest and made him nail his cols to the mask and all of these issues that they say they care about I mean, how likely is it given how conscious the Labor Party is about the idea that K Starmark was supposed to be no more chaos of keeping changing prrime miniss and all the rest of it. L it's not really believable. Parliamentary Labour Party, male or female is going to want to change Andy Burnham out anytime soon. So what's the stick? I mean he can basically do what he likes and says, you know, rebel, don't rebel, whatever, but you're not getting rid of me because then we'll look like the Tories or we'll look like Italy. I think the women in the PLP are regretful that once again, the Labour Party has got their next male leader. but I don't think anybody's talking about threatening to tof Andy burn him out if he doesn't ensure that women's demands are met. It's actually saying that the trust that there was when these women came into Parliament, that they would be able to play their part on equal terms of men, that trust has been burnt away. And it's not going to be regained just by a change of prime mininister It's got to be seen every single day working on the ground. The other thing that's interesting is there's quite a lively debate, I think going on about cabinet and who are going be in the top jobs because you're going to have a male prrime Minister again. You've also got discussion about whether David Milliband comes back as the foreign secretary and then his brother Ed Milliband becomes the Chancellor. I don't need to tell you, you'll have more millibands then if that happened in the big four Oices of State PM Chancellor home Secretary foreign S secretary, then you'd have women, more millibands than women in the top four Harriet, how much of this is a problem slash issue genuinely all Andy Burnham having legitimacy in the party and amongst that very big cohort of female MPs. I mean, is this an actual discussion at the moment? Very much so. and I wouldn't call it a problem. I'd call it an opportunity for all the talent of the women to be included. But I think that they put the chalk marks on the ground. they put the line in the sand Very, very clearly. They are insisting What's the stick? Do all of this or what? orr what are you going to do, Sandy Burnham, Make us fifty percent of the government or what? Because the Prime Minister has to have the support, the confidence and cooperation of the PLP. and women are nearly half of the PLP. What they're doing is laying down very clearly that they want no men only decision making, that there has to be women in every room when decisions are being made, including in Downing Street. And that's not just a woman who's consigned to take in the minutes or bringing the tea in. This is women being in positions of influence. that when it comes to ministerial appointments across the board that there's got to be half of those appointments have got to be women and that when it comes to the top table those cabinet positions, that balance of the cabinet has got to include senior women. Harriet, is there a world in which David Milliband can be the foreign Secretary and Ed Milliband can be the Chancellor? orr do you think that that is not going to fly? Well, you know, we discussed this before and we've got a very excellent woman foreign Secretary, which is Evet Cooper, but I mean, I'm sure David Miliban would be an excellent foreign seecretary as well. And I'd already said that I thought on balance a good decision would be for Ed Miliband to be the chanceor, it's just as well I don't have to actually make all these things add up. But all I'm saying is that the whole question of ensuring that women are not just there, but they are influential and part of driving this government forward. I think that there is just an unwillingness to put up with the business as usual of men supporting, admiring and colluding with other men and somehow women getting left on the outside. Andy Burnham is saying, That's not my style. I've never been like that. You know, I was kind of brought into politics by Tessa Jowel, as well as by David Blunket. My team in Manchester has always included women as well as men as a matter of course. Well, that's the past, but what the women's PLP are saying is for the future and things get tougher Power is attracts a lot of men with sharp elbows trying to push women out the way. And the more power you've got, the more difficult it is to ensure that space is made for women and that that power is shared with women. So he's got to be proving every single day he's Prime Minister that he's actually walking the talk and that women are included on equal terms If not, Ruth, the women's PLP will not just be quietly disgruntled, they will cut up rough. Okay, cut up rough. Oh, interesting. Can I just say also as we've been doing this, someone has A senior woman in the party unprompted, has messaged me about what we've just been talking about I just want to read Andy Burnerham may be excited about the prospects of reuniting his old pals from two thousand seven cabinet. That's James Pernell, the Chief of staff. Douglas Alexander, who was the Scottish se at the moment, and the Milliband bros not so much getting the band back together as reuniting the old football team, but in the process, he's also reopening pretty deep scars for the women who served in cabinet in that period and feel they were not respected in that environment Margaret Beckett was dumped. Harriet Harmon, Harriet, you got a name check here, was denied the depeputy Prime Minister role. Ruth Kelly was demoted, Avette Cooper was denied a cabinet role, Jackie Smith and Hazel Bleers made to carry the Cam for the expenses scandal, All which culminated in Caroline Flint's famous attack on that under Brown there was a two tier cabinet with women treated as window dressing They go w war Now I suspect that Andy will try and win praise by appointing the most female cabinet in history, which frankly will not be difficult. Plus they'll likely restore a female deputy prrime Minister in Lucy Pow, But if he ends up replacing two of the women in big offices of state with two brothers and essentially running the inner circle of government as an old pow' reunion, then this could begin to bite him with the women in the party and with women more generally. That just exemplifies the mood I'm talking about. There is scar tissue here And this is now put firmly, the ball is in Andy Burnham's court. Oh that probably I shouldn't be using a football analogy, since that's a sore point.ourt'en It's very much down to Andy Burnham, that this is not just something that can be a marginal issue What you've seen in that is you've seen generations of resentment. You've seen the older generation with the past resentments of what happened when we were last in government. But there is a new generation of resentment amongst the women who came in in twenty twenty four, who've done amazing things outside Parliament. then came into Parliament and felt they faced arrested development. They just simply haven't been able to be included. It's going to be a central issue because the women are going to make it so. And that will be for the good of this government. I will be interested to see Harriet The women's PLP is the mouse that roars or whatever in terms of it the lion that rollars. The lion that roars. Yes How does a banana trigger a CIA backed coup Do AirPods herald the arrival of a new global order LED lights say about the future of humanity I'm Ed Conway, and in each episode of my new podcast, Stuff Matters, I take an object, crack it open, and reveal the world shaping forces hidden inside This is economics told through the things we think we understand. Search Stuff Matters on your podcast app to listen and follow Hi, producce Laura here We'll get back to this episode of electral dysfunction in a moment, but I'm just interrupting the podcast to remind you about our new members club. You will have heard Beth Ethan Harrit talk about Sky News Insider a lot lately It's twollars ninety nineents a month and you get an extra episode from us every Tuesday. You might have seen already that Jess Phillips is back. She's back on the podcast of some of those members only episodes. As part of your subscription, you will also get these Friday episodes completely ad free. And if you listen to our sister podcast Trump one hundred or if you're interested in our new Sky News podcast Stuff Matters with Eir Conway You can add free listening and bonus episodes to both of those shows too. It's all in the same bundle as your ED member subscription You'll also get access to a host of new ways to interact directly with Beth Ruth, Harriet, Jess, and ask the team who made the podcast. Terms and conditions apply. You can only become an insider if you're over the age of eighteen and if you're in the UK. Subscription auto renews at the regular price unless cancelled via my account. Ccel anyt time effective at the end of the billing period. Okay, that's enough from me. backack to Beth Ruth and Harriot But I want to circle back to Welfare because I think that This is going to be one of the kind of defining areas here, not least because of that big rebellion that happened early on for Kir Starmer and how that framed so many things that came after But the point that you were making about the PLP having to have a story to tell and having to make decisions on welfare that you were making Beth. I mean, I think that's one thing that Burnham and his team will be really aware of and do better and be able to talk about that kind of intergenerational fairness, how hard it is for young people, the Milbourne report But I think that there is a problem because every Labor Prime Minister comes in talking about youth opportunity, youth unemployment. And yet we have seen so many times that it just doesn't work. You've got to supercharge the economy, you've got to make sure that there's more jobs on offer. you've got to make sure that things like national insurance contributions aren't prohibitive to people taking on staff, particularly at the lower end at entry level jobs you're doing all of that against a backdrop where AI technology, it is being assumed, will do away with a lot of roles that currently exist altogether. So you're going to have to find other avenues of employment. The country is at a point clear Pull after pull after pull The wish of the majority of people is that the welfare bill is reduced I mean, it's a it's a heck of a job. Like it's just You know, he would be forgiven for being daunted is all I'm saying. That is going to have to be Andy Burnham's determination and he knows it's not going to be easy. But I think that the parliamentary Labour Party will go with him when he tells the story and sets out the picture of the direction of travel being about not making people worse off, not punishing them even more being able to be in a position to be able to work, but actually how they're going to be able to be got into work Harriet, how helpful is it for Andy Burnham that some of those that organize the welfare rebellion did for Kar Starmer or was the kind of undoing of the Starmer administration, and now some of his close allies. i. e. do you think it will be easier for Burnham because he has more goodwill on the benches? And some of those that were making life difficult for Starmer over weelfare cuts will fall into line for Burnham? Or do you think it's more fundamental that actually he has to do the reforms properly in order to get the support I think that He will know that he's got to tell the story of the reforms and do the reforms properly and differently from the way Kir Stahmer approached it There'll also be, as you say, Beth, a number of the key people who led the revolt are absolutely part of Andy Burnham's team, but also a general view in the Parliamentary Labour Party that there's only so much disruption that the country will be prepared to take in the party of government. And this time, they've got to make it work We're on our second prrime minister since only twenty twenty four. We cannot move to our third. and therefore this time, there's got to be a rallying round of the Prime mininister and helping him deliver rather than just pulling him down But before we go, there's a quick question that's come in from Sean, who's messaged the Burnerhone following Burnham's speech on Monday. And Sean says Hi ladies Andy Burnham wants to move more power to mayors and take it away from Westminster, a plan that I agree with. My question to you is Should he slim down his cabinet meeting attendees such as the culture and sports secretary who really doesn't need to attend a cabinet meeting every week. And instead of the most important secretaries of state, just as Defense, health and Chancellor, along with mayors, so they get face to face every week, this plan will only work if he brings all mayors into the tent. So he's asking, do you want to change cabinet to go from how it is at the moment to doing smaller in terms of ministers and have big ministries alongside the metroal mayors that can come in that operate in that area. On the one hand, Sean, that is a really interesting idea The reason that you have a cabinet and you have all the departments represented is that actually government has to be run by cabinet collective responsibility and a prrime Mister has to kind of run his decisions and get agreement from the whole team, which is part of the reason why the whole team get together in cabinet. and there already are structures whereby you have sort of sub cabinet to make decisions around certain areas. But I think what you're talking about is really interesting in terms of how you bring the mayors into decision making. And I think that I don't think you have to necessarily do away with Cabinet, but I do think that you're right in the sense that if you really want to devolve powers out of Westminster around the country. And Ed Conway, our beautiful, wonderful Ed Conway, did a really fascinating explainer looking at different countries in Europe and the way in which tax was taken by central government versus regions and the way in which the capital city, how it stood in terms of wealth compared with other cities. in both cases, the UK had the highest tax concentration from Westminster, i. e. Parts of the country did not have tax raising powers, so it's always handouts from government. And then when it came to cities, it was fascinating because London was by far the biggest and more most successful and wealthiest city. And then the second cities were very far down the chart. Whereas in other countries such as France or Germany, there was much more wealth spread across cities and it really speaks to the fact of the structural imbalances in our country. So I do think that his ideas about devolving tax raising, potentially decision making to milties and big cities and councils, I think is the right thing to do for the country. The other thing I'd say about this, which is really interesting we can get a bit more into. there is quite a live discussion around whether the treasury should be split up And this is something that Louise Hig, who's going to be, as I said, one of the key people in the Berham administration, has been talking about, which is you split the treasury so that the growth element of the treasury department, which is actually trying to get economic growth, is split off from the bookmaking element, the element of the treasury that's doing the accounts and trying to make the public finances add up because there's an argument that it's too powerful to have all these abilities and responsibilities into one department, but also the accounting end of the treasury is stifling the dynamism of the treasury and the growth of the treasury. so split these up So I think, Sean, that's a really convoluted way to say I don't know, actually. But I think I think that Seun has picked up a really important point here, which is that Andy Berham has got to have the machinery of government that is going to drive through the changes he wants And one of the big changes he wants as well as economic growth is he wants it to be in every part of the country. And he want decision making to be made near where people live in every part of the country. And Sean's picked up the point about Mors. And that reminded me. when we got in in nineteen ninety seven, John Prescott used to chair a cabinet committee whichich included the leaders of local councils and the devolved administrations. Well, they weren't devolved then, but it was Scotland and Wales. Perhaps Andy Burnham will need to chair a committee which includes the mayors, and they were in the front row of his speech in Manchester earlier this week, which include the mayors, includes the council leaders includes the first ministers of Scotland and Wales as well as the key central government ministers, because that machinery has got to start working straight away What do you think, Ruth? You must have a view on this. I don't even know why you ask me, Dare you? I don't know. What do you think? There was a really interesting that happened just by dint of circumstance between twenty ten and twenty fifteen when the coalition government was there. So they obviously had to have cabinet meetings, which was a mixture of Tories and libds. But each of the parties to have a space to talk about the politics of stuff without the other ones knowing or hearing. David Cameron started what he called political cabinet that met on a different day, and it had everybody that was a cabinet minister, plus there was a standing invitation for Boris as London mayayor, me as the leader in Scotland, and Andrew R. Davis as the leader in Wales. And I used to pop down quite a bit for that because it was very useful for me to be able to have contact with all of the departments that reserved, so the areas that affected directly affected Scotland Neless to say Not a single one that I went to had Boris turned up for despite the fact that he was just down the road. I don't know if he went to the on that I wasn't at. But yeah, it always struck me that doing the official business around the cabinet table, but having that space within the party to basically politics and fly the kites was quite a good way of doing it. I mean, but it's always been the case that there has been both cabinet meetings in the cabinet room, around the cabinet table, and political cabinets. It is a good point that politics is very, very difficult at the moment and therefore having a political cabinet on a more regular basis is important. But one of the key things that Andy Burnham has talked about is talked about including people from other political parties and working more broadly. I mean, are we going to see him working on a properly cross party basis getting in other parties to have meetings around the cabinet table doing difficult things on a cross party basis I think if you did that then it gives the opportunity of the opposition parties to actually play a role in the future of their country. And I think that if he did that, he might have more support to for us to face as a country the difficult decisions that lay ahead That's all we've got time for, I'm afraid, but we are going to be back on Tuesday and that episode is going to be for our members. So if you would like to join us for that and we would love to have you, you can do so by subscribing to Sky News Insider and the details are in the episode description. Your subscription also gives you access to our members forum and some fantastic bonus content from some of our sister podcasts, which includes Trump on hundredundred, which this week takes a look at what life is like inside the White House why Trump can't help but get involved in UK politics. So do check them out I have to say I've had I have a binge listen to Ed Conway's stuff matters And there's a whole episode on bananas. And did you know, I've got to tell you this just as a teaser Did you know that when bananas are unripe and green You can snap them in half like a cucumber and they smell of cucumber Did you know that