How Is Andy Burnham Preparing For Government?

Summary

---

Newscast (BBC News)

Episode: How Is Andy Burnham Preparing For Government?
Date: July 18, 2026
Hosts: Laura Kuenssberg, Paddy O’Connell, Henry Zeffman

---

Episode Overview

This Newscast episode explores the transition period as Andy Burnham becomes the new leader of the Labour Party and, imminently, the next Prime Minister. The hosts discuss Burnham's approach to government formation, speculate on policy signals, analyse the high expectations set by his recent speech, and debate potential Cabinet picks. The conversation is set against the unique "betwixtmas" moment — the brief interlude between Prime Ministers.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Leadership Handover and Its Symbolism

Timestamps: 00:39–04:13

• The episode opens with reflections on Andy Burnham’s exuberant “dad dancing” after becoming Labour leader and the contrast between outgoing and incoming leaders.
• The hosts reminisce about politicians dancing (or avoiding it), drawing parallels and contrasts with past leaders like Theresa May, Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton.
  • “Political dancing is awkward bopping.” – Paddy (01:49)
• The emotional and practical toll on Keir Starmer as he prepares to step down.
  • “It must be in moments like that, where they upend their lives just two years after they last upended their lives, that it really hits…” – Henry Zeffman (02:53)
• The team notes the poignancy of removal vans for Starmer juxtaposed with Burnham’s celebration.

2. Cabinet Formation and the Perils of Sacking

Timestamps: 04:13–08:14

• Discussion on how incoming Prime Ministers traditionally handle Cabinet appointments and sackings – face-to-face or by phone, aiming to avoid “walks of shame” up and down Downing Street.
• Speculation that Burnham will follow convention but with his own “good blokery” style and undertones of respectful treatment.
  • “I'm doing things different. I'm going to treat anybody well, everybody well.” – Laura (04:39)
• Anecdotes about previous Cabinet ministers refusing moves (e.g., Justine Greening, Jeremy Hunt), the role of “pre-sackings,” and how handling early Cabinet decisions can set the tone for an administration.
• Burnham claims to have made no final decisions on Cabinet, maintaining tight secrecy and avoiding leaks.

3. Policy Priorities: Oil, Gas, and the Cost of Living

Timestamps: 08:14–14:58

• The hosts scrutinise Burnham’s likely shift or softening on North Sea oil and gas policies, under pressure from unions and regional demands, especially after the Conservative by-election win in Aberdeen South.
  • “You can't chuck the baby out with the bathwater…I suppose there's quite a lot of bathwater in the North Sea.” – Laura (08:36)
• The Labour manifesto’s pledge on banning new oil and gas licenses remains, but nuances about existing licenses (Jackdaw and Rosebank) and possible signals of change are discussed.
• The tension between legal (‘quasi-judicial’) and political sides of energy policy decision-making.
• The conversation acknowledges the rhetorical tightrope:
  • “Mood music and rhetoric doesn’t save jobs.” – Laura (11:38)
• Expectation that Burnham will centre Monday’s speech on short-term cost-of-living measures, possibly reframing oil and gas drilling as a jobs-and-bills issue.

4. Taxation, Policy Intimations, and the Impact of No Leadership Contest

Timestamps: 17:00–19:41

• Discussion of the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) and how Burnham might use taxation tweaks on North Sea energy profits to signal direction without upsetting public opinion.
• Analysis of Labour’s process for selecting the leader without a contest: pros (fewer rash spending promises) and cons (less clarity or scrutiny on specific policies).
  • “If there had been a contest, you might have got to a position... promising free milk and honey coming out of every tap…” – Laura (18:20)

5. Incoming Government: Fast-Moving Policy or Cautious Continuity?

Timestamps: 19:23–22:18

• Anticipation that rapid “bang, bang, bang” policy announcements are needed for credibility and momentum, with speculation about energy bills, cost of living, and even homelessness/rough sleeping initiatives.
  • “I think they know that they have to arrive and go, bang, bang, bang. Here are some big things…” – Laura (21:07)
• Contradictory messages circulating inside Labour: some sources say Burnham has a clear, tight plan; others say he hasn’t decided much yet.
• Burnham’s transition team praised for secrecy and tight command, though concerns are raised that too much insularity may backfire during implementation.

6. Machinery of Government: To Reshuffle or Not to Reshuffle?

Timestamps: 22:18–25:03

• The temptation for new PMs to reorganise departments (the “machinery of government”), and the risks: potential drains on political capital and wasted time.
• Reference to Burnham’s goal of establishing “Number 10 North” in Manchester, signalling regional power shift, but warnings that departmental mergers/removals can be a huge distraction.

7. Speculating on a Snap Election

Timestamps: 25:03–27:15

• Debate over whether Burnham will seek an early general election; some close to him think he will, while others see it as too risky.
  • “If it's going well…if the economy has turned and the world looks a bit more optimistic…you can see a position where he'll think actually go for it.” – Laura (25:29)
• The team reviews precedents for early or delayed elections by new PMs, referencing Gordon Brown and Theresa May.

8. Burnham’s Vision: Speech, Style, and Setting High Expectations

Timestamps: 27:23–31:24

• Analysis of Burnham’s recent speech hailed by the press for “the vision thing,” with some calling it “a classic lesson in vibes.”
  • “He mentioned hope eight times, which is in stark contrast to Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.” – Paddy (30:06)
• Burnham’s bold claim that his arrival is the “biggest change moment in 40 years,” setting himself a formidable bar (bigger than Brexit, the financial crisis, or Labour’s 1997 win).
  • “I actually don’t think he could have set a bigger goal for himself.” – Henry (28:52)
• Discussion of the risk in raising expectations so high — if things falter, disappointment could be intense.

9. Staffing and Faction Management

Timestamps: 31:24–32:58

• Notable that many of Keir Starmer’s staff and special advisers are being kept on, a deliberate move to avoid the infighting and bitterness of recent Conservative transitions.
  • “There’s a sort of buffer of goodwill…They have tried to set a different tone.” – Laura (31:24)
• Praise for Andy Burnham’s Chief of Staff, James Purnell, for running a respectful and orderly transition.
• However, some internal party tensions and Cabinet rivalries linger.

10. Cabinet Sweepstakes and “Getting the Band Back Together”

Timestamps: 35:27–39:22

• Lively segment where the hosts read out listeners’ sweepstake guesses for the “great offices of state.”
  • Examples: “Chancellor: Ed Miliband (with a reduced remit), Foreign Secretary: Dan Jarvis, Home Secretary: Shabana Mahmood” – listener Paul Campbell (35:37)
• Discussion of Sadiq Khan’s likely move to the Lords, the potential return of senior figures like David Miliband, David Blunkett, Alan Milburn, and the strategic effort to pull “smart people” back into party politics.
• Clarification: we do know Burnham’s beliefs, but not yet how he’ll apply them to tough choices.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• “Political dancing is awkward bopping.” – Paddy (01:49)
• “Drill, baby, drill. This is really on the backs…of a surprise victory for the Conservatives at the Aberdeen South by-election…” – Paddy (08:14)
• “Mood music and rhetoric doesn’t save jobs. And it won’t convince the unions…” – Laura (11:38)
• “It would be a very big deal [to unfreeze tax thresholds]…maybe that’s something for the first Budget. Don’t know.” – Laura (20:10)
• “I actually don’t think he could have set a bigger goal for himself.” – Henry (28:52)
• “There’s a sort of buffer of goodwill…They have tried to set a different tone.” – Laura (31:24)
• “I want to find a name for people who believe in an early general election…” – Paddy (25:03)
• “It’s like…the sort of pulling…the sort of net back in and drag back smart people, right, who left politics or whatever.” – Laura (37:34)
• “We absolutely know what Andy Burnham believes in…What’s unclear is how he will apply those beliefs when faced with very big and difficult decisions.” – Laura (39:06)

---

Timestamps for Notable Segments

| Topic | Timestamp | |------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Burnham’s “dad dancing” & symbolism | 00:39–02:28 | | Cabinet formation & “good blokery” | 04:13–08:14 | | Oil/gas policy and union pressure | 08:14–14:58 | | Tax and risk of a leadership contest | 17:00–19:41 | | Fast moves vs. continuity | 19:23–22:18 | | Machinery of government risks | 22:18–25:03 | | Snap election debate | 25:03–27:15 | | Burnham’s speech and “hope” messaging | 27:23–31:24 | | Faction management & staff continuity | 31:24–32:58 | | Cabinet speculation & party reunification| 35:27–39:22 |

---

Tone and Style

The tone throughout is lively, conversational, inquisitive, and at times gently humorous – in classic Newscast fashion. The hosts combine political insight with accessibility, making even technical questions (like those around oil policy or the “machinery of government”) digestible for a broad audience.

---

Summary

This episode served as a vibrant and insightful overview of the tumultuous but hopeful moment in British politics as Andy Burnham ascends to the premiership. The hosts provided context, skepticism, and some affectionate ribbing over the “awkward bopping” of political rites of passage. They explored the blend of continuity and radical promise in Burnham’s leadership, the political perils of Cabinet construction, energy policy realignment, and the unifying effect of a respectful transition. The new PM’s first big decisions, the readiness for quick policy moves, and the evolving power dynamic signal a dramatic and unpredictable next chapter for Labour – and for the UK.

---

Transcript

[Paddy]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Podcast Host]

How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire?

[Podcast Narrator]

From posting videos on Good Bad Billionaire. We're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber MrBeast made his fortune.

[Podcast Host]

He's buried himself in a coffin for

[Podcast Narrator]

days, counted to 100,000 on camera, and

[Podcast Host]

even recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the Internet.

[Podcast Narrator]

But it all started when he gave a homeless man $10,000. So. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism

[Podcast Host]

or is he just the king of the attention economy?

[Podcast Narrator]

Find out on Good Bad billionaire.

[Podcast Host]

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Politics is a funny old game, isn't it? We had yesterday, at roughly the same time, the tremendous high for Andy Burnham doing Embarrassing dad dancing on the stage, so happy he was to finally have become leader of the Labour Party.

[Paddy]

This is new order.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

There we are.

[Paddy]

I used to think that this day could never come. Henry says is the important line.

[Henry Zeffman]

Well, because Andy Burnham has dreamed of this moment for at least 16 years since he first tried to become leader of the Labour Party. And I'm sure there were periods even within the last year where he thought this day would never come. And now he is crowned leader of the Labour party and within 48 hours of us recording this Prime Minister, what

[Laura Kuenssberg]

do we think about politicians dancing? I mean, was that spontaneous dad dancing joy that is going to put a song in the hearts of middle aged men around the country saying, look, I'm not the only one who looks like a bit of a plum.

[Paddy]

Well, the thing is, Theresa May did it to Dancing Queen.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

She did.

[Paddy]

And she managed sort of, she managed to get to the centre of the stage.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

She did.

[Paddy]

And then she stopped. And then. You've got to remember Tony Blair, things can only get better. But he never danced.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

No. Other people did, though. There's that shot. Isn't it like Neil Kinnick and Peter Mandelson sort of doing like awkward bopping.

[Paddy]

Awkward bopping.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Awkward bopping.

[Paddy]

Political dancing is awkward bopping.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Awkward bopping.

[Paddy]

I was there when Clinton was nominated and they played Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow on the loop and people in the audience dance.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Did he dance?

[Paddy]

No.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Did he play the saxophone? He sometimes did that, yeah.

[Paddy]

But he waved that thing where you wave to people you can't see.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Amazing. Or you're waving at a crowd that actually, if you flip the camera around, there's no crowd there at all. We've seen that lots of times.

[Henry Zeffman]

So Clinton didn't dance, Blair didn't dance. Is this not the clearest sign yet that Andy Burnham is putting his money where his mouth is and moving on from the era of triangulation, the third way, New labor, drawing a line under those decades and dancing.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

It's a new authentic politics. And if the beat moves you, you should be moved at the same time as he was doing that, roughly speaking, the removal vans were in Downing Street. I mean, talk about highs and lows. So as the Starmer's effects, maybe his new carriage clock, his gift from the cabinet, were packed up, being taken out of the building. The. That was Andy Barnum's moment of real joy. I mean, what sort of poignancy, really, Henry?

[Henry Zeffman]

Yeah, and Sir Keir Starmer, actually, if you speak to people who've spent time in his company, as I have in fact in recent weeks, is to some of his colleagues surprise, very magnanimous, very calm, quite stoic. But it must be in moments like that, where they upend their lives just two years after they last upended their lives, that it really hits what has happened and what's happened to him so quickly.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And we'll see how he presents that on Monday because of course he will give a goodbye speech to the nation. We expect as he leaves number 10 before probably 90 minutes or so later, Andy Barnum walks in. There's still lots we don't know about Barnum, but there is plenty for us to talk about on this Saturday's newscast. Newscast, newscast from the BBC.

[Henry Zeffman]

I will resign as leader of the Labour Party.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And what will you do? Stare at a wall?

[Henry Zeffman]

Humanity's next great voyage begins. You know, I like my buses.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I'll come onto them.

[Paddy]

It's supposed to be me as a doctor.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Ooh la la. Thinking about it like a panto helped.

[Henry Zeffman]

Do we play music now or what do we do?

[Paddy]

Hello, it's Paddy in the studio.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And it's Laura in the studio and

[Henry Zeffman]

it's Henry in the studio. Because I am spending a frantic weekend trying to work out what is going to happen at the top of government on Monday when we get a new Prime Minister.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And it's very nice to have you with us on a Saturday on this auspicious slightly in betweeny weekend it's all about. What's that betwixt Smiths, some who made a silly slogan for the bit between Christmas and New Year when you're already feeling really fat and tired. But you've still got to think about the party you're gonna go to on Hoppenay.

[Paddy]

Yes, I mean, this is the day I was told By Joe Pike.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yes.

[Paddy]

When you get called up if you're gonna be sacked or you get you shortly will be called up if you're gonna be sacked.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I'm not sure that's true. I. I don't know. And it's a new politics, so two knows. But the convention is that the sackings will be done in the Commons face to face on the phone or on the phone. But I think he might do it in the Commons to try and be, oh, look, I'm a good bloke because there's a lot of good blokery. Andy Barnum. I'm doing things different. I'm going to treat anybody well, everybody well. And that's kind of the convention. People get booted in the comments so they don't have to walk of shame up and down Danny Street. And then people who are being welcomed in to be part of this excitement, exciting new project, whichever Prime Minister it is, have the glory of walking up Downing Street. I'd be surprised if they make calls today because then it'll be in the papers tomorrow.

[Paddy]

I should say I might be misquoting Joe, who is normally always right, but he.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Well, he is always right, so maybe he knows something.

[Paddy]

He told me that the sackings. You have to do the sackings first.

[Henry Zeffman]

Well, I think there's a difference between sackings and pre. Sackings.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yes.

[Henry Zeffman]

To coin a term which will never be used again. So what I'm sure Andy Burnham's team will be doing, maybe not today, but certainly before Monday, is for particularly sensitive cabinet ministers who might be thinking that they are going to get a job but actually have fallen off the literal whiteboard on which these things are planned, there might be a look, just want to prepare you in advance. Or if there is a Cabinet minister who's being offered at a motion and they don't have a sense of whether they might be willing to accept that they would want to know before that Cabinet minister walks up Downing street to be offered something that they find contemptuous, insulting. They would want to know that they think it's contemptuously insulting so that that can be squared off in advance. So I think there'll be a bit of that. Although Andy Burnham went out of his way in his speech on Friday to claim that he had made no decisions yet in the last month that he's had to plan for this about who will be in his Cabinet.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But what's so interesting about that is because the finalizing is that kind of fine tuning. So if you suggest Henry, sometimes people say, actually, I'm not doing that. You know, there's the famous Justine Greening. Remember her sitting. She was going to be moved from one job to another and she refused. And she literally sat in Downing, having been called in and refused to take the job that she was being given. And then they had to rejig everything. Same with Jeremy Hunt. You remember years ago, he walked up Downing street wearing his little NHS badge. He didn't want to be moved from Health. And my memory recollections may vary because it's quite some time ago, but I think essentially he refused to be moved from Health. So that kind of, you know, pre chat, working it all out, it's quite high stakes because if Andy Brenham walks in, then the first thing he does, which is pick his Cabinet, blows up or somebody goes off in a huff. Let's say Ed Miliband's offered a rubbish job and he might be cross about things. We'll talk in a second. If he decides to flounce out, say, well, I'm not going to be Minister for paperclips. Thanks very much. I helped you get into office. Andy, what are you doing? This is an outrage. That way could lie a very rapid, unhelpful political explosion.

[Henry Zeffman]

And so Keir Starmer's last major reshuffle, first major reshuffle as well, in September last year, Ed Miliband did a Justine Greening, which is to say, Sir, Keir Starmer said to him, thanks for all your work at Energy, I want you to be the Housing Secretary. And Ed Miliban said no. And he didn't end up being moved because Keir Starmer at that point calculated, I think, probably correctly, that he didn't have the political power any longer to demand that Ed Miliband moved or left the government if he wasn't willing to. Whereas Andy Burnham, I think, probably has complete authority for now. He will never be more powerful than this unless he wins a general election. And how he uses that authority, that power will be really fascinating.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

So we're going to talk a bit more about Cabinet possible picks a bit later, but should we jump into some of the policy things that are starting to emerge?

[Paddy]

Yes. So, drill, baby, drill. This is really on the backs, I think everyone will agree, of a surprise victory for the Conservatives at the Aberdeen south by election, which I've discussed with Scottish MPs on Newsnight about the ripple effect from saying, in Scotland, you're not listening, we're going to vote the Conservatives in about the oil and gas business.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And it also comes from longer term pressure from a couple of the big unions that the transition to green energy and green energy jobs has been going too fast under Ed Miliband. Strong words always from the GMB union, Big and powerful. From Sharon Graham, the leader of Unite Big and Powerful, saying everybody in their part of the world agrees that, yes, transitioning to greener ways of getting energy is good and necessary, but you can't chuck the baby out with the bathwater, I suppose there's quite a lot of bathwater in the North Sea and you've got to protect industries, particularly in the northeast of Scotland. And Ed Miliband's plans have been going too fast. So it's really interesting that Barnum appears to be on the brink of reversing some of Ed Middleband's position here. But the pressure's been on for a long time, hasn't it, here?

[Henry Zeffman]

Absolutely. Within government, there's been an awful lot of frustration, I think, for the Chancellor. Right. And there are people who are more willing in government now that this government is on the way out, to be candid in private about quite how intense the battles in private have been to try to budge Edmilliband on some of these issues. I mean, it is just worth calibrating how far Andy Burnham might go.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yeah. And we don't know that yet, because

[Henry Zeffman]

one of the headline pledges, really, of Labour's 2024 general election manifesto, to which Andy Burnham says he will stick, the manifesto in general, was the ban on new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea. And I am not, as it stands at the time of recording, picking up any sense that Andy Burnham is going to tear that up in his speech on Monday. So I think it's more about what you can do to change direction or signal a coming change of direction within that. And I think we may well get a nod to where things are headed on Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are licenses that were granted under the Conservatives but then got ensnared in a legal process rather than something about new licenses.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Now, there's two problems with that. One is jackdot and Rosebank are meant to be quasi judicial, to use the posh terms.

[Henry Zeffman]

The posh term that Keir Starmer kept using at PMQS the other week. Yeah.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And those decisions are for whoever the Energy Secretary is, and. And they are meant to be not political decisions. Now, of course, everybody knows that the overall direction of travel of any government sets the backdrop within which decisions like that are made, whether they're about planning different developments or whether about oil fields. But there's a danger there because that is a legal process. There's a second danger, which is if Andy Burnham and his team really talk this up as being something really dramatic and actually all they're doing is putting a different gloss on the existing position, which is to do what? More of what's called tiebacks, which is essentially you can get more out of the fields that already exists. That's a very simplified description of something that I'm not very technically aware of. They might end up actually in a bit of a pickle, because mood music and rhetoric doesn't save jobs.

[Paddy]

Yeah.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And it won't convince the unions because

[Paddy]

we're in the twixt betwixtmas.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yes.

[Paddy]

And to give a signal that you might do something on oil and gas in this weekend is a deliberate act. It's not an accident that somehow we are talking about a possible drill baby drill moment is being given out as the headlights are flashing. And it's for me, absolutely and utterly impossible to imagine that a decision on oil and gas in the North Sea is not political. I love the idea that we've got ourselves into a situation in the Westminster bubble, that they think they can come up with a process that takes the politics out of drilling in the North Sea.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And Andy Burnham would say if he were here, and maybe one day he will be. Who knows? That is one of the problems of modern politics that you've had, whether it's, you know, Quango's or judicial process or just process, process, process, process that has been created by the developments of how politics has changed in this country in the last few decades. And that has basically put a kind of barrier between what politicians want to achieve on behalf of the public and then the kind of arcane Whitehall processes that have been put in their place. And there's a lot of people leaving Kir's government who would say exactly the same thing. There's a lot of people who were part of Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss and then Rishi Sunak's job would say governments who would say the same things. But you're right, you know, there's always a situation on these kinds of stories with Cabinet ministers where you're sitting them there saying, what's going to happen about this? And they say, ah, it's a judicial process. And you think, yes, technically true, politically, not really, because the backdrop and the context is all, yeah, absolutely.

[Henry Zeffman]

And it's actually one of the things that speaking to people who are around government, who were also there last time Andy Burnham was in government, they say has changed most since he was last a Secretary of State, since he was last even a Shadow Secretary of State, is perhaps some of the fear, which I don't mean as a sort of loaded word of judicial challenge in Whitehall which does affect how decisions are made. But to come back to your point, Paddy, about the fact that we're talking about this now, it's a really important element of this, which is this is being intimated by Burnham's team as something that he will talk about on Monday in the context of Monday being about short term measures to address the cost of living. Yes, Gary Smith of the GMB who was at Andy Burnham's speech looking very happy, it talks about this as a way to deal with jobs, as do others. But we, at least as we understand it see, are to understand Annie Burnham's approach to this as being about measures to alleviate the cost of living, of which there will be others on Monday and others over the course of next week. So I think prepare for the spectacle of labor politicians who have spent the past year, two years saying there's no point drilling more in the North Sea because it is not going to affect the price of your household energy bills within days, saying to people like you two, actually we need to drill more in the North Sea because it is going to ease the cost of living pressures. And that is just one of some of those mind bending moments we're going to get.

[Paddy]

Can I help you with the manifesto quote in full?

[Laura Kuenssberg]

You can.

[Paddy]

We will not issue new licenses to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, Henry.

[Henry Zeffman]

And I think you are going to be reading that quote on BH back to representatives of the Labour government before

[Laura Kuenssberg]

long because as ever, two things can both be a bit true. So it was never completely true to say, oh, if you drill more in the North Sea, it won't have any, it won't make any difference whatsoever to the eventual cost of household bills. That's just not the case because more supply from anywhere in the world would have an impact on the international market price and therefore in the end, somewhere down the chain that's going to have an impact, even a tiny, tiny, tiny one, on the eventual price that we all pay. It is also the case to say that oil and gas are sold on international markets. So to imagine that if we put some more drills under underneath the coast off the northeast of Scotland, that that would significantly, quickly, next week give you or you a fiver off your energy bills, that's also a completely ridiculous thing to say. But that's why the sort of political erratic around that, you know, both things are a little bit true.

[Paddy]

Yeah. But I wonder if what Manchesterism would mean is a read across to Aberdeenism because there was a big letter written just a few days ago by many people in the oil business asking for clarity on the new. For the. From the new administration. And it's a perfectly respectable question. And it gets back to the fact that had there been a contest for the leader of the Labour Party, we could have said in a question, in a debate, we could have said should we drill in the North Sea? We could have asked three candidates. And this is kind of what happened in the contest to replace Boris Johnson. Yes, there was a contest. Rishi Sunak said to Liz Truss, your plans will put up interest rates. That happened.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yes.

[Paddy]

And she won. But that was happening. We could have asked. So it's very important to note that they're putting this out. You used the word intimating. So we're not in a policy position. It's one of the criticisms of Labour's process that we're in an intimation twixtmas phase.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

There's another interesting thing here though. There's an obscure tax called the EPL that the energy profits levy, I believe. Am I right? That if you're listening, Henry just nodded, so that's reassuring. Henry nodded. So I did actually give a brief moment know what I was talking about.

[Paddy]

Nodded off.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But that's not exactly a big household story. Right. The epl, people in the oil and gas industry have been really cross for ages about the level at which they pay tax and they've been asking for changes. Burnham could make a big change to the tax regime or even a small change to the tax regime for the North Sea oil and gas industry, which would have a big impact in that part of the country. It would have a big impact on many of those businesses that have been having a tough time in Aberdeen without there being much of a sort of political blowback. Because that's not something that is a question for, you know, on most people's clips. So I would watch out for that. It's not just some about new drilling, it's also whether or not they change the tax regime, which has been something doing the rounds. The other thing, can I just say about contest, because some people remember the Cabinet made a really interesting point to me last night, which was much more interesting than anything I would have thought of on my own. They were saying, okay, it's not been great not having a contest, however, because the Labour Party is the Labour Party. Thank God we didn't have a contest. Because what happens in labor contests is people start offering bigger and bigger and bigger checks and spending promises in the way that in a Tory contest, it's a kind of. It's the opposite. It's this sort of bravado of who can cut taxes more. If there had been a contest, you might have got to a position by the autumn where you've had labor contenders all sort of promising free milk and honey coming out of every tap in the land with very serious, perhaps unaffordable, as many people would see it, policy promises.

[Henry Zeffman]

And that was one of the arguments being made by, perhaps in relative terms, the more right wing chunk of Andy Burnham's early support coalition to other MPs from the Labour right, which was, you may not love everything Andy's saying, but get on board. Because if Darren Jones, as it latterly was, or Al Karnes takes this to a contest, Andy is only going to end up inexorably being forced in a direction that you're going to like even less. That was an argument that was being made around the corridors of Westminster in those early few days where it was pretty certain that Andy Burnham was going to win this uncontested. But there was still a sort of slither of possibility that there might be a contest.

[Paddy]

Given that Parliament's in recess.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yeah.

[Paddy]

And given that, Henry, and you are intimating in your own way that there could be fresh intimations coming our way, are we going to get a welter of policy intimations quite, quite quickly, having there's been this criticism, Mr. Burnham. Right. Really? So on Monday, do I brace for it on Monday or get my pen out?

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I think it's going to be something on energy built that they'll brand as energy bills, even though it might not actually be about bills, but there'll be something about bills. I think there'll probably be something else. On cost of living. As M. Fula, who was with us last weekend, she's been heavily involved in drawing up the policy. She was suggesting there'd be something perhaps quite big to put money in people's pockets. There's been a straw in the wind about maybe unfreezing the tax thresholds, the level at which you start paying tax that might feel potentially like a tax cut to people.

[Henry Zeffman]

That would be a very big deal.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

It would be a very big deal. I've got. I'm not suggesting. Suggesting that will. I know that there. I know, though, that there have been some policy papers prepared on that maybe that's something for the first budget. Don't know. There's another straw in the wind that I've been told about, about rough sleeping and homelessness, which would be a very Labour Party friendly kind of plan. But also that's a big issue to lots of people in their towns and cities now, something that people have seen in recent years. Again, I can't confirm if that is going to be in there, but it's one of the things that I've sort of heard a whisper. So I think they know that they have to arrive and go, bang, bang, bang. Here are some big things, like in your Paddy Festo last weekend, you're like, just do a thing. I think they are gonna do a thing. But it's so interesting at the moment, Henry, I don't know if you're finding the same thing, depending on who you talk to, you just get such a different picture of what's going on. You know, someone said to me this morning, there's so many things on which they don't have a clue what they want to do. Others are like, andy is so clear about his agenda. He's done all the access talks himself. Whitehall knows what he wants. We are ready to go.

[Henry Zeffman]

And what that difference, which I've absolutely experienced as well, I think attests to, is. Andy Burnham's true circle over the past few weeks has been tiny, miniscule, and I think it has caused something very impressive on one level, which is that this has been perhaps the least leaky transition or incoming government. If you want to include teams that have moved from opposition into government for, I mean, a good decade, I think, if not longer. And that is very impressive in a sort of media, but also parliamentary management sense of keeping things tight. On the other hand, it may well be that a few weeks or months into this government, people will come to say, if you'd let a few people into the transition, a few more people into the transition, you wouldn't have messed up that policy issue. Or more people might have been bought into that controversial only decision that you made, or whatever it may be.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Or they might have told you that scrapping the Department for Science and Trade actually would occupy policy people for months and months and months.

[Paddy]

Yeah.

[Henry Zeffman]

Do you think that's a thing? Do you think that's gonna happen?

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Well, I had a very angry message from someone who's convinced it is going to happen, saying, this will be a terrible waste of time and it's insane and it's a really bad move and they shouldn't do it. Paraphrasing. So I don't know if it's going to happen, but it's one of the things that's been suggested. And there's always a temptation for politicians coming in to start messing around with what's unattractively known as the mog, the machinery of government. That way lies lots and lots of months of earnest technical debate about power structures, who sits where, down to, you know, the highfalutin things of how you organize a government in the 21st century, down to what the new letterhead's going to be, how many chairs you need, which buildings should people be in? And it takes time, energy and effort. And that's not necessarily something Andy Burnham has much of. So one of his team said to me last week, I think we've got six months, maybe eight months, where people are going to be willing to take a second look at labor if they start doing things like Whitehall reorganizations. That is a chasm of time and political capital. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do. I mean, I don't have a view on whether it's the right or wrong thing to do. But I think starting to move around government departments in that kind of way might end up being a real drain. And, of course, they want to also do this thing of getting power out to number 10 and then number 10 north in Manchester, not Shetland, not Aberdeen, Manchester, Bing. The north. That. So embarking on big departmental changes. There are a lot of people who just think that might be a mistake.

[Henry Zeffman]

I remember speaking to someone who bears the scars of a previous Whitehall reorganization, and they sort of identified almost a paradox where they said the amount of time and effort and energy and internal politics that ends up being expended on a departmental merger or the creation of a new department shows that Whitehall needs profound change. But also because Whitehall is like that, makes it almost not worth doing in the first place.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Right.

[Henry Zeffman]

And so you can see why incoming prime ministers, especially those who've been around Whitehall in different forms for a quarter of a century, as Andy Burnham has, might want to grasp that nettle. But you can also see why they might think, ooh, maybe coming in two years into a term just isn't the

[Paddy]

right time for it, because Labour directly promised me as a voter that I wouldn't have the churn and chaos of changing prime ministers. That's what they said. They said that. So they. And also, as I've said, on to you, and you've agreed. Action, action this day works well with the British public. And we know as well Tony Blair. One of the things he said was he wished he'd been bolder.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yes.

[Paddy]

If Andy Burnham comes in and does nothing except reorganize Whitehall, we'll all be here again, as far as I can see. One of the things that keeps cropping up in my mind is I want to find a name for people who believe in an early general election, a mandate testing early election before the full term. Because people I speak to who, who are in the thick of it do think it's in question, it's in play. I agree and I. You agree?

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I agree.

[Paddy]

Well, I didn't know you agreed.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Well, I agree because someone who knows Andy Burnham very, very well, who worked with him when he was in government last time, said to me that they're, they think he'll do an election next year. That's why I think it's a. In play. I mean, look, these things are always in play, right? Other people have said there's no way he'll go for a general. It would be insane. So I'm not saying. I know, but it's, it's potentially in play because if it's going well, so say fast forward six months, fast forward nine months. Spring. Let's go to spring 27. If it's going well. Reform are having a tough time. Reform have been having a tough time. If that continues, their poll leads falling away a little bit. If it's going well and the economy has turned and the world looks a bit more optimistic, say there's been some sporting championship and Andy Burner's been able to bring back some kind of sense of feel good that's been missing in this country for a long time. You can see a position where he'll think actually go for it. We know that he can gamble. So standing in Makerfield was a gamble. Leaving Westminster for Manchester in 2016 or 17 was a gamble. He might. I'm not saying he will, but someone who knows him very, very well is convinced that he will next year.

[Henry Zeffman]

I think what's so interesting is we now have the case for both sides of it in recent political history. For a decade, between Gordon Brown bottling the 2007 election and Andy Burnham, of course was at that cabinet table and Theresa May going for it in 2017. Between that period, people used to say, well, it's a sign that if, you know, if you're an incoming Prime Minister and you get ahead in the polls, of course you've got to go for a general election. Then Theresa May showed there are downsides to that as well, especially if you want to do something big on social care, in fact. So, you know, I think it's. It's going to be a fascinating dilemma which I'm sure is playing out in his head.

[Podcast Host]

Yeah.

[Paddy]

Okay. Well, then the word for now is generalists or generalistas.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Generalistas. That's better than generalists. Is someone who knows a little bit about everything.

[Paddy]

Right, well, look, let's turn to the speech itself. So it was big on the vision thing, said many of the newspapers across the dial, people who don't like Labour, people who are, in fact, more deemed to be on the left, all agree greed. One man I saw in the Guardian wrote it was. It was a classic lesson in vibes, but it was better than anything Keir Starmer delivered, which I thought was just really harsh on every ground.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I think that is very harsh, and I'm not sure that's true. I mean, if you think Keir Starmer was not a great orator. However, there were actually. His conference speech last year, for example, was something that was pretty well put together and pretty well argued and actually showed a sort of vigor that was. Was sometimes missing. But, I mean, I think it was a speech that was absolutely directed at the Labour Party. It said things like, we will be authentic Labor. Well, what does that mean? It also said. I thought the boldest bit of it was saying that this will be the biggest change moment in 40 years. I thought, okay, so Andy Barnum becoming Prime Minister, sticking broadly to the labor manifesto is a bigger deal than labor coming back into power after 14 years. It's a bigger deal in his mind than us voting to leave the EU. A vote. A bigger deal than us leaving the EU. A bigger deal than the financial crisis in 2008. That's led to so. To so much of the turmoil that we've lived through. I thought it was. I thought it was bold.

[Henry Zeffman]

That was what.

[Paddy]

Exactly.

[Henry Zeffman]

That was what struck me too, Laura, was the scale of the test that he set himself.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yeah.

[Henry Zeffman]

It wasn't just, I'm going to turn things around and win the next general election. That was kind of implied at various points. It was, I'm going to end 40 years of neoliberalism. I'm going to be the most significant change of Prime Minister, as you say, everything you just said, arguably the biggest task of the lot. I'm going to end factionism in the Labour Party for good. I mean, those are like. I actually don't think he could have set a bigger goal for himself. He hasn't literally, I don't. And that is a sign that he sees himself clearly as much more than just the latest in the sequence of Prime Ministers that we've had since Brexit. Oh, that's another thing he said, by the way, he's going to end the post Brexit turbulence ambulance in British politics and improve British political culture and discourse in the process. Yes, but look, I'm sure Rishi Sunak, 48 hours before he became Prime Minister, thought that he was more than just the latest. And I'm sure Liz Truss did, and I'm sure Boris Johnson did and Theresa May, and you get the idea it's very high.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I mean, he is aiming himself very, very high, though. And that's what one of his colleagues is really worried about, that they said, look, we set a very low bar for getting rid of people because you got rid of star markers of low poll ratings. He's setting the expectations so high. And because they said, because anti's always like to make a grand entrance.

[Paddy]

Well, he mentioned hope eight times, which is in stark contrast to Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. And as I understand it, the insiders in the Keir Starmer circle agree that was the wrong tone.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

They do, yeah. Yeah.

[Henry Zeffman]

Keir Starmer has said it was the wrong.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

He said that to you, didn't he?

[Henry Zeffman]

And I think it's part of the explanation they give for why the removal vans were outside Downing street yesterday as Andy Burnham was dancing to New Order. And I think one interesting thing just worth telling newscasters, there's a load of names that aren't public figures, but who have worked for Keir Starmer and Downistrict for the last two years and are staying on.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Yes, very nice.

[Henry Zeffman]

Like really quite a significant proportion. And that is interesting, firstly, because it tells us that Andy Burnham, having planned for this and wanted this for many years, understandably, I think, didn't have a big enough operation that they could all come in together. So he needs ballast from the existing team. But also it means that they are there to say, look, we made a mistake when in the first week we were gloomy, we made a mistake when we did this, we made a mistake when we did that. So actually, you can see how it might help Andy Burnham avoid some of what they see as the pitfalls of Starmer's early period.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I think the other thing about it, though, is that it potentially, and we've got no idea if this is going to be a successful Premiership or a disaster, we have no idea. But potentially, by retaining staff and also, one of the things they've done is reach out to existing special advisors and those kinds of people and phone up and say, oh, can we find something for you? Can we talk? All the rest. It has created. There's a sort of buffer of goodwill. Yeah. So when Labour was so desperate, not to repeat the Tories carousel of Prime Ministers, I think one of the reasons for that is that every time the Tories did it, it's like they got more and more angry with each other. More and more people fell out, there was more bitterness, more toxicity, more upset. Barnum's team have quite deliberately been reaching out to people who've worked for Keir Starmer or people who've been working for other ministers in government to talk to them about whether or not they might want to stay. And also, that includes cabinet ministers have been, you know, people have been. I. I've had many, many people, unprompted, give praise and salutation to the way that James Purnell, the Chief of Staff, Andy Barnum's mate and former Cabinet minister, to the way that he and Andy Barnum have run these last couple of weeks. There's been a genuine sense that they've been respectful, they've been trying to bring people in, which is a real contrast to the bitterness of lots of the Tory transitions, when they were all falling out with each other. There are, of course, people who are furious with them and don't all feel that way. Right. So I'm not saying it's all peaceful and marvellous and they're all sitting around singing Kumbaya, but it's been very different to the Conservative transitions that just made things worse and more bitter.

[Paddy]

Also, Keir Starmer set an important tone and he has said he will go with good grace. And it was very meaningful watching the Hillsborough Law being passed. In my case, I was watching it on the television. You may very well have been in the chamber, but seeing the fact that Andy Burnham went to great length to say that this was Keir Starmer's legacy and that they'd worked on it together, and Keir Starmer himself saying he'd like to go with good grace, so you can see that they were terrified of the alternative, which was a contest with bad blood everywhere. So. But we didn't know the information you just gave us until you did that. They're reaching out by phone call. They're trying to keep the even special advisors on side because normally they assume

[Laura Kuenssberg]

they're going, yeah, and I think, obviously, look, a lot of them are going to Go. And some of them do feel really sore, but it is, it is different and they have tried to set a different tone. But we should also say, even though they want to end kind of briefings and all the rest, when it comes to the Cabinet, some of that still has been playing out in the papers, whether it's, you know, Ed Miliband versus Shabana Mahmood for Chancellor. There have been briefings, there has been unhappiness over in, in this kind of massive vacuum where Barnum hasn't wanted to put Cabinet names out there into the public domain. Other people have filled the space and other people have got quite cross by filling the space. Just before we talk about that, newscasters, there is in your feeds a profile episode about Andy Burnham, if you want to delve into who he really is. I've written many words that will be on the website later today about that when a kind of profile piece. But hear it from one of the people who really knows him well, Steve Rotherham, the Liverpool Metro mayor, best mate of Andy Barnum, close political ally, personal friend, and he's talked to Adam and Chris and also Judith Morris, our colleague in the northwest of England who's been watching Barnum's career up close. So that's there in your feed if you really want to dive into hearing about Barnum. The man himself.

[Podcast Host]

How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire?

[Podcast Narrator]

From posting videos on Good Bad Billionaire, we're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, Mr. Beast, made his fortune.

[Podcast Host]

He's buried him a coffin for days,

[Podcast Narrator]

counted to 100,000 on camera, and even

[Podcast Host]

recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the Internet.

[Podcast Narrator]

But it all started when he gave a homeless man $10,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism

[Podcast Host]

or is he just the king of the attention economy?

[Podcast Narrator]

Find out on Good Bad billionaire listen

[Podcast Host]

on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Paddy]

So it's so complicated that we're not going to ask for your predictions because we'll know more in 72 hours. So instead we're going to do the great offices of Sweepstake.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Say that again.

[Paddy]

The great offices of State Sweepstake. So Paul Campbell, newscaster, has said, my predictions are Chancellor Ed Miliband, but with a reduced remit alongside a new Cabinet role focused on growth. Based in number 10 north.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Foreign Secretary Paul is predicting Dan Jarvis. That would be. That would be very interesting. And Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to stay. Fran from Glossip, though Henry's got some other recommendations.

[Henry Zeffman]

Yes, Fran says That the Chancellor is going to be Shabana Mahmoud. Well, she definitely feels like the front runner this weekend. Home Secretary Ed Miliband. I think lots of people in Westminster would be quite surprised if that happened. But let's see. And the Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, who is of course the incumbent because David Miliband could be brought in later. Fran also says keep up the good work with creative ideas for organized fun.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Ah, Fran, that's very kind. We will see. It's not very long to wait but do email in your suggestions so you better get busy actually because it's course to 2 on Saturday so if you want to play this game, the great Office of State sweepstake.

[Paddy]

Well done.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Thank you. Then you better get on with it.

[Paddy]

And also you've got to think about. Sadiq Khan is headed into the Lords. Yes, I'd like to see some Sadiq speculation.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

So I think he'll be a minister once he stops being London Mayor. I think that's partly why that is designed like that. I mean, I don't know, but that would be. My relatively sort of slightly informed guess is that now he's been sent to the House of Lords it means that when he stops being lair of London he could be given a ministerial job. Maybe other people will be made Lords too in order to do that. You know, David Miliband's name has been knocking around. Other people's have too. What might there be for David Blunkett, who's Andy Burnham's big mentor? You know, Alan Milburn is another one possibly, although he's been a non execs director at the department.

[Henry Zeffman]

But not a minister and not a minister. Andy Burnham is talking a lot about how much he appreciates his work doing that review for Pat McFadden.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

So there are all sorts of things that might happen very, very soon. And there's two other things I want to say there isn't great element here and I don't mean great as in good, I mean as a significant of a real getting the band back together thing. And I'm, you know, it's quite, it's very striking to me because when I was sort of a baby reporter in Westminster, all these people were knocking around either as special advisors or then junior ministers and then they went up into cabinet positions. Lots of them then disappeared. They didn't all disappear, but lots of them disappeared or went off to do other things. And there is a very significant pulling back in different members of the labor family. And Andy Brown is very determined not to be factional, not to Be playing Blairite, Brown out, Corbin out, whatever. But it really is a big sort of. It's like the sort of pulling. Trying to pull the sort of net back in and drag back smart people, right, who left politics or whatever. And there's sort of people further down the pecking order that nobody listening will ever have heard of, who are making a reappearance into Labour Party politics, like the new head of political strategy. The other thing that I want to get off my chest, I was saying that to you the other day, Paddy. The idea that we know absolutely nothing about what Andy Burnham's going to do, that's just nonsense. It's sort of caught on as a thing that we know nothing of Andy Burnham. It's all a complete blank page. The way that I. I've kind of been trying to organize this in my own head is we absolutely know what Andy Barnum believes in. He has a very clear set of beliefs. What's unclear is how he will apply those beliefs when faced with very big and difficult decisions. That's the missing link. It's not that we don't know anything.

[Henry Zeffman]

I feel much better to join you in that, Laura. I do think there is a sort of strange amount of amnesia given how many Prime Ministerial transitions we've had in British political history. I mean, like, actually, most Prime Ministers take over midterm, right. At least in, you know, way back beyond the past 10 years. And don't tell you who, John Major did set out a vast manifesto in 1990 and that's. That is our system of government. And the other thing is that, yeah, as you say, I mean, find me the Prime Ministerial transition where the Chancellor was pre announced.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Right.

[Henry Zeffman]

I mean, there's a constitutional element to it, which is that it is for the King to appoint the ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. And I know that sounds silly and, you know, welcome to Britain think that is one of the many reasons why they give complete short shrift to the idea that Andy Burnham would have given a press conference last week saying, well, this person's going to be my work and Pension Secretary. And now they can go off and speak to the Permanent Secretary. I mean, it's just not how it's ever worked.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

No.

[Henry Zeffman]

Anyway, I think you both need.

[Paddy]

You both needed that moment.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Well, it's just annoying.

[Paddy]

I think you're gonna have to get your hip flasks out after that.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Have you got one? You've got pockets in your shorts.

[Paddy]

That's it. That's my phone. So you've got on the TV tomorrow.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Oh, Lucy Powell. And also we've done an exclusive interview with Kemi Badenoch, because one of the very interesting things about this is the political rivals of Andy Barnum, are they going to have to change? They're going to be facing a very different opponent. So we have been talking to Cami Bednock about whether she will accept Andy Burnham's invitation to have less point scoring in Westminster. And she does say to me, I want to score as many points as I possibly can.

[Paddy]

Well, I said before, she does look like she enjoys that job, which is a big test. And, you know, Burnham Badenoch is going

[Laura Kuenssberg]

to be like a big feature of all of our. The sort of background or the context of this country in the next couple years. Oh, that means who knows? But Barnum Badenoch is going to be a big. That's going to be a big feature of our politics. So we wanted to sit down with her and ask her how she's going to approach this next.

[Paddy]

Right, we'll have a live interview with Lord Blunket to offer when we meet again tomorrow.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Great. Thank you very much for being with us on Saturday's newscast at this auspicious betwixtmas. Betwixt Prime Ministers moment.

[Paddy]

Very elegantly put.

[Henry Zeffman]

Thank you.

[Paddy]

Thank you very much and goodbye.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Goodbye.

[Henry Zeffman]

Goodbye.

[Paddy]

Newscast.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Newscast from the BBC.

[Podcast Narrator]

Thank you so much for making it to the end of Newscast. You clearly copyright Chris Mason Ooze Stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Don't forget, you can email us anytime. It's newscastbc.co.uk and if you would like to join our Discord community to talk about everything newscast related, there is a link in the description of this podcast. And don't be scared, it's super easy to click on it and then get set up. Or you can WhatsApp us on 033-01-2390 480 and I promise you we read and listen to every single message. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Bye.

[Podcast Host]

How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire?

[Podcast Narrator]

From posting videos on Good Bad Billionaire. We're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, MrBeast made his fortune.

[Podcast Host]

He's buried himself in a coffin for

[Podcast Narrator]

days, counted to a hundred thousand on

[Podcast Host]

camera and even recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the Internet.

[Podcast Narrator]

But it all started when he gave a homeless man $10,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism

[Podcast Host]

or is he just the king of the attention economy?

[Podcast Narrator]

Find out on Good Bad billionaire.

[Podcast Host]

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.