Paddy O'Connell (2:02)

I love that. Was it fun?

Laura Kuenssberg (2:04)

It was absolutely uplifting, I can tell you. And Greg is doing extremely well. But I wasn't prepared by the reaction from listeners, radio listeners who come out to say hello to. To him. And also the challenge is very eloquent. But not everyone gets cheered on in life. Money will be spent on those people via Comic Relief.

Paddy O'Connell (2:21)

So presumably you can Go to the BBC website and there'll be lots of info and stuff about watching Greg's challenge and giving money to people who need it, if you like.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:28)

To BBC.co.uk Greg, I didn't know either

Paddy O'Connell (2:31)

that you were a bit of a biker.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:33)

Yes, it's in my past. I feel there's a podcast in it.

Paddy O'Connell (2:36)

Oh, no, I think you can just tell us now.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:37)

No, I do.

Paddy O'Connell (2:38)

Lovers, I do.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:39)

I. Yes, definitely. Leather jacket and I like a motorbike.

Paddy O'Connell (2:42)

Leather drowsies.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:43)

I've not been. Not been in them since my nightclubbing days in New York.

Paddy O'Connell (2:48)

Now definitely is a podcast.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:50)

Meanwhile, back in the news. We will be discussing the news today, will we not?

Paddy O'Connell (2:54)

I don't know. No, we will. Sorry, I'll stop being silly.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:58)

So there's plenty to discuss, which we'll get to when we start Sunday's newscast.

Paddy O'Connell (3:03)

Newscast, newscast from the BBC.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:06)

Fat Boy Slim and me in the

Henry Zeffman (3:07)

classroom doing our violin lessons.

Narrator (3:09)

I was the tattletale in the class.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:10)

Can I have an apology, please? I trust almost nobody that Daddy has

Admiral Lord West (3:14)

to sometimes use strong language.

Henry Zeffman (3:16)

Next time in Moscow.

Paddy O'Connell (3:17)

I feel Delulu with no Salulu. Take me down to Downing Street.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:21)

Let's go have a tour. Blimey.

Paddy O'Connell (3:24)

Hello, it's Laura in the studio.

Laura Kuenssberg (3:25)

Hello, it's Paddy back in the studio.

Henry Zeffman (3:27)

And hello, it's Henry at home.

Paddy O'Connell (3:29)

So this morning we awake to more Iranian strikes across the Gulf. We awake to more Israeli strikes on Iran and American strikes on Iran. And we awake also to President Trump's relatively late yesterday, well, the second half of yesterday, asking China, France, Japan, South Korea and the UK to send ships to the Straits of Hormuz in order to protect that vital waterway. That's a bit like, you know, the sort of maritime motorway for the world where oil and gas and all sorts of goods move through, currently clogged up because of the conflict, which is what has sent oil prices skyrocketing.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:05)

But that's a contrast to last Saturday's posting. The United Kingdom, once our great ally, maybe the greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East. That's okay, Prime Minister, we don't need them any longer. But we will remember, Henry, this is a reverse ferret from the leader of the free world.

Henry Zeffman (4:22)

Yeah, it certainly appears to be in the sense of whether he needs the UK's assistance or not. Although let's be clear, they're different things that he's asking for now compared to when he was saying he didn't need a UK aircraft carrier's. Assistance. But it does underscore the kind of whiplash that the UK Government is feeling and so many allies of the United States are feeling in how to deal with President Trump. That's not new, but it is in a new and perhaps more kind of high wire context than ever, which is this conflict with Iran, where it's not clear from public pronouncement to public pronouncement what exactly President Trump's end game is and how soon or how long it might be until he declares it.

Paddy O'Connell (5:12)

And it's something definitely picked up on by members of the public and newscasters like Pete. Pete's got in touch to say hi. Trump says he doesn't want help from those that join after he's won the war today. He wants equipment sent to help him. He needs to make up his mind. Well, you can imagine they probably feel that in Downing street. And they also, I imagine, raised their eyebrows at another one of Trump's pronouncements. They not this time on social media, but in a phone interview with some of our broadcast colleagues in America, where he said Iran wants a deal, but he's not ready to do a deal because the terms aren't good enough. But he might carry on bombing Car island, which our colleague Frank Gardner pronounced completely beautifully yesterday, and I'm sure I've mangled it then, which is a vital oil hub in Iran. He might carry on bombing it, and I quote, just for fun. Now, that is not how Western leaders would traditionally conventionally talk about conflicts where lives are lost, lives are turned upside down and things are destroyed.

Laura Kuenssberg (6:13)

And I spoke to Admiral Lord west about this, who says that you have to send your battleships to the sound of gunfire. He's saying, you know, none of us like war. There are many listeners to our many newscasters who say it's another foreign war we're getting involved in. Don't get involved. But Lord west, who ran the Navy as First Sea Law, told me, if you don't join wars because you don't want to, you're going to end up joining them anyway.

Admiral Lord West (6:37)

You can't avoid wars sometimes, and trying to avoid them makes you more involved. And I think you need to be involved. I think in this, for example, the case now where the Straits of Hormuz are closed, we should be looking at options to how could we join with the Americans if we want to keep these straits open over many months?

Laura Kuenssberg (6:55)

Henry, it's a dilemma for the government, isn't it, because they didn't get involved at first, which seems to be politically Astute, save friends of Keir Starmer, the ones who left.

Henry Zeffman (7:02)

Yeah, I think Lord west gets to a conversation which is going on in government, which is, okay, the UK took certain decisions in the run up to and in the immediate aftermath of this war being launched by the US and Israel. But now the war has been launched. Ought that to change the way in which the UK approaches it? And actually, you already saw very quickly a couple of weekends ago, the UK switch its position to allow the US to carry out strikes from British bases. But there are questions for sure going on in government, ricocheting around government about whether the UK ought now to do more. But I do think in general, the feeling I pick up from high levels of government, and I'm interested in what you guys are hearing, is that they feel vindicated. They feel like Keir Starmer has made the right calls, especially in the run up to the war when he got the request from President Trump to help. But in general, throughout, they think that he adapted the position at the right time. And there are people in government who are not generally over disposed to be flattering about Keir Starmer's performance, who are genuinely impressed and think that, you know, aside from the statecraft questions, as you mentioned, Paddy, he has managed an important feat politically, which hasn't generally been a hallmark of his government, which is that he appears to be on the right side of public opinion as well.

Paddy O'Connell (8:25)

I think that's definitely true. And I think they also in government think that their opponents have messed up their initial approaches to the war. And Labour insiders would point to how they claim the Conservatives have sort of softened their approach. It appeared that they were very gung ho at the beginning and they've sort of walked back from, from that a little bit in the last fortnight. They make the same accusation at Nigel Farage's door. They then point to the Greens on the other side and sort of say, well, their position's ludicrous because you can't just imagine that. You can just have diplomacy and it'll all go away. And you can sort of just say all wars are terrible. The Liberal Democrats, of course, they, they make the same kind of claim that, well, it's not really serious to be in this kind of position when there is a conflict in the war. You have to deal with the real world. It is a bit against kind of expectations that you have right now. You have people in the Labour Party going, actually, maybe we've played this quite well, which is unusual. And I do think, and this is a tangent to the conversation we're having today. But I do think that from a month ago when it was very, very hard to find anyone in the Labor Party who would say Keir Starmer would be definitely leading them into the next general election, the war for this time has shifted that and people instead will say to you, oh, my God. Well, we couldn't possibly think about changing a leader now because it would look insane when there are bombs falling from the sky. Now, that might shift again, but the real politic of having a conflict in the Middle east has changed the calculus inside the Labour Party about what to do about their very unpopular with the public leader.

Laura Kuenssberg (9:55)

I did not know. I thought the malaise had set in on that question. But you're telling me it's kinetic.

Paddy O'Connell (10:01)

Well, I think the malaise is still there, Right? People aren't saying, oh, Keir Starmer's a hero and now we all like him. But that question of timing and that question of what to do has become an awful lot less tempting for people who were thinking, planning, wondering about whether or not they would have a change of leader after the May elections. That calculation has definitely shifted. I wonder, Henry, if you agree with that, because I don't want to overstate this. This doesn't mean that they now suddenly think Kir is marvellous and all will be well.

Laura Kuenssberg (10:30)

No, I do. I know you weren't saying that, but

Paddy O'Connell (10:32)

the picture has definitely changed in the conversations I've had this week. But Henry does that.

Henry Zeffman (10:36)

I totally agree. I totally agree. And worth remembering in the vivid phrase of Ed Miliband, who of course has been giving an interview again this morning. A month or so ago, the Labour Party looked over the precipice and decided not to change leader. Now, they looked over the precipice then, and Labour MPs decided that the various candidates weren't quite right at that moment. Now, the question is not just whether those same candidates are quite right a month or so on, it's also, can you see them navigating this moment of geopolitics? And almost by definition, any candidate to replace Keir Starmer as Prime Minister hasn't done the diplomacy of dealing with Donald Trump and other world leaders because they haven't been prime minister. So I do. I mean, I don't think it necessarily changes the serious doubts, to say the least, about whether Keir Starmer will lead the Labour Party in the next general election. But assuming this war lasts for at least a little while longer, I think it certainly does change the dynamic around May. And given that was the moment of massive jeopardy looming for Keir Starmer. I think that's very significant.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:46)

And let me add as a postscript, Lord west, who was, as Alan west appointed a minister under Gordon Brown's administration, does also say, Keir Starmer got the first stage of this war. Right. So earlier I was bringing you his views and Henry's reminded us there's another newsmaking interview which we must now digest, which is one Ed Miliband on the sofa of one Laura Kuenssberg.

Paddy O'Connell (12:07)

Yes. So Ed Miliband was with us this morning. Very timely because he's the Energy Secretary. And of course it's not. This conflict is of course about Iran, the Iranian regime and the balance of power in the Middle east, and Donald Trump. But it is also about oil and energy and how that affects every single one of us. And so it was very timely that we had the Energy Secretary on. He made pretty clear, I think, two important things, that if the energy price continues to spike in the way it has for some months, that mean that there might be a big increase in energy bills in the months to come, that the government would step in in some way. He didn't want to be drawn on the details, but that's a live conversation in government. We know they talked to the big six this week about what they might do. The suggestions are that support would probably not be universal as it was. As you always remind us, Liz, trust paid everybody's energy bills with taxpayers money. The other thing I think was clear from talking to him is that if oil prices stay as high as they are at the moment, that the government will not put up fuel duty as they plan to do in September. Those things are both predicated on a big if, if the war continues and the oil price stays as high as it is. But if we come back to where we began, I was interested in two parts of his interview particularly. He did suggest that the UK government might consider sending some ships to that, to the Gulf and potentially to the Straits of Hormuz. And I was slightly surprised by how open to that he sounded. And second of all, though, when we asked him about whether the UK government thought it was clear what the Americans were trying to do, I thought he was distinctly hesitant, shall we say, to suggest that Donald Trump had a clear plan. You've said plainly, as the Prime Minister did to the country in the House of Commons, that the aims of the war weren't clear to him at the beginning. Are they clear to you now as a government?

Admiral Lord West (14:05)

Forgive me, Laura, I'm not, you know, tempting as it is to sort of talk about this in a. In a public setting. I think. I think the US made talks about

Paddy O'Connell (14:13)

it two weeks ago.

Admiral Lord West (14:14)

The us. Well, the US when they began, the US made its decisions. The US made its decisions to begin to launch these attacks on Iran. For the share, there is a shared objective which is we don't want a nuclear Iran. But I think the priority now at this stage in the conflict is to. Is to make sure we don't have a nuclear arm, but to bring the conflict to an end.

Henry Zeffman (14:39)

I mean, I think it was, as Laura says, conspicuous what Ed Miliband was not willing to engage with. I mean, I think we are pretty clear now that the government, or at least senior people in the government, do not believe the US has a clear plan for this war. I mean, actually, in his earlier statements on the conflict in the House of Commons, Keir Starmer essentially suggested that he

Paddy O'Connell (15:03)

talked about the law, said it very plainly.

Henry Zeffman (15:05)

Exactly. He also said, you know, we do not believe. We do not believe that we should join a conflict unless there is a clear thought through plan for what comes next. Which was a sort of roundabout way of strongly implying that he didn't believe the US has one here. I mean, there is a particular context around Ed Miliband here, which is that, courtesy of some brilliant journalism by Tim Shipman in the Spectator, which has conspicuously not been denied by anyone really involved, there was this crucial meeting of the Cabinet National Security Council, which Ed Miliband participated in because of the energy implications of this war, just before the war broke out, where Ed Miliband was, we're told, one of the leading voices urging caution from the UK in signing up. And people remember, of course, when he was leader of the Labour Party, that his decision to oppose uk, the UK joining US action in Syria had massive global consequences. So, you know, he is a significant player here.

Paddy O'Connell (16:04)

Again, it was really interesting and I. And I also think he rather enjoyed being so hesitant to say whether. Yes, exactly. I mean, he's a very experienced politician. He must have done tens of thousands of interviews. It cannot have been unintentional that he hesitated and then sort of did, oh, well, forgive me, Laura. It's all rather difficult to. It's rather difficult to tell you what I really think.

Laura Kuenssberg (16:28)

Yeah.

Paddy O'Connell (16:29)

If he believed that the Americans had a clear plan, a UK government minister would say, yes, of course, our closest ally knows what they're doing, they have a clear plan. So some decoding omissions are sometimes just as important as what politicians actually say.

Laura Kuenssberg (16:43)

And also, if you, if you bring the lens right out, the war is not going smoothly, says the world's energy markets.

Paddy O'Connell (16:51)

Correct.

Laura Kuenssberg (16:51)

Now, you can say that the US military strikes have struck targets and reduced and depleted Iran and have killed the old Supreme Leader. You can say all of that and it's true. However, Iran's weapon of choice is the world's energy markets through the Strait of Hormuz, as discussed on Saturday's newscast with you, Frank and Steve Rosenberg. And one of the beneficiaries of the rising oil price is Russia, who might also be helping Iran through the back door and maybe even through the front door. So that is not a success for American and Western war aims and policy objectives. That is why, if you're Ed Miliband and it's out there somewhere that you warned that this was a reckless war, then it's obviously good to be seen on the airwaves implying that you thought this all along. But it does take us to the other part of his brief, which is because of the effect on oil prices, people here at home are seeing petrol prices rise. They're protected by the energy price cap. Now, we are expecting an announcement on heating oil bills for customers.

Paddy O'Connell (17:53)

We are. And we know, newscasters, that lots of you are worried about this because people have already seen real spikes in their bills and their ability, even sometimes just to get their hands on heating oil, to get the tanker to come to their village or wherever and fill up the thing, even if they've already had a contract in place. So tomorrow we will from the Chancellor about her plan to spend what I'm told will be tens of millions of pounds, so not an enormous amount. I think they're about one and a half, 1.67 million people in the country who depending on heating oil. But I expect there'll be an announcement of tens of millions of pounds of support for people who rely on heating oil. It's going to be given out in England, at least, by the Crisis and Resilience Fund, which is run by your local council. It's not clear how in other parts of the uk, the money will be doled out by, but it will be made available, I'm told, to expect this week in every corner of the uk, which, particularly in Northern Ireland, where actually about two thirds of people rely on it. So that's a sort of heating oil issue, which has been a very, very pressing one that's kind of been at the top of the list for the government. The secondary issue, though, is if this goes on for a long time, what will happen when the next price cap is set for energy bills, which is some months away and further down, if this carries on, it was very clear from Ed Miliband that the government is thinking about how they might support people. But at this stage, frustrating though it might have been, he didn't want to be drawn about exactly how this is what he said.

Admiral Lord West (19:25)

Obviously, we are preparing for all eventualities and I think it's right that we do that preparatory work, learning the lessons of the last crisis when Russia invaded Ukraine and that if it is, and the best I can say, Laura, and you'll find this a bit frustrating, maybe your viewers will too, but if it's necessary to intervene, we will.

Paddy O'Connell (19:45)

So if it's necessary to intervene, we will just remember the level at which the previous government did intervene. So Liz Truss spent tens and tens of billions of pounds helping to pay people's energy bills when those bills were projected to go up to an average of three and a half grand a year. So the projected jump was from about 1,600 pounds from memory to three and a half grand, thousand pounds. She said there's no way that people can be able to afford that. They had warnings of businesses going under and all sorts of horrendous things. She then intervened to set the top to cap the price at two and a half thousand pounds. As you'd expect, Paddy, I tried to get admit band to say, well, would you do it if it's going to hit this or that? He said we would not allow it to go up to three and a half thousand pounds. He says there's no way that we'd allow it to go. It's up to that. He didn't, however, go for any of my attempts to hook him in on whether two and a half grand might be the limit at which they would step in.

Henry Zeffman (20:43)

What I definitely thought, Laura, was that Sharon White, Baroness White, who was on your panel, former senior civil servant John Lewis, boss and other things besides, was bang on when she said, look, we all know that if this war goes on for some time, the government is going to end up doing something. And I think just in a reflection of the politics of this, that is absolutely correct. I do also wonder, though, given that we are beginning to see that perhaps the energy price shock of the Liz Truss era was not a one off and that these macroeconomic shocks, these supply shocks, whatever you want to call them, may well just be a feature of the 21st century. I do wonder if you are going to see more of a political argument from parties on the right and we didn't see this, by the way, from the Conservative Clair Coutinho today, but I just wonder whether we will see some sometime an argument develop which is, well, actually, the UK cannot afford to socialize every macroeconomic shock and I did.

Paddy O'Connell (21:45)

So I did detect a little bit of that, actually from Claire Coutinho. She said we have to look at other things before we look at subsidy. Now, she wasn't saying par tough, if the bill goes up, you're on your own. But she didn't say, yes, of course we would support the government stepping in. And some. I wrote about a bit about this for yesterday and someone in government said to me, look, if Kwarteng and Truss acted, then Starmer and Reeves are going to have to act. Right. I think it's absolutely the case that there's an assumption if this goes on, the government would have to step in in some way. There is, though, a conversation about whether or not that support could be for everyone, for the poorest household and the richest household. Yeah, there seems a determination in government. It probably can't be universal because the money just sort of isn't there. But there's a really interesting wider conversation and I wrote a bit about this yesterday. If the surprise of the 2000 and twenties is going to be that shocks come along every two years instead of every 15 to 20 years, maybe there has to be a different political conversation with the country and it's the sort of emergencies create an expectation that the government's always going to step in.

Laura Kuenssberg (22:47)

Well, I'm glad you've both taken us there because this piece is also written today by Matthew Side in the Sunday Times, who calls that snake oil. You've got to be more honest with us, the British public, says Matthew Side, because what you're effectively doing is redistributing wealth from the future to the present. This business of holding on to nanny when the bills go up is not possible for us to keep funding. It's not accurate, it's not true to the public finances, says the piece by Matthew Side. And therefore it's interesting to note that the Conservatives are trying to find some clear blue water when you consider that, as I've always said, she paid Laura.

Paddy O'Connell (23:26)

But it's interesting because I spoke to people who were involved in that emergency action in 2022, and I also spoke to people who'd been involved in putting the furlough program together, and they also said two things were true at the same time is one, they absolutely felt that they had no choice but to act in Those two scenarios, I mean even furlough, it was striking. One of the people that was in the room making the decision said to me, you know, we were told that 10 million people were going to lose their jobs. We had to do it. We had no choice. But another person involved in, in some of these decisions around the energy bill says sometimes you make the wrong decisions for the right. And they all kind of said we had to act. But maybe in reflection, the level of generosity might have been something that we would look again. If you look at the after effects, you know, on government borrowing, also in when it comes to furlough, people's attitude to going back to work, you know, these, these sort of big, huge moments do have really, really long lasting consequences. So there'll be people in Whitehall right now thinking what on earth are they going to do in the autumn if these bills do go well that we want?

Laura Kuenssberg (24:32)

That's.

Paddy O'Connell (24:32)

Can they repeat the, those decisions in the same way?

Laura Kuenssberg (24:35)

Well, let's make some predictions. I would say, oh no, I would say no, Henry, I think we could be, we could play podcast prediction time. They will do a sort of means tested assistance this time around. Say I, who knows nothing. What do you say? Who knows everything?

Henry Zeffman (24:54)

I'm not sure about that. I certainly don't know anything about the future. But I think, I agree with you. I think it'll be means tested, but I think there'll be furious arguments about where that boundary is drawn. As ever.

Paddy O'Connell (25:05)

Yeah. And they're trying to look at it at the moment. And it was again from people involved in the decisions around this trust. They did look at how they might be able to graduate the payments and they concluded in the time they had, it was just impossible to do because any system that you look at, whether it's bands of council tax or whether you look at household income, you end up with the kind of terrible case study of the people who just missed the cutoff. You know, sometimes called the cliff edge when we have these conversations about tax bans or where something kicks in or not. But like you both, I mean, I agree with both of you if we get to that point and it's still an if. I think the government will try to look at something that gives help to people who really need it, but doesn't give help to anyone but some something else. One of the former number 10 officials I talked to who'd been involved in these previous decisions and sorry for keep banging on about it, but they said if you think about the world now, their phrase was maybe it's Just really expensive now to be normal, which I just thought was really interesting. The world is so volatile, it just actually means things are more expensive.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:06)

And that's why we understood this phrase, the peace dividend. Because when the Cold War ended, all of this stuff went away. And what did we do? Well, with hindsight, not enough, says just about everybody. We took it for granted. We were complacent. That would include all of us, journalists, the political class, the voters, the in the West. And that's coming home to roost big time.

Paddy O'Connell (26:26)

But how then for a government that says it wants to help people with the cost of living and grow the economy? Well, if the oil price keeps spiking, economic growth ain't coming anytime soon. How then for a government that says it's going to find tens of billions of pounds to spend on defense because the world is a scarier place, but they also might have to spend tens of billions of pounds to help people pay energy bills. And borrowing is already where it is. And the trajectory of bringing debt down, which the Chancellor says is very important, is already, you know, about as steep as a car park. This is all really difficult, challenging stuff. Not just because it's bombs falling from the sky onto oil refineries onto people's heads. There's a danger and a security question, but also political and economic questions about how on earth governments right around the world manage all of these enormous challenges.

Laura Kuenssberg (27:17)

And this was predicted if you bomb Iran. Iran's weapon of choice is the Strait of Hormuz and the world's energy markets. That was known before Israel and the United States took out the Supreme Leader. So the question was always, I've always said it like this, you've got to look at the map and you've got to look at the clock. So we know now the maps taught us a fifth of the world's oil supply goes through something about an inch wide, which is controlled by Iran. That's what actually was the case before they started bombing. It's been the case throughout the oil making history and it's still the case. That's the map, then the clock. How long can this go on? The Sunday journalists, journalists today agree the world says it's got to come to an end. And we know that Donald Trump will declare victory when this ends. He will say it's a victory, but what we don't know is when. And then in the middle of it is all the political gesturing that you've been talking about and Henry's been reminding us about the government every day. The British government has to come up with a way, Henry, of telling us, the voter, what they think about today when they don't know what tomorrow will bring in terms of this conflict ending.

Henry Zeffman (28:25)

Yeah, and good luck with that. I mean, this is the thing. It's an extraordinarily hard period to be in government. I mean, I'm sure no one who's ever been in government thinks there's an easy period to be in government. But, you know, certainly if you compare Keir Starmer and his government to the last Labour government, as people around Keir Starmer sometimes do in private, and they say, well, look, they were just spending the proceeds of growth and distributing them around, whereas this government has a much tougher task in terms of how it explains where it's going. And, you know, the public opinion evidence is that the public are angrier and more frustrated and more volatile than ever.

Paddy O'Connell (29:01)

And there's a big set of elections around the corner. Mega May, it's coming thick and fast down the tracks. But again, as you said got about 18 months ago, we'd be talking about foreign policy much more than anything I think you said. Did I say that? Well, we are as one.

Laura Kuenssberg (29:15)

I repeated it.

Paddy O'Connell (29:16)

We are as one.

Laura Kuenssberg (29:17)

I, Laura, explained it back to you. What should we look for this week, Henry, at home?

Henry Zeffman (29:21)

Well, I think that. I think what Rachel Reeves announces tomorrow will be a big moment, obviously for those who use heating oil. But also in terms of any indications we get from her about the direction of her thinking about other energy supply issues that may well be coming down the track.

Paddy O'Connell (29:39)

I think that's right. I think she'll get, you know, her announcement on heating oil will come out. There'll probably be questions about whether or not it is going to give people enough support, given the spike in the price. But I think the tougher questions will be, and they will probably go round and round and round, I'm afraid, newscasters, for some weeks and perhaps some months to come about what are they going to do if energy bills spike? We should say, I think we can't say this enough. People are very worried. Energy bills, as they stand, are going to come down for most people during the next period. And there's a big thing here which is a benefit that we are going into the summer, we're going into a period where everyone doesn't need to crank the heating up. So let's just say that before everyone's going, oh my God, inflation is going to go through the roof, it's going to be just as bad as a couple of years ago. I'm not going to be able to manage. Of course, people are under pressure, but bills are planned to come down. What we're talking about is what might come after that, which could be very serious, but it's still an if very

Laura Kuenssberg (30:33)

important way to go out. I want to put three initials in which I think we'll hear more about this week. LPG. Yes, we heard from many Radio 4 listeners this morning when we spoke about heating oil, saying this is the same problem. LPG is not capped either. And I heat my home with lpg, liquefied petroleum gas. For the uninitiated, yes, I'm adding that to what you've added in our crystal ball. So to you listening, if you still are, we say thank you. Very well done. Thank you very much for listening and goodbye.

Paddy O'Connell (31:04)

Goodbye.

Henry Zeffman (31:04)

Goodbye.

Paddy O'Connell (31:05)

Newscast Newscast from the BBC.

Podcast Host (31:07)

Well, thank you for making it to the end of another newscast. You clearly ooze stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? And then, without having to do anything else, our meandering chat will miraculously make its way to your phone.

Admiral Lord West (31:29)

Foreign.

Narrator (31:35)

And we're in the German mountains. A man straps himself into a car on the world's most dangerous racetrack. He whispers to himself, it's time to

Paddy O'Connell (31:43)

put my balls on the dashboard as

Narrator (31:44)

he starts the engine.

Narrator (31:46)

In 15 minutes, he's in an ambulance, unconscious. In 15 years, he's a billionaire.

Narrator (31:51)

This is Toto Wolff, Formula One's most powerful team boss and the breakout star of Drive To Survive.

Narrator (31:57)

This week on Good Bad Billionaire, how Toto Wolff made his billions. Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts,