Q&A: Iran latest and the Makerfield by-election

Summary

The Story – Q&A: Iran Latest and the Makerfield By-Election

Podcast by The Times, Hosted by Manveen Rana & Luke Jones
Episode Date: May 29, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This Q&A episode sees hosts Manveen Rana and Luke Jones dive into two of the day's main stories in response to listener questions:

• The ongoing Iran negotiations amid economic crises and potential deal-making.
• The high-stakes Makerfield by-election, its political implications, and the personalities involved.

Throughout, the hosts draw on expertise (notably from Michael Stevens, RUSI) and lively, insightful analysis, keeping tone conversational but fact-focused.

---

1. The Iran Situation: Where Are Negotiations Now?

Current Status of the US–Iran Talks

• Negotiations are progressing but fraught with disagreements, particularly around language used and key terms (02:50).
• Michael Stevens (RUSI):

  “There are agreements on many points. They have not gone into exact detail... probably because they don't want to prejudice the progress of those negotiations.” (02:53)

• The US President’s erratic public messaging (notably via Truth Social) complicates talks: signaling progress one day, then making threats the next.

Core Sticking Points

• Iran’s Highly Enriched Uranium:

  • Iran holds around 450 kilos of uranium enriched over 60%.
  • The US demands it be removed from the country.
  • Central to this is whether Iran would receive up to $24 billion in sanctions relief.

• The Strait of Hormuz:

  • Both US and Iran have blockaded the Strait, hurting both economies.
  • Military skirmishes have broken out, but a ceasefire broadly holds.
  • There’s urgency (“whose timeline is shorter?”), but Iran seems content to play for time while the US feels more pressure.

• Michael Stevens:

  “The only thing that has given [the IRGC] leverage in every negotiation ... has been the threat of nuclear [capabilities]. So I don't think they're going to step away from that easily.” (06:58)

Iran’s Economic Crisis

• Listener Q (Dee Garfield): Is Iran’s economy near collapse, and does this provide leverage?
• Food inflation over 100% by February, with sanctions and the blockade directly affecting incomes.
• Despite hardship, nationalism (“rallying around the flag”) means people tolerate more if they see a bigger cause (07:32).
• Iran losing $500 million a day from oil revenue due to the blockade—the expectation of a sanctions windfall is a key driver but not something they’ll give up easily.

Religious and Political Power Dynamics

• Common misconception: the “mullahs” push for nuclear, IRGC can be convinced to give it up.
• Actually, Ayatollah Khamenei maintained a fatwa forbidding nuclear weapons due to moral/religious concerns, using enrichment as negotiation leverage instead. (06:06)

What Would a Deal Actually Look Like?

• Unlike the long, technical details of the 2015 JCPOA, a new deal may be hastily “copy and pasted” from old terms, with less attention to technicalities and more about show than substance (“stop, but kind of on a vibe”). (11:19)
• Trump is unlikely to sweat details (“doesn’t do detail”), and the Iranians—having watched Gaza negotiations stall—will demand sanctions relief and money up front. (12:34)

Regional and Political Complications

• Israel is notably excluded from peace talks, though it’s a combatant; other regional players like Qatar and Pakistan are involved.
• Israeli right (and some centrists) are actively trying to scupper a deal; attacks in Lebanon and Gaza may increase to build tension without directly challenging the US.
• Manveen Rana:

  “Let’s not think it's only the fringe in Israel who want to scupper this deal. Netanyahu is desperate to scupper this deal.” (14:02)

Notable & Memorable Quotes

• “Don’t underestimate Donald Trump’s ability to stand up with a worse deal ... and say this is a great bigly success.” – (13:15)

Key Timestamps:

• [02:50] – Michael Stevens breakdown
• [05:12] – Economic collapse question
• [09:28] – The idea of an Iranian toll on Hormuz
• [11:00] – Details of what a potential deal could (or could not) look like
• [13:02] – How any agreement might play domestically in the US
• [14:02] – The Israeli political response

---

2. The Makerfield By-Election: Local Contest, National Stakes

Context & Political Importance

• By-election on June 18, 2026, where Andy Burnham (currently Mayor of Greater Manchester) stands to reclaim a Westminster seat after sitting MP Josh Simons vacated (18:00).
• Stakes: An Andy Burnham victory could trigger a Labour leadership contest, with whispers about the party’s direction and broader implications for the UK government.

Listener Q: Burnham’s Democratic Legitimacy?

• Q (Glenn): What legitimacy would Burnham have as PM without a general election victory?
• UK has a parliamentary, not presidential, democracy—it’s whoever commands Commons majority.
• Luke Jones:

  “I think it'd be difficult for him to stray too far from the election manifesto that they stood on in 2024. He's already said that he'd abide by the FIS rules.” (18:36)

• Precedent: Recent Tory leaders (Truss, Sunak) became PM without a general election but faced legitimacy questions, especially if diverging from their party’s manifesto.

Political Dynamics & Party Tensions

• The Labour Party is already “arcier”—having forced U-turns on key issues.
• Tony Blair recently called for “real radical change,” especially with the “AI jobs revolution.” Current internal Labour debates (e.g. EU rejoin, welfare policy) seem out of step with these bigger issues (21:20).

Extremism and The Relevance of “Reform” Party

• Q (Stephen): Has Reform UK become a backdoor for extremists?
• Hosts point out that “extremism” is subjective and there are multiple contenders on the right, including candidates even further right than Reform in Makerfield.
• Noted: Both Reform and Greens have faced controversy over candidates’ historic social media posts, raising questions about vetting and who is “fit” for public office.

Makerfield Dynamics—Demographics, Parties, Candidates

• Makerfield has deep Labour roots—part of Wigan, strong Labour loyalty, not the classic “Reform” territory (24:57).
• Demographics: overwhelmingly white British (97%), “low middle class drivers,” not many graduates.
• Andy Burnham is notably personally popular—”almost Kim Jong-un’s hold over Greater Manchester”—though there are doubts about his campaigning skills in the area.
• Even so, risk abounds: “catastrophic gamble” if Burnham loses, given the by-election's broader implications for Labour leadership (27:33).

Brexit and Labour’s Internal Dilemma

• Q (Brett): Labour has attacked the Reform candidate for not voting Brexit—does this matter?
• Burnham is caught between appeasing local leave-voters and national Labour members who favor the EU.
• Wes Streeting’s pro-EU rhetoric is clever politicking for the selectorate but risky in a leave area (28:19).
• “Burnham’s having to do it in a matter of weeks ... two different electorates simultaneously.” (29:42)

Full List of Makerfield By-Election Candidates

(announced at 30:29)

• Jake Austin (Lib Dems)
• Andy Burnham (Labour)
• Dan Clark (Libertarian Party)
• Alan “Howling Lord” Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party)
• Robert Kenyon (Reform UK)
• Rebecca Shepherd (Restore Britain)
• Peter Ward (Rejoin EU)
• Michael Winstanley (Conservative)
• Sarah Wakefield (Green Party)

Key Timestamps:

• [18:00] – By-election background and Burnham's intent
• [18:36] – Legitimacy of PMs without general election wins
• [22:48] – Extremism and the Reform party
• [24:57] – Demographic profile and voting behavior in Makerfield
• [28:19] – Brexit as a local campaign issue
• [30:29] – Full candidate list

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Exchanges

• On Iran’s negotiation tactics:
  “The only thing that has given them leverage in every negotiation with America and the rest of the world has been the threat of nuclear.” – Michael Stevens (06:58)
• On populism/extremism:
  “It is interesting now that we're into effectively a five-party system ... we have to get used to politics no longer sitting in the centre ground.” – Luke Jones (24:32)
• On Andy Burnham’s gamble:
  "A catastrophic gamble on the part of Andy Burnham." – Manveen Rana (27:33)
• On electoral reality:
  “Burnham’s having to do it in a matter of weeks, a handful of working days and two different electorates simultaneously.” – Luke Jones (29:42)

---

Summary Table of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Question | Main Insights | |------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | 02:50 - 04:54 | Iran negotiations update (Michael Stevens) | Progress, sticking points, Hormuz tensions | | 05:12 - 09:15 | Iran economy, protest, IRGC position | Economic pain, leverage of nuclear threat | | 11:00 - 12:34 | Nature of a possible deal, precedent | Importance of sanctions relief, copying old agreements | | 13:02 - 15:30 | Israel's role, regional complications | Israel sidelined, risk of undermining peace | | 18:00 - 21:20 | Makerfield by-election, Burnham’s legitimacy | Parliamentary system, risk of “unelected” PM | | 22:48 - 24:32 | Reform Party, candidate vetting, right-wing split | Multi-party growth, extremism ambiguity | | 24:57 - 27:47 | Local voting patterns, Burnham’s strategy | Deep Labour loyalties, possible reform inroads | | 28:19 - 30:02 | Brexit politics in Makerfield | Burnham stuck between local/national tensions | | 30:29 | Full candidate list, podcast wrap-up | Diverse field, chance to hear local voices next week |

---

Final Thoughts

This episode offers insight and context beyond headlines:

• On Iran, the hosts pierce the fog around public rhetoric, revealing the complexity, urgency and underlying economic pain driving negotiations.
• On Makerfield, they illustrate the unpredictable mechanics of UK politics—personality clashes, ideological splits, and the fraught path to leadership.

Listeners gain an appreciation for the subtle, high-stakes maneuvering shaping stories that may decide not just local futures, but the wider political and international landscape.

Transcript

[A]

Today's markets move fast. Get the insights you need in 10

[B]

minutes with the Barclays Brief, a new podcast from Barclays Investment Bank.

[A]

Through Sharp dialogue and scenario based analysis, our leading experts analyze key market themes each week. So whether you're managing a portfolio or

[B]

leading a business, the Barclays Brief podcast

[A]

can help you make smarter decisions today. Stay sharp, Stay Brief Find Barclays Brief

[B]

wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

The to do list doesn't stop, and neither does the pressure to keep up with it if you've been running on fumes. Grow Therapy makes it easier to find care that's covered by insurance and actually built around you. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th, grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growththerapy.com acast today to get started. That's growththerapy.com acast growtherapy.com acasta availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[B]

From the Times and the Sunday Times, this is the story. I'm Manveen Rana.

[D]

And I'm Luke Jones. Manveen, we're back together at last.

[B]

It had been about a month and I think they thought it was finally possible to let us into a room together again.

[D]

It is that time of the month for our Q and A, where our questions and answers align perfectly.

[B]

Thank you to everyone for writing in.

[D]

We're going to be talking about the Makerfield by election, which is coming down the slipway very soon and not only could affect people who live there, but maybe you as well if it ushers in a new prime minister.

[B]

And we're also going to be talking about Iran. It's hard not to really, but with the backdrop of a deal still being negotiated in the background, we're going to do what we can to shed some light on the process. So let's get started. The story today, your questions answered. Iran is still in the news. There's been a lot of hype about potentially having a deal. We don't quite know if we're there yet. We did ask an expert, Michael Stevens from RUSI The Royal United Services Institute, who did an episode with us about this on Wednesday. Do go back and have a listen for the longer version. But he also gave us a quick breakdown on where things stand.

[E]

It's certainly fair to say that negotiations are progressing between the US and Iran. There are certain points, I think, in which there are agreements. The Iranians have alluded to the fact that there are agreements on many points. They have not gone into exact detail on what those points are, probably because they don't want to prejudice the progress of those negotiations. The issue is this, I think that the US President keeps changing the parameters, partly because his Truth Social account is so active, where he sort of gives a tone of progress to the negotiations and then threatens the Iranians with violence if sticking points aren't overcome. I think the person to trust more is Marco Rubio, who is the US Secretary of State, which is our version of a Foreign secretary. And what he's alluded to is that the negotiators on both sides are certainly building consensus, but they're disagreeing on language, they're disagreeing on terminology. And the broad brushstrokes of negotiation points are about what to do with Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium. That's uranium that's enriched over 60%. The Iranians have around 450 kilos of that, and the US simply wants it out the country. How that is done and under what terms and whether as a result of that the Iranians get some sanctions relief, possibly up to $24 billion, we hear are an important point. And then, of course, we've got the issue of the Strait of Hormuz now there. I think we do have a bit of a disagreement, and actually we've seen unfortunately some violence breaking out again with Islamic revolutionary Gu naval vessels being hit by US planes, which I think has been incredibly troubling and concerning. But the ceasefire broadly does still hold. And I think they are trying to find a way through this impasse. At the moment, you obviously have an Iranian blockade of Hormuz blockaded by the United States. Both sides are feeling the pain as a result of that, and I think there is some urgency to solving that problem. The issue is simply whose timeline is shorter. And at the moment it appears that the Iranians are trying to play for time and the Americans are showing more urgency.

[B]

That's Michael Stevens there, and he's brilliant because he's lived and worked in the Gulf for many, many years. He actually grew up there. He's still very, very well connected and has brilliant bits of insight from the region. So do go back and have a listen to that episode. But we have a lot of questions coming in from the audience about Iran.

[D]

First of all, this from Dee Garfield. They say, I'd like to know what the experts think. I'll have to find some about this stalemate. I'm not better informed than the other armchair admiral, but I suspect that Iran's economy is te on implosion. What do you think about that?

[B]

Well, that's a great question. Also, does that mean De Garfield is an admiral? I'm going to refer to him as Admiral Garfield from now on. He also adds in his question, there's a second part of the question which is all the IRGC has to do is agree to the cessation of its nuclear program. The Mullers were convinced it is their God's work to do this. But the IRGC are thugs and criminals, and it might be possible to convince them that they would rather remain in power and have sanctions lifted than doggedly pursue nuclear capability. So two separate questions there, one about Iran's economy and then about whether this is a good moment to try and get the IRGC to step away from nuclear capability on that second one.

[D]

Is that the case?

[B]

Well, no, I was going to say it's fascinating because I think this is a common perception that the ayatollahs, the mullahs, as he calls them, were pushing for a nuclear weapon. And the IRGC are going to be very easy going about this. Actually, the ayatollahs had a fatwa for decades against having a nuclear weapon. So one of the reason, particularly when they were doing the Iran nuclear deal, they were quite confident they weren't going to enrich slightly further was because the Ayatollah himself had a fatwa saying it would be evil and against Islam to create a nuclear weapon that could cause as much death and destruction as we know that nuclear weapons do. So in a way, the last Ayatollah, the one who was killed at the start of the Iran war, Ayatollah Khamenei, was actually a stopper on the nuclear program, and they wanted to enrich uranium for energy, but also because they knew it was the threat of enriching and going beyond that would.

[D]

That was the useful thing.

[B]

Yeah, that would get them leverage, which it has done. And the IRGC are very much more about power, trying to keep power. They understand all of those dynamics, but as a result, they also understand that the only thing that has given them leverage in every negotiation with America and the rest of the world has been the threat of nuclear. So I don't think they're going to step away from that easily.

[D]

As Admiral Garfield said in his first part of this question, though, they are suffering a lot of economic turmoil and have been for a while. With all the sanctions that have been in place since America pulled out of the last Iran nuclear deal, is that going to force them into some kind of agreement that they might otherwise not go for?

[B]

I mean, we can't underestimate just how difficult things are in Iran economically. Before the war broke out back in the autumn, we know that food inflation had hit like 60 something percent. And I think by February it was sort of more than 100%. You know, if you think about how hard we find it here, and that's food inflation here is about less than 5%. And we feel the pinch. When you go to the supermarket and you're paying, imagine it being more than 100%. That's why they had those huge protests and people coming out on the streets. Now, we don't know if those protests have continued during the course of the war because the Internet has switched off and it's very hard for us to get a picture of what's happening in Iran. But don't underestimate the rallying around the flag effect of being at war. And when that happens, you know, when you've already lived under sanctions, people tend to put up with more than they did before. So even though they will be feeling the pinch economically, you know, people used to, whenever I spoke to experts about Russia and Ukraine, they would say, don't forget in Russia, people have a living memory of queuing around the block for bread. They can take economic pain if they think there's a nationalistic pride in it, if they think there's a greater game ahead. Ever since the American blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, they've been losing just under $500 million a day in how much the Iranians are losing from oil revenues and their own trade. So they are completely stuck at the moment. They are making huge losses, but they are hoping that at the end of negotiations, there'll be $24 billion immediately released of frozen funds, sanctions will be lifted, and all of that is going to be a big part of this negotiation. So they're not going to step away easily. And also, you know, we haven't heard enough about this yet, but there will be some kind of deal around the Strait of Hormuz and a toll there.

[D]

Where there is a toll, there will

[B]

be a toll because which is incredible.

[D]

If you think we went from a position where that was a.

[B]

That was never a question.

[D]

You could just easily pass through it. And now, because of this war that was launched, you end up with some kind of a toll.

[B]

It'll probably be Iran and Oman. So Oman, which has the Musindam Peninsula, is sort of the other side of that toll booth, effectively. And there have been talks in the background going on between the two countries to work out how that would function. And you have it in other places. You have it with the Panama Canal, you have it with sort of various canals, although you normally have one country surrounding it. So you can justify it. If they've got Oman onside, though, you've effectively got both sides of the toll booth agreeing that there will be for any boats passing through. And I think that is probably the

[D]

future, which is incredible, isn't it? I mean, this is an absolute sidebar point which completely undermines all the very intelligent analysis you've just given. But I only recently realised I've actually been to the Strait of Hormuz on holiday.

[B]

Have you? What were you doing?

[D]

This lovely photograph, which is actually the.

[B]

Actually, if I show it, it's the Strait of Moose.

[D]

It's the background of my laptop. And I went to Oman.

[B]

I was gonna say where you went

[D]

years and years ago. Oh, yeah. Wasn't it Oman?

[B]

That is a beautiful park.

[D]

It's lovely ships here.

[B]

And then I said to my friend

[D]

the other day, I said, he realised that's the straight of Hormuz. We were on the boat. He's like, really?

[B]

Yes. So I love that it's your screensaver. It's.

[D]

Because I didn't even realise. Anyway, that is very boring. I have got another question, though, from Luke here in the studio, which is about the speed of this. Obviously, we'll wait to see the results of any negotiations, but if the last Iran nuclear deal took, what, almost two years to negotiate? It did. And we were told at length how. So much of that was not just about political language, but was about technical details and really getting into very niche technical disagreements about what wouldn't. Wouldn't be allowed in terms of the nuclear enrichment. What can we expect from a deal which has been cobbled together in a matter of weeks?

[B]

Yeah, well, it's a really good question. I mean, in a way. In a way, because that Iran nuclear deal in the Obama era, the jcpoa, because it took care of a lot of those nuclear details, There is already an established.

[D]

Oh, I see. You can sort of copy and paste

[B]

across you can copy and paste that across and then it. Even though Donald Trump said that was

[D]

a rubbish deal and pulled them out,

[B]

I mean, yes, even then, you know, most people think on nuclear, he'd be lucky to get back to that deal or to the deal that was on the table on February 26th before the war began, basically, which was already offering to get rid of enriched uranium. And now a lot of the debate will come down to where they do it, which doesn't need the same sort of qualifications. Who oversees that, which will probably be the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[D]

Again.

[B]

Again. So a lot of that detail has been sorted. But also if you look at Donald Trump's sty of doing deals, he doesn't do detail. Kathy Ashton, Baroness Ashton, who is very brilliant on this because she did the negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal, she will tell you how difficult that was and how it took months of lengthy meetings to work out every bit of every clause before you got to a place of agreement. Donald Trump doesn't do that. Gaza, apparently there's a peace deal. Everything is always an interim peace deal. There is no final state and things sort of stop, but kind of on a vibe. And I suspect you'll have something similar here. But the Iranians won't, having seen what happened with Gaza, they won't agree to even that interim stage unless they can be assured funds. So for them, sanctions relief and the release of frozen funds comes first.

[D]

It'll be interesting to see, however this shakes down, how Donald Trump then tries to sell that back home in the buildup to the midterms. Especially if you have a situation where maybe the bulk of the nuclear side of the deal is exactly as we had in 2015, which he didn't like then. And then on top of it, we've got the fact that Iran and Oman are pocketing tolls in the Strait of Hormuz and there is sanctions relief which maybe goes further beyond what was in the jcpoa. That'd be fascinating.

[B]

I was at a defense summit in Athens last week and was it nice? I mean, it was hotter here in London, I won't lie. But there was the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmet was there and he was absolutely scathing about this and said, but, you know, don't underestimate Donald Trump's ability to stand up with a worse deal you had with the Iran nuclear deal and say this is a great bigly success. Which is, I'm sure, exactly what will happen. It's all about the spectacle, not the detail.

[D]

Speaking of Israel, Nigel has Been in touch with this question. He says, I'd like to know if the panel, that's me and you, thinks Israel will deliberately scupper any chances of peace. What do you make of Ismail Ben Gvir's tweets? The National Security Minister, far right minister in the government in Israel. His tweets calling for an all out war and reflect upon the fact that he has a positive approval rate of over 30% in Israel. I mean, there are people even further towards the center on the political spectrum than Ismail Ben GVIR who'd like to scupper this deal.

[B]

Yeah. So, you know, let's not think it's only the fringe in Israel who want to scupper this deal. Netanyahu is desperate to scupper this deal. And you know, don't forget this is a war where Israel and America are at war with Iran. And yet Israel is not at the table for these peace talks, despite, if

[D]

we believe a lot of the reporting, being the ones that convinced Donald Trump into doing all of this in the first place.

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

Despite being one of the protagonists. They are one of the parties in this war, but they're not at the peace talks. Many of the countries in the region are. It's happening in Doha. The Qataris are there, the Pakistanis seem to have sort of pulled all of this together and they are sort of seeing many of the other countries in the region showing their heft by being a core part of these talks or enabling them. And there is no Israeli voice at the table. They are very worried that America will sign up to a deal which, you know, I mean, they hated the Iran nuclear deal under Obama. And if you end up with a deal which is kind of similar, possibly even more favorable to Iran, Iran now that will be a massive strategic defeat for Netanyahu who for decades has built up the idea of Iran as the great enemy. You know, vote for me, I will take on the great enemy. So for him, that, that would be career ending. As soon as Donald Trump over the weekend was saying that peace deal is, is in sight, the Israelis started bombing very seriously in, in Lebanon again. There's been more bombing in Gaza too. So they will bomb the places they can in order to cause tension without taking on America directly. But that does mean war doesn't leave the region anytime soon.

[D]

Fascinating. TheStoryAtTheTimes.com is our email for any comments or questions that you have.

[B]

And coming up next, we'll be talking about the Makerfield by election, which might lead to not only a new mp, but potentially a new prime minister that's in just a moment.

[C]

The to do list doesn't stop, and neither does the pressure to keep up with it. If you've been running on fumes. Grow Therapy makes it easier to find care that's covered by insurance and actually built around you, whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th, grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity, availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing. Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0, depending on their plan. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growthherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[D]

Then I thought, what if I've scaled businesses?

[E]

What if I scaled my philanthropy?

[D]

What if I did as much in

[E]

one year as I've done in my whole life?

[B]

See how your wealth could have even

[D]

Greater [e-mail] Impact Healthcare can feel complicated.

[A]

That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make health care easier, more affordable and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health. We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism. That's Optum. Visit optum.com to learn more.

[D]

You might not have heard, but there's a by election coming 18 June. Andy Burnham for it is he is going to stand down if he wins as the mayor of Greater Manchester. So we can fight this seat, which the MP Josh Simons very kindly vacated when there was all these questions about Zakir Starmer's leadership and who might like to take over. Of course, Andy Burnham. Not in Parliament at the moment.

[B]

Look out for what Josh Simons does next. Well, does he get a job under a Burnham cabinet? Or who knows, does he end up

[D]

in a lawnmower by election? Interesting. Would he try and he wouldn't try and run as the mayor for Greater Manchester? That might be a bit tricky.

[B]

Oh, wait and see.

[D]

Anyway, Glenn has been in touch. Hello, Glenn. What democratic legitimacy would Andy Burnham have By taking over from Starmer, who won a landslide general election victory. Paradoxically, Birmingham is encouraging us to respect the 2016 leave result. Of course, that's been in the whole sort of hokey cokey argument about whether we should rejoin the EU or not, sparked by Wes treating his would be challenger in a future leadership election. Well, we have previous experience of this, don't we? We do. This isn't the first time throughout these different Tory led administrations that we've had in the past few years, people questioning their legitimacy. But we do live in a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister is not directly elected and it is whoever can command the majority of the House of Commons. So I think it'd be difficult for him to stray too far from the election manifesto that they stood on in 2024. He's already said that he'd abide by the FIS rules. That might have something to do with certain fears in the markets about what might happen. Andy Burnham previously had said that the bond markets would need to fall into line with any plans he had. But I wonder if it stopped him doing the kind of radical thing which actually only recently we've had people like Tony Blair put his head above the parapet and say about the need for real radical change, especially when we're staring down the barrel of an AI jobs revolution. If this AI revolution is what I say it is, and if we need higher levels of growth as a country, which we obviously do, then even if you put these things in a manifesto, I'd say, look, all of these commitments, they may be very worthwhile, but in these hard times we've got to prioritize growth, we've got to prioritize support for the business sector and this artificial intelligence revolution, we've got to grasp it, both its opportunities and its risks with both hands. Tony Blair I guess would like us all to be talking about the need maybe for a universal basic income or something like that, if swathes of the population no longer need to work because of AI. And yet the debate that's being had within the party is about whether we rejoin the eu, to what extent should we be reining in welfare support. It's arguments that in, I guess the mind of someone like Tony Blair seem a bit dated. So yeah, maybe Andy Burnham not fighting and winning a general election will actually mean that he can't be quite wild. I wonder if as well, because such a good the parliamentary Labour Party has already. I mean, it's an old sort of cliche, isn't it? But have had a taste of blood, have Had a taste of rebellion. They managed to force U turns on issues like welfare and the winter fuel allowance cut. So I wonder if they're just gonna be an arcier group of people to try and lead, especially if you've, you know, got factions in it who might not especially align totally with Burnhamism or whatever that is. Yeah. What do you think?

[B]

I think it's such an interesting question. You're right. There is a real paradox around this. And the Tony Blair intervention was fascinating because it does point out what a lot of the world of politics seems to be missing. And I think we all, you know, the public feel that. That, you know, there's a real sort of existential fear about AI jobs and all these big issues that no politician even ever addresses or talks about a future. There's no vision for how we deal with that. And whoever wants to get elected, you know, come the next election is going to need to have a proper visionary plan to deal with all of those things. But you're right, if they have a change of leader now, they're going to be quite constricted in their ability to do that because they'll have to stick to the manifesto that Keir Starmer put forward at the last general election for fear of being undemocratic and assuming the role, although that hasn't always happened. So in recent years, we've had people like Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss famously becoming prime minister without going to a general election, without the public having a say in it, and she felt no qualms about tearing up the manifesto and redoing politics. And it all ended very badly.

[D]

Well, exactly. That did not end well. I guess there was an argument that Rishi Sunak did certain things which, you know, wouldn't have necessarily been in the manifesto, which carried through, but.

[B]

So there is a history of that. But then there was also a history of losing leaders every few weeks, really. So I don't know if that's something you want to replicate. We have another question from Stephen who says, has reform become a backdoor for extremists to get into positions of power?

[D]

Interesting. I guess that would be depending on your definition of extremists. If Nigel Farage were sitting here, he would say, you know, it was the return of common sense, people focused politics to actually solve some of these big issues that real people are worried about and the sort of chattering political classes are not.

[B]

I'm sure reform would be furious at that description.

[D]

Even, you know, as we've seen in the Green Party, as we've seen in reform in some of these local elections and Welsh and Scottish elections. They've had a lot of issues with what people have been saying on social media. The reform candidate in Makerfield, Robert Kenyon, has had lots of his old tweets, but also posts on rugby league forum airing, which has caused a lot of. Not about his views about rugby league, but about things that he said about Carol Vordman and things he said about vaccines, which reform have said, you know, that wasn't representative of his views. But also he's an unvarnished non political person. And actually it's interesting as well, he's made the point that, you know, does that kind of scrutiny put people off going into politics? I mean, I like to think that I haven't got anything on my social media from many years ago.

[B]

How many rugby league forums have you been on?

[D]

Surprisingly few. But I wonder, actually, I wonder if that is the case that I don't know. I'm not saying that everybody who said awful things on the Internet should be allowed to run for office, but is there a sort of, is there an element to which that might put people off who should run? That would be their argument. But also the Greens, they've had to swap out their candidate, someone different, because of issues with what's been posted online in the past. So yeah, I guess, Stephen, it depends on what your definition of extremist is, but they definitely are fleshing out a policy proposal that if Nigel Farage ends up in number 10, they will enact. Would you say that acting the Cabinet Office in the role of Cabinet Secretary is extremist? I'm sure lots of members of the Civil Service might think it is because that's certainly on the cards.

[B]

Yeah. And it is interesting now that we're into effectively a five party system, you know, I think we have to get used to politics no longer sitting in the centre ground. And whether you think that's going to the extremes on either side, you know, again, comes down to everyone will have different opinion on that. Depends on where you're starting. But we should say, I mean in places like Makerfield, reform isn't even the most right wing choice. You know, they are now facing competition

[D]

from the store, which in this latest Salvation poll polled sort of 7%, although that was on a sample of about 350. So massive pinch of salt. But is there a world in which they split the populist right vote and allow Andy Burnham in like that? But it does seem, I mean on the one hand you have got the fact that this is obviously a solid Labour area, as many people, cleverer than I have pointed out, it's more sort of in the Merseyside orbit with that intense Labour loyalty that even places like Bassett Law and Sunderland and the rest have long since got over. Ukip, even in the day, didn't make breakthroughs in council seats in Wigan, of which Makerfield is part of wiganborough Council. So, you know, it isn't necessarily your classic, classic, classic reform territory, but it is overwhelmingly white, 97% white British. It is a place where you have fewer than the national average of professors and of graduates, but it is a commutery part of the world where you have lots of low middle class drivers driving to work, being industrious, maybe have some of those concerns that Nigel Farage might be saying he's providing an answer to. And you then have as well the fact that Andy Burnham for so long has, I think, as Patrick Maguire, our colleague said, at least in previous elections had a sort of almost Kim Jong un's hold over Greater Manchester. Josh Housden from Nowcast.uk who do really good sort of projections of parliamentary seats and by elections, you know, show even Andy Burnham polling far ahead of the council elections that happened underneath him as mayor. So even just, he particularly was especially popular, getting two thirds of the votes in some parts, even above Labour loyalty. So it's an interesting area in that it seems classically reform, but hasn't, apart from these most recent local elections, been massively flirting with the Nigel Farage way of things? And you've got Andy Burnham who's especially popular, but I was talking to somebody in the Labour Party the other day in government who was saying, Andy Burnham's not necessarily an impressive campaigner. And if it comes down to this ground game of getting people out, and this isn't wholly within the heartland of Greater Manchester, of which many people say he is king, how will this play out? And also what happens, we're getting very far ahead of ourselves now. If he loses, is Keir Starmer's gonna continue? Is Wes Streeting still gonna pull the trigger and launch a contest which, if you look at recent polling of Labour Party members, suggest that people would choose Keir Starmer over Wes Streeting. So we go through all of this, all of this forced by election for

[B]

the status quo and potentially a catastrophic gamble on the part of Andy Burnham.

[D]

Yeah, he would just be back in his office in Manchester, wherever it is, just thinking, what was that for? Are we so tired?

[B]

We've got another question here from Brett again on Makerfield saying Labour are claiming that the Reform candidate didn't vote for Brexit. And that provoked my curiosity. Do Labour think it's advantageous to keep bringing up the subject of Brexit in this constituency? And what is it about that that they think will work to their advantage? How can Burnham face both towards the voters of Makerfield and the Labour Party on this subject simultaneously? Isn't this race already too close for comfort for him to be anything other than crystal clear?

[D]

Well, on this issue, he's already changed his mind somewhat or altered his view. All of this talk was crystal clear, but alternating just what you want. All of this, of course, started with West Streeting, when he went over the top and resigned from Cabinet. And he made that speech where he said, brexit has been a massive issue, it hasn't gone well and we should rejoin the EU at some point. Now, that was very clever politicking, because, as Brett has alluded to there, the Labour Party selectorate, who will choose the next leader, love the eu, would love to hear their leaders say, yep, let's get back into the eu. It's why it was one of the first things that Keir Starmer, having served under Jeremy Corbyn, when trying to. To pitch himself as offering something like Corbyn. I agree with everything he's done. Isn't he fabulous? But here is a little bit of difference. The first thing it was on was on Brexit. So it is difficult for Andy Burnham because then if you're in Makerfield, it is a leave voting area. In 2016 is one of those areas which is a leave area. And as we mentioned in the local elections we've just had, all but one of the wards in that council area were won by Reform UK, which is led by Mr. Brexit, Nigel Farage. So it's pulling Andy Burnham in two directions after quite a little bit of a clever curveball from West Streeting.

[B]

And it's difficult because he's pitching to two different audiences. He's pitching to make him their mp, but he's also pitching to the country and to the Labour Party to make him the leader.

[D]

Yeah. And if you think Keir Starmer had years to do that, get elected as Labour Party leader, tell them one thing and then, as people critical of him would say, then sort of turn things around to create an image which is more palatable for the image ahead of a general election here, Andy Burnham's having to do it in a matter of weeks, a handful of working days and two different electorates.

[B]

Simultaneously. Yeah, it's a lot to take on.

[D]

We are going to be hearing from Makerfield itself on the podcast next week. Your friend of mine, Daryl Morris lives near those parts so he's gonna be going around hearing from voters. I feel like we need some top of the Pops music or that kind of music they put under the prizes of game shows as they were listed out. Should we take a candidate each? Because these, if you're wondering, are the full list of candidates in the upcoming Make a Field by election.

[B]

We have Jake Austin for the Liberal

[D]

Democrats, Andy Burnham for the Labour Party,

[B]

Dan Clark for the Libertarian Party, Alan

[D]

Howling, Lord Hope, the official monster raving Loony party.

[B]

I love that they're still going. Robert Kenyon, Reform UK Rebecca Shepherd, Restore

[D]

Britain, Peter Ward, Rejoin EU Michael Winstanley

[B]

for the Conservative Party and Sarah Wakefield for The Green Party.

[D]

TheStoryAtTheTives.com is our email if you want to get in touch. That is it from us. I'm Luke Jones.

[B]

I'm Manveen Rano.

[D]

The producers today were Olivia Case and Colette Fountain. The executive producer was Ed Drummond and sound design and theme composition was by Malisetto.

[B]

We'll be back as usual tomorrow to have a listen.

[D]

Bye bye Sam.

[A]

Healthcare can feel complicated. That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health. We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism. That's Optum. Visit optum.com to learn more.

[D]

I thought, what if I've scaled businesses?

[E]

What if I scaled my philanthropy?

[D]

What if I did as much in

[E]

one year as I've done in my whole life?

[B]

See how your wealth could have even greater [e-mail] impact.