Beth is in Helsinki with the prime minister for an exclusive interview for the podcast.

Sir Keir Starmer has said he "hates the fact" that he made a "mistake" over the appointment of Peter Mandelson.

"I dwell on it. I beat myself up about it," he told Beth, who is accompanying him on a visit to Finland, where he is taking part in a leaders' summit.

Beth also questions him about his relationship with Donald Trump following disparaging comments the US president made about Sir Keir's response to the Iran war.

Plus, Beth, Harriet and Ruth react to the full interview.

Got a question for the burner phone? WhatsApp 07934 200 444 or email electoraldysfunction@sky.uk.

And if you didn't know, you can also watch Beth, Ruth and Harriet on YouTube.

Tensions between Donald Trump's administration and Sir Keir Starmer's government could also compromise the reliability of critical pillars of UK national security, including the maintenance of Trident missiles used in the navy's nuclear deterrent submarines, intelligence sharing and access to programmes such as the F-35 jet, it said in a report.

The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy urged London to "plan to move away from a bilateral relationship with the United States that is so dependent on the latter for nuclear and intelligence operations, and conventional defence".

Follow latest on Middle East war

It also advised the UK, Europe and Canada to develop a plan "for a transition towards greater European leadership of NATO".

The intervention, published on Friday, came as President Trump again lambasted his allies - and the UK in particular - for choosing not to join his war against Iran.

He mocked the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers as "toys", while accusing fellow NATO countries of having "done absolutely nothing" to help combat the Iranian regime.

Posting on social media, the president added: "The USA needs nothing from NATO, but 'never forget' this very important point in time."

The comment is a further signal that Washington's support to the transatlantic alliance under Article 5 of its founding treaty on collective defence - where an attack on one ally is deemed to be an attack on all - cannot be guaranteed.

Mr Trump has already repeatedly dismissed Mr Starmer as not being like Winston Churchill.

Read more:
British public's fears of war revealed
Putin's 'hidden hand likely helping Iran against Trump'

The increased unpredictability of the White House's security priorities is upending NATO assumptions on the defence of Europe - which has always been built around a belief that the US armed forces would be the dominant power on the side of the allies in a war.

The Supreme Allied Commander Europe - the top operational commander in the alliance - has only ever been an American, while the US military provides critical elements to any fight such as satellite feeds, electronic warfare jammers and overwhelming mass.

It means a European-only force would be a lot less capable.

The committee - which was assessing the UK's National Security Strategy, published last June - said it was important for the government to continue to collaborate with the US where practical.

But it must also "develop a clear plan, along with other European allies, for a transition towards greater European leadership of NATO".

"Preparing for a 'worst-case scenario' whereby Europe can no longer rely on US support in the event of a crisis, the Government must work with European partners to invest in its own capabilities to offset this potential withdrawal," the committee added.

Britain is uniquely exposed to any weakening in this transatlantic bond because of its close security and defence partnership with the US, developed over decades and based on the "special relationship".

The committee listed areas of particular importance, including the UK's dependence on the US for maintenance of its Trident missiles, intelligence sharing arrangements, delivery of the F-35 fast jet programme, and a new plan to build attack submarines.

But it warned of the potential for Mr Trump to use any leverage he has against allies if they do something he does not like.

Referring to Britain's reliance on the US in various defence and security domains, the report said: "There are demonstrable areas of tension in the UK-US relationship that may compromise the reliability of these dependencies in the near future."

Catherine Wieland, 33, claimed her anxiety was so severe it left her housebound.

But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said it discovered she had been lying about her condition.

The DWP said it found evidence of Wieland, from Goring-by-Sea, West Sussex, surfing in Cancun and visiting Thorpe Park three times while earning tens of thousands of pounds in Personal Independence Payments (Pip) over more than two years.

It added she had also spent money from her disability benefits on manicures, tanning sessions and trips to a private Harley Street dentist.

According to the DWP, when investigators confronted her with bank statements, she told them: "I didn't realise you're not allowed to leave your house."

Despite claiming her health was so bad she could not cook or wash herself, Wieland made 76 beauty appointments, visited 60 pubs, clubs and restaurants, and spent money in foreign currencies.

Then following her luxury Mexico trip, she submitted a review claiming her condition had got worse.

Read more:
Sarah Ferguson stripped of 'freedom of York'
Investigation into Andrew Tate reopened

Wieland pleaded guilty to failing to notify a change of circumstances and must now repay the £23,662 stolen from taxpayers between 2021 and 2024.

At Lewes Crown Court on Thursday, she was sentenced to 28 weeks in custody, suspended for 18 months.

DWP minister, Andrew Western, said after the hearing: "This is an insult to every hardworking taxpayer and to people who genuinely depend on Pip.

"Wieland lied repeatedly, milked the system for every penny she could get and then had the nerve to claim her condition was worsening while she was ziplining and surfing in Mexico.

"We are committed to finding those who try to defraud taxpayers, and they will face the consequences."

The Russian president held a closed-door meeting with leading businessmen on Thursday, The Bell online outlet reported.

Mr Putin discussed military funding and the continuation of the war, the Bell wrote, citing unnamed sources.

The war, which has been raging on for five years since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, has seen the country's defence costs soar, reaching 15.5 trillion roubles (£144bn) in 2025.

Russia is facing both falling budget revenues from energy sales and an economic slowdown. This is affecting tax income from other sectors of the economy.

The Russian government is said to be considering a possible 10% cut to all "non-sensitive" spending in its 2026 budget, with the final decision to hinge on the sustainability of the oil price rise triggered by the Iran war.

But oligarchs could now be providing the much-needed budget boost.

During the meeting with Mr Putin, billionaire Suleiman Kerimov pledged to donate 100 billion roubles (£922m), according to The Bell.

Oleg Deripaska, a metals magnate, also agreed to contribute when asked by the Russian leader, the Financial Times reported, citing three people familiar with the matter.

Read more from Sky News:
Russia attacks 'deeply hostile' UK decision
Are US-Iran peace talks actually happening?

Mr Putin reportedly said Russia will fight on until it captures the remaining areas of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, which are not currently under its control.

The monthly reading taken by data specialist GfK showed a leap in the number of those hoarding cash and avoiding big spending commitments as rising global energy prices put pressure on already squeezed budgets.

The survey noted a six percentage point decline in confidence about the economy over the next 12 months amid warnings the war will deliver price hikes across a growing number of goods and services in the coming months.

Money latest: Businesses hit by war-linked energy spike

Food is tipped to soon strongly reflect the hike in essential bills, following on from the fuel price shock witnessed within days of US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

There have also been forecasts the energy price cap will follow fixed rate deals up from July when it is first able to reflect the horrific oil and natural gas prices prompted by the war.

The latest market data on Friday showed that Brent crude oil remained above the $100 a barrel level at $1007 - up by almost 40% in the month to date. UK gas costs are more than 75% higher.

The country has had a cost of living problem since 2022 when Russia's invasion of Ukraine sparked a more intense energy-led inflation crisis.

The government has made tackling the resulting decline in living standards its top priority.

But the scale of the challenge was laid bare on Thursday when a new government measure found that 13.4 million people, including just over four million children, were living in poverty in the UK in 2024/5.

The public finances, hurt by help for homes and businesses during the costly COVID pandemic and subsequent Ukraine war bailout, are unable to provide further universal support, according to the chancellor.

Rachel Reeves told MPs this week that help for energy bills will be limited to those who can least afford them.

Recent forecasts have suggested the price cap may rise by more than £300 on an average annual basis from July, though that sum is likely to rise the longer the hostilities in the Middle East continue.

A report by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) saw UK inflation at 4% by the year's end though it did not believe the Bank of England would need to respond to the crisis by raising interest rates.

Read more: UK economy facing worst hit from war among major nations

Neil Bellamy, consumer insights director at GfK, said of the mood: "A ripple of fear is spreading as is evident from the six-point fall in perceptions of the general economic situation over the next 12 months, and also in the four-point drop in the major purchase index.

"People simply do not feel the economy is robust enough to ride out the knock-on effects from the Middle East conflict.

"Moreover, the decline in purchasing intentions, coupled with a six-point rise in the savings index, indicates people are holding on to their money and avoiding making major purchases while they wait to see what the medium-term impact of the conflict will be."