Has Andy Burnham ended up as PM somewhat under false pretences?

[Imdunfer]

Please note that this is from a left wing Labour supporting paper.

It turns out that the marvellous redevelopment of Manchester that was the central plank of his credibility to become PM was triggered by the fall of Mubarak in Egypt in 2011 and what were effectively, or previously close to, bribes set up by the then Tory government to retain our massive defence contracts with the Middle East.

The owners of Man City, recently found guilty of breaking well over 100 financial football rules, are heavily involved. UK developers were excluded from access to large development contracts. Man City was sold a deal including the naming rights to the stadium, owned by the council, for £750k a year when professional rights brokers estimate the market value to be between £10m and £15m a year for the name alone.

The question is, did a local Mayor with no experience outside politics and only a tiny amount of experience of cabinet roles, (3 jobs in 3 years), get to be Prime Minister without a challenge on the strength of the development of the centre of his city that he actually only had a small part in creating?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/25/thats-the-way-the-city-works-how-the-uae-changed-the-face-of-andy-burnhams-manchester

I saw this in the news a couple of weeks back, about the stadium name.

I assumed if there was anything in it, it would be all over the right wing press, but nowt so far. I work on the principle that if there are any cracks in the left at all, the right wing media would be all over it.

Im not a Labour supporter or on the left. But if AB has talent and the ability to solve our country's problems then this potential scandal doesn't matter to me unless the law has been broken by AB. If however it turns out he is actually all vibes without substance or real ability then yes I agree with your premise OP.

Surely it's far more significant that the left wing press are on it?

And in any case, I picked what came through on my news feed. There is this on the very right wing Telegraph, it may be behind a paywall for you. The only bit they miss is the relationship to the fall of Mubarak in Egypt

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/10/02/how-uae-cash-helped-deliver-burnhams-manchester-miracle/

Hey, can you compare Andy Burnham's experience against the last, say, five PMs and tell us what's unusual or false about it?

I am struggling to understand what is so different myself.

He has leadership and empathy. He it's good at negotiation, connecting with people and has a good vision for social care, ending homelessness, the housing crisis etc.
He is not going to be perfect. But hopefully he's going to be better than the ones Ive had in my life time. Hes off to a better start than them all!

Yep . This . No complaints from me so far. I find him refreshing.

I don't know if you followed the story at the time but the main difference is that he wasn't a sitting MP at the time he was challenging the sitting PM. Unlike all the other prior PMs. So he hasn't stood for election on this manifesto. I suppose the fact that an existing MP didn't replace KS and great efforts were made to get him eligible indicates he must have something that all the sitting MPs didnt have.

Well, I suppose with likes of Cameron and Boris, they went to Eton and were born to be PM. They had nappies with "future PM" embroidered in.

I too do not understand this experience thing. Farage has no experience of being a PM. Hell, he hardly attended the EU when he was a member.

Do you think Burnham is some sort of scally Scouser made good? He grew up in rural Cheshire and is an Oxbridge PPE graduate.

Farage isn't and hasn't been PM though?

For what it's worth I really like him.

I love his message of hope.

I just don't think he has a clue how to pay for it, and he's running the country as if he was a mayor.

Andy Burnham studied English at Cambridge, not PPE.

He is unusual in having so little cabinet experience and becoming PM. There years in total with a short stint, too short to achieve much, on reach of 3 departments.

His promotion on the basis that he masterminded the rebuilding of Manchester looks like people's confidence in him may be misplaced.

Apologies, I thought it was PPE.

Labour are up in the polls too. That must count for something,

That's the odd thing about politics I suppose. Gotta get elected to get the power. And as we know from global experience, good at getting elected does not mean good at leading. But it's the system we have.

So we need to give him time so we can know if he can be a good leader. He has certainly not been a disaster so far it seems.

Are you saying going to a posh uni not enough of a qualification to be PM ?

If so, I agree. We can do the email to the Tories together. " Dear Tories, we think posh uni is not a qualification to be PM on it's own"

Well that wasn't what I meant but I'd have to agree if that's what you are saying.

I would very much prefer our leader to have some experience of business, for a start, irrespective of their politics.

This was talked about on another thread. We have an example of a businessperson leading a country.. Trump.

Honest question. Can you thing of a world leader who came from business who would be considered near universally good ? I can't.

In any case, near every MP, from all sides, is effectively running a small business, They need to budget their constituency office, hire staff etc. It's not all laid on my the party. And if you think that is stretching things, consider as they move up the party, perhaps into shadow cabinet. They have more staff to manage, things to organize, all sorts of external think tanks as suppliers, and a big customer base, the electorate to keep happy. Just because their product is different, it does not mean it is not a business. And if they fail as an MP, the electorate, the customers, sack them.

I used to watch the small debates on parliament telly. And I was seriously impressed with the amount of work many of them do. And most have real passion for it.

Take Ian Duncan Smith. He has passion for his cause. Superb backbencher, but meh as a leader.

No, you are determined to find something nefarious to criticise AB for, and you (along with numerous other people who don’t even know how rigorous a PPE course is) have recently discovered that numerous politicians/PMs studied PPE at Oxbridge and you are determined to tar him with the same brush.

I've known about PPE for decades and I made no comment whatsoever about how rigorous it is. Politics Philosophy and Economics sounds a bloody sight harder than English Literature to me!

I have a particular dislike of people doing PPE at uni then going straight into politics with no experience of adult life outside that circle, irrespective of which part they represent. Andy at least had three years as a journalist, first on a bulk container trade magazine, then on another trade magazine about passengers. I would very much prefer him to have a PPE qualification and some business experience.

Would you like to comment on the point about central government, the arms trade and Middle East influences on the Manchester regeneration fairy story?

In any case, near every MP, from all sides, is effectively running a small business, They need to budget their constituency office, hire staff etc. It's not all laid on my the party. And if you think that is stretching things, consider as they move up the party, perhaps into shadow cabinet. They have more staff to manage, things to organize, all sorts of external think tanks as suppliers, and a big customer base, the electorate to keep happy. Just because their product is different, it does not mean it is not a business. And if they fail as an MP, the electorate, the customers, sack them.

I'm talking about businesses that generate the profits that are used to finance the running of the country.

So name a politician who has been a good PM that has done that.

Andy Burnham has more prior cabinet experience than every Prime Minister since 2010 apart from Theresa May. Only Gordon Brown of the others more since Margaret Thatcher.

He hasn't actually done anything yet has he? Things planned for the future or being considered, let's see what he actually achieves.

I'm talking about Andy Burnham, the Middle East, Defence Contracts, high level government intervention, assets sold way below their true value and UK construction companies discriminated against.

You would find fault with any name I came up with and I'm not being side tracked into that.