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 definitely recognise pp's posting style now...

It’s that kind of creep-out post that results in posters NC’ing.

There are far creepier things on MN than recognising someone's posting style.

Eta: why do you feel the need to be so frequently rude to BIossomtoes?

Absolutely right.

You might do better if you didn't use that patronising tone all the time.

Economics is not an exact science. Your opinion of the causes of the GFC is just that - yours. It may be based on what some of those who study economics are saying, but pretending there is consensus and a single correct opinion is disingenuous.

He and Healey both need to learn really quickly what can and cannot be said in front of a live mike. They are both very naive in their handling of interviews at the moment.

It’s also not as if economists saw the GFC coming before it did. I don’t recall any warnings sounding beforehand, and these supposedly brilliant investment bankers were powerless to prevent the crash from happening.

I’m not pretending to have an understanding of global economics (I studied politics, social policy and a little economics at uni). They’re just my observations from keeping up with current affairs.

They do spend time having to back track and self correct.

They must be doing something right though. The budget seems to have gone down OK.

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 31% (+3)
RFM: 22% (-1)
CON: 21% (+2)
LDM: 8% (=)
GRN: 8% (=)
RES: 5% (-2)
SNP: 2% (-1)

Via
@BMGResearch
, 28-29 Oct.
Changes w/ 23-24 Sep.

There were warnings and plenty of people saw it. Truly independent analysis were forecasting it but nobody was listening until too late to stop it.

I am lucky to be married to an analytical man who is interested in international finance. I remember clearly the moment when he turned to me and said "you will never believe what they've done!".

He made me move all my investments into cash funds straight away, and some time afterwards the crash happened.

The warnings were there.

You ascribe no blame to the ratings agencies, then.

Fair enough. The investment bankers were seemingly powerless to stop it, though, weren’t they?

And I don’t think the Tories would have prevented the crash from happening. There were no warnings from David Cameron or George Osborne at all.

Other posters seem to do OK with a ‘patronising’ and supercilious tone.

If I have real world experience of a subject, I say so - equally, when posters talk about, say, local government, or the inner workings of the civil service, I listen - I don’t make pretend premised on a cursory google.

But that’s just me.

But ultimately those investment banks chose to borrow in order to purchase those sub prime bundles. They thought they could make money out of it. They were wrong. They were responsible, nobody held a gun to their heads and taxpayers the world over paid for it with years of austerity.

And let's not forget that the opposition at the time (who was that again?) are on the record in Hansard arguing for less regulation of the banks.

As I’ve said, I don’t claim to be an expert. It’s just my recollections from current affairs at the time.

Either way, those supposedly brilliant investment bankers were powerless to prevent the GFC from happening.

You do understand the consequences had central banks (not IB’s) failed to have stepped in and recapitalised the sector, right?

Absolutely, they wanted even less regulation. The GFC would have happened if the Tories has been in power.

True re the first line, I see plenty in return. On the bust Labour benefited politically from the boom.

Obviously. But that does not in any way wipe out the fact that the investment banks' decisions to borrow and invest in sub prime caused them to need to be recapitalised. Whichever way you spin it, the responsibility lies with the investment banking sector. Which is why I don't think it's a good thing to put them on a pedestal. Bankers are fallible, just as all of us are.

As it was a US-led contagion, I do not disagree.

It was another event that started in the US and affected everyone.

No, responsibility is not solely IB’s.

There are the rating agencies, and the borrowers themselves (you recall NINJA loans, I hope).

I have seen it all before - seemingly endless asset value inflation, releverage, add exposure, and repeat.

Edit: And add in the regulators.

They also benefitted from a huge bail out from the Labour Government, as I recall.

I didn't say 'solely'. That's in your head. But the investment banking sector bears a considerable slice of the responsibility. They didn't have to borrow unsustainable amounts of money so they could buy up these loans. That was a choice.
I'm not arguing with you about the ratings agencies, but when it comes to borrowers, you're talking about people who weren't financial experts, and one does wonder how much hard selling was going on at the time. Yes, the borrowers bear responsibility - but so do those selling them those mortgages.
Either way, none of that warrants putting bankers on a pedestal as the people who can save the economy.

As discussed, above.

Once again, had CB’s not stepped in, lending liquidity would have remained frozen - especially interbank. Individuals and corporates would have gone to the wall. There would have been capital restrictions to avoid runs on the remaining banks.

And on, and on.