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

We keep borrowing.

I do wonder if there is a particularly fast growing sector that demands money spent on it.

It’s defence right now.

Surely not. You must be wrong.

I hope I can get a better answer
from more knowledgeable posters!

Is it?

I’m not too sure

Why did Healy have to resign as Defence Secretary then?

But what are you saying, that because the Government can’t mitigate rising energy prices entirely, they shouldn’t give people any help at all?

I don’t personally subscribe to that logic. Did you also object to the one off cost of living payment from Rishi Sunak?

I’ve already said that I thought this budget was underwhelming - I’d have liked it to be bolder, and I certainly think they could’ve gone further with the levies on both the banks and the gambling companies. But plenty of posters were warning ahead of the budget that the Prime Minister and Chancellor were going to make big decisions that might spook the markets, and that’s why the budget would be a disaster. That didn’t happen. I would’ve thought posters with centre-right politics would actually be fairly pleased?

What do you think it is then?

I don’t know.

I wouldn’t be asking if I did.

If I was saying that I’d post what you did in the first line, so no that’s not a correct paraphrase.

It’s a £100 payment to a lot of people, how long-lived any uptick is from that we’ll see. The full pressure of winter bills isn’t here yet.

This is a bit pointless then, isn’t it? Maybe read or watch some news.

I was hoping someone knowledgeable and wise could answer.

How mistaken I was.

Apologies if I misread - I think it was the word ‘bung’ that threw me. I agree that, like the one off cost of living payment, it is going to a lot of people, but then a lot of people are going to be affected so I do think it is probably the fairest way forward (as well as the least administratively costly and onerous).

I think you need to put in a bit of work yourself. Like the rest of us.

I hate working.

Have never worked, don’t see why.

I always wondered about the Covid Pandemic.
Sadly, approx 7.1 million people died as a result of Covid or from complications associated with it.
In official data from the UK Government on COVID-19 Deaths in England, the highest number of fatalities concentrated sharply in people aged 75 to 84 and 85 and above.
So it's logical to assume that these were people who were Pensioners. While no specific figures are available it would be logical to assume that because of Covid there was a significant reduction in the bill for pensions.
The State Pension then was £9,615 pa. If, say, 7million people died that would be a saving of £67,305,000,000 pa.
I wonder where all these savings went?
Feel free to do the maths yourselves 🙂

I can tell you. We paid the 80% of the wages of people who were furloughed.

I agree that we should not have done it.

That’s ok but not really the part I’m focusing on, it’s more that £100 might feel good for a while and be helpful politically but that may not last that long given winter pressures.

There was no choice. If you tell people they can’t go to work you have to provide the means for them to pay their bills.

I disagree.
It kept businesses viable ready to start up again after the pandemic was over.
Otherwise there would have been millions on benefits.
While the gross expenditure reached £70 billion, the net cost to the exchequer was lower because furloughed employees continued to pay income tax and national insurance, and the scheme reduced welfare spending.
I see now that the savings on benefits (which was £67,305,000,000) was only a small % of the total bill.

if you think we should have done it, then why are you complaining about the money that was borrowed back then?

It was expensive and meant initially to be for around six to eight weeks. It ended up being much longer, anyone suggesting at the time it would bring economic problems got a lot of backlash at the time.

Still having gone through that a party that was always likely to add £70bn tax and borrowing first up even if they said “fully funded, fully costed” would always put up debt servicing. It’s unsustainable and they’ll have to get it down, which they’ve deferred.

But PP says that’s why are in the shit we are in now?

Where are you getting that 7 million figure from? That is the world wide death figure, not the UK, isn't it?

I’m not.

But you think
this is the reason we have no money now?