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

UK excess deaths were 208k.

It’s the main reason the national debt is so high. It was inevitable.

Yes, but May tried several times to get Brexit "lite" through Parliament, but MPs of all parties constantly voted down her proposals. I'd imagine the same would happen if Burnham tries to get closer integration, especially if he goes for freedom of movement, which will open all the old wounds again. Unless he plans to do it via the back door without a vote?

Well they didn't for the 3 million self employed, freelancers, etc who were excluded - a whopping 10% of the workforce!

Haven't we moved on now from the back of a fag packet negotiations post the referendum? Happy to do that.

Perhaps a fresh approach is needed and I'm sure it would garner support. Easy does it.

I completely agree, it very much is time for a fresh approach. And Burnham has an advantage that May didn’t have, a big majority.

In that case would not be wise to stop
adding to that inevitable mountain of debt?

A fresh approach, something like what we wanted in the first place, i.e. easier trade under the EEC is fair enough. But the public don't want freedom of movement and Burnham would be committing political suicide for himself and Labour if he goes down that road, nor expansion of ECHR, nor single currency, etc.

Is it necessary an advantage?

He doesn’t need a huge majority to push things through, Having a huge majority can lead to factions inside the parliamentary group.

The ERG, the blockers to May’s deal have all left parliament. We’re in a very different place to where we were a decade ago. Public opinion is very much in favour of closer ties now. Especially with the evidence of how leaving has damaged the economy.

Yes it would have been better not to add to it.

I don't think there was any false pretense. He was brought in because he was not Starmer and all the other Labour MPs have shit for brains. He still isn't Starmer and all the other Labour MPs still have shit for brains.

Is the "we" you're referring to those who voted to leave?

Those who voted remain wanted free movement to stay.

That's certainly a helpful post to the discussion. Not.

I'm referring to the original referendum to join the EEC in the first place. Everything else was imposed on the public without referenda. I think there'd be quite a lot of support to rejoin the EEC in the form it was originally. What there isn't support for is the common currency, freedom of movement, ECHR, etc, We should have just scaled it back to the EEC, in fact we should never have gone for more integration in the first place without referenda agreeing to it.

True though.

If you have no ideas what’s causing it why do you think it’s not defence?

As I said above, it can’t be defence because Healy resigned as DS over lack of sufficient funding for the forces.

Or so he claimed.

Is it? Sounds like sour grapes whingeing to me.

Or did he know something we didn't know at the time of his resignation, such as a promotion on offer? Starmer was stitched up like a kipper.

We’ll never know.

Bur clearly the defence funding isn’t there and it’s not what’s bankrupting the country.

Because as Burnham said national security is not a priority over social security.

That’s not quite what he said. He actually said you can’t have national security without social security.

What is bankrupting the country?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yw3223w1vo

Did he?

That’s what I have been wondering.

What do you think?