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

Defence will never be a priority under Labour. What on earth Al Carns is doing sitting on that side of the chamber, I don't know. I think the same about Ross Kemp and his affiliation with the armed forces. Hes campaigned for them in the past. Labour aren't veterans' friends.

It isn't welfare

All of these play their part

Austerity
Brexit
Covid
Truss
Ukraine
Iran

Well, since countries can’t be bankrupt I’m going to go with ‘nothing, because the idea is nonsense’. How about you?

“Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security."

That is the quote in the article you’ve posted. I think most people would interpret that as meaning that both are intertwined, and both are important.

Within the article, the Prime Minister also talks explicitly about how he is going to get the welfare bill down. So, it’s useful that you’ve shared it, for the benefit for those on this thread who seem to inexplicably believe that for some unclear reason the Labour party actively want to keep the welfare bill high.

This is the order of where taxpayer money goes, so you’re right defence is not near the top.

• Social Protection & Welfare: Roughly 21% to 24% (covering benefits, working-age support, and social care).
• Health (NHS): Roughly 16% to 21% (funding hospitals, medical services, and public health).
• State Pensions: Around 11%.
• National Debt Interest: Around 8% to 11% (paying the interest on government borrowing).
• Education: Around 7% to 10% (schools, colleges, and universities).
• Other areas: Smaller portions fund defence, transport, public order and safety (police and prisons), and local government.

Classic - blame anything but the actual problem.

Some posters are pushing the line that benefit recipients are all Labour voters. The truth is somewhat different.

Labour MPs will do this, hence Pat McFadden’s frustration.

Was still in Primary school then.

Pat McFadden is the new Liam Byrne. To be wheeled out for all eternity.

Who said that and where?

Can you quote the poster, please?

Or maybe report your own post as misinformation?

So, what do you think the cause is? Given that vast majority of that debt was incurred between 2010 and 2024.

@celeriacismisunderstoodyes I’m not seeing it. I can see people don’t like being reminded of what Labour MPs focus on.

And who is to blame for that?

And the actual problem being?

I’m confident that poster will come up with a quote.

Any minute now.

That was how i interpreted it. I didn’t understand him to mean that national security was less important than social security but that we couldn’t have one and not the other.

Labour MPs might have something to do with it.

I thought harassing posters for an answer is now against MN talk guidelines

Something to do with hunting?

If you think my post is misinformation do feel free to report it. I could find you examples but I think MNHQ might frown on me singling out particular posters who bang on about Labour being the party of welfare, bribing benefit recipients, "welfare clients" etc.

Yep, the good old Labour way.

I’m sure it’s perfectly fine to quote a poster on the same thread to use as evidence for a claim.

To address the OP’s question … yes, I believe AB became PM under false pretences. I was a member of the LP but resigned my membership when Labour MPs held a coup to topple our country’s democratically elected leader.

My reasons:

1. After being rejected for the Labour leadership TWICE via the party’s leadership rules, AB spit his dummy out and scuttled off to Manchester. However, he hung around the fringes of the LP stirring shit for years.
   Shit stirrer!

2. Instead of supporting KS, he joined forces with a small group of disgruntled MPs very soon after KS gained a landslide for Labour. AB plotted with them to oust the PM.
   Untrustworthy!

3. A democratically elected MP in Makerfield had to step down to allow AB to take the safe Labour seat. Burnham only wanted to get back to Westminster via a ‘safe’ route, knowing that the coup group would support him, and would persuade others to do the same. They had already started the witch hunt against KS by leaking things to the press and the media hounding had begun. AB knew he wouldn’t face opposition for the leadership and therefore would not face the votes of the grass roots Labour membership.
   Coward!

4. AB lied to the people of Manchester. He said in a local radio interview that he was committed to completing his term a mayor - he said this at a time when the coup was in full swing so he knew he was intending to do no such thing. He lied to the electorate of Makerfield regarding Brexit in order to gain their votes in the by-election.
   Liar!

These are not pie-in-the-sky ‘conspiracy’ theories - these are events that actually happened.

I say this … if this man was on Traitors I know which camp he’d be in. Wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him! Don’t want him as my PM … and that’s from a former, life long Labour voter.

I thought it was a lot for UK.
Let me check that and get back to you.

The 2008 crash is still being blamed as well

Not just the good old Labour way.