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

It is definitely the worldwide figure.

I'm still looking for the UK figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

Unfortunately Labour is currently on record calling for the same right now.. It sends a shiver down my spine.

Thanks for that info.

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.

I haven't read the article yet and will do so now if it's pointed to on the previous page, but all I've heard and read is about how they are going to get NEETS training places and support to get into work.

I've heard nothing about how they are going to create any jobs for those NEETS to do, and I've watched Labour make it vastly more expensive to employ them.

While also completely removing the two child benefit cap, giving big families an absolutely huge increase in payments.

That's where my doubt about their ability and desire to reduce the welfare bill come from.

It’s a good thing he’s talking about it, but has he actually done anything?

I don't think having them talk like human beings and not saying things that are bound to be misinterpreted are mutually exclusive.

Burnham's own backbenchers are reportedly furious that he has mentioned freedom of movement when the was a) absolutely no need to and b) was understandably interpreted as a policy statement.

I definitely agree that the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but I do also think it’s a long time since I’ve heard a Prime Minister speak as articulately and intelligently and with as much nuance as Andy Burnham does, and I’ve got to admit I am relishing it.

I absolutely understand his back benchers nervousness about reopening the freedom of movement debate, but I think up until this point politicians (right across the left / right spectrum) have been far too binary, black and white and frankly cowardly about discussing Brexit and I like that Andy Burnham is not afraid to speak the words “freedom of movement”. I would much rather a proper debate - even if that does involve clarifications and ifs and buts and maybes - than a return to the completely nonsensical “leave means leave” rhetoric.

Burnham pretty much said that last line to Makerfield when he said he wouldn’t go back to it.

In any case it’s out there now, various EU countries are seeing protests or worse. A few elections coming up too. It’s not the 2016 EU landscape anymore.

Once more - he’s been in power for 100 days. What exactly do you expect in that time?

If he wanted to do it he could have used the Budget.

Are you forgetting they just had the Budget?

Absolutely, it’s not the 2016 landscape anymore. That’s why I think it’s right to keep the door open to a grown up, evidence based discussion about what relationship with the EU is in our best economic and social interests now, rather than be forever beholden to a decision made 10 years ago - which hasn’t worked out the way many people who voted for Brexit (including people in constituencies like Makerfield) expected it to.

It’s not better now, the EU is being strained as anyone looking at the news outside the U.K. will see. But the idea a referendum can just be re-run every ten years obviously won’t work. We can’t just opt in and out as we switch parties in power.

We run a general election every five years so I don’t understand why we can’t have another referendum with a better informed electorate. Actually a different electorate. Nobody who’s under 28 now had any say in 2016 and many of those who did are now dead. We should reflect the views of the people whose lives are ahead of them.

I agree. I think the benefit of a referendum to get married rather than divorced is all you can do all the work before hand and then present to the electorate a concrete deal that we would sign rather than vague concepts.

Those things are the problem. High welfare costs are the symptom.

I don’t think anyone has proposed having a referendum right now, have they? For now, what the Prime Minister is talking about negotiating a more practical, economically stable reset with the EU. But beyond that, I do think public opinion has shifted, and a lot of people are increasingly concerned by the idea of being lumbered with a hard, damaging Brexit forever.

They did take some measures in the budget - the Chancellor set out more funding for tackling fraud in the system, a return to more face to face benefits assessments and more funded apprenticeships. But the main thing I like about the government’s approach is they are talking about long term, evidence based solutions, which does mean waiting for the recommendations of the Timms review.

It’s very easy to make knee jerk, populist cuts quickly but in my opinion that wouldn’t actually solve the problem of the rising welfare bill - rather it risks costing the tax payer more money by pushing people into crisis, and therefore cost shifting onto other (more expensive and already strained) services.

Membership the EU bloc doesn't provide a giant catflap where nations can enter and leave based on the whims of their electorate.
And stop saying that we weren't "informed".
We knew what we voted for but it wasn't delivered because far too many of our politicians were brown-nosing up to Europe because they had interests there.
Our PM at the time "Maybe" May's husband worked in finance and one of his interests was Deutsche Asset Management.
Out of the Cabinet at the time 24 were for Remain and only 6 for Leave.
No wonder they nearly all had an apoplectic fit when UK voted out.

I can't disagree, he is immensely likeable and it is refreshing to hear a PM sound like a normalhuman being.

Not sure about that, not many want membership without opt outs and look at France today. It’s not looking that stable within the EU.

I can't understand why you want to rejoin a federation which is falling apart economically.

I am watching the situation with Canada carefully. They met this week to discuss Associateship and have scheduled more talks next year. It will be interesting to see what Associateship means.

@Imdunfer" I can't understand why you want to rejoin a federation which is falling apart economically."

Me neither 🙄

They don’t hesitate to take knee jerk decisions where more tax is concerned.