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

Let's face it what most people want is the ability to travel more easily to and in Europe on holiday. And a much smaller group, working and living there more easily.

When they realise it comes with having to join the Euro, accept freedom of movement, underpin the financing of a block where the two main powerhouses Germany and particularly France are faltering badly and where one of the Mediterranean states has just given 600,000 people a route to citizenship which would eventually allow them to come here, then they might not be quite so keen.

@celeriacismisunderstood "They don’t hesitate to take knee jerk decisions where more tax is concerned."
How true.
When they got into power the first thing they did was scrap the Rwanda Scheme followed by cancelling OAPs' Winter Fuel payments.
They can go at a rate of knots when they want.

And Poland seems to be having a few hiccups at the moment.....

I don’t think re-joining will necessary be the best best option, and I’m not saying that will ultimately be what the public want but I do think the majority of the public want their political leaders to be brave enough to have a proper discussion about the best relationship with Europe, rather than brushing Brexit and its consequences under the carpet.

Do you really think that, based on this budget? I thought the tax raises were very modest - certainly not of a scale that spooked the markets.

Countries within the EU are feeling consequences of their own anyway, there’s no Brexit to focus on. France, Spain, Germany, Poland and Italy all have protests.

I agree with pp that re-joining that or sweeping what they’re facing under the carpet isn’t that current.

The landlord tax and the bank tax will lead to higher mortgages and rents, and this will increase the already sky high welfare budget.

Far from people knowing what they voted for everyone who voted leave seemed to think they were voting for something. Nobody knew what we were getting. Including Johnson et al.

There are 27 countries in the EU, they are our closest trading bloc and far more reliable than the US.

Plus the UK has it's fair share of protests and riots.

Something different.

I don’t know if that is straight forwardedly true. Given rents are already high, I don’t know if landlords will just pass costs onto tenants on this occasion - because the smaller, individual landlords affected by this tax raise have to compete with bigger corporate landlords who aren't hit by it. There’s a limit to how high they can push their rents. And mortgage rates are surely driven by global interest rates—not by a modest, temporary bank tax. Politics is all trade offs, isn’t it? But neither of these taxes feel knee jerk or disproportionate to me.

Let’s wait and see.

I admire your optimism but I’m afraid I don’t share it.

Bank shares went up immediately after the budget so the slight increase in taxation obviously isn’t a problem.

the markets were expecting a bigger tax so there was relief it wasn’t as bad as expected. Markets always price in potential bad news and shares often rise when the bad news isn’t as bad as expected.

Regardless of the reason all’s well.

As long as people don't then complain about the "slight" increases to their mortgages when the cost is passed on.

Bank shares have fallen again. The relief rally was short lived. But yes, the banks were definitely fearing higher tax increases.

That said, the expectation that government will raise meaningful amounts from the bank tax is yet to be seen. The windfall levy on energy profits has raised much less than was forecast in 2022.

In what world is all well?

Mine. ☺️

Oh well, you might as well wonder why the rest of the population don’t eat pastries instead of bread.

Credit rating agency Fitch changed its outlook on France to negative in a previously unscheduled decision that came shortly after data showed that the economy unexpectedly contracted in the third quarter.

Attempting to rejoin the EU is looking less and less compelling.

I don’t understand why we can’t have another referendum with a better informed electorate

I doubt the electorate is any better informed as a whole, or even many political commentators, journalists and MPs. For example;

I caught the beginning of James O'Brien's show on LBC at the beginning of last week - Monday I think. O'Brien was claiming that some EU countries don't allow anyone [EU citizens] to move there unless they already have a job lined up. He claimed you could do that within European Union rules and 'he wished above all that he could have injected that information into voters' brains back in 2016'.

O'Brien was talking absolute tosh of course. EU citizens have a fundamental right to move to another member state to seek work (as a job seeker) - they don't need to have a job lined up. The Court of Justice of the European Union established back in 1991 (in a case involving the UK) that an EU citizen should be permitted a period of at least six months in order to find work, and longer if [he] could show he was continuing to seek work and had a genuine chance of being engaged, even if only working part-time or on short-term contracts.

I didn't hear the rest of the show so I don't know if O'Brien was challenged on his false claim/s.

And if we are talking youth unemployment as we are, what Costa wouldn't rather employ a bilingual 18 year old who has been motivated enough to move to the UK because they fancy a couple of years polishing their English and seeing the UK than a British youngster with a few GCSEs

And there are 27 countries with young people wanting to come here because we speak English.

Burnham says they will only stay a short time. That's not relevant, when they go they will be replaced by others.

The population increase will be permanent. The removal of yet more starter level jobs for young British people will be permanent.

Most EU citizens learn to speak English via US programmes and films so have a US accent rather than received English.

Then perhaps British youngsters should be better... If you can miss out on a barista job to someone who is speaking your language as a second language and yet is a better fit than you are, you clearly aren't trying. The same goes for British people in general. Barring unfair and exploitative employers who pay below minimum wage (who should be hit with business losing penalties), people should understand that you have to compete for jobs.