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

In think two years plus as Chancellor of the Exchequer by Sunak counts for a wee bit more than the short stints and the projects that Andy has held cabinet level posts for. Not sure quite how much money was wasted on the project he was leading trying to push the ID cards 2006 Act into law ...

But you are saying you would prefer a leader with business experience, so just name one, from anywhere.

Zelensky was a comedy actor for example. And I think we can say he is a good leader. In war anyway.

I get what you are saying about experience outside of politics. I agree with that. But why does it have to be running a business, as opposed to being a factory worker for example.

The Guardian story is Meh. I can't open it where I am, but a friend ( A Mancunian) just PDFd it to me. He made the following note on it. " The Stadium was renamed the Etihad in 2011, while Burnham was an MP and Shadow minister for health. So nowt to do with Burnham.

So basically, there is a rich UAE fella buying land. Is that not what rich Arabs do?

It's a story in the Guardian because a Prof John Silver of the University of Sheffield is worried about the over reliance on inward investment from an authoritarian state. I agree with that concern, but the article goes on to say only 0.3% of all foreign investment is from the UAE. No wonder it's not top story on right wing news, it's hardly even a story. To me it reads like the Guardian suggesting to Burnham, Hey, easy on the Gulf State investment, we are watching.

The stuff with arms. That is discussed over in the Iran war thread. But that is Saudi Arabia, not the UAE. I think it is worth mentioning that the UAE are involved in Sudan. So another warning shot there ?

Tbh I never really worked out what it was he was specifically offering, other than "not being Kier starmer". It was all a bit vague. So it's difficult, to say he's not living up to his woolly, broad promises.

He had two offerings.

"I'm not Keir Starmer and I have a much more relatable personality".

Undeniably true.

And

"Look what a fabulous job I made of Manchester"

Plenty of people in Greater Manchester outside the crop of glass towers in the centre weren't convinced by the latter.

I like him. I hope he can make it work. I fear that he won't be able to find the money, either from tax or from the Middle East.

Quote." Not sure quite how much money was wasted on the project he was leading trying to push the ID cards 2006 Act into law "

I just looked it up. 46.4 million GBP. I cant post a link for that figure, but there is this Hansard from 19th of June 2007 that says -

"Between the financial years 2003-04 and 2005-06, £41.1 million was spent by the Identity Cards Programme in total.

Of this expenditure, £31.6 million was spent on consulting and contracting services and £180,000 was spent on polling and opinion research. A further £180,000 was spent on specific IT software packages, although this figure excludes the cost of running standard hardware and software applications for desktop computers."

Source

Identity Cards - Hansard - UK Parliament

There seems to be a bit of a begging the question fallacy thing going on here.

He had a lot more Cabinet experience than the last PM!

I won't give my opinion, or I will be reported to MNHQ.

He likes to spend, 60 million on space and 40 million on robot advice hubs…

Quote " Plenty of people in Greater Manchester outside the crop of glass towers in the centre weren't convinced by the latter."

That statement is not evidence of anything. Because I know for a fact, and I can look it up, that " " Plenty of people in Greater Manchester " voted reform, or Tory. I would even go so far as to say I can work out how many people in greater Manchester are not happy. Just look up the election results and use that as a starting point.

In fact, given that the average support for Reform in England ( Not UK) hovers around the 20% mark, we can say with confidence that that 20% will not be happy with anything unless Farage is in charge.

The money was easy when it was pouring into Manchester from the Middle East in return for exclusive land deals.

He can't finance the country that way.

It remains to be seen (Wednesday?) how any of what he's done and promised so far can be paid for.

I should have said plenty of left wingers in Greater Manchester, RTA. The love for him as "the saviour of Manchester" was not universal.

Do you have a link you can quote from ?

TBH, I don't know what the approval rating is for anything to be considered a success. Even something such as a new bridge for example. That can maybe be measured in benefit to the economy but might only have 10% approval rating.

And things such as regeneration of an area might be seen as good by some, but others will see it as gentrification.

So how do you measure such things ?

It all just sounds very amped up and not real life sorry.

I've lived in Greater Manchester. I voted for Andy Burnham. I thought he did an ok job. I thought, you know, he did some things, which is better than no things, as I heard someone on here say once. Nobody ever described him as a saviour. I don't really know what you're talking about or who you are "quoting".

In Manchester everyone knows that if it was anyone, it was Howard Bernstein that spearheaded the regeneration of Manchester. This is a really well known thing that you could easily find out with a cursory google.

But an also really well known thing, known by everyone without needing to google, is that no one person ever singlehandedly delivers anything really complicated. Leaders don't do things by themselves, by definition. Leaders lead - they make it possible for everyone else to do things. And in general people working in the towns and in the city of Manchester that I know, felt like Andy Burnham was in general a person who enabled productive action to some perceptible extent, whether they voted for him or not. He's not the only person who could do that, I'm sure there are lots of people who could do that, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he did do that.

So it's a pretty moderate approval, but a general approval, that I am aware of. I don't really know anybody who goes around talking about a normal man like he's a saviour or a devil. He's just a man doing some moderately useful work. But he is doing it, at least.

It was largely a thing dreamed up by the national news papers when he began his bid to depose Starmer. It was never true and I hope people realise that before voting him in as PM at the General Election in November? May?

Quote " The money was easy when it was pouring into Manchester from the Middle East in return for exclusive land deals."

Where does the Guardian article you linked say that ? The article states 0.3% of total UK foreign investment is from the UAE. How much of that went to Manchester ? Where did the other massive % come from ?

Quote "He can't finance the country that way."

Do you mean by foreign investment ? Is that not a big bit of what Farage wants ? Lower tax and less regs to attract foreign investment. Is that plan ok for you ?

The Guardian article makes it clear what assets were sold for massively under their market value and that British developers were excluded from deals. A Google response about Manchester funding is shown below.

Andy Burnham is promising Manchester like growth in "every postcode". That money is not available for every postcode, it's directly linked to Man City FC and its owners. So HOW is he going to regenerate the rest of the country?

how much investment in Manchester in the last 10 years came from the middle East

Land and Property Expansion: Recent analysis by The Guardian shows that Emirati-linked companies increased their land ownership in Greater Manchester by roughly 39% over the past decade, rising from 51 land titles in 2016 to 168 titles in 2026 (spanning an increase from 73 to 101 hectares, or about 180 to 250 acres). 1]
Manchester Life: A major vehicle for Abu Dhabi-backed investment in the city is Manchester Life a joint venture between Manchester City Council and Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) established in 2014. Over the past decade, it has delivered more than 1,800 homes across Ancoats and New Islington, with a portfolio valued by a University of Sheffield study at almost £350 million. Overall, the regeneration project associated with these deals has been cited by the council as worth £1.25 billion to the city.
Broader Real Estate & Infrastructure: Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and related Emirati entities have expanded beyond the Etihad Campus and Manchester Life into other major local assets—including apartment complexes, hotels, and the Co-op Live indoor arena—with land and property footprints peaking significantly over the last 10 years.
Wider Foreign Investment Context: Total foreign direct investment stock in Greater Manchester grew by 25% between 2015 and 2024, with the region attracting nearly £2 billion net from overseas entities annually, making it one of the top-performing UK city-regions outside London for international capital. While an exact cumulative single figure for all Middle Eastern investment across the last 10 years is not exhaustively itemized in public ledgers, Abu Dhabi-linked entities (predominantly via Sheikh Mansour and ADUG) represent hundreds of millions in direct real estate, residential development, and urban regeneration value.

Quote " The Guardian article makes it clear what assets were sold for massively under their market value and that British developers were excluded from deals."

I have the Guardian article on my phone in front of me, and I have just been through it again, and I see no mention of "assets were sold for massively under their market value" nor "British developers were excluded from deals."

What I do see if they bought a health group, and that increased what they own significantly. But let's do numbers. The guardian says they own 40% more land in greater Manchester than 10 years ago. And there is a graph there, so amount of acres owned has gone from 180 to 250 acres.

That's the 40% increase. And they now own 250 acres.

What is the total area of greater Manchester. It's 500 square miles. Convert that to acres, and that is 320000. And that is 0.078% of the total of Manchester land they own. Ten years ago they owned 180 acres, and that is 0,056% of Manchester land. So 0.078 - 0.056 = 0.022. So compared to 10 years ago, they now own 0.022 % more of the total Manchester land.

Now your AI stuff ( I don't use AI.)

"Wider Foreign Investment Context: Total foreign direct investment stock in Greater Manchester grew by 25% between 2015 and 2024, with the region attracting nearly £2 billion net from overseas entities annually, making it one of the top-performing UK city-regions outside London for international capital. While an exact cumulative single figure for all Middle Eastern investment across the last 10 years is not exhaustively itemized in public ledgers, Abu Dhabi-linked entities (predominantly via Sheikh Mansour and ADUG) represent hundreds of millions in direct real estate, residential development, and urban regeneration value."

Note the bit I have underlined. Outside of London. And note also what your AI is saying. "grew by 25% between 2015 and 2024,". That means nothing without knowing what the start point is.

How is Burnham off to a better start than all the previous PM’s in your lifetime, please?

Jeremy Clarkson summed him up a treat, when he said Burnham is more qualified to govern over local council disputes than he is over the country.

Yes.
He lied about respecting the Brexit vote, for a start.

No he didn’t. It’s been respected and it’s not working in our interests in its current form. It can still be respected with closer ties to the EU.

The vote was respected. You know, the one that said 'should the UK leave the EU' without specifying anything about what that might look like afterwards.

We Brexited. You won.

Re the OP's question - he ended up as PM because his party have a large governmental majority and voted for him to be there.

There's no false pretences, they were free to determine if he was the best prospect they had for leadership and for future electoral success. As no one else made a serious bid to oppose AB, it seems that almost all MPs thought he was.

That's probably because there wasn't a serious proposition, aside from Al Carns. That's really quite a desperate situation.