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 categorically not reparations, though. And whatever publication is framing it that way, is deliberately trying to wind up an easily outraged readership.

It is development money, already earmarked for international development and aid packages, and in this example, the money is specifically focusing on green energy and climate projects. I thought one of the main objections opponents had to the UK’s net zero targets was that it would only be effective if the developing world followed suit? In that context, this seems a pragmatic way to target international aid.

It also feels a bit like we’re through the looking glass when it is the right wing press who are objecting to diplomatic efforts to protect our relationship with the Commonwealth, seemingly purely because those efforts are coming from a Labour Prime Minister.

There we go, the very first sentence of that article makes clear it is aid funding, not reparations.

If it walks like a duck....

Indeed, typical of the fury and hyperbole we see on threads like this one. I can’t believe how right wing politicians are overreacting whenever the word ‘reparations’ is even mentioned.

And yes, it’s a measly amount.

Exactly. I can smell a Telegraph quote a mile off, especially when the poster fails to attribute the source.

It’s a relatively small amount from existing funding.

If they don't want it reported that way then they are guilty of the most massive political naivety in their timing of the announcement.

Neither are good.

Well if it is reparations, it is a right bargain. At least it won't take hundreds of years to pay £40m off. Well done Burnham!

I admire your conviction that it will end there, either geographically or monetarily.

Its very hard to have any kind of genuine political debate with someone who either doesn’t understand - or is prepared to pretend not to understand - the fundamental legal, economic and ethical differences between reparations and foreign aid.

If you’d rather just be outraged, than engage in a genuine conversation about what aid is for and how it should or shouldn’t be spent, or what a future facing relationship between Commonwealth counties should look like, then fair play, but it doesn’t seem a very productive way for anyone to spend their time.

The right wing press will spin negatively, whatever Labour does or doesn't do.

No, the Telegraph is guilty of its usual spinning. It’s a travesty of what’s actually proposed.

Well of course we will continue with foreign aid and of course the right wing press will try to spin that aid as reparations. Some will very sadly fall for that spin.

Exactly my point!

They handed it to them on a plate.

I totally see where you’re coming from but I’d actually counter that. I think one of the reasons Keir Starmer was ineffective as a communicator is he spoke like someone who was afraid of how the right wing press might spin it. Andy Burnham doesn’t - and I think that is absolutely part of his appeal.

I haven't read the Telegraph or seen any right wing media since it was announced. My comments were made on the basis that it was bloody obvious how it would be viewed by the general public given the timing.

You’re right, of course it won’t.

My point is Labour should just let the right-wing press spin itself into a frenzy. That spinning is not going to convince anyone other than the existing Labour-haters. The rest of us see though it.

You’ve read a quote from it. That’s where @1ercru’s unattributed copy and paste is from. Your comments were based on that.

I agree with you there but that appeal is going to have to be to all the centre right voters they took at the last general election if they want to retain their majority and this won't hack it.

They didn't swap to Labour because they like Labour's politics, they swapped, smoking other things, because the Tories couldn't keep a Prime Minister longer than five minutes ........

OK.

In which case it’s odd that the Tory share of the vote hasn’t moved since 2024. And the further right Badenoch moves the party the less likely they are to return.

Well we'll see.

No @1ercru, you’re being played by the Telegraph. Can we assume that’s the source when you c+p in future?

Actually my comments were formed in my head from a conversation with my OH when he brought me my tea, long before I even logged on this morning, at which point neither of us had read anything but a Google news feed headline.

It is not only the British Public who will react the way the right wing press has, it is other nations that are demanding slavery reparations, which is far more dangerous.