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

What's in it for any mainland European country to stop people they don't want from passing straight through to us?

Yes this is a better overview than below. Plus the period of the French providing border control on our behalf is contingent on who is in power next year.

Re this - I just saw a clip from the ITV interview with the Prime Minister on his first 100 days that goes out later tonight, and in it he talks explictly about caring less than his predecessors about headlines in the Daily Mail or the Sun. So, I do think it's strategy, and not accident (although the question clearly remains about whether he can pull it off).

Apparently there's some posters on this thread which is in Politics who haven't got the foggiest idea what happened in the US.

To recap the results of the vote: Democrats win both the House and the Senate.

Interesting to see what impact the democratic tidal wave will have over here. I just heard Andy Burnham was talking (very articulately) about how his main focus where the U.S is concerned remains de-escalation in Iran - and with it a reduction in oil prices and therefore our own cost of living.

I guess he’s got to remain diplomatic while Trump is still president but I’ve seen other British politicians being more forthright about the lessons we might take from America’s clear rejection of the politics of big money, and of the rhetoric of divisive fear-mongering.

Since the last post before yours was made before the results were known, this post of yours makes no sense, just like many of your others.

Is it the rejection of "the politics of big money"? It doesn't look that way to me. It looks like a rejection of a president who is clearly not right in the head, who has whacked up the cost of living and in spite of promising to keep America out of wars has started one in the Middle East that has destabilised the world.

The Democrats don't exactly operate on a shoe string, they have billionaire backers too.

Come on, the Democrats might have billionaire backers, but the figures are incomparable. Musk alone poured $446 million into backing Republican candidates this election cycle.

Maybe labelling it a rejection of the politics of big money isn’t quite right, but these results are certainly evidence that ultimately an enormously well-funded campaign matters far less than a message that resonates. And I actually do think you could go further, and extrapolate that too much money from divisive figures with blatant vested interests washing around can in fact, damage a party’s brand.

Quite.

I still don't think the fact the Republicans have big big money behind them has diddly squat to do with how the voters have voted this time.

There are far more obvious candidates, like war, cost of living and Trump the orange madman himself.

The results were known by 9am in the morning. And many of the posters on this thread, including myself, are posting in political threads elsewhere on this site. One thread was trending and for historic reasons. As you well know.

Of course, Trump himself, his unnecessary and unpopular war and the ways that war has pushed up the cost of living for ordinary Americans (and ordinary Brits, for that matter) are the main factors in the results.

But Musk did not donate that kind of money for fun, and last nights results are undoubtedly a blow to him, and to the tech bro billionaires like him who think they can out spend democracy.

This thread is about Andy Burnham and as of the time you posted there was nothing much to say about Andy Burnham. If you thought there was something too say here, why didn't you say it instead of having a silly dig that nobody was commenting on the mid terms? And if plenty is being said elsewhere, as you point out, then what's the point of saying it again here?

Frankly, your posts are baffling.

I think it's a terrific boost for democracy for donors like Musk to get a slap in the face!

This thread has digressed towards Europe and wider global happenings.

To suggest that the thread is solely about Andy Burnham is disingenuous on you as the OP. You yourself said it was open to interpretation.

I was merely pointing out that many of us who posted here, posted elsewhere about the historical victory in the US mid terms. Hasn't been seen for 20 years.

This victory certainly does have meaning within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and our Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

I agree with you, @placemats. There has been discussion about France and Germany, so why not the US midterms? I suspect it’s because of discomfort at the comprehensive defeat of the Republican Party by very progressive Democrat candidates.

Along with Hungary, Serbia and Brazil, it’s been an interesting sequence of results.

Thank you.

eta I agree with you also.

Yes, why not? So why didn't Placemats just post her opinion instead of digging at other posters for not posting about them, it was completely childish.

So why didn't you post something then?

Seen Andy's reaction on Antigua on the 6 o'clock news. Very statesmanlike. Impressed.

I think that may have been the same clip I saw earlier, with him talking about the cost of living. I think some of the clips coming out from this Antigua trip in general have really showed the range of his skill as a communicator - yes, there’s been the silly bits - like that one with him laughing at himself falling over when he plays cricket - but there’s been some impressive diplomacy too.

I don’t know how long the “vibes only”, “he’s good on Tiktok but he’s no statesman”, jibes will last in the face of how well he actually presents when he does need to be serious.

Yes that was it. He was better than Starmer, and Starmer was pretty good at the international stuff.

It's interesting because I heard some commentators talking (I think it may have been on The Rest is Politics, but I'd have to check...) about how this idea of him as, 'just a fun vibes' guy was originally an attack line from the Starmer camp - to prevent Andy Burnham being taken seriously as a contender for the leadership. They were saying on the podcast that they thought it was a mistake for the opposition to run with that line of attack once he was Prime Minister, because it is quite quickly demonstrably untrue. There are definitely weaknesses (plenty of which have been debated on this thread) but the idea that Andy Burnham is incapable of serious thought or dignified, statesmanlike rhetoric is already being disproved.

Very good post once again, @Raiderofthelostbattenburg. I think you’re absolutely right. I don't think this attack line against Burnham works well at all.

I can maybe see how it worked as a contrast with Starmer (or how in theory it might, anyway) but I don’t think it holds up now he’s actually Prime Minister - because he is very statesmanlike when he needs to be.