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

I hope, and pray, that Burnham rolls the dice on those polls and calls an early GE.

He is nothing more than a performative lightweight, but what I do find fascinating is, for all his radical words prior, he has just continued the same work that Starmer had planned. He has obviously taken one look at the books and concluded that all the nonsensical hard left rhetoric, simply does not stand up to contact with reality.

Sitting Labour MPs are responsible for Burnham being where he is; they were determined to oust Starmer when the public and even the Labour Party rank and file weren't asking for that, and they intentionally didn't even muster up a lone MP to stand against him for appearance's sake so that the vote could at least go to the membership. If Burnham is making unreasonable promises now the press should be all over it, so it's good too see these criticisms from across the political spectrum. They should also be challenging Burnham directly.

However, if he IS able to make his plans work and to improve the country during the time he has left then he's free to do it. I don't think he personally has done anything wrong except allow his credentials to be exaggerated, and that seems pretty standard these days.

Possibly, but then I am ambivalent about the reliability of polls.

Has he got the balls to do what May did? Let's hope so but I doubt it.

He has said no GE within the next 12 months. Why would he call a GE which would result in a vastly reduced majority? It would be daft.

You may well be right LHF - in the interim, the rest of us are forced to suffer this deeply unserious man and his deeply unserious government.

Events, dear girl, events.

Ignoring the "dear girl", which events would cause him to call a GE?

My personal opinion is that the last thing we need is a career politician- and now it seems what he built his name on is also a load of the proverbial. But then the vast majority of the population seem to be sheisters so why would the govt be any different…. I really need to relocate my faith in humanity😔

I really couldn't care how he got there considering that most of the others did it by going to the right school and knowing the right people. He's doing a fabulous job and that's really all I care about.

OK, let’s war game some scenarios.

Healey resigns (again). Nosferatu has form, of course, and he already appears to be at odds with Burnham over welfare cuts.

Conversely, a poll lead that survives this budget, given he wants to rejoin the EU, for which he has no mandate, currently. Remember, he wasn’t elected on the popular mandate.

A specific polling threshold, given a Labour strategist said in August that they would push for an early GE premised on a steady five to eight point lead.

A national security incident, which amply demonstrates the UK’s defence spending constraints.

Broader public appetite.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-burnham-poll-labour-election-win-b3074751.html

I think you are scrabbling around a bit here. Let's see, but I suspect you are not going to get what you want. Are you actually in the UK at the moment?

Why would Healey resign? His prior resignation was a strategic move that helped oust Starmer and get him to the Chancellorship. Resigning now would get him nothing.

Agree. Healey and Burnham seem to be roughly on the same page re: welfare despite what pp claims.

Winning a GE with a smaller majority gives him another 5 years. Not doing so means he may well lose in 2/3 years if they fall further in popularity over time.

The need to obtain a mandate to do things which are not in the Labour manifesto which the party was voted in to power with.

There will be an election in May, for sure, if the polls stay the same or get better.

They are gaining in popularity at the moment according to the polls. But even so a GE now would not give them a majority. It would be madness.

You believed him?

Something not being in the manifesto doesn't preclude a government being able to do it.

Re: whether I believe him. I think I do. Let's see.

Morally it does and Andy Burnham is a man with morals.

Well so far most people (according to the opinion polls) seem to think he's doing a better job than any of the others since Cameron so give him a chance.

Maybe what he needs isn't experience, which those around him have, but integrity unlike Bo-Jo or Truss, and a bit of courage unlike Sunak or Starmer.

Well I suppose it's a bit of a back-handed compliment.......

😆

@MyKindHiker

Well so far most people (according to the opinion polls) seem to think he's doing a better job than any of the others since Cameron so give him a chance.

Being popular doesn't mean doing what's actually needing to be done. Anyone can be popular by making promises and cutting COL, increasing benefits, etc., but that's not sustainable long term and the shit will hit the fan eventually.

After all, privatisations and selling off council homes were very popular policies at the time, as were tax reductions, but look at what problems they've caused.