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

Liz Truss

Yeah right... that's why he lied to the good people of Makersfield by saying he wasn't going to re-run the Brexit arguments.
Burnham denied he is reigniting the Brexit wars, after saying earlier this year that the "last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments". He tells MPs: "I stand by every single one of those words. I am not reopening the referendum. I respect the referendum result..."

We had a referendum accompanied by a promise to implement what the electorate decided. The electorate voted to leave so we left. EU accession is not a revolving door through which countries can enter and leave according to the prevailing preference of the public.

We were told to give him a chance on his appointment, then give him a chance after his Martin Lewis saving money hacks, then wait until the budget to give him another chance. His piffle is on its last legs.

Has he increased benefits, other than the usual annual uprating?

I suppose the changes to Carer's Allowance iro employment income is an increase. But given how much carers save the state, it seems sensible and fair.

What are you inferring?

Please, be crystal clear.

I agree.

Burnham is a hostage to fortune, nothing more.

You have said in the past you are not based in the UK, but that you spend part of the year here. Or something like that.

Perhaps I am mixing up my posters, but your posting style is v distinctive.

Hold that thought, and imagine this, if you will.

Imagine the infrastructure, the NHS, and the Defence Forces we could have if we had a more reasonable welfare commitment. Think of the extra people who would have a fulfilled life working.

You do want more people to have a fulfilled life working, don’t you?

And that’s why we need Labour to tackle welfare and stop taxing the rest of us to oblivion. It’s really rather simple, I think.

The changes to the triple lock are a start, given the fact that spending on pensioners accounts for almost half of the welfare budget.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the fiscal watchdog, said total welfare spending would rise from £333.8bn last year to £431.3bn by 2030-31. It is forecast to cost £8bn more by the end of the decade than was expected in March. Almost half the spending is on pensioners.

I think the 'tackle welfare' is a bit of a red herring, to be honest - because both Burnham and Healey have said consistently that they want to get more people, especially young people, off benefits and into work. The only point of difference with the other parties - who I believe also want that - is the mechanism for how you get there. Reform and the Conservatives seem to think you can do it via cuts alone. Healey and Burnham argue that you need targeted intervention and investment in vocational education, training, and mental health support to address the root causes of long-term economic inactivity - otherwise punitive cuts just cost shift, because you push people further into crisis (costing the taxpayer more in dealing with healthcare, crime, homelessness etc).

Given the failures and enormous cost-shifting of the austerity era, I'm minded to think Burnham and Healey's way is the right one.

To be honest, I found the budget underwhelming, but politically I do think it was interesting because it struck me as an easier budget to attack from the left than the right. It doesn't really leave the opposition anyway to go other than endless benefits bashing, which I do think the public have got limited patience for.

I do hope Burnham isn't tempted into an early election. I would much rather some relative stability than more divisive electioneering.

It would be helpful to distinguish between pensions and other welfare. Those two have wildly different political appetites.

If you put them together from the beginning, it is impossible to analyse the issues properly.

We’ve left. On terrible terms. We can still be out and in a much better position than we are now. That’s respecting the referendum.

I think the truth is more prosaic - the back benches would riot.

Burnham had some believe that he had worked out some actual ideas, on his 35-year journey through all layers of the public policy sector.

Some were led to believe that big ideas would be forthcoming by... (checks notes)... Andy Burnham. No show on entering No. 10.

But then some were led to believe that John Healey would address the problem - on a timetable - yesterday. Another no show.

The reason you can't set a timetable is because you're not going to do it, are you? Or you think you're not.

No matter because in very short order, AI is going to collapse your tax revenues, and decisions will then have to be made against a very different backdrop.

Both the Conservatives and Reform want to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU, presumably while maintaining the UK's separation from it. So I don't see why Burnham shouldn't spend the next couple of years exploring the options for closer ties, with a view to including a closer relationship with the EU in Labour's manifesto for the next general election.

Also gives us time to see what's happening with the far right in France, Germany, Italy and that impact on the bloc. To see what relationship is best for us.

I am less cynical, but I guess we'll start to see after the Timms review... What I do know, though, is that the kind rhetoric around cuts the oppostion are currently indulging in in is very reminiscent of the exact same rhetoric we've heard before about strivers versus shirkers etc. etc. It didn't work then, and I don't think it will work now. So, I do think a government committed to actually tackling the long term roots causes of economic inactivity is the right way forward.

I don’t think the public have limited patience for waiting for the welfare bill to reduce anyway. They more likely have lower patience waiting for Labour to say how they’ll do it.

But yes it was quite interesting to hear Healey self correct on the lack of timetable.

Agreed.

And I realise that some on MN either wish AI
didn’t exist or fail to acknowledge its impact, but it’s here and it’s leaving very real consequences, right now.

Labour will shortly lose control of jobs, tax and welfare, if it’s not already too late.

I don't think the public have limited patience for wanting people off welfare and into work: as far as I can see everyone, across the political spectrum wants that. I specifically think the public have limited patience for the kind of simplistic, divisive language opposition parties sometimes use when talking about benefits and the people who access them. And limited patience for any political party pretending it's easy to just make cuts to welfare without cost-shifting and putting strain on our public services, because recent history has shown that not to be true.

Who's him when he's at home?

Seems you have an agenda against any Labour leader.

First take the log from your own eye before removing the speck from your neighbour's eye.

It's a beautiful lesson to learn and brings peace to your heart, mind body and soul.

Funnily enough I remember how the polls pre general election were discarded and only became significant again once Labour was doing badly and Reform was polling high.

Funny that indeed.

Worrying thought. I don’t hear much on this from Burnham and Labour.

Absolutely spot on.

“I don't think the public have limited patience for wanting people off welfare and into work”

You might be surprised on MN - I asked a PP that, and they failed to answer.

Note the original post should have read unlimited, logically.

It's certainly respecting the vote and I would add unites those who may have regretted their vote to leave. All is welcome to ensure a better, more positive future.

Absolutely.

There have already been some cuts to disability benefits and to the Motability scheme. Tackling the roots alongside those cuts is the way forward. As you say, let's see what the Timms review comes up with.