David Milliband has spent the last 13 years earning over $1 million a year for the international rescue committee importing "refugees" to the West. Now Andy Burnham wants to bring him back into British politics to work with his backward brother Ed, and complete the destruction. When these communists have wrecked Britain they'll be the first people out of here, blaming the "far right" as they step onto their private jets laughing.
@RichardBurgon That route leads to duds like SNP WARRIORS who would be unemployable in real world or on benefits in real world. We need top rate people and should pay top dollar to get them.
A devolved Wales has the worst health service not just in the UK but probably all of Europe.
Welsh education standards have plummeted.
Why does Burnham think devolved power improves life except for a parasitic lanyard class?
Chris, it is difficult not to notice the contrast in tone.
When Sir Keir Starmer occupied Number 10, your reporting frequently centred upon the pressures he faced, the divisions within his party and the political difficulties confronting his Government. Yet Andy Burnham unveils proposals carrying profound constitutional, financial and administrative implications, and the scrutiny appears noticeably lighter.
Where are the obvious questions?
Why Manchester? What will a Northern Number 10 cost? How does relocating part of the Prime Minister's operation actually devolve power? Was such a proposal placed before the electorate? What measurable benefit justifies duplicating part of the machinery of Government?
These are not peripheral questions; they are central to the proposal itself.
Journalism is at its strongest when it applies the same level of rigour to every political figure, irrespective of who they are. Readers deserve scrutiny as searching for Mr Burnham as it was for Sir Keir Starmer.
🚨 I've listened to Andy Burnham's 10 year speech, where he looks Britain's new saviour in Zelenski uniform, bragging about what a success Greater Manchester is with my mouth open.
You would be forgiven for thinking Greater Manchester was close to perfect, an example to everyone of how his fantastic policies have worked.
Does he seriously think most of Greater Manchester is a success? or that he contributed to a shiny business sector, 2 world class football teams and the largest Uni in the country? because outside that...
▪️Nearly 1 in 4 GM neighbourhoods are in the most deprived 10% nationally.
▪️Half of GM’s local authority areas are among England’s 30 most deprived.
▪️Manchester city is ranked 4th most deprived English local authorities.
▪️In 2024, 16.2% of jobs in Greater Manchester workplaces paid below the real Living Wage = 193,000 low-paid jobs.
▪️Temporary accommodation is around 5,915 households, with 8,600 children in temporary accommodation.
▪️Around 12,700 long-term empty homes were identified across the city-region.
▪️4 of the 10 highest recorded crime local authorities in England are in Greater Manchester
▪️Educational achievements are below national average
▪️Manchester city area above national unemployment levels
▪️1 in 8 working age people get PIP, above the national average
▪️The GM area has a lower household disposable income than the national average
▪️34% increase in rough sleeping
▪️Violent crime and sexual offences are above the national average.
▪️grooming gangs? or is we still ignoring these?
▪️Drug-related death rates in Greater Manchester are significantly above the national average
Oh and now lets talk about debt. Bravo Andy... to achieve some of the highest deprivation in the country under his leadership, GMCA now has about £1.4 BILLION of gross debt and an underlying borrowing need of roughly £2.5 BILLION.
So his speech on "Hopes and dreams" is actually more like 'No hope and nightmares', his leafy suburbs and shiny city buildings can't really hide the truth.
You're welcome.
BURNHAM gave a long-winded speech filled with devolution talk and the vague 'hope'-isms that Starmer also peddled ("that ordinary hope of working class families"). He did not allow any journalist to ask him a question about his plan for Britain when he becomes PM in three weeks.
@SkEdwards1056 Twit - they arnt being subsidised. They pay the state taxes in addition to fees and dont use state facilities. Ergo subsidising the rest.
I am funny. And you’re ignorant. China Shock 2.0 has nothing to do with investments made in China 30 years ago — a truly stupid statement — or with privatisation, free capital flows and foreign investment, all of which are generally good things.
It has everything to do with China dumping its massive overcapacity on Western markets because it won’t stimulate domestic demand, manipulating its currency to make it 30% undervalued and pumping in state subsidies several times more than the OECD average — all the while closing off imports into the Chinese market. It’s not free trade. It’s mercantilism/market manipulation in all its ugly aspects. And it’s not funny.