Andy Burnham | Manchester Mayor

mancity dan said:
At least Coe hasn't got the big job at the IOC

Coventry elected as IOC's first female president - https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/cy4v91e3e1wo
Click to expand...
Humbled. There's a piccy in the ToryGraph sports section where his face is quite similar to the face that crossed the line after Ovett had whipped him. He was asked about the result with the insinuation that he'd been stitched. "It's an election!" he said. No mention that of the ninety-odd votes he got just eight, not even double figures. I think it's the clearest indication that people think his shit stinks.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
All this guff Burnham and Labour have come out with about it being good for the wider community… however, they have banned the parking of cars around the Etihad and Co-Op Live yet haven’t increased any kind of public transport service: Metrolink is still struggling to shift fans before and after games with dangerously full Mets and very long queues open to the elements post-game, Bee Network haven’t increased the number of buses (and for some reason they all turn up 20 minutes before the end of the game so for those of us who stay to clap the players off, no buses are left), no new Park&Ride car parks have been set up anywhere with no new Park&Ride transport to get people to the Etihad from anywhere.

There’s been nothing, not one single bit of improvements by local or central Govt with the expansion of the Campus and the banning of cars allowed to park around it.

Next season when a City match coïncides with a Co-Op Live event, there could be 85,000 people who need moving to and from Etihad Campus, with a transport infrastructure provided by Bee Network that is worse (since people can’t park nearby) than when it was 47,000 people in just the smaller Etihad Stadium.

It’s been the club who have had to organise a bus service off their own backs. And that’s expensive. I’ve noticed how Burnham and his Bee Network haven’t stepped in to make the City bus service part of the Bee Network for matchdays with their £2 Single journey fees, no subsidy, nothing, so the club are having to charge £8 return to cover the costs of the service.

Surely as part of the granted planning permission for the expansion of the Etihad and the building of Co-Op Live, the local Council or central Govt must have to have been told that transport infrastructure around Etihad Campus must be improved? Surely? So why hasn’t it been?

All while Trafford Park is going to get billions pumped into it from Govt?

Fuck off Burnham and Labour! Fucking hell, The Waldorf pub in Town have done more than you cunts to improve transport to the Etihad with their pre-game coach from the pub to the ground.
Click to expand...
PC I think you have missed the millions spent on the walk up to the Campus by the canal, those extra lights, signage etc have improved the transport infrastructure no end - by millions I didn't obviously mean British pounds but Lebanon pounds
No doubt they will want a Maglev from the centre to their new theatre ..... - surely it can't be dreams until/if they win something there!
 
Eds said:
Huge waiting lists for children to play football!! WTAF, how did she say that with a straight face. If a kid wants to play football where are the waiting lists. Is she that stupid that people believe there are waiting lists for kids to kick a ball.
Click to expand...
All these points need to be consolidated into a master list for fans to use agin this cunning stunt !!
 
MikeF said:
Just had my council tax bill through and every year since his office existed, the percentage increase is higher than any other component part. I know there’s more than just his office involved with that but I’d like to know what his pay is?!?
Click to expand...
Due to this indexation mechanism, currently, the Mayor's remuneration is £118,267. 16.
 
I'm trying to load the good article attached but with little success.
 

Attachments

  • 1000063448.jpg
    1000063448.jpg
    262.6 KB · Views: 85
kismet said:
Burnham is a disgrace. Last year he talked about part funding the new stadium then backtracked when fans complained .
He's barely ever mentioned our charges yet went flat out to defend Everton.
After Ratcliffe wined and dined him, he went full in on this project, as he went full Bandwagon mode. He spent last summer convincing the Labour Party to back the proposals and gave a speech at the Labour Party conference to convince them. He probably wants this to be his legacy .

He's already committed to spending £300 million to prepare the groundwork and how much will follow.
The figures of 92,000 new jobs are a work of fiction. The new homes are already part of the GM Masterplan.
Stefan has already commented that the projected financial benefit to the area is way over the top.

This whole project needs to be scrutinised by Blues as Burnham does us no favours.
Click to expand...

As I said a few times a little way back in the thread, I don't have a problem with the use of public money to buy the freight terminal if a public benefit can be demonstrated that's commensurate with the level of funding. Further, I think we're entitled, given the current state of the public finances, to ask for evidence that the money couldn't be put to better use on other projects that will otherwise remain unfunded. Neither of those things has yet happened.

Instead, we continue to be fed glib soundbites and bullshit figures. If this is really the best they can do, you have to wonder what ulterior motives Burnham and central government might have for being so keen on this project. The cynic in me would suggest that Burnham sees this as a legacy he can point to from his time as GM Mayor and he's persuaded his colleagues on the national level that the rags are so popular that there are votes in it. I think they might be in for a shock, as MUFC are highly unpopular among non-fans, while people from other provincial cities will be outraged.

In terms of City's project interesting Burnham, we started our developments in East Manchester the best part of a decade before he became GM mayor and it's seen as a project to be delivered in conjunction with Manchester City Council. As a result, it's much harder for him to claim credit for what's going on at our place and make it all about his achievements.

However, this isn't an issue about City and United and we shouldn't turn it into that. It's about the proper use of public funds and whether what Burnham and the government are proposing really amounts to the best use of them. No more, no less.
 
petrusha said:
As I said a few times a little way back in the thread, I don't have a problem with the use of public money to buy the freight terminal if a public benefit can be demonstrated that's commensurate with the level of funding. Further, I think we're entitled, given the current state of the public finances, to ask for evidence that the money couldn't be put to better use on other projects that will otherwise remain unfunded. Neither of those things has yet happened.

Instead, we continue to be fed glib soundbites and bullshit figures. If this is really the best they can do, you have to wonder what ulterior motives Burnham and central government might have for being so keen on this project. The cynic in me would suggest that Burnham sees this as a legacy he can point to from his time as GM Mayor and he's persuaded his colleagues on the national level that the rags are so popular that there are votes in it. I think they might be in for a shock, as MUFC are highly unpopular among non-fans, while people from other provincial cities will be outraged.

In terms of City's project interesting Burnham, we started our developments in East Manchester the best part of a decade before he became GM mayor and it's seen as a project to be delivered in conjunction with Manchester City Council. As a result, it's much harder for him to claim credit for what's going on at our place and make it all about his achievements.

However, this isn't an issue about City and United and we shouldn't turn it into that. It's about the proper use of public funds and whether what Burnham and the government are proposing really amounts to the best use of them. No more, no less.
Click to expand...
Spot on from Petrusha, someone who has added so much value to this thread.

I totally agree this isn't about Utd v City, but about the misuse of public funds, and the involvement of Andy Burnham
 
petrusha said:
As I said a few times a little way back in the thread, I don't have a problem with the use of public money to buy the freight terminal if a public benefit can be demonstrated that's commensurate with the level of funding. Further, I think we're entitled, given the current state of the public finances, to ask for evidence that the money couldn't be put to better use on other projects that will otherwise remain unfunded. Neither of those things has yet happened.

Instead, we continue to be fed glib soundbites and bullshit figures. If this is really the best they can do, you have to wonder what ulterior motives Burnham and central government might have for being so keen on this project. The cynic in me would suggest that Burnham sees this as a legacy he can point to from his time as GM Mayor and he's persuaded his colleagues on the national level that the rags are so popular that there are votes in it. I think they might be in for a shock, as MUFC are highly unpopular among non-fans, while people from other provincial cities will be outraged.

In terms of City's project interesting Burnham, we started our developments in East Manchester the best part of a decade before he became GM mayor and it's seen as a project to be delivered in conjunction with Manchester City Council. As a result, it's much harder for him to claim credit for what's going on at our place and make it all about his achievements.

However, this isn't an issue about City and United and we shouldn't turn it into that. It's about the proper use of public funds and whether what Burnham and the government are proposing really amounts to the best use of them. No more, no less.
Click to expand...
It’s funny (or rather it isn’t funny) that this summary you have given is a mirror image (obviously on a smaller scale) of the Moston Rag Socks having their stadium built.

I recall at the time some Splitter knocking on the door with a clipboard canvasing for support. When I said I wasn’t for it his stock reply (and that to any other dissenting Mostonian at the time) was “don’t you want a £5 million investment in Moston?”
“I don’t want a football stadium built on green land that was gifted to the local people for leisure time.” came my reply that stumped them everytime with no comeback.
In their presentations they never once mentioned building a stadium. It was always this “£5 million investment we are bringing to Moston”.
To me a £5 million investment in Moston would be rebuilding the youth centre, improving street lights etc etc. You know, things that are for the actual benefit for the people of Moston, instead of it being used solely for the Rags Socks who were parachuted into the area with no history or connection to the area.

And yes they used sound bites too. “This will be good for Moston”, they proclaimed, never allowing anyone to question that.

No. It will be good for the Moston Rag Socks and only the Moston Rag Socks.
They added nothing to the area but took services away from other agencies that were providing and had been providing those services for years. For example Moston Methodist Church held councillor surgeries every week and relied on that extra funding for hosting the surgeries. Pallet Park opened and the church was fucked off and the surgeries held at PP.
They displaced services. Yet apparently that was good for Moston……

@petrusha. you are bang on about it not being a blue and red issue, yet every point raised like those I’ve highlighted above was always met with “you’re just a bitter blue” and laughed off. They didn’t want to engage in our concerns and had the perfect get out clause of being able to dismiss concerns because some of us were blues

10 years on the protesters have been proved right - but it’s too late now. The local councillors have moved on (or passed away in Cllr Murphy’s case) and their legacy is Pallet Park and a £900,000 council debt.

We can’t let this happen again. Public money being squandered on politicians wet dreams and fantasies as they climb the political ladder high on their own ego, feathering their nest and then retire with a great pension as the realisation that the whole thing should never have been approved sinks in.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
It’s funny (or rather it isn’t funny) that this summary you have given is a mirror image (obviously on a smaller scale) of the Moston Rag Socks having their stadium built.

I recall at the time some Splitter knocking on the door with a clipboard canvasing for support. When I said I wasn’t for it his stock reply (and that to any other dissenting Mostonian at the time) was “don’t you want a £5 million investment in Moston?”
“I don’t want a football stadium built on green land that was gifted to the local people for leisure time.” came my reply that stumped them everytime with no comeback.
In their presentations they never once mentioned building a stadium. It was always this “£5 million investment we are bringing to Moston”.
To me a £5 million investment in Moston would be rebuilding the youth centre, improving street lights etc etc. You know, things that are for the actual benefit for the people of Moston, instead of it being used solely for the Rags Socks who were parachuted into the area with no history or connection to the area.

And yes they used sound bites too. “This will be good for Moston”, they proclaimed, never allowing anyone to question that.

No. It will be good for the Moston Rag Socks and only the Moston Rag Socks.
They added nothing to the area but took services away from other agencies that were providing and had been providing those services for years. For example Moston Methodist Church held councillor surgeries every week and relied on that extra funding for hosting the surgeries. Pallet Park opened and the church was fucked off and the surgeries held at PP.
They displaced services. Yet apparently that was good for Moston……

@petrusha. you are bang on about it not being a blue and red issue, yet every point raised like those I’ve highlighted above was always met with “you’re just a bitter blue” and laughed off. They didn’t want to engage in our concerns and had the perfect get out clause of being able to dismiss concerns because some of us were blues

10 years on the protesters been proved right - but it’s too late now. The local councillors have moved on (or passed away in Cllr Murphy’s case) and their legacy is Pallet Park and a £900,000 council debt.

We can’t let this happen again. Public money being squandered on politicians wet dreams and fantasies as they climb the political ladder high on their own ego, feathering their nest and then retire with a great pension as the realisation that the whole thing should never have been approved sinks in.
Click to expand...
Great piece MES and spot on.

Sad to hear Cllr Murphy has passed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top