The Labour Party selected, promoted, elevated, and protected Nick Brown and Peter Mandelson. Never forget that when they point the finger of blame at Farage and Reform.

Caption this...

Meghan markle with FULL ARMED POLICE PROTECTION OFFICERS funded by the taxpayers being driven around in a bullet proof Scotland Yard range rover license plate KN75HLY assigned to senior working royals.... shame on King Charles

The absolute state of London. 🇬🇧

Multiple cabinet members and over 50 Labour MPs have accepted donations from the Emirates. Burnham is brought in as PM. The Man City finances scandal breaks. Maybe I've become too sceptical of politics, or maybe there's something in it. Why was Burnham installed?

Signed copy for the first person who guesses the closest time - how long did it take me to sign these?

I refuse to allow the poison of hatred and prejudice to drip into our communities. That’s why I’ve invested £17 million in initiatives to tackle hate crime. This National Hate Crime Awareness Week reminds us why it’s important to build a London where everyone feels safe, welcome, and valued. london-post.co.uk/mayor-anno…

Britons 🇬🇧 Would a Reform UK government improve the UK?

£55 Million For A Billionaire. Mr Burnham, Whose Interests Were You Serving? Andy Burnham has spent years praising Abu Dhabi for rebuilding Manchester. Less publicised is the £55.7 million in taxpayers' money that helped finance property developments owned by Sheikh Mansour, the billionaire owner of Manchester City. In 2017, Burnham chaired two Greater Manchester Combined Authority meetings in 2017 at which those loans were approved. The money went to three Jersey-based companies linked to Abu Dhabi United Group. The decisions were collective, but Burnham was in the chair. He cannot dismiss them as somebody else's business. The money came from a £300 million government-backed housing fund intended to unlock developments struggling to obtain finance elsewhere. GMCA's chief investment officer described it as financing projects otherwise unfundable. So why was £55.7 million made available to companies backed by one of the wealthiest men on earth? Was commercial finance unavailable? Were banks unwilling to lend? Did the public fund offer cheaper interest, more generous lending limits or greater flexibility? Who decided these developments met the fund's purpose? These are not academic questions. A GMCA evaluation found some developers used the scheme not because they needed public finance, but because its terms were more attractive than those available elsewhere. Yet the precise terms granted to Sheikh Mansour's companies remain undisclosed. Why? Then comes the question of conflicts of interest. Richard Leese, deputy mayor and a director of the Manchester Life joint venture, declared an interest and left the room. Burnham remained in the chair. Leese had a directorship that Burnham did not. That distinction matters. But what assessment was made of Burnham's relationship with Abu Dhabi's investment interests? Did he seek advice? Challenge the proposals? Ask whether public money was needed? His office has declined to say whether he objected. The loans were repaid with interest. Manchester Life says Abu Dhabi committed substantial private capital, took commercial risks and delivered 453 homes. But repayment does not settle whether the loans should have been approved, or whether taxpayers received an appropriate return for the risks they carried. And this is where the story becomes more troubling. Burnham is now Prime Minister. Manchester City have been found guilty of serious financial breaches by an independent commission, findings the club disputes and intends to appeal. Abu Dhabi has reportedly threatened to reconsider major British investments. Burnham expressed concern about losing City's owners, praising their role in rebuilding Manchester. The man who chaired meetings approving public loans to Sheikh Mansour's companies now leads a government seeking billions in fresh investment from Abu Dhabi. Nobody has produced evidence of a corrupt bargain. None is needed to justify scrutiny of a relationship so entwined with public policy. The Prime Minister should publish the loan agreements, interest rates, eligibility assessments, conflict-of-interest advice and records of questions asked before approval. He should explain whether commercial alternatives were examined and why public lending was necessary. Above all, he must answer a question beyond Manchester City. When a foreign investor becomes so important to a politician's economic record that its threatened withdrawal causes alarm in Downing Street, who holds the leverage? Britain should welcome investment, but never at the expense of public accountability or independent institutions. Mr Burnham has praised Abu Dhabi often enough. Now he must explain what British taxpayers received in return. "The man who chaired meetings approving public loans to Sheikh Mansour's companies now leads a government seeking billions in fresh investment from Abu Dhabi."