Interestingly, the UK PM (and allies) just blocked a would-be political rival Andy Burnham standing as an MP.

One of the given reasons is because Burnham is currently mayor of Greater Manchester, and running a new election there would cost approx £4m(!!) which is a huge waste of taxpayer money.

I was surprised that they even gave this as a faux reason since it seems like the sort of money they would spend on replenishing the water coolers, or buying bic pens, or... building a static website!

▲

mellosouls 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Tangentially, Burnham has a long history with these sorts of public-sector private vampires, having been up to his neck in PFI (of "£200 to change a lightbulb" fame) in his stint leading the NHS.

eg.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/labour-debt-peter...

https://doctorsforthenhs.org.uk/the-truth-about-the-lies-tha...

etc

▲

FridayoLeary 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Being cynical i would say it's because Burnham could potentially challenge Starmer. Less cynically Labour has a big enough majority they can afford to lose this by election. The headache of replacing the mayor of Manchester is not worth it.

Why can't he just do both jobs? Boris did it iirc.

	▲	hkt 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If memory serves, Dan Jarvis also did it, being both MP and mayor of the South Yorkshire city region or whatever it was called at the time. It is fairly innately political. No Prime Minister has ever polled as low as Starmer and come back from it, or so is being said in the press. Burnham might be a smart electoral move, but he's not a plaything of the Labour right, so they kept him out.