Andy Burnham should “hang his head in shame” after telling Brits he is “the nice guy”, the latest explosive instalment of the Daily Expresso has heard. Podcast host JJ Anisiobi said things are only getting worse for the Prime Minister amid the “scandal” surrounding his links to Abu Dhabi. Guest James Walker told the show on Thursday that he believed Mr Burnham is “obviously in bed with the Emirates”.

James pointed to the PM initially saying he only had one “significant” meeting with Abu Dhabi’s ruling elite, but the latest allegation is that his office was lobbying for Abu Dhabi to be awarded a big broadband deal.

He said: “In my opinion, JJ, Andy Burnham’s got to hang his head in shame. He’s told us all, ‘Look, I’m the nice guy, alright?’

“He’s told us all this whole time, ‘There’s nothing to look at here. Trust me, I’m not like the rest of these Westminster monsters who do all these sweetheart deals with people who give them a bit of funding here, build some houses there, maybe donate to their political campaigns’.”

But James said the latest bombshell allegation suggested to him that the PM has been talking “absolute tosh”.

Mr Burnham was already under fire over Manchester City‘s legal and financial misconduct charges from the Premier League. The PM defended the club’s Abu Dhabi owners to the BBC, describing them as a “huge partner” in building modern Manchester.

Critics of the PM raised concerns about foreign influence while supporters point to the regeneration of Manchester from Abu Dhabi’s investments.

JJ urged Mr Burnham to “come clean” about any help offered to Abu Dhabi to secure the broadband deal and other deals across Manchester.

The pair were discussing a report in the Telegraph that Mr Burnham’s office when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester lobbied in favour of a merger between British firm Substantial and CityFibre, which is part-owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Mr Burnham’s political opponents have demanded to know if the PM was involved in the decision made by Greater Manchester Combined Authority to lobby the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on City Fibre’s behalf.

Andy Burnham is ‘obviously in bed with the Emirates’ (Image: Getty)

The CMA is carrying out an enquiry into the potential takeover amid concerns how much of the broadband market lies with too few firms. Rival bidder, Nexfibre, has already offered £2billion for the company.

The UAE’s sovereign wealth fund, Mubadala, is one of three large shareholders in CityFibre, according to the Telegraph. The Treasury has also invested £300million of taxpayers’ money into CityFibre.

In October, the CMA issued an interim report saying it would prefer CityFibre’s bid to succeed as a takeover from Nexfibre would decrease competition.

Shadow Sports Minister Louie French said the “revelations” raise “fresh concerns” about the PM’s time as mayor of Greater Manchester and his “cosy relationship” with the owners of Manchester City.

He said: “There is nothing wrong with wanting to attract investment to your city. But reports that Burnham’s office lobbied regulators to approve a deal benefiting City’s Chairman are concerning in the context of the PM’s inappropriate interventions into football and subsequent attempts to cover up their past meetings.

“Burnham must come clean: What is his explanation for this lobbying? The public deserves transparency.”

A GMCA spokesman said its position is led by a commitment to secure the best possible value for residents. He said the GMCA is supportive of any operators in the market who will increase competition, improve resilience and keep prices low.

He added: “We believe that having at least three providers of broadband infrastructure operating in residential areas will maintain this.”

A CityFibre source pointed out that two other local authorities besides Manchester had also expressed a preference for CityFibre being the successful bidder.

CityFibre’s spokesman said: “Our performance demonstrates the ongoing, fundamental strength of CityFibre’s business and our recapitalisation process is underway, with a £900m commitment from shareholders to support M&A, substantial funding available to CityFibre and customer numbers continuing to grow across our network.”

A spokesman for CityFibre’s shareholders said: “CityFibre’s shareholders remain committed to the company’s long-term success and are engaged in supporting the next phase of growth.”

Andy Burnham’s Biggest Lie Exposed: Critics Demand He ‘Hang His Head in Shame!’

Andy Burnham has come under renewed political pressure following allegations about his relationship with wealthy investors from Abu Dhabi and his former administration’s involvement in a controversial broadband business deal. The controversy has raised serious questions about political transparency, foreign influence and the responsibilities of public officials when dealing with powerful international investors. Critics have accused Burnham of presenting himself as a politician who stands above Westminster’s traditional political practices while failing to provide convincing explanations about his own connections with influential business interests.

The central issue concerns Burnham’s previous role as Mayor of Greater Manchester and his relationship with investors connected to Abu Dhabi. During his time in office, he frequently promoted international investment as an important part of Manchester’s economic development. The city has benefited from substantial investment from overseas, particularly from the United Arab Emirates, whose business interests have become closely associated with Manchester’s regeneration and sporting success.

However, attracting foreign investment also creates responsibilities. Public officials must ensure that commercial relationships are transparent, decisions are made in the public interest and no private investor receives inappropriate political advantages. The latest allegations have therefore attracted considerable attention because they involve questions about whether Burnham’s political office became too closely associated with particular business interests.

One of the most controversial aspects concerns his previous statements about meetings with Abu Dhabi’s ruling elite. Burnham reportedly said that he had held only one significant meeting with representatives of the leadership. Critics have questioned whether this description provides a complete picture of his contacts and the extent of his political engagement with influential Emirati figures.

The controversy intensified following reports that Greater Manchester Combined Authority had supported a proposed merger involving British telecommunications company Substantial and CityFibre, a broadband infrastructure provider with significant investment from the United Arab Emirates. According to reports published in November 2026, Burnham’s former office had lobbied in favour of the proposed arrangement.

The issue is particularly sensitive because the UAE sovereign wealth fund Mubadala is among CityFibre’s major shareholders. The British Government has also invested approximately £300 million of public money in the company. Consequently, critics argue that any intervention by public authorities in a commercial transaction involving the company deserves careful examination.

The Competition and Markets Authority has been examining the proposed transaction amid concerns about competition in the broadband infrastructure market. Another potential bidder, Nexfibre, has reportedly offered £2 billion for CityFibre. The regulator’s assessment is important because competition in the telecommunications sector affects millions of consumers, businesses and households that depend on reliable and affordable internet services.

Political opponents have questioned why Burnham’s former administration supported CityFibre’s position and whether the decision could have benefited investors with connections to the Abu Dhabi leadership. Shadow Sports Minister Louie French has called for a full explanation, arguing that the allegations raise further questions about Burnham’s relationships with Manchester City’s ownership.

Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between supporting investment in a city and providing inappropriate assistance to particular commercial interests. Local authorities regularly work with private companies to encourage infrastructure development, create employment and improve public services. Such cooperation is not inherently improper. The critical question is whether the decisions were made transparently, followed established procedures and delivered genuine benefits to residents.

Burnham’s supporters argue that Manchester’s economic transformation has depended partly on attracting international investment. Foreign capital has helped finance developments, create employment opportunities and improve the city’s international reputation. They believe that maintaining constructive relationships with overseas investors is an important responsibility for any mayor seeking to promote economic growth.

However, critics insist that economic development cannot be used as an excuse for inadequate transparency. Public officials must explain their decisions, especially when those decisions involve major commercial transactions and investors connected to foreign governments. The public deserves confidence that political relationships are not influencing regulatory outcomes or commercial opportunities.

The controversy has also become politically significant because of Burnham’s public image. He has frequently presented himself as a politician who understands ordinary people and wants to rebuild public confidence in government. Critics now argue that he must demonstrate that his own record meets the standards of transparency and accountability he expects from others.

The situation is further complicated by Manchester City’s relationship with Abu Dhabi. The club’s ownership has played an important role in the city’s international profile and sporting development. However, the Premier League has brought numerous charges against Manchester City concerning alleged financial and regulatory breaches. The club has denied wrongdoing and the allegations must be distinguished from any separate questions about Burnham’s political conduct.

The wider issue is whether the relationship between football, international investment and local government has become too politically sensitive. Major sporting institutions can generate substantial economic benefits, but their connections with wealthy overseas investors also create legitimate questions about influence, accountability and public reputation.

For Burnham, the most important response would be to provide clear information about the meetings, communications and decisions involved. He should explain the reasons behind the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s position, identify the relevant decision-making procedures and clarify whether he personally participated in any lobbying activity. A transparent explanation would allow the public to distinguish legitimate economic development from any potential conflict of interest.

The government must also recognise that public trust is essential to effective democratic leadership. Citizens expect elected officials to act in the public interest rather than prioritise the preferences of powerful corporations or wealthy international investors. When serious allegations emerge, silence or vague political statements can intensify public suspicion.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Andy Burnham highlights the importance of accountability in modern British politics. Attracting international investment is essential for economic growth, but it must never come at the expense of transparency and public confidence. The allegations concerning CityFibre and Abu Dhabi require careful examination rather than automatic assumptions of wrongdoing. If the decisions were legitimate, the relevant evidence should be made available. If mistakes were made, those responsible should explain them and accept appropriate accountability.

Britain needs political leaders who can attract investment, create employment and develop strong international relationships while maintaining the highest standards of public integrity. The public should not have to choose between economic prosperity and transparent government. Both are essential, and every politician holding public office must be prepared to defend their decisions with evidence rather than relying on personal reputation or political rhetoric.