.@andyburnham, the British public does not need a lecture about global events. We can see what is happening in the world. What we need is a Prime Minister prepared to explain why Britain has been left so dangerously exposed, and what his government intends to do about it. Instead, you offer us Google Maps. Britain faces a serious energy crisis, households are watching their bills climb, businesses are struggling, and your answer is to tell motorists where they can find petrol a few pence cheaper. A price comparison feature may be useful, but it's not an energy policy. Dressing it up as meaningful government action insults the intelligence of those paying the bills. You say global events are pushing up prices. Of course they are. But they do not explain every decision taken in Westminster over the past two decades, nor excuse the choices made by your party. Britain sits on substantial oil and gas resources in the North Sea. Yet we have pursued policies that discourage domestic investment, create uncertainty and increase our dependence on international markets. We impose punitive taxes on producers while relying on their energy. We have allowed domestic capacity to decline without ensuring reliable, affordable alternatives are ready. And then ministers express astonishment when international disruption sends prices soaring. Ed Miliband has repeatedly reminded Parliament that Britain is a price taker in global fossil fuel markets. He is correct. But if your government understands that vulnerability, why pursue policies that discourage domestic production and leave us increasingly dependent on imports? Nobody sensible claims another North Sea well would determine the world oil price. But domestic production matters for security of supply, jobs, tax revenues, investment and reducing dependence on foreign producers. Those benefits do not disappear because oil is traded internationally. Energy security also requires adequate storage, dependable generating capacity, a functioning electricity grid, nuclear investment and an honest assessment of what the transition to renewables will cost. Energy is the foundation of a modern industrial economy, not merely another opportunity to announce a target. Your government inherited serious failures from its predecessors. But Labour was elected to govern, not to spend its time explaining why everything is somebody else's fault. Your party has made its own choices. It has defended restrictions on North Sea exploration, maintained a hostile investment environment for domestic oil and gas, and placed extraordinary faith in a rapid energy transition without adequately answering questions of affordability, reliability and security. Those are political decisions, Mr Burnham. They have consequences. What makes your message particularly galling is the contrast between the scale of the problem and the triviality of the remedy. People are not worried because they cannot find the cheapest petrol station. They are worried because getting to work, heating their homes, running businesses and buying essentials keeps getting more expensive. They were promised Labour's energy policies would bring bills down. They were told Britain would become an energy superpower. Yet when another severe price shock arrives, your answer is to shop around. A serious government would review barriers to domestic production, accelerate dependable energy infrastructure, address storage vulnerabilities and publish a credible plan to protect households and industry from prolonged disruption. So yes, Mr Burnham, global events are driving prices higher. But Britain's vulnerability is not simply an act of God. It reflects years of political choices, including those your party continues to defend. The British people understand the difference between saving a few pence at the pump and securing the energy future of an entire nation. The question is whether their Prime Minister does.

Gulf Money, Manchester City And A Prime Minister With Questions To Answer Consider the order of events. In February, Lord Stockwood, then a minister, flew to the UAE. He met Sheikh Hamad bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who runs the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, and Khaldoon Al Mubarak, chief executive of Mubadala and chairman of Manchester City. Minutes obtained by the Telegraph under freedom of information law record the minister promoting the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. Mr Al Mubarak told him the Emiratis were very proud of their investments in Manchester. A letter followed, inviting Mubadala to visit the project. It also invited Mr Al Mubarak to Grimsby. The government wants £10bn of private money for the corridor. It has pledged £500m of its own. Abu Dhabi is seen as the key investor. On 14 September, Mr Al Mubarak walked into Downing Street to meet the Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds. The Telegraph reports that he already knew City had been found guilty. The Department for Business and Trade says the two men discussed trade, defence and security, and not the club. The independent commission then reported. It upheld all but one of 115 charges and found that City had inflated its results by more than £900m between 2009 and 2018. City denies wrongdoing and will appeal. Every finding here is the commission's, and the club is entitled to contest it. Then the Prime Minister spoke. Asked about the verdict, Andy Burnham told the BBC he would be "really concerned" to lose City's owners. He called them "such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester". He added that he could not "intervene more", a phrase that implies some earlier intervention. His office denies there was one. Downing Street rewrote its own statement within hours, changing "if wrongdoing is established" to "wherever wrongdoing is established". On Friday night came the sentence that matters. Downing Street said it did not dispute reports that the verdict had undermined the UAE's appetite for future grand-scale UK commitments. Emirati officials, according to Bloomberg, say the Premier League's actions will influence the bilateral relationship. So a foreign state is applying pressure to a British government over the ruling of a British sporting body. The Prime Minister's office has all but confirmed it. Mr Burnham's record sharpens the point. In January 2024, as mayor of Greater Manchester, he argued that the Premier League's conduct towards Everton strengthened the case for an independent football regulator. He got his regulator. Its first great test arrived within months, and the man who demanded its independence is the one who has been heard to fret about the defendant's owners. David Bernstein, a former chairman of both City and the Football Association, told him to stay away. So did the Conservative shadow sports minister, Louie French, and the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman Anna Sabine. Fairness requires some caveats. No evidence of a bargain has been published. Mr Burnham will say his Everton experience taught him to distrust the Premier League's process, and he has since stepped back. Conservative governments also courted Gulf capital, and they were right to want investment. The question is narrower. A Prime Minister who built his career in Manchester, on Abu Dhabi money, now depends on Abu Dhabi money to fund his flagship growth project. Whatever his motives, that dependence hands a foreign government leverage over a regulator's decision. The Football Regulator has powers to judge owners fit or unfit. It must use them without regard to the balance of trade. Mr Burnham should say so plainly, in public, and then stay silent. Britain can find its investors elsewhere. It cannot find another independent regulator. "Andy Burnham told the BBC he would be "really concerned" to lose City's owners. He called them "such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester"."