Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Exiled HK Agitators Rage at Burnham's China Ties — The King of the North Isn't Flinching

Blog

Exiled HK Agitators Rage at Burnham's China Ties — The King of the North Isn't Flinching
Blog

Blog

Exiled HK Agitators Rage at Burnham's China Ties — The King of the North Isn't Flinching

2026-06-24 18:11 Last Updated At:18:11

UK leadership churns faster than a revolving door. Six prime ministers in a decade — and the next one is already waiting in the wings.

The hot favorite is Andy Burnham, who has served as the Mayor of Greater Manchester for nine years. Known for his approachable, proactive, and upbeat image, he commands strong backing from a bloc of party MPs. His odds of moving into 10 Downing Street are extremely high.

Andy Burnham, UK PM frontrunner, met Chinese Consul General Tang Rui in Manchester this April, sending exiled agitators into a conspiratorial frenzy

Andy Burnham, UK PM frontrunner, met Chinese Consul General Tang Rui in Manchester this April, sending exiled agitators into a conspiratorial frenzy

Burnham’s governing style and policy preferences differ considerably from those of the recently resigned Keir Starmer. But the two men share one trait: a friendly stance toward China and an active push for Sino-British cooperation. Burnham met with Tang Rui, the Chinese Consul General in Manchester, just months ago — and by all accounts, the conversation went very well.

That should have been excellent news. Instead, UK-based exiled HK agitators erupted in fury. They claimed Beijing had foreseen Burnham's rise to the premiership and placed an "early bet." An obvious, baseless conspiracy theory. Its real purpose: to drum up momentum and rally anti-China forces to pressure the incoming prime minister. A friend living in the UK cut straight to it — Burnham's voter base is rock-solid. He couldn’t care less about these people.

The moment Burnham announced his candidacy yesterday, HK exiles began digging into his record. The yellow media outlet PULSE HK scoured the Chinese Consulate in Manchester's website and found that Consul General Tang Rui had met with Burnham on April 17. Tang noted that bilateral cooperation had yielded positive results and declared this year to be a big year for bilateral cooperation.

The consulate also issued an English press release stating that during the meeting, Burnham "fondly recalled" his past visits to China and emphasized that "Greater Manchester attaches great importance to developing relations with China".

PULSE HK then cited an exile-leaning commentator's post to "deconstruct" the meeting, piling on even more conspiracy theories. The post alleged that Beijing had long read Starmer's "political life" as nearing its end. So Beijing locked onto the rising Burnham and placed its bets early in a calculated "advanced deployment" of "united front" diplomacy.

My UK-based friend tells a very different story. The reality is the ones truly "full of schemes" are the agitators themselves. Seeing Burnham's imminent rise, they want to strike first — smearing him with a "pro-China" label before he even reaches Downing Street. Their likely next move is to join forces with anti-China hawks in Parliament, launching a pincer attack from both inside and out to pressure the new prime minister.

Make no mistake: these two forces have been attacking Starmer relentlessly for years. Every time Starmer and his cabinet officials visited China, they unleashed a barrage of criticism. They also stirred up trouble over China's new embassy plan in the UK, organizing multiple protests where hawkish politicians routinely showed up: flag-waving and shouting alongside "black-clad protesters." Once Burnham takes office, they are expected to run the exact same playbook, pressing him to abandon his China-friendly stance.

That playbook is unlikely to work on Burnham though. First, his relationship with China has remained warmly positive throughout his time as Manchester's mayor. On the evening of April 27 this year, the Hallé in Manchester hosted a grand event celebrating the 40th anniversary of the sister-city relationship between Manchester and Wuhan. Consul General Tang Rui and senior city officials all attended — the atmosphere thoroughly friendly.

Second, Burnham has clear practical calculations at work. He wants to secure Chinese investment for Manchester and Northern England: expanding trade, economic, and technological cooperation to inject momentum into the region's sluggish economy. His investment promotion agency has already put in considerable groundwork, aggressively pitching the "Invest in Manchester" initiative to China. Once he becomes prime minister, he will almost certainly run the same calculation. Why would he shoot himself in the foot just because some agitator’s conspiracy theories?

Third, Burnham has accumulated enormous public goodwill over many years — enough to earn him the title "King of the North." In his eyes, UK-based Hong Kong BNO holders are simply insignificant. He couldn't care less about them. Pro-exile media "exposés" about his China-friendly leanings will have nearly zero impact on his political standing.

Burnham's voter base is rock solid. Anti-China agitators? Not worth losing sleep

Burnham's voter base is rock solid. Anti-China agitators? Not worth losing sleep

The economic wreckage placed before Burnham is his real, monumental challenge. He has only ever managed a city of a few million people. Whether he has the capability to heal a nation of 30 million remains a very open question.

UK media drew on Oxford political scientist Ben Ansell's sharp analogy — likening Starmer to a doctor who walks up to a gravely ill patient, shakes his head, and mutters that someone really ought to do something. Yet for two years, Starmer produced no miracle cure to heal Britain.

The public now places its hopes in Burnham. At the very least, under his watch, Manchester became the fastest-growing city in the UK. But after watching several successive prime ministers fail to prescribe the right medicine, voters hold more doubts than confidence about what he can actually deliver.

As one UK commentator put it plainly: no silver tongue or man-of-the-people act can paper over Britain's deep-rooted structural cracks.




What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

If attacking Iran were a business, the US just took a total bath. Military spending in the hundreds of billions. Piles of expensive missiles written off. Bases and equipment damaged.

And what did America get? Nothing. It's actually worse off than before the war. Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump, the businessman, is of course furious. And like any cornered CEO, he's looking for someone to blame. With midterm elections looming, he needs to distance himself from this debacle. Pinning the failure on his subordinates is pure self-preservation.

The Washington Post dropped a bombshell yesterday. At an internal meeting last week, Trump lit into Defense Secretary Hegseth, saying that he thought the ammunition shortage "had been fixed". Now he wanted answers. Why, as defense secretary, had Hegseth let him be misled?

Hegseth, feeling the heat, didn't hesitate. He pointed the finger straight at Deputy Defense Secretary Feinberg. Feinberg, he said, had failed to keep the president fully in the loop. This isn't the first time Trump has used Hegseth as

Trump threw a tantrum at an internal meeting, ripping into Defense Secretary Hegseth. His demand: explain why he was misled on the weapons shortage.

Trump threw a tantrum at an internal meeting, ripping into Defense Secretary Hegseth. His demand: explain why he was misled on the weapons shortage.

So what set Trump off? Just days earlier, he was beating the war drum, vowing even bigger airstrikes on Iran.

Then came the war council meeting. That's when the bombshell dropped. Patriot missile stockpiles? Nearly gone. Other air defense systems? Critically low. The situation was dire.

Had Iran hit back hard, US forces in the region would be sitting ducks. Trump, faced with that reality, called off the attack at the last second.

Think about that. He was making life-or-death military decisions, and he still believed the US had plenty of ammo. Unbelievable. But here's the rule in Trump's world: the boss is never wrong. He never admits a mistake.

The Washington Post describes the scene at Camp David. Trump threw a fit. He demanded Hegseth explain why he'd been kept in the dark. Why did he think the problem was solved? In Trump's mind, the fault was entirely on the other side.

Patriot missile stockpiles are nearly depleted after the Iran strikes. The situation is dire. Trump made military decisions blind to the facts, then blamed Hegseth.

Patriot missile stockpiles are nearly depleted after the Iran strikes. The situation is dire. Trump made military decisions blind to the facts, then blamed Hegseth.

Hegseth, fresh off a brutal dressing-down, went straight into survival mode. He deflected. Deputy Defense Secretary Feinberg, he argued, was the one responsible for the weapons shortage. Feinberg had failed to make sure the president knew the real state of the ammunition stockpiles. Classic Pentagon passing-the-buck.

A History of Scapegoating and Pentagon Chaos

The two clashed at the meeting, reports say. It exposed Trump's simmering frustration with Hegseth.

Inside Trump's team, Hegseth was the top war hawk. He pushed relentlessly for war with Iran. That faction dominated the early stages of the attack. The dovish Vice President Vance only gained influence later. So Hegseth owns a bigger share of the blame for the decision to go to war.

The truth is, this wasn't new. Months earlier, in late March, with the Iran war bogged down, Trump publicly dumped the blame for starting the war right on Hegseth.

At a press conference, Trump looked directly at Hegseth, sitting beside him, and spelled it out. "Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up and you said let’s do it because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon," Hegseth looked embarrassed, unsure how to react.

Analysts saw it coming. Trump, watching the war turn ugly, was already lining up a fall guy. Hegseth was the prime candidate.

The Pentagon was a mess under Hegseth. Political chatter had it that Army Secretary Driscoll could take his job.

But where there's smoke, there's fire. Hegseth couldn't figure out what Trump really thought. He saw Driscoll as a threat. So he moved first. He axed Driscoll's right-hand man and pushed his ally, Army Chief of Staff George, into early retirement. A loyalist of his took the spot. The Pentagon has been a snake pit of infighting ever since.

The Washington Post story dropped. White House and Pentagon spokespeople immediately denied it. Nothing like that ever happened, they said.

But let's be real: anonymous insiders who leak to the media often paint a truer picture than the official line.

The Iran attack is sputtering. And the calls for accountability will only get louder. With his absolute refusal to look weak, Trump will pass the buck however he can. Hegseth won't be the only one thrown under the bus.

Lai Ting-yiu

Recommended Articles