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

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

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

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 **

A New York Times writer asked a good question yesterday: "Why the United States Can’t Quit Its Wars?" Quite rightly so. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran, the United States can never escape the fate of "easy to start a war, hard to pull the troops out."

The harder it strikes, the stronger its enemies grow. The more allies those enemies attract, the deeper Washington sinks. It has no choice but to keep raising the stakes. The Iran war is now trapped in exactly this vicious cycle.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Iran's "Axis of Resistance" has expanded further of late. The al-Qaeda branch entrenched in Somalia, Africa, has stepped up its alliance with the Houthis, Iran's "sworn brothers." The pair could choke off the Red Sea exit at any moment. That would sever the other oil shipping lane beyond the Strait of Hormuz. Should that happen, America's troubles will multiply, and pulling out will become harder still.

Al-Qaeda's Somali branch joins the Houthis. Washington's headache grows.

According to the report, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda's branch in Somalia, is the wealthiest of them all. It controls local ports, roads and gold mines, and it is raking in money hand over fist. Annual revenue exceeds US$100 million.

Yet bulging coffers are not enough. The group lacks advanced weapons, and its fighters need proper military training. Which is why it has cut frequent "deals" in recent years with the Houthis in Yemen, Iran's "sworn brother." Since the US attacked Iran, the two have grown closer still, united by common enemies in America and Israel.

Al-Qaeda was founded by bin Laden in 1988. It began as a "jihadist organization" resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, covertly funded, no less, by the CIA. When the Soviets went down in defeat, the United States took over the role of "invader." Al-Qaeda promptly turned its guns on America.

In 2001 Al-Qaeda orchestrated 9/11, the terrorist attack of the century. Washington has regarded it as the greatest threat ever since.

In recent years, its leaders have been killed by the US one after another. Rival "jihadist groups" keep grabbing its turf, leaving it in steady decline. Yet al-Qaeda remains powerful in parts of the Middle East and Africa. The Somali branch is a case in point. The US has long seen it as a mortal danger, and the American military has struck it as many as 40 times.

The "Perfect Partners"

To build up its military muscle, the group has in recent years bought large batches of advanced weapons from the Houthis through intermediary arms dealers. It has also sent fighters to Yemen for military training, learning, among other things, how to operate attack drones. The Houthis, for their part, have dispatched instructors to Somalia to pass on combat skills.

The US went to war against Iran in late February this year. That pushed the "deadly duo" into even closer contact. Al-Qaeda belongs to Islam's Sunni branch, while the Houthis are Shia. The two are age-old foes. But faced with the common enemies of America and Israel, both are willing to set aside their feud and point their guns outward in unison.

What is more, each side of the "deadly duo" has something the other craves. The Houthis need hard cash to fund their war effort. Al-Qaeda, keen to sharpen its fighting power to consolidate its grip, must acquire advanced weapons and military technology. This mutually beneficial relationship has turned the two into "perfect partners."

To Washington, two "terrorist organizations" banding together is a real nightmare. It is enough to rob it of sleep and appetite. The Houthis are entrenched in Yemen, facing Somalia, home of the al-Qaeda branch, across the Gulf of Aden. That is the gateway through which oil is shipped via the Red Sea. If the pair join forces, they could lock down this shipping lane for good.

The Choke Point

The Strait of Hormuz is already firmly in Iran's grip. If this other lane is cut as well, Saudi Arabia and the rest will lose their alternative route for shipping oil. Global energy supplies will go from bad to worse. Remember: 12 percent of the Middle East's oil is transported through this passage. The impact must not be underestimated.

The "deadly duo" could shut Saudi Arabia's backup oil route.

Worryingly, the "deadly duo" genuinely possesses the capability to seal the strait. The Houthis have precision missiles and large fleets of attack drones. They are now helping al-Qaeda install radar in Somalia and supplying it with attack drones and more. The two could coordinate operations down the road, striking merchant vessels and US warships that try to force their way through.

Whether the American military could juggle that many fronts at once would then be a big question mark.

America's current predicament recalls 2010. President Obama decided then to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. The deputy assistant secretary of defense at the time, Lavoy, raised doubts. "Afghanistan has countless tribes, and every one of them harbors resentment towards America," he said. "Even if the Taliban did not exist, there would still be an insurgency in Afghanistan."

No matter how many troops were poured in, the war could not be won. Better to simply withdraw.

Those words describe the Iran war today just as aptly. By attacking Iran, America has opened a "Pandora's box," and "demons" like al-Qaeda have come pouring out. How many of them, one has to ask, can America possibly fight at once?

Lai Ting-yiu