• Home
  • About the Ninja Marmoset….
  • Ninja Theatre
  • My life in Radio
  • The Marmoset on TV
  • The Movie Marmoset
  • Script consultancy & other monkey business
  • Monkey Pictures
  • Contact

NinjaMarmoset

~ rants, reviews & reflections of Martin Jameson, writer, director & grizzled media gunslinger.

NinjaMarmoset

Category Archives: Local Government

Andy Burnham: ‘Daydream Believer’

30 Wednesday Sep 2026

Posted by Martin Jameson in Andy Burnham, Hope as a Political Idea, Labour Leadership, Labour Party, Labour Party Conference, Local Government, Politics, Populism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Politics, Irony, The Matrix, Daydream Believer, It's All Storytelling, news, uk-politics, keir-starmer, Labour Party

It was a throwaway aside in a piece by Patrick Maguire, chief political commentator for The Times, and to be honest I can’t remember much else about the article, but as a pin portrait of our new Prime Minister, the phrase has stuck with me. Watching Andy Burnham’s impassioned speech to the 2026 Labour Party conference this week, I found myself crooning in a poor imitation ’60s heartthrob Davy Jones of the Monkees. Click here if you want to bring a swoon to your day.

Andy Burnham or Davy Jones – which of them is the real Daydream Believer?

First things first, I like Andy Burnham. Having lived in Greater Manchester for 38 years, I have voted for him three times to be our city’s mayor; our very own King of the North; Best Dressed Saturday Dad, blah blah blah. The buses are great (even if I much prefer the tram ever since spending an interminable and stomach churning 55 minutes next to a pool of something extremely unpleasant on the top deck of the 197 from Heaton Moor into Central Manchester) although most of what really defines the city’s eye-popping regeneration long pre-dates Mr Burnham’s tenure. Even Tom McTague, editor of the Labour supporting New Statesman, detailed last week the disconnect between Burnham’s version of ‘Manchesterism’ and yer actual history. McTague described how the regeneration of Manchester city centre into a thriving residential nexus is predicated on (perhaps questionable) foreign investment which has largely failed to ‘trickle down’ to the conurbation’s satellite communities such as Oldham. Has Manchesterism offered ‘good growth in every postcode’? No. For anyone interested in reality, it absolutely has not.

Manchester is, like for Andy Burnham, my adopted home. It’s an amazing and inspirational city, but the Manchester I have ‘lived experience’ of every day is not the same one that furnishes Mr Burnham’s waking reveries. Perhaps the idea that he is the architect of Manchester’s prosperity is the first of Andy’s daydreams, albeit one he believes with complete sincerity.

(FTAOD ‘Lived experience’ is what used to be known as ‘experience’ – although, to be fair, it is helpful to distinguish it from what my corpse might encounter in the back room of a Co-Op Funeral Parlour.)

There’s no doubt that our Andy is highly personable, with communication skills second to none. As one Labour minister reportedly observed on Tuesday, unlike his predecessor, Burnham doesn’t look like he’s been taken hostage and is reading his speech for the very first time. But… as our country’s Prime Minister I’m still waiting to be convinced, and this week’s speech was a sort of exclamation mark at the end of his first ten weeks that summed up why.

As he kicked off, promising to ‘break the mould’, not to do any tub thumping, insisting that this was going to be a completely ‘different’ kind of conference speech, I remembered this quote from my good friend James Leach’s recent Substack:

‘If there’s one thing you should beware of, it’s a politician saying he wants to “do politics differently.” In fact, if there’s one way that politicians could do politics differently, it would be to stop promising to do politics differently. ‘

I mean, really, please, Andy, stop! You’re either ‘different’ or you’re not. It’s not for you to tell me that you’re ‘different’ that’s up to the audience; an audience who might want to pause to reflect on what ‘different’ means, and also ‘different’ from what? I’d be amazed if I was the only person rubbed up the wrong way by being told what to think, a bit like a comedian telling you how funny their routine is going to be, or the guy in the office who says: ‘I’m crazy, me!’. I have no doubt that Andy believes in the daydream of his own exceptionalism, and such was his conviction the whole congregation had no hesitation in daydreaming with him. I could feel my own eyes starting to spiral like Mowgli confronted by a benevolent, pint-wielding, Everton loving incarnation of Kaa the Constrictor from The Jungle Book.

Don’t get me wrong, though: I want to believe!!

In a brief foray with reality, he went on to make a decently edgy joke about his grandmother walking five miles to put a deposit down on a house without telling her husband, adding wryly that he promised not to repeat the offence with his chancellor John Healey…

John ‘Inscrutable’ Healey – enjoying the boss’s joke

…before going on to spend billions in his policy announcements.

Fundamental to the ‘differentness’ of his speech, Andy told us, was that unlike ANYONE EVER in the history of speeches, he was going to be HONEST. That’s properly HONEST – not just ‘I’m-not-even-lying’ HONEST. Okay I’m exaggerating ever so slightly, but if you saw it you’ll know what I mean. But an hour later as he was banging home the ‘honesty’ schtick a final time I was scratching my head. I’d just listened to a mouth watering menu of what would be achieved over the next ten years. Utilities brought back under public control or even public ownership, specifically in the case of water; the realisation of Angela Raynor’s housebuilding targets; the return of the Tories’ Help-To-Buy/Your First Pony scheme, or whatever it’s called now; no ‘crude’ cuts to welfare payments (i.e. no cuts at all) but increased investment in growth and youth opportunities and social housing on the promise that people will simply stop claiming; and of course the establishment of a free-at-the-point-of-use National Care Service.

Oh yes, and we’re going to rejoin the EU and reform the electoral system, as well as re-industrialise the country, devolve loads more stuff to local communities who will always make the right decisions about everything because they’re… local! Go Piddington! They know best what’s right for their community, isn’t that right Andy?
…
What?

The village voted 285 to 26 in favour of leaving the UK in protest at plans to house migrants at a local military base.

I guess Burnham’s idea of devolution is a bit like Henry Ford’s dictum that you could have a Model T in ‘any colour you like as long as it’s black’. Cynical hyperbole aside, the ever growing list of things that local mayors are going to do so brilliantly ought to make any serious democrat just a tiny bit twitchy.

Nonetheless, I heartily I support many of these things. I imagine all of them will poll pretty well in isolation. I’m 66. If Andy could crack on with the National Care Service, that’ll do very nicely!! It’s like sinking back into fluffy clouds of candy floss, everything is going to be ‘brilliant!’ – just like Paul Whitehouse used tell us on The Fast Show.

‘The future… it’s gonna be BRILLIANT! Andy said so and he’s BRILLIANT too!’

But despite all my doubts, resistance is futile. I find myself Hoping Again, exactly as the conference slogan instructs me, writ large behind the Andy steering my dreams. I recognise this feeling. At the end of every month I ‘hope’ that I’m going to win the premium bonds. Sometimes I am ‘hoping’ so hard I’ve spent the whole million – giving massive wads of it to good causes of course.

The Prime Minister applauding my latest Premium Bond win

Most months I’m lucky to pick up fifty quid. Hope doesn’t pay the bills.

But with no mention at all of the dire financial position of the UK economy – where tax increases seem inevitable just to stand still, to service our debt, and to meet the minimum 3% GDP defence budget that John Healey resigned over – is this really ‘honesty’?

For anyone bothering to remember any actual facts beyond the last two weeks (I know, it’s ever so hard when you’re mainlining The Dream), they might recall a certain Ed Miliband at the Party Conference in 2014. He attempted his leader’s speech without notes or autocue, and promptly forgot to include a whole section concerning the humungous budget deficit plaguing the British economy. He was roundly condemned – his credibility destroyed – with even devout Miliband loyalists struggling not to roll their eyes. But in Burnham’s case the omission was not accidental. He doesn’t want to bother our heads with it, why spoil a good daydream. Perhaps he doesn’t want to bother his own head with such horrors – although for all our sakes I hope he does, and soon. It seems to have been a great strategy, though, because no one at the conference seemed to give a toss. Indeed the only mention of the parlous state of our economy came the day before in Chancellor Healey’s speech where he mentioned that he didn’t have as much cash to play with as Blair and Brown had in 1997, but in a reassuring ‘don’t-you-worry-your-little-heads-I’ve-got-it-covered’ stylie.

But before any of the dreamers had a chance to consider this potential collision with reality, Burnham used a classic piece of magician’s misdirection, pledging to turn the ‘triple lock’ on pensions to a ‘double lock’ after the next election factored by only by CPI or 2.5% whichever was higher. The commentators gasped!! The headlines popped into our newsfeeds!! Number Ten swiftly reassured everyone that it was still a triple lock but the earnings element would only be selectively applied. Estimates of potential savings varied from as low as £800 million if it were applied this year to anything between £5bn and £20bn (according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies) by 2040. A National Care Service is currently priced at £18bn which is surely an underestimate, and bound to swell exponentially by the end of the next decade if it’s to fulfil the promise and be worth doing in the first place. The squall of contradictory numbers and projections was head spinning, and without a concrete formula for the ‘adjusted’ triple lock it was all frankly meaningless.

In terms of funding an £18 billion care service, with savings of not much more than a billion in 2030, Burnham is talking about roughly 6% of the required budget. It’s something – but also nothing. It’s a distraction, a misdirection. Far, far more significant was his promise not to fund the NCS with borrowing. In his most honest policy statement of all, he acknowledged that such a service would involve a tax surcharge of some variety. A fag packet calculation (ie Google given that I don’t smoke) is that to raise the rest of that £18bn would require about 2½p on Income tax… perhaps akin to the 1.25% Boris Johnson slapped on NI in 2021 when he made a start on a similar scheme – without waiting for an election three years ahead. At least Andy’s doing things differently from that.

I’d be more than happy to pay an extra 2½p, but then of course, I’m of retirement age, and looking down the very steep hill of whatever my senior years hold in store for me. All other things being equal, I genuinely believe someone with Burnham’s communication skills could persuade the electorate to vote for it – but all other things aren’t equal. In fact, they are so unequal it is ‘dishonest’ at a fundamental level not to be upfront about the tsunami of economic challenges overwhelming us right now, with the full force of the tidal wave yet to hit. We are going to be very lucky to get through the next 2 years without getting swallowed up in a sovereign debt debacle. Perhaps that’s the idea. After all, we know how much Andy loves the nineteen-seventies before Thatcher and Major and Blair and Gordon Brown spent twenty-nine years rescuing the country from its well-deserved reputation as an economic basket case. I was a teenager in the 1970s. I have lived experience. More immediately, we are falling headlong into a major energy crisis that will suffocate any of Burnham’s much vaunted ‘breathing space’, with household energy bills set to rise by more than £250, increases that will hit every family and far worse for businesses across the country this winter. With no sign of a resolution between the US and Iran, if the Houthis tighten their grip on the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and God forbid, President Trump imposes his threatened ban on diesel exports then the consequences are all too imaginable… provided we can stop dreaming about how we’re going to spend all the money we don’t have.

NB I find out about next month Premium Bond winnings on Friday. I’ll be rich, I tell you, rich beyond my wildest dreams!

To switch metaphors, with all his shining castle on the hill optimism, it’s a bit like having Lawrence Llewlyn Bowen showing you fabric swatches for a promised makeover just as the house is catching fire and you can hear the fire engines screaming towards you. Other commentators have made comparisons to the passengers partying on the Titanic. That’s the trouble with basing your appeal to the country on a daydream. Absolutely everything Burnham proposed was contingent on him winning his own mandate at a general election, which he has repeatedly insisted won’t be until 2029. The man who claims he’s proving he can make tough decisions isn’t making any decisions at all for at least another three years… but the iceberg/flames (delete according to metaphor preference) are going to strike within months, if not weeks.

If you want an example of a Prime Minister who was honest with the British People, I can give you one.

It was Keir Starmer. He won a landslide election victory and promptly summoned the press into the Number Ten Rose Garden only to tell us all how tough things were going to be. He wasn’t lying. It was about as truly honest a speech as any PM has ever made, but what was the reaction? ‘Shut up!!’ the country cried out, as if with one voice, ‘we didn’t mean THAT kind of honesty! We want honesty that tells us what we want to hear. Duh!!’

There’s a standing joke in our house. When a day out is planned, my better half will scour an assortment of weather apps until she finds one that predicts the sunshine she craves. That kind of honesty. I don’t mind Mr Burnham wanting to spread a few upbeat vibes, but please don’t call it ‘honesty’. What it is, is good old fashioned spin. A less charitable observer might call it gaslighting – albeit a sort of benign, daydreamy and utterly sincere form of gaslighting. Watching coverage of the Labour conference (I was a member of the party for 38 years on and off) it was hard to summon much respect for the fawning ministers and MPs and local activists who were glowing with excitement largely because someone they feel they could have a pint with has told them that everything is going to be wonderful. That’s not vibes. That’s stupidity.

Lucy Powell giving Nadine Dorries a run for her money when it comes to looking adoringly at her leader

That Keir Starmer overdid the technocrat misery is beyond debate, but Labour needs to be very careful about over-correcting with its new leader. At the beginning of his speech, Burnham observed that people too often felt that government was working against them and not with them. This, of course, is exactly the argument Nigel Farage uses to rally support for the right wing Reform party.

It’s populism, pure and simple. And populism, as we know, has a habit of offering simple answers to complex questions. Plus it tends to be selective when, for example, a village votes overwhelmingly against having migrants billeted nearby; or a contrary mayor from the opposite end of the populist spectrum wants to use any extra cash to give back to constituents as tax relief; or a third runway might be a good idea to underpin a reindustrialisation agenda (no, you idiot! Not THAT kind of reindustrialisation!). I guess the thing about a daydream is that it might come true. I might win the Premium Bonds tomorrow. But I probably won’t and right now the odds are stacked heavily against Burnham’s dreams. He just doesn’t want to admit it – and he visibly hates to talk about it. The true test will be whether the Daydream Believer can wake up to the real tough decisions, decisions that can’t be deferred until after the next election, but that he’s going to have to make next week, next month, next year.

The reason I’m such a party pooper is that in that speech – packed as it was with sincerity, conviction, vision, theatre and genuine emotion – I was left without any clue as to whether Burnham was up to the challenges not just presented by a struggling economy, but by the horribly real possibility of a major air and land war spreading west of Ukraine in the very near future, which could turn ‘after the next election’ into the end of a rainbow we will be lucky to reach in my lifetime.

In the cult sci-fi The Matrix there is a famous scene where Morpheus (played by Laurence Fishburne) offers Neo (Keanu Reeves) with a choice of whether or not to confront the bitter reality of his existence. The scene has entered the lexicon as a cipher, popular with conspiracy theorists, for the idea of ‘waking up’ to a hidden ‘reality’ where we are all living as puppets in a secret totalitarian state. It’s bollocks of course – although very entertaining bollocks – but I have found myself flipping the scene on its head and wondering if the whole country – especially the Parliamentary Labour Party – might do well to listen to Morpheus’s words.

‘You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember, all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.’ To be honest, if I’d have been Neo, I would have opted for the blue pill. Shorter movie but a lot less aggro.

The irony, given his remarkable communication skills, is that Andy Burnham is the one person in our political firmament who could tell the country the truth and they might just listen.

I live in ‘hope’.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

More Oldham Questions

22 Wednesday Feb 2023

Posted by Martin Jameson in Local Government, Manchester Theatre, Oldham Coliseum, Theatre

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Arts Council England, Maxine Peake, Oldham Coliseum, Oldham Council

Shame, shame, and shame again on Arts Council England and Oldham Council for effectively giving the finger to Oldham Coliseum, their audiences, and all the professionals who have worked there over the years, by not having the balls to come and be accountable for their decisions at the public meeting held at the theatre last night (Tuesday 21st February).

A lively audience heard speeches from Maxine Peake (right), Equity President Lynda Rooke (left) and writer Ian Kershaw (Writers Guild). Meanwhile Arts Council England snubbed the event and were rightfully ’empty chaired’ (centre).

It was a very moving event attended by well over 400 people – not just actors and technicians and creatives, but community activists, and, most importantly, life-long audience members for whom Oldham Coliseum is a totemic part of their identity. But the decision makers, and purse string holders, snubbed the event – despite being promised a fair and respectful hearing – telling the organisers that they were only prepared to have ‘private’ meetings.

Earlier in the day, Oldham Council (presumably with ACE’s blessing) rushed out a press release heralding plans for a shiny new £24m theatre.

An artist’s impression of the proposed new Coliseum building, notably without a fly tower, and reported without on site rehearsal space. There will be fewer seats and a much smaller stage.

But we’ve been here before with plans announced and shelved. If they had a coherent case to make… why not come and make it? By not turning up both bodies looked weak and rude and defensive – and worst of all it added to the sense that the new plans were to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. There is very little trust that this is going to happen, and that lack of trust was amplified by the failure of ACE and the Council to come and argue their corner.

According to Chris Lawson, the Coliseum’s Artistic Director and CEO, the new plans don’t include a rehearsal space (contrary to what is said in the press release), nor a fly tower, and has fewer seats – thus making the business model even more challenging. It really does sound like a ‘performance space’ rather than an actual theatre. There are voices at the Council who have said they are keen for it to remain a producing house, but this isn’t fully endorsed by ACE and seems to fade in and out like an old fashioned radio signal depending which reports you read. I sense that no one in charge understands the difference between a ‘performance space’ and a ‘theatre’ which is so much more.

Questions remain unanswered as to the fate of the £1.8m denied to the theatre but entrusted to Oldham Council which is yet to indicate how the money will be spent, or if there will be a transparent process by which creatives can apply for project money in the absence of the theatre itself. Indeed is there anyone on the Council with the expertise to manage such a fund? As Chris Lawson said, the Arts Council appear to have rejected the Coliseum’s plans for being ‘too risky’ – but exchanged them for ‘no plan whatsoever’ – ! – which a reasonable person might consider to be even riskier.

It was a massive misjudgement by Arts Council England and Oldham Council not to show up. It demonstrated contempt for the communities they are there to serve. How ACE have the brass neck to make people bidding for funds jump through hoops in terms of ‘engagement’ when they are too arrogant to ‘engage’ with anyone who might disagree with them.

And as for Oldham Council. It’s sickening to see a Labour Council (adopts Kinnock voice: ‘a Labour council!’) treating its constituents with such disregard. If local democracy is to mean anything, then those councillors need to feel it in the ballot box.

If ACE and Oldham Council are serious about providing a new theatre then why on earth wouldn’t they be jumping over each other to come and enthuse about the future and more importantly consult with the ‘stakeholders’ (I hate that word!) about what that space needs to be. The stakeholders were all there last night, in one place, but treated as if their views were of no relevance.

The Stakeholders were all there.

But even without the key players, it was a good meeting and genuinely inspirational as people talked about the community involvement and the theatre’s practical role as a cultural hub with regard to new writing, the South Asian and Roma communities, and its role in promoting performance skills for young people in the most deprived borough in Greater Manchester. There was a lot more of a sense of how important the theatre is beyond its core task of putting on shows than I was expecting.

The evening rounded off with Equity Campaigns Officer, Gareth Forest, reassuring the assembly that all the questions raised would not only be put to the Arts Council, but that he would remind them that anyone posing such a question ought to be in the room to do it person. He ended by directing people to the campaign website where you can scroll down for a handy guide to who to write to in support of the theatre. Please please please do click on the link and let’s fill the inboxes of everyone involved so that they can’t pretend this tsunami of passion can possibly be ignored again.

If the Marmoset seems a little out of sorts, then you’d be right. It’s hard to express quite how low my opinion of ACE is right now so if you are involved with ACE then I’m looking at you too. Grow up, show some maturity, and tell your colleagues to grow up while you’re at it. You are paid for out of the public purse, you have a duty to be fully accountable – and to ‘engage’ with the people who pay your wages.

Addendum:
Following Tuesday’s no-show at the public meeting to which they were invited (and since the Marmoset put paw to paper to scribble the above blog) the Arts Council has issued a formal statement which you can read in full, here. Laura Dyer, Deputy Chief Executive of ACE was also interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme on Saturday 25th February, which you can listen to here. Aside from the tin-eared nature of the following statement…

Only someone with a completely London-centric perspective, ignorant of the geography, the appalling public transport or any inkling of how a community such as Oldham works or engages with the world could write such a sentence in this context as if it somehow made the decision more acceptable.

…neither utterance adds much to the debate. It’s still baffling that the management of the Coliseum is attacked, blaming their application as ‘too risky’ and yet it’s deemed preferable to give the £1.8m to a body that neither applied for it, nor, as yet, has coherent plans for it. But more alarmingly – very alarmingly – there is no commitment, either in the written statement nor in Ms Dyer’s interview, to maintaining a resident, permanent producing company.

A ‘performing space’ is a building, not a theatre company. No one would describe the Oldham Coliseum as ‘a performance space’ because it is so so so much more than that.

It is very very hard indeed not to infer that the reason that neither ACE nor Oldham Council want to engage directly with stakeholders in a public forum is that they are unable or unwilling to address the questions around these two issues that would doubtless come their way. By issuing statements, and refusing to engage publicly with stakeholders, they project a bunker mentality which only adds to the prevailing sense of distrust. They can fix this very easily. If their ideas for the future of the Coliseum are tenable and exciting, come and tell us how great they are. If they’re as good as they believe them to be, then they will stand up to public scrutiny, and we’ll all be very happy, and go home dancing.

(If you’re new to the Marmoset and interested in anything you read on the blog page please find out more by clicking here and having a little explore)

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Like Loading...

Archives

  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • February 2024
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • July 2022
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • June 2019
  • March 2019
  • August 2018
  • June 2018
  • March 2018
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • December 2015
  • June 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    NinjaMarmoset
    Join 42 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • NinjaMarmoset
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...
%d