Andy Burnham danced off stage to New Order’s True Faith and the lyrics’ relevance is not lost.
‘I get this feeling I’m in motion/ A sudden sense of liberty…//I used to think that the day would never come’
Where Keir Starmer has been criticised for letting a focus on process and letting actions speak for themselves, Burnham has become known for his focus on vibes, with a recent TikTok of liked and dislikes replacing any detailed policy or political statements.
The Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow called it “a vibes masterclass,” explicitly noting that it was better than anything Starmer had delivered, while the BBC’s Henry Zeffman observed it was the speech of a man who does not believe he will be just the latest in a long line of prime ministers.
The substance was bolder than expected. Burnham explicitly blamed Margaret Thatcher for stripping power from working communities, opened the door to renationalisation and pledged the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. Reform’s Robert Jenrick called it “twenty minutes of vacuous twaddle.” The lack of granular detail was the substance of the taunt, however it was this very omission that gave the speech its success.
Whilst there is a need for detailed policies and plans, what Labour has been so resolutely lacking has been charisma and a leader whose message is able to resonate with the public, not just inside the Westminster bubble. Burnham is showing us he understands where Starmer went wrong, winning the hearts and minds before he begins the difficult job of governing.
Establishing a narrative of hope and ensuring his voice is heard will go far to securing public trust. Policy change without public trust is insufficient, as we saw with Starmer’s desperate efforts to articulate his own impact as he left Number 10, it is not enough to let the work speak for itself. You must be the one to speak, and Burnham clearly knows how to make sure he is heard.
Until England crashed out of the World Cup semi-finals, there was something romantic about the journey. Ever since Thomas Tuchel took charge - the first foreign manager since Fabio Capello, and a German no less - critics have been quick to circle. But as England grew into the tournament, momentum built. Early complaints about Tuchel’s selections, including the omission of Trent Alexander-Arnold and Cole Palmer, gave way to vindication as the surprising picks had their moment: Dan Burn’s heroic defending in the Mexico win, flashes from Djed Spence in the knockouts, and Jordan Henderson’s bone-breaking cameo. Tuchel’s vision was finally taking shape.
And for 85 minutes against Argentina, England were almost there. But we know the rest, and everything Tuchel had built turned on its head with the crash out landing squarely on him.
Unorthodox as some of his selections were, most had a discernible logic, even if the emphasis on defending a lead proved costly. But bitter defeats don’t invite fairness, especially when the nation is collectively gunning for blood. Tuchel has blamed England’s DNA; England, in turn, has blamed Tuchel’s decisions. In painful times, a scapegoat is required, and Tuchel is the obvious target.
What is refreshing is that the players have been largely spared. It may be too ambitious to credit this to Tuchel, but a manager drawing the flak away from his players is, intentionally or not, doing part of his job.
Because the appetite to hold someone to account never dims, even when the players simply looked knackered, pushed to the edge by gruelling Premier League seasons and a high-stakes, high-variance match that could have gone either way. It says a great deal about the British media that the instinct is to hunt for a culprit rather than accept that it wasn’t meant to be. When you consider Germany, the Netherlands and Brazil all exited before England, and France fell at the same hurdle, was it all so bad? It’s another four years until the next opportunity. England sadly just has to be a bit patient.
When Google unveiled ‘Google Glass’ back in 2013, its success was short-lived because everyone knew exactly what it was - a camera on someone’s face. Worse, we knew the kind of person who would choose to wear it. The “glasshole” became the insult for a gadget that arrived slightly before society was ready for it.
Meta appears to have learned that lesson, just not the one you’d hope. The lesson wasn’t “let’s not build invasive, dystopian technology” but “let’s just make it look like Ray Bans.” And if people still aren’t convinced, sprinkle in a bit of Kylie Jenner.
This month, Meta launched a new Starfire edition of its AI-powered smart glasses, co-designed with Jenner and virtually indistinguishable from those bog standard sunnies that block out the rays. And this week, activists installed a spoof advert at a London bus stop near Meta’s offices, turning her glossy campaign into an anti-surveillance poster inspired by the cult film They Live (spoiler: we’re all being controlled by aliens).
Because however impressed people are by what AI can do, it doesn’t necessarily mean they want it embedded into every part of their lives. Or stuck on their face. Technologies don’t only become mainstream because they’re impressive, but because they’re culturally desirable. The iPod became a fashion accessory and fitness trackers moved from nerdy hardware to a symbol of wellness. Meta is attempting to follow that well-trodden path, mainly so that people forget they’re wearing perverted goggles that violate all norms of privacy and consent.
That is where celebrity comes in, and Meta isn’t alone. Google has also leaned on famous faces like Harry Kane, Andy Murray and Keke Palmer to make Gemini feel less experimental and more like your everyday companion.
Celebrity endorsements have always been about making products desirable. This time, they’re going one step further to try to convince us that surveillance is chic. Whether people buy into that remains to be seen.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.