My article in Liverpool Confidential....

http://www.liverpoolconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwEiNwfnI0qiNwF6IHqi&realname=Pride_and_prejudice

Some interesting comments - here is the text

AUGUST Bank Holiday is all about civic festivals, and not just Mathew Street. Every year at this time, the call goes out: Liverpool needs its own Gay Pride celebrations.

This is inevitably accompanied by a wistful glance 33 miles east to Manchester, to compare the two cities in terms of their gay-friendliness or homophobia. The conclusion is often unfavourable to Liverpool, and issues like a local Pride, and a more high-profile, developed “gay quarter” are often viewed as ways of making improvements.

Liverpool is not Manchester, and even if there was a concerted effort to improve or promote Liverpool as a gay-friendly destination, with the policies to accompany it, the outcome would not be a clone of Manchester. And is that what anyone really wants?

When these conversations begin, I often feel like the resident wet weekend (other than the one which will inevitably accompany the Manchester event), expressing doubts as to whether either of these things will really make any great difference.

Let’s start with Manchester's Gay Village. The “village” idea has always been more about hope than reality. It is essentially a commercial zone where there are selections of drinking establishments, most of which are owned by the major breweries, all of which are either gay-identified or gay-friendly. The old chestnut about the invasion of hen nights and tourists is well-worn and, given that barriers and entrance fees exist only for the duration of Pride, where gay people have to pay to enter “their” village, this is unlikely to change. There is a barbers, a taxi firm, a GP surgery, and a florist. But does this consist of a village – or simply a specific commercial district? And while, at least, the volume of drinking spaces does mean some variety, there is a clear tendency for a shift in at least some of Manchester’s lesbian and gay socialising towards the more cultural Northern Quarter, or suburbs such as Chorlton.

The Village was the product of particular circumstances. It emerged in a political climate where a combination of equality activism, sympathetic businesses, beneficial planning and regeneration initiatives, and a (pro-gay) city council wanting to take a pop at the (anti-gay) Tory government of the day came together at an opportune moment.

It is no coincidence that no other city has actually produced anything similar. The same reference points may be used – zones, villages, and so on – but Manchester’s Gay Village is a product of a particular time and place. It developed organically, and if Manchester was starting from scratch today in terms of creating a gay-friendly commercial zone, then I think it certain that the outcome would look nothing like the Gay Village. And the Village itself is not at all as some of the more visionary hopes for it at its outset.

So, when discussing Liverpool’s commercial gay scene, I would question whether the Village analogy is either helpful, or particularly useful. Liverpool is not Manchester: and even if there was a concerted effort to improve or promote Liverpool as a gay-friendly destination, with the policies to accompany it, the outcome would not be a clone of Manchester. And is that what anyone really wants?

Much the same can be said about Pride. In recent years, Gay Prides have been contracting rather than expanding, and with the many legal changes which have benefited gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, the initial reason for their existence has changed.

Gay Prides can be an exhilarating experience. My first Prides were in the late 80s, the days of Thatcher and Section 28, and they were times when there was clearly all to fight for. That hasn’t entirely gone away. Recent events have demonstrated that the issue of homophobic violence remains all too real, and the presence of people who are proud of and open about their sexuality has been and remains a vital element in combating this sort of threat.

But would a Liverpool Pride really assist this? The easiest sort of Pride to organise is the standard formula of “march followed by party in the park”. Sometimes the march ends up being abandoned altogether, or entirely overshadowed by the party. And is it really worth all the effort to provide a one day event where people can get pissed and dance to Kylie?

It’s almost as if that is typical of what gay and lesbian people do all the time – whereas I would argue that those who use the commercial scene regularly make up a small proportion of the gay population.

I’m not a party-pooper, and I have been to fantastic Prides in San Francisco and Amsterdam which are major events in those cities’ calendars for the whole community to enjoy. But given that Liverpool Pride isn’t going to be on that scale, I would question whether it is the best use of time, money and energy. Liverpool does have both a specific lesbian and gay film festival (Outsiders), and a yearly arts/cultural festival (Homotopia) and they are both things which few other cities have. Perhaps our energies might be better spent looking for and developing initiatives which won’t turn out to be pale copies of those which exist elsewhere.

And in doing this, local councils and other providers need to ensure that community development money and necessary support is provided to ensure that Liverpool and the rest of Merseyside becomes a genuinely inclusive and gay-friendly environment – and that means a far more profound cultural shift than simply creating pedestrianised commercial zones or single-day drink-fests.

Does Cameron agree with this?

The Policy Exchange, Cameron's favourite think-tank, has advocated an abandonment of regional strategy and suggests that we should all move down south instead....

This isn't going to happen. I'm not going to look at the various reasons as to why this is not a sensible idea. What is clear is that this proposal would be unpopular in the South. It would mean huge amounts of building across the green belt. It would certainly threaten the so-called green strategy of the Conservatives. And how exactly would it fit with the development of stable and supportive communities and greater social cohesion and participation if we are all living in new towns? Not to mention the quality of life in heavily built up areas far from the coast. I can't somehow think that people in those areas would be happy to suddenly find a million new houses created around them. The tendency would be to create very inward-looking and privatised residential areas - which wouldn't contribute to the sort of social setting the conservatives supposedly support.

The answer is to move jobs to people, but that requires something other than the workings of the free market, which does not create anything approaching sustainability or coherence. Sadly, much regional policy has also been equally inept.

Oh, and all the authors of this report are based in London!

And there seems to be an assumption that everyone can be prosperous. Not the case. Capitalism requires winners and losers. You would simply shift problems elsewhere.

Georgia, Russia and the like

The problem with this entire question is that there is a lack of consistency.

I'm no great fan of Russia but if one thing has managed to retain its salience it is the pull of romantic Russian nationalism. It is very much the basis of the appeal of Putin.

In addition, the support of small nations to achieve independent governance is clear enough, Kosovo being the latest example.

In this situation, isn't it clear that the two renegade Georgian provinces should be able to return to Russia if they wish? They are not ethnically Georgian, their inhabitants regard themselves as Russian, and they are Russian citizens.

And whilst the Georgian leader may have designs on joining NATO, hasn't this been made extremely unlikely? Does NATO really want the equivalent of a yappy, bad tempered terrier snapping at the heels of the local Great Dane?

Boycott the Olympics

It has become crystal clear that the Chinese government's position on a range of human rights issues has not improved as a result of the Olympics. If anything, it has become worse.

The Olympics, that corrupt drug-fest of chemical endeavour and ridiculous nationalism, just about deserves the Chinese! I shall not be watching any of it, and I hope others will be joining me. The Chinese should have never been given such a free publicity opportunity in the first place, and given the widespread use of drugs, does the entire event have any credibility any more?

Some random thoughts

A few interesting titbits to chew on.....

I really ought not to start with the Church. But I have to! Rowan Williams has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his position is simply not credible. Those of you who have been involved ot exposed to far left politics will be aware of the idea of democratic centralism. This is the expectation that one's own publicly stated position will change in line with the expressed view of the party. RW has demonstrated that his way of working is essentially the same. So, he holds his own view, but lies about it in public, and goes as far as to defend a view which he does not hold.

I don't honestly care if he can cite ecclesiological reasons for doing this. Its a form of 'heavenly deception': in colloquial terms, he lies, and misrepresents his true view. In doing so he entirely removes himself from any consideration of integrity. If you believe something, then you should say so and defend it. The alternative is that you are seen to be a duplicitous liar. the result of that is that you treat your supposed friends appallingly even though you supposedly hold views sympathetic to them. There simply in so excuse, no reasoning which can justify RW's stance. I can think of few people I despise more. He still has time to admit that he has lied and that he has been dishonest. But I don't think he is able to understand the depth of his hypocrisy and the lack of integrity he has.

Politics. Dearie me.....the comrades in my erstwhile party continue to tear each other to bits. The problem is that without a clear ideological reason for existence, one has to ask what the Labour party is for? More and more, we have a public choice of A and B, both following essentially the same path. This has its advantages. The Tories won't be repealing the gay rights legislation and have made it clear that they accept the progressive outcome of legislative changes. This comes as no surprise, since the changes have proved to be largely uncontroversial, albeit some institutions on both sides of the debate have made a pigs ear out of implementation (think Church of England, Islington Council). But it does mean that political choices will be based largely on who the electorate are less bored with.

More later....