Ethan's POV

My take on the things that interest me; politics, culture and possibly cake

[ethanspov]

FreedomToDonate Campaign

At the end of National Blood Week, I thought it was a good time to reflect on the last few days, what’s been said and also to look towards the future and the shape of the FreedomToDonate campaign over the coming months.

I’m sure you know by now the issue surrounding blood donation, namely that you can only donate as a gay man if you’ve been abstinent for the last 12 months, which is quite frankly saying you can only buy sweets from the sweet shop if you’re incapable of taste. The comments I’ve seen this week have been mixed. I firmly believe that the FreedomToDonate campaign should be rooted in the ideological libertarian position that those who want to be able to donate blood should be able to donate blood, not that we’re an oppression-fighting force. The fact of the matter is that I and many of the large LGBT charities agreed with Government’s Advisory Body’s decision back in 2011 about the restrictions on blood donation for gay men, based on the evidence at the time. The continued existence of these regulations however is for me problematic, as science and society have moved on. The decision that was made for a 12 month deferral period in 2011 was based on some evidence from 2008 and other evidence from as far back as 2006. I mean, obviously, it’s not as if we’re talking about the renaissance period here but 10 years in scientific and medical terms is a very long time.

I believe the time has come to evaluate that decision based on new evidence and new scientific methods. I’m working hard with the leading LGBT charities in the UK to compile an evidence base to call for a review again, something which as I’m sure you can imagine is quite a long and complicated process but one which I’m absolutely committed to. Social appetite as well seems whet for change. I’ve seen some pretty hilarious comments this week about gay blood being too fabulous and glittery to accept as a donation but worrying quite a few tweets which are vehemently aggressive to the seeming injustice of the current regulations.

What this week has done for me, however, is highlight just how important this campaign is, not just from the egalitarian viewpoint but from the fact that lives are saved each and every day by people donating blood. My Grandad wouldn’t still be here if it wasn’t for the fact someone somewhere had donated blood and it’s about time we recognised as a society the importance of donating. Whoever you are and whoever you love, you should be able to donate blood and the policy safeguarding it should be fair and sufficient to maintain a safe and constant supply of blood. Please, check out the @FreedomToDonate twitter and if you do want to get involved, drop me a line - [email protected]

Also, please support our campaign by signing our petition here.

[ethanspov]

The General Election: Why a coalition could devastate LGBT rights

This week has seen the Prime Minister David Cameron in some pretty hot water about LGBT rights. It’s not that he doesn’t support them, quite the opposite. His progressive Conservatism has seen the introduction of equal marriage and further marital rights for LGBT individuals. Of course, there is always more to be done and personally I believe that this should be done through an approach to education which is inclusive of all genders and sexualities from an early age. However, Cameron’s support of LGBT rights didn’t stop him coming under fire on Radio 1’s live lounge and not for his own party, but for a party which he could form a coalition with, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

As most people agree, the outcome of the election in just under 2 weeks’ time is likely to result in a hung parliament where no party gains an outright majority. If and most probably when this does happen, there are a number of options that the political parties will be faced with in forming a government and a number of choices to make about how a future government will look. This could be a minority lead government which will struggle in passing primary legislation, or the most likely outcome of either a formal coalition such as the one we have had since 2010 or a more lose confidence and supply coalition where one party is supported in a confidence vote but barters vote by vote on legislation. But what has all this got to do with LGBT rights?

Well, the issue is that the DUP could well be a partner for the Conservatives in a future coalition arrangement, most likely in a more informal agreement. I personally believe it unlikely that they would hold cabinet positions but it’s possible that could hold ministerial positions in exchange for their support of the government. This could cause a whole raft of issues for the LGBT community, mainly stemming from the fact the DUP is somewhat of a philistine when it comes to progressive libertarian rights. Only today, police have begun investigating comments made by Northern Ireland Health Minister Jim Wells after he linked child abuse and gay relationships. I mean… seriously?! I don’t even want to start on why these comments repulse me but the worst part is that these principles aren’t exactly rare in a party which could influence our own government in the next 5 years.

We could be assured by the fact that Cameron has stated that he will “never validate the DUP’s stance on gay rights and LGBT issues” but the reality of the situation is that LGBT issues aren’t going to be a red line in coalition agreements. It’s just not going to be the case that Cameron would reject power on such a principle despite the fact he “profoundly disagreed” with the party’s policy on LGBT issues. It doesn’t change the fact that the DUP oppose gay marriage, are upholding a gay blood ban and currently are putting forward the conscience clause bill in some kind of archaic overhang which is most probably rooted in their deep religious and misguided beliefs.

Whatever happens on May the 7th, I’ll definitely be watching closely the negotiations that occur from the likely outcome of a hung parliament and despite Cameron’s conviction, I’m genuinely concerned that the progressive steps we have seen in the last few years are in danger of being swept under the carpet in the hunt of power.

[ethanspov]

You can’t donate blood, you’re gay.

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s Questions, Rory Stewart MP highlighted, “One of the most disturbing scandals…the infection of thousands of people across the nation with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood.” An unimaginable and harrowing occurrence, to which the Prime Minster commented that, “It is difficult to imagine the feelings of unfairness that people must feel at being infected with something like hepatitis C or HIV as a result of a totally unrelated treatment within the NHS.”  Unfair? Of course. Yet what is also unfair is the inherent homophobia that still exists in the health service towards those that donate this most precious of resources, blood.

I am incredulous that in 2015 where gay men have many more rights than we have historically and in theory enjoy equal rights to all others in society, there are still restrictions on those that can donate blood, a selfless and noble act.

 I remember personally when my Mum asked whether I wanted to donate blood. “Of course!” I replied. It wasn’t until I looked at the guidelines for who can and cannot donate blood did I realise with a feeling of shame, that I can’t donate blood because I’m gay. Both my Mum and Dad regularly donate blood, something they feel particularly strongly about, as the blood of donors like them saved the life of my Grandad only a few years ago. And it is something that I wholly and utterly support and urge everyone to do… just as long as you’re not a gay man, then you can’t. I say can’t, the reality is that as a gay man, you can’t donate blood if you have had sex with a man in the last 12 months. Fair enough? Of course! In a modern society where sex between two consenting adults is supposedly acceptable, why would it not be right to expect anyone wanting to donate blood to have been abstinent for at least 365 days prior to donating? It’s absolutely bizarre and quite frankly, it’s offensive.

It offends me that I, as someone whose family is still alive thanks to the benevolence of others, cannot return the favour because of my sexuality. The solution, you may say, is that I should not have sex for 12 months so I can donate blood. Is the same expected of heterosexual people? No, of course it’s not. It’s the inherent homophobic belief that because I’m a gay man, I must therefore have something wrong with my blood and it’s infuriating.

 Donated blood, like all other blood, is screened for the presence of HIV, although this is something, highlighted in Prime Minister’s Questions which has not been done diligently enough, and this is obviously a travesty. Around 41,000 gay and bisexual men and around 53,000 heterosexuals were estimated to be living with HIV in the UK by the end of 2012 according to the Terrance Higgins Trust, so statistically, heterosexual individuals are more likely to donate contaminated blood than gay men. And this scandal surely brings to the forefront the flaws in the restrictions on blood donation. Blood is quite literally the lifeline for many thousands of individuals and the fact that archaic homophobic restrictions still exist in 2015 is not only ridiculous but it means many thousands of people quite possibly won’t have a second chance like my Grandad did. Do you think someone would refuse a blood transfusion if they knew the donator was gay? Do you think blood is gay? No. However, do you think it is ludicrous that this historic homophobic overhang denies the possibility of life to thousands of people that so desperately want it? Yes.

[ethanspov]

I can't be homophobic, I'm gay.

Today saw the incredible talent that is Sam Smith make a rather interesting comment and this time, it wasn’t about his ex. Mr Smith stated that “there is a lot of homophobia in the gay community” and it led me to consider the following concept - can gays be homophobic? Well, the obvious answer is yes. Internalised homophobia conditioned by a heteronormative or religious upbringing is of course a thing. Yet the more interesting consideration is when you apply it in the context Sam Smith used it, on the gay scene, in a gay club, between gay peers.

I think it’s extremely important we’re actually careful about how we approach this answer. Homophobia, is of course a huge issue, an issue that causes unimaginable consequences for an untold number of people in our society, especially the young. It’s endemic, an epidemic and it’s downright inexcusable. Homophobia comes in many forms, from the overt to the psychological and it’s one which thankfully, is receiving more attention as of late with a anti-homophobia fund announced by the Education Secretary and a anti-homophobia plan set out by the Shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt.

So back to the context, is a gay in a nightclub making a comment on another gay man necessarily homophobic. No. I don’t think that a nasty comment stems from homophobic tendencies, it comes from the sheer fact of being nasty. A remark about the way one looks, or dresses or acts doesn’t necessarily come from an anti-gay sentiment, it can just come from someone’s desire to make a nasty remark or belittle another. Similarly unpleasant and equally inexcusable yet just because someone made a comment on Sam Smith’s body image does not, for me, justify his comment about it being homophobic.

And what’s more, it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to brand ad hoc comments homophobic because it undermines the situations that truly do demonstrate this intolerable ignorance and lack of education. If we say that one gay man calling another because of his femininity or his dress sense for example is homophobic, then surely that degrades the seriousness of the situation when someone is truly suffering homophobic bullying. I’m not trying to excuse it in any way, the fact that some gay men are camp and some gay men are not certainly seems to cause division, yet I can’t genuinely conceive that the division’s root is homophobia. It could be ignorance, it could be self-insecurity, it could even be the fact that one gay man feels emasculated if he doesn’t make such a comment, yet I don’t think one can argue the intention of the comment is to pass judgement on a sexuality.

So next time you hear someone band around homophobia or tries to explain derogatory comments as such, consider whether such behaviour truly merits such a disgusting namesake. The boy who cried wolf wasn’t believed when the wolf did come and the battle to eradicate homophobia should be considered, strategic and most importantly, effective.

[ethanspov]

Sorry, I can’t date you, I’m a Tory.

It’s supposedly one of the ‘no go’ areas on a date, politics. Although, it’s rather hard to avoid speaking about it when one works in politics and when I would personally consider it one of my main areas of interest… alongside cake. So what happens when they don’t agree with your fiscal policy? Don’t like your proposed austerity measures? Or even don’t have a long term economic plan? 

I can say from experience that this area can genuinely be problematic. One particular individual who springs to mind was a ‘champagne socialist’ who avidly supported the left only to justify his own silver spoon upbringing with no genuine understanding behind the façade of politics, absolutely unacceptable. Another was somewhat of a ‘periphery’ supporter whose view on ‘the type of people on benefits’ was the envy of even the most ardent UKIP’er, again unacceptable. So what happens when you go on a date with someone, who enjoys politics, understands politics, but just fundamentally disagrees in your ideological stance? Awkward.

I’m not suggesting you can’t get on with someone who doesn’t hold your budgetary ideals. You’re obviously very unlikely to meet someone who you see eye-to-eye with and to be frank, I don’t want to meet someone who I have so much in common with that we finish each other’s manifestos. But it’s bound to cause friction. Just as it’s important to have shared values and morals, I think it’s similarly important to be on the same hymn sheet politically. I’m clearly putting this into my own personal context. It probably doesn’t matter if one of you isn’t involved in politics, but it would be like dating someone who works in retail who you tell on a daily basis is foolish for believing retail is a proper career.

So there are two options the way I see it; you either steer clear of anyone who isn’t on your side of the political spectrum, or like the Rose Garden in 2010, you create a coalition of symphony that will guide you through the rough and the smooth, hand in hand… at least for 5 years.

[ethanspov]

Minimum wage, stay humble.

A successful sportsman, yet not quite Chief Economic Advisor, Stuart Broad really put his foot in it last night by suggesting people on the minim wage should stay humble and I won't mince my words when I say people like him infuriate me. Daily, we're told that the long term economic plan is working, that more people are in employment and that less people are on benefits, well then, let's put out the bunting! Not just yet. The reality of the situation is that people are struggling. More people may be in work but more people are working longer, to make less money stretch further, just to keep their heads above water. 

So it comes as quite an insult when people pontificate about those on the minimum wage. I'm not about to play the "me" card but I've been on the minimum wage and I found it hard... even with my parents paying my rent. The truth is that the minimum wage isn't enough. It isn't enough for an individual and it certainly isn't enough to sustain a family. I was helpfully tweeted by the Head of Public Policy today at the Institute for Economic Affairs reminding me that those on the NMW "are in the top 6.41% of global income distribution (PPP) in the world." Well I'm sure they're thrilled. I'm sure the people behind those figures sleep soundly at night knowing that they may be working their fingers to the bone with seemingly little reward, but they're "in the top 6.41%."  It's an issue many on both sides of the political spectrum won't accept, and at their own expense. We need to acknowledge that the picture isn't as rosy as some would suggest, isn't as easy as citing a figure on employment and isn't as straight forward as assuming the fact that someone is in work means that they're out of poverty and into prosperity. I'm glad our economy is recovering, I'm generally supportive of the government's approach to the deficit and national debt, but people are hurting. Try telling a single mother that she'd be better off in work. Try convincing a family that the national minimum wage is enough. It's simply not as easy as repeating generic intangible figures. If our government expects to be re-elected, they're going to have to admit that sitting in Westminster is a long way away from the true picture across large parts of our country. 

We're not all in this together, many people are struggling and the sooner we accept that and begin to tackle it, the sooner we'll see a fairer, more prosperous recovery for all.

[ethanspov]

A School just for LGBT pupils?

In the last few days, sources at the Guardian have reported that a School for LGBT pupils is planned to open in Manchester. The school, heralded as being "about saving lives” by its backers, LGBT North West, will teach 40 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students who are struggling in mainstream education. Well, I hope your eyes are as wide with disbelief as mine were when I read this article. I am passionate about equality for all, and as far as I’m concerned, this is the complete antithesis, an anti-inclusive, pro-segregation policy which is quite frankly backward and shocking.

I myself am the first to accept that I’ve been very lucky as a gay man. I’ve received the support of friends and family both at home and at school and it’s why I’m eager to support those who haven’t been so fortunate. This policy would not only separate LGBT pupils but, in my eyes, it acts as a regressive step against the hard work that has been undertaken by activists and charities over the years. I absolutely accept there is more to be done in mainstream education, it’s an issue the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan is trying to tackle with her anti-homophobia fund that was launched in October and I welcomed it then as much as I triumph it now. Tackling homophobia and supporting those LGBT individuals who need it the most should be just about that, supporting them within the pre-existing educational establishments. The day we segregate LGBT students is the day we accept that LGBT students are both different and unable to be catered for within society. One cannot promote equality with one hand and actively exclude on the other. Equality is surely about integration, egalitarian support to encourage harmony for all groups, not ring-fencing them and encouraging the very exclusion they are attempting to eradicate.

I just cannot accept that these proposals would be beneficial in the long run. I cannot fathom how this would not have a negative social impact. It well may be that the students in question need tailored and personalised support, but physically removing them from the picture altogether is surely only going to ensure that discrimination is avoided instead of tackled. I applaud the efforts of LGBT North West but I urge them to re-think this policy, and apply it to real world cases. It wasn’t that long ago in the US that trains were segregated, that Berlin was segregated, and segregation can only lead to tension and social friction. An increased sentiment of segregation has quite possibly caused more damage than any other factor in recent times, so let’s not forget the message that we should be shouting from the rooftops; that we believe in equality, we believe in social justice and that we’re better together and not apart.

[ethanspov]

Autumn Statement 2014, what does it mean for me?

Crowded into the meeting room, this lunch time we watched intently as the Chancellor George Osborne delivered his Autumn Statement. Now the excitement has died down, it’s time to take a step back and say, “it’s all well and good that stamp duty is being reformed and our economy is growing, but what does it actually mean for me?”

As a 22 year old recent graduate, my passion for politics is often met with surprise in social circles. I think I’m expected to be more interested in pop culture or gap years, and my response is always the same: you’re just as interested in politics as I am. A smirk often appears on the face of the listener as they proclaim they couldn’t care less, but the beauty about politics is that aside from the men in suits making decisions that seem irrelevant and insignificant to us, the reality is that it affects us all, every single day of our lives. It affects the bus we get on to work, how much we’re paid at work, whether we are actually in work, our rights at work, the time we take for lunch, everything. It’s almost impossible to think of an area that the political arm does not to extend to so it’s with great interest I watched this year’s Autumn Statement and with even greater interest that I questioned it's benefits for me.

Selfish, I know, but what does the Autumn Statement mean for me? Well, not a lot in all honesty. A rise in personal allowance I hear you cry, changes to stamp duty others suggest, but the reality of the situation is that as a 22 year old graduate, I’m probably not high on the Government’s priorities. The personal allowance increase will probably only be swallowed up by inflation and an increase in the rent my landlord charges and as for stamp duty, I dream about the day I could even contemplate affording a house in London, let alone considering the rates that govern it. So I’m back at my desk, working in a full time job, paying my tax, repaying my student loan, aspiring to be a home owner after an Autumn Statement that won’t really have much of an impact on me. And it’s kind of disheartening. I worked hard at uni, I was thrilled to receive the job offer I did, and now I work each day influencing and meeting the people over the road that were just in the chamber outlining how rosy the picture is. But the truth is that for a graduate like me living in Central London, paying extortionate rent and ever increasing living costs, this afternoon hasn’t really changed much. I’m not one of the banks affected by tax changes, not one of the businesses benefitting from investment and not one of the homeowners enjoying as of midnight the changes in stamp duty. Back to work then. Back to reality. Back to defending the irony that politics affects everything and sometimes nothing.

[ethanspov]

6 MONTHS TO GO

Last week saw a relentless media onslaught highlighting mutiny and treason within the Labour Party but today Ed Miliband hit back at his critics proclaiming he’s the man for the job. It’s not surprising the media are happily lapping it up, the polls haven’t exactly made easy reading for Labour recently – the latest IPSOS MORI poll had the Labour leader’s popularity at the same level as that of Gordon Brown at his departure from Number 10. But the question on everybody’s lips is will all this hype actually materialise into an overwhelming defeat for Labour, or are an increasingly centre-right media enjoying a feeding frenzy at Miliband’s expense?

If the polls are anything to go by, in the words of Wallace and Gromit, it’ll be a close shave. Lord Ashcroft has Labour only one point ahead and even generous polls have Labour’s lead at 3 points. Perhaps the more interesting side-line is the predominance of peripheral parties. It’s quite possible that following the all-nighter that is a General Election, it could be the periphery that holds the real power in making and forming a majority government. Farage in the Cabinet? Sturgeon as Deputy PM? These are all real possibilities. The likelihood of this happening however, isn’t quite as farfetched as it may seem. UKIP’s 12 target seats genuinely could translate into real power for the Nationalist Party and then it’ll be Farage having a hair-of-the-dog celebratory pint whilst others are left licking their wounds. So whilst all the media attention is on Labour, perhaps we should stop and think who really will fare worse at the General Election. Miliband may have had a rough week, but it’s not his party that are set to lose the most votes to other parties…

[ethanspov]

Labour Conference Speech 2014

Oh come on, we've all done it. We've all been the leader of the opposition and been speaking for years about how wrong the Government is in their approach to the economy and how things would be different if you were in power, if you had the opportunity, if you could change things. And then the day comes just 6 months short of your bid to become PM and you're ready to tell everyone why it should be you to lead, why you can make a real difference to your perceived failings of the current government. And then you forget that bit out of your speech. Awkward. Despite this, Miliband says that Labour have set out how they would tackle the economy, the awful economic growth that only last month was revised up to 3.2% in the second quarter. Forgetting this faux pas, did the speech deliver? Were we given a reinvigorated view of how rosy life could be under Labour? Well, I was at conference this year and I'm sure you can already tell that I was less than enthused. With only a passing reference to immigration and an emphasis on Gareth from the park, it's easy to understand why the press haven't exactly looked favourably upon his 65 minute speech. Credit to him, he only took brief notes up with him, it was largely free flowing with a natural air, but it didn't slap me round the chops. There weren't memorable soundbites. And it's a fair point to question whether this should be the purpose of a speech, whether it should be a media savvy ploy or whether the substance should shine through. The truth is, in this day and age, although clear substance is necessary, you can't ignore the reaction of the press, how they will perceive you and the undeniable influence that then has upon the electorate. There was no "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Or "This lady's not for turning" and due to his omission of what is potentially the most important issue, one could argue that the substance was lacking too. Political parties have to romance the media, seduce them onto their side. It could be said that any minute mistake is exaggerated by this intimate relationship, that the emphasis political parties put on the media is a live by the sword die by the sword ideology. I just didn't feel the Obama change moment or even the Blair education education education. It was no Elizabeth I looking out to the English Channel nor was it entirely believable. Labour have been telling us they can be trusted but their leader can't even remember that elephant in the room that is Labour's awful record on tackling the deficit. I don't feel as though it delivered, it wasn't what a leader of the opposition should be it wasn't mustering or energizing. So I'm left worrying the outcome of May, I worry that the man who forgot his speech could be our next PM.

[ethanspov]

Iraq: A messy inevitability?

Let’s cast our minds back to a smidge over 11 years ago, the Bush-Blair romance is in full blossom and the main rhetoric was that of “War on Terror” and “Axis of Evil”. It was a very suspicious time; Saddam was creating weapons of mass destruction, Iran was re-creating the Manhattan Project and Mr Cameron had yet to even put himself forward for leader of the Party. 

I remember well the media hype that lead to the invasion of Iraq, it was “humanitarian” one minute to liberate those under the totalitarian dictator under which mass genocide and ethnic cleansing had taken place and on the other hand, it was “defensive” as Mr Hussein could launch a WMD in 45 minutes or less and there was a real and present danger to the security of the West… well that turned out well. What ensued has taken thousands of soldier’s lives, not mentioning the endless civilians and the numerous families that suffered as a result of the decision to invade Iraq. This decision, although seemingly popular at the time, began to sour in the mouth’s of UK citizens as news of more deaths, more roadside bombs, more permanently injured heroes came back from the Middle East. The tide of public opinion began to turn, and protests against the Iraq war became common and often, seriously, there’s a whole wikipedia page about it. 

So now where do we find ourselves? Have we restored prosperity and democracy to Iraq? Well… ummmm… technically. The reality of the situation however isn’t so clear cut. We are seeing news each and every day of the horrific violence of ISIS and the ground they are taking in the name of the Islamic State. We have just deployed ‘humanitarian’ aid efforts to the region, Chinooks, Tornados and Hercules aircraft all playing their part to help reach those stranded and in need of international intervention. Indeed, thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people are in danger of violence or harm at the hands of ISIS, and many see it as our obligation to humanity to do something about it, so that’s the humanitarian rhetoric covered.

The second part to this is that ISIS stands for an extremist Islamist State, an anti-West group, who have vowed to bring the battle to the UK shores if we intervene in what they see as a religious war. Great. So I guess that forms the argument for defence. So does that mean that military intervention is now inevitable? Can we stomach another war in Iraq? What I think is more interesting about this is not whether public opinion is for or against intervention, but the very question of whether public opinion should be a factor. Should we stand by and watch as thousands of people suffer at the hands of extremists because it’s not popular? Didn’t our Mums always tell us that being popular at school wasn’t the most important thing? It seems we are stepping up our response to help the vulnerable and endangered in Iraq and more than ever, I think it’s time to look back at the mistakes we made over Iraq, what went wrong, but more importantly, the magnanimous reasons for doing what we did, the changes we made in the name of freedom and our humanitarian role in the world as a democracy and as decent, civilised people.

[ethanspov]

I agree with Pride, I just don’t support it

It’s certainly a contentious issue. I will be the first person to admit that there are many positive attributes of the Pride parades up and down the country, I have never and would never deny that there are some fantastic points to the concept of Pride, and what’s more, I completely agree with the mentality behind it. However, there’s a but, and it’s a big but; I just cannot accept that the way in which Pride is celebrated, it’s format and it’s realisation is both conducive to it’s aim and wholly positive for the gay community, and let me explain why.

To take the first point, my primary concern with Pride is how we celebrate it. I have been to many, many Prides, up and down the country and I wouldn’t be making this point if I did not feel it were justified. Many people would argue that gay pride takes place once a year in contrast to the heterosexual culture in which we live every day. This only goes to further support my point of the importance of how this celebration is carried out and how it is perceived by the rest of the population. As far as the public is concerned, gay pride is a party. Thousands of people flood the streets, hundreds of floats parade through the town and the result is a carnival atmosphere in which all are totally and utterly consumed. This is all well and good and I have no qualms with the celebratory aspect of Pride, it's right that we are proud to be gay. However, the very way in which we celebrate Pride and how this appears to the outside world is precisely what I have to issue with. The positive mentality behind Pride, of being openly proud of who you are is of course completely right. But that, I would argue, is not the outside point of view. Being a celebration, gay pride attracts extrovert, confident, outgoing characters who dance upon floats and shout and scream throughout the day. Again there is nothing wrong with this in itself, but is this really a true and fair representation of the gay community? I question whether the sexualised stereotypes that appear at Pride and the marvellously camp typecasts, that are fantastic in their own way, unfortunately become the predominant feature of Pride as opposed to it’s aim of social equality. The result, I would suggest, is that Pride isn't representative of the gay community as a whole, more the extremes and the stereotypes in which many prejudices are based. The special supplement from the London Evening Standard today describes Pride as “The hottest tickets in town - a steamy sauna musical, a glittering orchestra, disco, drag and Conchita” - I’m sorry, but since when were the entire gay community typecast as Mr Humphries?

This leads me onto my second point, does Pride serve the magnanimous purpose it says it does? In some respects, yes. To see professionals from city companies and the armed services marching together in support of their LGBT personnel is of course fantastic. Workplace discrimination is still a fact of 21st century Britain, and some points in Pride are a positive representation of the efforts by the LGBT community to combat this. However, again, in my opinion, a less than favourable facade overtakes the good points of Pride and unfortunately dilutes the true meaning of the event. Are you honestly telling me that the thousands of drunk, often sexually driven individuals (I’m saying this because I personally know many many people who go to Pride to “pull”) are aware of social inequality and feel their inebriated exploits tackle it? Is waving a feather boa in a pair of Speedos on Oxford Street, however liberating, effective in advancing the rights of the LGBT community? I think not. I have worked for social equality, I was one of the members behind the Out4Marriage movement which helped draw attention to Same Sex Marriage. I strongly advocate social equality, and for that reason, I don’t take part in the Pride parade. I tackle prejudices in my own way, by NOT playing up to the stereotypes, by NOT offering caricatures of the gay community, because by acting up to those stereotypes, you are surely only highlighting the fabulous differences, rather than promoting integration and equality?

I am sure many of you will disagree with the points I have made, and I would love to hear your opinion as to why. It is my belief, however, that in it’s current format, Pride is not conducive to it’s aims, and actually acts in some ways to be detrimental to the cause it so promotes. I think that in 2014, it’s time to re-evaluate Pride, whether it’s really the best way forward for the LGBT community, not just the extremes, but for all of us, all of us who don’t feel the need to be demonstrably proud, because we are proud in our own way, proud in a quiet way, and proud to not portray our sexuality as our defining feature.

[ethanspov]

Why the Monarchy deserve more money...

Privileged, undemocratic, somewhat outdated and in my opinion, probably the most incredible, fantastic and awesome institution in Britain, I present to you, The Royal Family. Official figures released today have shown that The Queen has cost the British taxpayer £35.7 million the last year, equivalent to just over a penny a week for every person in the United Kingdom. “OUTRAGEOUS” I hear you republicans shouting, “A scandalous waste of public money!” But of who’s money? Your money? Money out of your pocket? Really? No.

The reality is that the Soveriegn Grant Act 2011 provides that the money the Royal Family receive, or the Sovereign’s Grant is paid annually at a value calculated as a percentage of the Government's revenues from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues in the financial year two years earlier. Slow. Down. What that means is that the money Her Majesty is costing you, could arguably be said to be her own money, and not only her own money but a fraction of the money she is entitled to as heir to such a dynasty. Ok, maybe a bit of a sweeping statement as in 1760 King George III surrendered the Crown Estate to the Government in exchange for a fixed income from the Civil List, but you get my point.

This scandalous figure that the monarchy has cost the hard working tax payers of the United Kingdom, including £250,000 alone to send Prince Charles to Nelson Mandela’s send off may at times seem extravagant, superfluous and to some, ridiculous. However, when you consider where the money actually came from, the Crown’s own estate, you have to question whether it really is such a financial drain.

And that’s not even considering the revenue the monarchy itself brings in. The Queen may have cost us almost £36 million last year but The British Tourism Agency has reported that the Royal Family generates close to £500 million…. SORRY?! So what we’re really looking at here is an institution that receives money from their own estate, an estate by the way that is calculated to have a portfolio worth £8.1 billion, who in turn generate up to another half a £billion through tourism and let’s not even get started on the diplomatic power of the monarchy, the business deals and inward investment that are helped by the power and reputation of Britain’s most historic family. 

So, when you read £35.7 million, you may think that in these times, it’s a figure which is completely unreasonable for a family of privileged blue bloods. But when we look at what we're getting for it, not only in economic terms, but cultural, historical, fantastical pomp and ceremony, it doesn't really seem so bad. The reality of the situation is that this £35.7 million comes from an income of anything up to £9 billion… that’s like being taxed at 96% of your revenue. I’d like to see evidence of any of the banks we’ve propped up giving such a lucrative return to the taxpayer…

[ethanspov]

Cameron, Coulson and Leveson

Today was always going to be an interesting Prime Minister's Questions with one of the verdicts of the phone hacking trial being given yesterday, finding Andy Coulson, a former No 10 media chief, guilty of conspiring to hack phones between 2000 and 2006. 

You would have thought it would be open season on Cameron and that Miliband could have driven home a good few punches throughout their exchanges, but Cameron was clearly ready for the onslaught with his defence, Leveson. His retort to various jibes and digs about his decision to hire Andy Coulson was that the Leveson Inquiry did not find the Prime Minister in any way culpable and that they could not find substantial evidence that Coulson had indeed been embroiled in the phone hacking scandal. We now know that he was but Cameron's tactics raise an interesting question about whether Parliamentary Inquiries (this one costing £5m) are extensive enough and whether they are actually to be relied upon for the truth.

It goes without saying that Parliament, as well as Cameron, were entirely justified to rely upon the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry, with evidence being given under oath and the Inquiry itself being headed by a judge, but with yesterday's verdict, it does somewhat undermine their findings and beg a broader question of the Prime Minister's responsibility in this case. Cameron stressed that Civil Service vetting was adhered to, which it was, and that the decision to hire Andy Coulson at the time was a legitimate one, which again it was, so can we therefore look back in retrospect and condemn the Prime Minister's decision? Probably not.

We must remember that Miliband supported the Leveson Inquiry and welcomed it's verdict, as did the rest of the House, and there are several conclusions that could be taken from this. Firstly, that the Leveson Inquiry was not extensive enough, secondly that perhaps the Inquiry did not actually get to the truth of the matter or thirdly, and I believe most probably, that Coulson managed to mislead an inquiry and manipulate the outcome, an outcome which has proved pivotal in Cameron's defence. 

Whatever conclusion is to be taken from this, and whatever questions regarding Parliamentary Inquiries are bound to be raised, Miliband seems to have missed a golden opportunity to strike a blow against the credibility of Cameron. With under a year to go towards a General Election, can the Leader of the Opposition miss such opportunities? Polls are already suggesting the outcome was a draw (Sun Politics) and Cameron's oratory ability combined with a well prepared defence seem to have held up against what was billed to be a day to remember in Parliament. Cameron 1-1 Miliband.

As always, @EthanLDN

[ethanspov]

Equality for all?

With the Chancellor's announcement this morning of the possibility of HS3 linking northern cities whilst visiting the multi-million pound redevelopment of Victoria Station in central Manchester, the question of ensuring the economic upturn benefits us all is bound to surface. 

The fact is that London has created 10 times more private sector jobs than any other city since 2010 according to the Centre for Cities, which many critics say mask the public sector job losses that have occurred around the country. What's more, average weekly earnings were highest in the London region at £653 as of November 2012 and these figures beg the question of who is really benefitting from economic growth and whether regional disparities are an ever increasing problem.

So where does this problem come from? Undoubtedly, London is an economic powerhouse of the UK, the service sector contributes around 78% to the UK economy and London has the strongest financial service industry in Europe, indeed the Daily Telegraph in late 2010 stated the City of London accounts for up to 14% of the UK economy. The might and predominance of the finance industry in the UK arguably contributed to the inevitability of the economic crisis stemming from the deregulation of the banks and centralisation hasn't helped through the concentration of financial services in the capital. Does this mean that wealth and growth stems solely from our capital? And, is there a way we can overcome it?

I would say that one of the main issues behind this is one way migration towards London that is a demographic fact of our times.The Centre for Cities research found that almost a third of people aged between 22 and 30 who moved cities headed for London, and with such a pool of talent moving to London, it seems almost inevitable that this will come at the expense of other cities. It is true that more jobs and more opportunities are to be found in London but does this mean that London is the only place to be in the UK? I don't think so.

With the ability to work from almost anywhere at anytime with technological advances in communications, I don't see why we should be centring our businesses in London, which is why I welcome the Chancellor's suggestion of more infrastructure in the North. It seems logical to me that regional disparities can be combatted by investment in industry and infrastructure, and perhaps then we will see a fairer distribution of development within the economy for all and not just the few. 

Opportunities should be available for all, regardless of geography and I passionately believe that northern cities can offer an invaluable contribution to this country's economy. Growth must come from us all, not be focused upon specific areas, so here's hoping the positive signs in the economy signal positivity for the whole of the UK.

[ethanspov]

The GIGS

Thankfully nowadays, we are becoming more aware of our sexual health and making more regular visits to the clinic. However, a silent syndrome seems to be sweeping London, and possibly the UK and it’s symptoms are both far reaching and serious. It’s the GIGS and more and more people seem to be showing characteristic symptoms of this epidemic. GIGS, or the Grass Is Greener Syndrome, causes the sufferer to manically search for the next best thing, disregarding anything or anyone that may be in front of him in the belief that the Adonis utopian man with the job, the looks, the intelligence and the integrity of the Queen is out there…. news flash, he’s not. 

With the plethora of apps, dating websites and a whole host of new fangled social media networks, the possibilities are endless when it comes to talking to a random stranger with pecs you could crack a walnut on almost every day of the week. Why bother dealing with that guy who showed the most minute sign of weakness when you can be talking to someone better looking and better placed within the hour? The issue with this belief, like with all things bright and wonderful such as Santa and the Easter Bunny is that unfortunately, tragically, it simply isn’t true.

The fact is, we’ve all got attractive features and talents, but simultaneously, we all have our flaws. I’ll start the ball rolling by stating a few of mine; I’m a bit of a control freak, I probably need more attention than most and I get really moody if I’m hungry or tired. My point is, that we’re all unique and beautiful not because we’re so god damn perfect but because we all have imperfections - the Mona Lisa is hardly the most beautiful picture in the world but it sure is one of the best. And it’s about time that when we’re “courting” (to use my dear Grandma’s terminology), we should be aware of the fact that we are who we are, warts and all. Several times now I’ve been in the position where I’ve had guys tell me exactly what is wrong with me, indeed, I was quite literally character assassinated once by an individual who claimed he knew “exactly what I was like from day 1” - impressive. 

It seems like at the first sign that someone shows any sign of weakness, like a tiger shark on the prowl, we smell blood and go straight for the kill. I’m not entirely sure at what point someone is cured of the GIGS, whether they spend years and years on a Don Quixote rambling only to find that the chivalric tale they’re living in simply isn’t real or whether it’s something that is a sign of the times, a side effect of mass consumerism and an increasingly convenience orientated world. 

The risk however, for me is obvious. I’m sure when my Grandad met my Grandma just before the outbreak of World War II, she probably found his confidence and intelligence slightly overbearing and he probably wondered whether she would ever stop chatting to anyone who would say hello. This didn’t stop them spending the rest of their lives together and my Grandma taking her last breath after almost 70 years of marriage with her ‘dear’. 

My point is, the next time someone reveals that they don’t have the body of Thom Evans, the intelligence of Alan Turing or the lifestyle of the Sultan of Brunei, how about focussing upon their good points, their talents, because we’ve all got them and we all deserve to be appreciated for who we are.

[ethanspov]

Want to play a game?

Don’t text him back. Don’t put a kiss on the end of your message. Tell him you’re busy that day. Act as though you’re not really interested. What is it with these games people play?! Why do so many people insist on playing them and why, oh why (Delilah) do they painfully seem to work?

It seems to be one of the inevitabilities of the modern world, the game playing that commences once you’ve started speaking to someone you like. Whether it’s the delayed text reply or the feigned lack of interest, everyone seems to be doing it and it’s antagonisingly, frustratingly, inexplicably effective. Personally, I would say that I wouldn’t categorise myself within this group of people who insist on playing these games, I reply when I want to, I say how I feel and I act like no one else but myself. Many a time I’ve noticed guys trying to play games with me. I got the “I’ve read your message on whatsapp and ignored it” and the classic “Oh I’ve had such a busy day, I couldn’t reply when I’ve actually just been tweeting all day”. Well, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work on me. It doesn’t leave me feeling even more into the guy who insists on these games, if anything, quite the opposite. The second I get a hint of it, I’m more likely to disconnect or confront him on the issue and state that if he wants to go and play a game, a better place for him would be in the arcade and not in my life. I’ve even been told and this is a verbatim quote, “I realised the kind of guy you are and the kind of guy you like, so I became that guy for you.” Wow.

In all honesty, I just don’t have the time or the energy for it. I may be old fashioned and boring but what happened to being honest and open about who you are and how you feel and if someone doesn’t accept that or doesn’t like that, then they’re just not the person for you and you move on until you find the person that is. I honestly can’t accept that playing a game makes someone like you more, that it really affects a relationship in the long run or that it really has a positive effect on anything to do with dating. It won’t change the fact you’re not compatible or you deep down don’t feel the same, if anything, it just prolongs the inevitable demise. 

So what’s it about? Is it a social pressure? Do we feel as though we have to play these games because in the movies it’s not until they get married that we’re actually allowed to bang on the glass and state how we truly feel for them? I would say it’s a mindset that we have got ourselves into that we should act like the person we aspire to be and that society expects from us rather than the person we are. We live in a world with so many pressures, whether that be peer pressure of how to dress or a social pressure of how to act that when we finally start chatting to Mr Darcy, we have to begin this ridiculous rigmarole.

Well I for one wish to make a stand. I say no to the time-consuming games that seem to cloud an already murky dating scene and I advocate something absurd, but for me, rather straight forward. Just be yourself. Say what you think, say how you feel. At the end of the day, I’d rather be true to myself rather than someone I'm not.