|
The Streets You Have
No Right To Walk Down
On Thursday, 3rd July 2008, spoke at a session of the 'Capital, Culture, Power: Criminalisation
and Resistance' conference organised by the University of Liverpool and
John Moores University. Here is a transcript of the speech.
There are now thirty-five streets in this city's centre that you have
no formal right to walk down. All of the others, you are officially free
to stroll at your leisure, providing you do not break any law. Though
the legality has not yet been tested, you have no such freedom within
the 42 acres – or 60,000 square feet – that comprise the Liverpool
One development. Instead, you are effectively a guest of the Duke of Westminster
– Britain’s third richest man. He owns the Grosvenor corporation,
and they own those streets, on a 250-year lease!
About a year ago now, I wrote an article about the Duke of Westminster…or
‘Gerry’, as I called him…for Nerve, because I thought
it would be interesting to examine his biography, since he’s a man
of such influence in this city. I had a bit of fun with the piece, and
pretended to lavish praise on him for the tiny, pathetic kind of public
things he does in an effort to seem generous and therefore somehow worthy
of his billions. So he’s patron of a group that sends ‘novelty
items’ to soldiers in war zones at Christmas…although that
just seems to involve putting a letter on a website every year…and
as far as I know he doesn’t understand html coding. He also hands
out military awards and is occasionally photographed in uniform speaking
to people back from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He’s REALLY
keen on the armed forces. Which is kind of ironic since after leaving
Harrow school with a single O-level, he failed the entrance examination
to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. I also discovered that the
government paid him £37.33p every single hour of every single day
for nothing, as a subsidy on his massive farmland. Nice work if you can
get it. For some reason there are no media campaigns calling him a 'workshy
scrounger' though.
A few weeks ago, the Duke was on TV, telling comedian Alexei Sayle how
much he cares about the poor people of Liverpool. Well that’s nice
for him. Although I’ve worked out that if his wealth was divided
equally between everyone in the city, it would come to £16,051 each,
based on the 2001 population figure. But…that’s not going
to happen.
All this personal stuff doesn’t really matter though. It’s
not about which specific individual owns 35 Liverpool streets; it’s
the fact that an individual does. The city council wanted to privatise
what they called the ‘Paradise Street Development Area’, and
they did. The person they sold it to happened to be this Gerry character,
but in theory it could have been anyone. Well…anyone with a billion
pounds to spare anyway.
The problem is that nobody allows people on their property who cause
them problems; who are adversely affecting their interests. If you start
adversely affecting Gerry’s interests, he has a private security
force, monitoring four hundred CCTV cameras.
In a recent Guardian article, Grosvenor project director Rodney Holmes
told the reporter that: "The street will be continuous, and they
certainly won't pass through a line saying you are now entering Liverpool
One." ‘He said they wouldn't exclude hoodies, genuine Big Issue
sellers or Netto bag carriers’, the article continues, and "Public
rights remain just the same."
Now so far I haven’t heard of anyone being chucked out of Liverpool
One for wearing a hood with intent, selling a magazine whilst homeless,
or carrying a bag from a shop that the Duke himself wouldn’t go
to. If it has happened, it hasn’t made the local papers. Mind you,
they’ve been busy salivating over the whole thing, with Echo and
Daily Post headlines like ‘We’re top of the shops’,
and ‘All aboard on the bus to Paradise’. It might be that
the people running Liverpool One genuinely don’t want to exclude
anyone for doing those things. But perhaps this is a red herring.
What if someone really rattled the cage of the place they're calling
the ‘wall-less mall’, in a way that shook shoppers out of
their nice exciting shopping moods and confronted them with some brutal
reality? What if someone were to protest at one of the shops? What if
some workers went out on strike and formed a picket line?
As someone who’s been on quite a few protests and demonstrations,
I know it’s very hard to escape harassment from people in uniforms
even on streets you have the legal right to walk down. Police work hand
in glove with business to intimidate, arrest, and even physically assault
people who are in some way standing up against the profit motive. When
this gets put to the test in Liverpool One – and inevitably it will
be – I’ll be very interested to see how the private security
force react. In theory, regular police are employed by the state 'to enforce
the law and to effect public and social order' (or so it says on Wikipedia).
In so-called ‘representative democracies’ like the United
Kingdom, the police are – again in theory – subject to control
by representatives of the whole population. The security forces in Liverpool
One must remain loyal to the business that pays their wages if they want
to stay in work. I can’t imagine they’re going to be more
open to protests and demonstrations, they may well prove to be less.
The effect the new gang in town has had on business in the rest of the
city centre has been already quite dramatic, particularly in Church Street
and Bold Street. The big name brands like John Lewis, Gap, Disney Store
and WH Smith have decamped and taken up residence in Liverpool One. Others
may soon follow, and smaller businesses will no doubt be harmed, because
people who used to visit the Disney Store on Church Street will no longer
visit the chip shop down the road, and so on and so on. I understand that
Bold Street may soon join Church Street in becoming something called a
Business Improvement District Gold Zone. This means that if 51% of the
shops in Bold Street agree, all the shops will have to pay towards extra
cleaners and extra street crime wardens. This will no doubt be another
nail in the coffin for smaller businesses who can’t afford the levy,
but more importantly for everyone else, it is a further stage in the arms
race within and between cities, about who can make their patch the most
safe for massive corporations and their investments.
If the Liverpool experiment is successful – by which of course
I mean that the Duke of Westminster and big name brands make a lot more
money, you can be sure that there will be pressure for other UK cities
to follow suit. But just how successful is it going to be?
On 13th June – only two weeks after the Queen opened Phase One
of the development – it was announced that a million people had
visited it. Are they going to come back though, and how often? As we all
know, Liverpool is a European Capital of Culture this year, which means
an explosion of tourism. Next year, simply because it will be 2009, there
will be far fewer tourists to swell Grosvenor’s coffers. And that’s
not taking into account the unfolding economic crisis, which is seeing
practically everyone cutting back on their spending. Just last night,
the BBC reported that UK business confidence was at its lowest level since
1992. Not a great time to be opening a sprawling new shopping destination
then, in a city that already has so much poverty. Might Liverpool One
become Gerry’s own private ghost town?
Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: capital, culture and
power intersect in the 42 acres that no one in this room has the right
to be in. Criminalisation will follow, but so must resistance. What this
case shows – like the brutal action underway in Edge Lane, Granby
and the Welsh Streets – is that campaigners must unite and organise
on the basis of taking our streets back from those who treat them as squares
on a Monopoly board.
Reporting on the conference Capital, Culture and
Power in Liverpool for Mute Magazine, Leo Singer and Clara Paillard find
a useful vehicle with which to crash the regeneration party and pose some
difficult questions for its hosts:
|