THIS week a call was made for a figurehead to try and enthuse people about Capital of Culture.
The call came from Andrew Pearce, a man passionate about Liverpool and its history and who represents five dozen heritage organisations based in the city.
His point of view, and it’s a fair one, is that there ARE things being organised for 2007 and 2008, but the Culture Company is still - more than three years after we won the title - failing to engage with people.
Now, those in Millennium House will say that isn’t strictly true, and that last year 100,000 people were involved in Capital of Culture-linked community events.
Fair enough you may say.
But take a straw poll of that 100,000 (where exactly did that magical figure come from by the way?) and I bet you a very large number wouldn’t have seen the link between what they were doing and the Culture title.
And there you have a big problem.
Liverpool was awarded the title BECAUSE the good people of the city got behind the bid.
It was exciting, it was a chance to show the world Liverpool isn’t all about militancy and tired old jokes about scallies in suits, and Harry Enfield with his ‘eh, eh, eh, eh’ curly-haired Scouser stereotypes.
There was bound to be a come down after all that initial euphoria.
Since 2003 Liverpool has embarked on a massively ambitious programme of themed years running up to and beyond the 2008 date itself, something no other city or capital of culture has ever attempted.
The cranes already peppering the city centre skyline have bred like rabbits, and every available road is being dug up and re-routed.
What all this has done, the bid, the win, the years, the regeneration work, has created an enormous sense of expectation.
And what have the ordinary Liverpudlians in the street seen?
Well, for the people in the suburbs, in Croxteth and Toxteth and Norris Green and Garston, little seems to have changed.
It means many of them are disenchanted, feel disenfranchised and frequently ask the question, Capital of Culture, what is it doing for us?
The expectation was, somewhat understandably, that Capital of Culture would be a cure all.
But realistically, no one title, initiative or person on this planet could fix everything that needs fixing in Liverpool, or in Sheffield or Leeds or Oldham or Bradford.
Meanwhile we are still waiting to hear what the programme of events for 2008 will include.
You can pretty much guess on the main ones because they will be the events people in Liverpool have run successfully for a number of years.
But after the run up and the rows and the promises and expectations, anything less than a series of magnificent spectacles will be deemed a massive failure.
I don’t envy the worker bees at the Culture Company, beavering away madly in the background to try and make 2008 special.
And that brings us back to the figurehead.
In my article this week I mentioned that when Robyn Archer’s less-than-impressive reign as artistic director came to a sudden end, the name Phil Redmond was among those bandied about as a successor.
I did not say I think Redmond should necessarily be asked to be the 2008 figurehead, but if Liverpool is going to have one, his level or profile - or higher - is what is needed.
They need to be liked by the people, recognised in the street, and be willing to get stuck in, visit the communities, spread the word and lead the Culture rallying cry.
Other suggestions have come in, and I will outline those in the newspages next week.
But some have also suggested that it may be simply too late, and if there was going to be a cultural figurehead they should have been appointed years ago.
I fear time is going to tell who is right.
