Hope everyone had a nice time at the Gay Pride march yesterday. It must have been quite a laugh, with Boris "What a character" Johnson. That's the same Boris who supported the anti-gay legislation Section 28, and, this year, scrapped the annual Gay Pride mayoral reception at City Hall. However, he did go to the trouble of wearing a snazzy pink stetson to the 2008 Gay Pride march.

Theresa May was previously engaged at a parade for troops in her constituency. Or maybe she was sitting in a corner, musing on how she managed to snag the equality brief with a record on LGBT rights that includes voting against the repeal of Section 28 and against gay adoption. Maybe a part of her was rather relieved not to be at the Pride march, thereby avoiding being engaged in "challenging" conversations about all that.

Coalition leaders weren't there either, sending along Nick Herbert, the openly gay policing minister, and Lynne Featherstone, May's Lib Dem equalities minister. Apparently, it is the first time a top cabinet minister has not attended a Gay Pride march in five years. But that's fine, too, because David Cameron had lots of prominent gay people around to Downing Street to mark the start of Gay Pride fortnight. Then again, is this really fine or should the gay community be feeling just a little bit patronised with this "just do the showbiz stuff and perhaps they won't notice we're not really doing much else" coalition attitude?

Only the blackest of hearts could be actively opposed to the government love-in with the gay community. I'm sure we all prefer it to what happened the last time the Conservatives were in power: votes against lowering the age of consent, many MPs terrified to admit they were gay, and Section 28, which barred schools from acknowledging homosexuality.

So we all agree the love-in is better. However, has the coalition actually earned it? Here are some of the issues the coalition has talked about so far: men with convictions for sex with someone over the age of 16 having their criminal records expunged; transgender equality; homophobic bullying in schools; pushes to get other nations to support gay civil rights. Impressive stuff, unless it turns out to be a lot of hot air, not to mention a shameless degree of goal hanging.

Indeed, whatever the coalition sets out to achieve, the fact remains that Labour already did most of the heavy lifting. The coalition is currently benefiting from a situation where all the really controversial legislation has been pushed through.

With the Tory climate being what it was, does anyone truly believe that, had they remained in power, they would have spent the last 13 years, among other things, repealing Section 28, introducing civil partnerships, legalising gay adoption, lifting the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces or reducing the age of consent?

This is now all hypothetical. Indeed, Labour achieved so much that all the coalition has to do now is embellish existing legislation and try not to mess it up. Talk about easy street.

Maybe this is what those prominent gay sorts should have been musing on as they partook of tea and biscuits at No 10. Forward thinking and letting go of a tainted past is all very well. However, perhaps they could be just a little more appreciative of what Labour achieved, maybe, considering Tory history, a bit less in a craven rush to have their tummies tickled by Cameron.

Currently, the gay community is the Gallaghers to Cameron's Blair – a convenient tool to make him and his colleagues look "with it". Once the honeymoon is over, and the pink stetsons have disappeared, it will be interesting to see whether the coalition ends up with an LGBT record to match Labour's.

Oh, let the hairy things have an hour



Men's Hour dream guests are Noel Gallagher, Jamie Oliver and José Mourinho, and the pilot edition is said to include a feature on how Robert Mugabe keeps his skin so young-looking despite the pressures of running a dictatorship.

Less promisingly, Men's Hour seems to be aiming for a "bloody women, pah!" stance, with a regular feature on "feminist cant". Meanwhile, Thoughts for the Gay will ruminate on a gay issue. So it's all right for Men's Hour to have a pop at women, but they'll come over all PC where homosexuals are concerned? Wait (deep breathe, ladies), don't get annoyed. It may be time to be gentle.

For all we know, Men's Hour could be not the most puzzling piece of 5 Live commissioning ever but masculinity's last, terrible, wounded cry to be heard. Think about it. These days, men are always being told that they are no longer necessary. Women can have babies without them. The world of employment is increasingly geared towards the female.

Without meaning to be rude, pretty soon, we could probably phase men out altogether. Just keep a few to look at and prod and say to each other in 3010AD: "Bloody hell, did we really used to keep these horrible hairy things in our houses?"

Maybe this is what Men's Hour is really about – Man's last, desperate, vuvuzela-blowing stand, before women gang together and actually put them in zoos, museums or something. So let's not be begrudging. With masculinity in danger of becoming disenfranchised and niche, perhaps men really do need their designated hour.

Back off, Meryl, Mrs Thatcher's our nightmare

Meryl Streep is set to play Margaret Thatcher in a new film. How evocative of The Comic Strip's take on the miners' strike – where Robbie Coltrane played Al Pacino playing Arthur Scargill. All part of the life-mimicking-art-mimicking-life cycle.

This would be an Anglo-American cultural disaster: Streep's talent for accents is not enough. Could she exude the demeanour of a soul brought up in Grantham? Does she even know what "a Grantham" is? Is Streep cognisant of suppers of bread and dripping or how to refuse "tick" without giving offence, all experiences little Margaret would have had, before she adopted the famous lacquered hair helmet.

It's called backstory and cannot be faked by a beautiful American who's never known what it is to be ashamed of her teeth, or how to weigh a quarter of sherbet lemons while helping out in her pa's grocery shop on a Saturday morning. Streep is a decent actress, but with British icons of a certain vintage she wouldn't know where to start. Margaret Thatcher was a right-wing nightmare, but she was our right-wing nightmare. I suppose we'll just have to drag Helen Mirren out again.