Matthew Parris in The Times

Same-sex male attraction used to be something you do, not something you are. We are not two separate tribes

On the margins of bigger news in recent days have been three little stories that caught my attention. The Mayor of London has reportedly stepped in to stop a Christian evangelical group advertising on London buses their claim that people can be “cured” of being homosexual.

And Chris Birch, from Wales, has testified to turning from being heterosexual to being gay, after suffering a stroke when he broke his neck at the age of 26. Meanwhile, in a letter to The Times this morning, 15 senior figures in the Church of England — bishops and others — support gay marriage and see “God’s grace at work in same-sex relationships”.

It seems that, depending on your point of view, God, a stroke or a broken neck can turn you gay, help you to be gay or make you straight. On one thing, though, these opinions all agree — people can change.
And (gulp) I think that’s true. I will be misinterpreted; I may give comfort to wrongheaded evangelicals; gay friends may think I’m letting the side down ... but I do believe that male sexual orientation is less fixed than we suppose. It may alter. We gays fought that idiotic “section 28” on dishonest grounds. Homosexuality can, as the statute implied, be “promoted”. So can heterosexuality. It always has been, with much success.

At once must come the qualifications. I don’t think that everyone is alterable. I don’t think change is possible without shelving part of one’s nature. I think that it’s generally unwise to fight a strong orientation unless it would lead to hurt. And I absolutely don’t think that homosexuality can be “cured” in the sense of expelling some kind of disease from the system.

But what I do believe — know beyond any shadow of doubt — is that the previous century took Western thinking on sexuality in a very false direction, and that this has seriously skewed the way in which we think about sexual attraction. It’s difficult even to discuss it in the language our parents bequeathed us. We are not two tribes — the straight and the gay.

It’s inherently most improbable that evolution would have produced two entirely distinct models of the human male, and it hasn’t. That view is quite recent. Prejudice against male homosexual behaviour is as old as Man, but the categorisation of a whole section of males as “homosexuals” (or indeed “heterosexuals”) was 20th-century and it’s simply a mistake.

Before the late Victorians and for almost all recorded history, humanity described male same-sex attraction as a kind of habit, a diversion to which any man might be prone and into which any might be led — something men do as opposed to something men are. Some were known to be more prone to this habit than others, but the elevation of a habit to the status of an identity, “gay” or “straight”, would have struck our ancestors as weird.

It is weird. It flies in the face of the evidence staring us in the face. Try an experiment. Imagine that a majority of men are more straight than gay, a minority more gay than straight. Imagine this in terms of a scatter-graph from left (straight) to right (gay), with some very close to one end, some very close to the other and plenty spread between them. Imagine that those at either pole can feel little if any attraction to the other; but that those between the poles can, depending on where they are, feel weakly or strongly the attraction of both poles. Add to this picture a strong and unremitting social pressure to be considered (and consider yourself) as being at the left-hand (straight) end.

What would be the result? Everyone who, without making themselves too frustrated and miserable, could live a straight life would move towards the left in their behaviour and self-description; a minority who felt they just couldn’t would cluster (partly for self-defence) into a sort of ghetto at the right-hand end. And all the pressure would be to “make your mind up”, ie, shift towards the nearest pole.

Consider how much observed behaviour my hypothesis explains. It explains why in self-description the apparent straight-gay dichotomy has arisen. It explains why until about yesterday there didn’t seem to be many gays, and suddenly they’re everywhere. It explains how throughout history most men with homosexual inclinations have married, many happily, many with a fair degree of physical attraction to their wives; and all of them down the ages with every reason to shut up about it. And it explains the strange and unwitting conspiracy between the world of macho heterosexuality and the world of gay pride to make a no man’s land — to deny the very existence — of all that territory in between. For different reasons, neither side wants to believe they could ever have been located there, that they ever had a choice. Bisexuality has been the love that dared not speak its name.

That my hypothesis has explanatory power doesn’t of itself make it true; evidence is required, yet the hypothesis explains why systematic evidence would be hard to gather. Asking men about their own desires — or studying publicly observable behaviour — is likely to deliver skewed results.

Do I then have anecdotal evidence? I hate talking about my own sexual behaviour and my experience is hardly extensive, but I’ll say only this. Without ever seeking the type out, I’ve slept with as many men who considered themselves basically straight, lived basically straight lives and in some cases (I think) really were basically straight, as with men who were self-identifying gays.

This is not my experience alone. Most gay men manage the considerable intellectual contortion of believing that there’s nothing they could do to alter their own sexuality while at the same time believing (not without evidence) that there’s quite a lot they might do to alter a straight man’s sexuality (“five pints of lager” is the usual prescription). As for altering a gay man’s sexuality, women would know most about this, and women don’t talk. Even I, who feel myself to be exclusively gay, know from dreams and from occasional involuntary physical reactions that shelved somewhere in my unconscious must be a strand of heterosexuality. Millions of gay men will have the same experiences.

But most will be disinclined to mention it. Both sides — straights and gays — have strong reason to deny (not least to themselves) that they ever had a choice: the straights because gay inclinations were disapproved of; the gays because infinitely their most persuasive way of commanding tolerance has always been the (I believe) subtly self-oppressive: “It’s the way I am — nothing I can do about it — part of my identity — it isn’t my fault.”

“I can’t help it”. The very words carry a kind of whimper. I hate this plea. It isn’t accepted as an argument for paedophilia and shouldn’t be. I’d want to be gay whether I could help it or not. The day that the battle for homosexual equality is won and over will be the day a man, straight or gay, can boast that he chose.

Review of Rob Bell's 'Love Wins'

Rob Bell's book 'Love Wins' has proved controversial. The accusation is that Bell suggests that everybody will be saved, and it does not really matter whether you make a commitment to Christ or not. So, is this fair? Well, it is clear that Bell is a universalist - believing that Christ died for all and all will be saved by and through him. But the second part of the accusation, that a commitment to Christ is not important, is harder, although perhaps not impossible, to sustain.

Bell is clear that a commitment to Christ really matters, really transforms lives. But is it essential to eternal life, essential to entry into heaven? Well, Bell suggests that framing the issue as 'who's in' and 'who's out' is unhelpful and unbiblical. He also raises important problems for those that believe that failure to accept Christ in this life will result in eternal damnation. What about good, decent people who have been brought up in a non-Christian culture and have lived a godly life? What about a teenager who dies while in a temporary bout of rebellion? Bell suggests that a dogmatic interpretation in such circumstances is not compatible will the Gospel message of a loving God, and I think I agree with him.

In fact, throughout the book I found myself agreeing with Bell's general thrust - that God is love, that God cannot not love, that God is all powerful and will not give up on any soul. But of course this inevitably leads to the question - do our choices in this life matter?

On this point, Bell, for me, briefly crosses a line. He quotes Jesus: 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father accept through me.' And then he writes, 'What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him.' (Italics mine.) Now, this suggestion that those being saved may not even know that it is Jesus who saves them, creates a serious problem. If Bell is suggesting this in the sense of the 'unknown god' of Acts 17, where Paul tells his Greek audience that their unknown god is in fact the only true God - Jesus - then I can go with him.

But, for me, a decision to accept the gift offered by Jesus is essential because without it a massive free-will problem arises. It goes like this. If Jesus can save without the saved person even knowing, then this is happening against their free will, without their active decision. If God is prepared to do overrule our free will, then why does he allow suffering to occur? Why does he not intervene to stop all the suffering in the world? Free will - our freedom to choose or reject God - is central to the Christian faith. It cannot be optional.

In the further reading section of the book Bell suggests C.S. Lewis's 'The Great Divorce' as the book to read to understand heaven and hell, and I strongly agree with this. Although it is obviously allegorical, there is no doubt that Lewis believes that there will be opportunity to choose Christ after death. In fact, everybody in hell will be there of their own free will, actively choosing the darkness. God will reject no-one. However, Bell suggests - and I my hope is that he is right - that eventually every soul will accept the free gift offered by Christ and be saved. In the end, 'Love Wins'.

The Inherent Intelectual Flaw in Modern Biblical Criticism

I am often confronted with comments from people who clearly consider themselves wiser than myself that caution me against a 'fundamentalist' interpretation of the bible. When considering a gospel reading I am implored to consider the context in which the writer wrote or exactly what point the writer was trying to make. And, inevitably, the 'writer' is never Matthew, Mark, Luke or John!

Accepting the recorded words of Jesus as an accurate account of his statements is considered a rather naive viewpoint. We can accept the general thrust of the gospels without having to suspend our reason, the argument goes. The gospels are not flawless - far from it - but do give a generalised account of what happened. But modern educated Christians should not be afraid of criticising the accounts.

However, it seems to me that this position comes more from intellectual vanity than intellectual rigor. Those who promote such 'enlightened' criticism of the gospel accounts generally accept the central claims of Jesus, including the most outrageous one - his divinity. If we accept that Jesus is divine, we accept that he is God. God, that is, that created the universe and of course all the natural rules that govern the universe.

Our 'modern scholars' often start contextualising the gospel accounts when they come across a particularly challenging supernatural event. And I find that the most challenging event of all in the mind of this type of person is the actual recording of the gospels themselves. They reason that the accounts were written many years after the events and that they cannot possibly be accurate word-for-word accounts. Let us put aside the fact that parts of Corinthians, that contain detailed recounting of the central claims of Jesus, have been traced back to perhaps as little as 15 years after the death of Jesus - this is not they key point here. The key point is that if we accept that the incarnation was a direct intervention by God in history, can we not accept that God is quite capable of inspiring an accurate recording - supernatural or otherwise - of these important events by deeply committed followers?

But the most important flaw in this modern biblical criticism methodology is a fundamental intellectual floor. If you decide that one part of the gospel account has been 'adapted' by the writer in order to make this or that point, then it stands to reason that any part of the gospel could have been 'adapted'. What can we trust? If, as the former archbishop of York once said, the virgin birth did not actually happen, then why should we trust any part of the gospel account? The whole Christian story begins to unravel.

But Christians - even many criticisers - know in their hearts that the Christian story is true. Why would we chose to undermine the preeminent source of Christian theology? You do not have to suspend your reason to accept the accuracy of the gospel accounts. You just have to accept that God is God.

Lies about God. Lie #2 - God is condemning and unforgiving

In Psalm 130 David cries out to God like I'm sure all of us have from time to time. He knows the response from God will certainly not be condemning or unforgiving:

Out of the depths I cry to you, LORD;
Lord, hear my voice.
Let your ears be attentive
   to my cry for mercy.

 If you, LORD, kept a record of sins,
   Lord, who could stand?
But with you there is forgiveness,
   so that we can, with reverence, serve you.

Jesus himself illustrates the way God feels about us in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The son had squandered his inheritance and was now destitute:

When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his father.

We often say that someone 'finds God'. In reality, God takes all the initiative and reaches out to us:

But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.  

Like the prodigal son, perhaps we sometimes feel unworthy to be the adopted sons of God, but God will have none of it:

The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

Far from being condemning and unforgiving, God searches us out so he can lavish his goodness upon us. And when we accept his free gift, his response is the same as the father in the parable:

So they began to celebrate.

Lies about God. Lie #1 - Perhaps God exists, but he is distant and uniterested in us

Some 3,000 years ago, King David's inspired song says all there is to say about this lie. Psalm 139:

You have searched me, LORD,
   and you know me.
You know when I sit and when I rise;
   you perceive my thoughts from afar.
You discern my going out and my lying down;
   you are familiar with all my ways.
Before a word is on my tongue
   you, LORD, know it completely.
You hem me in behind and before,
   and you lay your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
   too lofty for me to attain.

Where can I go from your Spirit?
   Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
   if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
   if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
   your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
   and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
   the night will shine like the day,
   for darkness is as light to you.
 
For you created my inmost being;
   you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
   your works are wonderful,
   I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
   when I was made in the secret place,
   when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
   all the days ordained for me were written in your book
   before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
   How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them,
   they would outnumber the grains of sand—
   when I awake, I am still with you.

Multiculturalism Hasn't Failed. We Have Failed Multiculturalism.

Today in a speech in Munich David Cameron tells us that "state multiculturalism" has failed. Not surprisingly, with his emphasis on Islamic extremism, Muslim groups have expressed considerable dismay at the speech. And well they might. It is not that multiculturalism has failed. We have failed multiculturalism.

However, let us be clear - this failure lies firmly with the establishment and not with the people. Spend any time in central London and you will see multiculturalism alive and well with all ethnicities and religions living and working side by side without any "help" from the state. No, it is state meddling and media hysteria that has created the great discomfort in white middle-England communities.

One of the most divisive issues is, of course, religion. However, once again, on the streets few problems exist, with Muslims, Christians and Hindus co-existing in many places without problems. It is the state-sponsored marginalisation of Christianity that causes anger. There is a perception, not entirely unjustified, of discrimination by the authorities against Christianity. Examples such as nurse Caroline Petrie, a Christian, who faced disciplinary action for offering to pray for an elderly patient, even though the patient made no complaint. This sort of example angers people because there is a certainty that if Ms Petrie had been of any other religion, no action would have been taken. Ironically, most non-Christian religious people are fully accepting of the Christian heritage of this country and are often perplexed when councils meddle with Christian norms claiming minority communities will be offended.

The multiculturalism of the streets works because there is tacit acceptance of universal values. Having said this, it is clear there are serious threats to these universal values in some communities, and it is this that the state should focus upon. Rather than petty attacks on Christians, the state should tackle human rights abuses in whatever community they occur.

As far as religion is concerned, it is respect that is key. But this has to include equal respect for all religions and this includes Christianity.  However, this respect cannot and must not be allowed to override our hard-won universal values. In the UK and around the world, the UK government should be clear and direct that, for example, discrimination against women, or barbaric punishments such as amputations or stoning, are wrong in all circumstances. And if, like me, you are a Christian, let us not kid ourselves that abuses against human rights only occur in non-Christian countries. So-called fundamentalist Christians in the US screaming that 'God hates fags' are as much an offence against God and human rights as the Taliban.

So, if multiculturalism is to succeed the state needs to change direction and apply some street common sense. No more marginalisation of Christianity, no more blind-eyes to human rights abuses. Multiculturalism will thrive when the state robustly upholds what all reasonable people instinctively accept - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

Wealthwise, we need to look down, not up....

It is certainly true that household budgets are being squeezed, and it is not a happy experience. But there is a reason why we are constantly bombarded of images of wealth - if advertisers can convince us that lots of people have brand new cars, expensive holidays and plasma TVs, we can be induced to spend more than we can really afford because we feel we should keep up.

There is an excellent antidote to this temptation. When considering how wealthy you are, look down, not up. How many people are poorer than you are? If you go to the excellent website http://www.globalrichlist.com/ and type in your annual income, you might be surprised. For example, type in the UK average salary of around £25,500 per annum and you will find that you are in the top 1.15% richest people in the world! There are approximately 5,930,445,217 people worse off than you.

Petrol nearly £6 per gallon, no pay rise, pathetic return on your savings? Yes, it is annoying. But it could be worse....

Review of Chris Mullin's 'Decline & Fall'

One of the things that simply has to be endured when reading political memoirs is the colossal ego of the average politician. It tends to go with the ground, and Chris Mullen is no exception. Reading through these diaries, I am afraid that I tend to agree with Roy Hattersley's view that 'page after page exudes the conviction that he is morally superior to those around him'.

It is clear that Mullin sees himself as a conviction politician. However, in this form of writing, where thoughts are recorded almost daily, the reader gets a genuine insight into the real person. I do not doubt that Mullin is passionate about those things close to his heart - international development, justice, the environment - but the reality that appears throughout these pages is that he is no different that any other politician. It is shocking how utterly dismissive he is of his role as a MP after losing his job in government, at one point describing himself as a 'glorified social worker.' Excuse me, Mr Mullin, but I thought you were paid £65,000 per annum to represent your constituents whether or not you have a government job!

When asked by a schoolgirl what is the most important decision he has ever made, he is honest enough to say that he was rather thrown but then reflects that it was probably his decision to vote against the Iraq war. Really? Bearing in mind that the government easily won the vote, Mullen's vote was ultimately completely inconsequential to anyone except, of course, Mullin himself. Never mind all the decisions that actually made a difference! As I say - colossal ego.

Now, I am aware that this review is coming across harsher than I intended. I have to say that I did not warm to Mullen as a character but I have no doubt that his heart is in the right place. He clearly wants to do the right thing and see the right thing done. But his unmoving conviction in the rightness of his own judgement too often seems to obscure a bigger and more important picture. He is effusive about the undeniable achievements of the Labour government yet too often seems sniping and self-righteous towards ministers. I am not at all sure the name he gives to Blair, 'The Man', is intended as a compliment.

And yet, often I found myself strongly agreeing with the opinions he shares. I almost shouted 'too true!' out loud as he berated the grumbling and cynicism of this age when people in the UK are healthier, wealthier and better educated than ever before. Do they really want to go back to the strikes, waiting lists and power cuts of the 1970s and 80s, when millions of young people left school without any qualifications and degrees were the preserve of a fortunate few? Well said, Mr Mullin.

Mullen's assessment of Nick Clegg, a massive bogey man for me, has proven to be spot on. 'Ludicrous, self-righteous, easily the biggest charlatan of the lot.' I cannot argue with that!.

But I think I struggle to like Mullen not least of all because he often comes across as a bit of an old dinosaur. Musing how he would like to retire to Vietnam - his wife is Vietnamese - he describes the house he would like to build with 'solar panels - my only concession to the twenty-first century'. It is not, in my view, a very healthy attribute in a MP to consider everything old as inherently better than anything modern. Surely, those given the task of running the country must have the vision to look forwards as well as back? It seems that Mullen's decision to retire from the House of Commons did not come a moment too soon.

What a mug I've been....

I voted Labour in all three of Tony Blair's election victories. However, although I felt that he had been an excellent Chancellor, I became convinced that Gordon Brown was not up to the top job. As the election approached, I began to think the unthinkable - could I, should I, vote Tory?

My wife warned against it. She was unconvinced by Cameron. Just a front man, she said. It is the same old Tory party. Maybe memories of the way Blair changed the Labour party weighed heavily on my mind. Maybe Cameron has changed the Tories, I thought. Maybe they are not the 'nasty' party any longer. Gradually, a combination of the failings of the Brown administration and the soothing words of Cameron began to convince me. And so for the first time ever in a general election, I voted Tory, the sole Tory voter out of the four voters in my household. I got quite a bit of stick from my daughters, and a diplomatic silence from my wife!

It has to be said, it did not start well. Much to my disgust and amazement, having failed to secure an overall majority, Cameron teamed up with the pompous party - the Liberal Democrats. Now this is where my judgement has proved to be correct. I have for many years held the Liberal Democrats in contempt. It irritates me beyond belief the way they stand on the sidelines, holier than thou, proclaiming how honest and principled they are, whilst condemning everybody else. They were not to be trusted. Clegg would boil his own granny down for glue if it would get him what he wants, and in getting into bed with the Tories, he has shown that I was completely correct. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats were positioned clearly to the left of the Labour party, so quite how Clegg can justify sharing power with the Tories, God only knows. It is amazing how important principles are when you are in opposition but how irrelevant they are if you can get a fancy job title and a ministerial car.

Of course, the coalition has been a master stoke for the Tories. They have skillfully placed the Liberal Democrats in the firing line for all the unpopular policies, whilst tossing them a few meaningless tidbits of policy to keep the party happy. Lifelong Liberals must be in despair.

But, of course, I voted Tory, so why am I so unhappy? My hope was that the bad old days of Tory dogmatism would be a thing of the past, to be replaced by a determination to do what is right in the interests of the country. Unfortunately, just about everything they have done since the election has been driven entirely by narrow dogma.

On the NHS, the abolition of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) will achieve nothing more than privatising 80% of the NHS budget - it is easy to overlook the fact that the new GP consortia will be private entities. I would not have a problem with this if it will actually achieve something positive for patients. In reality, it will be extremely disruptive and costly and will very likely reduce quality and choice. PCTs are complex organisations with turnovers often running into hundreds of millions of pounds. Exactly what qualifies GPs to run such organisations is beyond me. I have never been to medical school myself but I suspect there is not much on the syllabus about organisational management. If I want my ear syringed, I will go to my GP. I would not go to him for advice on running my business! Certainly some GPs will have a flair for business and will make a success of the new arrangements but we cannot have it both ways. When I go to see my GP, I want his full attention to my medical condition. I do not want him to be rushing me off because he has a board meeting to chair. Is he my GP or my business mentor?

On education, trebling student fees, whilst at the same time slashing the higher education teaching budget by 90%, has nothing to do with cutting the deficit and everything to do with pandering to Daily Mail ranters who believe that a university education should be the preserve of the middle classes and not for the masses. Michael Gove's decision to scrap modules in GCSEs has nothing to do with raising standards and everything to do with reducing the grades achieved so that cynical, middle-aged, middle-class, middle-Englanders can continue to feel superior to the younger generation. Abolishing Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for students from poor families gives the lie to the coalition claims to be progressive, and is yet another example of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. Their frankly extremely flimsy defence in the student fees debacle is that the new system is fairer to poor students. Yet for youngsters from a poor background, £30 per week EMA can be the key to getting them to do A levels. Abolishing EMA will reduce the numbers of poor students staying on for six form, and, clearly, if the do not stay on, they will not go to university. And Nick Clegg know this.

So, even though I live in a constituency that always returns a Tory with an extremely large majority and so my vote is largely irrelevant, I feel I have been duped into changing my vote. The Tory party clearly has not changed. It is still driven by prejudice and dogma. Come back, Gordon, all is forgiven!

Is a Benign Dictatorship Better Than Western Democracy?

At a party recently a very good friend of mind suggested that a benign dictatorship is a superior form of government to our western democracy. This got me thinking....

Has there ever been a truly benign dictatorship?

Lord Acton's famous phrase 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' springs to mind. It is quite simply a reality of human behaviour that even the most benevolent leaders end up abusing their people when in a position of absolute power.

It is certainly difficult to think of any truly benign dictatorships in the modern world. How about China? According to Amnesty International, human rights abuses are widespread in China. Expect harassment, house arrest, arbitrary detention, torture, even execution, simply for publicly disagreeing with the government. Dictatorship, yes. Benign, certainly not.

Maybe Cuba is better. Don't bet on it. It was only in 2009 that Cubans were for the first time allowed to buy mobile phones and computers for personal use. Access to the Internet remains restricted. It is clear that this type of abuse takes place in the interests of the government and certainly not the people.

Without exception, there is an absence of genuine human rights where the government has absolute power. In Brunei, the Sultan governs with few limits on his power. He controls the security forces, there is arbitrary detention, limits on freedom of speech, and control of media. There is statutory prohibition of challenging in any way the Sultan or members of the royal family. It's easy to dismiss such issues but there would rightly be outrage if anything remotely similar was proposed in Britain or, for that matter, any other genuinely democratic country.

And surely, this is the issue. When making comparisons, you must always compare with a genuine democracy. Many countries pay lip service to democracy but in effect remain dictatorships. Elections of sorts take place in Iran. In 2009 President Ahmadinejad was re-elected but nobody serious considers the vote free and fair. The security forces were implicated in custodial deaths, killings of protestors, torture, beatings and rape. The government continues to administer extremely severe punishments including death by stoning, amputation and flogging.

To be sure, it is simply not possible to design a completely fair electoral system and so to that extent no country has a truly genuine democracy. However, there is no question in my mind that I prefer to live in a country where the key democratic principles are observed and enshrined.

As Winston Churchill once said, 'Democracy is the worse system of government there is - apart from all the others.'

Theology and the Babel fish

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [as a Babel fish] could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Fans of Douglas Adams' wonderful novel will know that a Babel fish instantly translates any spoken language into the native language of the hearer when placed inside the ear. Regretably, the Babel fish only exists in Adams' imagination but could there be any truth in his jocular musings about the centrality of faith in theology?

Adams was a prominent atheist but I am sure he was more concerned here with entertainment than proselytising. However, ignorance of theology is extremely common among leading athiests. Here is Christopher Hitchens in a recent debate on religion with Tony Blair:

"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent, greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sin with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place."

Hitchens is a supremely gifted individual and an extremely engaging speaker but his description here is about as far from Christian theology as it is possible to get. He repeats his phase 'created sick and commanded to be well' for added emphasis but the bible is clear that mankind was created not just good but very good (Genesis 1:31). Importantly, although created good, man was also created with the freedom to be bad, and that is exactly what happened. It was a choice. Adam and Eve had a choice, and we have a choice, but the fact is that we inevitably choose our own way. Original sin is our choice, not God's. According to Hitchens we are commanded to be well. However, God reconciles us to himself by his action, not ours. In a supreme act of love, not anger, God himself in the person of Jesus Christ satisfies perfect justice by paying the price for our rebellion himself. No command to be well again, just a free gift (Romans 6:23).

Returning to Adams, the suggestion is that faith is central to an intellectual analysis of the existence of God but I think this is to miss the point slightly. Certainly, faith is central to Christian theology but I would suggest choice, or free will, is equally important. If God were to appear before you now in a puff of smoke, the God that has existed for all eternity, the God that created the Earth, the stars, the universe, the God encompassing all the energy of the entire inverse, you would no longer require faith in order to accept his existence but neither would you have any meaningful free will. No doubt gripped with terror and awe, I think we would all unquestioningly accept anything he commanded! But, contrary to what Adams and Hitchens would have us believe, God seeks a relationship of freely given love, not domination. This is, of course, why the existence of God can never be proved. If God were a certainty, we would be completely overwhelmed, unable to defy him and, more importantly, unable to freely love him.

How wonderful it would be if the Babel fish really existed but sadly it does not and God does - I think!

Oh no, Shopping - Never Again!

Having a wife and three daughters, years of painful experience has taught me that going shopping with them is a very bad idea. Outnumbered by 4 to 1, I don't stand a chance. Today, however, still full of Christmas cheer, I waivered, and joined them on a shopping trip.

One of the basic problems with shopping is the fundamental difference in the way men and women go about it. Deep down - or maybe not so deep down - us men are basically Neanderthal hunter gatherers. Presented with a modern day jungle (shopping mall), after a quick chest beating we're off, totally focused on the hunt. We simply track down the prey (item to be purchased), kill it (pay), sling it across our shoulders (put it in a plastic bag), and march triumphantly back to camp (try to find the car in the mall car park). In times past returning back we would have been greeted as heroes by the women folk. In my house, however, my hard won catches are generally greeted with sniggers, derision and cries of 'You're not allowed to shop unsupervised!' This was particularly cutting last time I came back from a solo shopping trip. Personally, I think a hogs hair shaving brush is perfectly nice gift for my great aunt. I would love one myself, and she certainly needs one.

Women, on the other hand, do not go about shopping in this way. Rather than engaging their lower, ancient brain during shopping, as men do, they seem to feel it necessary to engage their higher brain in order to track down the best possible item, rather than any suitable item. Any hunter gatherer worth his sort can see that this is a ridiculously floored strategy. Walking passed several woolly mammoths in order to find one with precisely this season's shade of fur is never going to bring the bacon home.

This feminine strategy was classically demonstrated to me on a Christmas shopping trip with my beloved a couple of years ago. The prey was a blue hoody. Imagine my joy when I identified an item of precisely the correct specification in the very first shop we entered. I'm sure it wasn't embarrassment at the growling roar of triumph that I let out that prevented my wife buying it. It was something else.

"It's a hoody?"
"Yes."
"It's blue?"
"Yes."
"It's the right size?"
"Yes. But ..."
"But what!"

She wouldn't last 5 minutes in the jungle, I thought. My exasperation grew exponentially with every further discovery in different shops of an item meeting the required specification. We found a second one, a third one, a fourth one.... I was on the verge of mugging a hobo for his half drunk bottle of Bell's when she said, "I think I preferred the first one." In my defence, he shouldn't have been drinking in public anyway, he was bigger than me and he wasn't as old as he looks. But the magistrate didn't see it that way unfortunately.

Anyway, I digress. Back to my ill-advised shopping trip with my wife and daughters. As we drove into the mall car park my anxiety grew as I remembered previous traumas that had become buried within my subconscious during the Christmas merriment. I was so anxious that the first thing I had to do was go to the Gents. I went in and my four handlers disappeared into the Ladies. Now, when you have a wife and three daughters, you get used to hanging around outside ladies toilets, as women inevitably take much longer to do their business, or whatever it is that they do in there. I waited outside suffering the usual discomfort of disdainful glances from women going in. Why do they always assume you are some kind of pervert rather than someone simply waiting for a female companion to emerge, I thought indignantly. Just then, my wife appeared and said with great glee, "Your flies are undone."

Don't ask me how but zip manufacturers have succeeded in designing their product to operate with an efficiency inversely proportional to the embarrassment of the operator and so after what seemed an eternal struggle to make myself decent again I trudged along disconsolately behind the four of them as they excitedly skipped off without even having the decency to muffle their laughter.

This may appear bad, but the day was about to take an even more terrible turn. A sight that strikes rigid fear into the heart of any man foolish enough to accompany a woman on a shopping trip appeared ahead of us - La Senza!!! I had to do something. I couldn't possibly face the inevitable excruciating embarrassment of not knowing where to fix my eyes in the shopping hell where time stands still as I waited for them to try on bra, after bra, after bra. I gazed around wide-eyed in a desperate attempt to distract them. "This looks great!" I shouted loudly, suddenly turning toward the nearest shop on the opposite side of the mall. They looked but barely broke their step. I can't say I was surprised as the shop was empty.

Why do women spend so much on bras? I went through my credit card receipts recently and found that my wife and daughters have spent £365 on bras on the last 12 months! That's, err....4 women....divide by 8... more than £45 per breast! In a last desperate attempt to persuade them out of yet another wallet-busting visit to La Senza I pointed this fact out to them. They seemed genuinely intrigued for a moment, and then one of my daughters said, "After the weight you've put on at Christmas, you should have divided by 10, so that's saved £8.50 per breast for a start." So cruel....

You see, lingerie shops are not designed with men in mind. As soon as a women finds a potentially suitable item, she generally disappears off into the changing rooms with her companions to try it on. But naturally male companions are not welcome in the changing area and so we have to endure an extremely uncomfortable wait, surrounded by womens underwear. And it doesn't matter where you stand, someone always appears wanting to view the items directly behind you, so you spend the entire time hopping back and forth trying to avoid the disgusted glances of frustrated thong browsers. Talking of thongs, in the midst of my torture, this quite enormous woman appeared and of course wanted to view the items behind me which were the tiniest thongs I think I've ever seem. Bearing in mind she was as wide as a door, I caught her with a raised-eyebrow glance that inevitably said, "Really?" She glared back defiantly, took one of the thongs and disappeared in the direction of the changing rooms. It was at this point I decided to put some more distance between me and the changing rooms. If the elastic goes while she's trying them on, I don't want to be anywhere near the shrapnel, I thought.

I've had teeth extractions that seemed to pass quicker than this particular visit but eventually the four of them appeared in front of me laden down with bags. My relief was to be short lived as it became clear that our next stop would involve my wife purchasing a new dress.

Now, any attached male will know that "Do you like this dress?" presents an unavoidable no-win situation. We can't win because we don't have the right information. It's not as simple as saying what you like and what you don't like. I like my wife in short dresses because she has great legs and tight dresses because she has a great figure. But, of course, I am not party to the 'Fashion Rules' that are rigidly enforced by the evil Fashion Police. I've never met any of these Fashion Police but I know they exist because my wife and daughters are terrified of them and never dare break their rules. The punishments for illegal outfits are not specified - maybe your Top Shop card gets confiscated, or something like that. For some reason, the rules are only known to straight women and gay men, so all I know about the rules are snippets I have overhead in conversations between women. The rules often revolve around things like the age of the wearer, and other strange things like 'cut', which are a complete mystery to me. The age rules are interesting because, being over 40, my wife is apparently not allowed to wear anything more than one inch above the knee. I've spent many long hours puzzling over this rule. Is it to protect the viewer from unsightly thighs? Following this logic of covering up anything unsightly would mean requiring all ugly women and half the male population to go around with paper bags on their heads. Seems rather harsh.

I managed to persuade my wife to let us have a break before going headlong into something as challenging (for me) as a dress purchase, so I luxuriated in 10 minutes respite in a coffee shop. I had a flapjack and a double expresso - keeping my fluid intake to a minimum in order to avoid any further public toilet traumas.

Like a visit to the dentist for root canal work, I decided to get it over and done with and boldly led the way to the dress shop. I was encouraged to find that it was one of the more considerate shops that provide seats for traumatised partners near to the changing rooms, so that the excited prospective dress purchasers can come out of the changing room and get the opinion of the terrified partner. There was already two disconsolate wide-eyed victims sat there as I arrived. I exchanged no words with my fellow condemned. At times like these words are inadequate. A knowing but hopeless glance will suffice. As I sat down my wife and daughters started pulling dresses off the racks, commenting constantly as to whether the outfits would be 'legal' or not. I was not sure whether it was a good sign or not but it didn't take long for them to scuttle off into the changing rooms with armfuls of dresses. I was already beginning to feel rather uncomfortable as the orange-faced, gum-chewing assistant, leaning forward with her elbows on the counter, fixed a suspicious stare on me. I felt about as welcome as flatulence in a spacesuit.

They seemed to take an age in the changing rooms, so I started trying to discreetly look around the curtains to see if I could see them. About this time I realised that the double expresso had been a very bad idea. I began to get rather jittery and developed a pronounced facial tick that must have appeared like I was constantly winking. The shop assistant's grim stare only intensified, so I thought that maybe I could diffuse the tension by flashing a smile at her. I can see with hindsight that it must have looked odd as I kept putting my head around the changing room curtains and then looking back at the assistant smiling and apparently winking, although the brutality with which she frogmarched me out of the shop and deposited me on the floor of the mall was in my view completely uncalled for.

You may have thought that the upside of this particular misunderstanding would be that I was spared the dress-opining trial but, no. On finding me ejected from the shop - but apparently not particularly alarmed or surprised by the turn of events - my wife decided to purchase all the dresses she had selected so that I could give my judgements at home.

It was a long evening.

"How about this one?"
"A bit shorter, maybe."
"What do you think if this?"
"A bit tighter, maybe."




  

The Meaning of Christmas in Just 3 Minutes ...

Before time and space existed,  if you like, before the Big Bang, God existed. Because he is outside time and space, he has always existed and will always exist. He hasn't ignored us, however. Through the ages, he has revealed his character to us. He has three essential, unchangeable qualities. He is love. He is just. He is holy.

And because he is God, he is perfect love, perfect justice and perfect holiness. Perfect to the extent that he cannot not love, he cannot not be just, and he cannot not be holy. His perfect love is illustrated in another aspect of his nature. He has three dimensions, personalities if you like. These three personalities co-exist in a relationship of perfect love, so that even in his very being God's perfect love operates.

God created time and space, and he created the earth. On the earth he created life, and he could see that this was good. He created animal life, and he could see that was good too. However, he also wanted to create animal life that was like himself, made in his image. And so he created man. Man was like him not in physical appearance but in being able to share in his perfect love, justice and holiness. But the problem with love is that by its very nature it has to be a free choice by both parties. Compulsory love is not love at all, and certainly not perfect love. So man was free to reject God and that is exactly what happened. Selfishness, what we call sin, came into the world. Because of his perfect justice and perfect holiness, God could no longer dwell in the physical presence of man, and a great gulf was opened up between man and God. This was not because God was angry or wanted retribution for being rejected. It was simply that he could no more be in the presence of sin than my pet goldfish would be happy lying on my kitchen table. My goldfish can only exist in water and God can only exist in perfect love, perfect justice and perfect holiness.

But because of his perfect love, God was not going to give up on mankind. He selected a race of people, not because they were any more worthy than any other race, but because they were dispossessed wanderers, seeking a home. They were chosen for a purpose - to show the world the way home. For thousands of years God spoke to these people through their great kings, prophets and writers. The message throughout all these years was simple. The only way to be united with God once more is to be perfect but, because of sin, mankind can never be perfect. The situation is not hopeless, however. God will send a saviour to make us all perfect once more and able to be reunited with God.

In order to satisfy true justice, for things to be right and fair, our sins cannot be simply overlooked. The consequences must be faced and the consequence of sin is death - spiritual death. That is, separation from God. Man, because of his sinfulness cannot be with God and God, because of his holiness cannot be with sinful man. But God had a quite shocking plan. He decided to rip apart the perfect unity of his own being. To become a man himself and take the consequences of mankind's sin upon himself. On the cross, Jesus cried out 'My God, why have you forsaken me?' God himself, in Jesus, was torn apart from God the Father. Jesus paid the price for our sins and perfect justice was satisfied. But Jesus wasn't just a man. He was also God and so, as God has predicted through the ages, he rose up again so we can once again become perfect through accepting him. Perfect not because of any merit in us but perfect because of him.

At Christmas we remember how God came into the world, as a helpless baby. We remember why God came into the world, to reunite all mankind with himself in perfect love.

Why you don't have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to be a Christian

Jesus said to the people who believed in him, “You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” - John 8:31-32



As Christians, our primary concern is truth. We seek to be faithful to the way things really are. The enemies of Christianity would have us believe that Christianity and science are in opposition. The fact is that all science is the study of God's creation. As far back as Bede the Venerable (c. 672-735) Christians have committed to this study, correctly seeing it as a pathway to truth. Robert Grosseteste, the 13th century Bishop of Lincoln, is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. Robert Boyle, from the 17th century, argued that the study of science could improve glorification of God. Isaac Newton, regarded as one of the greatest scientists in history, was a life-long committed Christan. And this close co-existence between science and Christianity continues into the modern age. Charles Hard Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and particle physicist John Polkinghorne are two notable but by no means rare contemporary examples.

But of course while there is no incompatibility between Christianity and science, there has from time to time been problems between the church and science. Over the centuries, brilliant scientists have been marginalised and pilloried because their genius was far ahead of the church leaders of the time. Most frequently, the source of these tensions can be traced back to one thing - the Bible. Before my Christian friends run screaming from their laptops, let me correct myself. Not the Bible but interpretation of the Bible.

Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Theologically, this belief is not optional for Christians and, in my view, neither is it optional from a practical, analytical viewpoint. Once you begin to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you are going to accept, where do you stop? For example, if you cannot accept the virgin birth, why would you accept anything in the Gospels? When tempted to doubt, bear in mind two important points. Firstly, if God is who he says he is, then anything is possible, however impossible it may seem to you. Secondly, the Bible is the pre-eminent source of Christian theology. A Christian undermining the Bible is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on. You may still believe in God but whatever you call yourself, you cannot correctly refer to yourself as a 'Christian.'

So as Christians we accept the Bible as infallible. However, infallible, but not always literal. Christians down the ages have accepted that some parts of the Bible are allegorical, illustrations not intended to be taken literally. Yes, the Bible is infallible but sometimes our interpretation is not. If scientific discovery reveals a clear truth apparently at odds with the Bible, we need to review our interpretation. Whilst some believe that scientists stretch it beyond its rational limit, most modern Christians accept that the theory of evolution is a reality and therefore valuable in helping us to understand God's creative processes on the earth. When Darwin discovered it, he helped us to see the 'how'. The 'who' remained the same. Interesting, if you read the creation account in Genesis, you will see that the order of creation, from vegetation for humanity, is the same as described by evolution!

However, the point is that the creation account in Genesis is indeed the inspired word of God, suitable for all teaching and guidance (2 Timothy 3:16), but scientific discovery suggests to me that it should not be taken as a literal description of creation. The Genesis story of creation is full of timeless wisdom and cannot be legitimately jettisoned by any right-thinking Christian. But accepting an allegorical interpretation takes nothing away from the value of the teaching contained within it and in no way undermines the Christian narrative.

A dogged refusal to accept anything but a literal interpretation of the creation account is in my view very damaging. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is more than 4 billion years old some Christians continue to insist that it is in fact just 6,000 years old, citing evidence in the Bible. This 'calculated' age is presumably based on conventional 24 hour earth days. In the Genesis account, the 24 hour daily cycle was not actually created until the 4th Biblical 'day'. God is outside time and space. So, clearly the Biblical seven days of creation are not the same as days as we understand them (2 Peter 3:8).

Further, the weight of scientific evidence means that insisting on a 6,000 year age requires a Christian to suspend their God-given intelligence. In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus takes an extremely dim view of the servant that fails to use his intelligence. No, God has given us a brain and we should use it. The science-refusing view is also damaging to Christianity generally because it is seen as ridiculous. If satellites and astronauts had not proven beyond all doubt that the Earth is round, would we still be arguing that it is flat? After all Isaiah 11:12 says "He will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the Earth." OK, Isaiah 40:22 also says "It is he who sits above the circle of the Earth." but you get my drift.

Making Christianity appear ridiculous, however unintentionally, can drive people who otherwise could be enquirers away, contrary to our Christian duty (Matthew 28:19-20). It can also create an intellectual barrier for people. We should be leading people to the faith, not creating problems for them (Luke 11:46). I am sure that decent, devout Christians who take this view feel they are defending the faith from an atheistic onslaught but God really is big enough to defend himself. If we believe that Christ is who he says he is, we must also accept that rigorous scienctific study will never disprove Christianity. In behaving this way, we imitate the enemies of Christianity. Secular scientists who, having realised that the conditions in the universe are fine tuned for life to an extent that is effectively impossible - making a supernatural cause the only sensible explanation - counter by saying that there must therefore be an infinite number of universes, despite having no evidence whatsoever for such a fanciful idea. Faced with a truth that apparently conflicts with their faith, they resort to nonsense. Christians should not be behaving in the same way.
So, Christians have nothing to fear from science. Indeed, we can celebrate the rich joint heritage of science and Christianity. If sensible and robust scientific study appears to conflict with a Christian concept, we should retain our confidence in the faith and seek God's interpretative guidance. We defend the faith by seeking truth, whether in the Bible, or the laboratory.

Arghhhhh! Don't they know about the deficit!

We like people to be safe, don't we? Of course! Today whilst driving along the A24 I noticed a tractor cutting the verges. Very sensibly, stationed behind it was a vehicle with a 12 foot high flashing sign and an impact absorbing device on the rear. Well, you can't be too careful. But oh, I suppose it is theoretically possible in broad daylight with good visibility to miss a 12 foot high flashing sign. Tell you what, just to be doubly sure, let's station another vehicle 100 yards back with another flashing sign. And, sure enough, 100 yards further down, there it was, another vehicle.

Comforted that my local council take the safety of drivers and grass-cutting staff very seriously, I drove on. Then I passed another vehicle a further 100 yards on. Flashing signs etc. Then another. Then another!!!

In what world exactly do the council road safety staff think it necessary to station four, yes FOUR, vehicles behind a tractor cutting the verges?

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting:

"We've decided we should have a special impact absorbing vehicle with a 12 foot flashing sign behind the tractor."
"Good idea. But what if a driver is a distracted. They might be from a racial minority. They might not see it until it's too late, and then they might sue us for not considering the needs of racial minority drivers."
"Good point. I'll tell you what, we'll station an extra safety vehicle 100 yards further back. When the racial minority driver sees that, then they will know to look out ahead for the main safety vehicle."
"Good idea. But what if the racial minority driver is distracted when passing extra safety vehicle. They might be gay. And then they might not see the main safety vehicle until it's too late, and then they might sue us for not considering the needs of gay racial minority drivers."
"Good point. I'll tel you what, we'll station an extra extra safety vehicle behind the extra safety vehicle. When the gay racial minority driver sees that, then they wil know to look out for the extra safety vehicle ahead warning them of the main safety vehicle."
"Good idea. But what if the gay racial minority driver is distracted when passing the extra extra safety vehicle. They might be a women. And then they might not see the main safety vehicle until it's too late, and then they might sue us for not considering the needs women gay racial minority drivers."
"Good point. I'll tell you what, we'll station an extra extra extra safety vehicle behind the extra extra safety vehicle behind the extra safety vehicle. When the women gay racial minority driver sees that, then they will know to look out for the extra extra safety vehicle warning them of the extra safety vehicle warning them of the main safety vehicle."
"That should do it."
"Mmmm."
"Won't that be rather expensive."
"Is that the sandwich van......"

Reflections on a Dance Class

When my beloved suggested going to ballroom dance classes, I thought, well, we could give it a go. Might be fun. But often things in life are more complicated than they first appear....



I should really have heeded the first sign of danger and made a quick escape at the very first lesson when the male dance teacher demonstrated the basic steps of the Cha Cha Cha. Back and forth, side to side with such exaggerated arm flourishes than the entire class of fresher students burst out laughing. Is that what I'm expected to do? I was filled with horror.

You see, it's a difficult time to be a man at the moment. We want to be modern men - sensitive, able to cry, lover of potpourri. But to be honest I can't tell my Mandarin Clove from my Soft Vanilla. It's no longer cool to be the strong silent type. Camp and sensitive is cool.

As the father of three girls, I've even considered whether becoming gay could earn me some much needed cool points. Apparently, it's so cool that even my wife wouldn't mind. We wouldn't have sex anymore but we could have many intimate moments discussing soft furnishings and Kylie Minogue. But it's not really the same. And the fact is that none of the Village People really do it for me and I get in a terrible muddle when I try to spell out YMCA with my arms.

I do have one trait in common with the modern metrosexual man - I'm hopeless at DIY. I was very encouraged some years ago when a study concluded that men who are rubbish at DIY must be great in bed, as this was the only explanation for their women hanging on to them. When I read this out to my wife she enthusiastically agreed with the conclusion. Well, OK, she said 'Yes, of course dear' without making eye contact but it was enough for me. So, DIY incompetence aside, I don't think I fit the bill for modern man and I can tell that my failure to use Nivea for Men doesn't go down well in social circles. I feel almost compelled to drag my knuckles along the floor when I admit to my love of Match of the Day and my 50" plasma TV. (And it's not compensatory. As I say, I'm rubbish at DIY.)

Back to the dance class. We've been going for some time now and over the months I have observed that there are two types of women who attend these classes. The first type, and to be fair this is most of them, want to wear pretty frocks and glide gracefully across the dancefloor. Quite how my wife expects to attain any level of gracefulness with me clinging to her is beyond me. A ballet dancer and a chimp comes to mind. The second type, as far as I can tell, seem to attend primarily in order to touch men they hardly know in a very inppropriate manner. You might think that I wouldn't mind this but the fact is that the over-sexed women in this second group are generally considerably more butch than any of the Village People. I know this is not saying much but I'm simply not going to dance with a person if I'm not 100% certain what gender they are.

Quite apart from a constant fear of ending up in the arms of John Prescott in drag, there are other complications with this dancing lark. We go on a Friday night after dinner. Now, when you get to a certain age, you like to have your dinner, sit down in your favourite chair and, well, let your digestion take place. Instead, I'm rushed off to do vigorous gyrations in a sports hall. The inevitable occurs. Quick, quick, slow, fart. Quick, quick, slow, fart, fart, fart. I try to keep other couples away by flinging my arms around wildly, doing my best to make it look like part of the routine, but sometimes couples do stray within the danger zone. All that's left to do is look horrified at my wife in a vain attempt to deflect the blame. Not very chivalrous, I know, but what can you do....

The difference between male and female attitudes amuses me. Most of the women want to quickly get to Strictly Come Dancing standard, whilst most of the men just muddle along. Myself, I've resolved to at least surpass Anne Widdecombe standard. I seriously doubt that I'll reach the heady heights of John Sargeant. Some of the men, whatever dance we're meant to be doing - waltz, tango, rumba etc - always look like they are doing the classic 'Dad at the wedding disco'dance. In a similar vein, one couple always look like they are at a barn dance. Sometimes, I'm tempted to shout do-si-do! just to see what would happen. Perhaps they would suddenly break into a perfect Vienese waltz.

So, think twice before taking up this passtime. If you are considering it, let me help you by giving you brief instructions on the most popular dances:

Jive - Hop back and forth energetically but at all costs avoid, as I did, catching sight of yourself in a reflection as you will not be able to get Funky Chicken out of your head from that point on.

Vienese Waltz - Rock back and forth and spin around until you feel sick. Easy.

Samba - Pretend you are running over very hot sand without your flip-flops on.

Tango - Thrust yourself vigorously toward your lady in a manner completely unacceptable for public view. I quite like this one.

Foxtrot - Wander around the room taking random and aimless steps. I seem to have cracked this one but my wife insists I am not doing it 'properly'.

Paso Doble - Act like a cross between a penguin and a matador. But quite why you would want to imitate an animal tormenting bastard is beyond me.

Cha Cha Cha - Sorry, I can't help with this one because they keep adding steps to it and now I can't remember any of it.

Rumba - Exactly like the Cha Cha Cha but in slow motion.

To be honest, this probably tells you all you need to know, so I suggest you settle down and have you dinner. It's far less dangerous.

Why 'I agree with Nick'

I confess, dear reader, that my title is a little misleading. As I write, I do not agree with Nick, but I do agree with the pre-general election Nick. Do you remember those halcyon days? A time when Nick Clegg was feted as the new and refreshing face of British politics, when every major politician was keen to declare that 'I agree with Nick'?

To be honest, I have had a long-standing dislike for the Liberal Democrats. I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly what it is I have disliked about the party. I think it partly a reaction to a smugness that is very easy to exhibit when in permanent opposition, never having to face the real and difficult decisions of power. This was demonstrated most vividly by their so-called 'principled stand' on Iraq. There is nothing principled about standing against a widely unpopular war. At best, it is reflecting prevailing opinion, at worse, jumping on a bandwagon. But there is nothing especially principled about such a position. Of course, making a decision that you feel is right when opinion is against you, when you will be vilified for years to come, now that could be considered a principled stand. But I want to talk about Nick, not Tony.

Of course that smugness borne of permanent opposition has come back to haunt the party in the tuition fees debate. I assure you that I get no pleasure from saying 'I told you so' to those people who voted Liberal Democratic on the strength of their much publicised 'pledge' to remove tuition fees within 6 years. The issue is too serious for such luxuries.

The sense of betrayal that those (mostly young) voters now feel is completely understandable. Clegg's facile attempts to justify his volt face - 'we didn't win the election', 'we didn't realise things were so bad', just do not wash. Students may be young but they are not stupid. It is easy to understand that in a coalition you have to make compromises. But a compromise requires movement to the middle ground, not movement to the most extreme position. It is a very long way from abolishing fees in 6 years to permanently trebling them! No, students feel betrayed and let down, and rightly so.

Prior to the election, it is on this very issue that I was able to find a rare opportunity to say 'I agree with Nick'. In his now infamous You Tube video, he said it would be 'a disaster' to load tens of thousand of pounds of debt onto students. I agree with Nick. Of course, he does not say that now. I wonder what has changed? Certainly, the financial means of the students has not. Oh, but the intoxication of power....

But would such a 'principled' politician really lead the country into 'a disaster' in return for a grand job title and a ministerial car? There can really only be three explanations for his behaviour. Either he is intellectually incapable of understanding the issue, so he sways in the wind depending on who he talking to, or he was being completely dishonest in his You Tube video, or he is in fact prepared to betray students in return for power. Nobody really believes that this Cambridge graduate is too stupid to understand the issue, so we are left with  a rather unpalatable choice between a liar and a scoundrel. Do you think I am being too harsh? I am afraid that any objective analysis of the situation confirms Clegg's initial 'disaster' diagnosis. I say objective because I am excluding extremist Tory opinion that holds that we should not be sending so many students to university - an opinion driven by dogma rather than objective analysis.

Interestingly, the main reason why the new fees will indeed be a disaster is because of the inherent unfairness of the system, which is ironic bearing in mind that Liberal Democrats major pitch to the nation was based on fairness - the word 'fair', or derivations of it, was used 121 times in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. However, the word fair has quietly been dropped in favour of the more ambiguous word 'progressive', meaning that the poor will pay less than the rich. But progressive does not necessarily mean fair and it is unfairness that people react so violently against. Let me explain some of the unfairness:

• The higher education teaching budget has been slashed by a staggering 80% and this is the main reason for the need to treble fees. You may well respond that times are tough and everybody needs to contribute to the deficit reduction. However, if you are a young person just stepping out on adult life, it is going to feel very unfair that you have to face a near life-long debt to obtain a degree when the adults around you got theirs completely free. And these are the same adults that ran up the deficit in the first place. It is like the opposite of leaving money in your will. I am not going to leave you anything. In fact, I am going to leave you huge debts that you will have to pay off for me. But do not worry, I had a great time running them up!
• Under concessions rushed out in an attempt to placate opinion, students with poor parents could get as much as two thirds of their total fees paid for them. But what exactly has the parents wealth got to do with the student's ability to repay the tuition fees? A student from a poor family could end up with a job in the city earning millions, while a student from a middle class family could end up in a low paid job. But the city banker will have his fees largely paid for him.
• To add insult to injury, if you live in Wales, you will not have to pay any increase, even if you study at an English university. And in Scotland, there are no fees at all. This despite the fact that we all pay the same income tax rates.

It is all grossly unfair and will undoubtedly lead to a large reduction in the number of students attending university. No doubt dogma-driven Tories will nod with approval but the long term damage to our economy could be devastating. China produces 6 million graduates each year and India is not far behind. We can no longer compete with these countries in our factories, which is why much of our manufacturing industry has disappeared. We have to complete with our brainpower. If we fail to do this, our engineering, medical and pharmaceutical indusrties will follow manufacturing.

So, I agree with Nick - it is a disaster.