It seems odd - to say the least - to resign from the shadow cabinet with a view to contesting an unnecessary election. The excuse given is that the issue of civil liberties needs to be brought to the forefront. I may be a little behind the times but I thought that the House was the place for having such debate and that debate has been had (and will no doubt continue). Is this election really necessary?

It also seems odd to try to hold an election on a single issue or at least on such a single issue. If the polls are to be believed then the majority public view supports 42 days. Is the intention, then, to try to persuade the majority otherwise or at least to weaken that majority? And what about other crunch issues: economy, health, education …? Would you really vote for someone who had nothing to say on all these issues (or at least thought them secondary considerations?

There must be a more human reason behind these antics. Could it be vanity? Could it be attention seeking? Could it be the sign of a narcissism?

Civil liberties is an important subject - it requires serious discussion and debate. I say, serious discussion and debate, and not mere headline grabbing soundbites. The liberties that have been taken in calling an unnecessary election are exactly why people feel increasingly disillusioned by politics and question more and more the motivations of our politicians.

In The Tablet this week there is an interesting article by Nick Spencer, the director of studies for Theos, the public theology think tank. His 90 page report ‘Neither Private nor Privileged: the role of Christianity in Britain today’ is well worth reading. You can find it at http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/.

Today I had a really good meeting in London with Dr Paul Davis a seventeenth century specialist. We are working towards a Conference on Milton in this his quartercentenary. Paul has come up with some really interesting ideas about Milton’s views on education. The idea is that we use Milton as a springboard to ask questions of the way we educate, learn and teach today. This promises to be a really interesting one day Conference. More details will follow on this site in the near future.

This week one of the broadsheets carried a story about diocesan reorganization. At present we have what are called ‘flying’ bishops - bishops who act as episcopal supervisors for those who do not approve of the ordination of women. The new proposal - if the paper is correct - is that we have dioceses constituted by people who disapprove of the ordination of women or women in the episcopacy. We might call these diving dioceses, places of an ecclesiastical underworld.

The reporter went on to comment that such a proposal would meet general approval but might be countered by the liberals. Why the liberals? I don’t quite see how the liberal faith can insist on a uniformity of Church practice when it manifestly decries any effort towards uniformity of faith.

Whatever about the liberals, to my mind, makes neither theological nor pragmatic sense. They are both united under the notion of growth: say diocese A becomes the home for the disenchanted; what will happen in five years time when minds have changed? Or what will happen to those folk who currently live within diocese A but who would rather not be part of the home for the disenchanted? I don’t know, flying bishops was a bit of a temporary plaster operation, diving dioceses seems like a chasing after the wind.

The Church of Wales has narrowly defeated a proposal for female bishops. I know that to be true. What I don’t know is what theological arguments have been brought to bear. There is, I believe, an argument against the ordination of women (it is not one I subscribe to, but I think it reasonable, i.e. cogent). When, however, it has been synodically agreed that women may be ordained, I am then unsure as to what theological arguments continue to exist. There are nostalgic arguments for sure. But are these really arguments. I don’t know. Nostalgia is not what it used to be!

The BBC have recently launched yet another ‘Find the Lead’ competition. Kevin Spacey, the well known actor, and current artistic director at the Old Vic has pointed out that these competitions are little more than thirteen week advertisement campaigns. He might also have added that each of the series seem to have something to do with Andrew Lloyd Weber. Is it the case that the BBC are reinventing interest in Lloyd Weber’s old offerings? And if they are, then what is the national interest in so doing?

I have to say, I think Kevin Spacey has a point. One series I can understand, but again and again. Why not look for the lead for the RSC production of Hamlet or an Old Vic staging of Yerma? Even better why not look have the nation vote for the best No. 10 in an English rugby shirt!