Pentecost Did Not Happen At The End Of Acts

..so why assume that it did?

Sunday morning I wasn't feeling well (perhaps a pre-cursor to being taken ill at work on Monday and having to be taken off to A&E). One thing I hate missing on Sunday is church.

Ideally, as an Above Barbarian, it will be my own church, but last Sunday, as I wasn't feeling well enough I decided that I would go along to a nearby Anglican church for its early morning 1662 Book of Common Prayer celebration of the Lord's Supper.

The presbyter preached on Acts 3, noting that Peter was almost nonchalant about the healing of the beggar- God does things like that. And that it was just after Pentecost.

Precisely- it was at Pentecost that we see the dramatic arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), (keep that webpage open as you'll need to refer to it again) and from that point, the Gospel being proclaimed and the church spreading. Pentecost kickstarted the church.

Now, no-one is going round declaring that Pentecost actually happened at the end of Acts, but sometimes we fall into the trap of acting as if it did.

Some years back, I went along to one church's men's group meeting, as it was opening that meeting to men from other churches. The speaker was a bit controversial, but generally good, and one issue was that the church, in general, has lost the young men. To cut a long story short, one reason he gave was the feminisation of the church and he noted that there are New Testament prohibitions on women performing presbyterial or preaching roles.

One vicar stood up to correct him. Yes, there are those passages, but they cannot apply as we now live in the Age of the Spirit. The Old Testament prophet, Joel, had prophesied that one day the Spirit would be poured out on men and women, (Joel 2:28-29) and this has now happened. In the Age of the Spirit God has given the same gifts to men and women, and therefore no ministry roles are off-limits to God's daughters.

Joel's prophesy is referred to by Peter, back in Acts 2:16-18 (you did keep that webpage open, didn't you?). And this leads to my problem with what the vicar said- those words of Joel, which can be used to set aside parts of the New Testament, are fulfilled at the start of Acts, before the events in most of Acts and in the Epistles happened. From Pentecost onwards, surely the Bible is referring to events in the Age of the Spirit. Let's face it- do we see the events of Acts happening today in the "Age of the Spirit"? Do we see these mass conversions, dramatic healings, people being struck dead in punishment etc.? Well, do we?

Let's avoid this arrogant nonsense that somehow, us in the "Age of the Spirit", have a greater experience of the Holy Spirit and know better than men who were merely Apostles and that in Heaven we can gently take Peter, Paul or John to one side and explain to them where they got it wrong.

Yes, there are controversial passages. Wrestle with them, debate them, question what Apostles meant when they wrote things, but don't airily assume that they were writing before the "Age of the Spirit" and so we can just dismiss what is written.

Where does this lead to?

Firstly, the New Testament is reduced to the writings of men rather than the Word of God. Basically, if we are now in the "Age of the Spirit" and can dismiss parts of the New Testament on those grounds, we are reducing it. Yes, it might be inspired, but no more than someone might be inspired to write a poem after seeing a sunrise. Take it or leave it.

How it all came across was that people wrote the New Testament as their own ideas, did missionary journeys in their own strength, and then the Age of the Spirit started, with the fire of the Holy Spirit sweepingt away some of their teachings.

Sometimes New Testament teaching is objected to on the grounds of culture- it offends the values of our modern culture, so therefore, the writers must hsve been prisoners of their culture. If there is a cultural problem, then it is we, rather than the Apostles, who are bringing the cultural prejudices to the table.

The Bible has many roles, and one thing we use it for is to examine our culture with it. We should not use our culture to judge the Bible.

Secondly, it creates the Jesus vs. Paul approach. We all hear the argument- Paul created his own religion, and scrabbled around to throw in some myths about an itinerant Jewish preacher who might, or might not, have ended up being crucified like a common criminal.

This creeps into the church. I had a bit of a Twitter discussion a few months back with one lady who is a bit narked that at her church she is hearing sermons of what Paul teaches, and would prefer it if they could be told what Jesus teaches.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Give us Jesus' teachings, not Paul's!

One of my pet hates are Bibles which put the words of Jesus in red. Because they don't go far enough- instead every single word in the Bible should be in red.

In the past few years, there have been loads of public debates over areas of sexual morality and bioethics. And, quite often, in newspapers, you will see letters that give the knock-down-bet-those-Bible-bashers-stuck-in-the-Middle-Ages-(who-only-believe-what-they-believe-because-this-man-in-the-Vatican-wearing-a-silly-pointy-hat-tells-them-they'll-go-to-hell-if-they-disagree)-won't-be-able-to-answer-that argument, which is simple: Jesus was silent on ...... And then argue from His silence that He would support whatever the liberal stance is, because, hey, Jesus believed in love.

Of course, Jesus was silent on some issues. After all, He was speaking to a Jewish audience, and there was no need to reinvent the moral wheel. If everyone felt that something was wrong, why should He repeat it?

And we need to bear in mind the role of the Holy Spirit. Before His crucifixion, Jesus reminded His disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:7-15) and that He (Jesus) had so much to tell them.

It is also clear that after He rose from the dead, Jesus continued teaching the Apostles (Acts 1:3) and John states that there is probably not enough room in the world for the books that would be written if we recorded all Jesus did even in that 40 day period between the Resurrection and the Axcension (John 21:25). So, basically, the teachings of the New Testament are Jesus's teachings. They are the Word of God. We can't pick and choose and go "Like that bit- that's from God. Don't like that- OK, the writers were culturally bound and we are in the Age of the Spirit so we can ignore it."

Thirdly, and closely associated withn this, it creates a Spirit vs. Bible dichotomy. Yes, we are in the Age of the Spirit, if you mean by that that the Holy Spirit is active in the church. We are also in the Age of the Word. Pentecost happened at the start of Acts. Let's reflect that in how we treat the New Testament.

Government Formation & House of Lords Reform

This week saw the Joint Select Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill produce their report on the Draft Bill.

Just a matter of terminology- looking at the future upper chamber I will use the term Senate to describe the chamber and Senators for its members. Easier to write than "House of Lords" and "members of the House of Lords". In addition, I will use the term "region" to refer to the European constituencies set up by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 and will include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the word "regions"- just to avoid writing "regions and nations".

The first issue I want to look at is that of elections. The Government's proposals were for an 80:20 split, with a 300-member House, so there would be 240 elected Senators and 60 appointed ones. The Committee favours 450 Senators- which would mean 360 elected and 90 appointed Senators. Electing and appointing in thirds would mean that at each General Election, there would be 120 Senators elected and 30 appointed for 15-year terms.

The Governmenr also proposes the use of the Single Transferable Vote system to elect Senators, with districts returning between 5 and 7 Senators. For comparison, the Irish Republic's Dail Eireann has constituencies electing between 3 and 5 Teachta Dala, and Northern Ireland's Assembly uses constituencies that all elect 6 Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Now, the obvious base for the districts are the regions. If the number of Senators is allocated by Saint-Lague, then we get:

South East England- 16

London- 14

North West England- 14

Eastern England- 11

South West England- 11

West Midlands- 11

Scotland- 10

Yorkshire & Humberside- 10

East Midlands- 9

Wales- 6

North East England- 5

Northern Ireland- 3

At first it seems simple- Wales, North East England and Norhern Ireland are all small enough to each form a single district (Northern Ireland is a bit too small, but there is nothing that can be done about that). South East England can be divided into a 6-seater and two 5-seaters. London and North West England can each be split into rwo 7-seaters. Eastern England, South West England and West Midlands can each be split into a 6-seater and a 5-seater. Scotland and Yorkshire & Humberside can each be split into two 5-seaters.

Ah, East Midlands. Too big to be a single district, too small to be split into two districts. The logical solution is to have a Midlands region which would be split into two 7-seaters and a 6-seater.

If the House of Commons is reduced to 600 MPs, then at each election, we would elect 1 Senator for every 5 MPs. So, these districts would have 25 to 35 constituencies in them. In a previous post I had a look whether the Additional Members System might be a way forward for elections to the House of Commons- if so, then Senate districts could function as the areas where the top-up MPs are elected (if we go for 15% of MPs being top-up, then each district could return 4 or 5 top-ups; if we have 20% of MPs being top-up, then each district could return between 5 and 7 top-ups).

With that out of the way, we can then have a look at a possible result. There are some assumptions:

We treat West Midlands and East Midlands as a single region

The share of the vote for each party in a region matches the vote at the corresponding General Election

Within a region, the share of the vote for a party is the same in each district (e.g. if it got 40% of the vote across the region, it got 40% of the vote in each district in the region)

STV is tricky to model, so we will use the d'Hondt system as a first approximation.

So, the rough figures of Senators elected in May 2010 are:

Conservative- 48 (up 10)

Labour- 39 (down 19)

Liberal Democrats- 28 (up 9)

Scottish National Party- 2 (unchanged)

Sinn Fein- 1 (up 1)

Democratic Unionist Party- 1 (up 1)

Social Democratic & Labour Party- 1 (unchanged)

Ulster Unionist Party- 0 (down 2)

You may wonder what I am comparing the changes with. If a Senate is elected in thirds, then these are the changes from the May 1997 election- so, as Labour loses office, Labour Senators elected in the Blair Landslide leave the Senate.

For comparison, the rough result for May 2001 is:

Labour- 54

Conservatives- 38

Liberal Democrats- 22

Scottish National Party- 2

Plaid Cymru- 1

Democratic Unionist Party- 1

Sinn Fein- 1

Ulster Unionist Party- 1

And for May 2005:

Labour- 48

Conservatives- 41

Liberal Democrats- 25

Scottish National Party- 2

Plaid Cymru- 1

Democratic Unionist Party- 1

Sinn Fein- 1

Ulster Unionist Party- 1

Hence, we would expect the current Senate to look something like:

Labour- 141

Conservatives- 127

Independents- 90

Liberal Democrats- 75

Scottish National Party- 6

Democratic Unionist Party- 3

Sinn Fein- 3

Plaid Cymru- 2

Ulster Unionist Party- 2

Social Democratic & Labour Party- 1

Mark Harper, the Minister for Constitutional & Political Reform, made an interesting point about the use of a proportional system:

If you are electing a Government, my own view is that the challenge with voting systems is that the system which you choose should be one that is weighted towards getting a Government with a majority, who are able to take decisions and where the voters are then able to make a judgment at the end of the term of office ... But if you have a revising or scrutiny Chamber where you do not want the Government to have a majority, you need to use a different voting system. If you were to have first past the post for a second Chamber, all you would do is create a replica of the first Chamber and you would have one of two outcomes. Depending on when you had the elections, you would either give the Government of the day a majority in the second House, in which case there would be little point in having one, or you would give the Opposition a majority ... you would then set up a bloc in the upper House of people who were fundamentally opposed to the proposals that the Government were bringing forward because they were of a different political party

So, the Conservatives- despite opposing proportionality- are fairly relaxed about its use for the Senate as a Senate does not support a Government. Basically, the House of Commons can ultimately bring down a Government, and indeed there are clauses in the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 which enable it to cause a premature general election. Harper's stance is quite logical- First Past The Post tends to lead to single-party majority Government (although, that statement might now be viewed as anachronistic!), snd if used for the Senate would either give s Senate controlled by the Government (so what's the point?) or controlled by the Opposition (so blocking the Government). Americans will be used to the gridlock that can occur, when- as now- the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by different parties.

The House of Lords is, however, a permanently-hung Parliament by design. No single party controls it. To get legislation through quickly, you need to win the arguments, rather than the whipping system. Yes, there are whips, but what's the worst they can do? Deprive you of the whip? For an MP that is nearly always fatal, but someone in the upper chamber cannot seek re-election.

There are a couple of things I need to mention on Harper's remarks. Firstly, we don't elect a Government- I wince whenever I read that so-and-so was elected as Prime Minister. We elect a Parliament.

Secondly, if we are entering a period of hung House of Commons, then it is possible that the Senate is in the hands of the Government, and could this influence what shape a Government is?

After the 2010 election, there were coalition negotiations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats- a majority Government wouldn't have been possible, and a minority Government would have been having to make deals with minor parties and one-woman bands to survive.

But, now suppose Labour said something like this:

Yes, of course you and the Conservatives have an overall majority in the House of Commons. But look at the Senate. There are all those Labour Senators elected when we had our 2001 and 2005 victories. You and the Conservatives only have 202 Senators between you- with Sinn Fein not taking their seats, there are 447 Senators and you need 224 for a majority. But our two parties have 216 Senators between us. We can form deals with Plaid Cymru, with the Social Democratic & Labour Party, with the Democratic Unionist Party, just as we can in the House of Commons. That's 6 Senators, bringing us to 222. And we only need a couple of Independents, or the Ulster Unionist Party would do- not all of them support this Ulster Conservatives & Unionists New Force twaddle, ....

So, Harper might be wrong. If FPTP gives hung Parliaments, then a Senate elected by STV could be a carbon-ish copy of the Commons. Coalition-forming would look carefully at the composition of both chambers of Parliament.

I'm Not Ready

Today has been an odd day- even by my standards.

Over the past few months, I have had dizzy spells, which remain unexplained. One clue comes from a different angle- last year I had to have 24-hour blood pressure monitoring, which involves a cuff round your upper arm that inflates and takes the reading every 30 minutes during the day, and every hour during the night. Just before one of those times, I was feeling dizzy while out walking and had to rest against a building- and then the cuff inflated. A few days later when I was seeing my GP about the results, she noted that there was one blood pressure reading that was the lowest of the waking period, and that it was much lower than the ones either side, I pointed out that this was the reading taken during my dizzy spell.

Just after lunchtime at work, I went off to the loo, but was feeling as if I might be sick. Returning, I felt I could't walk further and sat down on a chair. After a few minutes, as I was feeling hotter and dizzier, I made my way back to my office. Someone got me a glass of water, and fetched a First Aider.

I felt that I was about to collapse, and on top of that, the left hand side of my chest had a sharp pain that was growing, and this scared me. The First Aider suggested I sit on the floor, which I did, but had a curious sense that I was going to fall over further (how you can actually do this while already on the floor is something I don't know). She suggested we make our way to one of the rooms off the canteen, which are cooler. I noticed one of my friends in the canteen and called him over, on the grounds (wussy I know) that I would feel better with someone I know well sitting with me. While sitting there, I felt it was going darker as if the room was closing in on me.

The First Aider decided to take us through to Reception, and decided that as I was having these chest pains getting worse, that she would call an ambulance and sent my friend off to get the building defibrillator, just as a precaution. And when he had done that, he was sent off to guide the ambulance to the right entrance.

The next stage was for the paramedics to take me into the ambulance, where I, of course, had to remove my shirt and lie on the stretcher. My blood pressure was measured, I had an ECG, and the most painful bit of all was having my finger pricked for some blood to measure blood sugar levels. I was given aspirin to chew (was told it is more effective chewed than swallowed).

Then we were off. Two positive signs:

The blue light was not going

We were going to Accident & Emergency. This might not sound good at first, but if it had been a suspected heart attack we would have gone straight to Coronary Care

We get to A&E and I am put in a room. The nurse does another blood pressure reading and ECG and then tells me I need to have a blood test.

This is the one thing that terrifies me. Don't know why- even hearing people talk about blood tests makes me feel queasy. I explained this to him (snd advised him, that when he writes up the patient notes, that "wuss" is spelt W-U-S-S), so he sprayed my arm with some sort of anaethsetic and prepared to put The Needle in.

I always assumed that I would respond to having a blood test done by throwing up. I never suspected that, as he approached with The Needle, that I would get cramp in my right leg, leap off the bed and start hopping around.

I get woken up with cramp quite often, and my immediate, almost unconscious, reaction is to leap out of bed and hop around.

My right leg started to feel better, so I got back on the bed, and he approached again with The Needle.

Then I got cramp in my left leg.

After I finished my hopping around and was back on the bed, The Needle was..

OK, I;ll skip that bit as I would feel queasy continuing. But I wasn't sick.

Then the doctor turned up, and had a listen to my back and chest with his stethoscope, and did some pressing down on my chest and stomach and said he would be back after the blood test results were available.

Spent the next couple of hours drifting in and out of sleep, my fear subsiding. Then the doctor arrived with the results- namely, nothing.

Yes, the enlarged left ventricle that had been known about since I'd had a routine ECG at work a few years back is still enlarged, but nothing other than that. The chest pain is musculo-skeletal in all likelihood (perhaps I did more than dislocate my shoulder in my treadmill accident- and, as it was only the right side of my chest and right shoulder that got X-rayed, nothing on the left side would have been picked up; or perhaps it as I have been carrying my rucksack on my left shoulder rather than my back since the accident) and is not heart-related. The dizzy spells could be a variety of reasons, and today was just a combination of those chest pains with a bad dizzy spell.

Now, some thoughts. For the first time I can remember- I was seriously thinking that I was going to die. I have had a couple of near-misses caused by other people, those moments when you realise that someone else's actions could have killed you. The first was several years ago when living in Andover and someone threw a stone through my bedroom window, sending glass flying (some onto my pillow and bedspread. If it had come through a few degrees one side or the other...). The second was a couple of years back when I was walking in Southampton and one of these aggressive footpath-cyclists felt I was not getting out of his way quick enough and shoved me into a main road (if I had not got back up and onto the footpath in time...)

And with that has come the realisation that I am less ready than King Ethelred. For me, growing up (and being a Boy Scout), it was important to be ready.

Now, you might think from what I have said that I have somehow lost my faith in the Resurrection of Jesus. Not at all- I remain confident that upon death I will end up in Heaven. However, for Christians there is that tension we live with, that we live in this world and the next.

Just this feeling that I am not ready. A chance to think that, as I approach 40, have I actually achieved anything for God? Has there been any fellow Christian's life where I have actually made a difference? Is there anyone I have moved even a short way along the path of accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour? Would I die without ever having taken the opportunity to make a difference?

Why I Cried At Bowling

No, it wasn't the pain in my shoulder. Thursday evening I walked down to Millbrook to go tenpin bowling with a group of Christian men, most of whom I'd never met before.

One of them I had met before, at an Christian men's camp which left me totally stressed out (and which I eventually fled) and he was one of the few who was supportive at that time.

He was organising a bowling evening for his church's men's group and when I heard of it, I emailed to ask if I could tag along. And I could.

I don't know why, but suddenly I looked round and thought of something. We read in Ephesians 5:25 that Jesús loved the church and gave Himself for her. But it's more than that.

You can give your life for your country, but are unlikely to know the names of everyone in that country. With Jesus it is very different.

You who are getting zeroes with most bowls- you're precious to Jesus, He knows you by name, and He died for you.

Paul- you're precious to Jesus, He knows you by name, and He died for you.

Tim- you're precious to Jesus, He knows you by name, and He died for you.

Kevin- you're precious to Jesus, He knows you by name, and He died for you.

You who I never got round to chatting to- you're precious to Jesus, He knows you by name, and He died for you.

And that's why I started crying. If we are Christians, then we are precious to Jesus. We are not strangers to Him, He won't ask, "sorry, do I know you?", and He chose to die for us.

The Thompson Paradox And How PR Suffers From Bad PR

I was struck by an interesting post called I, for one, welcome our new UKIP overlords by Liberal Democrat blogger Mark Thompson.

This can be summed up as:

Some opinion polls put UKIP ahead of the Liberal Democrats

The impact of this would be that UKIP would probably have no seats

What would the response be from the eurosceptic press and the Conservative party?

One thing to note is that in opinion polls, the Liberal Democrat vote has plummeted. My gut feeling is that Liberal Democrat voters who are opposed to the Government will have defected to Labour already, and what is left are those who are instinctively on the right of the party, those who are Liberal Democrats till they die, and those who feel that the Government is giving the Liberal Democrats that chance to show they are a serious power of Government.

I was one of the few Conservatives to campaign in favour of the Alternative Vote and to vote in favour of it, with one my arguments being that on Friday 8 May 2015, Conservatives will see Ted Miliband stride into Number 10 after a meeting with the Queen at Buckingham Palace, and- as they reflect on the centre-right vote being divided between the Conservatives, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats, while (apart from a few Liberal Democrats, Respect and nationalist parties) Labour has the centre-left vote pretty much united- will regret the fact that they voted against AV as they think about all those lovely second preferences from UKIP and Liberal Democrat voters that under First Past The Post can never be cast.

I note that UKIP backed AV, but I think, ultimately support the Alterative Vote Plus system recommended by the Jenkins Commission. Last year I noted how AV could help eurosceptic Conservatives who might be leaning to UKIP and actually help both the Conservatives and UKIP.

One reason for hostility towards UKIP is the idea that they are vote-splitters. And that is one problem with FPTP- yes, you might vote UKIP, but in doing so, you are reducing the Conservative majority over a Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate in your constituency, and if enough others do the same, the Conservatives will lose the seat. The battle is between heart (backing UKIP) and head (wanting the Conservatives to win rather than Labour or the Liberal Democrats). One thing I would point out to eurosceptic Conservatives considering UKIP is that under AV you have the best of both worlds. When you enter the polling booth, your heart can seize the pencil and put 1 against the UKIP candidate and then pass the pencil to your head which puts 2 against the Conservative candidate. Result- you have sent a message about how strongly you feel about the European Union and you have helped elect a Conservative MP.

There is one thing that causes confusion in debates over proportional representation, which is there is no system called "proportional representation". Sometimes, there is this attitude which can be summed up as Alternative Vote is Single Transferable Vote is List PR is Additional Members System is Supplementary Vote and it's all very-terribly-complicated with funny foreign names like d'Hondt and Saint-Lague, it's how Johnny Foreigner votes, and why-oh-why-oh-why can't we stick with the system which William the Conqueror introduced and has served us well since 1066, and by the way what the heck is a Droop quota when it's at home?. We saw this approach from the NO2AV lobby- I was always a bit perplexed that AV was so unpopular that only Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia use it, while it was AV which caused the political instability in Italy.

It's this approach which bungs everything that is different together under the term "proportional representation"- and then hunts for the minority of cases where "proportional representation" gives an odd consequence to argue that we should keep the system we have been using since the February 1950 general election.

No, I didn't mean to type "1850" or "1750". 1950- the first time that we had a House of Commons composed of single-member constituencies elected by FPTP, thanks to the Representation of the People Act 1948.

The traditional, until well into the 19th century, method of electing MPs was in constituencies which generally returned 2 MPs by the Multi-Member Plurality method, familiar to people who vote in some local council elections. Vote for 2 candidates, and the 2 with the most votes are elected.

The change was with the Representation of the People Act 1867 (covering just England and Wales) and the accompanying Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1867 and Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1867. At the November/December 1868 general election, this saw a change in two directions:

The rise of the single-member constituencies that we all know and love (?) today.

The rise of three-member constituencies and a four-member constituency, elected by the Limited Vote- whereby if a constituency returns n MPs, you vote for n-1 candidates.

The next big change was the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 which meant that, from the November/December 1885 general election, one-member constituencies were the norm- and the Limited Vote's brief existence ended as the three- and four-member constituencies were either hacked apart or saw their representation decreased.

AV enters the picture in the parliamentary process that led to the Representation of the People Act 1918, with a Speaker's Conference recommending the end of FPTP and MMP:

In urban areas the use of STV in consttuencies that would return 3 to 7 MPs.

In rural areas, single-member constituencies using AV to elect their MP.

The House of Commons rejected the use of STV (except for university constituencies) but backed AV by 1 vote. So, by the time the Bill went to the House of Lords, the form was:

University constituencies using STV

Multi-member non-university constituencies using MMP

Single-member constituencies using AV

The House of Lords had a different mind, and reintroduced STV but rejected AV, so the Bill that was returned to the Commons was in the form:

Multi-member constituencies (both university and non-university) using STV

Single-member consituencies using FPTP

One thing that is very important to notice is that both the House of Commons and House of Lords supported a preferential voting system- the clash was over how that was to happen. Similar to the House of Commons vote on reform of the House of Lords in March 2007 where a majority of MPs backed an elected element of the House of Lords, yet could not agree on what proportion of Lords should be elected.

The Act was busy with introducing other things, such as an extension of the franchise (including, for the first time, to women), so- to avoid parliamentary deadlock- AV was dropped and STV was introduced for university constituencies.

Rather than being a funny foreign invention, AV was a system chosen by the House of Commons. Not only that- for over a third of a century, its close cousin STV was actually used to elect a handful of MPs.

That gets the British history out of the way. However, there are, of course, objections to any form of electoral reform. I was discussing this yesterday with someone who has- since the general election of May 1955, voted Conservative at every national, local or European election (except for voting Green at the June 2004 and June 2009 European elections as he feels Caroline Lucas was doing a good job as a Member of the European Parliament). And his objections to electoral reform are summed up as:

We have seen, since the May 2010 general election, what proportional representation would lead to every time, with "the tail wagging the dog" and Prime Minister David Cameron having to give in to the Liberal Democrats all the time

Supporters of proportional representation should look at Italy, the inevitable chaos which electoral reform leads to

Under proportional representation you cannot remove an unpopular government.

These are, of course, familiar examples, given as standard defences of FPTP. But, let's unpack them,

UKIP appear to be doing better than the Liberal Democrats in the polls. Why, if the first point is correct, could this be? The thing is, the Liberal Democrats have seen their support fallen as they have had to make compromises. But, if Cameron is just their puppet Prime Minister, and the Lord President of the Council Nick Clegg is the man really in charge, with the ultimate sanction of forming a coalition with Labour, then why weren't tuition fees abolished? Why did Cameron exercise his veto at the European Council in December?

And if Cameron is the Liberal Democrats' prisoner, then he can, at times, seem a willing and enthusiastic one, going way beyond the Stockholm syndrome. Evem as Leader of the Opposition, he was calling himself a "liberal conservative". Clegg wasn't even Liberal Democrat leader when Cameron turned into a devout husky-hugger. Environmentalism? That's in Cameron's philosophy, rather than foisted on him by the Liberal Democrats. Reform of the House of Lords- the latest hot potato? Yes, a long-standing Liberal Democrat dream, but the Conservatives promised "to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current house of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence."

Italy is, of course, the example, of what proportional representation is supposed to lead to. Unstable, permanently changing government, as parties throw a strop and bring down the government yet again. Whenver it is expressed, it may sound as if a minor party forms a coalition with left, flounces out, forms one with the right, then flounces out of that, being in a permanent crossing.

But Italy is not like that. In some countries, there have been changes of government by the junior coalition partner changing sides. In the old West Germany, the October 1980 election to the Bundestag saw the sitting coalition of the Social Democrats (with 218 seats) and Free Democrats (with 53 seats) defeat the opposition Christian Democrats (with 226 MPs- Christian Democratic Union 174, Christian Social Union 52). However, in October 1982, the Free Democrats formed a coalition with the Christian Democrats- without a general election (which was not until March 1983).

The 1983 election was interesting:

Christian Democrats- 244 (CDU 191, CSU 53)

Social Democrats- 193

Free Democrats- 34

Greens- 27

Note the arrival of the Greens, which changes everything. The Free Democrats no longer hold the "balance of power" as a Social Democrat/Free Democrat majority government is not possible. Once more than one medium-sized party is on the scene, or even a number of small parties, then what we find is that the parliamentary arithmetic, together with which parties cannot get on with each other, produce one possible government (e.g. a Labour/Liberal Democrat one after the Scottish Parliament elections of 1999 and 2003 was the only feasible option).

The Irish Republic, our nearest neighbour, elects its Dail Eireann by STV, but rather than be unstable, there has been only one mid-term change recently. In November 1992, the election to the Dail Eireann gave this result:

Fianna Fail- 68

Fine Gael- 45

Labour- 33

Progressive Democrats- 10

Democratic Left- 4

Greens- 1

Independents (including the Ceann Comhairle- 5

The Ceann Comhairle is the Speaker of the Dail. They are automatically returned at the general election, and normally resign as Ceann Comhairle when the Dail meets for the first time and returns to their previous party affiliation while the Dail elects their successor. This election was unusual for two reasons. Firstly, the sitting Ceann Comhairle, Sean Treacy, a Teachta Dala for Tipperary South, was an Independent when elected Ceann Comhairle anyway, and he was also, unusually, re-elected by the Dail rather than stepping down.

With 165 voting TDs, 83 are needed for a majority. The sitting Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat coalition only had 78. Fine Gael and Labour, if they had re-created their traditional alliance, would only have had 78 TDs as well, but could have formed a majority with the Progressive Democrats.

However, Fianna Fail and Labour formed a coalition. But, in November 1994, Labour pulled out and the following month a Fine Gael/Labour/Democratic Left coalition was formed. It may look as if this would be a minority one (only 82 TDs), but at by-elections in June 1994, Fianna Fail lost one seat to each of Fine Gael (Mayo West) and the Democratic Left (Dublin South Central), and in November 1994 Fine Gael won Cork South Central from the Progressive Democrats in a by-election.

The next election in June 1997 gave:

Fianna Fail- 77

Fine Gael- 54

Labour- 17

Progressive Democrats- 4

Democratic Left- 4

Greens- 2

Sinn Fein- 1

Socialists- 1

Independents- 6

This was an unusual election, in which the sitting Ceann Comhairle retired and did not exercise his right to automatic re-election to the Dail. After the Dail assembled, Labour's Seamus Pattison was elected Ceann Comhairle.

The combined Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left total was 74 TDs- not enough for a majority, and the result was a Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat minority government.

The 1992 and 1997 elections are both ones where sitting coalition governments lost their majority and were replaced just after the election- the first one where the junior (not the senior) coalition partner was replaced, and the second one where there was a complete change.

Back to Italy. Does Italy show that proportional representation is a motorway with no exits heading to complete chaos? Does the Italian example show that if we ever had proportional representation, we would see a Conservative/Liberal Democrat government, then the Liberal Democrats flouncing out after a few months and forming a coalition with Labour, then having a strop and returning to the Conservatives, etc. etc. etc.?

Well, no. Because that wasn't the Italian example. Note that in the Irish election of 1992, the senior coalition partner could ditch its junior partner and find another- and indeed, from 1997 to 2011 Fianna Fail dominated Irish politics and chose its partner(s).

From the founding of the Italian Republic in July 1946 to Silvio Berlusconi becoming Prime Minister in May 1994, the Italian government was basically the Christian Democrats and friends. The Christian Democrats were the major player, and produced most of the Prime Ministers, sometimes allowing a junior partner to hold the premiership for a few months. Yes, junior partners came and went. but the Christian Democrats simply found others or continued as a minority government alone.

Of course, once you point out that Italy was actually stable, you get a response along the lines of "Proves it! You can't kick the buggers out under proportional representation".

Well, let's look at that again. And let's return to the Bundestag, and look at the September 1998 election, as the sitting Christian Democrat/Free Democrat coalition (the one formed way back in 1982) sees if the German people will let it see in the new century:

Social Democrats- 298

Christian Democrats- 245 (CDU 198, CSU 47)

Greens- 47

Free Democrats- 43

Democratic Socialists- 36

With 669 representatives, 335 are needed for a majority. And, with 288 between them, the sitting government has been defeated. The Germans have, indeed, kicked the buggers out.

But there's more to it than that. The Social Democrats need another 37 representatives- and it can do that by either forming a government with the Greens or the Free Democrats. The Social Democrats have clearly won- and rather than the tail wagging the dog, this dog gets to choose its tail.

The supreme example of kicking the buggers out is the Irish example. The May 2007 general election saw the Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat coalition that had been in power since 1997 seek a third term:

Fianna Fail (including the Ceann Comhairle)- 78

Fine Gael- 51

Labour- 20

Greens- 6

Sinn Fein- 4

Progressive Democrats- 2

Independents- 5

The coalition had 79 TDs, and the Greens joined the government to give it a majority of just 5. But things started going badly. In June 2009, Fine Gael win the Dublin South by-election from Fianna Fail (which had been vacant for 11 months!). In November 2009, the Progressive Democrats ceases to exist, with its two TDs, Noel Grealish in Galway West, and Mary Harney (at the time the Minister for Health) in Dublin Mid West, becoming Independents. In November 2010, Sinn Fein win the Donegal South West by-election from Fianna Fail (which had been vacant for 17 months!!). In addition, there were Fianna Fail TDs choosing to become Independents.

Yes, a party may dominate the system under proportional representation. But when its time is up, it goes down the tube, whether Italy's Christian Democrats or the Irish Republic's Fianna Fail.

And in January 2011, the Greens pulled out of the coalition. Theoretically, a Fine Gael/Labour/Green/Sinn Fein coalition (with a majority of 1) was possible at this point, but there was an election in February 2011:

Fine Gael- 76

Labour- 37

Fianna Fail (including the Ceann Comhairle)- 20

Sinn Fein- 14

Socialist- 2

People Before Profit- 2

Workers & Unemployed Action Group- 1

Independents- 14

The Fianna Fail meltdown appears not to be over- in October 2011, they lost the Dublin West by-election to Labour.

What conclusions can be drawn about "proportional representation"?:

In a two-large two-medium party system, it can lead to there being only one viable government

Once you get to the stage of a two-large three-medium party system, it can lead to a clear winner which then has its choices as to coalition partner(s)

In line with the above, it can lead to stable long-term goverments

A government can be kicked out- either partly (where it has to look for additional coaliton partners, or where the senior coalition partner has to look for an alternative to its junior psrtner(s)) or totally (where a new government takes over)

Is there actually a future for electoral reform? Possibly- but what form would it take?

Note that there has been loads of electoral reform- just not for the House of Commons. The process was started with the Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act 1998 introducing the Additional Members System for their devolved legislatures. It seems that electoral reform is following two trajectories.

It is in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that we see those two trajectories happen in tandem. The first is the Assembly itself- 14 elected by FPTP in constituencies, and 11 by AMS. That Act- unlike the Scottish and Welsh ones- created a 5% threshhold, so a party that got less than 5% of the vote wasn't entitled to any top ups. In May 2000, the Christian People's Alliance would have got a seat if it weren't for the threshhold (it went to the Conservatives) and in June 2004 it was the British National Party and Respect that were hit by it (the seats they would have won without the threshhold went to Labour and the Liberal Democrats instead).

But that Act created the first directly-elected Mayor in the United Kingdom, elected by the Supplementary Vote. Not perfect, but it deals with one of the common objections to AV- namely that third-placed (or lower candidates) can be elected and that some people end up seeing their third (or lower) preferences used to elect MPs. SV prevents this- the winner will be the person who comes either first or second in first-preference votes, and you only get two preferences.

So, perhaps, the next time electoral reform is tried, it will be SV- which is at least in use in the United Kingdom (and as more and more cities get elected mayors, more people become au fait with how it works).

But that won't answer the Thompson Paradox- is it fair if UKIP gets more votes than the Liberal Democrats but no seats? SV won't help them.

Maybe in those circumstances, the centre-right press will note that AMS has helped the Conservatives in both Scotland and Wales, helping us to get a number of representatives broadly in line with our vote (indeed in the first Scottish Parliament election of May 1999, the Conservatives got 15.6% of the constituency vote but no constituency Members of the Scotrish Parliament, while the Liberal Democrats got only 14.2% and 12 constituency MSPs, which can be compared with the Scottish National Party's 28.7% and only 7 constituency MSPs). Would they see AMS as a way to resolve the Paradox, giving UKIP some top-up MPs?

The Scottish and Welsh experience gives another reason why the Conservatives should look at AMS. Yes, in those countries, they are hammered hard by FPTP, but elsewhere it works in their favour. This seems to be thing from the main parties- hope that the working-in-your-favour parts of the nation more than cancel out the FPTP-treats-us-badly areas. The Conservatives want to represent the whole United Kingdom and be a One Nation party. To do that you have to represent everyone. As many people as possible should have a Conservative MP (and yes, as many people as possible should have a Labour MP and Liberal Democrat MP). AMS ensures that most regions- if not all- would have top-up MPs from the main parties. Wherever the area is that is being affected, every main party would have at least one sitting MP there able to talk about it in the House of Commons. Conservative MPs would be representing northern industrial heartlands, Labour MPs would be representing the rural areas of England. To do well, you can't concentrate on key marginals, you have to target everywhere.

The Jenkins Commission recommended that reasonable proportionality would need between 15% and 20% of MPs elected on the top-up section. With 600 MPs, this would range from 480 constituencies-120 additional to 510 constituencies-90 additional.

The regions are now more familiar- we use them for European elections- than they were when the Jenkins Commission reported, so these seem logical areas for the top-up MPs (we are already used to MEPs representing the whole of these areas). What about the constituencies?

Well, looking at our longer parliamentary history, is there any reason why they should all be single-member. There could be various permutations:

single-member constituencies across the country (FPTP, SV or AV)

multi-member constituencies across the country (STV, MMP, LV)

a mixture of single- and mult-member constituencies

7 Weeks On

I have to wait till 2016 for the first anniversary of my little gym accident.

Next month I am off to Hawai'i, to observe the transit of Venus and decided that I needed to get well, beach fit, beforehand. Hence increasing my visits to the gym.

You know how sometimes you try to self-improve and it all goes horribly pear-shaped? That was me- also probably going pear-shaped myself through lack of exercise.

I don't normally try the treadmill. And don't know why I made the foolish mistake to. What makes a treadmill unique is what happens when you fall....

Merrily running along at not a particulary fast speed. There must have been something about how I put my foot down- I think it landed on the non-moving bit next to the belt- and down I went. And I must have landed on my right shoulder.

Two things were noticeable immediately:

In classic You've Been Framed style, I slid off the back of the treadmill.

I was aware that I couldn't move my right arm.

The guy on the next treadmill stopped what he was doing and helped me back to my feet and then helped me over to the area where all the chairs were where some people hang out post-workout, and a member of staff came over.

When I put my left hand on my right shoulder, I was aware that the shoulder seemed a bit higher than it should be, and my right arm seemed to be at an odd angle. I knew then that I had dislocated my shoulder.

One of the other men in the post-workout area took my swipe card and got all my things from my locker for me.

The member of staff told me that they have people fall over on the treadmill quite frequently, but he would have to call paramedics. They took about 15 minutes to arrive (in the meantime, another member of staff had got me a Lucozade to drink). I assumed they would simply put my shoulder back in, but no, I would have to go to the local hospital for that, so had to go down to the ambulance. Although, once just outside the gym, I stopped to point out Venus and Jupiter. I always think it's important to get one's priorities straight.

Then there is the sitting in the ambulance while they take down your details and details of your GP and what medicines you take (I could remember the names of 2 of my 3 inhalers for my asthma, and we had a guessing game while they tried to work out the 2 types of tablets I have for high blood-pressure from my attempts to pronounce them). And then we go off to A&E.

This then means being in a queue while other people go through triage, and I realised just how lucky I was, given that I was the only patient not on a stretcher. Ses the triage nurse and then it's walking down to one of the A&E wards where I have to lie on one of the beds, which is actually quite painful- I was more comfortable standing or sitting.

One question I get asked is whether I live on my own. I assumed that this was in case they needed to contact anyone. There was actually another reason...

The next thing is being wheeled down to X-ray for a couple of shoulder X-rays and then back to A&E where I am given morphine to drink.

Then it's time to have the shoulder put back in. This doesn't hurt, as I was given "gas & air" (if you've ever been in labour you'll know what I'm talking about) to breath as the shoulder was put back in. How the nurse managed it with the floor wobbling and the room spinning slightly, I'll never know.

I was wheeled back for another X-ray, and then told it was OK. My right arm was put in a sling and I was told that I should be back to normal in 6 weeks (so, by 11 April).

The next bit surprised me- I had mentioned I lived on my own. Apparently, if you've been given morphine, they cannot let you be on your own that night. Did I have anyone I could stay at?- if not I would have to spend the night in hospital.

Now, I can be a stroppy libertarian at time, believing that adults are adults and should be treated at adults. Just tell me the risks of being on my own, and I will decide whether I want to take the risk- and if something goes wrong it's my own fault. However, they cannot accept that, so I relented and phoned my dad. By this time, it was 3 hours after my accident. He came over and collected me and I spent the night at my parents'.

There is one other result of living alone- you do things for yourself as no-one else will suddenly appear and do them for you. I did go into work the day after my accident, despite being in pain (and could type, just slowly, with only my left hand), because I think it's one of the attitudes someone living on their own develops- just get up and get on with things rather than waiting for someone else to do them for you.

That is probably one factor in why recovery is a bit slower. I still have to cook, shop etc. Yes, some things had to be done left-handed, but still had to do things rather than rest my arm.

When I saw the specialist, he was clear that there was more tissue damage than at first thought.

It hurts when I try to put my arm behind myself too far (so putting on a rucksack is a bit tricky) and can't raise it too high above my shoulder (so have to avoid worshipping at charismatic churches). Also when I sleep- I have a tendency to roll over onto my right side, so end up lying on my arm and that means it hurts a fair bit when I wake up.

But, slowly recovering.

Believing Thomas

In the New Testament, we come across Thomas the Apostle, who sadly gets a bad image, as the "Doubting Thomas".

And the incident which led to this is in John 20:24-29, where Thomas encounters Jesus for the first time since the resurrection. The first time I had this explained to me, the explanation was that in verse 29 Jesus is comparing (and rebuking) Thomas- who needed to see before he believed- and the Ten- who didn't need to see Jesus before believing.

The first thing to note was that the level of proof Thomas wanted was quite high- not just to see Jesus, but to actually touch His wounds. And Jesus invites Thomas to do just that. There is no exasperated "Oh, Thomas. Just have faith", but a willingness to provide the evidence Thomas wants. This is the Jesus who tell us that if we seek we will find (Matthew 7:7), the God who tells us that if we seek Him with all our heart we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13-14). Yet, being offered this level of proof, Thomas doesn't take it- he believes because he has seen.

The second thing to note is that straight after this, John enters commentary mode, and explains in verses 30 and 31 why he wrote this Gospel. Jesus has just declared that those who have not seen, yet believe, will be blessed. This is not Jesus saying that the best faith is the blind faith. John seems to take Jesus' words and make clear that, yes, Jesus is addressing the Eleven, but He is also addressing us. John seems to be effectively saying "Here are the reasons for believing in Jesus. This has been written so you may believe. This is the Jesus that millions will live and die for."

The third thing is to ask whether the Ten actually did believe without seeing. In Matthew 28:17 we have this interesting little bit, often overshadowed by concentrating on Jesus telling the disciples to spread the Gospel to the ends of the Earth while He will be with them to the end of the age. And that is the little bit that some still had doubts. So, among the Eleven, there must have been some for whom seeing still wasn't enough. Moreover, in Luke 24, the Apostles have the testimony of the ladies who visited the tomb (vv. 10-11 shows the Apostles thought it was "idle talk") and of those on the Emmaus Road (vv. 33-35), yet when Jesus appears to them, they believe He is a ghost.

So, we shouldn't condemn or mock Thomas, when other Apostles showed the same attitude as he did. And, while Peter has acknowledged that Jesus is the Messiah (Matthew 16:16)- and then immediatley demonstrates (v. 22) that he has a wrong assumption about what the Messiah will do- it is Thomas who first declares that Jesus is "My Lord and my God."