The coalition wants to change the 'discriminatory' law of succession and allow any first-born daughter to ascend to the throne. People witlessly nod their heads at the idea that male primogeniture is an 'anachronism'. Mr Murdoch's Sunday Times has decided that such a change would be 'a perfect wedding present' for Prince William and Kate Middleton. I think they'd prefer an electric toaster. Why, after all, is primogeniture itself not an anachronism?
But the Big Society can only work if nonstate institutions, such as the Church, fulfil their role. In education, the Diocese of Westminster has a peculiar idea of how to do this. The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School in west London is, by common consent, its most successful Catholic school.ShareGift takes such shares off you, sells them and distributes the profits to other charities. Five years ago, it had distributed �5 million. Today, the total is �15 million.It has helped 1,750 different charities.It ignores, says my professor, 'the processes of self-selection and selection occurring from age 16, which are the main form of social mobility'. These include staying on in the sixth form, attempting A levels and getting good grades, and deciding to apply to a good university: 'Thus the universes from which choices can be made may rise to about 30-40 per cent independent'. The propaganda picture of 'a tiny noblesse trampling on an enormous peasantry' is false.The Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, says that David Cameron's Big Society has 'no teeth'. He may be right.It has the most valuable of all Big Society assets - the enthusiastic participation of parents. Yet it is this which the diocese dislikes. So determined has it been to avoid appointing governors who are current parents at the school that it has even (successfully) contested a legal action on the subject. The diocese has replaced popular governors with its placemen. What seems to irk the authorities is that this Catholic school is, indeed, Catholic. They want to water down the school's religious character to make it more 'inclusive'. This is part of a wider weirdness in which good schools are seen as divisive just because they are successful. How can the Big Society flourish when its greenest shoots are blighted?Non-functioning wealth has been put to work. There must be a wider lesson here.Compulsion will never come in here.An overall majority for a party backed by fewer than 40 per cent of those voting is dangerous. But I do not want indecision institutionalised: 'Gouverner, c'est choisir'.What should one think about our 'two and-a-half-party system'? Unlike most Tories, I am pleased that our existing system is capable of representing voters' uncertainty by producing no clear result.letter just received from a learned academic correspondent questions the way the figure that only 7.1 per cent of pupils attend independent schools is deployed. It used to argue that their representation at good universities is utterly disproportionate. But that 7.1 per cent is a percentage of the entire school population.Why is succession by blood allowed at all? Once you start asking these questions, it is hard to stop; that is what republicans intend. Luckily, our monarchy is constructed not on rationalist principles but by history. History teaches that a hereditary system must be secured by consent. The method of succession does not matter in itself: what matters is that it is agreed. The idea that the 'rightful' king has been denied his crown can destroy civil peace. It is why the abdication crisis in 1936 was taken so seriously, and why it is malicious to suggest that Prince William should succeed instead of his father. So change is delicate. The notion that reform should be introduced just because it looks 21st century and makes the Liberal Democrats feel a bit happier is pitifully shallow. Luckily, it has to be pondered by all 16 countries of which Elizabeth II is Queen, and it involves amending or repealing the Bill of Rights, the Coronation Oath Act, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Marriage Act, the Union with Ireland Act and the Regency Act. By the way, under the present 'discriminatory' arrangement, queens have reigned for 123 of the past 174 years.As part of the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, the Prince of Wales appears on the internet reading from St John's Gospel, chapter 14. I can't help smiling when he pronounces the words 'In my Father's house are many mansions, ' though (as the Basic English version next to the original reminds us) 'mansions' here means 'rooms' rather than 'stately homes'. It is an excellent lesson for Holy Week, though, being Jesus's words after the Last Supper. The line which follows immediately after '. . . many mansions' is one the most moving in the Bible: 'if it were not so, I would have told you.'Still struggling to summon up my own interest, let alone anyone else's, in the AV referendum, I asked the opinion of the greatest leader to have lived and thrived under AV - John Howard, four times prime minister of Australia, whom I saw in London recently. Mr Howard says: 'The compulsory AV system has worked well in Australia, but it could have unknown consequences in the UK because Britain effectively has a two-and-a-half-party system whereas we have a two-party system.' The word 'compulsory' in his answer reminds one that Australians have, by law, to vote. This seems to have the surprising effect of discouraging support for minor parties.A classic problem for the Big Society is the difficulty of aggregating the tiny contributions of many to achieve critical mass. A trailblazer is the charity, ShareGift, now 15 years old. Contributions from Spectator readers helped get it off the ground following an article I wrote at its inception. ShareGift implements the beautifully simple idea of its chairman, Claire Mackintosh. Lots of people have small parcels of shares which it is not worthwhile to sell because the cost of the commission wipes out the profit.
An overall majority for a party backed by fewer than 40 per cent of those voting is dangerous. But I do not want indecision institutionalised: 'Gouverner, c'est choisir'.
