The Great Easter Debate

The current debate about whether the Christian festival or Easter should be fixed at the same time every year instead of wandering about over a period of weeks as it does now (something to do with the Spring equinox and full moons I think - does it matter?) falls into the same category as many other issues where there it is blindingly obvious that something should be done and the vast majority of people want something to be done, but nobody can actually bring it about. Just to dwell on Easter specifically for a moment, it is absurd that Christians should accept that Christmas falls on the same date every year but that Easter does not (yes, yes, I know the Easter Church has a different Christmas, but it is still on the same date every year), after all, both were specific events which, if they did indeed take place (let’s assume they did)took place at a specific time, and did not somehow wander about. Why is Easter different? An expert I heard recently has established that Good Friday occurred on April 5th, 34 AD, i.e. two days after Passover in that year. Passover, by the way, also wanders about for no apparent reason. That’ll do for me. Apparently the rules governing the date of Easter date back so some sort of convocation of clerics in the Middle Ages. I will leave what I think about that to your imagination. So there is a widespread support for fixing the date of Easter, it will help schools (some of which are no longer basing their Spring holiday on Easter but simply having Good Friday and Easter Monday as separate holidays, very sensible except that it causes problems with kids at different schools), it will help businesses and will also help all those involved in the celebration of Easter including vicars and priests. Above all it would be triumph of logic over superstition and inertia So what has this to do with anything? Well quite a bit actually. It falls into the same category as issues like reforming the House of Lords and abolishing Greenwich Meantime (or is it British Summer Time, whatever, changing the clocks, I mean?) and, stretching the point a little, adopting a more sensible voting system for Westminster. We all know it should be done, most want it done, the world would be improved if it were done, but it never gets done. Sometimes it is arguments over detail that create inertia, as in the case of Lords reform, but generally it is because of a lack of political will. In the end the people who could effect change simply can’t stir themselves to do it. They just can’t be bothered. This means that all the good that can flow from reform is lost. What’s the answer? Sometimes it is a crisis or key event of some kind. For example, had the UK elected a second hung parliament in a row in 2015 the calls for a change to the electoral system might have become unstoppable. Until such occurrences happen we have to listen to the voices that say ‘it ain’t broke so let’s not fix it,’ or ‘it has stood the test of time etc.’ The trouble is, very often it is ‘broke’ and it will not stand the test of time any longer, but still the voices of inertia drone on. In the end only two possibilities are left. One is people power and the other is the emergence of a charismatic figure who can lead us into the light. Sadly most of these issues just aren’t important enough so we will have to muddle along for another thousand years. The really sad thing is that the UK is, at least in name, a parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the power, MPs have little enough to do while they are in London, so it’s up to them to stand up and be counted, show a little chutzpah and get on with it. Otherwise what is the use of parliament if it refuses to do slightly difficult things?