John ‘the rottweiler’ Humphreys showed how difficult it is to break out of the mould this morning as he interviewed the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, on the Today programme. He was pressing her about the Tories’ attitude towards the Human Rights Act and the very different approach they have to it compared to their partners in government, the Lib Dems. Apparently the Tories are very anti while the Lib Dems are very much in favour. In opposition, the Tories had expressed their desire to abolish the act altogether but their new partners believe it is a valuable piece of legislation that ensures our civil liberties. These very different views have now got to be reconciled in government. How is that to be done? Well by setting up a review into the act which will asses its strengths and weaknesses.

But Humphries was having none of it. This attempt at compromise meant that the Tories were merely caving in on a cherished aspect of their policies by even contemplating such a move. They should stick to their guns and insist that the act is abolished – whether the Lib Dems are happy or not. They are the senior partners in this coalition and should act accordingly. Theresa May, however, stuck to her line that since the review has not even begun its’ work it is far too early what action – if any – would be taken on the act. This is a new way of doing politics in this country, she insisted, and it will involve parties discussing and coming to an agreement rather than one party simply forcing its views through the House of Commons.

Now I have to be honest and say I’ve never been a great fan of Ms May – but she seems to have a very valid point here. It seems very reasonable that in this new era of cooperation the two parties in government have to work differently compared to the politics of the past. The country did not vote in one party with an overall majority and the view of the people does need to be reflected in the new government.

But Humphries didn’t seem able to see beyond the old ways of doing things. He seemed stuck in the confrontational, winner-takes-all, politics of the past. In my view he is a brilliant interviewer – but it would appear that he needs to reflect on the dramatic change that has occurred on the British political scene and accept that he too may need to adapt.

Of course, this is something we in Christian circles also need to reflect on – that breaking out of the old mould of church life is a very difficult thing to do. In this post-Christendom era we will not be able to carry on as if nothing has changed. The landscape has been transformed and the church needs to adjust.