Once, a marriage announcement was a reason for celebration; now, it's a cause of embarrassment. God forbid Ed Miliband's forthcoming nuptials should offend anyone and lose him a single vote. Here's the deal: he's not bothering with a best man. There won't be a big party. In fact, the couple are not even going to stay the night at the nice hotel where they're having a small reception. and any honeymoon (however modest) will probably be postponed. I doubt Justine will wear white. She probably won't buy a new dress but do a bit of recycling. In other words, it's going to be a low-key event, in complete contrast with the royals.  So is this wedding a sign of the times? Mr Miliband claims that he proposed ages ago and hadn't got round to organising the formalities because he was "too busy". He's not exactly handing out a ringing vote of confidence in the institution of marriage - in fact, his pathetic stance sums up our "whatever" society. When asked if he thought marriage was a good idea, he told one interviewer: "It's up to everyone to do what they think is right." Talk about hedging your bets.  What's so wrong with saying, "I am proud to be getting married" and "I want my kids to grow up with a mum and dad. I think marriage is a good framework for raising families"? Rest assured, those words will never pass Ed Miliband's lips. In modern society, saying you believe in marriage is more shocking than saying you've snacked on crack. If David Cameron says (as he has on many occasions) that he thinks marriage is an important institution, it's all too predictable that Cleggie and Milibandroid would never dare to concur. agreement in politics stinks of emasculation.  You could say they're only reflecting public opinion - statistics suggest that marriage has never been more unpopular, and the average age for women tying the knot has risen steadily to 30, and for men, 32. One theory is we've dumped marriage in favour of having fun. Why make sacrifices or reduce your life choices to be with just one individual? There's a bizarre idea that marriage means the end of the impromptu, enjoyable stage of your life, and the beginning of the dark, dreary years. Spend your twenties out with your mates - drinking, shopping, working, putting yourself first - and sod monogamy. But look at the result: huge numbers of single mums, kids with no rules at home, and parents who don't want the responsibility.  Is it reactionary of me to expect political leaders to offer some kind of role model to the people they are paid to represent? Why can't Ed Miliband celebrate marriage, instead of treating it like another bullet point to be ticked off on his carefully crafted political agenda? He's certainly put work first - being "busy" getting elected leader of the Labour party, attending the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, making a speech to the protesters on the anti-cuts march last weekend. But he wasn't too busy to sire two children, and, once he was a dad, shouldn't his family have been considered before everything else?  Labour has always claimed to be the party that stands up for women, but its leaders seem weirdly reluctant to endorse marriage, the single act that makes women equal. Most women with children would secretly prefer to be married: it gives them financial and emotional stability and ensures maintenance if they are dumped. If fewer people are getting married, perhaps Miliband dared not risk alienating them by appearing too enthusiastic for this arcane institution.  How we regard marriage is more complex than the statistics imply, however. Most of middle England - the people who vote, not the young - still value marriage highly. If Ed Miliband cares about women's rights, then he should endorse marriage because it ensures children will be protected by law and, in the event of a marriage failing, women will be able to obtain a better settlement. Living together gives dads no guarantee that in the event of a relationship ending they will get access to their children without spending a great deal of money on legal fees. Miliband should grow up and endorse marriage. What's wrong with moral leadership?  Tell us about your cancer, men, but not your sex lives  Did andrew Lloyd Webber stop and think before he told Piers Morgan and a television studio full of strangers that his operation for prostate cancer had left him unable to have sex? I wonder what the impact of the revelation has been on his wife, Madeleine, and their three teenage children? It's not hard to understand why andrew (below) decided to reveal so much. I know quite a few chaps who have had the disease, and they all want it to be publicised as much as possible. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer for men (rates have trebled over the past three decades), and the more it is discussed openly and without embarrassment, the more men will seek help if they suspect so