There are all too many reasons to dread the Oscars. The self-absorption of the speeches. The self-regard of the victors. The collective self-delusion of enormously wealthy people who believe that handing each other gold statuettes every year is a festival of spirited political resistance to rank with the establishment of the Paris Commune or the Petrograd Soviet.

But the worst thing, by far, about the Oscars is not the smugness. It’s the ties.

At the Oscars, as at the Baftas, the Golden Globes or indeed any glitzy, glamour-drenched, showcase awards ceremony, the most painful aspect of what is in almost every sense an altogether agonising spectacle is the near-universal desire of every male present to give the black tie dress code his own individual “twist”.

Instead of simply accepting the practice, sanctioned by tradition and followed by every star with natural grace from Cary Grant to Daniel Craig that black tie means a black bow tie worn with a white dress shirt and a black dinner jacket, the overwhelming majority of nominees choose to “express themselves” by opting for their own personal interpretation of the dress code.

So we have straight black ties, of the kind best saved for funerals, worn with black shirts and tuxedos to create the sort of look Benito Mussolini might have favoured if he’d had to fit in some work as a maitre d’ in Sale e Pepe alongside recreating a new Roman Empire. As well as these symphonies in noir we have bootlace ties, skinny scraps of fabric ruched and teased like the strands of Bobby Charlton’s hair. And also, in a class of horror all its own, shirts designed to be worn without a tie, but with arrangements of piping tracing around the collar, or a special space for some kind of costume jewellery where the tie should be.

Each of these departures from the classic dress code, which generations have gratefully accepted, is a poignant reminder of one of the great, prevailing, delusions of our age. The Requirement for Pointless Elaboration.

Always and everywhere now, when a perfectly good practice exists that has served millions well for many years, it is discarded in favour of the requirement to “show some individuality”.

Black tie is more than just a signal that since effort has been made by your hosts you should pay them the compliment of dressing accordingly. It is a code which enables even the most ill-favoured of us to share in the elegance of a Grant or a Craig, a form of dress which emphasises that the man is there as a backdrop against which the woman can shine, a requirement which reminds us that social life depends for its smooth running and enjoyment on a measure of individual restraint, and, above all, it is a reminder that individuality, and creativity, on social occasions should be on display in our conversation and not through our decision to go for a Nehru jacket or skinny tie.

The ability to leave well alone is probably the least admired, but most required, virtue of our time. Just as we’d be well advised to leave the essential of evening dress well alone, instead of pointlessly elaborating, so there is a host of other areas of British life that would be far better if only inertia were allowed to rule.

From pizzas (why do we need cheese-filled crusts? Since the first pineapple appeared on the innocent margherita it’s been all downhill) to the liturgy (the more elaboration, over time, the fewer in the congregation); from mobile telephones (if I want to watch streaming video footage I’ll go to the cinema, thank you) to razors (what was wrong with just one blade?), we’d all be better off if people had simply left well alone.

I’ve never been able to see why resting on one’s laurels was such a bad thing. Invent a decent idea, or product, then sit back to enjoy the benefits, would be my advice to anyone. Try to elaborate on the breakthrough and it will lead only to frustration. Or scorn.

From the atomic bomb (quite enough megatons really, all things considered) to the cappuccino (what was Mr Starbucks doing when he thought coffee could be improved by the creation of the eggnog latte?), the original really was the best.

It’s a principle the entertainment industry should be forced to observe with all the force of martial law. Not just in the dress they wear for their awards ceremonies, but in the productions they think of entering for them. After all, can anyone think of a single sequel, spin-off or remake which was better than the original? The remake of The Poseidon Adventure ? The Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man ? The decision to give Boycey his own series after Only Fools and Horses ended? Each of them eloquent proof that elaborating on the basic theme was pointless.

The simplest route to satisfaction in this life is to find the authorised version and stick to it — the best Bible to read is King James’s, the best cocktail is the straight martini, the finest dinner is quality meat seared for the minimum period possible and the best-dressed man on any occasion is the one who’s put the least thought into it — because he knows better than to second-guess tradition.

What kind of moderate is he?

A fair amount of attention was devoted over the weekend to some rather striking words from the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque. Dr Mohammad Naseem, speaking in the aftermath of the police operation which apprehended several men suspected of plotting the ritual murder of British Muslim soldiers, gave vent to strong feelings.

British Muslims were being treated in the same way as the Jews under the Nazis, he argued, and the Government had “invented this perception” of a terrorist threat.

Dr Naseem’s words were taken, almost universally, as evidence of just how sorely provoked moderate Muslim opinion has been by the Government’s antiterror tactics.

What no one reported, even though it is in the public domain, is that Dr Naseem, in his capacity as leader of the Islamic Party of Britain, supported the death penalty for inciting homosexuality. At the last election, he was the biggest single funder of Respect, the Trotskyist party whose leader is George Galloway, the Saddam Hussein apologist.

Dr Naseem has previously argued that the 7/7 bombings were a provocation staged by the police, the Blair Government or Mossad (of course). When the video emerged in which Mohammad Siddique Khan took responsibility for the atrocity he argued that it could have been doctored, saying, “we are in the 21st century, the cows can be made to look as dancing, the horses can speak like humans, so these things can be doctored or can be produced”.

Having written a book about this nation’s failure to appreciate the scale of the challenge from radical political Islam, I’m still left asking: what does it say about our media that they allowed this individual to be the voice of Birmingham’s Muslims? What does it say about Birmingham Central Mosque that this man is the chairman?

Michael Gove is Conservative MP for Surrey Heath

Times Recommends

• How to stop the Queen picking the next PM
• To save the planet, strike a deal with Big Oil
• Bankers think it’s all over. Time to think again