We do our best, Kabir………….but now the sun is shining again!;)

I assure you the double post was an error. The first one “disappeared” ,so I reposted. Now there are two. But, be honest, you can’t have too many of the same sentiment, can you?;);)

Terrific pictures, as ever, Anna – love the last helping of the little Poliarkov and the Hawker trio. Brings the wonderful day right back to life.:D

At long last it’s finally ALL OVER!!:D:D

At long last, it’s ALL OVER!!!!:D:D:D

Err… you did.

Here…..

The last government tried to make a difference but ran into the usual obstacles from the vested interests – British democracy at work.

I made no mention of any date whatsoever, but referred, by implication, to Labour’s inept “reform” of the Lords which had the result I described.

The only difference it tried to make was social and gave no thought to actually making the place more effective than it already was. What were the vested interests you refer to?

Did political appointees to the Lords only start in 1997? – oh hang on, when was Lord Archer appointed again? 1992 I think it was. Lord Ashcroft , I wonder why he was made a life peer?
What was it you said about political appointees of little particular merit?

Who said anything about political appointees starting in 1997? It may have escaped your attention but the last government made much of Lords reform and ended up making a pig’s ear of it.

No, absolutely not. The irony is that when it was a mixture of hereditary and life peers, with a minimum of politicisation, it was at its most effective. It is generally accepted that debates in the Lords were of a far higher quality than in the Commons.

Of course Labour’s obsession to do away with anything smacking of privilege, as they saw, it neutered and neutralised the Lords and the place is now stuffed with political appointees of little particular merit.