Turkeys decide not to vote for Christmas

The House of Lords debated the subject of its own reform over the last two days and gave a pretty good indication of where the current House of Lords stands - somewhere in the 19th century.

Leigitimate concerns exist, of course, as to the future composition of the Upper House and about how it is to be elected (among other issues) - and I don't dismiss these concerns - but the current Peers didn't do themselves any favours yesterday when they voted against all elected options (326-122 against a fully elected chamber and even bigger majorities against the smaller elected proportion).

This was to be expected but it amused me to read Lord Howe say that the government had to show 'sincerity' in its public promise to take account of the Lords vote, when the House of Lords appears to have taken no account at all of the elected chamber's decision last week.

Interesting to note too that Lord Irvine spoke in favour of an all-appointed chamber. 'Interesting' less for the content and rather more for the fact this was his first speech since his sacking as Lord Chancellor in 2003.

The Government's White Paper has been dubbed a fudge and also criticised for leaving issues unresolved. This might be true but the White Paper was really a starter for discussion and perhaps necessarily a fudge for this reason. The tide has now turned in this debate - towards a significantly elected element in our Upper Chamber - and the Peers don't gain much credit by blocking the path to reform.