The famous blonde-haired Deirdre Clancy was arrested yesterday for vandalising an American plane refueling at Shannon airport.

I found her statement of purpose entertaining: "She regards war as part of [sic] parcel of the system which demeans women; legalizes corruption of many different forms; discriminates against, locks up and labels the so-called 'mentally ill', without questioning the sanity of the military-industrial system in which we are all complicit."

However there's a serious purpose. If you are an individual citizen opposed to the Iraq war, in a country whose military forces are not going to participate, there's not much you can do except bash American targets.

Further reform of the House of Lords seems very unlikely in the short term after the House of Commons rejected all reform options. John Alderdice had predicted this outcome to me the other day, though I was getting a bit sceptical; Robin Cook appeared to have built up a bandwagon behind the concept of a completely elected upper house, and it all began to look like Tony Blair facing defeat over this issue which would have strengthened Cook in the event of Iraq going wrong.

But John was right. The Commons voted against 100% election by 289 to 272; very narrowly against an 80% elected option by 284 to 281, more heavily against 60% (316 to 253) and finally against Blair's preferred option of 100% appointment (323 to 245). Meanwhile the House of Lords voted for 100% appointment by 335 to 110.

I can see a logic in Blair's (and John Alderdice's) position. Why should the Commons want to give more electoral legitimacy to the Lords? Who, after all, will be bothered to vote? Do the democratic credentials of a secondary chamber really matter all that much? And, how easy will it be for me to get in to an appointed as compared to an elected house? Not that the last of these questions bothers many people of course...