Well, it's not all good news :-(

[fjp999]

That said you are right to point out a somewhat holier than thou tone that has crept into this thread, for which I apologise.

Thanks, for reminding us of this, Frank. You are, of course, correct and I apologise if my outspokeness has caused offence. I was trying to confine my remarks to the specific situation of the effects on those involved of the on again/off again marriages in California.

No need to apologize guys, I think you both have stuck to the facts very well.

Again, you are correct although what is to be done about it is not altogether clear. Despite a number of attempts at positive discrimination during selection procedures over the years women and members of ethnic minority communities are still under-represented in parliament. Is the solution more positive discrimination? I can quite take the point of any member of those under-represented groups who has stated they would not want to be perceived as having been put up for election on the grounds of their race or sex. For whatever reasons, members of specific groups in society are not putting themselves forward for selection. Were there more "minority" candidates standing for election, it's quite likely more would be elected. I suspect, though, that even this answer is a simplification of the full story. Who knows what happens in party election committees :confused:

Yeah, dont really understand the full system over there but if things are happening in committees, and those committee meetings are in secret???

Guess there is no one perfect system, or is there?