Lamb Shanks in a Red Wine, Rosemary and Mint Sauce

This is the first recipe that I've posted. I'm a great fan of trying new recipes and, where necessary, making them up from first principles. This is a recipe I tried a couple of weeks ago - we decided to treat ourselves to lamb, and thought that we'd try the shank. The recipe book we have suggested a sort of tomato ragout to go with it, but I decided instead to try a traditional restaurant classic, the red wine, rosemary and mint sauce. It turned out fantastically; really really rich and tasty, and would be a fantastic sauce to make as a gravy if you prefered chops. I have to say, though, the natural fat in the shank makes it an ideal cut, plus it looks really impressive! The sauce made the right amount to casserole two shanks; if you're doing more you may choose to use larger quantities to enable the shanks to remain covered with sauce whilst cooking.

Ingredients:
1 lamb shank per person
1 onion
2 cloves garlic
250 ml beef stock (made with, for example, Bovril)
150 ml red wine
6 tsp mint sauce
1 tbsp dried rosemary
1 tbsp mixed herbs
2 bay leaves
250 g passata (sieved tomatoes, you can buy them in most supermarkets)
Worcester sauce
Salt and pepper

Method:
Brown the lamb shanks in a frying pan over a moderate heat for around 20 minutes. Place them on one side whilst cooking the sauce.

Skin and finely chop the onion; skin and crush the garlic. Fry over a low heat until soft. Add the stock and the wine, and simmer for a couple of minutes. Add the mint sauce, rosemary, mixed herbs, bay leaves, and passata, and cook fairly hard, stirring reguarly, until the sauce is reduced. Add worcester sauce, salt and pepper to taste.

Place the lamb shanks in a casserole. Pour over the sauce. Don't worry if part of the shank is uncovered, however in this case turn the shanks over every 20-30 minutes during cooking. Cook on a moderate heat for three hours. If necessary, reduce the sauce further post cooking to the consistency you desire; it should, however, be fine as it is.

Enjoy!

[Sauce contains 7 syns on original or green Slimming World eating plans]

House of Lords 2.0

Web 2.0 is, apparently, defined thus:

"the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them."

In other words, it's all about user generated content, and probably the best known example is Wikipedia, where users can create and edit online articles about pretty much anything. But its influence is spread around the interweb, from reviews of books at Amazon through to the video sharing monstrosity that is YouTube.

And it's put forward as the future; which, indeed, it may well be. And that's fine, and possibly dandy, and we can all enjoy watching timeless classics such as "My Cat Falling Off the Table," starring Tiddles and directed by Mike from Lewisham. Wonderful.

And providing I'm not made to watch it, I have no problems with this. We'll leave to one side the questions of legality, copyright infringement and censorship for another post. In general, I'm ambivalent. The web is all but infinite in size and hosts content from all manner of individuals and organisations. If you want to post your thoughts online (as indeed I do here), why, be my guest. Have fun.

The problem comes in with the question of authority. In particular, what authority does information presented as fact have when the author of that information is unaffiliated with any particular source? Do you want to trust - can you trust - what Bob from Slough says about a film, a book, the debate on fox hunting, Trident, or indeed any other topic that is outside his immediate expertise?

Now I have no problems with people having opinions. I have them myself, from time to time. But I strongly hold that policy should not be made by people who know nothing more of the issue than what is presented in the media. It's why phone-ins drive me mad. It's why I snarl at the radio when I hear the phrase "why not let us know what you think about this. Our message boards are now open," or "text us your views on 80116." I'd far rather listen to informed experts offering their opinions and, that way, I can make my own. For a different example, it's why I'd rather read what the Bible has to say on something than to consider what Joe thinks about what he percieves as being the general Christian attitude to something. It's a problem, also, (albeit not the main one) with liberalism in the church. If authority comes from man, why should we listen? After all, I disagree, and I'm at least as qualified to speak about this as you are.

Which all brings me, in a round-about sort of a way, to the proposed-come-underway reform of the House of Lords. The Commons were recently asked to vote on a number of options, from 100% appointed members through to 100% elected. The rationale, it seems, is that for the house to have "credibility" with the public, the public must have a say in its composition. But this misses the point. The only possible advantage of having a second chamber in the first place is that it offers a place where bills proposed by government can be examined in greater, largely non-partisan detail. Hitherto unforseen ramifications can be identified, inconsistencies with present laws spotted, and amendments which, in general, improve matters imposed.

By what authority do the Lords do this? Because firstly they have no major political axe to grind. The majority of Lords are unpaid and cross-bench. They do not aspire to higher political office - they will never be PM or on the front bench. All of which means that, if they believe something to be a bad idea, they tend to say so. Secondly, the house tends to be able to call on true experts in the field of discussion. GM? Let's call on a scientist. Asylum? Let's call on a lawyer.

The notion of having elected peers will largely lose the first advantage. To be elected most nominees will have to be affiliated with one of the major parties. The Lords will attract career politicians rather than interested and informed observers. The expertise gained by appointment will be sacrificed for the "accountability" of public election and enhanced scrutiny. The Lords will become, in all but name, an inferior Commons.

We may as well go the whole hog and settle all debate by text vote (possibly at a premium rate. We can always make the decisions first, and just take votes for profits. After all, if it's good enough for Blue Peter...). Maybe we could call it Lords 2.0.

I'd love to know your thoughts. Text them to me.