Reform of the House of Lords is just a diversion from reforming the Commons

Blair is not only opposed to thinking about Lords reform because of the effort. He is unhappy about the likely conclusions

The House of Commons is about to waste its time. Tomorrow, it will hold a debate on the House of Lords; a doubly pointless exercise. In the first place, Mr Blair will take no notice, so no action will follow. It is also the wrong question, for the House of Lords is a second-order issue; the primacy of the Commons is assured. Yet as that chamber's ability to discharge its duties is much more in doubt, there is no point in addressing the second chamber until we have considered the first one.

That point would have been self-evident to earlier generations of reformers, whose approach to the Lords was always determined by their opinion of the Commons. Their views diverged sharply, as was elegantly summarised by Roy Jenkins inMr Balfour's Poodle, his book on the constitutional crisis leading up to the 1911 Parliament Act which ensured the supremacy of the Commons. Thereafter, Tories were in a dilemma. Though sentimentally attached to the peerage, they were aware of the problems which an hereditary Upper House would have in resisting the excesses of the popular chamber. Some Tories were prepared to consider reforming the Lords in order to ensure its legitimacy.

Most Labour politicians took a diametrically opposed position. They abominated hereditary legislators but could also see pragmatic advantages in their survival. A house of peers would be in no position to resist the will of the Commons, while a reformed House might complicate matters. At that point, the impetus for reform gave way to an unspoken compromise – until Mr Blair, who came to office in no mood to compromise.

Tony Blair hated the whole idea of hereditary legislators, was determined to get rid of them and had the majority to do so. He had one other relevant trait; he saw no need to think before he acted. Equally, once he had disposed of the hereditaries, he began to lose interest in the future of the Lords. Indeed, it appears that Lord Cranborne may have miscalculated. It was he who played on the Government's fears that the old House of Lords might go out with a final flourish of obstruction, in order to secure the survival of over 90 hereditaries – but his motives have often been misunderstood. Robert Cranborne has always believed in Lords reform, including the departure of the hereditaries, in order to create a stronger second chamber. Far from acting as the Arthur Schindler of the hereditary peerage, he was merely trying to insert a stone into the Prime Minister's shoe.

Lord Cranborne assumed that Mr Blair would find the presence of the surviving hereditaries so intolerable that he would feel compelled to press ahead with full-scale reform. But full-scale reform would require full-scale thought. It may be that Mr Blair would prefer a sore foot to a sore brain. Lord Irvine of Lairg, the PM's agent in these matters, has been extolling the virtues of procrastination. The Blair/Cranborne deal was intended to be temporary: ce n'est que le provisoire qui dure.

The Prime Minister is not only opposed to thinking because of the effort involved. He is unhappy about the likely conclusions. He has become aware of what he regards as a danger: that a reformed chamber will also be a stronger one. That is, indeed, almost inevitable. No upper house would be worthy of the name unless it possessed legitimacy and it is hard to confer legitimacy these days without a significant democratic input. Yet the more democratic the chamber, the more likely it will be to challenge the Government.

Mr Blair regards that as a bad idea, for the worst of reasons. He is against it because he cannot abide challenges. This is a Prime Minister with no interest in intellectual debate and nothing but aversion for any forum in which he might be subjected to it, including Parliament. None of his predecessors has shown so little respect or affection for Parliament, which is why he has done everything possible to neuter the House of Commons and turn it into a mere legislative sausage factory.

This might be more acceptable if the sausages were any good. But, if Mr Blair's Commons had been in the food business, it would have been closed long ago on the grounds that its products were unfit for human consumption. On health, education, crime and transport, Mr Blair has rammed through Bill after Bill and none of them has achieved its stated aim.

There is a simple explanation for this. As with Lords reform, the Government believes in legislation without cerebration. Come up with a good wheeze, including lots of initiatives and targets. Get Alastair Campbell to spin it into headlines, and pass it into law. After all, if it does not succeed, we can always have another Bill next year. That is how the country has been governed since 1997. That is why nothing seems to work.

Any Tory who complains about Mr Blair's elected dictatorship might seem to lay himself open to the charge of hypocrisy. What was he saying when Margaret Thatcher was ramming through her legislation? But there is a difference. Lady Thatcher relished debate and opposition. She would only have shown alarm if her policies had not come under fire. She also believed in thinking policies through; she used the word "strategy" a lot, and tried to ensure that she had one. She was capable of flexibility; the intellectual coherence of Thatcherism can be overrated. But at least there was some.

She used her elective dictatorship to tackle problems; over-taxation, trade union power, nationalised industries. On her own terms, she succeeded. Those who agree with her will also agree that elective dictatorship has never seemed so benevolent.

Mr Blair inherited the problem of malfunctioning public services. But, as he had no strategy, there have been no successes. Even some of those who used to support him might now agree that elective dictatorship has never seemed so incompetent.

If the Prime Minister had his way, he would now extend that dictatorship to the House of Lords. He would like it to become a house of nominees; in practice, no doubt, a chamber of cronies and donors. Instead of challenging the Commons, it would become a mere echo chamber, echoing nullity. It is fortunate that he is unlikely to have his way.

But there is little that the Lords on its own can do to ensure good government. For that, we will need Commons reform. In recent years, including the Thatcher era, there has been far too much legislation and far too little scrutiny. It was once said of medieval rulers that they were very good at law, but not so hot at order. The same charge could apply to recent British governments, which have added volume after volume to the law book and produced little in the way of improvements in the living conditions of the British people. If governments found it much harder to pass legislation, we would end up with fewer and better Bills. But House of Lords reform can do nothing to achieve this. It could only happen if the Commons were persuaded to assert itself, and there seems little hope of that.