The Sketch: Simon Carr

Truth is, Mr Blair wants to retain the power to make his dog a peer

The great theme of the next parliamentary period is this. How complete will the Prime Minister's authority remain? How much will he get his own way? How many toys will he have to throw out of his pram to get it? For years he has carried all before him. He had great promise; when that failed he made even greater promises. When they failed he turned his attention to Africa.

Now we are entering a new phase. Mr Blair wants to reform the House of Lords. He wants to make it more representative, more legitimate, more democratic, if his past remarks are to be believed. But, of course, they're not. Mr Blair wants to retain the power to make his dog a peer.

This is the least popular position in either House of Parliament. Estimates vary, but most MPs (including 150 Labour dissidents) would vote for 75 per cent of the Lords being elected, thus minimising, almost contemptuously, the limits of Mr Blair's patronage.

Robin Cook is loyally presenting the White Paper authorised by the Prime Minister. But we can deduce from the angle of his beard – and from the trajectory of his career – that he is a covert democrat.

The politics are clear. The sensible course to take is more obscure. Yesterday, when the select committee asked him about the legitimacy of an unelected house, Lord Wakeham replied deftly: "It's your legitimacy I'm worried about." You can tell he's been around the block more than once. The argument goes that because Lords aren't elected they're naturally the junior partner in our democracy. An elected house would be a rival house.

But surely the public would prefer elected Lords to ones appointed by the political class? To this Lord Wakeham says no. The last thing people want is another bunch of god damned careerist hacks who allow themselves to be whipped into insignificance by the Government machine because they're too spineless, gutless and brainless to act for themselves. A replica, in short, of the House of Commons. (I condense his remarks for the sake of brevity). He was criticising, by the way, elected rather than appointed peers.

There is a way out for Mr Blair. My friend in the gallery above the Lords has looked at the mess of chicken entrails (or, more accurately, at Lord Irvine's face as he was making his speech on the subject) and has deduced the Government won't do anything at all. In the Commons, Mr Cook says: "We are seeking to establish the centre of gravity to determine when to bring the Bill before Parliament." That could easily mean the same thing.

The status quo would represent a great Conservative victory. It would preserve their majority in that place and confirm Mr Blair's growing reputation for failing to deliver the promised domestic improvements.

Let the Sketch make its position unambiguously clear. It agrees with everyone. More elected peers would be more democratic, but when you look closely at the people who seek election you realise that's not necessarily a good thing.

Also, the Lords in its current form is a vastly superior scrutinising chamber than the Commons. It's probably more representative of the country than the Commons.

You can't defend the mixture of patronage and heredity that has created the House of Lords, but just because it's indefensible doesn't mean it's wrong.

Simoncarr75@hotmail.com