Don't give us 'people's peers' when we want democracy

This has been an active week for the House of Lords. The revamped, supposedly more legitimate chamber obstructed the will of the democratically-elected chamber over equality for homosexual men, and now it is threatening to overturn the Commons on the privatisation of air-traffic control. In both cases, some peers claim to be more in tune with public opinion than the Government, but that is a dangerous form of legitimacy. On gay rights, for example, public opinion favours tolerance and equality of respect. The reactionaries only claim their mandate on the basis of carefully-worded opinion-poll questions.

This has been an active week for the House of Lords. The revamped, supposedly more legitimate chamber obstructed the will of the democratically-elected chamber over equality for homosexual men, and now it is threatening to overturn the Commons on the privatisation of air-traffic control. In both cases, some peers claim to be more in tune with public opinion than the Government, but that is a dangerous form of legitimacy. On gay rights, for example, public opinion favours tolerance and equality of respect. The reactionaries only claim their mandate on the basis of carefully-worded opinion-poll questions.

How then, can the upper house enhance its claim to speak for the nation? This is a question that has been comprehensively botched by the Blair government. Any credit that the Prime Minister might have gained by dispatching (most of) the hereditary peers to the backwoods has been lost by the creation of a second-rate assembly of cronies to take their place.

The gimmick of creating "people's peers" - applications for these non-partisan life peerages close today - is no substitute for democracy. Certainly, there are lessons for the honours system in the competition to select 10 tribunes of the people from the 1,600 applications, involving the rigours of shortlisting and interview - rigours avoided by regular life peers elevated to ermine on the nod and after only cursory scrutiny. But this crass and patronising circus does nothing to soften the charge of cronyism levelled against Mr Blair's spatchcock insult to modern democratic principle.

While there is something in the principle of public nomination for honours that pay tribute to the hard work of many people in helping others, it is no way to choose our legislators. At a time when we Brits are greatly enjoying the spectacle of alleged chaos in the democratic system of the United States, we should attend to the beam in our own eye.

The selection of the 10 "people's peers" will drag on until next March, ensuring that they do not even take their places on the red-leather benches until after the likely date of the next election. It will be conducted by a committee of the establishment's finest - inevitably, Douglas Hurd is on it - and chaired by Mr Blair's friend, the businessman Dennis Stevenson.

If we must have appointments to the Lords, let the body which makes them be truly independent of government. But why should not at least half of the upper house be elected by the people in whose name they revise and delay our laws?