As I looked around the church, I couldn't help but muse regretfully on what passes for the upper class in today's Britain. In fact, say the words "Upper Class" to the average Briton and he'll assume you mean the overpriced section of Mr Branson's airliners, in which former film stars receive sensual upgrades from gushing flight attendants. I blame Margaret Thatcher. She was wonderful to me, but she did create a culture in which anyone with a few million quid thinks he is entitled to a peerage and a stately home.

I've tried to redress the balance. As Head of the Prime Minister's Secret Patronage Office, I have been doing my best to weed out the most vulgar seekers after honour. Never let it be said that on my watch money alone could buy a title. That is why so many of the people who lent money to New Labour did not receive their expected elevations. Once I'd cashed their cheques, I seemed to mislay their phone numbers.

In the light of New Labour's current cash-for-peerages embarrassment, it was ironic that on Wednesday the House of Commons voted on the subject of House of Lords reform. The last time we voted on this thorny matter, eight alternative formulae for reform were placed before MPs, who became so confused they voted against all of them - a satisfactory result for those of us in the Whips' Office at the time.

Last Wednesday however, the Commons voted for a House of Lords that would be 100 per cent elected. Some cynics say that a majority of Conservatives voted for this drastic reform in the belief the Upper Chamber would automatically throw out this death sentence. The more mischievous among them also assumed Tony would be more than peeved to find this domain of patronage denied to the inmate of Number 10. But frankly, Tony is past caring, as long as he gets his hereditary dukedom upon retirement.

Gordon's Gang, on the other hand, are most put out at the thought of having to include Lords reform in the next manifesto. As a closet Old Labourite, Gordon doesn't believe there should be any kind of second chamber to revise or delay Commons legislation. Like his hero Oliver Cromwell, he hates to be gainsaid. But if there has to be a second chamber, Old Labour would much rather an undemocratic one they can moan about and ignore, rather than a democratically elected one they have to pay some attention to.

With my secret "patronage" hat on, my apolitical concern was that a fully elected upper chamber would staunch the flow of vital funds into party coffers. But on reflection I am sure I can work within the democratically expressed policy of my fellow members. After all, there is great scope in deciding how Lords of Parliament will actually be elected. Jack seems to favour a 15-year non-renewable term. This fits in very well with my preference for the Lords to be elected on a PR basis, using the party list system. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the aforementioned wedding of the year. The party list system means voters choose which party to support, but the LPs themselves are selected by party headquarters.