It is six weeks since a Bentley with the number plate AMS1 rolled into Downing Street. Yesterday its owner, Sir Alan Michael Sugar the First, became Lord Sugar and, resplendent in ermine, swore allegiance to the Queen.

By coincidence, his introduction took place on the day that the Government published its latest proposals for constitutional reform. It was a perfect symbol of the hypocrisy of Gordon Brown.

The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint the Beast of Brentwood as enterprise czar with a seat in the Lords has provoked a growing backlash in Whitehall. Many ministers are appalled by the arrival of a man most famous for shouting: “You’re fired.”

One Cabinet member summed up the appointment in a single word: “Yuk.” Another minister said that Mr Brown should be ashamed of himself for turning to the star of The Apprentice . “What does this say about Gordon’s values?” he muttered. Baroness Prosser, the deputy chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, told a recent meeting of Labour peers that her party should have nothing to do with a tycoon who has been accused of sex discrimination by a former employee, although he denies it. “Everything he promotes flies in the face of what Labour stands for,” she told me. “It’s all about bullying and sexism.” Civil servants and business people just find the appointment embarrassing.

The Prime Minister sees himself as Mary Poppins, giving voters a spoonful of Sugar to help the recession medicine go down — but in fact he is like a man handing out Yorkie Bars, which bear the slogan “not for girls”. When Alice Thomson and I interviewed Lord Sugar last year, he revealed a shocking hostility to working mothers. Maternity rights, he told us, had “gone too far”.

If he interviews a woman for a job, he said, he should be able to ask whether she plans to have children before deciding whether to employ her. When considering hiring a mother he ought to be able to say to her: “Hold on love, do you think you are going to be able to cope in this job? You have to get the kids sorted.”

He also insisted that “there’s nothing wrong with being greedy”, that human rights are “rubbish” and that “this Government’s not Labour, it’s old-fashioned Tory”. Are these really opinions that Mr Brown wants to reward with a seat in Parliament? I would love to hear the Prime Minister’s enterprise czar debating work-life balance with Harriet Harman. No wonder Lord Mandelson is a little nervous about his new colleague.

It is unclear precisely what Lord Sugar intends to do with his position and his peerage. According to officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, he has no desk or staff in its Victoria Street office. Peers have been told not to expect the latest addition to the red benches to speak often, if at all, in the Lords — which raises the question: why is he there?

At best, the appointment was a populist gimmick, designed to give a Prime Minister who struggles to communicate with the voters a bit of tabloid appeal. “Gordon’s obsessed with celebrities,” one senior civil servant says. At worst it reveals a willingness to put one day’s headlines before a life time's beliefs. Either way, it matters because it symbolises a deeper confusion in No 10 about constitutional reform.

On the day that he became Prime Minister Mr Brown said he wanted to create a “new type of politics” that would reconnect Westminster with the voters. This would, he made clear, be his top priority, a way in which he would differentiate himself from Tony Blair and put his own stamp on the Government and the Labour Party. In reality, he has conspicuously failed to introduce any truly radical change.

He has said repeatedly that he is in favour of a democratic House of Lords, but has brought more ministers into his Government by way of peerages than any Prime Minister in history. Unlike Mr Blair, who was in favour of appointed peers, Mr Brown is said to favour a wholly elected Lords — yet he is happy to appoint to the Upper House a television celebrity who has never been elected by anyone. Even after the escape of several of Gordon’s Goats, peers are still in charge of transport, banking and science (as well as Labour’s Supreme Leader Lord Mandelson). There is even discussion in Whitehall about allowing outsiders to become ministers without belonging to the Commons or Lords.

The Government published yesterday a Constitutional Reform Bill that was more about tying up a few loose ends than remaking the tapestry. Hereditary peers will be allowed to die off, and life peers will be able to give up their seats. But this was a pale imitation of the original plans floated by Mr Brown. Creating an elected Lords and changing the voting system for the Commons have been delayed. Even the plan to make the Attorney-General independent of government, which was included in the draft Bill, has been dropped.

Despite the best efforts of Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, and Michael Wills, the Constitutional Affairs Minister, the proposed legislation was neutered at the last minute after months of dithering by the Prime Minister.

“As so often the aspirations haven’t been met by the reality,” said one exasperated official. “There’s always a reluctance to take the final step.”

More than a decade after Mr Blair described the Lords as “an affront to democracy”, ministers are still arguing about whether it should be 100 per cent or 80 per cent elected and what the role of the bishops should be. Almost two years after promising a constitutional revolution, Mr Brown still cannot make up his mind about the House of Lords or electoral reform or lowering the voting age or fixed-term Parliaments or recall ballots for MPs. Even ministers are losing patience with him. Meanwhile, Lord Sugar snuggles into his ermine, a sweet and sour reminder of hypocrisy.

Times Recommends

• A battle lost in the bars of Britain
• The internet is killing storytelling
• Two sozzled victims of modern hypocrisy