OK, OK I am NOT a fan of ascribed status, and so those hereditary peers in the House of Lords should just basically be sacked.
Along with said Hereditary peers, the medieval processes, and outdated customs certainly make the House of Lords seem like a poster child for anachronism.
But there is actually an argument that this most absurd of institutions can actually perform positive functions!
Unlike MPs in the Commons, peers are more inclined to vote on conscience rather than on party whip. The result can be a more thoughtful legislative process that improves rather than rubber-stamps government law.
A couple of argument FOR the Lords...
The fact that The Lords are NOT elected gives them distance from electoral politics allows peers to consider legislation through a longer-term perspective, not just the mood of public opinion or party loyalty.
And so many issues today would benefit from thinking in longer than 5 year time scales - climate change, economic development generally, planning of housing and public services, in fact MOST policy areas!
Then there is the fact that The Commons these days are increasingly dominated by not only the dominant party, but the dominant executive faction within that party, and The Lords can offer a valuable counter to that power.
Reform Required...
Rather than eliminating the Lords, the path forward is reform. Eliminating hereditary peers FOR SURE but keeping the chamber as a revising chamber is perhaps the way to balance tradition and modernisation.
Peers table thousands of amendments every year, around 40% of which are accepted by government – proof that the Lords is not ceremonial but working. Without it, bills like the Online Safety Bill would be able to be railroaded with little scrutiny【source: Hansard Society】.
Final Thoughts
I think having a second chamber is a pretty standard feature of parliamentary democracy, but for Lord's sake, sack of those toffs!