Replace the House of Lords? Sure – got a better suggestion?

Like our hereditary monarchy, it is impossible to justify the existence of the second chamber of UK parliament from first principles, and easy to list its drawbacks, writes Sean O’Grady. Yes, it’s an absurdity – but a useful one

Having the whiff of corruption and almost impossible to justify on any grounds other than utility, the Lords represents an essential element of the constitution (Getty)

Thank goodness for the House of Lords. In a nation permanently in danger of lurching into a form of elective dictatorship – “will of the people” and all that – the fact that we have a bunch of independent-minded, objective, experienced and, though one hesitates to slather them with such panegyrics, wise counsellors is something we all ought to be grateful for.

They represent an essential element of the constitution, though almost impossible to justify on any grounds other than their utility and their determination to do their undefined job – to constrain an over-mighty government of any party.

They lack, pretty obviously, any democratic mandate; some members, past and present, have been “problematic”, as the modern term goes; and there is always going to be a whiff of corruption about any politically powerful place largely filled with the beneficiaries of prime ministerial, or ex-prime ministerial, patronage.