The House of Lords is absurdity manifest

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Its utility lies in the necessary arrangement of a second reviewing and revisionary chamber, but not in its composition (Parliament TV)

Sean O’Grady in his piece on the value of the House of Lords to the democratic process is, in my opinion, a little wide of the mark. A second chamber is an essential element of the constitution as he correctly states; a valuable characteristic of many democracies. However the Lords, like the monarchy, is anachronistic and undemocratically constituted, a remnant of feudal times patched and plastered to preserve its unwarranted existence. A prime example of “us and them” politics.

If one were to create a modern democracy from scratch, with a clear need for a second chamber, I doubt very much that one would do so by recruiting from a historic aristocracy, or by appointment by the ruling party in the first chamber. We have some grim examples of the latter in recent times. Appointments frequently appear to be based on the principle of a reward for “services” or for quite literally funding a political party. The Tory party, in particular, has specialised in further bloating an already unwieldy chamber.

And as reported: “Baroness Angela Smith, Labour leader in the Lords, says that they’ll create many more Labour peers because it would be ‘essential’ for Keir Starmer’s administration to get its legislation through.” The nonsense carries on.