Times are bad when you have to rely on unelected Lords to protect the poor from George Osborne

It's alarming that the only thing stopping the Chancellor making three million families £1,300 a year worse off isn't common sense or public outcry, but some Ladies, Lords and bishops

Peers look on as Yeomen of the Guard prepare to conduct the ceremonial search ahead of the State Opening of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster on June 4, 2014 in London (Carl Court - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Until last night you’d be forgiven for thinking the Lords was a joke. For the most part it’s made up of two types of people: political cronies who have been parachuted in to make up the numbers, or rich people who happened to be in the right ballsack at the right time. As far as publicly-funded bastions of privilege go, it’s hard to think of anywhere worse. Last year it was revealed that the Lords refused to merge its catering budget with the Commons to save money because its members feared the quality of the champagne would suffer too much.

But now the Lords is the only thing stopping George Osborne making three million families about £1,300 a year worse off. Not common sense, or the fact that most people – including some Tory MPs – think the £4.4bn of tax credits cuts are dangerously unfair. But a collection of unelected peers, aristocats, Ladies, Barons, and bishops.

Poor George Osborne. Well, poor probably isn’t the right word – in 2012 it was estimated that he was worth £4.5 million. But still, you’ve got to feel for him. He did everything he was supposed to. He spent all that time at private school, gained membership to Oxford's Bullingdon Club, and even went on shoots with a bunch of horsey looking blokes. All of that, only for the Lords to reject his big plan to make the poor poorer.

This was his face after the Lords voted against his proposals:

Screenshot: BBC (Screenshot: BBC)

I'd like to think that’s the face any of us would make when some Lords delay our attempt to take money away from people who desperately need it. Especially after your pal David Cameron ruled it out before the election, and everyone believed him.

The proposed cuts are so extreme that even the 80-year-old Thatcherite and former Chancellor Nigel Lawson – who, in case you didn't know, called three of his daughters Thomasina, Horatia and Nigella – called on Osborne to “make the burden of [the cuts] rather less towards the bottom end of the scale, so that the people further up the scale have a slightly bigger burden.“

In the Government’s defence, at least we’re seeing a long-awaited return to the days of noblesse oblige. Back then, poor people often had to rely on landed gentry's generosity to prevent them from starving to death. There was a real sense of community in the air.

There were echoes of this on Monday night when Baroness Hollis gave an impassioned speech against the cuts. She read out some of the messages she had received from people whose finances Osborne will be dipping into. One was from a woman called Angela, who lives in Stevenage. “I already work 40 hours a week on minimum wage doing two jobs around my children,” she said. “I cannot believe this is actually going to happen. I am terrified. We are not scroungers. We work unbelievably hard just to keep going and once again we are being punished for trying to earn a living wage.”

Hollis’ intentions were good, but the whole situation was still bizarre. Don’t worry, Angela from Stevenage, she was effectively saying. You work two jobs and are set to lose £1,643 a year. But I’m here to save you, at least for now. I wasn’t democratically elected. I'm a baroness. Five-hundred years ago someone with my title could have ruled over someone like you. But sorry, I’m one of the only people you’ve got now.