Perhaps the Lords is as good as it gets ?

Structure is the basis for running most things but structure often relies on a continuance of what has gone on before and therefore is an impediment to new practice.  Structures usually rely on self interest and effect people who have become entrenched  in a practice that might need changing.  

The House of Lords is an anachronism to some, to others a fundamental part of the English (unwritten) constitution. Our history is bound up by monarchy and the land owning class that surrounds them.
They were, in those days, (along with the clergy), one of the most important sectors  regarding education and experience of the structure which held the state together.

Parliament was born and the so called commoner was brought into the equation. Eventually the Commons became the representative of the people and the Lords a debating chamber without the power to pass bills into law.
The importance of "debate" when  power lays  with the executive of a particular party is questionable given the ideological straight jacket that party politics brings. Time is spent talking and talking but the end result and the power sits, not with the debaters but with the Ministers and the Prime Minister.
So does the House of Lords have relevance in our time and is the intellectual and the business experience  that their Lordships bring to any reading of a bill relevant ?
In a Dictatorship or a Kleptocracy the "governed" are excluded from sharing their views but in a democracy the airing of opinion, possibly much in line with ones own is as close to the Greek ideal as we will get.   Switzerland has a system of regular referendum which allows the population to have more control over their politicians but they are pretty unique and by and large the politicians are not likely to relinquish power in the foreseeable future.   So perhaps the Lords is as good as it gets?