I'm not really sure what the "... Hmmm ..." means.
However:
This is what you get when the political establishment refuses to consider a fully elected upper house. There have been suggestions - proposals even - that the House of Lords be replaced by an elected Senate but these have always failed because the "House of Commons" (whatever that really means) does not want to be challenged by a second chamber which has electoral legitimacy.
We have now a second chamber which is filled with political appointees - many of whom are retired (or election-defeated) MPs and ex-government ministers. Yes, there are a number of hereditary aristocrats - but they are now limited to 90 and include, paradoxically, the only elected members of the House.
The House of Lords also includes C of E bishops and a few judges (but they can't vote until they retire from the bench) and also some non-political "great and good", some of whom may offer political support. (I suppose though that the fact that a superb human being such as Yehudi Menuhin could have become a peer in the UK Parliament is to its credit.)
I think that the Daily Mirror article is taking a cheap swipe at a seriously flawed institution. There are much serious problems with the HoL than its rump of aritocratic members - but that would have involved confusing its loyal readers with relatively difficult concepts and possibly words containing several syllables.
