[vixen99]

You forgot to mention she has no executive power at all and this is symbolized at the start of every parliamentary session in the the Black Rod ritual. Check it out!

Yes, Britain has a revising upper chamber populated by people who've made some kind of distinguished contribution to British society during their careers. As with all human enterprises, mistakes occur & some members (peers) have questionable qualifications and corruptive practices do sometimes surface as everywhere else. Sometimes political cronies are appointed. This does not mean we throw the bath water out with the baby.

The upper house provides a venue for extended discussion of laws put forward by the lower house but ultimately has no power to overturn decisions made in the lower house. Most members of the House of Lords (often experts in various subjects) have no or minimal vested interests in the issues brought before them and can therefore offer totally independent opinions since they do not have to answer to an electorate.

Being unelected does not necessarily always equate to a zero qualification for a limited role in law making.

[spiralpolitik]

Not quite true. All UK legislation must be signed by the Queen (or her proxy) before it becomes all law. Therefore monarch has final veto over any legislation by refusing to sign.

It's rarely invoked and if it were to happen on a serious piece of legislation then Britain would in all likelihood become a republic shortly thereafter.

The British "constitution" is largely based around checks and balances based around mutually assured destruction should any party stray from their expected role. This is one such example.