Pampered Archbish of Canterbury, should shut up...

Darling does this as a debate technique. He uses ad Homs when things don’t go his way , repeats lies and harks back to what was said or was claimed by a poster in the past . This in itself is a fallacy called ad hominem Tu quoque.

Nah, Benny. You probably had everybody's admiration when you openly discussed your struggle with depression. Everybody probably thought Good for you, on the Left and the Right. It could happen to anyone, and anyone who steps up and takes action to destigmatise it is to be applauded. But you couldn't help yourself, could you? Eventually, your inner gammon got the better of you, and you had to join in mocking and ridiculing a group of people who, by your own admission, also suffer from mental health issues.

We don't know the answer to the transgender issue. But reasonable people will prefer the expert opinion of trained medical professionals over the untrained opinion of people who believe in talking snakes.

It is accurate. The lords can't block bills aside from a couple of exceptions. They can propose amends but the commons can reject and override them. The most the Lords can do is delay a bill for a year - See Parliament Act 1911 as amended by Parliament Act 1949

The justification for this act was that the lords shouldn't have the ability to block the commons because the commons has a mandate on account of its members being elected. 

The act is seldom invoked because the Lords usually back down if the house of commons is resolute about doing something, however in recent times the Hunting Act 2004 is a prime example of legislation being enacted despite the house of Lords objecting. When push came to shove the commons got its way because it has the last word, not the lords. 

one of the key exceptions to this is that the commons cannot force through an act to extend the length of a parliamentary term without the lords agreeing.

The house of Lords serves a useful purpose. Not only is it an important safeguard, it promotes better legislation by letting people with experience give bills the once over, suggest amends that would make for better or more watertight legislation, and it also serves to introduce a 'lets take a breath, lets think about this for a beat, do we really want to do this and is this the right way to do it" mechanism. It makes for better legislation. Taking 100 random people off the street would unlikely result in better outcomes or provide the safeguards to the same level of  robustness that the Lords does in its current form.