Contradictory views on the House of Lords

The final few questions from Populus's monthly poll were in yesterday's Times

and reveal some rather contradictory opinions on the future of the House of Lords. 78% of people agree that it is important to have a strong House of Lords to act as a check on the Commons and the Government (unsurprisingly, given that the government it is currently checking is a Labour one, this view is strongest amongst Tory voters). At the same time 62% of people think that it is right that the elected Commons can, at the end of the day, overrule the unelected Lords.

These two views are, of course, not directly contradictory - it is perfectly possible to want to have a very strong House of Lords, but still think that, in extremis, the elected House should be able to have its own way. What is directly contradictory were the other two questions - 75% of people think that the Lords should be "mainly appointed" because it gives a degree of independence, on the other hand 72% think that "at least half" of its members should be elected to give democratic legitimacy.

These two opinions are directly contradictory - the Lords can't be both mainly appointed, and mostly elected. The results probably reflect a lack of clarity in the debate, people really haven't formed firm opinions on what they'd like to see. The answers certainly imply that people want to see a chamber that has both independence from electoral politics, but also some degree of legitimacy. The question people don't yet know the answer to is how to meet both criteria.