Let’s do what Ken Livingstone and other Labour and Conservative politicians do and be ‘selective’ in the amount of tax we pay . . .
If we don’t get equality, why should we pay full tax? . . .
With you on that. I cough up £800 per month in tax.
Only to have it spit back in my face by tits like this.
You need a better accountant… :)
We do not all flip burgers for a living.
Since when did people flipping burgers need accountants?
Loving seeing the Tories tie themselves in knots over this. Homophobia bites!
ComRes and the Christian Institute are as thick as thieves with each other. It’s hardly surprising they would say this.
PS The update note at the foot of this web report demonstrates my point –
And who is or are ComRes?
You, Scott Roberts, may be hoaching with the knowledge but this poor reader ain’t. Now be a good journalist and *explain* when you write.
Wouldn’t a quick Google have been easier?
The terrorgraph and daily hate usually go to them.
There skewed unscientific results always come about by weighting the question to suit the client.
They should be paid no mind, but unfortunately the catholic run terrorgraph and nasty daily hate pounce on it to support there vileness.
“What exactly is it you dislike about queers getting married?”
Being in a Civil Partnership for the last 5 years, I am sick to the teeth of being told it is meaningless by these religious goons.
How dare they impose their idiotic god bothering beliefs on civil matters.
I am sick of the “back of the bus” mentality these people wish to impose when I better them in every way, by supporting my handicapped sister and my aged parents.
What do they do. Sit in there churches and spout pious drivel.
Gurn Gurn Gurn, moan fuss complain.
Civil partnerships ARE essentially meaningless.
I admit they are better than nothing at all, but they are still an ineffectual compromise in order to shut gays up, keep the church happy and kowtow to Europe.
Marriage IS important, religion is not.
Dear PN . could you please make this crap wordpress comments page function on an android tablet.
Not a chance.
They need to use a far more adaptable template. This one is as old as the hills.
Yes, because the MOST important thing about any policy is how many votes a party might gain or lose and not how the policy makes society more just, more equal, more modern and more fair.
Since when was it a polling companies job to interpret which bits of their polling is more significant than others?
This CEO needs to watch what he says or his company won’t be considered neutral or reliable anymore. Oh, wait a second, I’ve seen how they phrase their questions… they’ve already displayed themselves to be biased and unreliable!
I would vote conservative were it not for their abysmal equal rights record. However as it stands I find myself in rather a quandary as to who is the most legitimate party for rule considering Labours economic record…. ‘rock and a hard place’ shall suffice.
I’m with you about the Tories past record. Unforgivable, really. But I find myself very pleasantly surprised by supportive statements and intentions of SOME of the new lot. Actions speak louder than words, of course, but I’ impressed none the less.
Won’t be voting for them, mind.
Just wanted to enquire if there is any movement on draft equal marriage legislation.
Why on earth is it not before parliament already?
Because laws take time to ratify. I would rather they got the thing right than rushed it through with more holes than a Swiss cheese, as has been seen with a lot of Labour legislation over their tenure.
I suspect the Tories are using the issue to benefit from the ‘they’ve changed’ impression it generates without the inconvenience of actually doing it. Same way that we feel better about ourselves when we decide to give money to charity – except never actually do it. The feeling we will is enough to give us the ‘feel good’ factor. It’d be very surprised if Cameron goes with this any closer to the 2015 election than now.
I’m afraid for a CEo of a polling organisation to enter correspondence with a Prime Minister shows a woeful lack of judgement.
It makes ComRes an actor in the very drama they are seeking to measure.
Wrong. Very wrong. Likely to hit bottom line if weren’t for the Daily hate and Terrorgraph making them a go to place for a dose of vile bile.
It’s quite clear that ComRes have an agenda and a bias on this issue. Their poll results should be ignored for that reason alone, but also because they ask non-neutral questions, and their results are out of line with everyone else’s.
Whenever a straightfoward question is asked in a a poll or social attitudes survey (“do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples should have the right to marry”), there is a large majority in favour.
This article only muddies the waters and confuses the issue.
It would be better if it were written in the positive rather than the negative which often happens for some reason with Pink News..
This has the effect of then appearing to support Conservative opposition to Marriage Equality rather than supporting Conservative SUPPORT for it…
Personally it would helpful if the article were re written. Especially as the stats quotes by Andrew Hawkins deserve full exposure rather than being hidden inside a very confusing paragraph.
There is also a typo ‘interrupting’ rather than ‘interpreting’ which I assume was the actual intended.
“The correct ﬁgures are that 19 percent (of current Conservative voters) are more likely to vote Conservative, while 11 percent are less likely to do so” (if Equal Marriage is taken forward by the Conservatives)
This is MUCH better than the stats quoted by Cameron so in fact, Andrew Hawkins is saying that the Prime Minister has MORE statistical support for pushing Marriage Equality not less, as Scott Robert’s article Implies.
But the article makes out that Hawkins is in opposition to Cameron which is false (and could in fact be interpreted as disinformation)
Scott Roberts REALLY needs to work in his headlines – did he work for a tabloid before?
Because, like most tabloids, the headlines rarely actually match up to the content of the article itself