Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Poll: Three quarters of Conservative peers call on government to halt equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I keep thinking of that condescending twit who came here last year to lecture us about how the Tory party are not the “nasty party” really.

    Still so bloody sure on that, are we?

    1. Craig Denney 8 Jan 2013, 12:08pm

      When are we going to get the timetable for this Bill as Cameron is now talking of next year (2014) for the legislation and me thinks he’s going to need all the friends he can get before the next election?

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Jan 2013, 1:07pm

      I think a poll produced by a company whose findings are being widely discredited hardly makes your argument in fairness.

      …. and as for the ‘nasty’ party, you seem to have overlooked the fact that they are the ones introducing the legislative changes having honoured their manifesto pledge to look at it.

      1. Is it a matter of who asked the question (agenda? certainly) or the fact that the Tory peers did answer that way? And if they did answer that way, does it matter?

      2. bobbleobble 8 Jan 2013, 2:36pm

        ‘and as for the ‘nasty’ party, you seem to have overlooked the fact that they are the ones introducing the legislative changes’

        And also providing the vast majority of the opposition to the proposal in the House of Commons.

        1. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Jan 2013, 4:35pm

          Absolutely, based on results provided by a discredited polling organisation working for an organisation that is deeply opposed to equal marriage.

          Not the soundest of footings to be basing an opinion on in my book.

          Best we wait and see in my book

      3. There is a difference between a national poll, where a vanishingly tiny %age of the population is questioned, and the results extrapolated, and a poll of Tory peers, where all of them could be asked, and the full results (including “refused to answer”) published, with names.
        One has a margin of error, the other a zero margin of error.
        Unless you are suggesting the results were falsified, which I’m sure you’re not!

  2. I notice there’s no information about Labour peers. Presumably it would squash any ‘unlikely to get through the Lords’ spin they might want to put on it.

    1. Or perhaps ComRes did not release that information? They were the pollsters and they conducted the poll for the bigots so perhaps they are the ones controlling the narrative here?

      And let’s not forget, the Tories are controlling the legislative timetable. So this reads a lot like “don’t bother trying, we won’t pass it”. It smells like a leverage tactic to me.

    2. Apologies, might be an unreasonable amount of snark in poor wording.

      1. ComRes has to publish the tables of the poll. They’re not up yet, so the info’s presumably only from a C4M press release. C4M will already have the full tables, after all they are ComRes’s client here.

        I’m looking forward to seeing the full tables when they get published.

  3. That There Other David 8 Jan 2013, 11:56am

    ComRes polls on this issue have been proven useless, and are therefore safe to ignore. Cameron knows this already.

  4. They’ll need hundreds of ambulances to drag them in to vote from their care homes.

    One last bitter chance to put someone down before they drop off this mortal coil.

    Disgusting.

  5. Given the accuracy of the previous ComRes polls for C4M, I’m not that worried.

  6. Jock S. Trap 8 Jan 2013, 12:03pm

    Well it ain’t gonna happen so stop being such bigots and get on with the job they wee elected to do!!

    This is typical… C4M just can’t let go and proving they have nothing new to add to their discriminating arguments.

    Enough already!

    Oh, and lets have a poll seeing how many Will be voting for a better stable society through equality!

    1. That There Other David 8 Jan 2013, 12:15pm

      Elected? If only.

    2. What makes you any less of a bigot than them? You’re just as intransigent when it comes to these issues as they are. However, at least they attempted a reasonable compromise with civil partnerships. I’m sure half the posters on this site don’t even know what “bigot” actually means, they just think it’s anyone who disagrees with a member of a minority group.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 5:21pm

        Delusional. The majority of them didn’t even want civil partnerships and now find it a very convenient tool to justify voting no. If they find CPs such a reasonable compromise, why wouldn’t they opt for one if they had a choice? Why aren’t they promoting them as a viable alternative to heterosexuals who’d rather not have a marriage? Leave the UK and you’ll find out just how unequal CPs are, idiot.

      2. Yaaay! Caligula’s here with his funny sayings.

      3. I have several pieces of paper that show I fully understand the meaning of words like bigot, prejudice and discrimination.
        Those qualifications also demonstrate my intransigence in the face of hatred and bigotry shown towards minorities, gay, black, asian, disabled, LibDems…OK, I made that last one up, Clegg deserves no sympathy….

      4. Jock S. Trap 9 Jan 2013, 12:06pm

        Your argument falls somewhat flat and irrelevant when you say ‘reasonable compromise’.

        You have one then if your happy to be a second class human being.

  7. Robert (Kettering) 8 Jan 2013, 12:12pm

    So who are the Lords in the scheme of things? Hardly representative of the common man now are they.

    They are totally unelected and to be honest most are just cronies put their by political parties. Until they’re elected I will not consider anything they do or as in government as legitimate.

    1. That There Other David 8 Jan 2013, 12:19pm

      It should also be remembered that the numbers of “cross party peers” include 12 Church of England bishops. I imagine that bloc will skew the results somewhat.

    2. That’s the advantage of an unelected house. They can think long term, unlike the government, who are fickle and indecisive, and will do anything, no matter how irresponsible or short-sighted, just as long as it’ll help them to cling to power for a few more years.

      1. I disagree, elections are bad enough, but the house of lords has zero legitimacy, and there is no evidence to back up any of your claims about its benefits. If anything, the lords will be full of hubristic wankers.

  8. That There Other David- You are SPOT ON as usual.

    After all their other polling on this subject (and just who is paying for these polls I would like to know)- I would be HIGHLY SUSPISCIOUS of ann “poll findings” produced by ComRes.

    OK- I am probably paranoid- but I just think its catholic propaganda.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Jan 2013, 1:10pm

      The laughable thing is that when all this is over Comres have got to go out into the world and sell the reliability of their polling to current and prospective customers – it is a highly competitive market with accurate results being everything

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 1:51pm

        True, but the worst case scenario is if the poll is accurate in the final vote in the Lords which would probably restore Comres’ reputation and credibility. We need to find out from other polling if what they say can be replicated. I wouldn’t mind betting C4M/CI have been busy with a letter writing campaign to the Lords. They are extremely well organised and disciplined which doesn’t say much for our side. All I hear and see is apathy and indifference by some gay voters. We’re not vocal enough and neither are supportive MPs and Lords.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 1:36pm

      My bets are on the Christian Institute/C4M/RC bunch of religious nutters footing the bill for this. Forget about Comres poll findings. It uses the client privacy privilege so it wouldn’t divulge it’s methodology. I’d be more convinced if other more transparent polling organisations would contrast their findings with Comres’, assuming they’ve done it or are going to do it.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 12:37pm

    What is worrying is that two thirds of the Commons allegedly oppose use of the Parliament Act. I think two thirds is what is required to invoke it isn’t it? Coincidence perhaps? I’d be very suspicious of anything Comres gets its hands on. Nobody knows the methodology used while other polling organisations are quite transparent. I wonder why?

    About bloody time we had some positive reporting on equal marriage. All we’re getting lately are the hysterics and histrionics from the religious nutters, Comres included.

    1. Craig Nelson 8 Jan 2013, 8:49pm

      Two thirds aren’t required for the use of the Parliament Act. The bill simply needs to be blocked and then reintroduced in identical form.

  10. I’ve probably said this before but I reckon Cameron has been pro-equal marriage in full knowledge that the HofL will block any bill. It is a win-win for him, he can tell us that he tried and failed while pacifying the right wing of his party.

    1. But then if he is SO convinced it’s the right thing to do and doesn’t use the Parliament Act to force it through (should the Lords block it) he will still be reviled.

    2. With reform looming they won’t dare block it.

  11. This is very worrying. Many MPs are happy to indicate they will vote for equal marriage to please party leaders but many of those may be closet bigots depending on it being squashed by the Lords. Even Cameron can say his hands were tied and we’d be back where we started.

  12. bobbleobble 8 Jan 2013, 1:05pm

    When was the poll taken? It sounds as if it was taken before the results of the consultation were known. Since there was broad support in there, 53% in favour I believe, can we then assume that this poll and its results are pretty much worthless. 49% of member of the upper house questioned believe that the government should go ahead if there is broad support, a plurality if not a majority.

  13. Well, it really is time to cull this unelected house of peerage. They are not needed or not wanted in a modern nation.

  14. More BBC bias was in evidence yesterday when Emily Maitlis said people didn’t understand why David Cameron was pressing ahead with plans for ‘gay marriage’

    http://goo.gl/dX70K

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 1:37pm

    Where is Ben Summerskill, still on holiday? Not a word from StonewallUK lately.

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 1:44pm

    Three quarters of conservative peers calling for a halt seems to echo the recent comment by a religious nutter that equal marriage will be massacred in the Lords. Do they know something we don’t? I suspect this poll wasn’t that recent and conveniently appears after the hateful tirade of Archbigot Nichols during Christmas propped up and supported by the BBC.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Jan 2013, 4:48pm

      No, I think you’ll find the information has broadly come from the same quarter, so it sounds very much the same.

      The proper polls are showing majority support, I would imagine that a lot of those against will be absent from the vote rather than there defiantly opposing it on the night.

      It will not be a career move raising their hands in the wrong place on the night.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 5:17pm

        I take your point. What I don’t get is, those in opposition keep harping on that despite the consultation and national polls indicating broad support for equal marriage which is a reflection of the electorate they’re supposed to represent, they insist that there isn’t which justifies their voting no. Whether some oppose it or not, surely, shouldn’t they vote yes since the consultation and positive polls indicate otherwise? They base their no vote on only those who have written to them to oppose it as well as revealing their own personal bias.

        Even if Comres conceded that as many as 90% of the electorate supported equal marriage, I’m not so sure these same opponents would vote yes. I think those in government who oppose it are being very dishonest, disingenuous and just mean-spirited.

        Even if many of them are absent, we’ll know who they are, so what would they be trying to prove? Absenting themselves is defiant anyway.

  17. bobbleobble 8 Jan 2013, 2:22pm

    Another point about this poll, apart from ignoring Labour peers, is that it doesn’t give any indication about how the peers are going to vote. Wanting a halt does not equal a no vote, they may have one eye on the polls and are concerned about rocking the boat. Plus this kind of poll really isn’t necessary, you think Cameron isn’t aware of the opinions of his members in the upper house?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jan 2013, 2:29pm

      Part of me becomes uneasy about this poll assuming it could be credible, bur probably not, and the other part tells me that Cameron may know something we don’t when you consider he’s pressing ahead regardless of the negative coverage equal marriage is getting in the media lately. I’m still very uneasy as to the outcome. The two thirds in the Commons opposing the Parliament Act is very worrying, assuming that to be true of course.

  18. I think we already know about ComRes polls for C4M.

    Move on, nothing to see here….

  19. Does “conservative peers” include bishops?

    1. bobbleobble 8 Jan 2013, 2:50pm

      No the bishops are considered cross benchers.

      1. Surely you meant cross dressers….. ;)

  20. “56% agreed with the statement that the government should “not proceed” with the changes if the consultation does not show “broad support”.”

    Pointless fact is pointless.
    The consultation DID have broad support.

  21. I hate and distrust polls. Why doesn’t C4EM start a new support page on their website listing the peers likely to vote for marriage equality in the same way that they have done with the MPs.

    It’s the only (almost) accurate way of gaging the support in the HoL.

  22. David Myers 9 Jan 2013, 9:30am

    Time to decommission the “house of lords”. They have no value or purpose other than to oppose true democracy.

    1. True Democracy would require all citizens to vote on every issue. What they obstruct is Parliamentary Democracy.

  23. a survey by the coalition for marriage.

    In the USA the same kind of result wold come from the National organization for marriage

    which is on the southern Poverty law center hate group list. (SPLC broke the back of the ku klux klan financially.

    Too bad they wont put religious groups on the hate group list.

    Rome would be see as an atom bomb compared to a bunch of soliders with dart guns.

    As a Old order catholic bishop told me today (they support marriage equaltiy etc)

    “I’d like to meet the pope, and say SEIG HEIL………And see if he clicks his heels together at those horrible words.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all