Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Polling giant Ipsos MORI ignores couples in civil partnerships like ‘whether or not they eat meat’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Jan, 12:24pm

    Mr. Page offered a very lame excuse. Since marriage up until March 29th only applies to heterosexuals, isn’t that in a way determining the sexuality of people? ‘Living with partner’…does the survey ask if one of the partners is male or female? I suspect not. So in essence, CPs really don’t count for anything but single people living together does without any legal recognition? Makes NO sense.

  2. Helge Vladimir Tiller 31 Jan, 12:25pm

    Silly excuses by the leadership of Ipsos MORI. If Your practice is outdated, then change it for the best of society. People are different, we are individuals. We all must be respected for the peacful decisions we’ve made in life.

  3. It’s the stream of half-hearted excuses that annoys me. Like listening to some oik pretending to police that he “never done it”

  4. For those interested in data analysis and statistics, and especially for staff at Ipsos, there is a MOOC starting soon at Coursera – Data Analysis and Statistical Inference.

  5. Having the option “Married or in a civil partnership”, as on tax forms, would have solved it easily.

    But they didn’t…..

  6. I have been answering surveys from YouGov for a number of years now and they too took an awfully long time to start adding CPs to the relevant list. At the end of every survey where they had not added it I would post a comment in the ‘any other comments’ box. Whether or not it was ever a conscious decision to omit CPs or not, to me it just smacks of organisations that employ unthinking and ignorant people, another depressing sign of the times we’re living in.

  7. Robert Hanwell 31 Jan, 4:33pm

    It is good to see that Ipsos Mori have responded so promptly and corrected their survey criteria. I actually spoke to Ben Page and he suggested that I might have chosen the marriage option as surely that would suffice in recognition of my union? Well actually no it doesn’t, as I am not married I am civilly partnered. I am actually delighted that I will soon have the right to be married and although I may choose not to, it is important that it gives me the same rights as straight people. Equality! I think straight people should campaign for the same right to be civilly partnered! Wasn’t that Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s original noble aim? It would have provided much needed protection for societies many different kinds of unions between two people sharing their lives together. Sadly it was seen as a threat to marriage which really should have been able to stand on its own two feet and not be so threatened by choice.

  8. Erica Cook 1 Feb, 12:06am

    Not significant is below .05 or 5%, but it is a lot more complicated then that. depending on the population, the number of variables, and the number of distinctions in relationships that insignificant number could be as small as .0023 or .23%. Now, given on average any world population is 3% gay and even if you assume only 10% of that is in a civil partnership or married that means a significant number of people, enough to skew a survey would not be counted or at least inaccurately counted which could make a pole too inaccurate to be worth anything. Now, if they wanted to say the viewed civil partnerships to be the same as marriage in the case of the survey that would be reasonable. It may not be the same in actuality, but in defining the type of relationship it could be. In that case not changing the form, but changing their personal definition of marriage to include civil partnerships would make sense.

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