Exclusive: David Cameron accused of misleading over gay marriage polling

14 November 2012

5:08 PM

14 November 2012

5:08 PM

One of Britain’s leading pollsters has written to the Prime Minister to rebuke him for misleading his supporters over whether the Conservative Party would suffer in the polls if they legislated on gay marriage. The Spectator has seen an incredible exchange of letters between the Prime Minister, the former Welsh Secretary, Cheryl Gillan, and Andrew Hawkins, the CEO of the polling company ComRes.

Since being sacked in September, Gillan has become one of the Prime Minister’s more vocal critics and recently slammed the government’s gay marriage proposals. Responding to Gillan in a letter that was then leaked to the Pink News, David Cameron relied heavily on polling data from ComRes to claim that legalising gay marriage would make more people vote Conservative.

However, Hawkins has now accused the Prime Minister of misinterpreting his polling data and thus misleading the public:

‘Your letter of 19 October 2012 to The Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP states that “a recent poll by ComRes found that 10 percent of current Conservative voters say that the policy [to legalise same-sex marriage] would make them ‘less likely to vote Consen/ative’ compared with 7 percent saying it would make them ‘more likely to vote Conservative’.

I should like to put the record straight because the wrong figures have been quoted. Your figures relate to whether current Conservative voters are more likely to vote Labour, not Conservative, as a result of the policy. 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.’

However, this is to miss the more important point from the poll which shows both that the party loses more votes than it gains as a result of the policy, and that former Conservative voters are especially less likely to return to the fold.’


Hawkins went on to say that other ComRes polling, conveniently ignored by Downing Street in their response to Gillan, shows ‘the general detrimental impact on the Party’s fortunes’ if the gay marriage policy is pursued.

Hawkins concludes that ‘your letter states that “all of the published polls have found that more voters support equal civil marriage – however described – than oppose it”. That is simply not the case.’

Given Cameron’s reliance on his own internal pollster, Andrew Cooper, Mr Steerpike would be fascinated to see if the Tories’ polling is showing similar warning signs over the policy. With the growing likelihood that this could be a one term government, it is widely believed in Westminster that the gay marriage issue is seen as ‘a legacy policy’ in case the election is lost.

Cameron concluded his own letter stating: ‘I know that it is very doubtful that any of this information will change anyone’s mind.’ Given the voodoo numbers, Mr Steerpike shares Dave’s doubt.

UPDATE: Some ComRes polling is here (pdf). Mr Steerpike tips his hat to Harry Phibbs.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • rndtechnologies786

    Good blog.

  • Bob

    I oppose gay marriage simply because I believe it undermines and undervalues my own heterosexual marriage. (For the sake of fairness and equality – I have no problem with an equal but differently named service.) Because of that, I will not vote conservative at the next election – something I have done throughout my life. That, however, leaves all of us who are disaffected by this i.e. the older voter – not the pro gay marriage non voting younger generation – a problem. I suspect the answer will be that we will not therefore vote at all – and that is where I believe the risk for Cameron lies.

  • adamson

    Ask the People if they wish to redefine marriage by having a referendum..

  • Peter Brownp

    Hey Ho, so much for Cameron’s ‘convictions’. This is a prime example of him deciding policy on the number of votes that can be gained. He is far more cynical than even Blair.

  • Joe

    Equal marriage is not “a leftist policy.” It is a policy about creating equality and helping to break down the stigma which LGBT people face on a daily basis, especially as teenagers. Allowing two people of the same gender to marry will have absolutely no negative impact on your life. Gay couples are equally as able to feel love and affection for each other as straight couples.

  • Simon Gardner

    In France, Belgium, Netherlands religious marriages have no legal validity. Those that wish to go on to a church “blessing” after they’ve had that real marriage conducted by a civil officiant. With all these offensive attempts by religions to dictate even civil marriage, it’s time to take the legal function of conducting official marriages away from religions here too. It’s really not their business.

    • LondonVicar

      But that makes religious and civil marriage not interchangeable.
      Britain has always believed they are.

      • Simon Gardner

        Clearly since the Government proposes in its legislation absolutely to forbid churches to carry out same-sex marriages, it isn’t. Liberal Judaism and the Quakers spring immediately to mind.

        • LondonVicar

          Yes which is exactly my point.

          Introducing gay marriage is changing the whole equation as to heretofore.

          Marriage HAS Been interchangeable between civil and religious.

          No longer will it be so.

          Marriage will be a dubious and debated currency.

          Eg. people who not believe in gay marriage will not agree to call it so.

          Whereas no-one questions whether anyone is married at the moment.

          Introducing gay marriage is socially fractious as we see in the USA.

          • Simon Gardner

            I’d have been f****** insulted if anybody had tried to imply my marriage was in any way “interchangeable” with a religious one. How dare you.

            • LondonVicar

              I guess I would be insulted if someone used the F word in an intelligent debate.
              But perhaps I expect too much these days.

              By interchangeable I meant that they come to the same thing: marriage.

              What will happen re gay marriage though is that it will NOT be interchangeable.
              Because one will be civil and equivalent will not exist religiously.

              So the whole discourse of marriage breaks down.

              Because there are then two completely different definitions of marriage rather than parallel definitions.

              • Simon Gardner

                I’ve never thought religious marriages were equivalent.

                • LondonVicar

                  Doesn’t matter that you did.

                  They are treated equivalent in law and in society.

                  Eg. you don’t have to get remarried or redivorced from one system to another.
                  They are interchangeable.

                • Simon Gardner

                  And that’s what’s wrong. Take marriage away from religions.

                • LondonVicar

                  You are going to do that for the Moslems are you? Ho go. Good luck. And the Sikhs and Hindus?

                  Sent from my Samsung mobile

                • Simon Gardner

                  That’s right. Just like in the Netherlands. All of them.

  • LondonVicar

    Sad if gay marriage is the Tories ‘legacy’.

    It used to be such a great party.

    UKIP must be laughing all the way to the polling station.
    And Labour !

  • LondonVicar

    Cameron just isnt listening.
    I suspect it will cost him the election.
    He seems to have blinkers on and earmuffs too.

    It will be a case of ‘we told you so’.

  • derekemery

    There’s a good analysis of the influence on gay marriage on voting intentions at UK polling report at It points out that there are far more important factors influencing voters choice than gay marriage. The state of the economy is likely to the be top issue for most people. Few will vote on the basis of gay marriage as it is too far down the list and down in the noise for many. Being able to pay the bills will be far more important and the feeling that you are getting poorer or richer by election time.

  • sam

    Right, hang on, given that the two other main parties both vocally support gay marrriage, we are seriously saying that there are a load of people who hate teh gayz SO MUCH that they think to themselves “You know what, that Ed Miliband is the man to lead this country. That Ed Balls, he’s the man to run the economy. Labour; they’re the party for me. But….they’re queer-lovers! I guess I’ll just have to go with the tories again. Ho hum.”

    Because personally, I doubt that.

  • bothbarrels12

    Let’s be honest here, it really doesn’t matter if the majority of people are for it. The majority of people were against interracial marriages at the time they were decriminalized/legitimized. I understand that religious folk won’t want gay marriage to come into play, but let’s call all civil marriage ‘civil unions/civil partnerships’ and you can keep ‘marriage’ to religion. Otherwise, as religious folk are protected from carrying out gay marriages, there’s no need to bring religion into it.

    For those talking about family, family is defined by care, love and responsibility. Grandparents raise their grandkids, and we don’t tell them they’re not a family. Single mothers and fathers raise their kids and we don’t tell they’re not a family. Gay people are already living together and raising kids, and gay marriage will only serve to further legitimize those families. They’re still mothers and fathers, there’s just two of them.You don’t need to remove these terms from documentation, you just need to leave both as an option for the two spaces (mother/father and mother/father).

    You stop gay marriage, you’re not going to stop same-sex parented families.

    • Simon Gardner

      You can rename church marriage as ‘magic-man marriage’.

      • LondonVicar

        God marries people (of opposite sexes).
        The vicar is just the officiant.

        That is acknowledged in the liturgy:

        ‘What GOD has joined together, let no-one divide’.

    • LondonVicar

      polls have shown that majority of Britons are against gay people adopting children actually.

      But no-one will touch that now.

      Too much of a hot potato.

      Shame all the RC adoption agencies had to close down………

      • Joe

        Surely the argument of marriage is a red herring. Same-sex couples can already adopt jointly, equal marriage changes nothing.

        • LondonVicar

          You are right.

          I was just adding this to the fact that people claim that people are fine with same sex parenting.
          Actually polls show quietly they are not.

      • bothbarrels12

        Are they the same people clamouring to adopt the kids themselves, who just can’t get hold of an orphan for all the gays in their way? No, I think not.
        If there’s definitive proof that gay people are worse parents, when placed in an equally supportive environment as straight families, then perhaps stopping gay people having kids is a bad thing. Until that day, I look to the government to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

  • D B

    How very odd! A politician being misleading.

  • JP

    Why should gay people not be allowed to marry?

    • Obviousbigot

      Homosexuals, it is very simple, use another word; ‘marriage’ is meant for a union before God between a man and woman, get over it!

      DC obvioulsy wants to lose the next election and let Liebor scew up the economy again!

      Now, where’s my coat!

      • The Elderking

        Mine’s on and I’ve one foot out the door. The UK’s is f*cked.
        I am so glad I have another country to go to. Its not just gay “marriage”, its crime, illegal migrations, Islamism, secularism, corrupt politicians, CofE nonsense and so on.

        A recent report said that growing numbers, 000’s per month, of professional people are leaving the UK.

        Soon there will only be a benefit hungry underclass, tax dodging or criminal immigrants, gays and people like Cameron and Balls.

        As against globalism and EU harmonisation as I am it will however bring about the shrinking of the UK State as companies increasingly “offshore” profits, tax revenues from emigrants is lost, people scale down lifestyles and pensioners (having had personal pensions wrecked/robbed) fall increasingly back upon the State whilst the demographic moves in their direction

        The UK is between a rock and a hard place and instead of sorting it out to the benefit of the majority of working people it is being run for the benefit of non-contributors or people who wish to change the nation against the peoples will.

        What will happen when these people truly realise that they can no longer trust the Tories, Labour OR the Liberals and simply stop voting?

        Whither democracy?

        • LondonVicar

          which country do you recommend please?

          would the last person out mind shutting the door?

      • bothbarrels12

        Then let’s call all civil marriages ‘civil unions’ and everyone’ll be equal.

        • LondonVicar

          fine. happy with that. it does preserve us the word ‘marriage’.

          PS they are still not a physical or spiritual union.

          • bothbarrels12

            We have sex, honest. And we might not be spiritually united in front of your God, but spirituality isn’t the possession of selected strands of the Christian church. I’m not asking you to like it, I’m just asking you not to impose your beliefs on a legal contract (that’s founded in love and commitment, publicly and privately).

            • LondonVicar

              Again you are redefining things.

              Union traditionally has been understood as between two people of different genders.
              Because they can be united physically and produce new life from that union.
              That has not been the preserve of the Christian church.

              It has (merely) been the preserve of the whole of human history.

              • bothbarrels12

                Slavery was the preserve of the whole of human history as well, and yet we know it’s wrong (have you been around for the whole of human history by the way?). The planet is wildly overpopulated, which somewhat reduces the need for all 100% of the population to be popping out babies. You must remember that gay people will always be a small minority, and gay isn’t catching, so there wont be a single change to the life of any straight person, other than having to share the word. Campaign to make civil marriage ‘civil unions’ if you’re bothered about the word. Gay marriage isn’t going to shove straight marriage out the way, stop straight people having kids or being religious, it’s just going to extend some respect to all consenting adults.
                Ps, the definition of ‘union’ is the act of joining together or being joined together; a state of harmony or agreement. Nothing in there about gender or even people.

                • LondonVicar

                  A Christian definition of union – by which you can therefore read an English definition of union, because it goes back prior to the Reformation –
                  was that people were became one.

                  Became one physically (because physically they were designed to do so); become one spiritually and become one emotionally.

                  It is not just joining together. It is becoming one.

                  Which is not possible in people of the same gender.

                • LondonVicar

                  You make a massive assumption.

                  The planet could feed everyone.

                  We are just too selfish.

                  Which is what we Christians call sin.

                • LondonVicar

                  You are quite right.

                  I have not been around for the whole of human history.

                  But there are such things – what do you call them? – as history books.
                  Including a history of marriage.

                  Yes marriage has changed in details over the years.

                  But has always been between two people of opposite genders.

                  Anything else (eg Nero and his lover who dressed up in drag) was regarded as an abherration.

      • Simon Gardner

        You do realise these proposals are solely about civil marriages, right? Nothing to do with any hocus pocus churches and even those which want to conduct gay marriages won’t be allowed to – like the Quakers and Liberal Judaism.

        • LondonVicar

          Yes but they are about redefining Marriage per se for the whole of society.
          That is why lots of people are bothered.
          Not just Vicars and not just Christians.
          People don’t want to be asked ‘Are you married to a man or a woman?’ for the rest of their lives!

          • Simon Gardner

            Actually, that already happens. And it’s just you that’s bothered by it.

      • LondonVicar

        now where’s my voting slip you mean!

  • Sarah

    Well 5 out of 10 for finally remembering “gay” includes female ones.
    0 out of 10 for the porn-lite picture choice and still forgetting your readership does too.

    It’s as bad as HIGNFY round here for the smell of middle-aged testosterone.

    • Zulu Dawn (1979)

      Hahahahaha moaning old biddy

  • Fred

    Lots of Romney supporters on this thread. Think it worth pursuing these policies of hate and division?

  • Cassandra1963

    This is not about Gay marriage at all, it is the cover and an excuse the regime needs to destroy the current family orientated paradigm and replace it with a state sanctioned, audited and controlled replacement. It is the notion of the family as a married man and women with children and their rights within the law that is being systematically destroyed by the establishment ruling class, this traditional family unit represents a threat to the new world order which needs to take over the role of father and mother and family unit for itself. As ever we are seeing the establishment ruling class using a fabricated cover in order to progress a secret agenda of which we know almost nothing. Its not about Gay people at all, its about the increasing power and authority of the state over us, its about dismantling anything that may stand in the way of the state taking over the role of the family for itself.

    • LondonVicar

      As I said to Liam Fox on my doorstep we will go the way of Scandanavia in weakening marriage.
      And it will just mean more and more and more tax to support all these non-family dependants.

      • TristanPriceWilliams

        Oh Liam would have liked that. Did you ask after Adam?

  • Duke of Earl

    As a libertarian, I come from the standpoint that it’s none of the government’s business what people do in their bedrooms. Marriage should be treated as a legal contract between consenting adults and should be gender neutral.
    I personally don’t support gay marriage, but it’s not my place to force my will on a small minority just because they are different. That, my friends, is the tyranny of the majority.

  • LordJustin

    It is not up to politicians to decide to change something so deeply rooted in our culture without a clear mandate. As no party has that mandate, they should hold a referendum and let the people decide.

  • vieuxceps2

    It’s not gay marriage,but same-sex marriage which should mean that we can all join in if we wish. So two cheery mates from the pub with common interests, two life-long loving sisters should be able to unite their lives. If not,then it’s discrimination against heteros. Another thought, if it is reserved for gays only,how do they prove they’re gay to the vicar?Any thoughts?

  • Leandro Fernandes

    Nothing, absolutely nothing will make the Torys win in 2015, the labor will come back, and if gay marriage is not approved, they will approve it. And the British public will react mostly as in 2005, with a huge yawn

    UK is not the U.S., and social issues does not guarantee vote, otherwise it, lose, every time the Conservative Party, was placed on the right, he lost the next election, Margaret, conservatives have years and years of bitter defeat .

    • Peter

      But why?
      Labour always, but always wreck the economy!

      • TristanPriceWilliams

        And the Tories wreck society. Ask people in the UK if they are happy…

    • LondonVicar

      But if Conservatives only lose on the right, why will Cameron lose next time, having introduced gay marriage , a leftist policy?

  • Richard

    Why would anyone want “gay marriage” to be their legacy?

    A much more valuable and important legacy, would be to keep Labour out!!!!!!

  • Revd_Dave

    Yes, the political question isn’t how many existing conservative voters will STILL likely to vote conservative if gay marraige!!!

  • Simon Gardner

    The photo is by Gérard Julien of AFP. The two women are straight – protesting a homophobes’ rally in France recently.

    • Zulu Dawn (1979)

      Most women snogging each other in public are straight. It’s intended to communicate a raunchy lack of inhibition in order to attract men.

      • vix

        Damn. I thought it was the latest from CocoCola.

  • rumbelow

    Frank Fisher you are wrong, the intention to look at how to introduce same sex marriage was clearly outlined in the 2010 Tory manifesto document “A Contract For Equalities”

    • Frank Fisher

      rumbelow – there was NO commitment to introduce gay marriage. Was there? A consultation is not implementation.

      • rumbelow

        Frank Fisher, There absolutely was a committment to look at how to introduce same sex marriage as outlined in the contract for equalities.

        “Theresa May, Shadow Minister for Women and Equality, has launched the Conservative Party’s contract for equalities.

        She said the contract “underscores some of the most important battles in politics”, on gender equality, racial equality, ending age discrimination, LGBT issues and helping disabled people.

        In this contract, as with the others, the Conservatives are saying that if we fail to make progress in these areas and do not deliver on our side of the bargain, then vote us out in five years time.

        “This contract for equalities will be central to what we plan to do in government”, May said. “After 13 years of Labour’s big government, inequality is at its highest level since the Second World War”.

  • George_Arseborne

    I had always seen this PM as a dubious dude long time ago. I am happy that a right wing press like Spectator agrees with me. The point is, he is easily caught. Why indulge in such move? The economy is getting out oh hands and the C Chancellor has join his boss on gay marrisge .as well.

    • Simon Gardner

      Why do it? Because gay people vote?

      • Baron

        Bollocks, if all gay people were to go to the count it would make little difference to anything what with only 2-3% claiming to be homosexuals.

        They’ll do it because they can, they don’t give a shite what the majority wants, never did, never will.

        • Leandro Fernandes

          The voting is optional, 2 or 3% swing an election, and add heterosexual supporters.

        • Laura Watts

          You ever heard of the term tyranny of the majority? If that logic had been followed for the civil rights movement we would still see segregation today. The majority is not always correct.

        • TristanPriceWilliams

          Ahhhh, but what about all the ones that DON’T claim to be gay, but wish like mad that they could, because they are, and they have to live in a twilight world because of fear of being found out.. What about them. They might be more inclined to vote for a party that didn’t espouse hate for them.

      • bothbarrels12

        Possibly because it’s the right thing to do? Name one logical argument not to allow same-sex marriage that’s based on reliable scientific fact? Government is there to protect all its citizens and ensure they’re all treated equally in the face of the rule of the majority.

        • Anyotheruser

          Since when has the definition of marriage or family being based on “reliable scientific fact”? It’s a moral and social question, not a scientific one – just try reversing it: name one logical argument to allow same-sex marriage that’s based on reliable scientific fact?

      • LondonVicar

        Christians and Moslems and traditionally minded people vote too.
        A fact which Mr Cameron appears to be choosing to forget.

        • Simon Gardner

          Yes. They really ought to be disqualified on the grounds of idiocy. But them’s the breaks.

        • Tom Webster

          As a Christian who votes, I have absolutely no problem with same sex marriage but would never vote Tory either.

  • Frank Fisher

    It wasn’t on his manifesto, there is no public support for it, the polls are against it – there is NO mandate for this redefinition of marriage and the cascade of anti-family tweaks to the law that will have to follow – removal of husband and wife from legal documents, removal of mother and father, removal of distinction between natural children and adopted children etc.

    So, I’ll treat this law if it comes in, as illegitimate.

    • Peter Treadwell

      “removal of mother and father[ from legal documents]” Nonsense. Or are you able to tell us of a legally reliable source for that idea?
      The paranoia with which many people regard this proposal, which will have zero impact on anyone not gay, would merit psychological investigation.

      • Frank Fisher

        Nonsense? Well this is the way it is proceeding in France – no husbands, no wives, just spouse 1, spouse 2, parent a, parent b. Do you consider that is zero impact?

        • Peter Treadwel

          The example you quote does not remove mother and father, it merely gives them different labels. Not that French legislation is particularly relevant to the UK, of course.

          • Silent majority

            There are already moves in this country to do just that. For example there are proposals from Brighton Council to remove these terms. Stonewalls own proposals were to replace the husband and wife on marriage certificates on in the 1949 Act. Or looking at another country like Spain where the word progenitor has replaced mother and father.

            • Frank Fisher

              And in Spain, identity cards now list everyone’s sex as m/f.

          • Frank Fisher

            Oh, you’ve not noticed that, for some strange reason, legislation across the eu tends towards harmonisation?

            And as father, that label matters to me – a lot.

            • Alex Wasyliw

              You’e saying whether a particular document names you as ‘Father’ or ‘Spouse 1’ changes how you perceive yourself and your relationship with your child? I’d suggest maybe you have more serious issues than gay marriage to deal with.

              • Andr3w

                If that’s the case then why should it matter whether two gay people have a ‘marriage certificate’ or ‘civil partnership certificate’? By your logic what is on forms doesn’t matter, so why make the change? Alternately, if what’s on forms does matter then I think there are many more fathers and mothers in the country who would like to be officially referred to as such than there are gay couples who want to be ‘married’.

          • Another_Pragmatist

            Does that mean kids can’t say mama, papa, any more? Do they have to call them parent a, parent b? Will the kids be removed if they continue to say mama, papa or are the parents allowed to thrash it into them?

        • Alex Wasyliw

          Oh my god, oh no… how awful, that just sounds a nightmare, how are they managing to cope, the poor French, we must do something.

          Get a grip.

      • Tom
    • Adam Nixon

      So, I’ll treat this law, if it comes in, as illegitimate.
      Do you think anyone will care? Or even notice?

      • Frank Fisher

        I’m assuming others, more active than myself, will do likewise. I think we’ll see christian activists, for example, demonstrating outside ‘weddings’, and no doubt being jailed for hate crimes…

        The gay community is being suckered here – they’ll face a hell of a backlash, and gain very little

        • Adam Nixon

          If they demonstrate peacefully, that is up to them. If they do so violently, they will presumably be punished according to the law.

          Nobody demonstrated against my wedding (straight, fyi), but I can’t imagine that, if it had been likely, we would have decided not to get married at all.

          • Frank Fisher

            I’m not talking about violence; I’d be willing to bet that people will be convicted of a crime for saying “You’re not actually married”. You wait and see.

      • LondonVicar

        Oh they will care.
        Because you must bow the knee to the new ‘morality’.

        • TristanPriceWilliams

          Do you think we should stay with the old morality then…you know, wives a chattels, make all homosexuality legal, allow companies to chose which “brand” of Christianity them employ?

    • milliboot

      That will show the PM Frank !

    • Baron

      Frank Fisher, sir, Adam Nixon’s right, you know. Those who govern us don’t give half a hoot what the hoi polloi think, desire, support, and not only on gay marriages.

      We’ll have to wait until the next crisis of the eco-financial nature hits again as it must. That will also furnish the day of reckoning.

    • EJ

      There is NO public support for it – outside of the metropolitan bubble where they all believe that anything that subverts the old ways must de facto be a great and worthy thing. Let Cameron continue tinkering with this nonsense – it will only turn more conservatives against him.

    • rumbelow

      Frank fisher is wrong and keeps repeating what he knows to be a lie.

      As introduced by Theresa May, the manifesto document ‘A Contract For Equalities’ clearly outlined the governments committment to making progress on the introduction of same sex marriage.

      • Frank Fisher

        Don’t call me a liar chum – that document you link to make NO commitment to introduce gay marriage. Copy and paste it, if it is. Give the page reference.
        You’re the liar. The conservatives did NOT go into the last election with a published commitment to introduce gay marriage

    • Adam

      “So, I’ll treat this law, if it comes in, as illegitimate.”

      Go for it… don’t marry someone of the same sex… that’ll stick it to ’em 😀

      (and let’s face it… this government have no mandate to do anything… hasn’t stopped them yet)

      • TristanPriceWilliams

        I bet that’s got Cameron shaking ion his expensive boots… In Scotland all the parties are for this. And we don’t have to put our laws through the House Of Bishops and other Peers. We just enact them in a sort of 21st century way.

    • TristanPriceWilliams

      How will that make any difference?

  • Robert_Eve

    A ‘legacy’ policy – Jesus wept.

  • obbo12

    Its only a legacy policy if they have the votes for it.

    • Simon Gardner

      It’s blindingly obvious even to a moron in a hurry that there are easily enough votes in the Commons for gay marriage.

      • obbo12

        Not from his own party there isn’t and the Labour party never completely reverse their policy for the sake of defeating the government. The recent EU budget vote ring any bells?

      • lancashire_tory

        I agree, but it’s not the Commons Cameron needs to worry about. Why should the Lords pass a piece of legislation that wasn’t in any manifesto?
        Wrong battle at the wrong time.

        • Simon Gardner

          I agree. I think they may have real problems with the House of Peers. Fortunately, the Catholic Bishops are not Lords Spiritual.

          • TristanPriceWilliams

            We won’t have that problem in Scotland. Thank something or other!!