morals v prejudices

There's an interesting article by Chris Trotter in the Independent on how voters see morality and morals. Have a read. He questions whether some of our morals are actually prejudices.

Not liking something is not a sufficient reason for labelling it immoral. And deciding which political party to vote for according to its professed willingness to come down hard on solo mums and oppose gay marriage is not voting according one's "morals" but according to one's prejudices.

Trotter makes the point that judgements on moral failure are normally made at a personal level (such as Helen Clark's speeding, painting signing etc), whereas prejudices are about something we don’t like, rather than something that is necessarily immoral.

When we vote, do we consider morals of people within a party? If so , why do we so often think of morals as things we disapprove of in others? Like, for example, lying, gay marriage, porn surfing, or Christian fundamentalism. When we consider morals, do we look for something praiseworthy to applaud or something dodgy to criticise?

Trotter finishes with an interesting point: Refusing to tell voters the truth has absolutely nothing to do with morality - or democracy. But how much of a bearing does withholding truth have on that persons credibility, trust and integrity?