Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing a new tracker: the 2010 LD switchers to LAB – t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing a new tracker: the 2010 LD switchers to LAB – the voters who form Labour’s “crutch”
On Friday there was a lot of discussion on the thread about the detail from the latest Populus online poll which seemed to point to a big reduction in the proportion of 2010 LDs who are now saying they’ll vote LAB. Was this this just a sampling issue or were we seeing a trend that could change our whole view of the GE2015 outcome?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Why?
(a) ask a question
(b) don't give the person an opportunity to answer the question
(c) assume that the person is going to give a particular answer
(d) state the answer which they assume the other person is going to give
(e) and then write "thought not" as if they think it makes them clever
are the scum of internet forums and should be summarily executed. And their children and grandchildren should be sold into slavery. Such people are the lowest of the low.
John L is right when he says I don't particularly want a Labour government, but I sure as hell don't want a Tory one. The present Tory/LD coalition is bad enough, but the idea of a single party govt dominated by Cameron, Osborne and IDS makes me shudder.
Oh, and by the way I agree with John about people who post like IA did! Apart from the slavery bit, of course!
I don't like the (apparent at any rate) effect of the NHS reforms especially as they seem to apply to my local GP practice, although I agree with Dr Foxinsox that some of that is due to the Labour reforms to medical education.
I am very unhappy at continued privatisation; where can it end? There's surely nothing else that can be sold off, and I don't see a signifcant improvement in services that can't be accounted for by technology. Which would have come in anyway!
I think the constant negativity about Europe from the Tories is counter-productive. I cannot imagine that our prtners will not soon be tired (if they are not already) of our constant "will we stay, won't we stay" attitude. If the EU Parliament passed a "Make your minds up or Eff Off" resolution I wouldn't blame them!
Having said all that, I think the Labour policy on energy prices is daft; freezing prices simply holds back investment.
I don't like the Tory schools policies, although Labour's aren't much better; while I wouldn't necessarily do away with all fee paying schools immediately I would insist that all schools with any degree of Government funding are open to all. I would get rid of state supported faith schools.
Oh, and I want to see a fair electoral system, with a rationally selected second chamber.
When it all comes down to it though, I see a Tory run Britain as being governed in the interests of the fortunate, and I would rather see my country governed in the interests of all. "We're all in this together" was the most hypocritical slogan ever.
That do for a start? I'm sure you will agree with one or two points and disagree with others. Or should that be the other way round.
Thank you for your full reply - I am on my way into work and will give you a full response in about 45mins where the internet will be more reliable.
So when did a lead of 7% to form a majority become a lead of 9% to form a majority. Many of us have often said that many of the so called switchers are 2005 Labour voters who loaned their votes to the LibDems in 2010, probably to keep out the Tories. It may therefore prove to be the case many of these 2010 switchers are in fact in Tory-LibDem battlegrounds and if they return to Labour 1) their change of vote will greatly help the Tories hold marginals against the LibDems and take marginals from the LibDems and 2) make little or no difference in the Tory-Labour battlegrounds. I also fully expect many of them simply not to bother voting regardless of what they are saying now.
Such a result would hardly be surprising. As I have pointed out before the efficiency of seats for votes by Labour at the last election was freakishly high, far higher than they have managed before. They got their votes where they needed them and their vote collapsed where they didn't. Having more wasted voters will simply mean that they are trending back towards the mean. Their vote will still be more efficient than the tories but not by as much.
The consequence of this will be that the prospects of Labour getting a majority while losing the popular vote will be much diminished. There will still be a window for them to be the largest party in that scenario though which is what I would predict at the moment. This segment also probably means the extent of any tory lead required for a majority will have gone down not up.
I'm sorry but the notion of the nether regions of a sweaty Ed Balls finishing the London Marathon is simply too much to endure ....
As for the second group, the non-internvention in Syria will have re-affirmed their support for Labour, although again they might be prepared to support a LibDem as the lesser of two evils.
There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.
2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.
In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html
I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.
BBC News - Aberdeen 'top place in UK' for spare cash
"Aberdeen has seen the largest increase in disposable income in the UK since the credit crunch, according to a study of economic figures.
The analysis suggests households in the city are now better off by 19%, £2,285, compared with before the recession.
Brighton, Belfast and Blackpool also ranked well, with London seventh."
Remember in 2010 the Tories would have come out with 317 seats if the UNS had worked fully in CON-LD marginals.
Also expect one or two LD gains from CON.
I think the first of these will be greatly diminished which is one of the reasons the Lib Dems are polling so badly. Many of the 2010 Lib dem voters in these seats were never really Lib Dem voters, they were Labour voters in the first place. They will vote for the party they genuinely want, even if they recognise that will not help them locally.
The Lib Dem vote in Con/Lab seats is clearly more of a risk for the tories and I would agree it is possible that it might be squeezed further but you should recognise it has already been squeezed very efficiently already in most cases. That said tory marginals with largish Lib Dem votes (such as Broxburne) are clearly going to be the most vulnerable.
FWIW I also think Labour's vote will increase in their safe seats. Voting for Brown is something hardly anybody could do without a heavy heart and I suspect many Labour supporters will be more enthused with getting rid of a tory government than supporting a tired old Labour government. So I would expect the turnout to increase from the abysmal levels (under 60% in many cases) in those seats. This will also reduce the efficiency of the Labour vote.
@TelePolitics: Blog: Euan Blair for Parliament? Labour is more inbred than the North Korean politburo http://t.co/Zv5zpTH5Ae
1. Coalition differential turnout voters - 1992 repeated.
2. Labour soufflé voters - The Ed's not for me voters.
3. Ukip-lite supporters - As 2 above. Tory reserves.
4. Con>Lib gratitude voters - New non yellow peril averse in LibDem/Con marginals
But real wages have in fact been increasing for some time for most people. Those in work have been working more hours (the total hours worked has increased faster than employment), they have got promotions and those in self employment have had more to do.
There will be very little "feelgood" factor but the "crisis" concept will only reasonate with a minority in my opinion.
Labour 1997-2010 had a policy of helping the less fortunate - from whichever country they might want to arrive - by gouging the private sector and by borrowing, each to support a public sector and always to unsustainable levels. Now to me, there is nothing more cruel than Labour holding out hope for the poorest in society that they can have a better quality of life, cynically knowing we can't afford it - and knowing that when the other lot come in they will have to return to reality. What really gets on my tits is Labour plugging the line that the Tories are heartless dream-crushers for implementing what Labour knows will ultimately have to be put in place because of their profligacy.
Labour constantly peddles dangerous myths. Its business model is fundamentally broken. And the people who get hurt every time they implement it are ultimately not the rich. Not even the middle class. It is the poor.
By having a sound basis to the economy since 2010, industry has taken the view that it was worth keeping people employed, waiting for an upturn that would not have happened under Labour but has been delivered by this Government. As a result, since 2010 many hundreds of thousands have kept their jobs, and all the security that provides. Better still, many new jobs have been created. (It is usually at this point that Labour supporters get snippy, moaning these are not "real jobs" - they should all have the "real jobs" like these SPAds hold.) The poorest workers have been taken out of tax altogether. And never forget, it is the supposed party of the working man - the Labour Party - that has always seen higher unemployment when it left office than when it arrived. A truly damning statistic.
As a Tory, I feel my party does a damn sight more for the poorest in terms of a sustainable lifestyle than Labour ever does. The idea that we aim to keep the poorest poor is risible - and should be contested at every opportunity. And the rich are making a much greater contribution than they did across the life of the last Labour Govt. This Govt. is making far greater effort to redistribute wealth from rich to poor than the last Labour Govt. But ultimately, the aim is to have a bigger, more sustainable economy to be shared.
Labour's core problem is it wants to be loved. It buys that love, with money it does not have, and could never sustain. And the poorest get hurt by this strategy every time.
Now at my desk and dealt with the overnight problems.
Fundamentally I believe in Equality of Opportunity and not Equality of Outcome - which is mainly Labour's philiosophy except for their leadership. Let me explain.
I have lived and worked under both Totalitarian (Cuba, USSR, E. Germany) and Capitalist regimes and found both as equally corrupt and self-seeking (human nature) but Capitalist not as controlling as Totalitarian and more opportunistic for those who wish to seek opportunities. Thus I am in favour - generally - of a smaller state.
I really begin to worry when the State legislates for thought and speech control (like N.Korea today and was in E Germany). Over the last 20 years (and especially since Blair, Mandelson and Campbell successfully nigh-muzzled the Press) a person can be tried in court for saying certain words or expressing certain opinions in public. This Political Correctness (a form of Groupspeak), brought in under Labour and encouraged by the LibDems, is going to be very difficult to reverse this slippery slope.
Most people like to be led (and leave leadership and decision making to someone else) and desire personal and financial security for their future and that of their children. Thus some of my colleagues in Lithuania oft look back fondly to the days when their life was managed for them and they did not have to worry about tomorrow. However others are delighted in their new freedom to develop both cultural and business ideas.
Labour's main defect is that they look for solutions to today's problems with past remedies- their track record shows this failure and explains their lack of coherent policies today.
To continue
I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good, as well as in a different kind of capitalism that is not obsessed with quarterly dividends, disproportionately high managerial wages and enables much greater long term thinking and investment. So I put myself to the left of centre. But, sadly, I don't see anything meaningful from Ed's Labour that appeals to me. Like OKC, I suspect, I am waiting for something to turn up. It's frustrating and worrying.
continung
The NHS was an excellent concept in its time, but it became overtaken by 'management' from the 1970s and its running needs to be returned to the professional surgeons and medical staff. Whether with advancing medical and surgical solutions it can continue to be free for all is a moot point. Perhaps when our genes are modified to inhibit disease (and aging?) then demand will be less?.
Similarly, education also declined markedly since the 70s, and declining standards were masked by 'better results' which were gleefully accepted by politicians whilst ignoring what was happening in the rest of our globe. However, if people rush to pay for education in most of Africa - why do we employ truancy officers? Something wrong in the state of UK. Education went wrong when the 1944 Butler Education Act was not fully exploited. Grammar and Secondary schools were developed but the middle sector of Technical schools was nigh forgotten. Then it became political and the opportunity for advancement for all was much diminished.
Re the second chamber, I believe than in having an unelected chamber - not being politically aligned - has served us well - as long as it stops being a home for failed politicians. It needs to be composed of a wide range of backgrounds of people who have the experience of running things and know what fails and what works. Almost a council of elders that can rein in any excesses coming from the Lower House.
Re: Europe, I was and am happy at being a member of the common trade market, but giving away any form of self-determination was and is a step too far.
to continue
Those who wish to defend their unmerited privileges (health. wealth, white skin, whatever) will always display more energy than egalitarians of any description.
The most successful economies are those in which the state agrees not to confiscate personal wealth
I hope the Conservatives get a 9% lead. Then we'll whether it's what they needed or not.
The tactical voters have gone to the trouble of trying to work out who might win and adjusted accordingly - like immigrants who take the trouble to travel from Poland to Britain, they are keener and more alert than most. Many are more anti-Tory than they are pro-anyone - they simply dislike the Conservative Party and see them as having a largely destructive impact on British society, making it more divisive and weakening shared public services. (Whether we agree or not is irrelevant here.)
Sometimes they get the tactical position wrong (in Broxtowe in 2010 there was a widespread perception that Labour was doomed and the LibDems might just win), but Mike is right that they are more likely than most to take account of the seat circumstances. I think MIke is right to identify them as one of the two main factors in 2015, the other of course being the UKIP vote.
Wow !!! We're saved.
Now you have to take into account:
1) That follows several years of falls in real wages.
2) Historically real wages grew at over 2% every year.
3) People have a sense of entitlement, see the extravagant earnings of bankers / politicians / footballers / celebrities etc and are filled with resentment.
4) The government has been taking out over £100bn extra debt every year to feed the public's consumer spending addiction.
5) People think 'austerity' is something which has happened and that they're entitled to 'start spending again'.
6) The question I have been asking here for six years but have never received a viable answer not only continues but becomes ever more relevant namely:
If in a globalised world economy we are competing against countries where the people are as intelligent and educated as ourselves but are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions how do we justify our higher earnings.
The increase in VAT did not apply to most foods (except if you live on chocolate biscuits and take-aways), children's clothing and transport (except petrol). It was necessary as a result of Labour's mismanagement of the UK's economy. (not for the first time).
However, much of the UK has a much more serious disease - the lack of pursuit of excellence - both for their personal life and for that of the community. Many are happy to live on hand-outs from the state and also suffer from obesity - we are being too kind for their own health to the healthy jobless.
No political party has yet attempted to solve our major problems which have been brought about by the twin forces of globalisation and technology. This has left to the elimination of thousands of starter jobs - both blue and white collar, whilst Asia and Eastern Europe are better educating their lower-cost labour force.
In the late 1990s/2000s we became satisfied to import the energy, food and material goods that we could obtain cheaper elsewhere, whilst at the same time paying ourselves over the market rate. This policy can lead only to two solutions either bankruptcy (which we are near) or a nation divided by the well-paid thinkers and the poorly paid manual dooers or minders).
Over to you OKC
It's also worth remembering that the Ashcroft polling showed the Libs holding on very well in Lib/Con marginals. And while I'd expect that to have diminished somewhat in the last few weeks, it does suggest that anti-Tory tactical voting still exists.
Finally: I think in a few areas (like South West London), the Libs might find it easier to pick up 'soft Tory' voters than before, as they can position themselves as a break on 'more extreme' Tories, rather than merely as 'Labour Lite'.
We shall get some very interesting clues in about three weeks :-)
As an aside, we have received exactly zero (none / nada) campaign literature from any of the political parties ahead of the council elections. And while my ward is very strongly Conservative, I would have expected a token leaflet at least. (As an aside, I would expect the Libs to outpoll UKIP in Hampstead.)
The simple answer is that we cannot if we fail to take a lead in technology. However, to state this simple fact is a no-no for most politicians and especially those in the protectionist EU.
They don't like the coalition (although this seems to be an emotional rather than a practical analysis). So they are kicking the LibDems. Until they are faced with the stark reality of do they won't to vote for EdM to be PM there is no reason for them to revisit this decision.
As a result - if they swing back to the LibDems - it will come fast and late. Possibly not until the second half of the campaign.
IMHO, this is the group the pollsters need to be most worried about in terms of getting their numbers right. While it's relatively easy to make judgements about what percentage of soft Kippers will vote Tory, I suspect this group could be binary.
A 9% lead is too much. A 4-6% lead is the narrow band that looks more likely for the Conservatives.
.......................................
BTW the current monthly McARSE Scottish referendum projection that I normally publish on the 18th of the month will, on account of Good Friday, be issued a day early on Thursday of this week.
The current fortnightly ARSE 2015 General Election projection will be issued on Tuesday 25th April.
Secondly, if freedom is to mean anything, it has to mean the freedom not to pursue excellence. And who is to judge excellence anyway? Oh, silly me, the market will do that. Or it would if it weren't for governments and irresponsible individuals like Sir Tim Berners-Lee giving away immensely valuable ideas like html.
I didn't think Gordon Brown was a good Prime Minister. But I didn't hate him.
There is a 'market' for a liberal party (albeit one that doesn't share any values with you), so I would thought that some form of liberal party will exist in the future.
The state has the theoretical potential to be a force for good. But it is a huge organisation and it can only operate by forcing people into specific categories. (You see this a huge amount when the state takes over charitable activities carried out by small groups - the impact becomes miniscule). As a result it doesn't provide effective solutions for people - but it doesn't allow them to seek their own solutions.
If the state required the individual to pay for themselves, the majority would run out of money fairly quickly. And then what?
Requiring people to whittle down their savings to fund their own care, and having the state only step in when funds are very low, is not great. But the alternatives would seem to be even worse.
We also need the parties to try and sort out power of attorney to make it easier in cases where the children of those suffering dementia are looking after them. As mentioned previously by others, the view of euthanasia may be affected by the rise of dementia.
They also - for instance - have fully private healthcare, long term care and schools. Now these haven't necessarily worked out entirely to plan - I'm sure Stuart_Dickson could talk about Ambea - but it's not some kind of socialist paradise.
You are reading too much into my words. That satisfaction for many is still with us.
Yes, if personally you do not wish to pursue excellence or encourage you children to do so, then generally the world is a poorer place and also if we all did that then there would be no Sir Tim etc. We do not need the market to tell us what we are doing - in reality we know it ourselves but may wish to put that realisation out of our thoughts environ.
This can only come from 2 sources:
(1) government redistribution (either through tax or through borrowing - which is really just deferred tax)
(2) High value added for customers. It's not just about education and willingness to work hard: these are the basic tools that enable you to pay in the game. Britain has a creative culture, and good at problem solving (you might call them tinkerers). It's only through intellectual property and solutions that you are going to create sufficient long-term value.
I'm not trying to say that manufacturing should cease in the UK - there is definitely scope for it. But basic, limited value added, metal bashing is a mug's game. We should be focusing on those areas where there is complexity, design value added, high levels of precision/accuracy, etc. But that's a difficult game - you need to keep running as other countries catch up over time.
On the bright side, though, wages are fast increasing in China et al. In fact jobs are being offshored from China to the Philippines, which is causing issues for the Chinese. We just need to keep ahead for long-enough until things stabilise.
Once written, Mike could save himself some ink by just linking back to it whenever presented with these fantastical scenarios.
Labour labour (sorry) under the reputation of being spendthrifts but that's easier to manage if the economy is seen to be growing. Their main problem is Ed.
Logic is only one factor in politics and not a particularly strong one.
EDIT: duh, where did that centre adjustment come from??
It matters not whether the oil was privately owned. All states around the world own the oil. The absolute fundamental you miss is that private wealth UNLOCKS all of this oil wealth, by using risk capital to explore for and develop discoveries. If it was left to the state, it would still be several miles underground.
The state has a role, by providing tax breaks and (even more important) a stable economic environment to justify the risk private capital takes.
*Much of Norway's oil wealth comes from a very advantageous settlement of where the Norwegian/UK maritime border should be. Many huge North Sea fields straddle this boundary, or are just inside Norwegian waters. The story I was told was that, after many months of wrangling by an international committee, the Norwegians took the UK delegation out for a slap-up lunch, after which they became much more amenable to the Norwegian position. Which mattered little, until years later when the oil started being discovered...and Norway got hundreds of billions back for that lunch...
As a matter of interest, what is the optimum time for leafleting before an election and how frequently should you ;leaflet during that time before it becomes annoying to the recipient. Also how many (%age) political leaflets are read instead of just being binned and has this inclination changed with time.
The term is an affectionate reference to the eponymous Dick Emery character called College.
Emery's College was a tramp whose defining outward features were a bowler hat, an old school tie (either Old Harrovian or Old Etonian) and a withered rose for a button-hole. He lives in 'reduced circumstances'.
Dick Emery on College: "His very name suggests that he has had some kind of education, and he seems to have enjoyed a rather different background from the usual down-and-out tramp. He remains a gentleman with cultural pretensions while slumming it with his friend, Droopy. He retains the vestiges of his former life. with his old school tie, battered bowler hat and crumpled buttonhole. And if he met a fellow 'old boy' from his school taking a stroll through the park where College sleeps every night, he would act as though their stations in life were equal, and his misfortunes would become even less real to him."
It was College's wearing of an OE tie in his debate with Nick Clegg that occasioned the reference.
Here is College in all his glory (but minus the buttonhole) after taking an old-fashioned 'selfie' from a Photo-Me booth. The tie on this occasion is Old Harrovian.
http://www.saintvespaluus.com/emerr1.jpg
It might be useful to compare this with the monthly Populus Mega Poll.
Pretty much this crutch switched the moment the Lib Dems went into coalition.
I don't think anything or anyone can entice them back to the Lib Dems.
The best Nick and Dave can hope is this crutch stays at home at The General Election.
But we are never going to agree, or, I fear, have the slightest respect for each other.
Story I heard was there was an agreed line on the map, but the Norwegians (a) got George Brown drunk and then (b) moved the line. And he signed it without noticing...
But they have an interesting sexual equality attitude too. The women regard the battle as won and don't get upset by what we would perceive to be sexist attitudes. They are equal but different.They are, on the whole (or whatever statistical test you want to use) better at some things and men are naturally better at others.
They are becoming more edgy about immigration though, and their antics at the local zoo show their practical natures. They're proud to be rated number one for happiness and I can see why. But they do speak their mind and I could see Ukip gaining votes there. It's not a socialist nirvana in the Ed sense.
But wait awhile ....
With Labour a few points ahead in the polls 13 months before the general election, may I ask when since WWII has Labour increased its share of the vote first time out after having just relinquished office ?
Neither does he deny your super-human powers of extrapolation.
Leaving aside the Blairite "third way" (did he ever actually believe in that? Or anything, for that matter...?), the issue we have is - what is fairness? Is it "fairness" to bugger up the economy for all if in the process you temporarily help a select few of the most unfortunate in society?
Unlike most here, I was brought up in what would pass today for very real poverty. I don't need to take lessons on what it means to be "the unfortunate poor". But I can give out lessons on how making the most of opportunity allowed me to rise above those circumstances. And how very good that feels. The more that can share my experience, the happier I will be. What I will say is that Government can take very little credit.
It's quite natural for the party of government and it's supporters to have a crutch, it's what keeps you walking on whilst the constant chatter of protest is afoot.
Otherwise Labour would have given up in 2009 when it was polling 20%.
There WILL, for example, be a proportion of 'never Labour again' voters going blue in 2015, the same way there was (in a hopeless cause) in 1997 - compare Tory votes in 97 vs 2001.
Maybe Mike also needs a tracker on Labour's triumphalism and Unhatched chicken counting crutch?
I got your "college" reference, but in my humble opinion, Dick Emery was one of the worst comedians ever. Charlie Drake was the worst though.
No governing party has held on to its share either, yet you are forecasting Tories largest party. Go figure.
Con need to start seeing a bottoming out of the Miller affair backlash, and a continuation of the gradual erosion of the Labour lead, it's looking Lab largest party to me at the moment, 6 is bad a year out, 3-4 better.
We've got:
possibly separation of Scotland
general loathing of the 'Establishment' leading to UKIP's significant rise
a coalition
If Scotland votes Yes would Cameron really need a 9% lead for a majority of 1?
New Populus VI: Lab 35 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 11 (=); UKIP 13 (+1); Oth 8 (=) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi140414
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falck_(Denmark)
It's generally believed that most people only glance at leaflets and agonising over wording is largely a waste of time so long as you avoid saying anything that will haunt you forever. But they do like to see you're making an effort, and if they never hear from you it influences the tactical vote as they assume you've given up.
At election time there are clearly diminishing returns and by the final week you see notices saying "Have mercy! No more election leaflets!"
Look at the ICM poll ratings for Labour and Conservatives a year or so out during the Thatcher and Major years up to 1992.
Gavin Edwards @GavinEdwards77 13h
Two polls out in last 24 hours show Lib Dem support dropping to 7%.
The more people see & hear Nick Clegg the worse it gets for them.
Oh, right! Calamity Clegg and his ostrich faction certainly wouldn't want anyone focusing on that.
Well how about the historic record of the lib dem VI trend since 2010 then?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Flatlining on 10% since late 2010 with nothing shifting them. Not the omnishambles, not anything little Ed says or does, nothing.
Maybe, just maybe, the lib dems have a toxic leader in Clegg? Too far fetched?
*chortle*
"Competition" means just that: a ritualised fight between individuals. "Perfect competition" is a fantasy which entrepreneurs (98% of whom are just crooks, of course) invoke to justify their behaviour. And yes, I do prefer my children to other people's, but I don't delude myself into thinking that that is anything other than extremely sinful behaviour.
It looks as though the poll last Friday was an outlier on this point.
"Abu Azmi, the Socialist Party’s Maharashtra unit chief, says that women who have sex before marriage should be hanged, while the Party's leader says he will scrap a law giving the death penalty to rapists if he’s elected prime minister.
“If rape happens with or without consent, it should be punished as prescribed in Islam”, Mr Azmi told the Mid-Day website.
“The solution is this: any woman, whether married or unmarried, who goes along with a man, with or without her consent, should be hanged. Both should be hanged. It shouldn’t be allowed even if a woman goes by consent.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10762531/Women-who-have-sex-before-marriage-should-be-hanged-says-senior-politician-in-Indias-Socialist-Party.htm
Does the UK still give aid to India?