Anna Soubrys Electoral Math Lesson..

Anna Soubry must have been given maths lessons from Diane Abbott last night after claiming that 63% of people voted for remain (or rather didnt vote for leave..)

However, her own election in Broxtowe makes some interesting numbers itself…

 

21 comments on “Anna Soubrys Electoral Math Lesson..

  1. Next time round the result for her should be even more stark – she will be getting the sort of showing that a Capitalist-Monopolist-Anti-Stasi candidate might have enjoyed in East Germany.

    Incidentally has anyoneone noticed that Soubry has the same crazed, fanatical eyes as Chris Williamson?

  2. Not voting for something isn’t the same as being against it. If you don’t vote you are in effect saying you don’t care one way or the other. Excluding, I suppose, those stupid people who didn’t vote remain and then cried when leave won.

  3. If Brexit is stolen, there will a special tumbril all to herself for that evil witch. Chopping off her head probably won’t kill her because her brain is in her arse.

  4. Short of a formal boycott by not voting you’re essentially saying you don’t care and will accept the result of those that do. So if you are going to include nonvoters here then they should be counted as Leave votes.

  5. ‘We want to be at the table shaping the rules’ – Anna Soubry
    Turnout in European elections – 35% approx

    The majority do not want to be at the table.
    Even fewer want a say in other nations affairs if you include those who voted for UKIP/Hannan.
    We might accept other rules on a take or leave it basis just fine if it’s in our interests, but we clearly don’t want to be at the table.

  6. I’m used to hearing this argument from disappointed socialists- “only thirty percent of the electorate voted for this Tory government, hence it’s illegitimate”. Never heard it from a non socialist before, however disappointed. Is there something Soubs is hiding?

  7. For me, I’ve abstained in a lot of ballots, usually by scrawling “None of the above. You’re all gits” across the ballot paper.

    My 2016 Scottish Parliament Ballot
    http://www.cuteventures.com/NoneOfTheAboveYoureAllGits.jpg

    I’ve always viewed those who don’t vote or spoil their ballots as being either apathetic / unenthusiastic or rejecting the candidates and nothing more than that.

    Those like Anna Soubry (*spits*) who equate everyone not explicitly voting for the opposition as either strongly or weakly aligned with her position are just deceivers. The only question being whether their intent is to deceive herself or the electorate (probably both to be quite honest)

    Still, the only proof is in the ballot box and I am fairly sure that the constituents of Broxtowe will do the right thing and demonstrate Ms. Soubry the real arithmetic of electoral math when they boot her out at the next election.

    Because that was what the 2016 Referendum was really about wasn’t it? Getting rid of those that we could not remove through the electoral process.

    If only we could get rid of civil servants in a similar way…

  8. Sour-trout Soubs is copying the Fish Faced Cows tactic of brazenly lying and keeping on brazenly lying. It won’t help either of them for much longer.

  9. @John G
    [applause]
    Does that mean Scottish voters get a nice red felt-tip instead of the stubby blueish pencil we have to put up with in England?

  10. @Chris Miller – Nope. Like the rest of us plebs we have the easily modifiable led pencils for voting. I’m not that stupid or trusting, so always take my nice fat indelible red marker with me on polling day.

    Less stark than doing it in my own blood I suspect, but still…

    It’s either that or anarchy and I bet the beer costs a lot more for a lot less under anarchy…

  11. Not voting for something isn’t the same as being against it. If you don’t vote you are in effect saying you don’t care one way or the other. Excluding, I suppose, those stupid people who didn’t vote remain and then cried when leave won.

    I’ll go stronger than that. Those who choose not to vote are implicitly stating they accept the decision of those who choose to vote.

  12. @John Galt March 6, 2019 at 12:47 pm

    I would love a “None of the above. You’re all gits” box on ballot paper and if it won 20 people chosen from voter roll, each serving 3 months

    .
    As for Soubry, care in the community isn’t working – she should be sectioned

  13. One delicious thought is that if Scotland had voted 85:15 for the UK to remain an EU member on a turnout of 85% then Remain would have won.
    There are people who claim that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to Remain. The Scots had a pretty low turnout in the 2016 ref, and it was about 62:38. So not overwhelming at all. Not even close to Gibraltar standards of overwhelming.

  14. Campaigning for Vote Leave in Perth (where I currently live), I found that the Scots were pretty weak in terms of support for / against the EU and most of those who weren’t fans of the EUSSR stayed home rather than voted against.

    If the SNP had been honest to itself and voted against both English AND European hegemony then the difference would have been marked.

    Still. We lost here by more than 60/40, so maybe I am just a sore loser?

  15. Incidentally has anyoneone noticed that Soubry has the same crazed, fanatical eyes as Chris Williamson?

    That might be the gin…

  16. Soubry’s point is, and always has, been silly. Your Broxstowe voting analysis is a nice way of ramming home a simple point to the wilfully dim.

    The courts readily dismiss the same argument in analogous circumstances, e.g. in schemes of arrangement which are used, for example, for takeovers. The court orders a special meeting for shareholders to vote to approve the takeover. Often the turnout by number of shareholders is relatively low (unlike the Brexit referendum). If a majority of shareholders by number voting at the meeting (not a majority of all shareholders) vote in favour of the takeover, who also represent 75% of the shares voted at the meeting, the courts then have to decide whether it is fair to approve the scheme and make the takeover effective. They are alive to the fact that those who didn’t vote at all will be bound by the scheme and will have their shares acquired by the bidder.

    The courts readily dismiss the Soubryist specious invocation of non-voting as opposition:

    “a failure to vote may indicate nothing more than indifference or a belief that other members would vote through the scheme”

    “a shareholder leaving it to others to form a majority is not to be equated in any sense with an opponent of the scheme”

    “the apathetic shareholder who chooses not to vote upon a scheme should not be presumed to be antagonistic to the scheme or to warrant paternalistic protection”

  17. I seem to recall reading that studies for elections tended to show that those who didn’t vote were roughly split in the same way that those who did, except there’s a slightly higher proportion of Labour non voters.

    The hypocrisy of the TIGgers ; actually a Remain pressure group, is comical.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.