On 28/06/16 12:07, pamela wrote:
On 11:51 28 Jun 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

For example, I raised the possibility of a new mandate from a general
election. You dismissed that in a very robust way which refused to
entertain even the possibility. Today I see Jeremy Hunt and
yesterday Kenneth Clarke raising exactly this possibility. So you
would take such a possibility off the map but I would wish to discuss
it. This is why I think you and I may find difficulty in discussing
politics with one another.


Well if you want to be an armchair theorist, that's down to you.
I was trying to explain why a general election would be a very bad thing
for everyone but UKIP right now.

To do that, I painted a little cameo of a typical would-be UKIP
supporter in the region where I live.

Because that within my sphere of competence. I've met people like that.
And its an accurate portrait of the local Tory MP too.


However the possibility exists, but both main parties would be mad to
try it.

I am not really that interested in theoretical discussions about
hypothetical events that I see no chance of happening. As a company
director, I had to make rapid decisions based on available (and always
insufficient) data, and elimination of the impossible was simply the
first step in the analysis.

I.e. to posit an early election is one thing. To posit it leading to a
victory for a remain parliament, is rather another. The first is
possible, not the second. If they had that support, they would have won
the referendum.

If you want to endlessely discuss things that I cant ever see happening
I am not your man.

I've spent too long arguing with people who tell me 'renewable energy
will work when we have the storage' without bothering to understand what
that storage will never materialise.




--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller