Why should the Conservatives be held to ransom by either Eurosceptics or indeed the Labour party on giving a position on a theoretical situation.?
As soon as a politician, or an apologist for one, introduces the words 'theoretical
' or 'hypothetical
' in order to avoid answering a question you know you're dealing with a bullshitter. And a phucking stupid one at that — he thinks everyone else is dumber than he is.
Daily life is FULL of hypotheticals. We are dealing with hypotheticals all the time. Hypotheticals R Us.
When their potential effects are not minor we make an extra effort to allow for them. We call it planning ahead, or contingency planning if we want to get paid for it. Some people just call it managing.
So when someone says, "I don't deal in hypothetheticals or what-if questions
" he's telling you he doesn't plan ahead. Now I've never met anyone who doesn't think ahead in one way or another when confronted with alternatives. So he's lying.
Right. So let's rip out the references to hypotheticals
since they are just so much verbal chaff
employed as witless argument deflectors and restate what is actually being said:
Why should the Conservatives be held to ransom by either Eurosceptics or indeed the Labour party on giving a position?
Now we see the argument in all its glory.
Laughable, isn't it. Or it would be if the matter weren't so serious.