Your question* is "I can't follow is why, having decided to sack them anyway, a PM would change their minds on having this pointed out. Any experienced politician would have weighed this in the balance already."

And the answer that Dan is giving, as far as I can see, is that the current situation "may not have happened since the Corn Laws" - i.e. it's so unusual that the Prime Minister wasn't able to weigh it correctly.

Which doesn't seem to be ignoring your question, to me. What am I missing?




*Interpreting that as a question, that is.