Zompist Bboard Again

Chortle!!!

Meanwhile, can't we just get our gas from cows?

Relatedly, how bad is Michael Gove really, on a scale from "run of the mill Tory" to "thing that should not be"?
(I suppose I'd be suprised at how narrow that range actually is.)

Ars Lande wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:21 pm Relatedly, how bad is Michael Gove really, on a scale from "run of the mill Tory" to "thing that should not be"?
(I suppose I'd be suprised at how narrow that range actually is.)

I think the dangerous thing about Michael Gove is that he can appear fairly reasonable for quite long periods of time and then trigger something bats***t crazy.

Everyone knows that Mogg is living in a parallel universe, but Gove hides the crazy better. And it's the crazies who bottle it in that you've got to keep an eye on.

Ars Lande wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:21 pm Relatedly, how bad is Michael Gove really, on a scale from "run of the mill Tory" to "thing that should not be"?
(I suppose I'd be suprised at how narrow that range actually is.)

Honestly, he's not that bad. He has some silly notions - he tried to personally (literally personally) rewrite the national curriculum to make it more Victorian, he's a Zionist (not an insult, that's how he identifies), he's paranoid about the pernicious propaganda of The Left, etc - and of course he's very right-wing. But I don't think he has any really remarkably awful views, by the standards of his colleagues; he's thoughtful, and he's done and said some good things from time to time. In particularly, he wasn't bad as a justice secretary - despite wanting to bring back hanging, he was mostly pretty liberal on prison reform, and actually reversed several unjust policies of his predecessor. He's basically an Old School, One Nation Conservative, with a bit of a shiny new libertarian veneer.

He's also, however, completely untrustworthy, dogged by multiple minor but persistent corruption and abuse of power issues and known for betrayals of his colleagues - he lies continually, and he LOOKS like he's lying even when he's not. And he's slightly weird, yet ridiculously over-confident. I think the eldritch horror thing here isn't because he's all that bad (by the low standards of modern tories MPs!) but because he does kind of make you think of an alien who doesn't fully understand humans, hiding in a human suit. [the fact his skin doesn't quite fit him and his smile is instinctively frightening also add to that impression]

Do you think he's Portillo 2.0? He had a similar creepiness factor: shiny amphibian skin, a weird smile, and a perception of untrustworthiness.

Or Michael Howard, who looked and sounded during his election campaign as leader like he was trying to lure children into the back of a van.

... in fact, where do they find these people?

He suffers from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder. That's the main reason for why no faction of the Conservatives likes him, not ideological concerns.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:10 am Do you think he's Portillo 2.0? He had a similar creepiness factor: shiny amphibian skin, a weird smile, and a perception of untrustworthiness.

Or Michael Howard, who looked and sounded during his election campaign as leader like he was trying to lure children into the back of a van.

... in fact, where do they find these people?

I'd never previously connected the two, but there is something of Portillo about Gove, yes. I think the main difference (other than their policies) is that Portillo gave off the air of a guy who was slimy, narcissistic, and too smug about his intelligence; whereas Gove gives off the air of a guy who is slimy, narcissistic, and too smug about an intelligence he plainly does not have. The perception that Portillo was, underlyingly, kind of smart, is why he came close to becoming Tory Leader; the awareness that Gove* is not is why he has no chance. On the other hand, Portillo was far more odious**, imo, precisely because he seemed dangerous; whereas it's hard to really hate Gove, because there's something so pitiable about him. He's like the star of a sitcom who doesn't realise he's in a sitcom. To be honest, if he'd been into linguistics rather than politics, he might hang out around here - he's a geek with poor social skills and a sometimes disturbing enthusiasm on strange topics, and he's surrounded by a bunch of bullying jocks. Except he doesn't realise he's a geek with poor social skills, he thinks he's One Of The Lads...


But yes, now you say it, there's something Portillo-y about him. I guess you can trace the Portillista, both politically and behaviourally, through the intermediary of Oliver Letwin...


I wouldn't see him in the mould of Michael "Something Of the Night About Him***" Howard, although of course Howard was creepy in his own, vampiric way. Howard was a genuinely terrifying "run, he's a serial killer!" sort of creepy at times.

I mean GOOD FUCKING GOD, someone thought that this was a good photo-op for Howard. And the nation ran screaming:


Oh, and here he is a few years later as Leader, showing the next generation of tories how to do a Scary Smile:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/unc ... 0108151333
OK, so the fangs and the blood have been edited in, but it takes a few moments to notice that because, I mean, they so obviously belong there.

His campaign slogan was "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" - Howard was probably hoping we were, like him, thinking that we hated immigrants and black people, but if he was actually thinking "fucking hell this advert is terrifying, why is there a vampire in it" then yes, we were thinking that too.

Still, at least he had the excuse that he actually WAS Transylvanian. No seriously, his parents were from Transylvania.



I suppose Hague was a bit creepy at first too. Though to be fair, he was 12 when he was elected leader, so some awkwardness was inevitable...





*Gove isn't an idiot. He's plainly smarter that most Tory MPs - he's from the ideological, over-eager schoolboy wing of the party, rather than the huntin-fishin or flash-buzzwordy-PR-exec wings. But he seems to see himself as a genius, whereas instead he's a sporadically smart guy who is unable to recognise when he's being stupid.

**I actually have quite liked Portillo in his post-politics career. I've not been a regular This Week viewer, but he used to be pretty good on that - massively opinionated, but able to distinguish between opinion and fact and to analyse things, if not unbiasedly, then at least honestly. He's not bad as a presenter, either. I wonder how much is his loss of power - odd people are always more likeable when they're not controlling the military - and how much is some growth of maturity...

So, nine more days before anything is allowed to happen in British politics. Word is, people are actually leaving May's corner rather than joining it, so it's not clear even why we're waiting at this point.

May has said she won't renegotiate the deal (and so have the EU): it's this or nothing. She's also apparently told people close to her that she won't resign, won't call for elections, and won't call a referendum even if she loses the vote.


We are now headed toward a demonstration of the of age-old philosophical question: what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

Labour have said that when May's been defeated, if she doesn't resign they'll call for a vote of no confidence. But the thing is, a lot of Tory rebels, and DUP, who won't support May's Brexit deal, and may by now not be willing to support anything else she tries to get through parliament either, will probably still refuse to vote down the government, which would mean fresh elections and a chance of losing power. So it looks like we may end up with a "PM" with no power, doing nothing, for the next four years, in stasis, while the country crumbles.


This could be a major flaw in the FTPA. Like most people, I've always dismissed the FTPA, because it includes provisions for calling elections that it seems would always be meetable. After all, the opposition party always wants an election, and if the ruling party doesn't have a majority then they won't be able to stop them. So when the government calls an election, the opposition will have to agree, and if the government doesn't exist then it won't be able to stop the opposition.

But now we have a government that both does and doesn't exist - a government that doesn't have the votes to get any substantial legislation passed, but that does have the votes to keep itself nominally in power. Of course, this problem could still have arisen without the FTPA - but by codifying the conditions whereby elections can be called, it's weakened the convention of having to call one when the PM can't command a majority - and it's also eliminated the Queen's discretion to call elections when the arithmetic in parliament is too fucked up to function (that's the official constitutional terminology, if you're wondering).

One possible way out does occur to me: the rebels could back Labour in a VONC, and use that to demand May's resignation or replacement, then could have their new PM win a VOC within eleven days to avoid elections. But, since a real Tory leadership election lasts longer than eleven days, this would still rely on May voluntarily stepping down to avoid humiliation, and being quickly replaced in a coronation. The latter is not usual for Tories, and as for the former... it seems as though there's no end to how much humiliation May is willing to endure in order to cling to at least the ceremonial trappings of power, if not exactly to the real thing anymore.

----

Anyway, the latest minister to resign is Sam Gyimah, who is now calling for a second referendum. Basically, the specific issue here was that May wanted us to still be able to access the EU military GPS system. The EU said fuck off. So now we're going to construct our own military GPS system from scratch, costing no more than £5bn (asking price, which probably means £50bn in practice, given how badly the government writes their contracts). Small problem: there won't be any actual protected bandwidtch for this new British GPS signal. But don't worry, apparently we can just beg/pay the Americans and they may let us use theirs. Independence!

What I don't get about this would be what the end game is. What's May's goal in this? What's the goal of those who'd keep her in post but not in power? What does Schrödinger's government buy them?

Even in normal times, you're unlikely to be rewarded by the voters for spending years in bickering paralysis. But in these times, the status quo is not an option. The Tory ultras might believe that a no deal cliff-edge would be positive, but most Conservative MPs presumably don't and the DUP are supposedly committed to their being a deal, just not this deal. So they have to know that:

i) Paralysis doesn't deliver what they do want (a different deal / remain / ...)
ii) the chances of being punished for paralysis are higher than almost any other course than they might take (e.g. backing May, deposing May, forcing an election, ....)

The only thing paralysis delivers is a few more years of extra wages that might be lost if government positions / seats were lost in a GE. Do our politicians really have so little commitment to their cause?

Of course, it could be there is no plan or cost-benefit analysis going on. They could all just be deer in the headlights of the Brexit lorry, about to be crushed.

I think there's a lot of deer-in-headlights syndrome here, yes. And it's not just one lorry!

First, a lot of Tories see a fundamental ideological issue with the backstop, and won't vote for it at any price
Second, the DUP see a fundamental ideological issue with treating NI differently, and won't vote for it at any price
Third, a lot of Tories and DUP have a fundamental terror of Jeremy Corbyn, whose ascension they view in apocalyptic terms as the end of democracy, capitalism and freedom, so will not at any price vote to give him the chance to be elected leader. This is even worse for the DUP, who see Corbyn not just as a godless communist, but as an IRA-supporting godless communist who will hand Northern Ireland back to Dublin the second he's in power.

This dual terror - of the EU and of Corbyn - I think is a big part of what's trapped people in stasis. They can't justify voting for either option, but they can't see a third way. Plus, elections or a referendum could endanger Brexit itself, which would be intolerable for them.

Then there's the procedural problems. Some Tories might see deposing May as a way to square the circle, but they know it'll be very hard to do. Even if they can defeat her in a parliamentary party vonc, which is far from clear, it's even less clear whether the Tory rank and file will vote to get rid of her, and how they might view those who attempted to depose her in a 'coup' at such a critical moment. And they won't get much help from the Remainer flank, or from pragmatic moderates, because they know that if May is removed, it'll probably be because someone even more Brexity, like Boris, has beaten her. The Brexiteers are numerous enough to block the deal, but not numerous enough to internally depose her.

And then there's the question of who wants to wield the knife. The big names don't want to be leader right now, and the smaller names probably don't want their name recognition to be solely "traitorous bastard who stabbed the nation's leader in the back in a moment of national crisis for the sake of personal ambition". So while a lot of people want May weak, and some want her gone, I don't think anyone outside the hardline inner core of the ERG, who wants to be the one to get rid of her.

Plus, there's the general air of hopelessness. I don't think many people can seriously believe in a better solution to brexit right now - and how could we get there, anyway? There's so little time left!

The weak link might be the DUP, who might be able to justify precipitating a general election if they thought it could protect them from May's deal. But then what happens? May's position is confirmed, and she puts the same deal back on the table only now she probably doesn't officially need the DUP to govern anymore? Or Corbyn comes to power - will he be able to deliver a better deal? Will he cancel the money May's paying to northern ireland for DUP support?


The one who might have a chance of ending this, one way or another, is May. She has all the options - call the EU back to the table, call fresh elections to enhance her mandate, call a second referendum to silence her critics entirely, or resign to allow a fresh voice to have a go at finding a way forward. All four options could, at least theoretically, move us at least a few steps forward. And doing any of the three things succesfully would let her remain as leader longer than six months. [from her point of view, calling elections would be ideal - since her party have mostly outright said they won't let her lead them into the next election, the only way to extend her mandate is to call a snap election that doesn't leave them time to replace her]. And if she stays, she can be the heroic leader who led the country through its toughest times in a generation, and people will hate her now but history books will say it's all David Cameron's fault and what more could you expect from her.

But she won't do any of those four things, because they all involve the risk of her career ending immediately, and she won't tolerate that. I suspect she primarily won't tolerate the suggestion that she may have been wrong about anything - so The Lady's Not For Turning, full steam ahead, cross your fingers and hope that you can bluff your way through somehow and prove the world you were write about everything, and then you might finally get a chance to implement your actual policy interests.
[has anyone called her the Rusty Lady yet? Portrays herself as Iron, but actually weak and crumbly under pressure...]

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:43 pm One possible way out does occur to me: the rebels could back Labour in a VONC, and use that to demand May's resignation or replacement, then could have their new PM win a VOC within eleven days to avoid elections. But, since a real Tory leadership election lasts longer than eleven days, this would still rely on May voluntarily stepping down to avoid humiliation, and being quickly replaced in a coronation. The latter is not usual for Tories, and as for the former... it seems as though there's no end to how much humiliation May is willing to endure in order to cling to at least the ceremonial trappings of power, if not exactly to the real thing anymore.

Were there to not be a replacement prime minister and a vote of confidence within that time, though, since the monarch calls the early election on the advice of the prime minister, I can imagine chaos would ensue. Though, if everything's about to become a SNAFU, couldn't Parliament simply be prorogued on the advice of the prime minister (like with the case of Stephen Harper in Canada in 2008), or would that just create a bigger problem?

vampireshark wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:02 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:43 pm One possible way out does occur to me: the rebels could back Labour in a VONC, and use that to demand May's resignation or replacement, then could have their new PM win a VOC within eleven days to avoid elections. But, since a real Tory leadership election lasts longer than eleven days, this would still rely on May voluntarily stepping down to avoid humiliation, and being quickly replaced in a coronation. The latter is not usual for Tories, and as for the former... it seems as though there's no end to how much humiliation May is willing to endure in order to cling to at least the ceremonial trappings of power, if not exactly to the real thing anymore.

Were there to not be a replacement prime minister and a vote of confidence within that time, though, since the monarch calls the early election on the advice of the prime minister, I can imagine chaos would ensue.

The Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister until the Queen disposes of her, which in this case would be when her government falls. Under the procedure of the FTPA, a VONC does not automatically bring down the government - if the government can win a VOC within eleven days, it can continue. Or it can be replaced by another government (and hence prime minister) that wins the VOC, or there can be elections. If the government falls, it'll ask the queen to call elections - and I don't know the wording for sure, but I think the FTPA actually supercedes that anyway, in that the Queen is probably obliged to call elections when the conditions of the FTPA are met.

Though, if everything's about to become a SNAFU, couldn't Parliament simply be prorogued on the advice of the prime minister (like with the case of Stephen Harper in Canada in 2008), or would that just create a bigger problem?

Prorogation isn't a thing here - it happens every year, but it's only a ceremonial thing, since the next session of parliament begins within a couple of days. The idea of the PM having parliament prorogued so that there was a substantial period of time during which parliament was not in session seems... bizarre to me. I'm sure it's happened at some point, but it doesn't seem like something that would naturally happen in this country. We went through this sort of thing with James II, and it didn't end well for him.

Besides, it doesn't seem like it would end well for anybody - it just postpones a reckoning, and prevents any business from being done. Admittedly it wouldn't be much worse than the current stasis, but...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:22 pm If the government falls, it'll ask the queen to call elections - and I don't know the wording for sure, but I think the FTPA actually supercedes that anyway, in that the Queen is probably obliged to call elections when the conditions of the FTPA are met.

In looking at the law, the text reads:

Section 2(7) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 wrote:If a parliamentary general election is to take place as provided for by subsection (1) or (3), the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (and, accordingly, the appointed day replaces the day which would otherwise have been the polling day for the next election determined under section 1).

A reading of this (to me) is that the Prime Minister is supposed to advise the Queen as to when this new election would take place. However, what I was referring to chaos-wise is that there is no written requirement that this election take place in a timely manner, especially since the Queen (by convention) only acts on the advice of Her Government. (And a direct intervention could spark an Australia-style crisis.)

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:22 pm Prorogation isn't a thing here - it happens every year, but it's only a ceremonial thing, since the next session of parliament begins within a couple of days. The idea of the PM having parliament prorogued so that there was a substantial period of time during which parliament was not in session seems... bizarre to me. I'm sure it's happened at some point, but it doesn't seem like something that would naturally happen in this country. We went through this sort of thing with James II, and it didn't end well for him.

Besides, it doesn't seem like it would end well for anybody - it just postpones a reckoning, and prevents any business from being done. Admittedly it wouldn't be much worse than the current stasis, but...

Ah, gotcha. Part of why I thought of that was due to Harper advising a prorogation to avoid a possible VONC in 2008. (It actually worked in his favor, surprisingly, largely because it bought him time to negotiate before the VONC was voted on.)

So, constitutional crisis of the day!

You may remember, recently Parliament passed a legally binding act to demand that the Government release "any legal advice, in full" it has received over May's proposed Brexit deal.


The Government, however, has decided that the new law shouldn't have been passed - because it's important to safeguard the confidentiality of advice given to the government, in order to ensure unbiased and frank advice in future. They're probably right - although opponants would say that the problem wouldn't arise if the government didn't then ignore the advice it received. In any case, the controversial bit is that the Government claims that because the law* is ill-advised, it's therefore not binding - essentially, that the Prime Minister has the right to decide which laws do and don't apply to her. As a result, she has had the Government, as a compromise, release only an "overview" of how it would itself characterise the legal advice in hindsight, rather than

[this overview is itself embarrassing to the government. The government has been arguing that the backstop will be only temporary, and that we will be able to leave it. But their legal advice actually said that (as we all know) there are no provisions in the deal for the backstop ever ending, and that it will be "not possible under international law" for the UK to leave without the permission of the EU. However, the 'overview' does at least say that the deal does not explicitly breach the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, although this has become a controversial position in northern ireland...]

Now, it's unclear what happens when the Government simply ignores Parliament, because it never happens - since, after all, Parliament can in theory just remove any Government that defies it. As a result, constitutional crisis. Labour have said that unless the Government does rapidly obey Parliament's decree, it will initiate the procedure to declare the Government to be in contempt of Parliament - and, crucially, the DUP have said that they will support the contempt charges.

What does that mean? Well, if the Prime Minister and/or the Attorney General is found in contempt, they could be suspended from Parliament (not unheard of), expelled from Parliament (very rare) or even imprisoned in the clock tower and forced to listen to the chimes of big ben until they have gone mad, or until parliament feels like letting them out (theoretically and historically, but no longer implemented in practice).

However, the system is geared to prevent this. It's not a matter of a plain parliamentary vote. Instead, contempt procedings require the permission of the Speaker - which is how David Davis escaped a similar charge last year. If the Speaker approves, then Parliament can hold a vote to send the matter to a committee, which then considers the matter and recommends punishments, which are then confirmed by a vote of the House. The committee in question is split, with 8 conservatives, 7 labour, and 2 SNP. 1 of those conservatives recently resigned from the government in protest at the deal**. Realistically, even if procedings go forward, it could take long enough that everyone forgets why they were outraged.

An additional wrinkle here is that the Speaker himself is under great pressure to resign (he's verbally abusive to his staff, particularly to women), which may influence his decision-making.

Oh, and it's worth pointing out that it's possible for one parliament to sanction members for contempt that occured under a previous parliament. Which I guess may be another reason for the Government to be afraid of elections...



*OK, maybe it's not technically a 'law', but it's a legally binding resolution...

**It also contains Peter Bone, who is extremely anti-EU. And ridiculously right-wing. He's described the NHS as something from "Stalinist Russia", he opposed the minimum wage (when the wage was introduced and he was a businessmen, he used to pay people 87p per hour, much less than the £8 legal minimum at the time), and has called for a gay marriage ban, the privatisation of the BBC, the banning of the burka and bringing back hanging. The committee also contains Sir Christopher Chope, who may be even worse. And it contains Sir Edward Leigh, the godfather of the ultra-tory right (his wife had to waive her place in the line of succession to the throne to marry him, because he's a Catholic - that's how Tory he is). Basically, if you want the greatest collection of the most 18th century old conservative men, the Procedure Committee is the place to find them... normally this would work int the government's favour, but all three are serial rebellers and fanatical about brexit, and about parliamentary procedure, so... who knows.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:52 amWhat does that mean? Well, if the Prime Minister and/or the Attorney General is found in contempt, they could be suspended from Parliament (not unheard of)

Or, under a little-known law, suspended from a high place in Parliament...

The committee also contains Sir Christopher Chope, who may be even worse.

That'd be Christopher "yes, this Bill may look entirely reasonable to everyone else, but I'm going to oppose it on technical grounds because my sense of pedantry overrides my sense of decency" Chope.

At this point I feel like I'm not so much gunning for reform of the system, because the amount of baggage that has built up over the years is still kind of hilarious even in these completely depressing times, but rather that some weird-minded irredentist would try and resurrect the old kingdom of Northumbria and bother to claim land as far south as the North York Moors, so I could live in a different country outside of term-time and not have to find this shit so damn depressing.

Frislander wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:00 pm At this point I feel like I'm not so much gunning for reform of the system, because the amount of baggage that has built up over the years is still kind of hilarious even in these completely depressing times, but rather that some weird-minded irredentist would try and resurrect the old kingdom of Northumbria and bother to claim land as far south as the North York Moors, so I could live in a different country outside of term-time and not have to find this shit so damn depressing.

Sure!

*looks around the world*

And which country were you hoping to take as a model for the political system of Northumbria, that would be able to avoid these and similar problems?

I think it's worth noting that most of the 'baggage' that collects in an established democracy is a collection of various sorts of air-bags, which sit around looking silly and getting in the way while you're driving, but which were at some point put there to reduce the risk of dying in a crash. It's one reason why, the longer a democracy has survived, the longer it is likely to continue to survive.

Fundamentally, all political systems are unsatisfactory - because the world has limited resources, and in deciding how to allocate those resources, there is an inescapable lack of general consensus on the desired outcome of the process. Hence, outcomes tend to be arrived at that are unsatisfactory to all parties.

Apparently Bercow has accepted the contempt motion.

I personally find it very odd that the government (a) thinks it can defy the will of Parliament and (b) the consequences are just a slap on the wrist, not correcting the behaviour. If you break the law, normally the consequences are that you are forced to stop in addition to any punitive action. I can imagine that future governments may well think it worth the price to defy parliament if the only consequence is that a minister can't vote for a few days... and this also contrasts poorly with the threats levelled against a non-MP to get the Facebook data. Surely, members of the government should also be threatened with large personal fines and imprisonment if that's the punishment for third parties refusing to hand over data.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:13 pm Apparently Bercow has accepted the contempt motion.

I personally find it very odd that the government (a) thinks it can defy the will of Parliament and (b) the consequences are just a slap on the wrist, not correcting the behaviour. If you break the law, normally the consequences are that you are forced to stop in addition to any punitive action. I can imagine that future governments may well think it worth the price to defy parliament if the only consequence is that a minister can't vote for a few days... and this also contrasts poorly with the threats levelled against a non-MP to get the Facebook data. Surely, members of the government should also be threatened with large personal fines and imprisonment if that's the punishment for third parties refusing to hand over data.

Paradoxically, the weaker sanctions against MPs mean that they're more likely to be applied. The last MP suspended was a few years ago, whereas the last non-MP actually fined was three and a half centuries ago. And in theory the imprisonment threat applies to the PM as much as to anyone else (I wasn't joking - the traditional penalty in serious cases was being imprisoned in the bell tower).

After all, if we're talking about theoretical, constitutional penalties, the worst case scenario would be the entire government (around 120 MPs) being expelled from Parliament and imprisoned, and Labour then becoming the government (because nobody could resist them with 120 Tory MPs expelled...). This, of course, won't happen, but then that CEO wouldn't actually have gone to prison... presumably.

If it goes through, will it change government policy? We never normally have to ask that question, because it answers itself - if you're held more seriously in contempt than a token day's suspension can punish, you resign! If the government is held in contempt - well, that never happens!

In theory, parliament can continue to apply punishments if the contempt continues. And don't discount the importance of a suspension, particularly right now - when the government's got a majority of under a dozen even with the help of other parties, it can't afford to have MPs on gardening leave. And does May really want to be the first PM in history* to be barred from the Palace of Westminster? Theoretically you don't have to be an MP to be PM, but...**


*almost certainly not really the first in history, but certainly the first in an extremely long time. I'm guessing centuries at least.
**hmm, there's an interesting philosophical question. All PMs have been members of either the Commons or the Lords, but is that legally required? Since 'Prime Minister' doesn't really exist as a constitutional title except in ceremonial functions, I guess it doesn't. I guess May could continue to call herself PM even if she were expelled...