Being PM does not require one to also be an MP as it is a Crown appointment.
Ah. I heard JT has resigned already, But this might be were we differ. I believed our PM must be in the parliament. By tradition it's always an MP and not a senator (it was once).
That said, a PM isn't mentioned in the constitution, so I guess maybe we don't. I can imagine that being tested. It would be a hard argument.
That explains why ministers remain ministers during the writ period, even though they are no longer MPs
I'll have to get into the weeds on that one here. I am not sure that distinction has ever come up because of the caretaker period.
Ah, the Westminster system. Still better than *that mob* to your south.
no subject
Ah. I heard JT has resigned already, But this might be were we differ.
I believed our PM must be in the parliament. By tradition it's always an MP and not a senator (it was once).
That said, a PM isn't mentioned in the constitution, so I guess maybe we don't.
I can imagine that being tested. It would be a hard argument.
That explains why ministers remain ministers during the writ period, even though they are no longer MPs
I'll have to get into the weeds on that one here. I am not sure that distinction has ever come up because of the caretaker period.
Ah, the Westminster system.
Still better than *that mob* to your south.