So now your saying that by having the power to elect the new PM that they would do it in our best interests. I think this is wrong as it could be about who’s who’s and best ‘mates’. The members don’t have that relationship so nepotism cannot be a factor.

I don't agree with Cryst on much out side football, but his point seemed common sense. He wasn't doffing cap to the toffs. I think he was saying that those who come from senior management will have had a better understanding of nation management. I am self employed and experience stress in my job, but I know I could not cope with the relentless 24/7 of front bench politics. Tony Blaire aged about 40 years on the job.

That is so spot on it dazed me momentarily.

We are talking about Parliament being sovereign. Who leads the Government is secondary to that.

Parliament is charged with the duty of acting in our best interests. Being cynical about how individual members might exercise that responsibility doesn't change that.

Any PM chosen in the circumstances I have described would necessarily have been an interim one, whose primary task would have been to oversee the holding of a confirmation vote. Should that have returned a reversal of the 2016 decision, as I expect and the Brexiteers feared, then our withdrawal would have been suspended, and the Parties would have fought a GE on a different basis. Knowing the situation, the EU would almost certainly have then offered conciliatory terms, which both parties, or large parts of both parties, would have endorsed.

We may well have ended up with a coalition, who knows, but the interim PM would be PM no longer.

I think the leadership should be treated as a game of shag, marry, avoid.
I'm somewhere between all three on Penny.