As always, I have to be careful with my choice of words because nothing escapes your eagle eye. I was a bit careless when I said:

Quote:
...But the GG is duty bound to look to the support of MPs in deciding who shall be PM


You rightly pointed out that he has no such duty under the constitution. Section 70. (1), however, supports my basic argument, which is that the GG must select as PM the person who has the most support of those MPs who form the governing party. And although his selection is a judgement call on his part, who that person is can be objectively determined.

I thought that was a well-written article, Sis HR. I have received a couple e-mails supporting my position but a third one was very opposed. This lady pointed out to me that patois is our mother tongue, so I asked her, "says who?" She then proceeded to give me a lecture about etymology and other irrelevancies, but did not address the practical problem I alluded to in my letter.