You mean be uncharacteristic.
Something just popped into my head when you mentioned the possibility of a confidence motion. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Could the opposition play a role by starting to play games too, by throwing in a motion of non-confidence that really is not going to carry, the sole purpose of which is to trip up a prime minister who otherwise would be within his rights to prorogue? As most of us have acknowledged, it's an important tool that Westminster parliamentary democracy needs. That's one question.
Secondly, it's interesting; you suggested that we avoid going to penalties. There's been a lot of discussion around that. If I understood your thinking, it was that since it's a life-or-death decision, and a government's always going to choose life, then why trivialize this by saying therefore in life and death if you cross that threshold you're going to have these little things happen to you, relatively speaking?
My question to you would be, though, faced with life and death, no matter what, every government will always choose life. Therefore, if there are no penalties, then they've walked across that threshold, because they made the same determination they would make whether there were penalties or not, and yet without the penalties they've gotten away with it. Could I just have your thoughts on that?