Another thing to consider is that the PM being in the house of commons effectively elevates the leader of the opposition to being a near equal to the PM. If the PM weren’t even there, would anybody pay attention to what the leader of the opposition was saying?

I think that’s a very interesting thought, I hadn’t considered the impacts on the opposition if the PM wasn’t in the house when I wrote my previous reply.

I definitely agree with you that there’s pros and cons to either systems and it comes down a lot more to how its implemented than anything else. I also agree that this is not the best time to be experimenting with new systems/tweaks to the system and I wish there was a way for us (as a society) to better assess how a system might work without risking so much.

It’s definitely an interesting conversation to have, and I think you raise some excellent points on whether it’s the most effective use of the PMs time to be in the House. I think one big drawback if they aren’t is that the opposition would be able to speak about the PM without the PM being able to directly respond but a) that doesn’t matter much if the party has a majority, b) it’s possible this wouldn’t be as big of an issue over time if we had multiple PMs not in the House as it’s possible the opposition would start focusing on the leader in the house (such as deputy PM), c) it also wouldn’t be entirely unprecedented as the PM isn’t always in attendance, even if they are allowed to.

He absolutely could remain PM without being an MP but I believe he then wouldn’t be allowed to actually sit or speak in the House which is obviously not ideal.