Oh I am not convincing myself at all. Like I say, every government ultimately ends up risking it and getting yanked back by the Commons (or the Lords in the case of e.g. 42 day detention of terror suspects, various other bad overconfident schemes like ID cards).

It's a pattern, a cycle. It is always under a sort of measured level of threat. But it is largely stable because at any time the party in power always has an iconoclast (Heseltine, Cook, Davies etc.) who is willing to get in the way, and there is essentially a Commons (or Lords) tradition of making sure that person gets heard.

And because the Prime Minister isn't really that special — just the loudest voice in his party, subject to its back-stabbing — there is a pattern to their failure, too.

(There is a bit of a concern that we're getting too used to them not lasting more than a couple of years, but I do get rather frustrated at the both-sidesing that is including Starmer with a run of utter inadequates from the other side)

Again the point I was making was only that the USA is getting a little further down the line towards wrapping up the clarity of the written Constitution with a layer of yes-but convention... It gets a lot more difficult from here.

There is a narrow window to pull it back, but as much as I think they are for the rule of law, I don't think the Democrats, even with potential rule-of-law-asshole injections like George Conway, are truly prepared to hew that close to the Constitution themselves.