oatcrunchie

Press freedom is a pillar of our democracy and should not be taken away. I am not certain about extending to all people

Did a Labour Party candidate seriously just suggest that the freedom of the press shouldn't be extended to all people?

I suspect that you were perhaps trying to make the distinction between who is doing the publishing and what is being published, would that be a fair statement to make?

Do you think they should be excluded from Parliament, and maybe have some form of 'federal' house created to represent their views, with limited powers?

I don't think that's a credible idea.

If Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs sees fit to take money from me and transfer it to Her Majesty's Treasury, then I'm entitled to representation in Her Majesty's Government.

Or would you winning his seat actually prevent him from becoming PM??

Legally no, as he could be ennobled and then lead the Government from the House of Lords. He would find it hard however to attend Prime Minister's Questions and there would be suggestions of a lack of democratic legitimacy when the Prime Minister was rejected by his own constituents at the ballot box.

The Government has been led from the House of Lords before however and there have been several Peers who have served as Prime Minister, although none since the Marquess of Salisbury retired in 1902.

But for all practical purposes yes, if David Cameron failed to be re-elected then it would prevent him from becoming Prime Minister.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to say, sorry.