Getting back to the leadership: Alan Duncan's request for an emergency confidence vote to determine whether the chosen leader is acceptable is interesting. Granted, it is without precident and probably mischievous. But there is still a case for it. When someone is leader of a party and that party is then elected the public and hence the house can be assumed to back that leader in some general sense. That is not there when a party leader changes during a sitting. So there is a reasonable case for a confirmatory vote. When a party has a clear majority in the house that would be symbolic rather than of practical significance, but when the party has a thin majority or is a minority, it is be no means so clear. Certainly it would be a boost for the new leader if they had the backing of the house as PM not just their own party as party leader.

So the debate won't happen, but I think there is a good case that it should always happen on a change of leader mid session.