Yup.
The House of Commons does not choose the head of government. The leader of the party that has the most number of seats in Parliament is [generally] invited by the Crown to form a government, and thus become Prime Minister. It is rare for Members of Parliament to break ranks on votes, so the Prime Minister rarely worries much about how his own party will vote. Therefore, if the PM’s party has a majority government (i.e. more than 50% of the seats in Parliament), his job is basically safe until the next election. There are of course exceptions, but that’s the general course of things.
Strictly speaking, that is correct, but the PM must be able to win a confidence vote in the House of Commons. If the sovereign chose a PM who was not supported by a majority, then as soon as the Commons next met, the leader of the opposition (or another opposition party leader) would move a vote of no confidence. If that were passed, the PM would be required to resign or call an election.
In addition, at a general election, most voters vote according to the party that a candidate belongs to. So, at the next election, if you want Gordon Brown to continue as PM, you would vote for the Labour candidate. That’s much the same as voters in the US voting indirectly for a slate of electors of the real candidate that they prefer, regardless of the personal qualities of those electors. In a parliamentary system, MPs do a lot more than presidential electors do in the US, but in practice the most important reason for people to vote for them is what party they belong to, and hence who they will support as PM.
As in the Canadian example noted above, Parliamentary Privilege does have its limits and members can be censured for a ‘breach of privilege’ by the Standards & Privileges Committee.
Members must not read from a prepared text, but can ‘refer to notes’ (sometimes there is no difference. Senior figures have more latitude in that respect).
This is probably apocryphal - it’s attributed to Benjamin Disraeli - The Speaker asked him to withdraw his statement that half the cabinet were asses, so he said “Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my statement that half the cabinet are asses. Half the cabinet are not asses.”
The way I heard it, an MP withdrew a comment that another had the brains of a sheep, and said, “The honorable member does not have the brains of a sheep.”
I think the idea has been told and retold many times, in many variations. I doubt there is a singular instance of it happening and being both genuine and original - it might well have appeared in real life, but as a scripted setup subsequent to it entering the collective consciousness, though.
What happens if that member is lying? How are you supposed to point that out?
Address the factuality of the statement, I suppose. A bit like here on the boards.
Speculate that the Honorouble Member is, perhaps, being a little economical with the actualité?
And it’s an absolutely ridiculous system as well. Under first past the post the government in power only has to have the majority of MPs, but being elected an MP doesn’t mean you have to have the majority of votes in a constituency (and they rarely do as the votes are distributed between 3 or more parties). It’s quite common for a government to be in power with only about a third of the popular vote.
It’s also fairly stupid that the electorate has no direct influence over who is head of the government they elect, IMO.
I believe the phrase “terminological inexactitude” is what we’re after here 
I’ve found that when saying “Senator Brownback spoke” adding “completely pointlessly” is redundant.
Exactly. If a member wishes to dispute the claims of another, he or she must act as if the member is mistaken or misinformed, not as if they’re telling baldfaced lies. Even if they are. In fact, MPs rarely do tell outright lies (to the House, at least) since doing so is a serious breach of House rules.
I seem to recall an incident about 20 years ago where one member (perhaps Neil Kinnock, I don’t know) said something along the lines of “I know the Honourable Member said blahblahblah, but frankly, I don’t believe him.” The Speaker decided this was not the same as calling the member a liar.
It’s perfectly okay to say that such and such a statement is false. In Canada I don’t think they’ve brightlined how far you can go (can you say “this is false and the hon. member knows it”? can you say “the hon. member is misleading Canadians?” etc.) but you can’t come right out and say that they are lying.
We used to have this in the United States (“the other body”), but modern-day members seem to have gotten away from the practice. Possibly it’s the influence of television, as members want to be intelligible to the C-SPAN junkies at home. Or maybe it’s just that the kids today have no respect for tradition, and all that.
Hey! I didn’t get a “Harrumph” outta that guy!
Yes. But I’ve also seen the other houses mentioned by their proper names too.
Wasn’t there a way the BBC used to refer to the early ITV as ‘the other side’ or something?
It’s called ‘seriously misleading the House’ and if you caught doing it, it is a real career stopper.