I wonder if you contravene the forum's rule 14 which includes "14.Do not use The Holmesdale Online's features in a manner that adversely affects the availability of its resources to other users (e.g. excessive shouting [use of all caps] or flooding [continuous posting of repetitive text or topics])."

I wouldn't mind betting that you've spouted on about representatives and not delegates at least fifty times in this thread until most of us are heartily sick of hearing it.

It seems that our parliament housing representatives and not delegates is based on a speech that an MP made 250 years ago.

Based on, yes, just as it is based on the Magna Carta. This has though been confirmed many times since, notably by Winston Churchill and only this week in the submissions to our Supreme Court. It could be changed, but that's what we have right now.

The Brexit debacle has shown the population that this style of government is not what the populace want as we want MPs that represent what their voters want and not what the MP feels like doing.

Untrue. It has shown that some people feel that way.

The vast majority of us vote traditionally and in accordance with the party's manifesto and we expect that the MP that we elect will also vote in line with his party's manifesto. If he feels that he can't do that he should resign his seat and occasion a by election, standing as an independent if he so wishes but giving his constituents the chance to either agree with their representative or voting him out

You no more speak for the vast majority than I do! You speak for yourself. Unless and until we change the system Parliament speaks for us. Individual MPs are MPs first and owe their primary allegiance to their local electorate. All of them and not those in the party they happen to belong to. It's their decision as the local representative whether to resign if they find that they and their party no longer match. Parties can leave people just as quickly as people can leave parties. In fact parties change character much more frequently than people.

I can't see Johnson being defeated here but it is unjust.

They are judging by the law, all written down, not our bonkers unwritten constitution.

It seems that 'what did we do last time' seems to be the constitution, but who knows.

Presumably a PM can just suspend a parliament whenever he feels like it.

Imagine how much all this circus is costing, no such justice would be available to you or I, you have to be stinking rich like the government with taxpayer funding, or Soros.

Are you saying they previously “got away” with the things which now get them suspended? If so that doesn’t speak well of the calibre of those entrusted to decide what’s best for the rest of us.

From the little I have seen of some of the things that MPs used to get away with without anyone either knowing or being challenged I think that's right. The newspapers used to treat them with much more respect in the past and only attack those they saw as enemies and without TV or social media how would we know?