It is not often that I agree with my MP - certainly not recently - but I was pleased to be able to agree with her comment in a recent email: I greatly value democracy and understand how fragile it is.
Yes, democracy is fragile. We have heard much about it recently, usually from people using as a hammer to beat others into submission: We voted out, get over it: that is how democracy works.
But are the rules of democracy written down or are they, like most things in the UK, based on sound British common sense: something we all took in with our mothers' milk?
One dictionary defines it as the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.
The drafting of this is good as it starts with people and their freedom and equality, not simply with the mechanism. It also includes the word 'belief' suggesting that democracy is not a set of rules but comes from an attitude.
The Brits delight in boasting that we 'invented' modern parliamentary democracy: a boast that is probably as thin as many of our other claims to pre-eminence. It is simply one of those boasts used to underpin British exceptionalism.
But how do I reconcile my MP's views with what is going on now?
A referendum was held with a binary question so, for once, we were asked what we wanted on a specific question (let's set aside the lies, confused messages and dissembling that the campaign involved). We apparently said what we wanted.
The government of the day has then studiously ignored the views of the people thereafter - despite strong evidence that those views have changed - putting words into our mouths whenever necessary. It is what the people voted for is a useful refrain when there was only one actual question: I don't remember migrants, sovereignty or trade deals with dubious regimes being mentioned on the ballot paper.
It also refuses to consult with the people again. How can this be right?
Either we are a representative democracy - power held by elected representatives - or we are a Swiss democracy with the major issues being decided by the populace. It appears we live in a halfway house: we will ask you when you are likely to give the right answer, otherwise we will just get on with things and ignore your views.
In two weeks time, MPs will vote on the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal. Currently, its future looks bleak and so she has gone over MPs' heads to write a letter to all of us (or, more likely to Tory supporters).
Why bother? We have no power. She has told us that decisions will be taken by our representatives. All we can do is tell our MPs what we think and mine does not seem prepared to listen or debate the issues.
Meanwhile, the whips will start the usual arm-twisting, cajoling, bribery - offers of knighthoods, peerages, promotions, parliamentary time - and use of 'the little black book' to get MPs to fall into line behind the PM. As Giles Brandreth, a former whip, said on the Today programme there are always toilets into which MPs can be locked if they look likely to turn the wrong way.
Is this really the best way to run a democracy? I have argued before that we have a C19 parliamentary system which is long past its sell-buy date. If the PM's withdrawal deal goes through then we will not only have undermined the future for our young but any credibility as a successful democracy: how to manipulate a democracy perhaps but run one, no.
