Really cannot understand that article; it argues for a form of politics (that the only valid form of politics is that for which the public have explicitly given consent) which doesn't exist, has never existed and would be an abject disaster were it ever to exist. I'd also point out that Frayne is yet another "thinker" who has never had a proper job and whose entire career has been one of SPADing, lobbying and wonkery.
An elected governments only responsibility is to govern competently in light of events that arise; this often includes binning off manifesto promises when they are no longer relevant or would be actively dangerous to implement. Take for example increasing the military budget to 3% - there is zero manifesto commitment (from any MP sitting in the Commons) for these tens of billions of extra spending, but given what has happened and is happening globally it is absolutely obvious that it is now required (indeed I'd argue it needs to be 3% by at latest 2025, not 2030). Truss (and Johnson) fell because they were incompetent and because leaving them there would have caused more harm to the nation than was already inflicted.
The whole argument seems to be a firstly a veiled argument for first Johnson to return to office (since he has "legitmacy" according to this trash) and then call an election, and secondly to reinforce this claim of theirs that electoral success trumps anything (like Parliamentary scrutiny, legal sanction or whatever) - they've been making this latter argument for ages as to why they shouldn't be held to the same standards that they impose on everyone else.
