I watched the last time MPs worked on a Saturday, in 1982. Unlike today, it was a political high point

What a contrast. The last time the Commons sat on a Saturday, after Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, it was a moment of high drama. I was covering the debate as a rookie political correspondent, three months after moving to Westminster.

My abiding memory of the day is an unlikely speech backing an unlikely war by Michael Foot, the Labour leader, CND stalwart and self-described “inveterate peacemonger”. Tory MPs hailed it as the speech of a lifetime by one of the last great parliamentary orators. His fellow anti-war left-wingers were less impressed; Jeremy Corbyn, who didn’t enter the Commons until the following year, believes Britain has not fought a just war since 1939-45.

My other memory is Margaret Thatcher shuffling nervously on the government front bench. She had authorised a risky military operation almost 8,000 miles away and nobody knew how it would end. The spectre of another rare Saturday debate – on the 1956 Suez Crisis – hung over the proceedings. Thatcher was no Iron Lady that day. But after the Falklands were recaptured, she was. The postscript was a landslide Tory election victory a year later, her second win of three, and Foot’s resignation after a disastrous campaign.

Although there was no formal vote in 1982, there didn’t need to be; it was a genuine moment of national unity. It was also a high point for parliament.

Today, Boris Johnson appealed for unity among MPs and the country – on his terms, as ever – and even made a rare mention of the 48 per cent. But with hundreds of thousands of people on the Final Say march heading towards Westminster, it was clear that both parliament and the country remained as split down the middle as they were in 2016.

Johnson’s tone was more statesmanlike than usual; perhaps he has learned from his intemperate dismissal of female MPs’ fears of threats of violence against them. But he still fell short of matching his hero Winston Churchill.

Parliament’s reputation has fallen dramatically since 1982. The scandal over MPs’ expenses was rightly exposed in 2009, but the image of politicians has not recovered since. Their actions have not always helped to rebuild it, nor has the coverage of politics by some national newspapers, or, more recently, the toxic political “debate” on social media.

While the 1982 debate ended on a high, today’s was an anti-climax. What Johnson wanted to be the crucial vote on his Brexit deal fizzled out when MPs approved Sir Oliver Letwin’s amendment withholding approval for the deal until the bill implementing it has become law. The big vote on his Brexit deal is now likely to be held on Monday or Tuesday.

The anger and frustration among Johnson allies and Brexiteer MPs was palpable. They argued that the country would not understand yet another Brexit delay, claiming it would further damage parliament’s reputation. After his defeat, Johnson argued that delay would be “bad for democracy”. Of course, this fits Johnson’s “people versus parliament” narrative for the general election he intends to fight – either to cash in a reward for “getting Brexit done” if the bill implementing the deal is passed, or seeking a mandate for his deal if it is not.

Like Donald Trump, Johnson can always blame someone else for his own failures. If the bill does not become law by 31 October, which looks a very tall order now, Johnson will again try to turn people against parliament to distract attention for not meeting his “do or die” pledge to take the UK out of the EU by then.

There is another, more truthful narrative: MPs are doing the job we sent them to Westminster to do. There is a collision between the direct democracy of the 2016 referendum and parliament’s role in interpreting it, and MPs’ reluctance to approve an act of economic self-harm.

MPs were right to back Letwin’s move. It finally buries the prospect of a no-deal exit on 31 October. It will ensure, and provide enough time for, proper scrutiny of Johnson’s last-minute deal instead of bouncing MPs into a rushed take-it-or-leave it decision.

It is Johnson, not MPs, who prolongs the divisions he says he wants to heal, and who further tarnishes the image of our parliament and politicians with his never-ending blame game.

I hope that, one day, our parliament will recover to the high it was at when I first came in to witness and report on it. But I doubt it will.