David Warburton writes:

I must admit I enjoy watching those ancient clips of politicians being interviewed in grainy black and white. The interviewer asks: "I'm terribly sorry to trouble you sir, but I wonder if it may be possible for me to trespass a little on your time and ask whether you might be willing to describe the Government's current policy with regard to foreign affairs?".

There follows a ten-minute uninterrupted monologue in which the politician talks about whatever he – and it's always he – likes.

Although it now looks absurd, I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering whether the pendulum has swung equally far in the other direction.

The historic interviewer didn't seriously consider it was his job to represent the different perspectives of all those gawping at their TV.

But today, the interviewer – like the politician – feels the weight of a million opinions, all clamouring to be put forward. And those opinions have never been so easy to communicate.

A few years ago, I met a Member of Parliament who told me about the pressures of the job. Specifically, she dwelt on the unremitting advance of emails, Twitter, Facebook – the punishing digital invasion. She described how, in order to recuperate, a couple of times a year she would go "off grid" for a week or two.

No computers, no iPad or tablet, and with only that kind of mobile phone which rings like a walrus giving birth to farm equipment and which was designed when the internet was entirely immobile.

Perhaps this advance in the mechanics by which everyone's point of view may be swiftly disclosed to their MP highlights something of an anomaly in the role of a politician A classic question to the aspiring proto-politician is to ask whether an MP's role is that of a representative or a delegate. Should they make their own judgements or always seek to reflect the wishes of their local electorate?

Of course, the classic answer is that they are not delegates, but are entrusted to act according to their own reasoning. Edmund Burke described it beautifully: "Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

But is it so clear today? Now that local wishes can so easily be conveyed to politicians, do we have a superabundance of democracy? Sadly, I know several MPs who have, on one or two occasions, deferred their own judgement to that of their inbox by voting according to the number of messages they've received.

Yes, an MP must always listen to lobbying by constituents and pressure groups, but then must come to his or her own view.

Who would argue with Thomas Cardew, who in 1745 stood in the Commons to point out that "it is necessary we should visit our constituents at least once a year, to know their sentiments and to examine, upon the spot, the grievances they complain of."