Should a Prime Minister be able to suspend a uncooperative parliament ?

I.e. should I contribute to www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament?

The campaign has made me start to think that such a suspension of Parliament could lead to a Presidential system, which, since it would not be constrained by a written constitution, could be Gerrymandered into an undesirable dictatorship.

Normally, our democracy can make policy choices, and do so for quite clear reasons. "A Party" elects a leader, the electorate elects that leader's supporters as MPs, and the MPs then approve their selected leader's program. However, this system does not always guarantee such single-minded clarity. Once a party leader becomes PM, the PM's government can be vulnerable to either overwhelming threats to their power, or incentives which are so powerful that they can't really be ignored. Hence the incentive for government's to suspend parliament, and go ahead regardless.

The problem is that while ever parliament is suspended, I can only imagine that the necessities of government will cause the civil service to gradually widen their interpretation of the masses of enabling legislation, if only to get done everything that obviously needs to be done. Even the courts, presented with cases where the government must act, (not to mention cases where judges have been appointed by a now unchallenged government), are likely to create precedent after precedent in favor of the widened powers needed for government to continue. It would thus becomes easier and easier for a government to keep parliament suspended. Faced with repeated credible threats of suspension, Parliament would then be in danger of becoming a talking shop, able to give voice to, but not oppose the government.

Thus sustained suspensions of parliament lead to MPs being allowed to elect the PM, but little else. This may seem like a move to a more modern, presidential system.
However, successful presidential systems are normally backed up by a written constitution, and without this, I find it difficult to see what constraint there would be to executive power and hence the risk of dictatorship.

It would be nice to think that this could not happen in the country which produced the Magna Carter, and the 1932 Electoral Reform Act. However, we are no longer that country. In the last say 50 years, each of the following has changed...

Most voters and others no longer get most of their information from a strong newspaper industry
Focus groups, polling, and improved psychology have made it easier to refine political messages for maximum impact, and most recently to say different things to people with different political susceptibilities, especially via Facebook and other digital media
There are now more wealthy people and companies to corrupt the political system

Some readers might even conclude that because of the above, it makes more sense for them to, instead of checking the arguments here for their validity, simply see if they promote "us", or "them". After all these comments might have been cleverly devised to appear valid, while actually having been written for (or selected by) some private interest. If however, any readers do this, then I would ask them what kind of society are they creating, and do they really want this type of society.

The issue is particularly concerning because whether parliament can be suspended or not, changes are likely because ...

Large groupings of people such as Unions, Miners, Dockers, Factory workers, Farmers, Doctors, and Teachers seem to have lost power relative to Companies, Wealth, and perhaps Governments.
The ability of Money, Elites, and Companies to move between countries seems to have made them less vulnerable. At the same time, whatever the secondary effects, the direct effect of recent and proposed increases in control of immigration is to make people more vulnerable.

Reading about some countries, makes me feel that their governments would prefer that the vast majority of their population did not exist. Many of these governments seem to survive by controlling (e.g. by nationalizing) the country's oil or mineral riches. However, in a world where income (and therefore taxes) from conventional employment have been undermined by automation and artificial intelligence, I can imagine the UK government, coming to rely on its ability to print money, attract investment capital, sell assets, and attract high net-worth individuals. For each of these, the bulk of the population is unnecessary and any form of democracy which could challenge major income sources is an necessary risk. Since, our only direct control is over the selection of MPs in Parliament, I think our best hope of avoiding this is to support some continuance of Parliamentary control.

I have concentrated here on this longer-term, more general argument, since it seems both more important and more clear-cut than the shorter term issues.