Not at all there are plenty of so-called experts saying exactly the same thing - It would not be in Johnson's interest to agree to a date and then move it - that would be electoral suicide. It is just a Labour means of delay because no matter how unpopular/inept this government has been its still more popular than Corbyn and Labour. Delaying plays into Johnson's hands.

Guarantee if Labour had a vote of confidence those 21 MPs would soon side with the government.

Johnson is impotent at the moment he inherited a majority of 1 it wouldn't be long before he had no majority May saw to that in 2017.

The country needs to decide what it wants once and for all - in the EU or out and either greater government ownership and increased union power or less of both.

Duplicitous prime minister? If reports on social media and certain newspapers are correct, that the rebel conservative rebel group along with labour ,headed by Hilary Benn have colluded with the EU to agree to extend the leave period beyond October is true .This prior to the government vote. Then that would be staggering,that would make Labour’s claim of Johnson’s lack of democracy pathetic. This apparently made the Tory rebels vote down Johnson’s bill. I have a sneaky feeling Johnson has a trick card up his sleeve.

Absolute rubbish.
For a bloke who would "rather die in a ditch" than extend the deadline, he will do ANYTHING to get a "no deal" Brexit through.
Remember, he hasn't even tried to renegotiate the deal OR come up with a solution to the Irish backstop so, regardless of the rhetoric, a new deal is no closer now than it ever was.
Surprise, surprise, he has been telling porkies and pretending that progress has been mad, while just winding down the clock until the end of October. There is no doubt whatsoever that he and his cronies just want a no deal outcome and bugger the rest of us.

No its about a style of leadership - I doubt Thatcher would have stood for this type of behaviour either. The problem May had is she lead a terrible campaign in 2017, then under-mind the Brexit negotiators and once again was found wanting, she was in no position to upset anyone. Boris is in a whole different position - and to be fair to him 21 out of 320 is not bad on such an issue.

Out in the real world most people debate the topic but in the end if you lose the argument then you support the decision. Doubt many directors would survive long if they defied the board-agreed policy.

And yet, half of the cabinet, including many of the current incumbents, were going against May, the minute that thet were outside the front door at Chequers - hypocrites all of them.

If you have a party full of nodding dogs, you have a dictatorship.

One less now
Amber Rudd spewed it

Nobody said they were a party of nodding dogs - I'm sure Johnson and Gove don't see eye to eye on much but they will rally around an agreed policy - that is what grown ups do.

A dictatorship is where one person simple decides without consultation - this is not the case here.

Why has Corbyn not gone for a vote of no confidence - because his own MPs wouldn't back him and you suggest the Tories are hypocrites

If everyone was allowed to do their own thing you have complete chaos.

There has to be a resolution to the Brexit situation - it seems to me MPs will not accept no deal, will only accept a deal that is so close to our current deal that we are not really leaving. They were mostly elected on a promise of upholding the result of the referendum - hypocrites all those that have sought to frustrate Brexit.

And even worse Labour now don't want to give the public the opportunity to tell them what they think

Of course they wont, because the country will not vote for a party with Corbyn, Abbott et al around.

If Boris reaches the point that nobody dare vote against him, for fear of their political futures, he is effectively a dictator.
Just because they have a punitive vote doesn't mean that a Leader is not a dictator.

As for Corbyn not holding a vote of no confidence, at the time that this was first muted, he didn't have the numbers, whereas now, if he were to hold the vote, Boris could simply draw out the process beyond Halloween, therefore getting his no deal Brexit through Parliament.

I'm no fan of Corbyn and dont think that Labour, under his stewardship, will EVER gain a Parliamentary majority and right now, even with a broken party "in power", Labour are lagging badly in the polls and whilst they are not always accurate, it just shows that Labour are making a mess of things. However, their tactics regarding preventing no deal and weakening Boris have been spot on.
To engineer a ruling party to sacrifice it's majority and be incapable of functioning is a pretty good effort but, I certainly fear what comes next, with every chance of Farage having his hand up the Tories backside and controlling them in the Harry Corbett style, with Boris (or his successor) squeaking out their policy.

The party has an agreed policy - in voting Boris as the leader they knew what they were getting. You can't have a situation whereby every MP does their own thing it would be complete chaos. There would be no point of party politics if no MP followed the party line. Also what would the public be voting for? guarantee there wasn't one Tory candidate who said on their manifesto that they would actively fight against Brexit at the last GE.

You can disagree and have your say but once the decision is made by the majority then surely you have to support that majority that's the democratic way. So in your world if all the MPs decided Corbyn would be a better PM they should do that even if the Tories won a huge majority?

The ruling party had a majority of one not such a big achievement when faced with such a decisive issue. Let's see how many of the 21 would vote for Corbyn as a short term leader - the government's majority would hold up on that issue. I bet more than 21 Labour MPs would not vote for Corbyn on that issue.